Talk:Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Leahyc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RemusLupin89, Cloudy Elizabeth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Will the Commission 'investigate' crimes
Does anyone know whether the commission will be in fact investigating on any crimes at the Indian residental schools? I realize that the Commission will be looking at reports of abuse, but I want clarification as to whether the information gathered can or will open the door to criminal charges. A previous author used the word "investigate crimes", which suggests that criminal charges may be laid. However, if criminal charges are never going to be laid due to information gathered during truth commissions, this is something that needs to be stated openly and not put into a Wikipedia page..DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to past ineffectiveness of judicial systems to bring about justice in cases of systematic abuses by governments throughout history, the purpose of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to, in lieu of justice, to at least unveil truth and seek apologies. It is considered that without amnesty, the truth would never even come out. Psychologically and philosophically, it is also considered that in the healing process "truth" is just as useful as "justice". This aspect is however questioned by scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.245.231 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of info about Taber Gregory
There are the following problems with the paragraph about Taber Gregory:

- It is not correctly sourced. The source information needs to be more than saying there is something on APTN and the National Archive of Canada. We need to be able to look up the reference.

- Its not clear if Taber Gregory's experience meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Even if we wanted to include this, the portion of the citation that is relevant to this article is how this case affects the scope of the commission, and not about Gregory's citizenship status.

Since I am going to be making the same edits to the Sixties Scoop page, I am suggesting that if people disagrees with these edits, that they provide feedback on the Talk:Sixties Scoop page in order to avoid duplicate arguements.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:WV NYC stated "The edits I added regarding changes to the mandate of the trc-canada, that is just common knowledge amongst everyone who is familiar with the trc, it's such common knowledge that its not even something that has been separately reported on. on my private talk page. I am moving the discussion here so that others can comment.


 * First, if the mandate of the TRC-Canada has changed, then it should be listed in the mandate posted on the website or the final report. Here is a | link to the posted mandate. Please explain where the TRC- Canada has indicated their mandate has shifted, including a specific reference. The comment that "everyone knows" is not a valid reference. Also, the information on Taber Gregory is not a notable case, in relation to the TRC-Canada. This Wikipedia page is about the TRC-Canada. This page is not going to be a listing of every person who spoke at TRC Commission. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rather this page should be about what the history of TRC, how it was created, notable events related to the overall TRC, and it overall impact after it was completed.The issue of notability and proper references has been discussed with you on Talk:Sixties Scoop and Talk:Pearl S. Buck. I suggest you re-read the comments and re-review Wikipedia's policies before posting again. This continued activity may result in you being blocked from posting for a period of time.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator is suggesting that the information provided - that Taber Gregory is the 1st and currently the only victim of Canada Scoops placed in USA to be given a victim file number/recognized by TRC-Canada that this information is not relevant to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission - Canada Wikipedia Page. It is, of course, relevant because as was explained in original post, it/recognition of Taber Gregory - a victim of Canada Scoops who was not kept within Canada but who was instead placed in USA - by this TRC-Canada IS an example of the result of the original mandate of this truth and reconciliation commission. That the post originally ALSO included mention that based on that TRC-Canada recognition Taber Gregory also received his US Citizenship only further shows the weight of importance that TRC-Canada recognition of victims endows victims with. You think that the weight of TRC-Canada decisions including recognition of who is and who isn't a victim, isn't important to a description of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Canada)? It's a primary purpose of a truth and reconciliation commission; isn't that something that administrators editing this page should be aware of? 4.35.92.19 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have moved the comments from WV NYC / 4.35.92.19 to this section, because this is just a continuation of the previous conversation


 * First off, you still haven't provided any reliable sources for anything you have posted on this page or on Sixties Scoop Wikipedia page. The issue of what a reliable source is has been discussed with you on this page and on other talk pages. Until you even start to provide a reliable source, even on a talk page, your edits shouldn't stand.


