Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian Indian residential school system/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2017 [1].

Canadian Indian residential school system

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Canadian Indian residential school system which involved the active removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities with the aim of assimilating them into Canadian culture. The 2015 Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded that the system and it's legacy amounted to cultural genocide. The final reports of the TRC included calls to action with a focus on education and awareness about the system - this page is a step toward that goal. With Canada's 150 anniversary taking place this July, all aspects of the country's history should be highlighted including this one.Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

This is most interesting; the prose is of professional quality, and the topic worthy. I began to fade a bit in the lowermost sections, where I think some abbreviating and some minor revisions would make the going a bit easier. Here are my questions and suggestions:
Subheads
  • Section heads and subheads should not refer redundantly to the article title or echo one another. My suggestion would be to remove "residential schools" from the section heads 2 and 7 and to remove the word "apologies" or "apology" from subheads 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (For real this time!)--Dnllnd (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images General
  • Although two of the images have alt text, the rest will need it too.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Indigenous and aboriginal are usually lowercase, but in this article they begin with an uppercase letter. I would recommend lowercase unless there is some special reason for uppercase.
In Canada Indigenous is, today, most commonly capitalized. The Government of Canada style guide is a good point of reference. Generally, the word is capitalized when discussing peoples, cultures or communities in the same way we use European or Canadian.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a perfectly good special reason. Might I suggest adding a note about these preferences that includes a link to the style guide, as above. The Canadian style guide on these matters is interesting and relevant, and referring to it might head off future "fixes" of things that don't need fixing. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have added in a Notes section and a note next to the first instance of 'Indigenous' explaining the capitalization. Rephrasing suggestions, if required, would be appreciated. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The trimming was very much needed - thank you for taking care of it!--Dnllnd (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article includes many direct quotations. Each needs a citation placed in the text directly after the quotation; in some cases that means that the paragraph containing the direct quotation will have more than one citation even if the whole paragraph relies on the same source; i.e., citation for direct quote and somewhere later, citation or citations for the other stuff. For example, the third paragraph of Financial compensation has three direct quotations. Each needs its own citation; you should add two more, one for Fontaine and one for Cotler even though all three share the same source.
I have gone through and added refs immediately after direct quotes. Quotation adherence was flagged by another editor, below, which I have also tried to address. Since there are so many quotes through out the page I expect I likely missed some, so let me know if any outstanding instances jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you got most of them. I saw only one more on my most recent pass-through. It is in the Mortality rates section: At Sarcee Boarding School near Calgary, all 33 students were "much below even a passable standard of health" and "[a]ll but four were infected with tuberculosis." I would add a citation with a page number after "tuberculosis." Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Got it. Curly "JFC" Turkey helpfully flagged other quotations that were in need of (clearer) attribution or citations. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be helpful to spell out and abbreviate Truth and Reconciliation Commission on first use in the main text and then use TRC from then on. It appears often in the lower sections, which seem a bit more populated by government-speak and less lucid to me than the early sections. Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a big mouthful each time.
I have replaced all full references to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with TRC after the first mention in the lead.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any organized non-indigenous resistance in Canada to the TRC or, more generally, to do anything at all to make amends? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere if only in a note.
Not that I know of. The most recent news event that may speak to your question is Senator Lynn Beyak insisting that a focus on the negative aspects of the system (like deaths, forced removal of children, and inter-generational trauma) has overshadowed the 'good' of the system. I don't believe that including her views adds substantive value to the page as it serves only to undermine what has been legally recognized as systematically abusive and harmful legacy. I am, though, open to other views on this point.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the issue, since it revolves around only one person, does not deserve much weight. Since she's a Senator, and since the controversy forms part of the Lynn Beyak article in Wikipedia, might a good compromise involve a brief note attached to the end of the first paragraph of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee section? It might say, "Lynn Beyak, a Conservative member of the Senate Committee of Aboriginal Peoples, voiced disapproval of the TRC report, saying that it had omitted anything positive that could be said about the schools. In response, the Conservative Party leadership removed her from the Senate committee." This is just a suggestion, not a mandate. Finetooth (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section about Beyak. Thanks for suggesting it. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Yep! Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "is the result of Imperial colonialism" – Lowercase "i"?
