Talk:Sixties Scoop

Hello How do I change positioning of portal (I am new to Wikipedia, so I want your attention)

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. Student editor(s): Davidajeanne. Peer reviewers: CrescentEvi, Radicalarhea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

USA Placed Victims-Survivors of The Canadian Scoops, Truth & Reconciliation Commission Canada, Truth & Reconciliation Commission Canada in the USA

The research cited on the 'Sixties Scoop' page is out of date. The 60's Scoops did not end in the 80's but is now well documented (National Archives of Canada) to have ended not until the 1990's. The 'Sixties Scoop' is now referred to as 'The Canadian Scoops'

The victims and survivors of the 'Sixties Scoops'were not only kept within Canada but are now well documented as having been placed in foster care and adoption in Western Europe and the USA.

http://usavictimssurvivorsofcanadianscoops.wordpress.com/

Maintaining this current wikipedia-description of 'Sixties Scoops' and excluding all other editorial contributions - while in political alignment with the current mandate of Truth & Reconciliation Commission Canada that only acknowleges those victims-survivors of the genocide who were kept within Candada and not those who were placed outside of Canada - is not accurate. SoodieUSA (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)--SoodieUSA (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)--SoodieUSA (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please add the additional information with 'reliable sources', see WP:RS.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the paragraph on Taber Gregory

There are the following problems with the paragraph about Taber Gregory:

- It is not correctly sourced. Sources need 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, Gregory's citizenship status is not really relevant to this topic.

- The portion where it says " on the basis of being a victim of a genocide may provide a model for future case" is entirely speculative. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. If this case has caused a change in the law, then it not only meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, but is better information to add rather than a speculative statement that "something may occur". Give us the evidence, we will add it to the article. DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It would only be appropriate to include this if the case had been discussed in a significant number of news reports. I can't find evidence of any. Paul B (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Taber Gregory Entries - Citations

I followed the Citation Guidelines that are provided by National Archives of Canada, i.e., if the 'stamp of validity' offered by Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada (TRC-Canada) itself along with that of the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) that came in the granting of Taber Gregory's US citizenship expedited specifically on basis of his being a recognized victim of this particular genocide, aren't enough 'verification' for Wikipedia Editors then nothing will be. I have even had the validity of the Victim File Number provided by TRC-Canada itself criticized by a Wikipedia Editor who suggested that the number I provided was false (not even that I typo'd but that I had provided a false number; I did neither); I then offered to upload the actual, original documents as support. There isn't any more information in terms of citation that can be provided. Until that information on Taber Gregory is allowed to stand on that page the Wikipedia entry will be incomplete and apparently, 'politically-skewed'.

As for the importance of Taber Gregory being recognized a Victim of Sixties Scoops by this Truth & Reconciliation Commission, the actual victim population of Sixties Scoops is larger than the victim population as it is being reported according to the latest and final mandate of this TRC-Canada. That Taber Gregory, who met the criteria of the original 2011 TRC-Canada Mandate but that does not meet the criteria of a victim according to the current and final TRC-Canada mandate is recognized by this TRC-Canada to be a victim of the same 60's Scoops makes him symbol of that additional portion of victims. So THAT is the importance of keeping him on any and every page that references and aims to define the Sixties Scoops Victim Population. WV NYC (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WV NYC. I've no doubt that there has been a case involving Mr. Gregory. That's really not the main issue, though we do require evidence. I looked on line for any evidence of news reports about this case and I couldn't find any. There is a website [1] that discusses the case, which I'm guessing is maintained by you. There seems to be no other public discussion of this case or its wider implications. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by providing newspaper reports or other evidence that this case is thought to be significant. The fact that you think it is significant is not enough. We follow the guidelines outlined in the pages linked by these acronyms: WP:UNDUE, WP:V AND WP:RS. I realise these pages may seems rather bureaucratic, but the intention is to ensure that we don't distort the content of articles to promote personal views that are not widespread. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already provided tv documentary, reports filed with TRC-Canada, etc. The replies back from Wikipedia went so far as to say that I was giving a false victim statement number. So Wikipedia has been given the evidence requested and then denied that exactly what it had asked for was what was needed. Like I said, we are in process of hiring a firm/consultant to deal with Wikipedia entries on this topic because you kids are, albeit some there are legitimately good editors and fact checkers, impossible to work with. 64.134.240.40 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You've "provided" none of these things. You just mention them repeatedly without actually giving any accessible reliable sources. In any case the TRCC website [2] clearly states that "Anyone who has been affected by the Indian Residential Schools and their legacy is invited to share their experiences at any point during the TRC’s five-year mandate." I've no idea how many people that may have been over five years, but it could run to thousands of "victim statements". I cannot see how this somehow makes Mr. Gregory special. Paul B (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar Developments In Other Countries, Inaccurate Parallel

