This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Education Mid‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality. Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

Just for your info:

https://thecatholicherald.com/article/failure-to-find-bodies-ends-canadas-inquiry-in-mass-burials-at-church-run-schools

best regards ~2026-95646 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-95646: Do you mind identify what exactly is an instance of bias present in this article? Editors, including myself, have invested great effort into clearly indicating that none of the suspected graves identified by ground-penetrating radar in recent years have been confirmed. Is there something we've missed or need to further clarify? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti I can't say what the other user's intent was, but as an example of making it more clear that there is debate over radar-identified graves, maybe there could be a "Debate" subsection inside the "Reactions" section.

Since I don't know much about the subject of residential school graves, I don't feel qualified to make that change, but it could help clear up the article.

For example when I read this sentence: "An opinion piece by Kisha Supernant and Sean Carleton, published by the CBC, responded to denialists..." my thoughts were "what denialists? what did they say?" Consolidating debate into a section could clear up paragraphs like this and help eliminate any appearance of bias. WildCardStorm (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't cover WP:FRINGE views as it would result in a WP:FALSEBALANCE. An exemption to that would be for articles which are specifically about said fringe views. This is not that article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath That makes sense that there doesn't need to be an entire section on denialists. Instead of a reorganization, maybe additional context might be helpful.

For example the last sentence of the article "it wasn't the Indigenous people directly involved who made the disturbing claims that ended up in the headlines" also mentions claims like my previously quoted sentence, but the article is paywalled so I can't see what disturbing claims the author was talking about.

If each of these 2 sentences were preceded by another quote or a summary of the claims by denialists or media that they're referencing, the context would help them make sense. A subsection was just an idea to organize such claims and refutations. WildCardStorm (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With no bodies ever being found, this article should be retitled to something like "False gravesites controversy at Canadian residential school" or something thereabouts. Should see a discussion. Tallard (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In one respect, this is correct: there have been no previously unknown graves excavated following findings from ground-penetrating radar. Of course, that ignores the thousands of graves that have been known continuously, were rediscovered using documentary evidence, were excavated following findings from oral testimony, or were remarked as graves after the gravesites were left unmarked or the markers were destroyed. There are graves. Anyone who says otherwise is preying on those who are unable to look beyond a headline, no better than those who misused the extremely preliminary findings from the ground-penetrating radar. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an authoritative source on what graves were known before 2021, and what have been found since 2021? Mporter (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]