Talk:St. Joseph's Indian School

Comment

My wife has sent them money every month for several years. Recently I received - without asking - a brief financial statement from the school. It claimed that ~$69,000 was used/needed each year for each kid there. I never have earned anywhere near $69.000 and supported a wife and two kids. I am thinking of putting the money to better use - local food bank ,maybe. 75.68.248.198 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is well-sourced. Read the fundraising section. As well as the abuse section. And the sources for all of it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

They have a very expensive fund raising method. I received one of their fund-raising shipments (see below). I assume that fund raising costs are included in that figure. Also keeping someone in an institution (with all of the requirements for such) can be much more expensive than normal life. I've routinely seen figures of $80,000 or $100,000 per year to keep someone in prison. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs work - reads like a hit piece

I looked for sourcing.....nearly everything written about this school seems to be good. Yet the article reads like a hit piece. Looks like they spend a lot of money on fundraising and raise a lot of money and are keeping it saved up. I actually received that bunch of items that they send out which is why I looked them up. In the past they used imaginary names but real stories in fund raising kid letters. I did find two in-depth secondary sources and just put them in as references without really using the content from them. This article really needs development. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits removed sourced content. The article repeatedly has POV pushers connected with the organization trying to remove the sourced criticism. We've logged quite a few over the years. If you are not here to edit on behalf of this group, I think you need to read the investigative journalism that's been done about them. Sex abuse, financial scams, "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." etc. That's in the sources. And in the linked articles on the other schools like it. Despite the uninformed comments in some sources, the school is in no way unique in the history of residential schools. The article is sparse because any more details, if accurate, would definitely read like "a hit piece". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make baseless insinuations e.g. "If you are not here to edit on behalf of this group"; that goes far beyond blowing wp:agf, it is baselessly inventing bad faith and baselessly implying a serious accusation. Yes I read all of the sources. Plus about 30 current ones which this article does not reflect. Hence my comment. Also please check the diffs before you characterize my edits. The majority of the material that you referred to me removing was actually removed by a different editor, not me. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan:And, since I assume your mis-fire was based on a sincere concern, no, I am not here due to some connection with the school. This is merely one of the 5,030 different Wikipedia pages that I have edited. I merely want the article to be done properly and in accordance with Wikipedia standards. And despite my somewhat strong reaction to the your particulars here, I wish you the best and thank you for your work & efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there definitely seem to be some POV issues here. Editors predisposed to criticizing the school are no more helpful to Wikipedia than editors connected to the school trying to make it look good. natemup (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything is sourced. Other articles about churches with sex abuse scandals, and institutions or individuals with financial scandals are similar. "Neutral" doesn't mean we invent positive content that isn't true, just to make things look "balanced". Blanking content just because you don't like it is against WP policies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Those pressing charges alleging abuse while students at the school, who are naming the school in what was done to them, do not deserve to have that content removed. @Natemup: do you have some connection to St. Joe's? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the content that Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blanking. It is a direct quote from a source still being used in the article:

Additionally, "the Congregation of Priests of the Sacred Heart, which runs St. Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, is the defendant in numerous sex-abuse cases."<ref name=HuffPoSmith>{{cite web|last=Woodard |first=Stephanie |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/native-american-sex-abuse-lawsuits_b_873603 |title=Native American Sex-Abuse Lawsuits Head for a Higher Court |newspaper=Huffington Post |date=June 9, 2011 |access-date=April 26, 2019 }}</ref>

It's as sourced as the rest of it, so what gives? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It seemed redundant, and wasn't grammatically clear as presented. I have edited it into a non-quote form for that reason. Not everything sourced needs to be quoted. natemup (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this article

I lived in California and was very familiar with Indian boarding schools there. I have a friend who gives liberally to the school in this article and insists that it is run by the Lakota and the teachings are in their native language. Other than the school's website, there seems to be little easily accessed information available about this school. Thank you, --Krok6kola (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

History section

It seems the more sordid part of the history section could in fact be in reference to the Chamberlain years rather than St Joseph's. The source cited is not extant on the internet, which raises doubts about whether this content is actually from it (given that it appears to be an obscure dissertation or something similar, which no editor would likely have access to). I can't find any source describing St Joseph's the way that middle paragraph does, and at least one describes the polar opposite. natemup (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

What challenge? The school is a classic residential school. You are clearly here to whitewash that and are revert-warring to that end. You have declared COI on some Catholic matters, and other admins can see you have deleted contribs on issues pertaining to the Order of St. Joseph. Anything to declare here? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I just looked and realized I hadn't noticed the hatnote link. I'll let it stand for the moment. Your editing has been so disruptive, with so many edit conflicts, I got a bit behind on noting which section it was in. You have not been helpful here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Natemup: stop revert-warring. The Catholic News Agency is not neutral here. You are acting like a propagandist, not a Wikipedian. This is ridiculous. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO "Removed" is too vague and too easily-misused and possibly mis-leading of a word to be using here. It implies forcible removal but can be creatively invoked to describe any circumstance where the kids left their home to go to the school, such as their parents deciding to send them there.North8000 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary issue remains that a single, inaccessible source is being used to paint the school as a run-of-the-mill kidnapping operation. Additional verbiage—"[Landrum] claims that, like other residential schools..."—was added to the paragraph last night that almost certainly wasn't obtained at that time from the source. I have full confidence that the source is reliable (being from a university), but we don't know what it actually says and it appears that Corbie's own thoughts are being presented as Landrum's. (Evidenced by the fact that he/she had no problem adding their own opinions to the following paragraph.) natemup (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on a report filed at WP:ANEW, I have protected the article for 3 days. Resumption of the battle after the block expires by any editor may be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

More sources

I've been trying to find some independent current sources. Pasting in some possibilities below.

https://www.lakotatimes.com/articles/alumni-return-to-share-advice-at-st-josephs-indian-school/

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/community/people/7029179-A-Prayer-for-healing-Girls-dance-at-St.-Joseph%E2%80%99s-Indian-School-for-wellbeing-of-others

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/abuse-uncovered-at-st-josephs-indian-school

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.capjournal.com/news/st-joseph-s-indian-school-named-top-rated-nonprofit/article_19e7eec0-88b7-11ea-a828-4b4bc178108e.html

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/10/14/when-do-charity-mailings-go-to-far

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.westrivereagle.com/articles/st-josephs-indian-school-bookmobile-hits-the-open-road/

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.keloland.com/news/local-news/st-josephs-indian-school-thrift-store-provides-support-across-keloland/

Incorporated North8000 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/958/BowkerK1207.pdf?sequence=1

https://www.ksl.com/article/46721740/s-dakota-kills-bill-from-survivors-of-catholic-school-abuse

Not used. Subject school not mentioned except a general comment (not about the school) by someone from the school. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If some editors are going to accuse Catholic sources of "not being neutral" (not that that matters on Wikipedia) then I will contend that Native American sources are not independent of the subject, either. Elizium23 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Kathie Marie Bowker published a doctoral dissertation in 2007 about how ten women who were students viewed the school. Bowker concluded that the school "destroyed the traditional roles of Native American women".[1] This is in stark opposition to the school's own promotional writings. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium, The Catholic Church is an organization, with a horrific history of covering up sexual abuse of children by its employees - Priests. Native Americans are a culture, ethnicity, and collection of sovereign Nations. It would be more apt to say that if Native American outlets aren't neutral, than neither are those run by white people. False equivalency. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As it is, many Native Americans are also White, and many Native Americans are likewise Catholic. Setting these different categories up against one another is more than a little reductive, and for the purposes of this article, some degree of neutrality must be maintained. We should include claims about the school from all sides, regardless of our personal feelings about the sources and institutions involved. (And it's not like we're talking about some web blog here; CNA is no more slanted than any other major news source seen by Wikipedia policy as "reliable".) natemup (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Treating Catholics (currently over 1 billion of them) as a monolith is pretty close to treating the human race as a monolith. Like saying that no human-written source can be trusted on anything written about humans. Plus even it it were biased, the most core policy (wp:weight par of NPOV) says (even though I disagree with it) that biased sources are as good as any. Not that I'd consider that source to be perfect.North8000 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we have established that it is okay to include both sides of the controversy and we have them present in the current article. I personally find it weird that they dress up Jesus in Native American attire and present him as such. That is the very definition of cultural appropriation to me. I am not a Catholic or Protestant but I do have Jewish ancestry and I don't think Jesus ever walked around on this earth wearing Indigenous clothing not native to what a common Jew would have worn in his day. Trying to present that to "open up" Christianity to Indigenous children rather than presenting them with, at the very least, actual representations (not getting into a religious debate) and allowing them to determine if it relates to them or not could be more damaging than any of the other controversies just because of the wide spread and subtle affects. Its reverse assimilation in my view. Its taking Christianity and inserting it into the core value system of an Indigenous people as if it was always there and always belonged in order to break down and undermine the traditional beliefs. Christianity is not a Native American religion. The reality is that it was forced upon many cultures as a means of population control by governments, even if the intentions of the missionaries doing it was to sincerely help. My point here is that most of us have personal feelings in regards to these subjects. Those feelings shouldn't, but often do, come out in our conversations and edits and that's okay until we become so dogmatic that we can't accept the inclusion of a different viewpoint when backed up with equally topic reliable, and quite possibly biased, sources. --ARoseWolf 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

On the core questions, there's no source that anybody can look at (or even buy / pay for) that even indicates the "side" that it ever operated as an assimilation school or that children were taken from their homes by the school. One (challenged) source addresses those questions in detail and says "no" on both, and another source corroborates "no" for their middle years, and many sources corroborate "no" for recent years. Plus see a couple paragraphs down on the Cynthia Landrum source.North8000 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