Paralleling Canada Scoops/60's Scoops to the activities in the outer/northern territories of Australia is misleading. Very different, the motivation of the Canada Scoops/60's Scoops v the events you are referring to in Northern Territories of Australia. But that's just based on my experience of living and working, being very familiar with both areas and events, maybe the editor/administrator who let that information stay on this page is more familiar than I am, than my colleagues living and working in those areas and in departments that work on those issues are? 4.35.92.19 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several books and a website (https://splitfeathers.blogspot.com/p/split-feathers-study-by-carol-locust.html) on the experience in the US. Though there is some crossover with the Canadian experience, the current situation is different because of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Davidajeanne (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong: 3 suits have been filed on Canada Government, not 2

Let's see if Wikipedia administrators will make the correction: There are not only 2 suits filed on Canada Government, There are 3. The 3rd was filed January 2015. The 3rd includes USA Placed Victim-Survivor of Canada Scoops, Wayne Snellgrove, as a class action representative. If you are aware of how these suits work, that is significant within the discussion of 60's Scoops. 64.134.240.40 (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have updated information with information on the class action ruling and settlement but there still needs to be clarity around the number of suits that were filed.Davidajeanne (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong: Not Just 'A Few' But 'A Few Thousand' Victims of Scoops Placed in USA and west Europe

It's common knowledge at this point that there were not only a few but a few thousand scooped children not kept within Canada but instead placed in USA and west Europe. To say 'a few' is at best sloppy and at worst intentionally misleading. So maybe Wikipedia administrators will make the information provided more accurate. 64.134.240.40 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Survivors

I am questioning whether "survivors" is the correct (neutral or non-loaded) word choice. (to me seems to imply a death camp, or house fire, or hurricane, survivor of a life-threatening situation)

To me "adoptees" seems neutral. However, many appear to be fostered rather than adopted. "Fosterees" or "Fosterlings"? seem rather obscure Other choices: "victims" (alos seems loaded); "scoopies" (not a word, sounds trite)

Devil's Advocate: I poked around for some definitions of survival: "a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks. " "to endure or live through (an affliction, adversity, misery, etc.)" Both of these would seem to support use of the word survivor. Feldercarb (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting question but "survivors" is commonly used in the Canadian media. See lead sentence here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-settle-60s-scoop-survivors-1.4342462 Davidajeanne (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ontario class option lawsuit

The Canadian government announced its settlement with survivors of the Sixties Scoop on October 6, 2017.   “Sixties Scoop Survivors’ Decade-Long Journey for Justice Culminates in Historic Pan-Canadian Agreement,” Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee, (October 2017), http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/sixties-scoop-survivors-decade-long-journey-for-justice-culminates-in-historic-pan-canadian-agreement-649748633.html.

Tu Thanh Ha and Gloria Galloway, “Ontario Judge Sides with Sixties Scoop Survivors,” The Globe and Mail, (February 2017), https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-judge-sides-with-60s-scoop-survivors-damages-to-be-decided/article34015380/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&.