  • "resisted by Indigenous communities who were unwilling to leave their children for extended periods of time" – Delete "of time" since "periods" already says it?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and foundling colonial children limited Church resources..." – Lowercase "church"?
Government involvement
  • The direct quotation at the end of the first paragraph of this section is supported by a citation to a PDF file that is more than 1,000 pages long. To be useful, the citation needs to include a specific page number. Ditto for any other long works cited in the article.
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parental resistance and compulsory attendance
  • Should the "baby bonus" be explained either in the main text or a brief note?
I've added a wiki link to a page explaining the term wrt Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions in residential schools
  • "The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..." – Better as "executive summary of the TRC"?
This is the official name of the document, so using the capitalization is most appropriate. I will, though, clean up how often it appears by making use of the TRC acronym, as you suggested in another comment.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would imply a difficult to prove legal responsibility" – Perhaps hyphenate "difficult-to-prove"?
Mortality rates
  • "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." – Generally, the supporting citation for a direct quote should be inserted immediately after the end of the quotation.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1920 and 1922, Dr. A. Corbett was commissioned..." – It's preferable to use a brief description than an academic title like "Dr.". Something like "A. Corbett, professor of otolaryngology at the University of X Medical School" if you have the information necessary.
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't much info about Corbett, but I have added text indicating that he was a physician from Regina. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and added similar text to others named without any context.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missing children and unmarked graves
  • "later 'razed' by priests or built over" – Is "priests" the right word? It seems to point to a subset of the church schools.
Text revised and refs cleaned up. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-governance and school closure
  • "after being run by the Oblates" – Should "Oblates" be linked to something?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The first reference to oblates, which appears in the Government involvement section, is linked to the Oblate page in keeping with WP:BTW. Do you think it's necessary to link all occurrences? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation attempts
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis..." – "Coined" seems not quite right. Would "Called 'the Okra Crisis' by media outlets,"?
Revised to "Referred to by media outlets as the Oka Crisis.." --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis, the land dispute sparked a critical discussion about the Canadian government's complacency regarding relations with Indigenous communities and responses to their concerns prompting then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to underscore four government responsibilities: 'resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.' " – Too complex. Suggestion: break it in two with a terminal period after "communities". Delete "and" and proceed with "Responses to their concerns prompted...".
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Financial compensation
  • Lowercase "settlement agreement" throughout? Too many things with big letters reduce the overall effect of big letters.
It's a diminutive of the official name, but it was also given an acronym (which was inconsistently used!), so I've subbed that in as much of the refs happen within one section.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has identified the Indigenous-led mental health and healing infrastructure provided by the AHF as a gap in how current mental health crises being experienced by Indigenous communities, like the suicides occurring in the Attawapiskat First Nation, are being addressed." – The infrastructure isn't the gap. Suggestion: "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation."
  • "Following an illegal process, including an examination of the Settlement Agreement by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred." – I don't understand this. Should "illegal" here be "legal"?
Typo! Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation projects
  • The first two paragraphs repeat the word "healing" six times. How about substituting "services that assist former residential school students and their families in recovering" in the first paragraph and "to sustain their active participation in these recovery efforts" in the second?
Paragraph has been removed and remaining text in section has been collapsed into other sections of the article. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the publication of a multi-volume, 4,000-plus-page report..." – Do we need to mention the length again since it's in the lede and once more in the text already?
I changed the text in the lead so that the 4,000 info only appears once, withing the section dedicated to the TRC later in the article.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Healing
  • I would consider deleting the first paragraph of this section since it seems to echo what's already been said in the Reconciliation projects section, and I would prefer "Recovery" to "Healing", which is overused.