They state themselves that they do this as a part of their core teaching. I called it a form of assimilation. They call it inculturation. I don't see much difference between the two when the results are the same. They alter the view of Christian religion to make it more palatable for Indigenous/Native children to digest and slowly pull them away from any traditional/historical beliefs by presenting a deity that looks like them and wants to be their friend. Who knows what affect it has on the children? The children themselves will probably never know. The culture will continue to feel the ramifications from it, especially in a historical sense, by the continued degradation of traditional beliefs, even if current members don't see it. I didn't call it an assimilation school. It doesn't need that title to be that. It is an "Indian" school run by non-Natives where Catholic principles on life and religion are taught and engrained into Indigenous/Native children in such a way as to make it look like its part of their cultural heritage, i.e. Native American looking Jesus. How is that different from assimilation in its results? --ARoseWolf 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Inculturation is theoretically the opposite of assimilation (also termed "acculturation"). The former is usually what you call it when a minority group (or those trying to reach out to them) mold something into that minority culture so that those in the culture can understand it, e.g., dressing Jesus up like a Native American. This is the (good) history of the Church all over the world, where the figures of the religion are depicted as African, Japanese, Indian, what have you. Even the theology is adapted culturally, in many cases. This is not the general rule of Church history, however, and is probably much less common among Protestants and the like (many Catholics don't care for it either, historically or presently). In any case, it is what St. Joseph's claims to be doing today. natemup (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand what the word means and its theoretical differences from acculturation. The school, only recently, adopted some traditional Lakota dances (see the Indian Country article by Christina Rose). The students have two 40-minute language lessons a week. They are also made to attend weekly Catholic Mass and the school has a monthly "Lakota mass" in which Catholic (I inferred this from what was said) prayers and hymns are spoken in Lakota and they have dances and drum with their songs. As stated, this all occurred recently whereas this article is about the entire history of the school. I acknowledge that the school says inculturation is their mission style to get the Catholic message out. But, I also point out that the Catholic theology is not traditional Lakota beliefs and so one is diminished while the other is elevated. Jesus, the Jew or Lakota, is not a part of the traditional beliefs of the Lakota. I admitted, from the beginning, my personal view is that inculturation and acculturation is very similar in its results, not the means by which it gets there, from a traditional cultural view. I stated my opinion just as others have stated their personal opinions on this talk page. --ARoseWolf 14:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a deeper dive on the source provided by Binksternet. Half of it is a general history of assimilation schools. Looks like the heyday of assimilation schools was from the civil war until they started fading 1934 and that the fading process was completed by the 1950's The other half was studying 10 girls/women who went to to boarding schools, 6 of them to St. Joseph's Indian School. Although I haven't found dates of attendance, it's deducible that it was in the 1960's and 1970's. It did say that their parents decided to send them to the boarding schools, vs. the norm of regular schools.North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried looking into the Cynthia Landrum source. Not only is it not on line but it does not appear to be even buyable (new or used) anywhere. There is no ISBN #or anything indicating what it is (a book, a paper, an article etc.) or whether the university is mentioned as a publisher, or just the place that the author was attending etc.)North8000 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The only copy is showing at the University of South Dakota, WorldCat Identity is 37103787. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to question or downgrade the Landrum source. I don't know who first added it, but it is corroborated by the thesis Binksternet found. WP policy is that, as long as there is stable publication data and supporting sources in general (the associated materials on similar schools, for instance, and other reports), we use the printed sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What specifically is corroborated? And how can you say that when you don't even know what is in the source? The latter is our main challenge of the moment. In general, we're just trying to find sourcing for the early decades of this particular institution. And, regarding current content, the issue isn't deprecating the source, it's whether wp:ver has been satisfied for the assertions in the 2nd paragraph of the history section. I'm not one to get picky about the unpublished student-thesis part alone, but the fact that it's impossible or near impossible to see or buy a copy certainly does add to that. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Gobs of news articles at newspapers dot com. Articles cover the inception of the school, the fact of the majority of students being orphans and the school being based on Father Flanagan's Boys Town, the fires, a priest that went missing (no follow up, I don't know if he was ever found), the detailed descriptions of the new building after the final devastating fire and many other things up to contemporary times. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I added the bit about the orphan baby the sisters took in the second year, who became a student, sourced to Farrow. The other stuff about the orphans could either be added there, or elsewhere. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I posted the dates of articles appearing in the Argus Leader stating Father Henry planned on basing the school on Boy's Town (an orphanage), several years later was another article stating that the majority of the students were orphans. If this was notable enough back then to appear in newspaper articles, I fail to see how it is not a notable part of the history of the school. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat / expand my offer. If anyone that isn't editing the article due to a COI just write the proposed insertion verbatim here along with enough details to make a cite out of the source and I'll put it in. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer North but I am not going to spend time contextualizing things and provide sources just to have others get frustrated and revert you. I don't have the time or energy for that right now, and you shouldn't have to waste time inserting information that will not stay. I'm wiped out over the over 700 additional children's remains found in Canada. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's very unlikely that such an insertion would get reverted. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

What seems to be the case

So far I just skim-read the source provided by Binksternet which is interesting and informative. While I didn't yet see anything about St. Joseph's Indian School in particular, I assume that it's in there, at least that the subjects attended it and that it is considered to be representative of the main topic of the paper which is the mission schools and boarding schools during the period from about 170 years ago until about 70 years ago. The intent of such schools and efforts was to assimilate Indians and get rid of native culture and language. The subjects apparently attended 60-70 years ago when this was officially no longer the mission but the actual transition out of that were still in progress. That fact that the subject school was ever involved in that would tend to make some persons or editors want to be eternally on the attack against the school. More recently (but several years back) a TV story criticized for their fundraising methods, most notably at the time apparently using real stories but changing the names and identities of the kids that they were about and implying funding shortages that did not exist. A review of a lot of sources (including non wp:RS on-line stuff (like ratings, notices and comments)) plus the ones listed above appears to be mostly positive, with no accusations of the assimilation behavior, with the exception for complaints that the fund-raising methods appears to be very expensive, consisting of sending out several items of value unsolicited. (BTW I received one of those packets which was the trigger to look these folks up) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the American Indian boarding schools were open into the '90s. With all the Church sex abuse scandals (many different denominations, not just Catholics), and discovery of mass graves of the missing children, there have been a lot of PR efforts by Church media to counter the image they've earned of "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." The TV pieces go into the history some. Many survivors of the schools are still alive, in the US and Canada. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. But our mission here is to write an encyclopedic article on the school, including relevant info about the school, past and present. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW it would be a big error to conflate boarding schools with the historic assimilation schools.North8000 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This boarding school is an assimilation school. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As is clear from This paper by a former student at St. Joseph's who compares and contrasts it to similar schools, "boarding" vs "residential" vs "assimilationist" is just a matter of semantics. In terms of beatings [p.62], or being forbidden to speak their language [ibid] It doesn't seem any different from Carlisle Indian School, for instance. Nor do these former students distinguish between "Chamberlain" and "St. Joseph's" in terms of treatment. It looks like the same practices continued with the change of name. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The source has plenty of content on St. Joseph's. The author attended St. Joseph's. While some remembered individual nuns who had been supportive and kind, all "stressed that they recalled a lot of abuse by the nuns"(p.67). Here's an interesting quote:

The women who attended St. Josephs Indian School reported that they could not tell their parents of the abuse in letters because all letters were written for them. They stated that when they wrote letters home they were required to copy text from a classroom blackboard. These letters contained generic phrases and this is what was mailed home to parents. This explains why parents thought their students were doing fine at the boarding school, as their letters stated they were. (p.71)

The women were asked how they survived the boarding school in terms of being a child and taken away from their families. All of the women responded with talk of family kinships. Those women who had older siblings attending boarding school had someone to fall back on. p.73

There are more. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify which this you are saying are specifically in the source and the page numbers? And clarify if you are talking about the electronic page #'s or the page numbers on the document. I'd be happy to read those but at first attempt couldn't find them. I'd like to stick to things that you can point to in sources because, respectfully, there is some pretty outlandish logic in your other statements. You are saying that "boarding school" and "assimilation school" are synonymous, while that is clearly not true (even though some schools were both) To reinforce this, source that you noted said that assimilation schools started waning in the 1930's are were gone by the 1950's, while there are many boarding schools open after that and now. You also implied that since the subjects who attended St. Josephs in the 1960's or 1970's didn't specifically discuss it being different than a school that closed in 1907 that therefore that shows that they are the same....a statement that has numerous logical issues. Also the quotes that you were described were of rough treatment & what I would call mis-treatment, and you in essence said such is evidence of assimilation efforts which is a different thing. I had brothers that were whacked by nuns for misbehaving in school around that same time but that does not equate to cultural assimilation efforts.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to work on the article you need to read the sources, not insist that if you don't understand something that it's not in the sources you haven't read. (I used electronic PDF pagination for ease of linking here. I'll do it in print standard in the actual citations.) First you claimed St. Joe's wasn't mentioned. It clearly is, as is the treatment these children were subjected to. Now you're wanting to debate whether the abuse was "bad enough", the blows hard enough, the psychological manipulation severe enough, to count as abuse? By your criteria? The survivors said they weren't allowed to speak their language in the school, as was typical of these schools. So you're asking for OR about whether this blow was for speaking Lakota, or that blow was for something else, and how it compared to Irish kids (for instance) being beaten for the same (or different) things? We're not here to do that. We're here to report what's in the reliable sources. The reliable sources for what was done to the students are the students themselves, and the journalists and scholars who've covered the students' experiences and the activities of the school, not hired PR people. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are completely misstating what I said and also claiming wp:OR directly opposite to what it says. You basically saying that is it "OR" to ask for sourcing your incorrect OR. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" doesn't need to be a separate section

We don't need a separate section called "Controversy". To separate off some of the content this way is an editorial decision to indicate that only this content might be considered controversial.[2] The sections on fundraising, abuse, etc, do not need to be subsections that are grouped together separate from other content, for instance that about the history of the school; they can simply be sections of the article as they were prior to the disruption. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree (except on the "disruption" characterization). North8000 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I made that change only because of the precedent of other articles. I don't mind it being moved back into the history section, but in no sense does adding a "Controversy" section qualify as disruption. natemup (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think Corbie is saying, necessarily, that adding the "Controversy" section is solely the cause of disruption. It was altered during the disruptive editing, as indicated by the protection of the article by an uninvolved admin, noted above this section on the talk page. Corbie is simply saying that it should go back to the way it was prior to said disruption. SO much has happened here that editors are now assuming bad faith in every comment and that needs to stop. This is a detriment to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the page was locked due to the editing back-and-forth ("war") itself, not due to any specific edits made that were deemed unsavory. Based on Corbie's actual edits, summaries, and their comments here on the Talk page, it seems they would like the page to be restored to the state prior to any attempt at objectivity or balance. ("Catholic sources can't be trusted here" being the main thrust of their side of the debate.) natemup (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit-war itself is a detriment to the encyclopedia. It caused the article to be locked down for three days which limited any conversation or changes that could have actually been beneficial to the article. I am not here to rehash what happened. Anyone is welcome to go look at the history and see whom was involved in this edit-war and come to their own conclusions. The point is to, now, attempt to steer the conversation into improvement of the article and not into continuing to assume bad faith on the part of any participant or continue the disruption that occurred. Everyone has an opinion. I can understand the misgivings of individuals in regards to the Catholic church and anything it has to say. I can also understand a resistance of Native Americans/American Indians and Indigenous peoples to wholesale believe something said to them by any religious institution, especially considering the past. Every editor here is a human being, with a past, and despite every attempt to be objective, we all react according to our past experiences. No one is above that. We can either move forward or continue to go around this issue. --ARoseWolf 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It remains the issue which could prevent improvement of this page. (And to my knowledge, the talk page was never locked; AFAIK, conversation occurred throughout the lock and continues now.) I think the lock and warning was helpful, and to this point has prevented further disruptive edits.

Objectively speaking, Wikipedia pages on Catholicism or anything related to it are in trouble if there is legitimate reason to question "anything [the Catholic Church] has to say". Priests? All Catholics? Catholic institutions? It's a slippery slope. As previously stated, there are many Native American Catholic laypeople (and priests, and bishops, and saints), so to continue to speak of them as mutually exclusive groups will not lead us in a helpful direction for this page. The same applies for the topic of "religious institutions", of which Native Americans have always had many of their own apart from Christianity.

