Talk:St. Joseph's Indian School/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about St. Joseph's Indian School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Abuse
These are first hand accounts of the generational abuse at the school and also addresses why some parents or caregivers sent their children there. https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/boarding-schools-black-hole-native-american-history https://redghettorebel.com/2017/06/ While I understand that proponents of the Catholic church might want to guide the article away from the very real abuses that occurred there, it is part of the legacy of the school. The institution is in fact an indigenous boarding school. Up until fairly recently there was no Lakota language being taught there, nor was there cultural inclusion. It was rooted in assimilation. Aside from the reports of abuse from students, which the school has not denied (instead they have their attorney present legislation to prevent restitution)https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/abuse-uncovered-at-st-josephs-indian-school https://www.ksl.com/article/46721740/s-dakota-kills-bill-from-survivors-of-catholic-school-abuse the Anderson report shows that there was an abusive priest at the school in 1966. https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/ANDERSON%20REPORT.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I couldn't get the first link to work. I had already noted/listed the second link and I added the third one to the list above. I'll leave the 4th just here with your context info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The abuse is not in dispute. The issue was objectivity, alternative claims, grammar, redundancy, and general disregard for Wikipedia style and policies. natemup (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The abuse is just one part of this, albeit a large part. Another part is the fact that editors here are trying to alter even the stated mission of the school as a Mission school which does assimilate or "inculturate", which is just another word for assimilate, to fit a narrative. Wikipedia does not have to provide a neutral article which shows the school in a positive and equally negative light when the majority of the sources for the school say otherwise. I think we need to heavily scrutinize sources coming from the church because the majority are PR stunts or damage control to try and garner financial donations. That is not to say we should disregard them entirely or that we should not include those we agree or reliable. The article should reflect the sources. We are to ensure that non-reliably sourced controversial information does not make it into the article and that WE are to remain objective in our tone within the article but the information does not have to be objective nor does the overarching message of the article have to be balanced when we are presented with something otherwise in the public circle. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, I don't think it behooves us to approach the design of this article as if the school is instrinsically evil, and that all the positive sources are partaking in that evil. Elizium23 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, I'm sorry but did I say that the school is intrinsically evil? You used those words, not me. You have no way of knowing what I feel is evil or not or even if I believe evil is a concept at all. My take is that Wikipedia demands we follow the sources, reliable sources. Those sources are to guide the overall message of the article. Wikipedia can not create its own view of a subject outside the sources. If you read what I wrote, I said the sources from the Catholic church should be scrutinized. We would scrutinize the sources of a company when writing about itself. In fact, we would call that a primary source. It has nothing to do with evil or good. It is policy and guideline, if not consensus. The Catholic church owns and operates this school through the Priests of the Sacred Heart, which is a Catholic denomination founded in France. I said we should not, necessarily, disregard them as a source or exclude them as a source, only scrutinize their words in regards to a school which is part of their business model as much as it is their missionary outreach. I think it behooves us not to assume things when it comes to each other. I digress, when Wikipedia mandates we use a neutral POV it does not mean that the article itself has to invent a neutral POV in scope to maintain a balanced message. It simply means that we, as editors, have to write the article in such a way as we do not appear to pick a side, even if we have personally. Using certain phrases and wording can convey this or reduce this. We are still supposed to present what the reliable sources say. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Of course nobody literally said intrinsically evil, but some have hinted something along that line and hinted that as a result this article should rightly be a "hit piece". The difficult reality is that the is the only accessible source we have that specifically discusses the school during the first 50 years of it's existence is the noted Catholic magazine one. In desperation we could look the other way on the one other mentioned/cited one being apparently a student's thesis for a Masters degree, but it is not only not on-line it appears to be ungettable even for money. Then we have some narrow indirect coverage of the school in the 2007 thesis because 6 of the 10 women interviewed went to the school back then.North8000 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not unobtainable, you just have to go to South Dakota (lol). Elizium said intrinsically evil, literally, and implied that I presented that, in some form, in what I wrote. If it was meant that others have hinted at this, which I haven't seen, then why tag me in the statement at all? If the noted Catholic magazine article is the only accessible source, as you say, and is defined as a primary source then perhaps the school is not notable for inclusion in the first place. I personally feel its historical importance means it is notable but others may view it differently. --ARoseWolf 17:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that there are several different ways that this can meet wp:notability. Also, per my previous post, I don't consider a source to be primary just because it is Catholic. IMO unless we find another source for the first 50 years, include the objective fact type items from the Catholic magazine and leave out characterizations and value-laden words. