This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
@M.Bitton: It is a racist and colonialist term that was used in the legislation that set up the school system and therefore it persists in the historiography. It is in fact considered extremely racist in Canada. People here gasped when I mentioned the French and Indian War once. (turns out that that's the American name, and the name of the war in Canada is something else). Since this is about the racist school system with the racist name, we are probably stuck with it in the title, but the IP is correct. The commonname in Canada is "Indigenous". We can go full RfC on this if necessary, but let's not do that. I am asking you to take another look at this. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but there are many colonial terms that are used as common names in Wikipedia and it's not really my call to change them. You're more than welcome to start a WP:RM. M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
M.Bitton I see your point but I am not sure you see mine. The commonname shouldn't be something that will get you punched. And is the OP even talking about the title of the article? I've been removing it from the body. In any event, I thank you for the second look. And if you are reading the request as applying to the article title you are probably right that there should be an RM. Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: the edit request wasn't clear and I assumed that they are referring to both (they are connected after all). As for the common names, it's not unusual for some people to take offence at some of them and if they feel strongly about them, then RM is probably the best way forward. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not really worried about the title as it is somewhat defensible given the administrative history. Or more accurately I am more worried about other things. Thanks for looking. Elinruby (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha the instances of the word "Indian" have gone from zero to 87 in the past few weeks. This has been managed by removing Indigenous names and reorganizing the article as a list of schools for which the colonial name is used. And saying "Bureau of Indian Affairs" as often as possible. Go team Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the standard note we use across all these articles.... We got to make sure researchers can actually research the topic. Moxy🍁 00:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
synth apologia?
I have left this paragraph of the lede alone for now, but the following seems pov: Given that most of them were established by Christian missionaries with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity, schools often had nearby mission churches with community cemeteries. Students were often buried in these cemeteries rather than being sent back to their home communities, since the school was expected by the Department of Indian Affairs to keep costs as low as possible.
The part about costs is true and can be sourced, but the sentence before it seems to seek to excuse these schools for having cemeteries, which is a frequent point made in the debate Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because, as has been frequently said, no school should need a cemetery. Did the school you attended have one? That is why it would need an excuse. As for truth, I dunno. Have not seen this point made in sources. If there is a church on school grounds in Kamloops, I am not aware of it. Report back with your findings ;) WP:ONUS applies. I will wait. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mine didn't because it was in the middle of the town, but I know of many schools in the area whose church grounds include(d) a cemetery (Australia). It's reasonably common in rural areas where a church community also established a school. I'll have a look into whether this was the case in Canada and let you know. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having done 20 odd minutes of Googling, the only attempt at a historical explanation I've found is the following: "Deaths at the schools meant that they often needed to have cemeteries, and these are often a primary focus of geophysical surveys. However, finding them and even acknowledging the existence of such cemeteries can be problematic. Cemeteries at residential schools would be expected in this era of higher child mortality and greater incidence of epidemics." (from https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1914). So whether the lead is true or not, nobody seems to make much of a comment on, so this is probably the better explanation to go with. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that being said, if you Ctrl+F your way through the article you can find numerous instances of unmarked graves in community cemeteries, which is possibly what that lead sentence intended to summarise. I would reword it to reflect the content in the article, so something like "In some cases, students were buried in community cemeteries, where records and grave markers either were not established or have since been lost." 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby, perhaps more importantly is that I don't see that the claim that schools often had nearby mission churches with community cemeteries is referenced. While we don't need references in the lead, they same material should be covered in the body with references and I don't see that is the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. TarnishedPathtalk05:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are all here, "An unknown number" could be understood as "zero" and the Background section says Murray Sinclair, who chaired the Commission, speculated that the true number of deaths could be anywhere between 6,000 and 25,000.[1]Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although "unknown number" is in the lede, it does have two sources, which respectively give the bare minimum number and an estimate from the judge who spent six years investigating this. Pending further refinement of the article it would probably be a good first step to change "An unknown number" to "Thousands" Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RS don't say that though. Although this does not preclude the possibility that I am also reading too much into it.