I am in full support of accessible sources from all perspectives—positive, negative, Native American, Catholic, non-sectarian, and all overlaps therein. natemup (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

natemup, I see no reason to not include Catholic sources. There are some decent ones that I have either linked to or mentioned. There is quite a bit of information on the school's website regarding the timeline. Yes, there are Native Catholics. I have ancestors, relatives and very dear friends involved in the Catholic Church. It helps if non-Natives educate themselves on the topic of conversion and what it has entailed. Please, educate me on Indigenous religious institutions. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Natemup, okay, now you are trying to read into what I said and attributing conclusions that I never implied. Kindly, don't attribute things to me unless I literally express them. I literally said that "I can understand the misgivings of individuals in regards to the Catholic church and anything it has to say." I did not say we have to remove Catholic sources or that we should go around questioning every article on Catholicism. I am fully aware there are Native Americans that are Catholic. As there are Native Americans that are Protestants. But not every Native American is a Catholic and not every Native American is a Protestant so how would you suggest we address those who are not but are Native American and the discussion is directly linked to them being Native American? --ARoseWolf 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should use Wikipedia articles to address them at all. We should present info from reliable sources for each relevant article, period. If certain individuals take issue with things said by Catholic leaders to journalists, that's their business. It's really not a concern that should play a part in the editing of a Wikipedia page. natemup (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"see also" section

Like much of the article before the recent edit war, the "See also" section seems unnecessarily packed with disparaging implications (some of which are totally unrelated or more apt for the Chamberlain School page than this one).

Given the page lock and warning, though, I'm wary of removing or adding anything there. It does seem something should be done, though. natemup (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but, look at it this way, if not surrounded by controversy would this school have an article on Wikipedia? It may have had an article created but it very well may have already come up for AfD by now. Notability is not inherent, even with schools. It doesnt get an article just because it exists nor does it get an article because its parent organization is notable. The controversy and connection to Chamberlain itself is generating notability for the school, albeit one could say in a negative way. Any relevant connections surrounding the controversial sections, which are the primary sources of notability, should be included. Anything not relevant should be removed upon consensus made here on the talk page. --ARoseWolf 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Civilizing mission, Colonialism, and Stereotypes of Native Americans are not pages directly related to this article. If a page exists for Native American Catholics, that probably should be added. And the religious order itself. Maybe the founder as well? natemup (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The school admits that it is a mission school. They have a far longer history of suppressing language and culture than they do of any attempt of inclusiveness. Even today, for example, the school has medicine wheels strategically placed around the school however the school has taken it upon itself to redefine a sacred symbol. Lakota language was not introduced until the 1980s and at the time, it was minuscule. Faculty is incorrect in stating that speaking one's language was illegal. It was specifically illegal at Indian boarding schools https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/43427/this-unique-catholic-school-has-served-native-american-students-since-1927 https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/369.html Indigenous girl (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

One note. The source says that in the 1950's it was illegal to teach (not speak) the language.North8000 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

From the first source "It was also in the 1950s that the priests of the school started incorporating some traditional cultural activities into the school setting, even while laws at the time still made it illegal for them to let the children speak their native language in school, Willrodt said." From the second source "Commissioner of Indian Affairs J. D. C. Atkins first bans instruction in Native languages as well as the speaking of Native languages in mission schools." Indigenous girl (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The first source described the state of law circa the 1950's, the second source referred to an edict made by a commissioner in 1897. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And? The language edict was not overturned until the passage of Native American Languages Act (NALA)in 1990. The law remained the same from 1897 until 1990. I am not sure where the issue is. Both sources reference the illegality to speak the language in the Indian boarding schools. Indigenous girl (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is what do we have that sources clearly say?North8000 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I quoted the source. Language was illegal. They introduced cultural activities beginning in the 50s. In one of the sources it states beadwork and a couple of other things though language was still not allowed nor did they introduce of include Lakota spiritual practices at this time. Those occurred at a later date. I believe their powwow began in the 70s, language slowly began to be introduced in the mid to late 80s and very recently they had medicine wheels (which they adulterated) and even later a sweatlodge. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Illegal" means against a law. A law saying that you can't speak your own language could not possibly survive in the US as it would be a clear violation of the first amendment. More to the wiki-point, there is not even a source that claims that. The source said that there was law against the school teaching their language with is both sourced and plausible. A source also said that in 1897 a commissioner made an edict against speaking their native language in the school. While this could have the force that any school's rule has (e.g. violators could get kicked out of school) but a commissioner does not make law nor does the source even claim that it was law. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that it was illegal to practice our spirituality until 1978? This is why we now have American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the First Amendment did not apply to us. I quoted a member of faculty. "It was also in the 1950s that the priests of the school started incorporating some traditional cultural activities into the school setting, even while laws at the time still made it illegal for them to let the children speak their native language in school, Willrodt said. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/43427/this-unique-catholic-school-has-served-native-american-students-since-1927 "Fifth. While, for the present, special stress should be laid upon that kind of industrial training which will fit the Indians to earn an honest living in the various occupations which may be open to them, ample provision should also be made for that general literary culture which the experience of the white race has shown to be the very essence of education. Especial attention should be directed toward giving them a ready command of the English language. To this end, only English should be allowed to be spoken, and only English-speaking teachers should be employed in schools supported wholly or in part by the Government." https://www.alaskool.org/native_ed/historicdocs/use_of_english/prucha.htm Against federal policy is the term that should have been used. My apologies. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. That puts in agreement, and thanks for all of that info. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Abuse

These are first hand accounts of the generational abuse at the school and also addresses why some parents or caregivers sent their children there. https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/boarding-schools-black-hole-native-american-history https://redghettorebel.com/2017/06/ While I understand that proponents of the Catholic church might want to guide the article away from the very real abuses that occurred there, it is part of the legacy of the school. The institution is in fact an indigenous boarding school. Up until fairly recently there was no Lakota language being taught there, nor was there cultural inclusion. It was rooted in assimilation. Aside from the reports of abuse from students, which the school has not denied (instead they have their attorney present legislation to prevent restitution)https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/abuse-uncovered-at-st-josephs-indian-school https://www.ksl.com/article/46721740/s-dakota-kills-bill-from-survivors-of-catholic-school-abuse the Anderson report shows that there was an abusive priest at the school in 1966. https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/ANDERSON%20REPORT.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't get the first link to work. I had already noted/listed the second link and I added the third one to the list above. I'll leave the 4th just here with your context info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The abuse is not in dispute. The issue was objectivity, alternative claims, grammar, redundancy, and general disregard for Wikipedia style and policies. natemup (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The abuse is just one part of this, albeit a large part. Another part is the fact that editors here are trying to alter even the stated mission of the school as a Mission school which does assimilate or "inculturate", which is just another word for assimilate, to fit a narrative. Wikipedia does not have to provide a neutral article which shows the school in a positive and equally negative light when the majority of the sources for the school say otherwise. I think we need to heavily scrutinize sources coming from the church because the majority are PR stunts or damage control to try and garner financial donations. That is not to say we should disregard them entirely or that we should not include those we agree or reliable. The article should reflect the sources. We are to ensure that non-reliably sourced controversial information does not make it into the article and that WE are to remain objective in our tone within the article but the information does not have to be objective nor does the overarching message of the article have to be balanced when we are presented with something otherwise in the public circle. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I don't think it behooves us to approach the design of this article as if the school is instrinsically evil, and that all the positive sources are partaking in that evil. Elizium23 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, I'm sorry but did I say that the school is intrinsically evil? You used those words, not me. You have no way of knowing what I feel is evil or not or even if I believe evil is a concept at all. My take is that Wikipedia demands we follow the sources, reliable sources. Those sources are to guide the overall message of the article. Wikipedia can not create its own view of a subject outside the sources. If you read what I wrote, I said the sources from the Catholic church should be scrutinized. We would scrutinize the sources of a company when writing about itself. In fact, we would call that a primary source. It has nothing to do with evil or good. It is policy and guideline, if not consensus. The Catholic church owns and operates this school through the Priests of the Sacred Heart, which is a Catholic denomination founded in France. I said we should not, necessarily, disregard them as a source or exclude them as a source, only scrutinize their words in regards to a school which is part of their business model as much as it is their missionary outreach. I think it behooves us not to assume things when it comes to each other. I digress, when Wikipedia mandates we use a neutral POV it does not mean that the article itself has to invent a neutral POV in scope to maintain a balanced message. It simply means that we, as editors, have to write the article in such a way as we do not appear to pick a side, even if we have personally. Using certain phrases and wording can convey this or reduce this. We are still supposed to present what the reliable sources say. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course nobody literally said intrinsically evil, but some have hinted something along that line and hinted that as a result this article should rightly be a "hit piece". The difficult reality is that the is the only accessible source we have that specifically discusses the school during the first 50 years of it's existence is the noted Catholic magazine one. In desperation we could look the other way on the one other mentioned/cited one being apparently a student's thesis for a Masters degree, but it is not only not on-line it appears to be ungettable even for money. Then we have some narrow indirect coverage of the school in the 2007 thesis because 6 of the 10 women interviewed went to the school back then.North8000 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not unobtainable, you just have to go to South Dakota (lol). Elizium said intrinsically evil, literally, and implied that I presented that, in some form, in what I wrote. If it was meant that others have hinted at this, which I haven't seen, then why tag me in the statement at all? If the noted Catholic magazine article is the only accessible source, as you say, and is defined as a primary source then perhaps the school is not notable for inclusion in the first place. I personally feel its historical importance means it is notable but others may view it differently. --ARoseWolf 17:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that there are several different ways that this can meet wp:notability. Also, per my previous post, I don't consider a source to be primary just because it is Catholic. IMO unless we find another source for the first 50 years, include the objective fact type items from the Catholic magazine and leave out characterizations and value-laden words. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to using strictly biographical information from the Catholic magazine for the school. I do take issue with using the magazine to oppose other view points, not because I believe the church is intrinsically evil or even wrong but, because the article is primary. We don't get to arbitrarily determine what is primary and what is not. Consensus and guideline has defined that for us. The magazine is owned and produced by the Catholic church. The school is an organization run by the Catholic church or a sanctioned denomination of it that is operated out of Rome. The two are unequivocally linked. Can anyone objectively look at this and not see a conflict of interest in using a source to oppose controversial views about that source? For the record, I lend the same scrutiny to Indian Country Today as I do Catholic News Agency if not for the fact CNN and CBS8 corroborated the Indian Country Today investigation which, regardless of how you personally feel about them, would be considered reliable in this instance as per consensus. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement except on calling the Catholic source "primary" both on the grounds and also on the wiki structural definition of primary. But I don't think that mattes. I agree that it must be treated skeptically. Also we agree on corroboration on the modern events. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Inculturation is not a synonym of assimilation. There are Wikipedia pages for both, and the dictionary will also be helpful for you on this point. Making blanket statements (and made-up statistics) about sources from the largest religion in the world will not be helpful.