I removed the first paragraph and merged the remaining section into TRC section that appeared in what was formally the Reconciliation attempts section. Reconciliation attempts has been revised and restructured with edits to text and sub-headings in an attempt to cut down on the repetitive nature of the last third of the page. The TRC now appears within it's own section. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Your decision about the Beyak matter will have no bearing on my support. Impressive article on a difficult subject. Finetooth (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments

[edit]
  • Many quotations violate MOS:LQ.
Thanks for flagging this. I believe that I have addressed most of the instances that failed to meet the MOS guidelines. Specific instances of any I may have missed would be appreciated.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that I missed several. I should have employed a Find all search! Thanks for taking care of what I missed.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the contentious nature of this topic, acknowledgement of which has been a hard fought battle for Indigenous communities impacted by the system, the rp references are an important part of the page as they facilitate the location of information that people have made a habit of dismissing. This is particularly relevant in regards to the TRC reports - they each span several hundred pages.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles specify page numbers, but do so in the reflist, not inline. For example:
<ref>Turkey (2017) pp. 23–24</ref>
or
{{sfn|Turkey|2017|pp=23–24}}
and there are other formats. Take a peak at some other FAs and see how they're handled, so as to make the article more reader-friendly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid approach for referencing the same resource multiple times. I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone when this one is applied clearly and consistently throughout the article. Is this really a deal breaker for FA status or a personal preference? --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone"—it doesn't. I'm offering advice to make the article more readable and accessible. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that when you provide a quotation, it must be given attribution in the text itself and not just a citation—"has been described"-type wordings are not acceptable.
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and paid $3,100,000,000 in compensation"—this is probably more readable as "$3.1 billion", which is the format you use elsewhere. If the number is so long that readers have to count the zeros to figure out how to read it, chances are it'd be best to spell it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Canada, the Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools"—I assume (Aboriginal) is a gloss of "Indian", but by presenting it this way, it appears that "Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools" is what they were called. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Removed. This is another hold over from a much earlier version of the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the French is needed in the lead here; we would add it for something that was originally in French, or in Canada's case for official names or whatever, but the French are not official names in that sense—they're merely two ways of referring to the system in French. The doesn't even give an English gloss. I'd drop it, or at least move it to an endnote or something, as it only clutters up the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! This is a hold over from a much earlier version of the page. I've removed it. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • counteracting the "civilizing" of Indigenous children, to convert Indigenous children to Christianity and to "civilize" them—MOS:SCAREQUOTES should be considered carefully, as it's not always clear what they should mean: an actual quotation? Referring to a word-as-a-word? Ironic distancing? You should consider a more straightforward, unambiguous wording that avoids scarequotes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This language gets used repeatedly my multiple people, but I completely agree that the inconsistent and unclear presence of "" throughout the article is confusing. I've removed unnecessary quotation marks and have revised text in the Family visitation section to introduce more logical use of both terms. Thanks for flagging it.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor is accurate terminology used in the reports of the TRC (where it is capitalized), government publications and media outlets. It is also a term used by Indigenous peoples to self-identify as school attendees. Would a foot note like the one used for the capitalization of Indigenous address your concern? --Dnllnd (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not encyclopaedic contexts; the media and the government have different goals than an encyclopaedia. It's not a matter I'm going to push, but if any term is open to debate, then it's not an ideal term for an encycloaedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The school system was found to amount to cultural genocide in which sexual and physical abuse was both rampant and, since that time, extensively documented. The system was, as outlined in multiple TRC, legal and government documents, designed to eradicate Indigenous culture, peoples and communities. When considered in reference to the definition for survive, the term is apt. While I appreciate the point regarding encyclopaedic contexts, I disagree that this is a case in which it is being undermined. The term will remain. I have added a note too the first instance making reference to its use in TRC outputs and official government of Canada apology.--Dnllnd (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm not going to push it, but the fact that you so vigorously won't even consider another, more clearly neutral term more or less makes my point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume you have no additional comment about the note that was added as a compromise. Thanks.