This is an archive of past discussions with User:Smallchief. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:1. Ament.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolas de Aguilar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please add references to the text you added. I seem to remember someone adding similar text in the past months, and then someone removing it. Thanks. Sbmeirow (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add the text, I just fixed it it up so it would display properly. User:Smallchief
Talk
How to do stuff:
referring to a section of an article in a discussion: Example
[1] --Smallchief 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Merging articles
I see you've deleted my article "Seymour Expedition, China 1900" to "merge" it with one called "Seymour Expedition." May I suggest you take anther look at the two competing articles. My article is, or rather was, authoritative, well-sourced, impartial, and accurate. The other one is not. Perhaps before you merge articles you should consult people who had a hand in drafting the articles? Or undertake a qualitative review of the two articles? If you had taken the time to read the two articles I believe you would not have deleted mine. User:Smallchief19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of Wikipedia. You do not file an article like a newspaper report, you add to existing ones. You cannot have two articles on the same matter, that is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy.
One would think that the cornerstone of Wikipedia would be to provide accurate and impartial information to the public. My article did that. The other one does not. If you will look at nearly all the articles regarding the Boxer Rebellion, and the discussion pages, you will detect a pattern of serious bias in the articles. I've tried to correct that bias. Several others have worked harder at it than I have. We've been unsuccessful. The article you kept is an example of that bias. I was trying to rectify the situation by writing an alternative article with the expectation that an editor considering a merge would take the relative quality of the two articles into account. In the 100 plus articles I have written or edited for Wikipedia I've never had anybody reject, or even seriously criticize, my work. Edit, yes. Improve, yes. Delete, no. User:Smallchief
If my article has not been deleted, where is it? How can I recover it with all the Wiki-code intact so that I don't have to re-write it completely. User:Smallchief
First of all, I suggest you have a root around the "help" section on the main page. That will help you understand better how to use Wikipedia. I know there's lots of bias on Wikipedia, but the best way is to improve existing ones. Otherwise you will have articles fully deleted.
When an article is redicted its history is kept intact. Your article history is here. The code is available here, but as I mentioned earlier please do not copy and paste. Even if it takes you a while, please improve the existing article. That does not mean you cannot make substantial changes to content, layout, style, etc. John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But let me suggest that the next time you "merge" articles by deleting one of them, you pick the better one to keep. Or if you don't know which is the better, perhaps you shouldn't be involved in the decision? User:Smallchief
you can copy and paste your sections from the old article into Seymour Expedition, but do not delete the existing summary, if you want corrections suggest them in the talk page.
from what i see, your article provided a general summary of the whole expedition, while mine provided details of a series of battles in that expedition albeit i did not mention every single battle such as Xigu forts etc. and the article was seriously incomplete, i was not done working on it. And by the way my article is not some unsourced dump of assertions, the sources used actually back up the events described in the article.
about the "serious bias" you assert, you have inexplicably deleted referenced information without giving any reason. You said earlier that it was an "earlier battle". I never said that the statement the people in the legations received was true, that would have been original research. Instead, i just stated exactly what message they received.
And on the nianhua, if you wanted that corrected, instead of using original research, such as claiming the Empress was misinformed, you should have added that the nianhua was propaganda and created by artists who did not view the alleged event. If source A said event X happened (such as Cixi receiving news of a victory), and source B said event X did not happen(no victory occured), you cannot say that source B proves that event X happened due to Cixi being misinformed, because Source B never said that. You can question the reliability of Source A, and add to the article that Nianhua may be unreliable, you can say that "according to Source B the events in Source A are false", but not synthesize. see Wikipedia:No original research. I have already added that the nianhua were by authors who never witnessed the battles, and depicted "alleged" events to the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:OWN -- once you contribute an article to Wikipedia it takes on a life of its own. If the community decides that it is better to have one instead of three articles on a subject, the articles are merged together. As for creating a second article on the same topic, just because you want to write it with different text... well WP:CFORK says that should not be done. If the newer article on the same topic is just a rewording of the first article without presenting new facts, it can be deleted through {{db-same}} quickly, so when you create a new article on the same topic, you are in danger of being swiftly deleted. The articles pointed out here that you have created were not deleted, but neither could two articles on the same topic continue to have separate existences on Wikipedia, since no encyclopedia has multiple articles on the exact same topic. (crack open a deadtree Comptons Encyclopedia and see how many articles about hydrogen exist) What you should have done was contribute to the existing article by revising it, adding sections and information, much as how you would renovate a house. Your contributed articles have been incorporated into the preexisting articles, through merger of content. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We owe it to readers of the present text of the "Seymour Expedition" article to warn them. Please put a banner on the article: "The accuracy and neutrality of this article has been questioned." Or tell me how to put up such a banner. You will find several such warnings on the parent article, "Boxer Rebellion" for very much the same reasons that readers of the "Seymour Expedition" should be warned.