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to using strictly biographical information from the Catholic magazine for the school. I do take issue with using the magazine to oppose other view points, not because I believe the church is intrinsically evil or even wrong but, because the article is primary. We don't get to arbitrarily determine what is primary and what is not. Consensus and guideline has defined that for us. The magazine is owned and produced by the Catholic church. The school is an organization run by the Catholic church or a sanctioned denomination of it that is operated out of Rome. The two are unequivocally linked. Can anyone objectively look at this and not see a conflict of interest in using a source to oppose controversial views about that source? For the record, I lend the same scrutiny to Indian Country Today as I do Catholic News Agency if not for the fact CNN and CBS8 corroborated the Indian Country Today investigation which, regardless of how you personally feel about them, would be considered reliable in this instance as per consensus. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're mostly in agreement except on calling the Catholic source "primary" both on the grounds and also on the wiki structural definition of primary. But I don't think that mattes. I agree that it must be treated skeptically. Also we agree on corroboration on the modern events. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to using strictly biographical information from the Catholic magazine for the school. I do take issue with using the magazine to oppose other view points, not because I believe the church is intrinsically evil or even wrong but, because the article is primary. We don't get to arbitrarily determine what is primary and what is not. Consensus and guideline has defined that for us. The magazine is owned and produced by the Catholic church. The school is an organization run by the Catholic church or a sanctioned denomination of it that is operated out of Rome. The two are unequivocally linked. Can anyone objectively look at this and not see a conflict of interest in using a source to oppose controversial views about that source? For the record, I lend the same scrutiny to Indian Country Today as I do Catholic News Agency if not for the fact CNN and CBS8 corroborated the Indian Country Today investigation which, regardless of how you personally feel about them, would be considered reliable in this instance as per consensus. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that there are several different ways that this can meet wp:notability. Also, per my previous post, I don't consider a source to be primary just because it is Catholic. IMO unless we find another source for the first 50 years, include the objective fact type items from the Catholic magazine and leave out characterizations and value-laden words. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not unobtainable, you just have to go to South Dakota (lol). Elizium said intrinsically evil, literally, and implied that I presented that, in some form, in what I wrote. If it was meant that others have hinted at this, which I haven't seen, then why tag me in the statement at all? If the noted Catholic magazine article is the only accessible source, as you say, and is defined as a primary source then perhaps the school is not notable for inclusion in the first place. I personally feel its historical importance means it is notable but others may view it differently. --ARoseWolf 17:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Of course nobody literally said intrinsically evil, but some have hinted something along that line and hinted that as a result this article should rightly be a "hit piece". The difficult reality is that the is the only accessible source we have that specifically discusses the school during the first 50 years of it's existence is the noted Catholic magazine one. In desperation we could look the other way on the one other mentioned/cited one being apparently a student's thesis for a Masters degree, but it is not only not on-line it appears to be ungettable even for money. Then we have some narrow indirect coverage of the school in the 2007 thesis because 6 of the 10 women interviewed went to the school back then.North8000 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, I'm sorry but did I say that the school is intrinsically evil? You used those words, not me. You have no way of knowing what I feel is evil or not or even if I believe evil is a concept at all. My take is that Wikipedia demands we follow the sources, reliable sources. Those sources are to guide the overall message of the article. Wikipedia can not create its own view of a subject outside the sources. If you read what I wrote, I said the sources from the Catholic church should be scrutinized. We would scrutinize the sources of a company when writing about itself. In fact, we would call that a primary source. It has nothing to do with evil or good. It is policy and guideline, if not consensus. The Catholic church owns and operates this school through the Priests of the Sacred Heart, which is a Catholic denomination founded in France. I said we should not, necessarily, disregard them as a source or exclude them as a source, only scrutinize their words in regards to a school which is part of their business model as much as it is their missionary outreach. I think it behooves us not to assume things when it comes to each other. I digress, when Wikipedia mandates we use a neutral POV it does not mean that the article itself has to invent a neutral POV in scope to maintain a balanced message. It simply means that we, as editors, have to write the article in such a way as we do not appear to pick a side, even if we have personally. Using certain phrases and wording can convey this or reduce this. We are still supposed to present what the reliable sources say. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Inculturation is not a synonym of assimilation. There are Wikipedia pages for both, and the dictionary will also be helpful for you on this point. Making blanket statements (and made-up statistics) about sources from the largest religion in the world will not be helpful.
- No one asked for equality; just neutrality and inclusion of all solid sources (and advanced scrutiny of ones no one seems to have access to). natemup (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Natemup, making veiled attacks against the intelligence of other editors is not helpful. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I would never do such a thing. natemup (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
"There are Wikipedia pages for both, and the dictionary will also be helpful for you on this point."