No one asked for equality; just neutrality and inclusion of all solid sources (and advanced scrutiny of ones no one seems to have access to). natemup (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Natemup, making veiled attacks against the intelligence of other editors is not helpful. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I would never do such a thing. natemup (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"There are Wikipedia pages for both, and the dictionary will also be helpful for you on this point." I'll just leave this right here in green. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So the gorilla in the living room is that in the 2nd paragraph of the history section we have various very strong claims sourced only to a student paper that we can't see or get and, and which is in direct conflict with one source and partially in conflict with another. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to review the Sisters' diary excerpts on the actual school website? It talks about going and getting the children, in a bus, in 1929. It also mentions children attending who had no parents. How can a parent consent to sending a child to the school if they don't exist? It discusses typical Indian Industrial School activities, partial schooling and partial engagement in industry. It talks about the kids going hungry during the depression. The early excerpts are all about Catholicism, it is not until later dates (1985) that there begins to be any form of immersion schooling. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point to look there for more info.North8000 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Argus Leader, I believe, also has some articles on the school in contemporary times that highlights the benefits. I don't want to be painted as believing the school is inherently evil. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, thank you for those sources. I don't believe anyone here on this talk page is trying to say that the school is inherently evil or good. Abuse happened. That was done by individuals. Inculturation is a different topic. It's a stated mission of the school itself. IMO, it is no different than assimilation in its results even if the intent is for it to be different. We can definitely have a discussion about inculturation somewhere else. I do believe the school was and is misguided in its approach and is doing more harm to the Lakota traditions than they are a positive, but it very well may have been a positive for some, personally. I allow for that. --ARoseWolf 13:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There can be a lot of meanings for "assimilation", I think that a key one here is a deliberate, organized effort focused on extinguishing Indian culture and language. And in the case of this article, whether or not the school engaged in that as the second paragraph in the history section states. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing one word that I think is crucial in regards to this topic, traditional. Extinguishing traditional Native American/American Indian culture, heritage and language. I have never been to the school. I have never talked with any of the people from this school so I can not say, definitively, what they are or are not doing. I can only go based on what they say and what the article here states. I understand the definition of assimilation and I fully realize that I am equating them to be the same. I also don't think the results are very different from either a deliberate attempt to assimilate or one that is non-deliberate. Again, neither here nor there, back to improving the article we have. --ARoseWolf 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of done beating the dead horse. The school is a mission school. It always has been. Language was not taught until recently, it's in the sources. Traditional knowledge was not introduced until later in the school's existence, it's in the sources. All of this is in the sources and I don't understand the disconnect, I'll be honest, it feels intentional though I understand that is my interpretation. I'll continue to provide sources when I find them but I am not going to nor am I able to edit the article, there is a conflict of interest that I would prefer not to get into. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf participants in this discussion have made the accusation of editors trying to spin the school as evil. Whatever that means. Abuse happened and it was done by individuals who were put into positions of power by both the Church and the school. Abuses were allowed to continue at the school. The school has attempted to prohibit restitution to victims. This is more than simply the conduct of individuals. For folks to dismiss the intent of assimilation shows a serious lack of knowledge on the topic and that is on them, I don't really care. It's their choice to remain uninformed, intentionally or not. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, there is no doubt, in my mind, there is culpability with the Catholic Church, in regards to the way they have handled situations and even encouraged it by their refusal to act on behalf of the children that were either released into their care or were taken into their charge forcefully. I will go as far as saying, I believe they are directly responsible for thousands and tens of thousands of Native American, First Nation, and American Indian lives, directly, and that blood is on their hands. There is no doubt, in my mind, that these schools were built for one purpose, to assimilate Native American cultures, first, into the Euro/American and then into the Catholic empirical system by any means necessary. Them changing the name of what they are doing to make it sound like something else doesn't work with me. In regards to your coi, no one knows your experiences in life better than you. No one knows what you have went through better than you and I would never pretend to assume otherwise. Likewise, no one here knows what I have went through in life. The few things I do share don't even scratch the surface. We don't put out personal lives out here very much because it isn't necessary to edit. I asked another editor where I called this school intrinsically evil because that was the words used right after I was tagged. Here is how I will phrase my views. The school can not be intrinsically evil. It is a building. The actions of some there, and subsequently of church officials, are most definitely intrinsically evil if you are using the definition of what their religion calls evil. My personal beliefs have no bearing on that. Those editors can use the religious texts of the schools operators to determine it for themselves if they wish to look. Back to you though, I feel you have the right to be as involved or uninvolved as you wish or deem fit and no editor here should ever question that or expect you to explain anything in regards to your decision. Your contributions are greatly appreciated and your knowledge in Indigenous subjects is without question. --ARoseWolf 20:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, unless you are personally involved with the school IMHO you don't have a coi. But as a newer editor entering this weird alternate Wikipedia universe it would be good to edit with some extra carefulness. The same if you are passionate about the topic. Probably the major thing in play here from both a policy and article quality standpoint is WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. I think that there were some legitimate concerns expressed about letting bias influence editing, but just putting them on the table was probably enough and so now it's time to move on and have some fun building and editing the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

North, I've been an editor since 2012. I do have a coi which I am making known, because that is the right thing to do. What that coi happens to be is no ones business. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I was guessing by edit count. It took me about 10,000 edits to even half figure this Wikipedia alternate universe out. :-) Regarding coi I was just concerned you weren't going by an overly tough definition. No response is requested or expected. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

North, the idea that it would be "fun" to work on this article is grossly insensitive, and makes me again question whether you are reading the sources, or what those of us sadly familiar with these schools have said. None of this is "fun". It's a horrific chapter in very recent US and Canadian history, that still scars living people. What scab there is over it has been violently ripped off recently by the events at Kamloops. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I think we can stipulate that there is tragedy involved without scolding North8000 for encouraging us to enjoy ourselves as we edit. I don't think editing here, even on tragic or horrific subjects, should be a drudgery or upsetting to those who do it. If you're triggered, you're doing it wrong and should probably step back some. I think that some amount of enjoyment can be derived from the simple tasks of research, design, and implementation involved in building any article whatsoever. If you want to put a stop to everyone having fun here then I would question your ability to work on a functional team. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Corbie, My edit was to encourage moving past the discussed tensions on the talk page to enjoy working with each other and the article development process. And I find your creative construction and massive over-gerneralization needed to make that sound like something bad about me to be badly out of line. Further, I've written all over this page about my reading of the actual sources on this topic and after all of that you say "question whether you are reading the sources" which is quite an insult and accusation for a Wikipedia editor. Please stop that. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Many students were too fearful to run away as the punishment was too threatening or severe to risk it. Josephine, who attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School in Chamberlain, South Dakota, recalls runaway students having their heads shaved and being forced to wear overalls. Roger White Owl, who also attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School, recalls isolation and a shaved head being the punishment for running away." https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2100&context=etd link also includes an additional source, Stringing Rosaries by Denise Lajimodiere. The following link includes more testimony from Roger White Owl https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/centers/americanindianhealth/wind/PP_Nat__Amer__Board__Schools_Ed_for_Cultural_Genocide_1.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl: Thank you for those sources. It was very disturbing and, well, lots of sorrow surrounding the abuse and its affects that are felt even today. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As this is an article about the entire history of St. Joseph's from the time it was purchased and renamed to now we shouldn't give undue weight to the current status when compared to the overall length of existence when we can find sources that offer insight throughout the decades. The fact is that many shameful and horrific things happened at this school (one of countless hundreds) and many people were traumatically affected by their experiences. Equally, most media stories surrounding the school, currently, point to its controversial fundraising tactics and possibly its questionable teaching methods and subjects but largely state that the children are well taken care of and the facilities are in a good state. They are spending funds on programs and the infrastructure of the school. Of note, it has been estimated that 9% of the current staff are Native American. Some would like to see that percentage increased and I can't argue against that at all but we can not necessarily say that no one working for the school is Native American either. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

History and sourcing analysis of the second paragraph in the history section

A quick look indicates that such an review would be useful so I'll try to build one.

Circa today this paragraph reads: "Cynthia Landrum of the University of South Dakota wrote in 1995 that Native American children, primarily from the Lakota and related Sioux reservations, were removed from their families by St Joseph's staff and housed in dormitories on campus overseen by the priests. She wrote that, like at other residential schools, the priests were directed to assimilate these Native American children into the majority United States culture, forcing them to speak English and practice Catholicism."

And analyzing it with respect to these assertions:

• That it was originally an assimilation school
• That the students were forced to speak English (although it's unclear what that means beyond the teaching being done and about English)
• Were removed from their families by St Joseph's staff (which implies forcible removal but it's unclear what that actually means)
• That Cynthia Landrum wrote what is in the current paragraph

The beginnings of these were in a July 2016 edit by editor Parkewells which added: "The school was originally directed to assimilate Native American children to the majority United States culture, influenced by European traditions. They were encouraged (or forced) to speak English and to practice Catholicism." It was added unsourced.

It was deleted by Historian1868 December 2018 as being inflammatory unreferenced statements

It was the restored by CorbieVreccan adding & citing the Landrum thesis as a reference.

There was then a group of 4 edits (2 by CorbieVreccan)where diffs are not viewable due to some suppression by special admin or oversight tools but it appears that CorbieVreccan was the one who changed "encouraged (or forced)" to "encouraged and forced"

In September 2020 Actio changed it back to "encouraged or forced"

October 29th, 2020 CorbieVreccan made the following changes with the edit summary "wikify, make vague wording clearer.":

• Added "removed from their families"
• changed "The school was originally directed to assimilate" to "The school was designed to assimilate" and added "colonial" to "the majority United States, colonial culture."

October 29th 2020 North8000 removed "colonial"

October 29th 2020 CorbieVreccan added "removed from their families" with the edit summary "wikify, make vague wording clearer."

June 4th 2021 Natemump changed "removed from their families" to "removed from their families by St Joseph's staff"

June 4th 2021 4:02 Natemup added the statement (paraphrasing) that Cynthia Landrum said what is in the current Wikipedia paragraph

Conclusions

1. As noted previously, the noted source is s student masters thesis which not published, and is not available on line or even for purchase. This is important but not central to the above portion of the analysis. The new conclusion from the above analysis is that none of the material appears to have come from the source and these four assertions doubly or triply fail WP:Verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

