Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system

message: Compulsory attendance did not end in 1948 (see Indian Act); Haig-Brown reference cited doesn't say it did, either.  Deleted. 2001:569:FD3B:1600:C578:48CE:B32A:95CF (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you believe to be the correct date, and based on what sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally thousands of sources for the date Moxy- 02:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then feel free to provide a source with the correction instead of merely asserting that it exists somewhere out in the ether when you’re making the claim to its existence and claiming that there is an error present here. The burden is on you to provide a source for the claim. Your Friend From 1914 (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The TRC obviously 2001:56A:78B5:3000:D36:52FF:6388:284B (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge. Could you be more specific? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8636:CAF2:B9D:31C7 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 is wrong date for end of compulsory attendance at residential schools 

message: A few days ago I changed the word used to identify the children who attended these schools from "survivor" to "student".  My edit was reverted by User:Nikkimaria.  There is no question many of the children who attended these schools were mistreated, but the more commonly-used definition of "survivor" is a "near-death experience", and these schools simply ware not Auschwitz or the Titanic. Journalists and politicians will use all sorts of words to dramatize their ideas, and every movie features an "acclaimed and renowned" actor performing "epic and iconic" roles...and Wikipedia editors are certainly welcome to use reliable sources which contain these sorts of words.  But a consensus of editors at MOS:WTW have agreed that the words and text placed into Wikipedia's articles--which are gleaned from those sources--should be free from subjective and value-laden words. The label "survivor" is inaccurate, and "student" would serve as a more neutral and appropriate term.  The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On several levels, I agree with both your version and argument. When you used the term "survivor" you provided attribution to who used the term.  And certainly the term should not be applied where it refers to all of the students.North8000 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In this particular context, the word is widely used in sources (including beyond the media), which permits its use per WTW. For in-text attribution there's certainly no shortage of sources to choose from. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Emotionally, this feels like the difference between sexual abuse victim and sexual abuse survivor. Certainly the thousands who made submissions to the TRC would consider themselves survivors; student might still be applied to those who felt no such need. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nikkimaria. In most cases Survivor is the more appropriate term that is in more common usage. As someone who has written about other kinds of concentration camps on Wikipedia I can say that many of them had rationales that the internees were being rehabilitated, relocated or helped in some way. It doesn't mean that we who are writing about it years later have to buy into their rationale and use their euphemisms. Sure, if there was some part of the article that was about enrollment in the institution the word Student may be appropriate. But not throughout the article as the main descriptor of people interned in these schools. --Dan Carkner (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor 

message: does this article have some standards for proof and fact that are different from the rest of wikipedia.
How much of this article is based off of ONE DOCUMENT CREATED BY POLITICIANS?
Some of the statements in that report are based on a single witness or even secondhand informa does this article have some standards for proof and fact that are different from the rest of wikipedia. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:D36:52FF:6388:284B (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There does seem to be a whiff of melodrama around some of the wording. However, it's very minimal and doesn't justify your mass deletions of sourced material. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That material is not sourced, it's alleged. Part of the TRCs mandate was to record the allegations and words of indigenous people affected without ANY JUDGEMENT regarding the truth or accuracy of those statements. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8636:CAF2:B9D:31C7 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

text: understand? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't here to form opinions, only to follow what the sources say. Floydian τ ¢ 00:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the sources say. 2605:8D80:5A0:500A:39F1:E088:8D07:91F6 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard of proof