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained in the executive summary of the TRC's final report—this is the firrst time the TRC is mentioned in the body, so it should be spellt out and contextualized. Remember, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, and the two should be thought of as somewhat independent—the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears for the first time in the lead, where it is spelled out and accompanied by the acronym.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You respond to "the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead" with "It appears for the first time in the lead"? Please re-read what I've written—the lead is based on the content of the body, not vice-versa. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed the distinction you were making between the lead and rest of the article. DIA and TRC have both been spelled out in full when they first appear in the body of the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific example? I a did a find all search and found no instances of -ise.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"With no requirement for specialised training"
Changed to -ized.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and loss of privileges that characterised" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to -ized.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support My extensive review is located here. Thrilled to support now. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Current ref 56 is throwing up a BIG RED error... needs fixing
Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced/removed. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are 131 footnotes in the article - and I've already done a good bit of time checking them all, could you kindly tell me what it was replaced with? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Responsible for separating children from their families and communities, this process was found by the TRC to be cultural genocide because its aim was "killing the Indian in the child." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
  • It previously appeared in the Religious involvement section wrt to the Mohawk Institute. That particular section has been reworked and relies predominantly on refs that were already being used (TRC reports, Milloy book, CBC article, etc.)
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Approximately 150,000 children are believed to have attended a residential school over the course of their existence." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Students in residential school systems were faced with a multitude of abuses from teachers and administrators." The statement is supported by the remained for the paragraph/section.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 2 - why is the umanitoba.ca there when it's not for any other university publication?
Not entirely clear on what the issue being flagged, but I believe it should now be addressed. I've done a ref review to add an entry to the website field, where appropriate, where one was missing. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is consistentcy in the references - if similar type references don't use the same format, the references aren't consistent. Yes, it's picky. Yes, it's a bit anal-retentive, but it's all part of being "finest work". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another pass on of the cite web templates with the aim of ensuring consistency. Please let me know if any issues jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent on whether you link to publishers in the references - mostly you don't but occasionally you do - for example - why is "University of Manitoba" linked in ref 20 (Milloy) but none of the other universities before ref 20 are linked?
Unlinked. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24 - the publisher isn't the National Centre - it's the original publisher
Revised.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 "Davin" - the publisher isn't the Internet Archive, it's the original publisher
Revised.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Section reworked. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in either using or not using "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada" as the author for things published by it. Currently refs 4 doesn't have it as the author, but ref 29 does. There are probably others
Cleaned up.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 38 "Carmucks" needs a publisher
Added. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 43 (Titley) needs a publisher
Added. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although Breach is an independent journal, this particular article was adapted from an MA thesis and includes a list of fully cited references ranging from scholarly publications to major Canadian news publications. The section where it appears has been cleaned up to improve clarity and citation alignment.--Dnllnd (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, I add that this ref also centers Indigenous action regarding, and reclamation of, residential school system history. Centering Indigenous peoples, their work, and their experiences is a central part of the reconciliation process and it makes sense to have that type of narrative included, where appropriate, in the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's tool shows a few concerns:
    • Wikipedia article: "On Friday, August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada." Source: "On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools."
Reworked.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia article: "the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity" source: "the Vatican issued a press release stating that “the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”"
The first is a direct quotation from a Vatican communique, which is appropriately cited. The second is a quote from that same communique. Red herring.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia article: "compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused" source: "compensation and psychological support for former students, who were physically or sexually abused"
Reworked.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other possibles need checking from Earwig's report.