   There is the added issue that Corbie claimed above to have no knowledge of who added the Landrum source to the history section. Your analysis says they did it themselves. natemup (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Landrum was attached to the article from the very beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Joseph%27s_Indian_School&diff=prev&oldid=527379246 Indigenous girl (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It was mentioned as a possible source along with some others.....I'll try to check all of those out. This does not directly relate to the above analysis which of those 4 statements but is good info. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would only be fair to analyze the other side of this as well. Whether the source is primary or not, the Catholic News Agency is most definitely not an independent source. The proper use for this type source would be the same as The Catholic Telegraph source was used for. Biographical information concerning the school, its current programs and such are okay. In my opinion, its use to make controversial statements that are not then verified in independent sources is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. The Landrum thesis paper is a secondary source that contains primary information. Its use should be scrutinized from that perspective. The fact that we can not obtain said thesis is a central issue to its inclusion. I'm not sure it can be used in the way it has been used either. If we can find a way to have the ability to verify the information the article claims the thesis states then it could be used because it is both secondary and independent. Reliability of the source would have to be discussed. --ARoseWolf 14:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how anyone could regard a student thesis, non-peer-reviewed, non-reliably-published, as WP:RS. I reject it out of hand. Its unobtainability is fairly irrelevant at that point. Elizium23 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps there are enough editors who have the same opinion as you to form a consensus. I reserve my judgement on the reliability until I see the source. For me, its unobtainability is central to its inclusion here. If we can't verify then a critical part of this equation is missing. In the case of all other sources provided, we can determine their status and reliability based, in no small part, on the fact we can read them ourselves. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, here, beyond my opinion, is policy from WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Elizium23 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It just reemphasizes my point that care should be used when using the source and we need verifiability to accomplish that, which we don't have in this case. What I don't see above is that this completed dissertation automatically equates to a non-peer-reviewed and non-reliably-published student thesis or that it should be rejected out of hand. That is your opinion, which is fine, but is not supported by the policy quoted. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As I noted before, the key point from the analysis is that it looks like none of those items was even sourced from the Landrum paper. Those other factors merely changed "fails Wp:verifiability" up to "doubly or triply fails Wp:verifiability. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is probably not a bad idea to include the originator of the statement, Parkwells, in the conversation. I know its been altered many times since then but it can't hurt. --ARoseWolf 16:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Although "altered many times" is an understatement. Every one of those claims was either added or significantly altered/strengthened in those alterations. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I still want an assessment of the CNA source where someone shows me evidence that source meets Wikipedia policy requirements as an independent source to use when countering or offering controversial claims. if we are claiming objectivity here then we must look at this source as well. The only sources that my tools say are "generally considered reliable" are CNN and Huffington Post with the caveat that HuffPo's reliability depends upon the contributor and the topic. All other sources receive a marginal rating or no rating at all with only the catholic-hierarchy.org and dehoniansusa.org websites receiving a red strike. Of note, the tool marks all of the book sources and the thesis by Landrum as published books, journals or peer-reviewed works and highlights it yellow, warning that some of them may be self-published, for what it's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I would quibble on many of the points you said but....In general, I tend to look to see if the sources are credible and informative and then tend to not get unusually strict about the details, particularly when the insertions look like information vs. opinions, characterizations and value-laden wording. I wouldn't rule out even the student's paper despite it probably being 3 times over disqualified by the rules. But the gorilla in the living room is that we are terribly short of sources. The ONLY source we have about the school in general is the Catholic magazine. And then we have sourcing on 2 specific modern topics about the school. And then lots of sourcing about tiny modern areas. I did the above analysis to see if we have any really severe problems with the current content and to provide some clarity in that area. And I'd be happy to edit the article on factual material from the little sourcing that we do have. I'm also always happy to look for sourcing, even if I have to buy it, but not on some painful hair-shirt errand & outing myself trying to get the school in the Dakotas to supply the student's master's paper from 26 years ago to me. But I really don't want to participate in a long even-friendly debate about the little sourcing that we actually have to build an article from or long debates on characterization/ value-laden wording of the type that the political articles are mired in. That just isn't my dance. I rather go work on different articles instead than do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to quibble with the tools I'm using then I can give you the user names of the ones who created them for use on Wikipedia. You can't quibble with a tool itself. It's just a series of logic based on parameters. It is what it is. It marks sources as yellow, red or black as per WP:RS. It also tells me the type of source that it is, like a book, newspaper article, website. It does not analyze the content or determine if a source is primary or secondary for this particular topic. Credibility is the chief concern here. Whether a source is informative or not is dependent upon how its used in the article. As far as the other is concerned, I don't see us reaching a consensus here because the gulf is too wide on what we consider independent sources and credible sources or on how we analyze the issues within the article. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any "gulf" unless you are inferring things from my post which are not the case or intended. Other than quibbling on the following sidebar item, I think I agree with everything that you've written. If you see difference of opinion, please tell me specifically what it is and I think we can resolve it. Regarding tools, the relevant policies are WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. wp:RS is a related guideline and you are describing some tool which somehow is hooked to wp:rs. So wp:rs is once removed, the tool is twice removed and your interpretation of the results of the tool makes it three times removed. If somehow you are ending up with saying to only sources that the tool lists can be used to satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR then I would disagree with you on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the Landrum paper is not accessible, why not drop it as a source? No reader can easily refer to it, so it's not verifiable and is like a dead link. And speaking of that, I am trying to clean up the cites. The Alicia Summers report from a San Diego station seems based on the CNN report of Nov 17, 2014. Similarly, Indian Country Today reprinted the same account, crediting David Fitzgerald, under the same title as the CNN report, so I deleted the ICT cite. There is a video version of the Nov. 17, 2014 material, credited first to Anderson Cooper, and an article version of the Fitzgerald et al CNN investigation, both referring to the same Nov.17, 2014 material, with the same date. I recommend using the article only, as it's easier to access here. There are few true sources for the 2014 investigative report.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells I found the archived Christina Rose article with Indian Country Today and updated the link. There is some negative, positive and neutral information in the article but it appear to mostly be an interview with a school official. Still, it offers a balanced and neutral look at the school in relative modern times. --ARoseWolf 14:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Parkwells:, I think that your suggestion of dropping the Landrum paper is a good idea. Adding to the reasons that you noted, it is a student master's theses, and it appears that (per the analysis above) no editor has ever seen it and that it was not used for addition of any of the text which cites it. I have been slow to say that in the hopes that somebody could come up with a copy, but more importantly it has been due to an abundance of caution. We've had some spirited discussions here and that is the only source given (or even seen) for the statement/claims that the school operated as a forced assimilation school in it's early years. So removal of that reference essentially requires removal of that statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with removal of the statement and will never agree with it. Everyone wants to focus on the current successes of this school and give it undue weight but I will point out that this school does have a dark past right along with other Catholic, Protestant and BIE Indian schools that is well documented. Whitewashing the past by obvious COI editors here who are stated members of the diocese and Catholic Church will not take away the trauma this school and others like them have continually caused Native American communities no matter how many articles it is removed from. Removing this will only serve to further damage the reputation and credibility of this encyclopedia with Native communities. The school could hire additional Native Americans but refuses to do so with only 9% of staff, at most, being Native American. The school engages in lying and dubious fundraising tactics and invests only 54% of its funds into programs and student care. The school itself has been sued multiple times. Former staff of the school have been sued for alleged sexual abuse. Former students have discussed their horrific experiences with heavy discipline. They have also documented that the school did, in fact, engage in tactics of acculturation in the past as seen at other schools. Former students also shared examples of young Native children committing suicide, not to mention the countless parents who were forced down the path of alcoholism and even suicide themselves. If this school was serious about the Lakota culture rather than writing about how Wikipedia is so bad and CNN has an agenda and Indian Country distorts and the BBB exaggerates then maybe they could maintain a shred of integrity and respect within Native communities at large. But what do I know? I guess the occasional "powwow" where Catholic prayers and hymns are passed off as being Lakota just cause they use the language and traditional beliefs are mocked by a Jesus in Lakota dress is more important than the truth. --ARoseWolf 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, most or all of the recent editing has been by dispassionate and experienced editors who simply want an informative enclyclopedic article that complies with core policies, most notably WP:Verifiability. The edit in question was on a NARROW question....whether not the school initially operated as a forcible assimilation school, by the common specific meaning of that term which roughly speaking is the mid-1800's - ~1920's meaning. As detailed not only does this 3 times over fail WP:V policy, the analysis shows that even that weak non-source was not used to put the material in. Again, this was on the NARROW question. Your post detailed many other items. By count, the majority of them are already covered in the article so I don't know why you are mentioning them here. However, one broad one which encompassed much of your post was that different folks could see their current "MO" as being good or bad, and their activities and programs related to Native American culture to be good or bad or real or bogus. What's in the article so far is based on the the sources that so far have been able to be found. Keep in mind that they need to say that it is about St. Joseph's. This aspect can certainly be expanded. Perhaps you can find sources relevant to that so that you or we can build / expand that section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, Indigenous Girl provided two sources which detailed eye witness accounts of forced acculturation tactics employed by St. Joseph's and the source states they attended St. Joseph's at the time, not any other iteration of the school prior to it becoming St. Joseph's. The only one who has commented about these sources is myself. No one else commented nor did anyone else acknowledge these sources so please don't say that sources were not provided. Others are perfectly within their rights to refuse or ignore these sources when they are presented but sources have been provided. If we are supposed to be creating "an informative encyclopedic article" then one would expect that ALL information will be presented from ALL sides, including eye witness accounts reported in academic studies and which are "verifiable". This was a very dark time in North American history and denial of its existence in the face of sources would be troubling. I have refrained from editing because of my passion for these subjects and to avoid any appearance of having information added that stemmed from a COI though I have no affiliation with the Lakota tribe around the school, the school itself or the religious organization to which the school belongs. I have made my opinions known here but largely maintained that we need verifiable sources. I will also remind everyone that these events occurred during a period in time when the Eugenics and Sterilization programs in North America were at its height. Many of these programs were facilitated and encouraged by both government and religious institutions on the basis of keeping bloodlines pure and maintaining the nuclear family as dictated by Euro-American and religious practices and beliefs. If you want to be further educated on the way that government and religious institutions viewed Native Americans in the times between the late 19th century into the mid to late 20th century then I encourage you to read up on it. There are many articles here on Wikipedia that are informative in this regard and I have been very appreciative of the fact that editors have taken an interest in the truth about the treatment of Native Americans and First Nations citizens in the not so distant past. I definitely had no idea it went as deep as it did until I researched it myself. I wasn't born during this time but after exploring Wikipedia and finding these articles it opened my eyes to some of the discriminations and atrocities that my recent ancestors were submitted to. The sources are there, yes, even for the treatment of these Native American children at this particular school as witnessed by them in the past. --ARoseWolf 15:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. That's a whole lot of things and different times in history blended together. I don't agree with your implication regarding supplied sources. But here's a way to address everything in your post. Propose some additions (verbatum) in the talk page that are specifically about St. Joseph's and detail how they are that are directly supported by a source (e.g. so the source must be about St. Joseph's). If they are that I'll put them in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

May 25, 1927 issue of the Argus Leader page 4 states the school will be modeled on Father Flanagan's Boy's Town orphanage model. Also mentioned is Father Henry's direct ties to the school at Cheyenne River. September 26, 1934 issue of the Argus Leader page 8 states there are 120 students, the majority of which are orphans. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing today on article

Hi, I have tried to reorganize the article so that it is more clear about timeline and basic history. I also tried to remove duplicate cites (there are still two for the same article/CNN coverage by Anderson Cooper, so will have to fix that.) If we could leave the article like this for a while, maybe then we could address some of the above issues with sources and competing accounts.

It is hard to remember my original editing, but I was trying to relate the history of the school to general federal policies at the boarding schools at the time. We need also to recognize that these changed during the mid to late 20th century, and that federally recognized tribes gained authority over education of their children. Some have established tribal schools (including K-12) and some also tribal colleges on their reservations. I have not yet sourced these policies, but know it's there, more than on the school itself. We need to be wary of going beyond the limited sources we have. Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 disagreed with my use of Fr. before Hogebach and said it violated Wiki:HON. I just reread that guidance, which seemed to refer to higher level titles in churches and hierarchies. It seems there are numerous articles throughout Wikipedia that use Rev. for Protestant clergy and Fr. for Catholic priests, but you all can decide.Parkwells (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells, please re-read MOS:HON especially the part that explicitly says: styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthood, such as Her Majesty, His Holiness, The Reverend, and The Venerable. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).