Davidajeanne (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Adopt Indian Métis Program

This section was added to expand on the program, which was the only targeted Indigenous transracial adoption program in Canada. There are several archived news segments about it, as well as recent, in-depth series about a Cree girl who was adopted out to a family in the United States through the program.Davidajeanne (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Long-term effects on children, parenting and communities

This section was added to expand on and include information about the long-term effects the Sixties Scoop has had on Indigenous peoples in Canada. It is widely acknowledged that the effects go beyond the loss of the child in the family, but have lasting implications for communities. Sources cited in new sectionDavidajeanne (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction of coinage

The article has had a serious error for some time now. Patrick Johnston did not coin the term. He was, apparently, the first to use it in print, but it was coined by social workers in the Department of Social Welfare to describe their own practice of apprehension. Johnston is quite clear about this:

"One longtime employee of the Ministry of Human Resources in B.C. referred to this process as the ‘Sixties Scoop’. She admitted that provincial social workers would, quite literally, scoop children from reserves on the slightest pretext. She also made it clear, however, that she and her colleagues sincerely believed that what they were doing was in the best interests of the children. They felt that the apprehension of Indian children form reserves would save them from the effects of crushing poverty, unsanitary health conditions, poor housing and malnutrition, which were facts of life on many reserves. Unfortunately, the long-term effect of apprehension on the individual child was not considered. More likely, it could not have been imagined. Nor were the effects of apprehension on Indian families and communities taken in account and some reserves lost almost a generation of their children as a result." (Johnston 1983: 23) -- There is a footnote after the first sentence which states: "In conversation with the author, September 1981".

This idea that Johnston coined the term is appearing more and more in the literature, including academic literature, and I suspect that writers on the topic are getting this from Wikipedia because certainly Johnston makes no claim to coining it and although his source is anonymous he clearly states where he heard the term. It is significant that it was people who worked to carry out the Sixties Scoop were the ones who coined the term, rather than a researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.223.67 (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional Source Regarding Coinage

An additional source regarding this is: Raven Sinclair, “Identity Lost and Found: Lessons from the Sixties Scoop”, First Peoples Child and Family Review 3:1 (2007): 65-82.

"Johnston recalled being provided with the term by a BC social worker who told him '...with tears in her eyes--that it was common practice in BC in the mid-sixties to 'scoop' from their mothers on reserves almost all newly born children. She was crying because she realized--20 years later–-what a mistake that had been (Johnston, 2005)." (66)

My apologies. I'm not adept enough at Wikipedia to edit in the additional source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.223.67 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Out-of-Canada adoptions

I have removed the reference to this in the lede as it is not mentioned in the source cited. While native children adopted during the time period undoubtedly sometimes ended up outside Canada, and this is definitely something worth mentioning in the article, the circumstances of how this occured is rather unclear. Were these all cases of children being adopted by families who lived in Canada at the time of adoption, and later moved to another country, or were there cases where children were knowingly placed with families who did not live in Canada? And if the latter, did this only happen when the adoptive family lived in the US?

The problem is most sources talk vaguely about children being "sent" to non-Canadian countries in a manner that sort of implies it was official policy, but the few instances I can dig up where the full history of specific people who were adopted and ended up outside the US or Canada are definitely cases of children being adopted by families living in Canada at the time who later moved elsewhere.

The stuff about in the "notable scoops" section can stay as it's all well cited, but I'd like to see if anyone knows of any sources that talk about this specific issue in detail - extrapolating from the stories of individual people would probably be OR. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Eldomtom2, there is plenty of sourcing to support children knowingly and deliberately being placed with non-Canadian families - see for example this CBC source. The Canadian Encyclopedia suggests that half of children scooped in 1981 went to US homes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Then that sourcing should be placed in the article, but both are again very vague on how children ended up with American families. The CBC article gives a vague impression that some children were sent to US children's homes, but does not give further details. The Canadian Encyclopedia says that "depending on the source, in 1981 alone, 45 to 55 per cent of children were adopted by American families", but does not give information on what precisely those sources are (except for the bibliography), which presumably contain details on how precisely cross-country adoptions occured. Since claims of "trafficking" have been made (compare Ireland, where it seems fairly certain that adopted children were illegally moved over national boarders), we should probably be careful with our words and try and find sources that explicitly state whether or not such international adoptions were legal at the time, and what precisely the frameworks were.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)