I've reviewed anything with a rating higher than 25% and almost all of them amount to the use of official titles, organization names or direct quotations from official apologies or reports. Those not falling under that umbrella are common turns of phrase or legalese that can only be restated so many ways before the intention of specific words is lost or watered down. I spotted checked the remaining entries and the same applies. I do, though, welcome another set of eyes. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Shocking article. Topic worthy of FA quality article. But it’s not quite there yet in my humble opinion. Some structural issues I think. My comments:

  • Lead: Over the course of the system's existence, -> would be good to say here how long this practice was in existence for
Added 'more than hundred year existence'. Government run schools began in the early 1880s, but some of the schools, including the Mohawk institute, were opened earlier, leaving the exact number of years up for debate. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996. -> Bit odd: we go from 1876 to 1996 to 1884. Better to move the sentence about last one closing further down I think
Moved to end of paragraph. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: were intentionally located at distances -> great distances perhaps?
Changed to substantial distances, since 'greater distances' is used in in the next sentence. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: he thought counteracted the school's -> maybe plural schools’ ? Or maybe just remove schools altogether: he thought counteracted the efforts
Dropped schools altogether. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Canadian -> this whole paragraph seems really out of place
This section, as a whole, is meant to give a a high-level overview of the how settlers and Indigenous relations. Can you expand on why this particular paragraph seems out of place? Would it be more appropriate in another section of the page? Is the information presented not relevant? Getting more info will help me address your concerns. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I meant to say that the last 3 paragraphs in this section go from 17th to 19th and 20th to 19th. Would it not be better chronologically, that is, swap the last 2 paragraphs? Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thank you for the clarification. I have flipped the paragraphs, which definitely improves things and have rephrased references to the turn of the century to '1800s', etc. I've also linked to the wiki page for the 17th century to clarify intended era. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly after the War of 1812 -> 1812 and turn of the 19th century are generations apart. Seems odd.
The turn of the 19th century would have been 1800. Can you expand on what you think is odd? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, it seems turn of the century is a rather ambiguous phrase. Perhaps better to rephrase. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the threat of invasion minimized, -> Who is threatening to invade whom? You lost me in this sentence
Agreed, this is a clarity issue. Added 'American forces' - link to War of 1812 provides additional context. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25.25% seems unnecessarily accurate. No need for any decimals I’d say
These are numbers taken directly from the report. I'm open to dropping the decimals but wonder if doing so would open the sentence up to critique about not accurately reflecting source material? What do you think? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context " and "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason."Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! I'm less fluent in the numerical style guide points than others. I've kicked out the percentages altogether - the number counts convey things adequately. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a failure to assimilate Indigenous children by early .. -> This makes much more sense as the 2nd paragraph in the previous section
I collapsed the Religious involvement section into the History section and rearranged the paragraphs/photos accordingly. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions regarding the flow of information. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Residential schools were funded under the Indian Act -> link Indian Act
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affairs asserting -> Affairs, asserting
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1930s government officials -> seems to skip things? We get reports and then what? Did the government act upon these recommendations? When? How? How much money? How many? Etc.
Text revisions made to indicate support of report findings by church official and when government funding was first approved. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional info about the 1920s and acquisition of schools by the government from church officials. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1950s the expansion of the residential school system had plateaued, -> how many? And when did numbers start going down? All we have is plateau and 1996 last one. And why?
I've referred back to the TRC reports and other related publications and it seems to be either be a hold over from text revisions or a conflation with enrollment numbers and/or the shift from residential to day schools. Reference to a plateau has been removed as a result - not necessary for set up to remainder of paragraph. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • that roughly 11,132 -> that looks like a very precise number, not rough at all. I think you can drop roughly, given that the verb is estimated
Dropped 'roughly'. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • reached its peak in the early 1930s -> but expansion plateaued in 1950s? How can that be?
