Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system

Apologies issued by June 2016

The list of apologies could be expanded to include subheadings for specific churches. I found this list in another source, and I believe some of these apologies are not covered in this article:

• •United Church of Canada (1986)
• •Oblate Missionaries of Mary Immaculate (Roman Catholic) (1991)
• •Anglican Church (1993)
• •Presbyterian Church (1994)
• •Government of Canada (2008)
• •Roman Catholic Church (2009)

--Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Revising to obtain GA status

Hello, I'm hoping to gauge interest in working to edit, rework and expand this page in order to achieve Good Article status from it's current C-Class rating. Achieving B-Class status is likely the best first step, but given the overlap between GA criteria and B criteria, I think we can aim high out of the gate. Here is an overview of the GA criteria with notes about what needs to be done to address each point. Please feel free to add as needed - I'm not an expert on the topic (or obtaining GA status) and welcome the assistance. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well written

1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

This is where the article needs the most help from an average reader standpoint. The writing in the History section, for example, lacks a readable flow and would greatly benefit from sub-headings. It also contains redundant information that could be more clearly addressed in one spot instead of multiple locations on the page. The discussion of genocide is one example. There are multiple sources to support the discussion, but they need to be pulled together into a clearly written paragraph or sub-section. The Reconciliation attempts section is also problematic. The tense of the writing needs to be addressed, along with the framing and approach. I'm also dubious about the title and what is being implied --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with sub-headings in the History section. I would suggest "Legal [something]" or "Structure," "Daily Life" or "Conditions," and maybe one other. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment from outside reader: The lead paragraph that begins "The system had origins in pre-confederation times, but was primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until 1966, when the last federally-operated residential school was closed." needs to be revised to add that while the last federally-funded school closed in 1966, the last residential school closed in 1996. This CBC timeline (already used elsewhere and named 'Timeline') supports the info. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Appears to have been a typo. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we move the "portrayals in media/articles" tables to the end of the article so as not to obscure the two sections that are currently below it. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The sections are long enough that they may possibly merit another page..? I'm not sure about protocol on that front - maybe someone else can provide comment. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved the Portrayals section further down the page. There are examples of pages that cover the portrayal of certain groups or peoples in popular culture,123 so I think the section could be reasonably split out with a suitable lead and contextual info.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial
3. statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
4. it contains no original research; and
5. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

I have begun normalizing references, for example pulling multiple references to the TRC Executive Summary into one ref (now called TRCExec) and will continue to do so over the next few days. I will be added dead link or citation needed tags as necessary to flag where people can help out. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are new to using the named references (or references in general..!) the RefToolbar can make the experience much easier. This page has an instructional video. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

What is missing and how can we address these gaps? For example, I have already noted that there is no coverage about the conceptualization of the residential school system by Egerton Ryerson and Indian Affairs. There is also no mention of the post War of 1812 shift from colonial peoples viewing Indigenous peoples as allies in the fight against the US and France to a population to be assimilated and civilized. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the Ryerson Report, but will add more about the Bagot Report and broaden the Davin Report passage as well. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest broadening coverage to show ongoing discussions about commemoration and heritage. For example, designating heritage sites and creating museums. For example, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/survivors-push-to-turn-former-portage-la-prairie-residential-school-into-museum-1.3367082 --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What do we think of adding a summary of the TRC findings and Calls to Action? --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The External links section needs to be reviewed in order to align with the established guidelines. Off the top of my head:

• Links/projects/documents referenced elsewhere in the page should be removed.
• Where possible resources that could be used to support ideas in the main body of the page should be worked in there or added to the Further Reading section.

--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable

1. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

One thing to keep in mind when adding images is that while photos of children at residential schools may be in the public domain the associated personal and generational trauma is not. I think it's important to be judicious in how and when images are being used without taking away from the added value of having images worked into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)