Template:Did you know nominations/Porcupine (Cheyenne)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Porcupine (Cheyenne)[edit]

(
)

Created by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 19:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

  • I would dearly love to use the attempt to stop a train by lassoing it as the hook, but I have no evidence the Porcupine was directly involved in that, so it's hard to write it. SpinningSpark 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this article was created on October 12, and it was not 5x expanded within the seven days preceding November 23 (see WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG for eligibility requirements). I noticed that this article is undergoing a GA review; if the article passes the GA, it will be eligible for DYK. Therefore, I suggest we place this article on hold until the GA review is completed. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: mea culpa, I should have realized you moved the article to mainspace. Usually, nominators will note on the nomination template that the article was "moved to mainspace" (see, e.g., this nomination), so I didn't check to see if the article was moved to mainspace. I have struck my earlier, inaccurate comment above. However, the GA reviewer has identified several assertions that apparently need to be supported by citations. Once these issues have been resolved in the GA review, I would be happy to complete this DYK review, but I don't want to risk having this hook pulled at a later time. Once the GA review has been resolved, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look at this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Everything in the article comes from the sources and is fully cited. The only place in the review that explicitly requests a cite is the quotation from Rowlands. Rowlands is attributed in-text and the cite at the end of that sentence is the place where the quotation came from, so I don't see how that does not meet WP:V. There is an issue with getting the GA review completed, the reviewer has stated that he/she wants to hand over to another reviewer so it could be some time before it is completed. DYK reviews should not depend on the outcome of GA, it is a separate set of requirements. SpinningSpark 23:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had a chance to think this over a little more, and ultimately, I think you are correct that I should not let the GA review influence my decision here. Nevertheless, I still have a few reservations about approving this nomination. Although this article satisfies most DYK criteria (moved to mainspace on November 23, long enough, hook is under 200 characters, interesting, supported by reliable sources, and QPQ is satisfied), I am concerned that it does not conform to key WP policies. Specifically, this article is in need of a thorough copy edit to clean up unencyclopedic language. In some places, the article uses language that is too casual or colloquial (see, e.g., "the inevitable hail of bullets that would follow," "a fortuitous side benefit of the visit," and "the attempt was nipped in the bud"). In other places, you use language that editorializes the subject (e.g., "unnecessarily sparked an Indian war," the claim that Hancock attempted to "bully them into submission," and the claim that killings of white settlers were "atrocities"). There are also a number of other grammatical errors in the article. Finally, I think that this article should be written in American English, pursuant to MOS:TIES, because the topic "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". I will be happy to approve this nomination once these issues are addressed, but I don't think this article satisfies core policies at this time. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As I noted in the discussion around the GAN, GA cannot require that an article be written in a particular kind of English, MOS:TIES or no, and the same is true for DYK. However, neutrality is a requirement of both places, and anywhere that crosses that line should be addressed. If grammatical issues are serious (if they obscure meaning), then those should be fixed as well. Spinningspark, how soon do you think you can make progress on these? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that the article promotes a (sometime subtle) POV. For instance, the use of the weasel word "arduous" in the lead, and the terms "bully them into submission" and "depths of winter" further below. I'm also uncomfortable with the continued use of the term "Indian", which has been controversial in the past. "American Indian" would work alright for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have replaced "arduous journey" with "long journey" and "depths of winter" with the factual "temperature well below freezing". This is what the sources say about Hancock's negotiations

Hancock refused to be dismissed and threatened the Indians with extermination

— Kraft

Failing to bully them into submission, he marched on the village on April 15

— O'Neill & Robinson

No such obstacle blocked Hancock. He set forth to bully the southern Plains tribes

— Utley

Hancock informed Sherman that "it would be to our advantage to have these Indians refuse the demands I intend to make [as] a war with the Cheyennes would answer our purposes"