"The Reverend" is another way to say "Father". Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HON also says "Father as an informal title is used for Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Old Catholic priests" - that is how I intended it in this article.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells, no, it doesn't. Nowhere does it say that. Yet, "Father" is a title indeed, formal or not, it is honorific. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - followed the link to the article The Reverend, where that statement about Father as informal title for Catholic clergy appears. It also says that on letterhead, a Catholic priest would use the formal title "The Reverend so-and-so", but I was using it in an informal way.Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well, I think this is a distinction without a difference, it's all honorifics all the way down. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Landrum passes the criteria for inclusion, per WP:INDICATEAVAIL RoseWolf posted it above, and it was ignored: Landrum has a a WorldCat id: 37103787, which can also be formatted this way per the WP oclc templates. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Veracity of student letters

We contest the assertion in Wikivoice that the letters from students were "found to be fictional"{{by whom?}} -- we believe that the school allowed as how the names were fictional (of course, who would expose minor children to public knowledge of their inner lives?) and there may have been something about composites made from multiple independent stories, but I don't believe anyone has "proven" that the stories have been made up from whole cloth. So we need to cover the nuance of this situation, rather than just call the school administration a bunch of liars. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

From the video: Senior investigative correspondent Drew Griffin of CNN: school agrees that the names are fictitious but the stories are real. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Indian Country Today link is a 404, not found on Internet Archive. Does anyone have a copy or is this source also lost to posterity? Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is accurate to describe those letters as misleading at best, and there are Native American leaders who criticize that approach of picking from their problems. I tried a couple of different ways to trace the Indian Country Today cites, but could not find them either. One article was dated about 10 days after the Fitzgerald/Griffin 11/17/2014 CNN article, had Fitzgerald as author and the same title, so appeared to be a reprint.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells, why? The WP:RS established nothing more than fictional names in play. Perhaps they are heart-wrenching stories, but can we deny that the childrens' circumstances were not, in actuality, heart-wrenching at times? It seems CNN simply resents the fact that they are making money from the endeavor; this is not unusual in fundraising for the poor and under-served populations, I can show you portfolios of magazines and letters filled with fundraising appeals accompanied by heart-wrenching stories. Nothing about that means they are untrue. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, Lets not mince words here. The school lied. No amount of whitewashing are claiming bias on the part of CNN or Indian Country Today is going to cover this up. They claimed that the stories, at best, were examples of the conditions that children arrived in but provided no exact situations in which the stories were about or provided by specific students, as described in the letters. You are correct in saying that this is a typical fundraising technique of a lot of charity organizations, and not limited to those affiliated with the Catholic Church. Lying is also not a crime, at least as far as I know. The names are fictitious and, if you want to rely on the word of school officials, who are dependent upon raising funds to provide, not just for the children but also, for their own personal income, that's really on you. At no time did any school official say that the story was about a real student and that they only changed names to protect the students identity. They also did not say anything about play acting. They projected the stories as truthful about specific students and presented them as being in their voices yet provided no instances where students actually provided these stories to be used. Native American leaders said the stories are a "fabrication, a compiling of events that may or may not have happened to paint a broad picture that", as they pointed out, "does not exist." Kory Christianson, the director of development with St. Joseph's, initially said, “The name ‘Josh Little Bear’ is fictitious,” but then added, “but unfortunately, his story is not.” However, the official did not elaborate with specifics about an individual student but concluded it was a "true story of the very real and challenging situations that far too many children face not only in the Native American community, but in families found in every sphere of society.” So, are the stories from Native American children or children found throughout the world from "every sphere of society"? The stories themselves were much more specific and gave the impression the story was about the child pictured and used specific pronouns like "she", "her", "he" and "him" when describing their story in detail. At no point on any of the fundraising documents did they disclose that the stories were generalized and not about specific students. As pointed out in the source, they even called them "student letters" which confers the impression they were about specific students and in their direct voice which is simply not true. --ARoseWolf 13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I will correct one thing when it comes to what I said, upon updating the Christina Rose source, it does appear Michael Tyrell, current president of St. Joseph’s School as of the articles origination, states, "Those are real stories, but it would be hard to pin them on any one child." He followed that up with, "We put right on there the child’s name has been changed to protect the children." Take it for what it is. If you can't pin them on one child then they aren't from one child so you aren't actually changing the name of a child to protect them. Why not just say, "these are some stories from our children" and leave the names blank? Assigning specific names and pictures to a story lends credence and attempts to add a layer of truthfulness or reliability to what is said but that is based on a falsehood. In my mind this actually hurts the integrity of the school, even if donors don't know it. If integrity and truthfulness are so important to your faith then make them important. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, ARoseWolf. For St. Joseph's rep to say they are referring to all the problems of Native American and poor children in the world, and representing them through named children and what appear to be individual accounts, is certainly misleading at best. Yes, maybe other organizations conduct fundraising in similar ways. But we are talking about this article. If we want to get off this topic, let's just note the facts as they appear in the CNN sources: the school rep acknowledged it changes names on these letters and is representing non-specific cases of problems across the reservations, throughout the US and even common to poor children across the world, and cite the CNN article. Readers can figure it out or not care. Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Parkwells. On an unrelated note, I just made 2 unrelated tweaks in that area.North8000 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The archived Indian Country Today interview (28 NOv 2014) by Christine Rose with the president of the school said that the Better Business Bureau had described the student letters as "misleading appeals". Given all the discussion about that issue here, and the fact that it is a duly sourced cite, I want that statement back in the article and will replace it. It is also Rose's ICT article that refers to the BBB criticizing the school before the time of this interview, for an earlier appeal in which St. Joseph's said it could not afford to heat the school. Neither of the BBB references were in the CNN article and they need to be correctly cited to this ICT article. Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow exactly but you have been doing excellent work and making excellent decisions here and am confident that that will continue.North8000 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

All of this ignores the study posted above by the alumns who reported being forced to write letters when they were students. All the new language emphasising "choice" on the part of parents leaves out the context - reported in Catholic sources - that parents were completely misled about what was happening to their kids at this place. I have had too much going on off-wiki to deal with this right now, but this article is being whitewashed. The School's own website states that its goal was assimilation, it's not just Landrum. WP policy on hard copy sources is that if it's at a university somewhere, it's useable. This push to eliminate or minimize all criticism here, including testimony of former students, is one ugly POV push. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is patently dishonest to claim that these fake letters are somehow written by real students, but only the names changed. They were put out by a p.r. firm. The p.r. firm is not credible in their claims and to say, or imply, in WP's voice that these letters are real is not sourceable, credible or ethical. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

CorbiaVreccan, regarding your accusations of other editors, not only are you again violating WP:AGF, you again are going far beyond that to falsely inventing bad faith. Please stop that. Regarding the content part of I don't see any statements in the article which match what you are describing. Could you point out the specific text that you are talking about? Or if you have sourced material which complies with WP:Verifiability just put it in. I think that the gist of it was that the school admitted that the names were fictitious and claimed that the stories were real, with no way available to disprove or prove the latter claim, and that that is basically what we have in sourcing. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

They said the stories were real but followed it up by saying it couldn't be pinned on one child but was indicative of the condition some of the children are in, not just in South Dakota but in the world at large. They never said the stories were verbatim true. There are too many variables and school officials are doing nothing to dispel these inconsistencies other than to blame everyone else which speaks a lot about their issues with telling the truth. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Either way, CorbieVreccan has just put in an even stronger negative statement which is that the stories were outright false. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Everyone here has been reading the same sources as they have been presented. No one has presented new sources for days now so everyone has had time to become acquainted with them. I am not saying that we haven't made some progress in areas but we are definitely regressing in others. An Eye-witness account of conditions that students faced at St. Joseph's at any point in time should never be outweighed by sources that are heavily dependent upon the success of the school, financially, and one that stands to take major hits in the public view by negative publicity concerning the school. The CNA article IS an example of PR fluff to try and combat mounting criticisms in the public eye. Just like their dishonest fundraising campaigns are used by others to accomplish the same goals for their charities, the PR article is employed by many companies to advertise and push the narrative they wish to present. Contrary to what many may think, I don't want the school to shut down but I do want them to start accepting accountability, be forthcoming about the realities of their past, make changes to ensure their current students are allowed to be immersed in Lakota traditions for more than 80 minutes a week should they wish to be, stop forcing Christianity and Mass attendance on the students and stop with these fundraisers. If they were even more serious they would not only provide assistance to the students in way of transition counselors but the same for parents and other family members within the Lakota tribe. Hiring more Lakota would also go a long way to repairing some of the community trust with Lakota tribes, --ARoseWolf 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello ARoseWolf. I (and in one case Wikipedia policies) have so many issues, disagreements with and questions about the first 40% of your post that I'm not even going to attempt a response. For the remainder of the 60%, a heartfelt thank you very much for that. It not only makes my day personally to learn that type of information and perspective from someone who seems to have good knowledge of the situation but, even though our Wikipedia responsibilities do not allow us to use an article to pursue such a quest, it does provide a perspective to help us look for and use sources that specifically support the article text involved, with is the limit of what we are allowed to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Noticing disruptive behaviour and calling out policy violations, is not "violating AGF", North. And hey, what happened to your statements here that you weren't going to edit this article? You're sure invested in it, and investing massive time for someone who claims no COI. Anything to declare? AGF is not a policy. To gullibly AGF in the face of vast evidence that someone is attempting to game the system, trying to dodge policy, wikilawyer and gaslight other editors is abusing the good faith of the Wikipedia community, North. North, you have repeatedly misrepresented other editors' work here. Stop it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What you just wrote and accused me of is all & BS bears no relationship to what is happening here. Again, please stop. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying, "It's all B.S." is not answering the question. Do you now or have you in the past, any connection to St. Joseph's School, the org that owns them, or any of their affiliates? Your declaration that you would only participate on talk and not edit fit a COI editor's declaration, yet left the full answer out. So, what is the answer? At this point, your refusal to answer is an answer. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statements make no sense and indicate that you've haven't even read enough to know what's happening here. Your behavior is even worse in that you are basing it on basic errors on not even bother to figure out who said or did what here. I never even made those statements that you are claiming. Despite your question being improper, I'll answer with a copy of my September 2020 answer (above on this page) to the first time you improperly insinuated it: "And, since I assume your mis-fire was based on a sincere concern, no, I am not here due to some connection with the school. This is merely one of the 5,030 different Wikipedia pages that I have edited. I merely want the article to be done properly and in accordance with Wikipedia standards......" I don't want to have to report you but if you continue this terrible behavior I will be forced to. And you've left a smoking gun of clear-cut very improper behavior towards me on this page and that there was none of such from me. Just cool it and let's just pleasantly work on building the article together. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Type of school in it's early years

@Parkwells: Thanks for your work here. A current sentence which you reworked says that the school was engaged in forced assimilation during it's early years. This has been a key question here. Also in view that the link from "forced assimilation" links to an article which in my quick read said that it was a practice which ended /by at 1920, 7-8 yeas before the school was started. Another challenge is that none of us has been able to see or (even for $) that paper which is used as the reference for that. I was wondering, were you able to see the paper? And what your thoughts are on this? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I never saw the Landrum paper but was going by info about other boarding schools and (carelessly, according to your date), putting historic information together in the wrong place. I think we should just drop the Landrum source as no one can read it. Use content and cites only from sources that are verifiable. I've added a short book from Arcadia Publishing on the school in 'Further reading'. I realize that most people's interest seems to be from a current perspective: lawsuit related to alleged abuse in 1970s and 2014 fundraising issues, but the Arcadia book has some basic info about the school that should be included in an ordinary encyclopedia article: a fire in 1931, rebuilding after the fire, new chapel built in 1950s, etc. We should identify the nuns who served there DONE- what order were they? Can we even find out? Also, there are strong opinions about the assimilationist pressures and the damage done. But in my reading of a variety of accounts by students at these schools some time ago, some found them to be positive experiences. Of course, those are general statements, and I agree we should try to find specifics that relate to this school. Thanks for adding sources.Parkwells (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a 1995 book by Riney, which is mostly about the history of the Rapid City Indian School, as it had some information about the Chamberlain School. Have not had a chance to try to study it further but maybe it can give some insight to these blanks we have.Parkwells (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. When you put "Chamberlain School" in caps I assume that that sentence referred to the school which closed in 1907 but maybe the book also has info on the St. Joseph school which operates at that site since about 1927. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was for the first government school, the Chamberlain Indian School. His book also lists other Indian schools in South Dakota; his main study of the Rapid City School only goes to 1933. Have not found more detailed information yet about St. Joseph's in that period.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Content added from Cerney book