I'll just leave this right here in green. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I would never do such a thing. natemup (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Natemup, making veiled attacks against the intelligence of other editors is not helpful. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, I don't think it behooves us to approach the design of this article as if the school is instrinsically evil, and that all the positive sources are partaking in that evil. Elizium23 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The abuse is just one part of this, albeit a large part. Another part is the fact that editors here are trying to alter even the stated mission of the school as a Mission school which does assimilate or "inculturate", which is just another word for assimilate, to fit a narrative. Wikipedia does not have to provide a neutral article which shows the school in a positive and equally negative light when the majority of the sources for the school say otherwise. I think we need to heavily scrutinize sources coming from the church because the majority are PR stunts or damage control to try and garner financial donations. That is not to say we should disregard them entirely or that we should not include those we agree or reliable. The article should reflect the sources. We are to ensure that non-reliably sourced controversial information does not make it into the article and that WE are to remain objective in our tone within the article but the information does not have to be objective nor does the overarching message of the article have to be balanced when we are presented with something otherwise in the public circle. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
So the gorilla in the living room is that in the 2nd paragraph of the history section we have various very strong claims sourced only to a student paper that we can't see or get and, and which is in direct conflict with one source and partially in conflict with another. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Has anyone bothered to review the Sisters' diary excerpts on the actual school website? It talks about going and getting the children, in a bus, in 1929. It also mentions children attending who had no parents. How can a parent consent to sending a child to the school if they don't exist? It discusses typical Indian Industrial School activities, partial schooling and partial engagement in industry. It talks about the kids going hungry during the depression. The early excerpts are all about Catholicism, it is not until later dates (1985) that there begins to be any form of immersion schooling. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Good point to look there for more info.North8000 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Argus Leader, I believe, also has some articles on the school in contemporary times that highlights the benefits. I don't want to be painted as believing the school is inherently evil. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indigenous girl, thank you for those sources. I don't believe anyone here on this talk page is trying to say that the school is inherently evil or good. Abuse happened. That was done by individuals. Inculturation is a different topic. It's a stated mission of the school itself. IMO, it is no different than assimilation in its results even if the intent is for it to be different. We can definitely have a discussion about inculturation somewhere else. I do believe the school was and is misguided in its approach and is doing more harm to the Lakota traditions than they are a positive, but it very well may have been a positive for some, personally. I allow for that. --ARoseWolf 13:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Argus Leader, I believe, also has some articles on the school in contemporary times that highlights the benefits. I don't want to be painted as believing the school is inherently evil. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Good point to look there for more info.North8000 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There can be a lot of meanings for "assimilation", I think that a key one here is a deliberate, organized effort focused on extinguishing Indian culture and language. And in the case of this article, whether or not the school engaged in that as the second paragraph in the history section states. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Missing one word that I think is crucial in regards to this topic, traditional. Extinguishing traditional Native American/American Indian culture, heritage and language. I have never been to the school. I have never talked with any of the people from this school so I can not say, definitively, what they are or are not doing. I can only go based on what they say and what the article here states. I understand the definition of assimilation and I fully realize that I am equating them to be the same. I also don't think the results are very different from either a deliberate attempt to assimilate or one that is non-deliberate. Again, neither here nor there, back to improving the article we have. --ARoseWolf 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm kind of done beating the dead horse. The school is a mission school. It always has been. Language was not taught until recently, it's in the sources. Traditional knowledge was not introduced until later in the school's existence, it's in the sources. All of this is in the sources and I don't understand the disconnect, I'll be honest, it feels intentional though I understand that is my interpretation. I'll continue to provide sources when I find them but I am not going to nor am I able to edit the article, there is a conflict of interest that I would prefer not to get into. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Missing one word that I think is crucial in regards to this topic, traditional. Extinguishing traditional Native American/American Indian culture, heritage and language. I have never been to the school. I have never talked with any of the people from this school so I can not say, definitively, what they are or are not doing. I can only go based on what they say and what the article here states. I understand the definition of assimilation and I fully realize that I am equating them to be the same. I also don't think the results are very different from either a deliberate attempt to assimilate or one that is non-deliberate. Again, neither here nor there, back to improving the article we have. --ARoseWolf 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf participants in this discussion have made the accusation of editors trying to spin the school as evil. Whatever that means. Abuse happened and it was done by individuals who were put into positions of power by both the Church and the school. Abuses were allowed to continue at the school. The school has attempted to prohibit restitution to victims. This is more than simply the conduct of individuals. For folks to dismiss the intent of assimilation shows a serious lack of knowledge on the topic and that is on them, I don't really care. It's their choice to remain uninformed, intentionally or not. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indigenous girl, there is no doubt, in my mind, there is culpability with the Catholic Church, in regards to the way they have handled situations and even encouraged it by their refusal to act on behalf of the children that were either released into their care or were taken into their charge forcefully. I will go as far as saying, I believe they are directly responsible for thousands and tens of thousands of Native American, First Nation, and American Indian lives, directly, and that blood is on their hands. There is no doubt, in my mind, that these schools were built for one purpose, to assimilate Native American cultures, first, into the Euro/American and then into the Catholic empirical system by any means necessary. Them changing the name of what they are doing to make it sound like something else doesn't work with me. In regards to your coi, no one knows your experiences in life better than you. No one knows what you have went through better than you and I would never pretend to assume otherwise. Likewise, no one here knows what I have went through in life. The few things I do share don't even scratch the surface. We don't put out personal lives out here very much because it isn't necessary to edit. I asked another editor where I called this school intrinsically evil because that was the words used right after I was tagged. Here is how I will phrase my views. The school can not be intrinsically evil. It is a building. The actions of some there, and subsequently of church officials, are most definitely intrinsically evil if you are using the definition of what their religion calls evil. My personal beliefs have no bearing on that. Those editors can use the religious texts of the schools operators to determine it for themselves if they wish to look. Back to you though, I feel you have the right to be as involved or uninvolved as you wish or deem fit and no editor here should ever question that or expect you to explain anything in regards to your decision. Your contributions are greatly appreciated and your knowledge in Indigenous subjects is without question. --ARoseWolf 20:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Indigenous girl, unless you are personally involved with the school IMHO you don't have a coi. But as a newer editor entering this weird alternate Wikipedia universe it would be good to edit with some extra carefulness. The same if you are passionate about the topic. Probably the major thing in play here from both a policy and article quality standpoint is WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. I think that there were some legitimate concerns expressed about letting bias influence editing, but just putting them on the table was probably enough and so now it's time to move on and have some fun building and editing the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- North, I've been an editor since 2012. I do have a coi which I am making known, because that is the right thing to do. What that coi happens to be is no ones business. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. I was guessing by edit count. It took me about 10,000 edits to even half figure this Wikipedia alternate universe out. :-) Regarding coi I was just concerned you weren't going by an overly tough definition. No response is requested or expected. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- North, the idea that it would be "fun" to work on this article is grossly insensitive, and makes me again question whether you are reading the sources, or what those of us sadly familiar with these schools have said. None of this is "fun". It's a horrific chapter in very recent US and Canadian history, that still scars living people. What scab there is over it has been violently ripped off recently by the events at Kamloops. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- CorbieVreccan, I think we can stipulate that there is tragedy involved without scolding North8000 for encouraging us to enjoy ourselves as we edit. I don't think editing here, even on tragic or horrific subjects, should be a drudgery or upsetting to those who do it. If you're triggered, you're doing it wrong and should probably step back some. I think that some amount of enjoyment can be derived from the simple tasks of research, design, and implementation involved in building any article whatsoever. If you want to put a stop to everyone having fun here then I would question your ability to work on a functional team. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Corbie, My edit was to encourage moving past the discussed tensions on the talk page to enjoy working with each other and the article development process. And I find your creative construction and massive over-gerneralization needed to make that sound like something bad about me to be badly out of line. Further, I've written all over this page about my reading of the actual sources on this topic and after all of that you say "question whether you are reading the sources" which is quite an insult and accusation for a Wikipedia editor. Please stop that. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Many students were too fearful to run away as the punishment was too threatening or severe to risk it. Josephine, who attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School in Chamberlain, South Dakota, recalls runaway students having their heads shaved and being forced to wear overalls. Roger White Owl, who also attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School, recalls isolation and a shaved head being the punishment for running away." https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2100&context=etd link also includes an additional source, Stringing Rosaries by Denise Lajimodiere. The following link includes more testimony from Roger White Owl https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/centers/americanindianhealth/wind/PP_Nat__Amer__Board__Schools_Ed_for_Cultural_Genocide_1.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Indigenous girl: Thank you for those sources. It was very disturbing and, well, lots of sorrow surrounding the abuse and its affects that are felt even today. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- As this is an article about the entire history of St. Joseph's from the time it was purchased and renamed to now we shouldn't give undue weight to the current status when compared to the overall length of existence when we can find sources that offer insight throughout the decades. The fact is that many shameful and horrific things happened at this school (one of countless hundreds) and many people were traumatically affected by their experiences. Equally, most media stories surrounding the school, currently, point to its controversial fundraising tactics and possibly its questionable teaching methods and subjects but largely state that the children are well taken care of and the facilities are in a good state. They are spending funds on programs and the infrastructure of the school. Of note, it has been estimated that 9% of the current staff are Native American. Some would like to see that percentage increased and I can't argue against that at all but we can not necessarily say that no one working for the school is Native American either. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Indigenous girl: Thank you for those sources. It was very disturbing and, well, lots of sorrow surrounding the abuse and its affects that are felt even today. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Many students were too fearful to run away as the punishment was too threatening or severe to risk it. Josephine, who attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School in Chamberlain, South Dakota, recalls runaway students having their heads shaved and being forced to wear overalls. Roger White Owl, who also attended St. Joseph’s Indian Boarding School, recalls isolation and a shaved head being the punishment for running away." https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2100&context=etd link also includes an additional source, Stringing Rosaries by Denise Lajimodiere. The following link includes more testimony from Roger White Owl https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/centers/americanindianhealth/wind/PP_Nat__Amer__Board__Schools_Ed_for_Cultural_Genocide_1.