What Arilang1234 was complaining about on the talk page, and what you were complaining about were very different. Arilang1234 edited the article in insert insults, calling Boxers "salavages" "stupid" "arsonists", and "bandits", and describing manchus as "barbaric" "Tribal rulers". He also insisted Manchus were not chinese, and were barbarians because of that. Basically, if you think he was correcting bias in the article, you are very wrong. Go check out the earliest archives of the talk page where users voiced concern about his mass spamming of the article in 2008, and he insisted that insulting terms like bandit be added to the article.
In other words, he didn't want to correct any bias in the article, rather, he wanted to add bias from the very, very opposite direction.
you were discussing the unreliability of the nianhua, and you attempted to correct it by making the mistake i already mentioned to you yesterday. You can say the nianhua captions are inaccurate and alleged, but you cannot synthesize and make up original research explanations as to why.
As i said, you can copy what you did on your seymour expedition article, and paste it onto the new one, as long as you include a link to the old one in your edit summary. You can even add a neutrality banner specifically to the section where my material is and leave yours alone, as long as you don't delete anything.Дунгане (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Mixton war
Thanks for your expansion! It has been on my to do list for a long time - I was just writing the article about Bartolomé de Ls Casas including information about his meeting with Francisco Tenamaztle when you expanded the article! And I included material about the atrocities of the war into the article on Antonio de Mendoza a few days ago. Thank you so much! Keep up the good work - I see yo have acces to many gopod sources! There is a lot of work to do on the early history of New Spain. Best regards.·Maunus·ƛ·17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Although I've done several articles about the Indians and the Spanish in New Mexico this is my first effort at New Spain history. I'll be improving and correcting the article for the next day or two -- and I would welcome your efforts also as I am sure there is more that can be said about the Mixton War. You're right that there is a lot of work to be done. Smallchief18:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
New wikiproject?
Hi, I'm researching the possibilities of creating a new WikiProject:Indigenous peoples of the Americas because articles about indigenous peoples in the Caribbean, Central, and South America, especially contemporary peoples, are woefully neglected, and cross-regional exchanges tend to be ignored. Would you have any interest in such a project if it was created? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yes, I'd be interested -- although I can't claim much knowledge of Indians in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. I am working on a series of articles about the Spanish and Indians in northern Mexico, if that fits into your scheme of things. Beyond that, I would probably be most interested in early Spanish interaction with Indians in the Caribbean and could do some research and create or add to articles. Throw out a few specific topics that need to be covered and I'll see if any of them excite my interest. Smallchief (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That's excellent to hear! The proposal for the new wikiproject is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Feel free to add to the scope or direction of the project there. A list of needed articles could be drawn up if the project is approved. BTW do you speak Spanish? That would be such a great asset. My Spanish isn't so hot but I'm trying to improve with Rosetta Stone. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I speak and read Spanish fairly well -- well enough to read a newspaper without much difficulty, but not well enough to comprehend a treatise on nuclear physics. :)Smallchief (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If you add a new census table to city or county articles, please put the at the top of the "Demographics" section. Leave in the estimate params so they can be used in future years. The align field allows you to put it on the left or right side.