Have added content and cites from Cerney's brief account in a 2005 book, but at least it fills in some of the details and figures in early decades of the school. Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about deletion of information about school staffing in 2014

Given all the discussion here about the school, and the readiness to include the CNN cite that said the Priests of the Sacred Heart are non-Native American, I was surprised that sourced content I added on Native American proportion of school staffing in 2013-2014 was deleted. Why? It seems to be to be a legitimate part of the discussion.Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely a legitimate part of the discussion and is properly sourced to a media outlet that is considered by Wikipedia to be reliable and independent and it should be a part of the article. This is a school that "services" a Native American community and the number of Native American staff members was discussed by a reputable news agency. --ARoseWolf 18:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I added it back to the article.Parkwells (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Need more sourced content on culture

There was considerable discussion earlier on this page about a book that told about the opinions of 10 former women students at St. Joseph's, who complained about not being supported as Lakota women. Is sourced content from the book going to be added to this article? Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a fast read of that paper and couldn't come up with anything from that. A slower read (which I plan to do) might fix that. And unless I'm wrong (which I could be) ...The first challenge is the focus of the study which was impacts in general from attendance at such schools. The next challenge is that only 6 of the 10 went to St. Josephs and they never really said which or which experiences were from St. Josephs. I think that it was like almost half way through the paper before St. Josephs was even mentioned. BTW I did not see dates but inferred that they probably attended in the 70's. If you want to give it a try that would be cool. Also see my invitation to ARoseWolf above. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Parkwells: I did some good pullquotes above from this source: THE BOARDING SCHOOL LEGACY: TEN CONTEMPORARY LAKOTA WOMEN TELL THEIR STORIES by Kathie Marie Bowker. They're in green above. It has excellent material. Page numbers I gave above are for the electronic/PDF pages, not the print ones. North keeps insisting it's not there. Go see for yourself. Just do a page search and it all comes up. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan - thanks for the notice. I've been working on related material at articles Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City to get a better understanding of how all this fits together. Will get back to this. Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the WorldCat page for the work: The boarding school legacy : ten contemporary Lakota women tell their stories. So, we can use it. I'll repost the pull quote from above here. I'll change the page numbers to those in the print copy:

The source has plenty of content on St. Joseph's. The author attended St. Joseph's. While some remembered individual nuns who had been supportive and kind, all "stressed that they recalled a lot of abuse by the nuns"(p.58 hardcopy). Here's an interesting quote:

The women who attended St. Josephs Indian School reported that they could not tell their parents of the abuse in letters because all letters were written for them. They stated that when they wrote letters home they were required to copy text from a classroom blackboard. These letters contained generic phrases and this is what was mailed home to parents. This explains why parents thought their students were doing fine at the boarding school, as their letters stated they were. (p.62 hardcopy)

The women were asked how they survived the boarding school in terms of being a child and taken away from their families. All of the women responded with talk of family kinships. Those women who had older siblings attending boarding school had someone to fall back on. (p.64 hardcopy)

There are more. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What's emerging is I think that that is an area than needs expansion and has some sourcing even if it will take a little more work to absorb and use.North8000 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to allow time for information to be absorbed and processed. That is not to say it is an indefinite time but enough time should be granted. There are, obviously, some things we will never agree on. That does not mean that the information doesn't belong in the article or that it can not be added. There is information that I do not agree belongs in the article now but it is there and has been allowed to remain because we either have gained consensus for it or have gained no consensus and I refuse to remove something unless consensus is gained for removal. This is why I found removal of the Landrum information to be both against long-standing Wikipedia policy and offensive, though I stop well short of calling it intentional. The Wikipedia policy has been provided by which Landrum's Master's degree thesis paper that is published and located at the University of South Dakota Library is admissible and acceptable as a proper source. Based on policy, it should have not been removed until consensus was gained but even consensus can not go against Wikipedia policy so because it is supported by policy even consensus can not remove it. If we are ever to have hopes of coming to some kind of agreement on creating the best and most accurate article here then we must include as much sourced material as we can to paint the overall picture. St. Joseph's school has been an establishment since 1927. That covers a long period of time. Information from every time period is relevant. Both negative and positive information is relevant. The stories of former students are as relevant as those of current students and both are as relevant as former and current staff. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to keep going around about the material which cited Landrum, but IMO "three times over " it had to be taken out and I concur with the removal. Once because, as the above study shows, the material never came from Landrum. Second that being absolutely inaccessible means it fails WP:VER and also due to being a masters paper which doesn't meet the exceptions it also fails [[WP:ver] a second time. But moving on. When I made my comment above I was mostly thinking about the in-school experience and treatment from 1927 through near-modern times. There are lots of sources about modern times (let's say the last 10 or 15 years) and things look pretty good there although there are editors here who have criticized certain aspects of that. So I guess I was talking about the experience, treatment and methods there 1927 - ~2005. The source that Corbie used to include the quote from the one person had those (from the numbers I'm guessing he attended in the late 50's through mid 60's. After that the source talks about the schools from late 1800's and sort of conflates that with more recent ones. The other source that we have is the "10 women" thesis. I did a quick read and due to certain previously described issues it was hard to do a good job of getting anything out of it. But it's the one I had in mind when I said "it will take a little more work to absorb and use" because with one or two thorough reads of it might come up with encyclopedic additions regarding this school. From the math it appears they attended in the 1960's or 1970's. Right now I think that those are the only two sources we have on that and I volunteer to work on the second one. But you just sitting back and saying "somebody should" and then giving those putative "somebody" volutteers a deadline doesn't cut it. Working within the limitations of your declared COI you can certainly look for more sources about this school and note them here or, as I offered before, draft some sourced additions about this school on the talk page and I'd be happy to put them in and such fully complies with Wikipedia's COI rules. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I simply pointed out, without naming you or criticizing you, that the time frame can not be indefinite, for anyone. It really doesn't matter what you feel will "cut it" or not. You have so candidly pointed out that feelings aren't Wikipedia policy. It also doesn't matter what you think about the Landrum source. Wikipedia policy, as pointed out by Corbie, does allow it despite your interpretation of guidelines. Your interpretation does not equal consensus nor does it equal policy either. For you to refuse to show any compassion whatsoever and make assumptions as to what I am and am not doing in this moment is, quite frankly, disgusting. You have no clue anything about me personally so I think its best to keep it on the content of the article. I haven't attacked you at any moment in our conversations, even when we disagreed. I have strived to find common ground with you though you dispute most of anything said based on your interpretations alone. Sources have been offered to everyone here. I don't feel it necessary to rehash them for you or anyone else because I feel everyone here is quite capable of reading through this talk page and finding them again if they wanted to. As far as additional sources go, I am looking for those not already mentioned by IG, Corbie or Parkwells but this isn't my only project nor is it my chief concern at the moment. One of the sources was updated because I am looking and found an archived copy of it. If your intention was to find common ground then personal attacks is probably not the best way to handle that. I'll borrow a page for your book. Thank you, sincerely. --ARoseWolf 22:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I pretty much disagree with most of the things in your post but lets move on. I did have a comment which might be helpful; I think that you misread the situation here. "Common ground" implies some clash of agendas. My only one is to make an accurate informative article. If yours is different than that then maybe there is a clash but otherwise not. My main point is that if you have any free time you should use it to improve the article rather than using to lecture the other people who are volunteering their time to edit. Regardless, I wish you the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If that is your desire then let me put this forward to you:

You keep throwing up WP:V for why the Landrum source can't be used. Under WP:V there is a section on Accessibility which you can view yourself as WP:SOURCEACCESS but I will quote here for convenience, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." When one couples that with WP:INDICATEAVAIL which states, "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context.", one can start to formulate how the source, though not fully available is still relevant and can be used. The fact that it was not originally included as the source of the statement at the time it was included is irrelevant. Someone may have read the thesis at a later date and concluded that the statement was attributable to Landrum. The fact that you can't access the source does not preclude it. In the quote above, "reliable" directs you to WP:V. In the case of Landrum, the OCLC number was provided which meets the criteria for availability and since a print-only source is available through a library it also meets the criteria for accessibility which is a sub section of WP:V. Therefore, the notion that it fails WP:V is unfounded and can not be the basis for why the information should be excluded. --ARoseWolf 12:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "1 of the three reasons" There was an agglomeration of unsourced material built up over time which somebody removed as unsourced and then someone just restored the whole bundle and cited the Landrum student paper. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Cynthia Landrum to make the source available online?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to get back to article?

Maybe we can also start to propose some passages about St. Joseph's on this Talk page, to get more content in this article, rather than arguing about sources.Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Added here: "Huffington Post Contributors" are red, generally unreliable, in WP:RSP. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that article has been cited in published journals, if it's good enough for these, why not here?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• A Change in South Dakota’s Child Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations: An Equal Protection Violations?, American Indian Law Journal
• Naming Violence in United States Colonialism, Journal of Social History

Oncamera, no indication of peer review for those journals. Are these articles indexed? DOI? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• A Change in South Dakota’s Child Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations: An Equal Protection Violations? The peer review process for this journal
• Naming Violence in United States Colonialism https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shy086

There are the answers to your queries  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I suppose that a bunch of students reviewing fellow students is, grammatically, peer review, but is it review by others who are experts in the same field?

I see you didn't answer regarding peer review at the Journal of Social History, nor a DOI for the AILJ article, so we'll take that as a "no". And... AILJ is highly involved in social justice advocacy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Social History is published by Oxford University Press that notes it's a peer reviewed journal per their submission guidelines. The Journal of Social History is a quarterly journal founded in 1967 by Peter Stearns. As a top-ranked journal in the field of social history, it is widely recognized for its high-quality and innovative scholarship and has from its beginnings served as a catalyst for many of the most important developments in the history profession as a whole." That source seems to meet your standard of review by others who are experts in the same field. Cheers,  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 I have replaced the Huffington Post references and added additional information that was missing from the article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oncamera - Thank you for your work in researching the journals and finding related articles. Not all Huff Post contributors are unreliable - Woodard was relying on court documents for some of her material. And because a journal supports social justice advocacy, does not mean it cannot publish factual, accurate articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The AILJ is prepared with oversight by Seattle University Law School faculty and practitioners. There are only two journals in North America dedicated to Indian law, although the field has been developing rapidly since the mid-20th century at least.Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for refocusing - an article about Indian schools in SD?