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- North, the idea that it would be "fun" to work on this article is grossly insensitive, and makes me again question whether you are reading the sources, or what those of us sadly familiar with these schools have said. None of this is "fun". It's a horrific chapter in very recent US and Canadian history, that still scars living people. What scab there is over it has been violently ripped off recently by the events at Kamloops. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. I was guessing by edit count. It took me about 10,000 edits to even half figure this Wikipedia alternate universe out. :-) Regarding coi I was just concerned you weren't going by an overly tough definition. No response is requested or expected. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Content added from Cerney book
Have added content and cites from Cerney's brief account in a 2005 book, but at least it fills in some of the details and figures in early decades of the school. Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Type of school in it's early years
@Parkwells: Thanks for your work here. A current sentence which you reworked says that the school was engaged in forced assimilation during it's early years. This has been a key question here. Also in view that the link from "forced assimilation" links to an article which in my quick read said that it was a practice which ended /by at 1920, 7-8 yeas before the school was started. Another challenge is that none of us has been able to see or (even for $) that paper which is used as the reference for that. I was wondering, were you able to see the paper? And what your thoughts are on this? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I never saw the Landrum paper but was going by info about other boarding schools and (carelessly, according to your date), putting historic information together in the wrong place. I think we should just drop the Landrum source as no one can read it. Use content and cites only from sources that are verifiable. I've added a short book from Arcadia Publishing on the school in 'Further reading'. I realize that most people's interest seems to be from a current perspective: lawsuit related to alleged abuse in 1970s and 2014 fundraising issues, but the Arcadia book has some basic info about the school that should be included in an ordinary encyclopedia article: a fire in 1931, rebuilding after the fire, new chapel built in 1950s, etc. We should identify the nuns who served there DONE- what order were they? Can we even find out? Also, there are strong opinions about the assimilationist pressures and the damage done. But in my reading of a variety of accounts by students at these schools some time ago, some found them to be positive experiences. Of course, those are general statements, and I agree we should try to find specifics that relate to this school. Thanks for adding sources.Parkwells (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added a 1995 book by Riney, which is mostly about the history of the Rapid City Indian School, as it had some information about the Chamberlain School. Have not had a chance to try to study it further but maybe it can give some insight to these blanks we have.Parkwells (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. When you put "Chamberlain School" in caps I assume that that sentence referred to the school which closed in 1907 but maybe the book also has info on the St. Joseph school which operates at that site since about 1927. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that was for the first government school, the Chamberlain Indian School. His book also lists other Indian schools in South Dakota; his main study of the Rapid City School only goes to 1933. Have not found more detailed information yet about St. Joseph's in that period.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. When you put "Chamberlain School" in caps I assume that that sentence referred to the school which closed in 1907 but maybe the book also has info on the St. Joseph school which operates at that site since about 1927. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added a 1995 book by Riney, which is mostly about the history of the Rapid City Indian School, as it had some information about the Chamberlain School. Have not had a chance to try to study it further but maybe it can give some insight to these blanks we have.Parkwells (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Question about deletion of information about school staffing in 2014
Given all the discussion here about the school, and the readiness to include the CNN cite that said the Priests of the Sacred Heart are non-Native American, I was surprised that sourced content I added on Native American proportion of school staffing in 2013-2014 was deleted. Why? It seems to be to be a legitimate part of the discussion.Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is absolutely a legitimate part of the discussion and is properly sourced to a media outlet that is considered by Wikipedia to be reliable and independent and it should be a part of the article. This is a school that "services" a Native American community and the number of Native American staff members was discussed by a reputable news agency. --ARoseWolf 18:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added it back to the article.Parkwells (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Editing today on article
Hi, I have tried to reorganize the article so that it is more clear about timeline and basic history. I also tried to remove duplicate cites (there are still two for the same article/CNN coverage by Anderson Cooper, so will have to fix that.) If we could leave the article like this for a while, maybe then we could address some of the above issues with sources and competing accounts.
It is hard to remember my original editing, but I was trying to relate the history of the school to general federal policies at the boarding schools at the time. We need also to recognize that these changed during the mid to late 20th century, and that federally recognized tribes gained authority over education of their children. Some have established tribal schools (including K-12) and some also tribal colleges on their reservations. I have not yet sourced these policies, but know it's there, more than on the school itself. We need to be wary of going beyond the limited sources we have. Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23 disagreed with my use of Fr. before Hogebach and said it violated Wiki:HON. I just reread that guidance, which seemed to refer to higher level titles in churches and hierarchies. It seems there are numerous articles throughout Wikipedia that use Rev. for Protestant clergy and Fr. for Catholic priests, but you all can decide.Parkwells (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells, please re-read MOS:HON especially the part that explicitly says: styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthood, such as Her Majesty, His Holiness, The Reverend, and The Venerable. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).