But: The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission included a list of ~4100 names of dead children who were documented in the archival records, along with the name of the school where they did and their tribal afficiation. The two sources in the lede both predate the 2016 release of that report (2016) although the article has to have been written after late June 2021. One says At least 6,000 aboriginal children died while in the residential school system, says Justice Murray Sinclair, the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Sinclair, who has been tasked with studying the legacy of the residential schools, says that the figure is just an estimate and is likely much higher.
The other says approximately 3,200 residential school students died of malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions. Justice Murray Sinclair argued that this number is likely higher, perhaps 5 to 10 times as much; however, due to poor burial records, the commission could not report a more accurate number.
Both those sources are RS, just inexplicably old. The Background section contains the unreferenced statement that approximately 3,200 residential school students died of malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions. Justice Murray Sinclair argued that this number is likely higher, perhaps 5 to 10 times as much; however, due to poor burial records, the commission could not report a more accurate number.Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background section should have the source added then and I would support changing the lede wording from "An unknown number of ..." to be "Upwards of 3,200 ...". TarnishedPathtalk07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, then maybe update the sources later? This is my first pass through since the article was rewritten. For purposes of going forward, I am going to move the references into the body as you suggest. They are still eight years old, but we can get to that later. The Truth and Reconciliation report is going to be primary but there have to be thousands of more recent RS and probably hundreds of peer-reviewed sources for the number of names on that list, which is online, btw. Come to think of it it may still be used as a reference if not all of the instances of it were deleted. Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait though, the deaths in the sources are not just those from malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions so I think I should remove that, especially since some of the malnourishment was deliberate (they did a studies on the effects of malnutrition using the children at some schools as test subjects). But it there isn't one it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a section on causes of death. And it is true that at afaik all of the schools, tuberculosis was a huge factor in the mortality rate. Something to come back to along with better numbers.
Oh wait. The unsourced statement is copy-pasted from the second source? Sigh. Ok, I got this. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)<= my cut and paste error. I am making edits that basically implement the above discussion however, remove PoV and correct errors of fact. Added a ref note about what "Canada" was at the time. Have also discovered that "Department of Indian Affairs" was not the name of the agency until very late in the 19th-century. Ignoring that for now, but that whole attribution section needs rewording if only for readability. Pending a better idea, in discussions here, I am going to say "government of Canada" but that is somewhat wrong. Although I may be overthinking again. I am still in the Background section. Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this happened in 2014 it was not a reaction to the events of June 2021 Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC) No objection to the point if its relevance is demonstrated and its reference is improved. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unsourced estimate of total unmarked graves
To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children.[citation needed] I am not saying there isn't a source out there for this, but I do not recall ever seeing one, and considering that to arrive at the number, you would have to sum up different estimates by different professionals in different terrains it does not seem like something a professional would do. If there is in fact a source for this down the page, open to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources (Hopper) does this sort of adding, but arrives at a different number. Maybe the number is updated from that. This is still an open question Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
terminology quibble: but was it the Canadian government or the British government in say 1853?
or is the timeline such that it doesn't matter?
Also -- just asking you as a random Canadian: weren't there French schools? I seem to remember an organization in St-Boniface that thought so. [1]. They seem like a serious if ill-funded organization. If you don't know, that's fine, appreciate the help, thanks for clearing up the point that you cleared up. This matters to the extent that I could not find a source for the claim that the schools were in operation for 120 years, but it probably depends on what we are calling "the schools"? In other words, very little, but it would be nice to nail it down if somebody knows. As always, thanks.Elinruby (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have been the British government. The idea of residential schools emerged in the 1840s, in the Province of Canada. I don't have the cites for it, but if you check out the article on Egerton Ryerson, there's a good summary of how the system started: Egerton_Ryerson#Ryerson_and_residential_schools. It expanded gradually from there, under the administration of the Province of Canada government. With Confederation in 1867, the federal government had control over relations with Indigenous peoples, and took over the residential school system, which expanded into western Canada. I think that's where the figure for 120 years comes from: ~1845 + 120 = ~1965. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am pretty darn sure you know more about the enabling legislation than I do, but for now this is just a wording quibble and if you tell me it is usual to refer to the "government of Canada" despite whether all of Canada was quite certain it wanted to be governed, I certainly believe you. If I can find a source for that 120 years, I at least see where it is coming from and don't mind it going back in. If sourced. This isn't about responsibility, btw. I realize that is all adjudicated and complied with, but not everybody talking at the moment seems to do so. I still have doubts about when it was that the French Jesuit schools began to be residential, but that would not be the same "system" anyway, eh, and is even more tenuously Canadian. So I am good with that as long as it has a source. I will look at the Ryerson article.