 * Second, you still haven't explained how recognition of Taber Gregory meets notability requirements. Beyond the fact that there are no good references, it sounds like giving Taber (assumely you) this file number and recognition was a one-off thing, and not indicative of the overall goal of the TRC. In fact, it may have been a mistake and against the mandate, but people who were working the commission were compassionate people who don't want to turn people away. Wikipedia pages are not intended to document every single activity that occurs regarding an event. It's suppose to summarize the main points, trends and significant activities. It is very common to exclude minor activities in Wikipedia articles that occur during a large complex event, like the TRC. What would make this minor event significant would be is if the US Citizenship and Immigration Services came out with an announcement regarding a policy change that was related to TRC, but that reference isn't something you provided. Whether your US citizenship was affected by your testimony in TRC is not relevant to this Wikipedia article.


 * Finally, the issue of whether to include so called notable-cases of TRC testimonies need to be a separate discussion. According to the TRC website, if someone requests that their testimony be destroyed, they will remove it from the archives, and not be accessible. References need to be from sources that there is some expectation that they are going to be maintained over time. Think of it this way, let's say someone were to look at this page in five years. If some of the references are not accessible, either on the web or not, then the quality of the Wikipedia page diminishes. The fact is the main TRC website, the final report, and a variety of other TRC documents will be maintained for a long time. However, individual testimonies may not be maintained or accessible over time. If we want to discuss whether to have any notable-cases (if they even exist) on this page, then that is a separate discussion. However, it seems you don't want to discuss other cases, just your own.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have merged the comments from WV NYC / 4.35.92.19 to this section, because this is just a continuation of the conversation. No changes have been made to the content

Until victims of Canada Scoops placed in USA and west Europe are mentioned on this page, the page is incomplete.

In 2012, The commission recognized 1 victim of Canada Scoops who was not placed in residential school system within Canada but who had instead been placed in USA adoption and foster care system. It's since been reported that a minimum of 1,800-2,000 (and that is a very conservative minimum) victims of Canada Scoops were also placed in USA and west Europe and not kept within Canada). References include Court case, Victim File in National Archives of Canada and documentary news programme and then newspaper articles that feed off of those primary sources). 4.35.92.19 (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your login account "WV NYC" has been banned from editing for a week due to your behavior on Wikipedia. The use of this IPO address is a violation of sock puppetry. This topic as been discussed to death. The fact that you indicate that only one person of the Canada Scoops spoke at this commission only the fact that this was a one-off thing and not reflective of a larger pattern. In fact, I have suggested that it may have been a mistake made by a well-meaning person. This is not notable.DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have merged the comments from WV NYC / 4.35.92.19 / 208.105.47.108 to this section, because this is just a continuation of the conversation. No changes have been made to the content

I had 5 people read the self anointed 'Diva In Trainings' comments made today, 2 are professionals within the publishing industry and none understood what she is referring to. The Diva In Training is especially confusing when she says something about only 1 person at the TRC/on the commission commented, we couldn't understand what she was referring to; It's like in her comments she criticizes information that we never even provided in the first place.

She then also disputes the validity of information that we have provided.

As far as 'sock puppetry', no edits were made from my ISP only comments on the talk page. If I were going to be devious I could just use another ISP. Instead I'm hiring a firm to do this for us, a few thousand a month is well worth avoiding these conversations with 'divas in training'. 208.105.47.108 (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to any of the points that I have listed above. Instead of copying and pasting the points I have already raised or have been raised on Talk:Sixties Scoop or other Wikipedia talk pages, I will just refer to the comments already made. You are currently banned from editing and if you just post on Talk pages, then I won't report you. However, if you choose to edit pages while banned, then I will report you for Sock puppetryDivaNtrainin (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Article name, should it be Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada?
In its formal documents, and throughout its website, the TRC is identified as “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”, rather than “Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission” as this article is currently titled. The document, cited in this article as, establishing the “Mandate for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (PDF, part of the Indian Residential School settlement) refers to it only as “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”.

