Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Flatting citation is not a different style

@Floydian: WP:CITEVAR says that citation style should not be changed, but

<ref name="IndigenousFoundations">{{cite web
 | title = The Residential School System
 | website = Indigenous Foundations
 | publisher = UBC First Nations and Indigenous Studies
 | url = http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/
 | access-date = April 14, 2017}}</ref>

is the same citation style as <ref name="IndigenousFoundations">{{cite web | title=The Residential School System | website=Indigenous Foundations | publisher=UBC First Nations and Indigenous Studies | url=http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/ | access-date=April 14, 2017}}</ref>. We can talk about the problems I fixed in the references such as listing the TRC as an author, which it's not, it's a publisher.

And for the record, it is bad behaviour to make personal attacks in edit summaries (talk about the content, not the contributor), and to use profanity when adding comments to editor's talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you change the citation style again, I will bring /you/ to ANI. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Floydian, please read what I wrote, the citation style did not change. Your incivility might result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Please fix your damage to the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And I see you got your hand slapped at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for making personal attacks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

May I flatten the references and correctly order the parameters? Would you mind explaining why they need to be expanded? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it creates walls of text that are unreadable in the edit window; this way makes it quick and easy to see the references from the forest of text. Why do you feel the need to change it? Or the "correct order" of parameters? Also I apologise for my rudeness the other night. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I to can get hot under the collar. I fully understand the frustration.

Unreadable? The content is still all there, but I suppose that flattened makes finding a particular parameter a bit more difficult.

The flattened version makes it easier to read the prose around the reference. Some editors will even colour the references differently from the prose, but the standard text editor (which we both apparently use) does not.

There have been recent additions of flattened references here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To offer an outside perspective on this debate, I will say this much: I think that the appearance of references should follow a single style within an article, so think the references should have been left as they were (Floydian convinced me of this a couple weeks back). However, the expanded format for references creates its own problems, as it makes paragraph breaks less obvious–especially for editors like me with reading difficulties. Also, the expanded format is unfamiliar to many editors and could lead to silly errors. Serious pros and cons to both but I lean towards keeping the references as they are in any given moment, meaning that the flattened references should stay but also should not have been introduced in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the extra blank line at the top of the vertical citations, which makes the paragraph breaks stand out. With regard to the errors and recent additions, I have no problem harmonising and expanding the refs; keeping this article fully sourced and maintained is my tiny attempt at reconciliation. visual editor seems to pick date formats on a whim instead of checking for a date-format template on the article, so I am constantly going through and switching Day Month Year to Month Day, Year. I generally do this daily, except when I go to my cottage every few weekends and have no attachment to technology. I'm not sure if I should continue doing that, or if it is going to be a contentious issue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You also expanded flattened references, without explanation and without justification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Consistency is a major justification. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to flatten them again. You have no supporters, only proponents for peace. Also, please learn how to indent correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any supporters for your personal preference either though... You're adding nothing to this article except pointless grief to my consistent maintenance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

First, not my preference, so please do not call it that. Second, how are the minified references being added if others do not support the format? I'm not adding anything to the article except to watch for vandalism and waiting for my vacation to end and to catch up on other edits. I do not need to add anything to an article to have an opinion that you should stop showing WP:OWNership over both the article and the expanded style. Third, you have no editors adding references in the expanded format. I suggest you get with the programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That is probably because of Visual Editor and other script-assisted reference additions, which also can't get date formats, quotation marks, or hyphenated parameters correct, nor do they follow any consistent order or use of author-vs-first/last parameters. I am not claiming any OWNership over this page, I am merely maintaining consistency. I cannot see how it is not your preference when you're insisting for it's use, and when the only reasoning you've offered for it has been "The flattened version makes it easier to read the prose around the reference." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Or, people actually prefer the minified references because they work correctly. I don't care how you cannot see how it's not your preference over a standard format preferred by most editors. Get with the programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What programme? Template:Cite_news#Usage has "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format", as does {{cite web}} (the two making up almost the entirety of the references), and every other CS1 template shows similar lists of parameters in both horizontal format. Regardless of the interpretation of why edits adding a handful of flattened references to an article that has nearly 100, this whole thing is subjective and purely cosmetic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and also assume that you have edited other articles on Wikipedia. Whats the format in them? So there is a standard. It's easier to display all parameters in a vertical format, but you'll see every single entry in the examples section is minified. Regardless of your ignoring of the common format, since you admit it's purely cosmet, and everyone knows the minified format is better, I'll flatten them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't do quite the same. Please stop trying to bully in your change to the referencing. I can tell you that all of the 95 good and featured article that I've written use vertical format, and I've never once had any complaint about it... nor here, until you raised one. I'm not going to continue responding to this pissing match, the current format should remain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to bully but point out, as you tried to do to me, that you have no support in the community. I can tell you that after years of editing I have never seen an editor not understand that vertical formatting of references is not distinct style of citing from minified formatting. By the way, you're the editor who raised the issue by reverting a tool that cleaned references up, and yes flattened them. You then and insulted me, slandered me, forum shopped and got shut down in every single location to tried to raise the issue. Get with the program. I will be fixing the parameters and minifying the references here at some point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

and I will be undoing it, again. Carry on. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in as a person that mostly uses visual editor to say that I've taken a glance at the text editor for this article, and I have to agree with Walter Görlitz here. Floydian, your behaviour in this whole thread reads really belligerently.James Hyett (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I have better things to do with my time than die on a hill over the friggen citation layout. The belligerence is quite evenly shared from both sides, but your mileage may vary. Be sure to switch half the dates back to ISO format when the purely cosmetic change that is so very much desired is implemented (since you've failed to advance any actual case besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Investigations that found no gravesites