— Wooster
"bully them into submission" seems to me to be a fair summary of Hancock's approach to negotiations, but hey, if you have a source I missed that says he offered them tea and doughnuts that can go in too. It is very hard to not use the term Indian when that is exactly the term used by all the sources. American Indian would be used where disambiguation is needed, but the context is perfectly clear in this case. If you feel the need to replace the word with the latest fashion in political correctness (but next year will also be declared offensive and replaced again) then be my guest, but don't expect me to mangle the English language. I'm now sick of this article and wish I had never written it—why don't you fail it already then we'll all feel better. SpinningSpark 02:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark: first and foremost, I want to apologize for any personal hardship that I may have caused through this review process. I know we all aspire to act with professionalism and decorum, and I am sorry if I have fallen short in that respect. Moving forward, I hope that we can work together to reach an amicable resolution. I think this article can still pass this review, but the following passages need to be addressed first:
  • The claim that Hancock "unnecessarily sparked an Indian war" — why not just say he "sparked a war"?
  • Because most commentators, both contemporary and modern, say that it was unnecessary. However, I have rephrased this so that it is no longer in Wikipedia's voice. SpinningSpark 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The claim that Hancock attempted to "bully them into submission" — why not just say that after threatening them with extermination, they still refused to cooperate?
  • The phrase "killed in the inevitable hail of bullets that would follow" — why not just say "killed in a potential battle with Hancock's soldiers"?
  • If Roman Nose had been allowed to kill, or attempt to kill Hancock, you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe it is possible that that is not what would have happened. There is no doubt that the troops would have opened fire. It is unlikely they would have stopped at killing Roman Nose given subsequent events and that the mission objective appeared to be to start a war. To characterise this as just a "potential" outcome would be the POV rather than my "colourful" language. SpinningSpark 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The claim that killings of white settlers were "atrocities" — can you find a descriptor that does not involve a value judgment?
  • Changed atrocities > killings. SpinningSpark 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The claim that Porcupine and others were caught in a "bureaucratic trap" — do you mean that bureaucrats intentionally planned to delay administrative procedures to keep them at that location? If the answer is yes, you should say something along those lines.
  • The bureacracy is that they can only be paid if they are on the Pine Ridge roll, but those temporarily at Tongue River were put on the Tongue River roll. This is explained in the following passage so I am unclear what needs changing. Some in exactly the same position (unable to stay safely at Pine Ridge) were left on the Pine Ridge roll because they were still on the road when the rolls were changed. Whether this was a deliberate ploy to avoid payment or just bureaucratic incompetence I couldn't say, but I would tend to go with the latter. SpinningSpark 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though you may be following the language used by reliable sources, these passages carry connotations that advance a particular point of view. You can still communicate the same content by rephrasing these passages in a more neutral fashion (see my suggestions above). I still maintain that the article uses a few too many colloquialisms, but they do not obscure meaning. In any event, please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This article started out as a spinoff of Thomas Bailey Marquis. In writing that article it became clear to me that there was a gross imbalance of Wikipedia's coverage of the Plains Indians of the period. If one looks at the "Friends of the Little Bighorn" website there are lists of every known participant (not just those killed with Custer). For the US soldiers for virtually every one it is known what happened to them afterwards (if they lived) and where they are buried. On the Indian side all that is listed for many of them is the name, even some of the leaders. For many others nothing is known at all, not even a name. I was shocked to find that we did not already have an article on Hancock's war. The only thing we have is one small incident in that war, the Kidder massacre (how's that for a POV title - since changed), presumably because it fits the profile of brave cavalrymen making a last stand against savage Indians. Nothing on Hancock's campaign, or the reasons for starting the war, or the reactions of the Indians, or their point of view, or bios on the Indian participants. Hancock's war is only in this article in order to give background to Porcupine. If an article existed most of it could be replaced with a wikilink. Much of the language I have been criticised for is merely for brevity, not for POV pushing, to avoid the article going off at a tangent. The changes I have made in response to the comments above have made those sentences significantly longer in an already too long section.
It is now way too late to start recording the oral history of the Indians and it is only through the efforts of the likes of Marquis that we have anything at all to write about. If it were not for Marquis we would know of Porcupine's part in the Ghost Dance (because the US government sent out a commisssion to investigate the Ghost Dance) but virtually nothing else. This article was my small part in attempting to redress this imbalance as I had the Marquis source to hand. It will probably be my last, I'm going back to writing articles on microwave filters where one can't get caught up in all this POV shit. SpinningSpark 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark, thank you very much for your flexibility and willingness to incorporate the changes I suggested above. I certainly can see where you are coming from, and I agree that Wikipedia's coverage of Native American history could use significant improvement. In light of your responses and modifications (indicated above), this nomination can now be approved. As I mentioned earlier, this article was moved to mainspace on November 23 (nomination was timely), the article is long enough, and the article satisfies policies relevant to the DYK review process (no problems with references or close paraphrasing). QPQ is satisfied and there are no issues with the images used in the article. The primary hook is under 200 characters, interesting, and substantiated by reliable offline sources (though other online sources substantiate the article's description of the derailment). ALT1 would be okay if the text was changed to say "an apostle" or "the main apostle" (rather than "the apostle") because the article describes him as the "main apostle." I still think there are portions that of the article that editorialize events (e.g. "fortuitous;" see WP:EDITORIAL), but for the sake of compromise, I think we should approve this nomination. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It is the apostle because Porcupine was the apostle who brought the religion to the Cheyenne. He was not the only one preaching it, but he was the one who brought it. The only place where the word "fortuitous" is used is to report Porcupine's own description of events. WP:EDITORIAL does not therefore apply because it is not being used in Wikipedia's voice to say the events were fortuitous, but to report that Porcupine claimed they were fortuitous. And by the way, the article then goes on to throw that claim into doubt. Editorializing is not about avoiding certain words, it is about the way those words are used. SpinningSpark 17:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The description of him as "the apostle" implies he is the only one, but the article's characterization of him as the "main apostle" implies there are other apostles, albeit of lesser stature or significance. If he was, indeed, the only person to bring the religion to the Cheyenne, then you should make that clear in the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That's half-baked incompetent nonsense. First of all, the hook does not say he was the only apostle. Secondly, the article describes in great detail his journey to go and fetch the Ghost Dance for the Cheyenne. Thirdly, I have sources that say it directly;

After [Porcupine's] report had been favorably received by the council, he was duly authorized to tell all of the Cheyennes, which he did at various general gatherings about the reservation. Thus he evolved into the special tribal exponent of the prohetic doctrine

— Marquis

One of the first and most prominent of those who brought the doctrine to the prairie tribes was Porcupine, a Cheyenne, who crossed the mountains with several companions in the fall of 1889, visited Wovoka, and attended the dance near Walker lake, Nevada.

— Mooney

Porcupine was converted and brought the Ghost Dance to Montana

— Jerry Mader, The Road to Lame Deer

[The Ghost Dance] came to the Cheyennes through Porcupine, who was taught by Short Bull

— John Stands in Timber

Porcupine started the Ghost Dance but he quit after the government stopped it here

— John Stands in Timber
That's my last post here, it's too time consuming to keep rechecking the refs to verify I am right. I'm not going to change anything. Please now judge the article on what you already have. SpinningSpark 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Porcupine_(Cheyenne)&oldid=880081876"