So, I propose moving this article from “Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”; making clear in the introductory paragraph that the TRC was established by a mandate from the Indian Residential School settlement. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with this.DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This Page Is Just Really Poor - Wikipedia Needs Specialists Editing It
This is a best example of how come Wikipedia needs real topic specialists editing this pages because this page should not be this bad, this ill-informed. Not least because it is a really, very important issue. Surely there are some administrators who feel the same way and can outweight the other less professional there at Wikipedia? 64.134.240.40 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying it’s “really poor”, might you instead consider giving specifics of what you consider to be inaccurate or absent from the article? Just calling it bad gives us no basis to understand what specific concerns you might have with the content of the article. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just get editors/administrators who are actually specialists on at least the topic of truth and reconciliation commissions if not the TRC-Canada itself. I'm not going to break the weaknesses and out and out voids in Wikipedia entries related to these topics again only to have to debate them again. I'm guessing there must be some way by which Wikipedia actually calls for specialists. 64.134.240.40 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/10/20/truth-resignation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible improvements
A well written and informative article that I believe can be further improved with some minor changes. The article does not maintain neutral throughout its entirety. Although including the former staffs' opinions attempts to decrease bias, one viewpoint is often over expressed. The 'What the Commission did' section was explained in great detail; however, I found there were a lot of direct quotes throughout the section which made it not as easy to follow. Finally, referencing is missing from the second half of the second paragraph in the background section. Tgove (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And how would you improve that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Considerations
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Canada)

This article is rated as a stub for a few reasons in my opinion. Some sources are not reliable references as they do not work or are not easily accessible (#7,8 need login accounts).

Links #5 and #23 are dead links:

5 -

23 -

Other links also do not reliable references as they do not have access of dates:

7 - p.14 has the same information presented in the Wikipedia article.

8 - The oxford definition link currently in the article references does not work/have an accessible link however this does.

Some of the article relevance was overstated and repeated. The viewpoints are overrepresented for example as it continues to overstate the fact that reconciliation means restoring a harmonious relationship. This section can be edited. I do not believe that this article is biased for the most part because of the serious matter of abuse inflicted on indigenous peoples through Indian residential school system. But as stated above some viewpoints are often overexpressed.

Throughout the article, the headings are very bland. “What the Commission did” could be replaced with “Purpose of Commission”. Pursuing this idea further, The “background” and “Commission Name” could be considered to be in one heading and adding the information as the main indigenous truth and reconciliation topic or group that link to the article.

I was also thinking that the end of the article could add more categories links to reach a better quality standard for evaluated wiki pages. For consistency and more exposure to the article some categories can be added: •	Canadian Indian Residential School System •	Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement •	Reconciliation Canada

Organizing “Call to Action” in a table is another recommendation. I feel this would help organize the article better.

Finally, as expressed through the TALK page the “Removal of info about Taber Gregory” questioned the reliability of the article. There is evidence of heavy vandalism throughout this talk section as the users account has been banned. Questions at the end of the discussion raise speculation to the ‘sock puppetry’ in the article. Was anything vandalized? Was there any edits made after the comment from this individual? --Blondeel10 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Too much to respond to. Sock puppetry is easy to respond to. It doesn't matter if the sock added a perfect piece of content and it was well referenced. Once an editor is blocked, that editor may not provide any content to the project until the block is lifted.
 * If you find a link in references that is dead, mark it using dead link. Not having access dates is not a problem either. Neither of those determine whether a references is considered to be a reliable source though.
 * If there are WP:UNDUE sections, we can work on that.
 * The article is not locked nor does it require special privileges for editing, so be bold and make changes, but be sure to explain your changes in the edit summaries. Be prepared for editors to revert your changes if they disagree. If that happens, come back here and discuss specifics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Walter. --Blondeel10 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A comment on the formatting: the physical bullets should be replaced with asterisks ( * ) and not have new lines before them. The reference marks should be actual references, or they should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And for the record, an edit summary that states what you're doing is a lot less informative than why. So "Added table to calls to action" is obvious, while "converting prose to table and balancing viewpoints" is better. Specifics will help in edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions
The introduction of the article would benefit from a citation for the establishment and completion dates of the Commission in order to prove the facts reliable. Adding a hyperlink to the existing Wikipedia article for the Canadian Indian Residential School System (located in the first paragraph) would benefit the article greatly in providing further resources for the reader to explore when it comes to this topic. Additionally, adding a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article for King's University College (located in the third paragraph of the Background section would enhance the article and enable readers to do further research. By adding these hyperlinks to the article, the facts will be referenced with reliable and appropriate resources. References 5 and 23 are dead links and should be replaced if possible with more relevant links that are more recent since these are from 2008 and 2011 respectively. Kimtonietto (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Overall, more uses of references would benefit the reliability and validity of this article. Specifically, in the "Background" section where there were some statements made about how the Commission was carried out that, as well as in the "Calls to Action" section, which could benefit from references. The "Calls to Action" section could also have more information on what is being done to accomplish change for these calls as it tells us why (just for the Legacy section) but it just lists different ones for the Reconciliation section. I also noticed, as previously stated above, that citations #5 and #23 are dead links and should be fixed accordingly. To keep consistency, a hyperlink to the preexisting Wikipedia page on "neglect" should be added to the second paragraph of the "Background" section since the other forms of abuse are already hyperlinked to their Wikipedia pages. Lastly, the "Commission" section could benefit from more paraphrasing and less direct quoting as it makes the paragraphs seem choppy. Rosscour7 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