Reference to 1950s plateau has been removed - see above. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80 schools -> Would it be possible to have a graph with either number of schools over the decades, and/or number of students? In addition, showing the schools on the map would be very good
I'm not able to make a graph myself and don't know of any public domain options that could be pulled in. Do you have any experience with creating graphs for use on Wikipedia pages? Or perhaps able to point me to information about how they should can can be incorporated? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. Do you have at least the data? A table would be okay too.Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon:The data I'm most familiar with appears in the TRC report or government produced documents and it's often a synopsis as opposed to hard numbers. So, for example, there may be a list of schools along with their location, but there aren't student enrollment numbers included - my understanding is that this is in part due to poor reporting from school administrators. I have to admit that I'm stumped about how to integrate a table. I could attempt to replicate a table that appears in one of the reports, but the nuance of schools/enrollments over time is beyond what my basic table skills are capable of and the summarization of available data makes it difficult to do something unique. More importantly, working with numbers isn't one of my strengths..! Here are some examples of what's available for your reference: [2],[3],[4](p.67) and List of Indian residential schools in Canada. Page 682 of this report has the text and table I used to clean up the number of schools by religious order. Does anything stand out as a possible way forward? --Dnllnd (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a multitude of abuses -> Previous paragraph also about abuse. Merge?
Merged. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide -> This is way more important than you make it look structurally in the article. It deserves its own paragraph at least. It does not sit well under the header Conditions.
Fair point. I've moved it down the page to sit within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many graduates were unable to easily return home -> But returning home to the reserve wasn’t the goal. Better would be something along the lines of: many were unable to land a job … Such employment he can get at home." But even going back home was not easy, as many graduates were unfamiliar …
Revised. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • until 1922, when Bryce, -> Somehow I think, maybe, this info should live in the earlier section of the rise and fall. When did critical voices start? 1922 is earlier than I expected, given what I’ve read so far
  • For most communities, though, the existence of buildings that formerly housed residential schools are a traumatic reminder, and there is much discussion about demolition, heritage status, and how to incorporate sites into the healing process -> I don’t really get why this sentence is in this paragraph
Agreed, it's a poor fit. I've removed the sentence and have integrated a revised version into the first paragragh of the Educational initiatives section.
  • Although encouragement to keep Indigenous languages alive was present in some schools, -> Seems better as a modifier of the opening sentence of this paragraph
Revised. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stigma created … the list of endangered languages in Canada. -> Sorry,don’t get this one. Stigma? Does this refer to the ugly and dirty? But that is mentioned only by some
In this case stigma is was used to reproach - the system resulted in the transmission of Indigenous culture being a bad and frowned upon act. As a result, traditional languages weren't spoke or passed on to children. Would it help to rephrase that first sentence? I'm not sure what your "But that is only mentioned by some" is in reference to. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli veered -> spell out what acronym stands for. And poor Zaccardelli is the only person not mentioned by full name
Yep! Section cleaned up, additional ref added, Zaccardelli named in full with link to Wiki page. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he intended to issue a formal apology -> and did he?
Removed paragraph altogether. To date nothing has been issued and it doesn't immediately address the section topic. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: Mohawk Institute Residential School should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: Egerton Ryerson should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: Peter Bryce should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: Fort Albany, Ontario should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Comment: There is no history of those who worked to bring the whole issue to the public. Or, tried to bring the issue forward. For example, there is no mention of the signficant cover story in MacLeans magazine <http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-lonely-death-of-chanie-wenjack/> in 1967. From the '60s to the '90s in the settler community, church community, and in the Indigenous community there were numerous 'heads up' in various media about the problem. The article mentions none of this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wassupwestcoast: The final paragraph in the Conditions section that begins with "Details of the mistreatment.." makes reference to abuse reporting and Indigenous led activism to have it publicly recognized. There are also references to Indigenous led resistance worked into the remainder of the page - two examples are resistance from parents as in regards to forced attendance and another is the passage regarding the protests in Oka. There is also coverage dedicated to self-government of schools and reconciliation efforts involving Indigenous communities. Is your concern that there is not a dedicated section on the topic? Or, perhaps, that this specific article hasn't been included? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: A bit of both. In part, it wasn't just Indigenous activism. And, in part, the example I give of the Macleans cover story in 1967 was very significant in getting the story out to the settler community. From late 1950s onwards, there was growing discomfort in the church communities regarding residential schools. By the '60s, some church communities had relinquished the residential schools to the sole care of the federal government. My point is that there was activism on a number of fronts and over a period of about two generations. The article doesn't reflect this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example:
a) A CBC TV report from 01 May 1969: "Government takes over residential schools from churches" (http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/government-takes-over-residential-schools-from-churches).