There are a lot of strong opinions here and justifiable outrage over treatment and abuse of Native American children at St. Joseph's - and other Catholic facilities in South Dakota. But I am wondering if we should try to return the focus here just to St. Joseph's. This article is becoming a vehicle for issues that exist across the state (and, of course, in other states.) If we created an article related to Catholic boarding and mission schools in South Dakota, or the issue of abuse at such schools, that would be a place to start. One source said there had been about 23 or two dozen Indian boarding schools in the state, both on and off-reservations. I know at least 3 are referred to in this article. A separate article would allow us to discuss further such issues as state laws on statute of limitations, HB1104, and the problems of survivors in getting solutions (actions by the lower courts and the State Supreme Court), as well as a place to discuss the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate's tribal court's passing a law to accept suits arising from their reservation. I think their jurisdiction is limited to actions that took place on their reservation. Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that it was the attorney for St. Joseph's who introduced what became HB1104, so his action was directly related to this article. But the bill also has implications for pending cases beyond this school, and a majority of lawmakers passed it. Steve Hickey, a 3-term Republican state legislator from Dist 9, including part of Sioux Falls, tried to get it repealed. Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Parkwells, you've been a rock star, neutral, expert, hard working editor here and I fully agree with and trust your judgement.North8000 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly this article should contain only info about the topic of the article. We should not be stretching that for other reasons into things that are just somehow related.North8000 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be about St. Joseph's and remain focused on the school itself and specific topics about the school from founding to present. Positive and negative school topics should be included where it can be found and properly sourced. I also concur with @North8000 that @Parkwells has been outstanding and I am glad they were introduced to the article again. @OnCamera has been great as well, finding many sources related to topics surrounding the school and issues in general. If, as suggested, an article about Indian Boarding/Residential schools, either specific to South Dakota or nationwide, is created then St. Joseph's can always be linked in that article and the new article can be linked in this one. --ARoseWolf 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

An article covering in detail the history of boarding schools in South Dakota would be worthwhile since there lacks Wikipedia articles on many of the schools listed in lawsuit and victim's abuse stories. I do believe the current information in the article is not off topic though, since St Joseph's has helped cause the situation as it currently stands.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion on this. Whatever is done needs to take into account that American Indian boarding schools exists. It has an extremely broad title but then the text is mostly about the legally-mandated-assimilation era. BTW that "10 women" paper where on first pass I had trouble deriving info for this article out of had a pretty good coverage of the evolution of the legal framework of these schools including a chronology.North8000 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the edit earlier, North, and also for the wiki-link to the boarding school article. I had read it many times but didn't consider it in this case. Perhaps expanding it to include more information on modern examples of the boarding schools, in general, would be helpful. I see St. Joseph's is already linked there. --ARoseWolf 17:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm glad to help, as it's an important topic. Personally, I think our priority should be to work on St. Joseph's, and to create an article about Indian boarding schools in South Dakota, that we could bring into the modern era, including the HB1104 bill and suits. Additions to the main American Indian boarding schools could wait. If you look at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls article, I started what may be a kind of introduction to boarding schools in the state. The diocese did run Columbia College for several years in the 1920s, which included a high school. But beyond that, the religious orders (both priests and nuns in many cases) ran the on-reservation and off-reservation boarding schools in the 20th century in South Dakota. These and sometimes named clergy are now the defendants in most of the sexual abuse cases. From my reading recently, in the 1970s most on-reservation schools were transferred to the tribes, or closed. This requires more research. Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this. What seems to me to be missing is something that gives an overall perspective, time line and description of American Indian schools from the mid 1800's to the present day. Including the evolution of the nature, missions of them with 1/2 or 2/3 of that period being heavily influenced by the US government and US laws and regulations. All of the current articles seem to be a confusing conflation of that 170 year period and the huge changes that occurred during it, with a notable absence of that for the most recent 80 or 100 years. I'm wondering if going to an in-between scope like South Dakota-specific might hurt our ability to find and utilize sources. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that my "American Indian schools" is broader than American Indian boarding schools. But then that could get flooded with modern stuff. Just brainstorming, but my idea would be to rename American Indian boarding schools to History of American Indian schools and expand and develop that into a stellar highly informative article. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Issues in St. Joseph's article

I am reluctant to leave only Hollow Horn's report about St. Joe's (in the National Catholic Reporter) here. Tsianina Lomawaima, "a leading authority on Native American education" referred to in the same NCR article, has "cautioned against generalizing." She notes the range of experiences of students, also related to their status when they came, their families, whether they were assimilated or already Christian, whether they learned useful skills at the school, etc. I think we need to acknowledge that, even given the specific reports and suits related to abuse. Maybe we need some general statements about conditions at the school in the 1950s-1970s, say, based on what we do know, including alleged abuse. Lomawaima said there were 25 off-reservation boarding schools at the peak in the US. Together with the more numerous on-reservation schools, there are said to have been 350 Indian boarding schools in the US. She also notes there have been few or no studies of Catholic Indian schools. Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Project: History of American Indian schools

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

---

Discussion has been moved (copied) to History of American Indian schools Please contribute there

For the large project proposed by North8000, the 1969 Kennedy Report of the Senate Committee on Indian education, led by Senator Robert Kennedy, should have extensive information as a starting point for assessing the history and scale. I believe it is available online. My reluctance is related to the scale of the project - so complex across tribes, reservations, states, and changes in Federal policy, but the brief outline by North8000 is good. There is a need to get beyond the boarding schools being established into the early 1900s.Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Kennedy Report https://narf.org/nill/resources/education/reports/kennedy/toc.html Indigenous girl (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

And it's all current! <https://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2021/07/01/enduring-trauma-arizonas-indigenous-boarding-schools-will-be-investigated-interior-announces> Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative announced Tuesday by Debra Haaland, Sec'y of the Dept of Interior. The department intends to identify boarding school facilities and burial sites across the US and to review enrollment lists. Tucson Weekly.Parkwells (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also on this topic, The Atlantic [3] said that “about one-third of the 357 known Indian boarding schools were managed by various Christian denominations” under the Civilization Fund Act of 1819. Parkwells (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, this being Wikipedia, we don't have to finish it, we just have to start it.  :-) Also, it can be done so that it can be in OK state throughout the process. One way or another we need to acknowledge or address that American Indian boarding schools exists. And currently there, the content doesn't match the title. I made a proposal there (and explained the rationale) to rename it to History of American Indian schools. IMO that would be the best way and place to do what we are discussi9ng. North8000 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the Catholic and other mission schools were given land on reservations by the federal government but were not supported financially. (The government was obligated by treaties to provide education to tribes, but did not build schools on every reservation.) The Catholics sometimes charged tuition, and got the cash-poor Native Americans to sign over rights to leasing fees for their lands, by annual petitions to the BIA and a Catholic organization. [4].Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the naming at History of American Indian schools. Everyone, PLEASE participate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion, if the name History of American Indian Schools is used then we need to include the colonial schools as well as the histories of contemporary schools run by communities. This means an additional 200+ years of content. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. My only note was that the inclusion of "history" in the title was to keep material on current schools from flooding the article. Modern schools would still be mentioned but the "history" in the title would keep that part from getting too huge. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The first tribally run school,Rough Rock Demonstration School, opened in 1966 in Arizona. AIM Survival School, later named the Heart of the Earth opened in 1971 (I think) in Minneapolis. Rather than being tribally, government or church operated it was an inter-tribal, Indian-controlled community school. The Red School House opened in 1972 in St Paul under the same premise. There was also a community school in Boston during this time as well as other areas. So, in order to give a fair and clear representation from 1593 in St. Augustine, Florida and the St. Francis mission school to whenever you feel the cut-off is for 'history' is, it's going to be long. Indigenous girl (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO "history" includes up to the present day. But putting "history" in the title limits coverage of present-day to a moderate amount, Without that small amount of focus, the article would get flooded with a huge amount of present-day material. North8000 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you propose beginning with St Augustine or Jamestown?Indigenous girl (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion would be to go with wherever and whenever they started. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place at the relevant page, so people who want to contribute are aware it is happening. I suggest one of you do a cut and past to move it there. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. I'll copy it and then try to close this section. Everyone, please don't add any more to the section. Instead go to History of American Indian schools. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Try to be neutral

This is supposed to be an article about a school, not a hit piece. The order should be lead, history, then facilities, academics, enrollment/demographics, extracurricular, and reputation. Read any featured or good school article to see this. Should be neutral, but by putting the order backwards, pushes a non-neutral POV. Bob247 (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it has some issues in this area. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What are examples of "good school articles" that have similar history of being an Indian Boarding School? There's been great crimes committed on Indian children and tribal nations by these schools and it's a shame telling that history is called pushing a POV or a "hit piece".  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral does not mean whitewashing. The content you've flagged was arrived at by consensus, including the input of those who seemed to me to be here to advocate for the school. Recently someone moved it up, then someone reverted. I reverted the second move. Charges of abuse and the well-documented fundraising scams should not be buried. Wikipedia is not here to advertise these institutions, or to bury crimes, but to accurately document. I'm for putting the content back to where I reverted it to. Second choice, back to the stable version we had before the first move and unflagging. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You are best implying a false dichotomy (anyone who doesn't agree with "fine as is" wants to bury things, advertise for the institutions, whitewash etc) and at worst accusing Bob247 of all of those nasty things. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that most of the information that is in the article is good and should stay. Maybe it goes a bit afield regarding coverage of statewide law issues. But that's arguable either way since the organization seems to have been involved in it's creation. I think that one area that needs work is POV ish commentary / spin that is put in via cherrypicking quotes and commentary for that effect. And some of those really don't contain information. IMO getting some of the latter taken out without would be a good way to work on the issue without removing any information. In one area it appears that opinions of one of the combatants are put in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. This indication came from the title of the reference although I couldn't see the details due to a paywall on the reference. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the racist implications User:CorbieVreccan. We don't need those here. Also, no one is burying anything. Any implication of such is simply bad faith. If you can't behave like an adult and act with civility, please remove yourself from the conversation. Thank you. For those that wish to be civil, on the structure of the article, please read the Featured and Good School Articles and what it takes for an article to reach that standard. This article may have been composed over years of edit warring, but that doesn't mean that it is any good. Placing emphasis on fundraising and abuse by placing them above the history and function of the school is simply an issue of undue weight. The length of those sections further emphasises the issue of undue weight. What is the school about? Is it fundraising, abuse, or education of children? As examples of other schools with abuse history, see St Ambrose College or Merchiston Castle School. The article needs a lot of work. Bob247 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Tribal and state governments were involved with the abuse, so the issue is more complicated than those example articles, since those are not Indian Boarding Schools. I feel the sections provides the facts from many different sides involved without pushing a POV. Can you provide Indian Boarding School examples?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 21:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you expand/clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant as to the question of structure. The standard structure for educational institution articles is to have the history as the first section after the lede. Also, the sections on abuse and fundraising could be rewritten (and updated) in a manner that could significantly shorten the text while keeping all references and facts. Bob247 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My question is for Bob247.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bob247 the whole purpose of the school was to assimilate Native children. This was not done in a benevolent manner. The history its self, when told factually and evidentially, I suppose would look as though it pushes a certain POV however the entire premise of the industrial/boarding school system in the United States was to "Kill the Indian, save the man" according to Pratt. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Not disputing that at all. Expand and expound upon those facts in the relevant sections and make the article better. As it is it is a mess. Literally reads like a (poorly written) high school essay - no doubt the result of multiple edit wars and compromises. Bob247 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. Roughly speaking ONE of the purposes for the first approx 35 years of it's 90+ years of existence was assimilation. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)