I checked the cite for the French school. The fact that it operated in French in Manitoba doesn't take it out of the category of residential school. If it was funded by the federal government under the Indian Act, it would have been a residential school for the purposes of the discussion, I would think.
What happened with Confederation is that statutes of the former BNA colonies (like the Province of Canada) could come under federal jurisdiction, if the subject matter of the colonial statute was now within the matters assigned to the federal Parliament. Since Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians" (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24)), all of the statutes of the Province of Canada dealing with Indigenous peoples passed to federal jurisdiction (same with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). The provinces didn't have any input into the issue after 1867. The origins of residential schools appear to have been with the Province of Canada in the mid-1840s, but then passed to federal jurisdiction after 1867. That's where the ~120 years comes from, starting in the mid-1840s.
With respect to "government of Canada", the expansion of federal jurisdiction to Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory in 1870, was controversial - hence the Red River Resistance. However, it happened. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)is what it is called in[reply]
right right, thank you for looking into that. Yeah Louis Riel lost. My fundamental question is COMMONNAME and if that is what they call it in academic sources, then that is what we should use. I am going to move down the page and look for sourcing problems now. That Saint Boniface link looks like it might be a good source of images, but they do have a copyright notice up. Some of the archives are pretty early though, do you know Canadian copyright law? Elinruby (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most cemeteries were unregistered, and as such the locations of many burial sites of residential school children have been lost. only instance of "register" in the article body that is about a cemetery is Battleford Saskatchewan Elinruby (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Department of Indian Affairs
I see Moxy has provided a cite for the Department of Indian Affairs in the lead. From the earlier edit note, I think Elinruby was also asking about the name of the federal agency. It's a bit complicated.
Over the course of a century, it went over a number of names. Under the Indian Act of 1876, the first federal legislation on the topic continued the office of "Superintendent of Indian Affairs", with a Deputy Superintendent. There doesn't appear to have been a Department of Indian Affairs at that time. By the Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, there was a Department of Indian Affairs. At some time between then and the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, Indian Affairs got rolled into the Department of Citizenship, but then at some later point it re-emerged as a separate Department. By 1970, it was called the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Revised Statutes of Canada 1970; Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, as originally proclaimed). By 2019, it got re-named to Department of Indigenous Services.
Given all those name changes, I think for the purposes of this article, it is best to refer throughout to the "Department of Indian Affairs", since that's the name it was generally known as, in relation to the residential schools. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, at least for me. I really just want to know the COMMONNAME. There is a separate issue with whole bunches of gratuitous uses of "Indian" but let's prioritize the misrepresented sources right now. The article was just disastrously re-written as I guess you may have gathered. Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get rid of the repetition of "funded by" in the lede here: The Canadian Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous children directed and funded by the Department of Indian Affairs.[2] Administered by various Christian churches and funded by the Canadian government from 1828 to 1997 Canadian Indian residential school system attempted to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture but based on the above section it was not the Department of Indian Affairs for the entire 1828-1997 period. Despite my dislike of the word "Indian" in the agency name, which is now regarded as racist, I am open to the argument that it was historically the COMMONNAME. I would like to improve this awkward bit of writing however, and the only way I currently see of doing this would be The Canadian Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous children administered by various Christian churches and funded by the Canadian government from 1828 to 1997 Canadian, which attempted to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Posting here since some people seem to want to preserve the mention of the agency name. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed text from Kamloops section, sketchy sources again
As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves.[1] Despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.[2]
I am not overly fussed about this either way, but that is what I was thinking. Not sure I understand the conversation we are having, but it isn't that I don't see the source. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there seems to currently seems to be some repetition in the first paragraph of the lede. Since it looks like you are working on that section I am going to leave you to it for now and go work on the source discussions at RSN. Would like to talk about the Church fires and and Reactions sections at some point. Not sure they are due. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this But am I misreading the references on the wiki article? Nowhere in the Aleteia article at.is "St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church in Indian Brook, Nova Scotia". Lostsandwich (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