b) A CBC TV report from 04 Aug 1967: "Expodition: Expo 67’s Indians of Canada" (http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/expodition-expo-67s-indians-of-canada) ....'But inside, the Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo 67 tells a different story: one of poverty, unfulfilled treaties, forced religion and the unhappy experiences of children in residential schools. As a young hostess conducts a tour, a reporter from Expodition remarks on a tone of bitterness in the pavilion's exhibits. "
c) the former United Church of Canada Reverend Kevin D. Annett who in 1995 brought to public attention the deaths in residential schools from research he had conducted over years.
Anyway, there were many voices against the residential schools...even at Expo 67! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the whole thing is nuanced. I'm completely aware that churches still had involvement in the some schools after '69. For example, ... "By 1969 the Government of Canada took over all other church-run residential schools and the Anglican Church was no longer officially involved in the school system. That said, in practice, Anglican clergy continued to be appointed as principals of the school until it closed in 1979."(http://vancouver.anglican.ca/diocesan-ministries/indigenous-justice/pages/indian-residential-schools-full-article) So my point is that there was this long term muddle about what to with the 'legacy of systemic racism and damage to First Nations peoples.' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast:Okay, thank you for the clarification (and the links!). I'll have a closer look at what you've provided, along with the references that have already been used, and see where some of this can be worked into the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of Maclean's article and Indians of Canada Pavilion to page.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Wassupwestcoast, do you have anything further to add; I'd like to clarify that your oppose stands. Also, Edwininlondon, do you plan to revisit this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support on prose. I am not really able to judge comprehensiveness, I'm afraid. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still opposed. While it sounds picky, I'd really like to see the MacLean's article appear. Way too often, I hear people say something like "I knew nothing until a couple of years ago." And, yet the serious problems with the residential school system made it to the cover of a major news magazine in the 1960s. And, that is just one example of many. The info was in the media main stream. The settler population really can't say that they knew nothing. And, it's also not true that nothing was done. Part of the article captures this, but not enough. The TRC was and is neither the beginning nor the end of the issue. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)à[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast:The Maclean's article and a reference to the Expo 67 exhibit were both added based on your feedback - see my comment above. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast: Given that these comments may have been addressed, are there any other grounds on which you oppose? If not, the oppose will be considered unactionable. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do *not* oppose. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Further request: Before this is promoted, I'd like someone other than the nominator to go through the issues raised by Ealdgyth about the Earwig tool. She also raised a few other points about sourcing that the nominator responded to that would be worth rechecking. Also, as this is would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like the usual spot-check of the sources for accurate use and close paraphrasing (unless I missed one earlier; the Earwig tool check would not count as a full spot check). All these things can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. To be clear, is the additional resource review something I should request myself at the top of WT:FAC? --Dnllnd (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best way, yes. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • Why does source 15 list "Anglican Church of Canada." twice? same with "University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills" in source 59? 73? 74? 75? 76? 97? 102? 105? 106? 109? 110? 111? 114? 126? 128? 129? 130? 134?
@Ceranthor: Thanks for flagging this. I've removed publisher entries that effectively mirror the work entry in keeping with Template:Cite_web#Publisher. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 17 is broken
Replaced. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title for source 28, "Reconciling Canada. ; Critical Perspectives on the Culture of Redress" is not punctuated properly
Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks for five random sentences in the article only yielded mirrors.