- "The Reverend" is another way to say "Father". Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:HON also says "Father as an informal title is used for Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Old Catholic priests" - that is how I intended it in this article.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells, no, it doesn't. Nowhere does it say that. Yet, "Father" is a title indeed, formal or not, it is honorific. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion - followed the link to the article The Reverend, where that statement about Father as informal title for Catholic clergy appears. It also says that on letterhead, a Catholic priest would use the formal title "The Reverend so-and-so", but I was using it in an informal way.Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I think this is a distinction without a difference, it's all honorifics all the way down. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion - followed the link to the article The Reverend, where that statement about Father as informal title for Catholic clergy appears. It also says that on letterhead, a Catholic priest would use the formal title "The Reverend so-and-so", but I was using it in an informal way.Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells, no, it doesn't. Nowhere does it say that. Yet, "Father" is a title indeed, formal or not, it is honorific. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:HON also says "Father as an informal title is used for Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Old Catholic priests" - that is how I intended it in this article.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Landrum passes the criteria for inclusion, per WP:INDICATEAVAIL RoseWolf posted it above, and it was ignored: Landrum has a a WorldCat id: 37103787, which can also be formatted this way per the WP oclc templates. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Veracity of student letters
We contest the assertion in Wikivoice that the letters from students were "found to be fictional"{{by whom?}} -- we believe that the school allowed as how the names were fictional (of course, who would expose minor children to public knowledge of their inner lives?) and there may have been something about composites made from multiple independent stories, but I don't believe anyone has "proven" that the stories have been made up from whole cloth. So we need to cover the nuance of this situation, rather than just call the school administration a bunch of liars. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- From the video: Senior investigative correspondent Drew Griffin of CNN: school agrees that the names are fictitious but the stories are real. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indian Country Today link is a 404, not found on Internet Archive. Does anyone have a copy or is this source also lost to posterity? Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is accurate to describe those letters as misleading at best, and there are Native American leaders who criticize that approach of picking from their problems. I tried a couple of different ways to trace the Indian Country Today cites, but could not find them either. One article was dated about 10 days after the Fitzgerald/Griffin 11/17/2014 CNN article, had Fitzgerald as author and the same title, so appeared to be a reprint.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells, why? The WP:RS established nothing more than fictional names in play. Perhaps they are heart-wrenching stories, but can we deny that the childrens' circumstances were not, in actuality, heart-wrenching at times? It seems CNN simply resents the fact that they are making money from the endeavor; this is not unusual in fundraising for the poor and under-served populations, I can show you portfolios of magazines and letters filled with fundraising appeals accompanied by heart-wrenching stories. Nothing about that means they are untrue. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, Lets not mince words here. The school lied. No amount of whitewashing are claiming bias on the part of CNN or Indian Country Today is going to cover this up. They claimed that the stories, at best, were examples of the conditions that children arrived in but provided no exact situations in which the stories were about or provided by specific students, as described in the letters. You are correct in saying that this is a typical fundraising technique of a lot of charity organizations, and not limited to those affiliated with the Catholic Church. Lying is also not a crime, at least as far as I know. The names are fictitious and, if you want to rely on the word of school officials, who are dependent upon raising funds to provide, not just for the children but also, for their own personal income, that's really on you. At no time did any school official say that the story was about a real student and that they only changed names to protect the students identity. They also did not say anything about play acting. They projected the stories as truthful about specific students and presented them as being in their voices yet provided no instances where students actually provided these stories to be used. Native American leaders said the stories are a "fabrication, a compiling of events that may or may not have happened to paint a broad picture that", as they pointed out, "does not exist." Kory Christianson, the director of development with St. Joseph's, initially said, “The name ‘Josh Little Bear’ is fictitious,” but then added, “but unfortunately, his story is not.” However, the official did not elaborate with specifics about an individual student but concluded it was a "true story of the very real and challenging situations that far too many children face not only in the Native American community, but in families found in every sphere of society.” So, are the stories from Native American children or children found throughout the world from "every sphere of society"? The stories themselves were much more specific and gave the impression the story was about the child pictured and used specific pronouns like "she", "her", "he" and "him" when describing their story in detail. At no point on any of the fundraising documents did they disclose that the stories were generalized and not about specific students. As pointed out in the source, they even called them "student letters" which confers the impression they were about specific students and in their direct voice which is simply not true. --ARoseWolf 13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I will correct one thing when it comes to what I said, upon updating the Christina Rose source, it does appear Michael Tyrell, current president of St. Joseph’s School as of the articles origination, states, "Those are real stories, but it would be hard to pin them on any one child." He followed that up with, "We put right on there the child’s name has been changed to protect the children." Take it for what it is. If you can't pin them on one child then they aren't from one child so you aren't actually changing the name of a child to protect them. Why not just say, "these are some stories from our children" and leave the names blank? Assigning specific names and pictures to a story lends credence and attempts to add a layer of truthfulness or reliability to what is said but that is based on a falsehood. In my mind this actually hurts the integrity of the school, even if donors don't know it. If integrity and truthfulness are so important to your faith then make them important. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, Lets not mince words here. The school lied. No amount of whitewashing are claiming bias on the part of CNN or Indian Country Today is going to cover this up. They claimed that the stories, at best, were examples of the conditions that children arrived in but provided no exact situations in which the stories were about or provided by specific students, as described in the letters. You are correct in saying that this is a typical fundraising technique of a lot of charity organizations, and not limited to those affiliated with the Catholic Church. Lying is also not a crime, at least as far as I know. The names are fictitious and, if you want to rely on the word of school officials, who are dependent upon raising funds to provide, not just for the children but also, for their own personal income, that's really on you. At no time did any school official say that the story was about a real student and that they only changed names to protect the students identity. They also did not say anything about play acting. They projected the stories as truthful about specific students and presented them as being in their voices yet provided no instances where students actually provided these stories to be used. Native American leaders said the stories are a "fabrication, a compiling of events that may or may not have happened to paint a broad picture that", as they pointed out, "does not exist." Kory Christianson, the director of development with St. Joseph's, initially said, “The name ‘Josh Little Bear’ is fictitious,” but then added, “but unfortunately, his story is not.” However, the official did not elaborate with specifics about an individual student but concluded it was a "true story of the very real and challenging situations that far too many children face not only in the Native American community, but in families found in every sphere of society.” So, are the stories from Native American children or children found throughout the world from "every sphere of society"? The stories themselves were much more specific and gave the impression the story was about the child pictured and used specific pronouns like "she", "her", "he" and "him" when describing their story in detail. At no point on any of the fundraising documents did they disclose that the stories were generalized and not about specific students. As pointed out in the source, they even called them "student letters" which confers the impression they were about specific students and in their direct voice which is simply not true. --ARoseWolf 13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells, why? The WP:RS established nothing more than fictional names in play. Perhaps they are heart-wrenching stories, but can we deny that the childrens' circumstances were not, in actuality, heart-wrenching at times? It seems CNN simply resents the fact that they are making money from the endeavor; this is not unusual in fundraising for the poor and under-served populations, I can show you portfolios of magazines and letters filled with fundraising appeals accompanied by heart-wrenching stories. Nothing about that means they are untrue. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is accurate to describe those letters as misleading at best, and there are Native American leaders who criticize that approach of picking from their problems. I tried a couple of different ways to trace the Indian Country Today cites, but could not find them either. One article was dated about 10 days after the Fitzgerald/Griffin 11/17/2014 CNN article, had Fitzgerald as author and the same title, so appeared to be a reprint.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indian Country Today link is a 404, not found on Internet Archive. Does anyone have a copy or is this source also lost to posterity? Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, ARoseWolf. For St. Joseph's rep to say they are referring to all the problems of Native American and poor children in the world, and representing them through named children and what appear to be individual accounts, is certainly misleading at best. Yes, maybe other organizations conduct fundraising in similar ways. But we are talking about this article. If we want to get off this topic, let's just note the facts as they appear in the CNN sources: the school rep acknowledged it changes names on these letters and is representing non-specific cases of problems across the reservations, throughout the US and even common to poor children across the world, and cite the CNN article. Readers can figure it out or not care. Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Parkwells. On an unrelated note, I just made 2 unrelated tweaks in that area.North8000 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, ARoseWolf. For St. Joseph's rep to say they are referring to all the problems of Native American and poor children in the world, and representing them through named children and what appear to be individual accounts, is certainly misleading at best. Yes, maybe other organizations conduct fundraising in similar ways. But we are talking about this article. If we want to get off this topic, let's just note the facts as they appear in the CNN sources: the school rep acknowledged it changes names on these letters and is representing non-specific cases of problems across the reservations, throughout the US and even common to poor children across the world, and cite the CNN article. Readers can figure it out or not care. Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The archived Indian Country Today interview (28 NOv 2014) by Christine Rose with the president of the school said that the Better Business Bureau had described the student letters as "misleading appeals". Given all the discussion about that issue here, and the fact that it is a duly sourced cite, I want that statement back in the article and will replace it. It is also Rose's ICT article that refers to the BBB criticizing the school before the time of this interview, for an earlier appeal in which St. Joseph's said it could not afford to heat the school. Neither of the BBB references were in the CNN article and they need to be correctly cited to this ICT article. Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't follow exactly but you have been doing excellent work and making excellent decisions here and am confident that that will continue.North8000 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks!Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't follow exactly but you have been doing excellent work and making excellent decisions here and am confident that that will continue.North8000 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- The archived Indian Country Today interview (28 NOv 2014) by Christine Rose with the president of the school said that the Better Business Bureau had described the student letters as "misleading appeals". Given all the discussion about that issue here, and the fact that it is a duly sourced cite, I want that statement back in the article and will replace it. It is also Rose's ICT article that refers to the BBB criticizing the school before the time of this interview, for an earlier appeal in which St. Joseph's said it could not afford to heat the school. Neither of the BBB references were in the CNN article and they need to be correctly cited to this ICT article. Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
