Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Investigation sections[edit]

I propose, as a first step, combining these sections under a new heading. Since they in any case seem to just list the various schools where gravesites have been present, there is little utility to keeping them separate imo. I also think this section should kick off with a paragraph explaining that there is an effort to rediscover and redocument gravesites/graveyards which have been lost to history. That paragraph could perhaps also touch on how these efforts massively ramped up in 2021, with renewed media attention generated by a GPR survey at Kamloops. Riposte97 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help to organise the subheadings by province. I will attempt to do that. In the meantime, I am going to remove the unsourced content at the start of the first investigations section and the table - it adds zero. If anyone reverts, please reply to this comment. Riposte97 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Stop making massive changes to this article that weaken the language and narrative around the genocide prior to positive consensus being built. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: which parts of what I cut do you want to retain? Riposte97 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 All pending thorough discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IE: before you enact cuts bring them here, individually, and build consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors don't have a right to impose a total prohibition on editing, and then refuse to actually engage in the process they're demanding. You haven't made any comments on the changes other than "no, don't do anything". That's not productive or helpful and dare I say your reversions are actually just becoming disruptive. 5225C (talk • contributions) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5225C Hardly. the cuts being made violate WP:NPOV by softening description of a genocide. It isn’t disruptive to prevent such POV changes and ask for discussion and consensus building at talk before enacting massive revisions.Simonm223 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "hardly". This article is about gravesites, not a genocide. You've asked for discussion, but you haven't engaged in it. Only Pbritti and I have given substantive comments on Riposte97's proposals. There is no mechanism by which an editor can entirely block changes to an article or demand that every change from an arbitrarily chosen version require explicit consensus. That's a claim at WP:OWNership. Either the editors who have problems with the cleanup start actually engaging with the discussions they've asked Riposte97 to start, or we progress to dispute resolution. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I find the extent of Riposte's changes overwhelming and don't have sufficient time to devote to just one article to go through thousands of bites of cuts rapidly. The reason for the urgency to cut seems unclear. That is why I want Riposte to bring up these revisions in an orderly manner so they can be properly reviewed. Finally this article is about gravesites that are material evidence of a genocide so your claims that this article is not about genocide are incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have only removed a paragraph with zero citations and a table, the information in which is repeated elsewhere. Reverting changes because you don't have time to properly review them is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have the capacity/desire to familiarise yourself and weigh in on the proposed changes, then you probably ought not to be reverting them. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: I have now removed the unsourced paragraph and the table. If you have an objection to that, please explain it here. Riposte97 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation contents[edit]

I have now arranged this section by province/territory. The next step is to try to rationalise the entries using the latest RS. I will also try to draft a header paragraph which lays out the relevant context. Riposte97 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024[edit]

Ump29 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Indian is now considered a racist term towards the Indigenous people. Please use the term (Indigenous)[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)[reply]

@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]