Earwig's review provides a few close paraphrases that are concerning and should be fixed:

  • On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools. vs. "Archbishop Michael Peers apologized to residential school survivors, on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, on August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario." in the article.
Not changed - see comments below or McLellan and Harper. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy," Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said at a news conference in Ottawa." vs. "At a news conference in Ottawa, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said: "We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy." in the article
Minor rephrasing done. Her name, position and the location of the event are what they are, which doesn't leave much to play around with. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Justice Minister Irwin Cotler also hailed the package, calling the decision to house young Canadians in church-run native residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history." vs. "Justice Minister Irwin Cotler called the decision to house young Canadians in church-run residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history".[104]"
Agreed. Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, made a Statement of Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada." vs. "Statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools issued by Stephen Harper on behalf of the Government of Canada in 2008" in the article. This one is less obvious but still too close for my comfort.
Not changed - similar to my comment about about Anne McLellan, there's only so many ways to phrase this given that Harper, Statement of Apology, the date and the Government of Canada are all proper/official names. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indigenous culture from one generation to the next" vs. "Our Elders, Traditional Teachers, ceremonies, political protocols and traditional philosophies are beginning to show themselves after more than a century and a half of being secretly passed down from one generation to the next"
Minor rephrase done. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 1998 apologized specifically for its role in Indian residential schools." vs. "In 1998, the church apologized specifically for its role in Indian Residential Schools,"
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I find the closeness of some of these a bit concerning, so it might be worth it to ask someone who has more expertise with copyright to give the article another look. Maybe we should reach out to Ealdgyth or Nikkimaria? ceranthor 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Ceranthor. Ealdgyth has already undertaken a review above so that might make Nikkimaria our best bet -- but perhaps we should give Dnllnd a chance to respond to and/or action the above first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the disclaimer that I'm a major contributor to this article... several of those are direct quotes, and to me the third is the only one that is truly problematic. But under the circumstances a different opinion might be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As long as you think they're fine, I trust your judgment. ceranthor 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: As soon as some of the closer paraphrases are fixed (ie. 3, the underlined portion of 5, and 6), I'll be happy with the sources. ceranthor 13:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor:Thanks for your time and comments. I've just completed the ref work and have reviewed the paraphrasing issues. I was in agreement with Nikkimaria that a few of the issues were less of a problem than others, but made minor changes in most cases that I hope satisfy your concern. Let me know if anything else stands out as a problem.--Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: I think my concerns are fixed. Support - I think this is ready to be promoted! ceranthor 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last question: I think we are ready to promote now. I wasn't quite clear from the above source review if spot-checks of the sources (rather than the article) had been done, so I did a few myself, and these seemed fine. I'd just like to clarify, looking over the whole review, whether Finetooth did a full image review, or if we still need someone to take a look at the images? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry. I didn't do a full image review, just commented on the alt text. I've stopped using the ambiguous Image subhead in my reviews, but this one pre-dates my realization that the subhead was confusing. I would be willing to attempt an image review, except that but I know nothing about Canadian copyright law. Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • File:Fur traders in canada 1777.jpg: Where was this first published? The tag's fine if it was US published, but anyplace else you should have another tag.
The image is cropped from a map that was originally produced in London, as per this LOC record. I'm not up to speed about the image tags you are referring to - are you able to clarify or point me to the relevant info/an example to follow in order to add the missing tag? --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Peter H. Bryce.jpg Needs a Canadian copyright tag.
See my comment above. (Thanks!)--Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "circa" and "ca." in the captions. I suggest consistency.
Flipped everything to ca. and made a series of general edits to tighten up extent of alt tags. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I've added some tags to the above images which should answer Wehwalt's point. Given that this has been open so long, I think we can close it now. If there are any other issues, they can be raised on the talk page. There might be one or two duplinks worth looking at, but they are not worth holding up the article over. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system/archive1&oldid=1086353967"