{{USCensusPop|1900=|1910=|1920=|1930=|1940=|1950=|1960=|1970=|1980=|1990=|2000=|2010=|estyear=|estimate=|align=|footnote=<center>[http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ U.S. Decennial Census]</center>}}
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Eight-Nation Alliance. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe that the reference is not a WP:RS may I suggest that you bring it up to the reliable source noticeboard, or discuss possible removal on the talk page of the article and gain a consensus for such removal. Also you can also provide reliable sources that support your claim in the edit summary "Removing incorrect statement: there was abundant reporting about atrocities by Western reporters." --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your “warning” but my objective was to remove from this article one obviously false, misleading, and scurrilous statement and two other statements which were not supported by the sources cited.
Let’s take up only the scurrilous – and important -- statement: Before my deletion the Wikipedia article read: :According to Mark Twain, in Renqiu County (now a county-level city), William Ament murdered 680 innocent farmers, following a "head for a head" slogan.[1]
It isn’t difficult at all to look up what Mark Twain really said on this subject. The following is the exact quote from his famous essay, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness.
““Mr. Ament declares that the compensation he has collected is moderate when compared with the
amount secured by the Catholics, who demand, in addition to money, head for head. .They collect 500
taels for each murder of a Catholic. In the Wenchiu country, 680 Catholics were killed, and for this
the European Catholics here demand 750,000 strings of cash and 680 heads.”
In other words, Mark Twain did not claim that William Ament “murdered 680 farmers.” The statement in the Wikipedia article is false.
The consequences of leaving such a false statement on Wikipedia are substantial. Many other web pages copy and paste Wikipedia articles – and they do not update them. Thus, abuses and mistakes are perpetuated.
There is no excuse in my opinion for not correcting obvious – and often malicious – mistakes as quickly as possible on Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the further clean up work -- the article is beginning to look better, but there's still a lot to do, so I hope you can keep it up. ch (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to Support WikiProject Oklahoma and Tulsa
This has been sent to you requesting that you share your thoughts to an ongoing discussion that's taking place on the projects talk page.
reverted my edit at Lewis Hector Garrard, insisting that Garrard wrote the "only" eyewitness account of the trials after the Taos Revolt. I had gone with "an eyewitness account" instead. Are you sure of that? Do you know what James Beckwourth wrote (dictated) on the subject? Is it covered in Kit Carson's autobiography? Was there an "official" US Army report? I went with "an" because it seems safe. If you are clear that it was the "only", then so be it, but I am looking. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
For example, this site [2] states, "The most complete account of the events of that fateful day comes from Lewis H. Garrard's book, Wah To Yah and The Taos Trail." 'The most complete account" is, in my opinion, quite a bit different from "the only account."
My reference (click on footnote) was the University of Oklahoma Press which said Garrard's was the "only eyewitness account." That may not be correct, but that's what my source said. Perhaps your suggestion that Garrards's is "the most complete account" is at present the better wording for the article -- although I might come back to "only eye-witness account" later if I research this subject more.
I don't like saying "an eyewitness account" because that implies there are other eye-witness accounts of the Taos trials that are equally good, reliable, and complete. I don't think there are, although something might be buried in the National Archives.
This issue of sourcing for Wikipedia is interesting. I have been in discussions with people who used what I considered unreliable sources in articles, but I was told (in essence) that sourcing is more important than accuracy. You may be familiar with the story of the fellow who learned from his Wikipedia article that he had died. When to tried to correct the article, he was told he couldn't because the article's source said he had died. Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject Oklahoma
This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether or not you are still an active member of WikiProject Oklahoma Please respond Here By following the instructions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
I see that Ollokot is a redlink. It would be good if you-- or someone -- could create an article for him. I'm afraid I don't have the time, but I do think it's worth doing and would be glad to at least help with a bit of copyediting or something. Montanabw(talk)19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created an article for Ollokot and hopefully it will be approved and posted soon. Please feel free to improve and add to the article. Smallchief (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Cottonwood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
May I add that I took the liberty of adding a photo of Chief Joseph - I hope I have the caption right - to the article, it felt fitting.