Hi all, I've just added a section for concluded investigations that found no gravesites, such as the one that just concluded last week at the site of the former Shubenacadie Indian residential school. I've also updated the map to include a blue colour to indicate this, since the investigation is neither underway nor were any discoveries confirmed. Moved it to the bottom of the article, since the article is ultimately about discoveries, not non-discoveries, but I feel the conclusion of the investigation is nonetheless notable and relevant enough to readers of the article that it ought to be included. James Hyett (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification in summary on numbers

I have added some clarification in the summary to add additional context about the number. Previously, the section only referenced the 1,500 individuals identified in the initial survey of (I believe) 4 locations. However, since that time, additional discoveries and documents indicate that some 4,100 persons died while in the custody of the residential school system and they expect some 3,200 persons to be in unmarked graves. These numbers are referenced elsewhere in the article. In order to not provide a false impression to readers who only look over the summary, the two figures I mentioned here are now included in that paragraph. I believe this to be an appropriate change as the article is about the broader issue of residential school gravesites and not specific to the initial discovery / news article but represents a broader subject that remains subject to these continued discoveries. 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm unclear where the numbers and sourcing are located for the 4 new entries in the table, but I'm on mobile so it's hard to read. In either case, I think the figures and dates in the table need citations in a "ref" column - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Table cleanup

I've just cleaned up the 'summary of locations' table after discovering that several of the more recent entries were for schools in the US, with incorrect locations and dates attached to them. Further, there was no references column for anything. I'm going to paste the previous version of the table below, in the hopes that someone may be able to find good sourcing for the unsourced numbers (relevant rows bolded), and put them where they belong.

Summary of Residential School Grave Locations

Location	School	Graves (current estimates/discoveries)	Date
Battleford, SK	Battleford Industrial School	72	1975
Kamloops, BC	Kamloops Indian Residential School	200	May 28, 2021
Muskowekwan First Nation, SK	Muscowequan Indian Residential School	35	June 1, 2021
Regina, SK	Regina Indian Residential School	38	June 2, 2021
Brandon, MB	Brandon Indian Residential School	104	June 4, 2021
Fort Providence, NTW	Fort Providence Indian Residential School	161	June 5, 2021
Red Deer, AB	Red Deer Industrial School	65	June 8, 2021
Dunbow, AB	St. Joseph's Industrial School	39	June 23, 2021
Marieval, SK	Marieval Indian Residential School	751	June 25, 2021
Cranbrook/Ktunaxa First Nation, BC	Kootenay Island Residential School	182	June 30, 2021
Kuper Island/Penelakut Island, BC	Kuper Island Indian Industrial School	160	July 12, 2021
	Total (as of August 19, 2021)	1,807

James Hyett (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So, Regina was actually in 2018;ref1ref2

Fort Providence had a memorial established at some unknown time between the 90s and now for 161 known children that died, and is now being searched by GPR for unmarked graves;ref

Red Deer I'm finding notta;

Dunbow was a 1996 exposure due to flooding that revealed 34 students, which were reinterred nearby.ref

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh marvellous, thank you! These ought to be re-incorporated then, along with Muskowekwan, which is currently mentioned under "investigations underway" which isn't entirely accurate. Will get around to this tomorrow if I have some time. James Hyett (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Whistleblowers

The section about "Whistleblowers" is unencyclopedic and a promo for Kevin Annett, who is described in this reliable source as a "conspiracy theorist". Annett's Wikipedia article has been deleted a few times, and the sources for this section are biased, self-published, or do not confirm that Annett is a reliable source for information. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Your reliable source was already addressed in the archived talk about Annett here. It also has nothing to do with Canadian Indian residential school gravesites, which is topic of this article. 2. Also, you removed references to Annett which have nothing to do with the “reliable source” - namely, Annett’s nomination for Order of Canada; his 12-year-old Italian Wikipedia entry; and his award-winning documentary published by its producer (correct me if I’m wrong). 3. Your refusal to unarchive the existing discussion on Annett and preference to start from a blank sheet as if this topic has never been discussed may indicate a particular editorial slant which can also be seen in the selectivity of your editing on the passage on whistleblowers. 4. Why did you indicate that “this article is not on Annett”? The passage on whistleblowers is just a handful of sentences. Contrary to what you said, your editing seems to indicate that you may be specifically interested in Annett and not the topic of this article. 5. Why edit first and discuss second, not the reverse? Floydian I’d appreciate your input. 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC) 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

6. I’m especially curious why you chose to delete media references across 3 classes:

Indigenous media (do you consider it unreliable? If so, why?)

Mainstream international media (do you consider it unreliable? If so, why?)

Why do you consider a radio source established since the 1940s, part of a nationwide network and governed by an independent board unreliable?

As for Canadian mainstream media, references exist (many) but someone has to do the work, so I could understand temporary deletion of that reference until it gets properly sourced. 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC) 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and in fact I edit conflicted on the removal. I think there was too much detail on Annett, and even what's left is not properly sourced in places. The IP should stop commenting on the editor and perceived reasons for the undo and concentrate on the problems with the content. Meters (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for anybody to point out problems with the content. When they do I can make my conclusion whether their convoluted, illogical argumentation is accidental or purposeful.

Meters Precisely - some of what’s left is not properly sourced, what was (mostly) was.

Delinking Annett’s Wikipedia page in another language is counterproductive if the objective is to minimize his coverage on THIS page.

195.235.52.108 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)