seems like a worthy question, but I can only see that source on my phone, which I am not on right now, so since you offer it would be great if you could verify that. If not it is something I am trying to get back to on Chrome. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let others respond... as I have stated before I simply don't understand the majority of your posts. Are these AI generated or a translator used? Moxy🍁 21:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes he just changed the source for the Nova Scotia claim. I no longer need you to double check that it failed verification, thanks anyway. As for the rest of what you said: I am not certain that you grasp the entire issue yet. But the point is moot, the source does fail verification and was removed. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since we are here, it seems like you really want the article to say that the House of Commons passed a resolution urging the government to take action or something. The House of Commons is the legislative branch of government. (?) Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the source says is: "Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society." The statement from Wikipedia (above) is a paraphrase. So the question is to what extent is it unfaithful to the original. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missionaries are mentioned twice. One of those times it even says that the first schools were founded by French missionaries. But there was an agreement elsewhere on this page that the French system is a different animal and the source says the French wanted to feed them not convert them. I'm not saying I necessarily believe that but that is what the source says. So it does not support the statement that other missionaries founded the system "with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity." I am also pretty sure that the government was more interested in assimilation than conversion.
To be clear, this source is fine as far as it goes. It just does not support the statement in front of it. My issues with the statement in front of it: Pretty sure from the conversation we just had in the other section that the government founded the school system. "Express purpose" might be sourceable for the government, perhaps. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religion was a major part of assimilating Indigenous peoples on both sides of the border.... It's why it's referred to as a cultural genocide.[3] The French wanted to free them from what.... their families? basic infoMoxy🍁 23:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reaction is why I explicitly said I'm not saying I necessarily believe that but that is what the source says. What the source does however say is: The first residential facilities were developed in New France by Catholic missionaries to provide care and schooling. Please remember that we are talking about what the source says not what I personally believe, which is that schools were a rather cynical tactic whose goal was assimilation and were gleefully perpetuated when the system proved lethal. You seem to think I want to deny that there was anything wrong with the schools, which is far from the case, and makes it hard to discuss things with you. So let's start over. I actually believe that "cultural genocide" is a euphemism in the Canadian context. Please stop trying to convince me of the genocidal intent. I am already there, and it's annoying.
I just think that an article that gets messed with as much as this one does, on the regular, should at least *try* to be properly cited to begin with. The statement is not in the source provided. I am ok with changes to either the statement or the source provided. Maybe you could scan the article history, that might help also. Most of this has been happening in edit summaries.Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me the source is clear... quote= "The purpose of residential schools was to educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society......The government therefore collaborated with Christian missionaries to encourage religious conversion..." Perhaps the actual encyclopedia page would help? Moxy🍁 23:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where in the source does it say The residential school system was established by Christian missionaries with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity?
I feel like the Wikipedia integrity defenders need to untangle the current circular firing squad. I am going to go do something else for a while. Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not see the source. Quote = "Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society" Moxy🍁 11:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need it explained to you that this is not what the source says? "Christian churches and the Canadian government" is not "Christian missionaries" and what the source says about "Christian missionaries" is not what the source is being used to prove Elinruby (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could be offended by that if I tried hard enough. A missionary order is not the same thing as "the Catholic church" exactly, and the only way to be accurate is to be accurate, Moxy. And to be clear, I am not asking you to do anything. Feel free to refrain. If you want to help with the article then please, help with the article and stop calling me stupid. I would deeply appreciate that. Anything that goes on the talk page will eventually get addressed by me unless someone else gets it first, so don't do it out of a sense of obligation. Right now I am adding and checking sources. As is usually the pattern, the carnage is not nearly as bad when you get out of the lede. It looks like key points got dropped as irrelevant though. But yes, I do generally expect sources to support the statement in front of them. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source does not say this
schools often had nearby mission where possible graves of hundreds of Indigenous people were discovered.[1]
the word "often" does not appear in source at all
the string "mission" only appears in the word "commission"
there are several mentions of graves, but all in the context of discovering them.