I would also be happy to nominate the article for a DYK ("Did You Know?") if you'd like that, or of course you can nominate yourself. The DYK needs a "hook" of under 200 characters (not words), and the hook must be in the article and be attached directly to an inline citation (would need a bit of tweaking to do that), and within 5 days of the article's being created. Could also use the photo, seems best with DYKs. Something along the lines of 'Did you know ... that Chief Joseph (pictured) and his Nez Perce warriors brushed aside the US Army at the Battle of Cottonwood?' perhaps? Entirely up to you - let me know what you'd like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words (and the barnstar). perhaps the text (if not too long for a DYK) could be. "Chief Joseph (pictured) and his warriors defeated the U.S. army in 1877 at the Battle of Cottonwood as the Nez Perce began their 1,400 mile (2,300 km.) fighting retreat." I could add the "1,400 mile fighting retreat" language to the article and reference if if that would be better. Thanks again. Smallchief (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That's 146 characters, which is fine for a DYK, so as soon as you've updated the wording and the citation, I'll propose it. The guys at DYK are expert at improving DYK hooks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was one who wrote the original Verendrye journey. Sorry for the delay - I was off line. What do you think of moving the journey to a separate article? Since we are not sure that the Chevalier was Louis-Joseph it is over-confident to put the journey under his name. Separation would give Louis-Joseph a clean biography and place all the doubts in another place. Who does Smurr think the Chevalier was? Is the business about the Larmie Mountains Smurr's 'new theory'? If so it should be footnoted as such.
Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The article might lend itself to being split into a Louis-Joseph article and a journey article. Perhaps other Wikipedians might have an opinion on this?
To answer your question, it seemed to me that the evidence tilted toward Louis-Joseph as the Chevalier -- but I might be persuaded otherwise as this wasn't my principal area of interest. I don't recall that Smurr addressed the issue of the Chevalier. Nor did I think the Smurr theory was as "new" as he claimed it was.
Re the Laramie mountains, in my first mention in the article of the Laramies I footnoted Smith, p. 108-109, 127. I don't have the Smith book right now to verify that footnote, but the Laramies are also mentioned by Smurr (p. 55) and, more prominently, by DeLand in 1914 (p. 242 and other pages). I'll add Deland as a footnote to my second mention of the Laramies and perhaps you might wish to verify Smith's mention of them -- if you have the book available.
There's enough speculation about the Verendrye route to write more extensively about the journey. My own semi-formed theory (which I didn't include in the article because it would be "original research" and verboten by Wikipedia) is that most of the Verendrye routes proposed by scholars are improbably short. Verendrye spent a year on the road. To propose, as many scholars have, that he never got beyond the Black Hills or the boundaries of the Dakotas requires that we believe that Verendrye and the Indians he met moved very slowly and in a very restricted area. To the contrary, it seems to me that Verendrye ranged widely, met many different Indian tribes, and viewed both the Laramies and the Big Horns (almost certainly the Big Horns). He was looking for the South Sea (the Pacific Ocean) and that implies that he would have gone as far west and south as possible in searching for it.
My semi-formed theory that Verendrye ranged widely is bolstered by the fact that Verendrye's "People of the Bow" had extensive knowledge of the Spanish in New Mexico. That points toward them being the Pawnee who lived in Nebraska but might have ranged as far west as Wyoming and Colorado. We know that the Pawnee had contacts with the Spanish at this time.
The powerful "Snakes" who were the enemies of the People of the Bow were almost certainly Shoshoni or Comanche -- the two peoples being nearly identical in language and culture in the early 18th century. The Comanche were known, at this time, to be attacking other Indian tribes, including the Pawnee, to capture slaves to sell to the Spanish in New Mexico. That makes the Comanche/Shoshoni a logical enemy for the Pawnee and other tribes to attack.