All of this ignores the study posted above by the alumns who reported being forced to write letters when they were students. All the new language emphasising "choice" on the part of parents leaves out the context - reported in Catholic sources - that parents were completely misled about what was happening to their kids at this place. I have had too much going on off-wiki to deal with this right now, but this article is being whitewashed. The School's own website states that its goal was assimilation, it's not just Landrum. WP policy on hard copy sources is that if it's at a university somewhere, it's useable. This push to eliminate or minimize all criticism here, including testimony of former students, is one ugly POV push. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It is patently dishonest to claim that these fake letters are somehow written by real students, but only the names changed. They were put out by a p.r. firm. The p.r. firm is not credible in their claims and to say, or imply, in WP's voice that these letters are real is not sourceable, credible or ethical. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- CorbiaVreccan, regarding your accusations of other editors, not only are you again violating WP:AGF, you again are going far beyond that to falsely inventing bad faith. Please stop that. Regarding the content part of I don't see any statements in the article which match what you are describing. Could you point out the specific text that you are talking about? Or if you have sourced material which complies with WP:Verifiability just put it in. I think that the gist of it was that the school admitted that the names were fictitious and claimed that the stories were real, with no way available to disprove or prove the latter claim, and that that is basically what we have in sourcing. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- They said the stories were real but followed it up by saying it couldn't be pinned on one child but was indicative of the condition some of the children are in, not just in South Dakota but in the world at large. They never said the stories were verbatim true. There are too many variables and school officials are doing nothing to dispel these inconsistencies other than to blame everyone else which speaks a lot about their issues with telling the truth. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Either way, CorbieVreccan has just put in an even stronger negative statement which is that the stories were outright false. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Everyone here has been reading the same sources as they have been presented. No one has presented new sources for days now so everyone has had time to become acquainted with them. I am not saying that we haven't made some progress in areas but we are definitely regressing in others. An Eye-witness account of conditions that students faced at St. Joseph's at any point in time should never be outweighed by sources that are heavily dependent upon the success of the school, financially, and one that stands to take major hits in the public view by negative publicity concerning the school. The CNA article IS an example of PR fluff to try and combat mounting criticisms in the public eye. Just like their dishonest fundraising campaigns are used by others to accomplish the same goals for their charities, the PR article is employed by many companies to advertise and push the narrative they wish to present. Contrary to what many may think, I don't want the school to shut down but I do want them to start accepting accountability, be forthcoming about the realities of their past, make changes to ensure their current students are allowed to be immersed in Lakota traditions for more than 80 minutes a week should they wish to be, stop forcing Christianity and Mass attendance on the students and stop with these fundraisers. If they were even more serious they would not only provide assistance to the students in way of transition counselors but the same for parents and other family members within the Lakota tribe. Hiring more Lakota would also go a long way to repairing some of the community trust with Lakota tribes, --ARoseWolf 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello ARoseWolf. I (and in one case Wikipedia policies) have so many issues, disagreements with and questions about the first 40% of your post that I'm not even going to attempt a response. For the remainder of the 60%, a heartfelt thank you very much for that. It not only makes my day personally to learn that type of information and perspective from someone who seems to have good knowledge of the situation but, even though our Wikipedia responsibilities do not allow us to use an article to pursue such a quest, it does provide a perspective to help us look for and use sources that specifically support the article text involved, with is the limit of what we are allowed to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- They said the stories were real but followed it up by saying it couldn't be pinned on one child but was indicative of the condition some of the children are in, not just in South Dakota but in the world at large. They never said the stories were verbatim true. There are too many variables and school officials are doing nothing to dispel these inconsistencies other than to blame everyone else which speaks a lot about their issues with telling the truth. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- CorbiaVreccan, regarding your accusations of other editors, not only are you again violating WP:AGF, you again are going far beyond that to falsely inventing bad faith. Please stop that. Regarding the content part of I don't see any statements in the article which match what you are describing. Could you point out the specific text that you are talking about? Or if you have sourced material which complies with WP:Verifiability just put it in. I think that the gist of it was that the school admitted that the names were fictitious and claimed that the stories were real, with no way available to disprove or prove the latter claim, and that that is basically what we have in sourcing. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Noticing disruptive behaviour and calling out policy violations, is not "violating AGF", North. And hey, what happened to your statements here that you weren't going to edit this article? You're sure invested in it, and investing massive time for someone who claims no COI. Anything to declare? AGF is not a policy. To gullibly AGF in the face of vast evidence that someone is attempting to game the system, trying to dodge policy, wikilawyer and gaslight other editors is abusing the good faith of the Wikipedia community, North. North, you have repeatedly misrepresented other editors' work here. Stop it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- What you just wrote and accused me of is all & BS bears no relationship to what is happening here. Again, please stop. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Saying, "It's all B.S." is not answering the question. Do you now or have you in the past, any connection to St. Joseph's School, the org that owns them, or any of their affiliates? Your declaration that you would only participate on talk and not edit fit a COI editor's declaration, yet left the full answer out. So, what is the answer? At this point, your refusal to answer is an answer. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your statements make no sense and indicate that you've haven't even read enough to know what's happening here. Your behavior is even worse in that you are basing it on basic errors on not even bother to figure out who said or did what here. I never even made those statements that you are claiming. Despite your question being improper, I'll answer with a copy of my September 2020 answer (above on this page) to the first time you improperly insinuated it: "And, since I assume your mis-fire was based on a sincere concern, no, I am not here due to some connection with the school. This is merely one of the 5,030 different Wikipedia pages that I have edited. I merely want the article to be done properly and in accordance with Wikipedia standards......" I don't want to have to report you but if you continue this terrible behavior I will be forced to. And you've left a smoking gun of clear-cut very improper behavior towards me on this page and that there was none of such from me. Just cool it and let's just pleasantly work on building the article together. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Saying, "It's all B.S." is not answering the question. Do you now or have you in the past, any connection to St. Joseph's School, the org that owns them, or any of their affiliates? Your declaration that you would only participate on talk and not edit fit a COI editor's declaration, yet left the full answer out. So, what is the answer? At this point, your refusal to answer is an answer. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- What you just wrote and accused me of is all & BS bears no relationship to what is happening here. Again, please stop. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)