To be clear this source is fine as far as it goes. It just does not support the statement in front of it. My issues with the statement in front of it revolve around "often" and why this is in the lede in the first place. But the statement itself might be accurate if reworded. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this post is about the word "often" and "missions"? We don't have sources claiming they all had burial sites because they didn't..... as for the word mission this is simply a common term used in Canada. Moxy🍁 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) PS: It's not that I object to the word "mission", it's that nothing resembling the statement containing it is found in the source, afaict Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or wh
If it is is so blanged obvious then why does it need to be spelled out at all? In the lede? Because that is all a PoV pusher cares about, is the lede, because that is what matters for SEO. Or at least that is one possible theory. I personally don't get why this article keeps getting messed with. But it does. So in keeping with the minimization of the mortality rate, of course there is a cemetery and of course everyone died of TB at the time no matter what anyway.Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article about the residential school system:
The 1906 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, submitted by chief medical officer Peter Bryce, highlighted that the "Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times".[2]: 97–98 [3]: 275 Among the list of causes he noted the infectious disease of tuberculosis and the role residential schools played in spreading the disease by way of poor ventilation and medical screening.[2]: 97–98 [3]: 275–276
Death rates per 1,000 students in residential schools (1869–1965)
In 1907, Bryce reported on the conditions of Manitoba and North-West residential schools: "we have created a situation so dangerous to health that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse than they have been shown statistically to be."[4]: 18 In 1909, Bryce reported that, between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in western Canada ranged from 30 to 60 per cent over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30 to 60 per cent of students had died, or 6 to 12 per cent per annum).[5] These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he said that mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis.[2][6][7] At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease, and this exacerbated the impact of the illness. Streptomycin, the first effective treatment, was not introduced until 1943.[8]: 381
great source, does not say what it is purported to say however
Many cemeteries were unregistered, and as such the locations of many burial sites of residential school children have been lost.[1]
Clarifying since I am apparently not working alone here: deaths are discussed on page 8, but nothing about cemeteries or graves and definitely not grave markers. I found mention elsewhere of rotted wooded crosses at one school though, and will make sure to include that in the section for that school the next time I see it again. If there is more than one mention after we do some updating, no objection to this returning to lede if properly supported in the body etc Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will give you 24hrs to read the report before fixinv the page number..... This is the basic type of knowledge you need to know before editing these articles. Let me know when you're done. Moxy🍁 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, this removal is confusing. That sourced statement explains how residential schools improperly handled burying and recording the identities of Indigenous students. My assumption is that you're reading that as somehow a justification of the missing gravesites. It, in fact, does the opposite: it indicates that weaponized incompetence and indifference led to these many unmarked graves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writer Robert Jago identified religion as a point of full separation between indigenous and Canadian society, holding that "[i]t is a legitimate debate for First Nations to talk about removing Catholic churches from [indigenous] territories".[1] Indigenous leaders, including Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band, as well as the prime minister and provincial officials condemned the suspected arsons.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Jago does appear to have some sort of claim to notability. I am not sure how much of one and would describe myself as fairly indifferent to the question. Possibly this is due for the Reactions section. It was in the church fires section however and I took it ouk because of all the UNDUE there is in that section already. Side note: nobody cares about these reactions, yanno. Elinruby (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jago is an amongst the most published Native writers active. His opinion can be relevant when attribute to an and present in a secondary reliable source. Your "side note" is baffling. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called for "the ongoing identification, documentation, maintenance, commemoration, and protection of residential school cemeteries or other sites at which residential school children were buried."<ref name="TRCVolume4"> Yes this is the official record. Primary source but a very good one. However a page number really is needed. This isn't a 6-page journal article. It probably does say that somewhere in there for the record, but I am not supposed to have to guess about that Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's used in the title of the article to refer to the WP:COMMONNAME. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