Overall, I believe the article is well written and organized. I think it provides great information regarding the TRC and the reasons for its creation.However I have identified a few issues with the article.

Some of the links in the references section lead to sources that either no longer exist or require a username and password in order to access them. These would obviously have to be reviewed in order to included an updated link or a way by which to access them. There are also no external links for reference numbers 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Continuing with references, at least 1 of the sources used is written with a clear bias, which may be one of the reasons for this article's tag as a text written as a personal reflection. The article "Speaking my Truth: Reflections on reconciliation & residential school" is not written in a neutral point of view and I would dispute its inclusion as a reference for this article for this reason.

The article itself also does not remain completely neutral throughout its entirety. In my opinion, the view that residential schools were harmful for Aboriginal children is slightly over represented. I'd recommend that the article be edited to ensure that only the facts about residential schools be presented without any added comments.

Lastly, some citations are missing from certain sections of the article. The sections for education, health, justice and reconciliations subheadings under the Calls to Action section are completely without references. Other subheadings under that section are properly referenced, so I am just questioning why those particular subheadings were not?

One final point; the article frequently mentions the residential schools and their effects on Aboriginal peoples. In order to provide some historical context for the reader, I would consider adding a subheading in the background section give a very brief history of the residential schools.

Happy editing,

Mitchdiluca (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make it happen. Mark the dead links with dead link and the password protected ones with either Closed access or Registration required depending which is appropriate. The CBC ones, in particular, are likely archived. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestions
The article does need a lot of editing, but it is a good start. This is why we are all on here, to share knowledge and help others see what they may have missed. As previously stated in many of the comments above, the article is in need of more citations, particularly in the lead paragraph as well as in the first 2 paragraphs in the 'Background' section.

The first paragraph in the 'Background' section includes the acronym "IRS" without previously mentioning what it means. The lead paragraph mentions the Indian Residential School System and it should be edited to - Indian Residential School (IRS) System for easier reading. It is a minor edit.

The links to references 5 and 8 are dead and should be updated for referral. MakinaQuay (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I found this article to be very informative. It seemed to not have any biased opinions and to be accurate information. Although the information presented seemed accurate, there were places where citations were missing, thus making it hard to know where the information was drawn from. Such as: - In the lead section, where did the information about the Commission dates come from? - Also in the background more citing is needed, as when reading I do not know where the information has been drawn from, or if it is accurate. - In the name section, how is it clear that no such harmony ever existed? I believe more information needs to be presented to make that statement.

Although I thought the information seemed accurate, I though more citing could have been used to show readers that the information is accurate. Leahyc (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The criticism section
Quite possibly the worst instance of non nPOV ive seen on this entire website. Needs fixing up65.94.215.132 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And how would you suggest that happen? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dialing down the reliance on quotations from cited, but unnamed, sources would help. I've made some revisions to the first paragraph as an example. I've also added a sub-heading to make a distinction between critiques regarding the scope versus the findings of the TRC. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)