I've reviewed the DYK nomination for this article, and find it meets all of the criteria. I do have a question about one reference, which I have left at the nomination page. If you could address that, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Resolute01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the reference to one that makes explicit mention of the Nez Perce flight to Canada. (Note however that the distance the Nez Perce traveled is estimated differently by different sources. I've said 1400 miles, but estimates vary from 1,300 to 1,700 miles.) Smallchief (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Fort Fizzle (Montana), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Smallchief, if you are willing to do a bit of work on the article (of which I will help) I'll help you get this one nominated for WP:DYK. Good job. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to have your suggestions. I'll be adding a bibliography today after a breather. I just had a DYK a few days ago on another article I wrote on the Nez Perce, so another one so soon might not be approved. However, if you wish to nominate something from this article, I would be pleased. Smallchief (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Smallchief, no limit on DYKs, every article and editor on their own. This one will be approved. I've started adding some notes on the talk page. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Hello SmallChief, I think you're really too expert to need to go through the alarmingly backlogged AfC process (dang, worse than a river jammed by them ole beavers and a herd of greenhorn lumberjacks. or whatever). Just one minor thing - I left a note on the talk page - the article would be nicer with a separate Bibliography so that all the inline citations refer to it, rather than one citation depending on an earlier one (which after all might get chopped about sometime). Thanks (and good writing as usual) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know how to go around the approval process. Can you tell me how? Your suggestion of adding a bibliography is a good one. I'll do that. Smallchief (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, there's nothing to it. You just create a redlink like Nez Perce in Lower Manhattan in any article (could be your sandbox even), press Preview, and you'll see the page with the redlink. Click the redlink, and it asks if you want to create the new page. You can then paste in your text, or edit directly. Of course it's best to have the page pretty much in order to avoid the deletion wolves of Yellowstone eating the article before it's big enough to walk without its mommy... which you can do by starting it off as a child page in your userspace, with a redlink like /Nez Perce wherever on your user page. Then you can move the page when it's ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Nez Perce in Yellowstone
Smallchief, I think I got most of what needed done to get Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park ready for DYK. I made some suggested hooks on the talk page. Which one do you prefer? Let me know and I'll get this article nominated for you. Again good job getting this one started. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page and repeat here in case you don't see it, any of the three formulations you proposed are fine with me. This Nez Perce stuff is really interesting. I'll move along now to the Battle of Canyon Creek which needs some work -- and I'm sure you could also improve it. Smallchief (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Hi Smallchief, I just saw how Johnpacklambert had unilaterally moved Taovaya Indians back in December. I wish I had seen that when it happened, since the undiscussed move of an ethnic article to an ambiguous term Taovaya was inappropriate. You don't have to rename "Foo Indians" articles, especially if no one who actually worked on the article demanded it. Wikipedia Ethnic Groups had dealt with the problem of naming articles frequently over the years – here is their guidelines for naming articles – and they concluded there was no consensus on naming ethnic group articles and several common patterns are used (Foo, Foos, Foo people, Ethnic Foos, etc.). Here's the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes). The primary concern here was disambiguating ethnic group articles from language articles, which "Foo Indians" certainly does. I would just make sure that "Foos" and "Foo people" both redirect to "Foo Indians." "Indians" is a demonstrably acceptable term to Indians in the Aridoamerica region and throughout Latin America. Thanks for all of your edits–especially in an area not many others are covering. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Thanks for your comments and insight. I prefer "Foo Indians" to "Foo people" because Foo Indians is more informative, tipping the reader off that we're talking about a people in the Americas. I think I'll change the article's name back to the original "Taovaya Indians." One reason for doing that is because, looking at the article's history, "Taovaya Indians" got about 3 times the readership that "Taovaya" does. And I do like readers! Smallchief (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, since Wikipedia won't let me change the name to "Taovaya Indians" (for reasons unclear to me) I'll stick to "Taovaya people" Fate, perhaps. Smallchief (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it wouldn't let me move it either - too many edits and changed to the original. C'est la vie. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
This is a long and frequently reoccurring discussion. However, I tend to be among those who favor "people-centered" terms. And there is a tribe-by-tribe issue: the word "Indian" is considered offensive by some Native people, whereas others find "Native American" to be too academic and condescending. I even know some folks who insist on being called "Native" and yet have run across stuff stating others find that word condescending. So short of documenting what people want you to call them (usually the best approach when possible) on a case by case basis, saying "people" makes the important point -- people of different ethnicities are still people. Montanabw(talk)00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I made a mistake of saying "Sibley" when I meant "Sully" on several occasions. I think those errors have been corrected. Thanks for the compliments. I just finished a rewrite of the Battle of Killdeer Mountain. I'm sure the article could still use some sharp editing skills. Smallchief (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Assessing WP Indigenous peoples of North America articles
Hello, Smallchief-- I've been working on assessment with DThomsen8, and want to say thanks for all your contributions! I realize that Fetterman Fight is probably a B or better; however, I'm just doing Stub/Start/C class assessments for now, in order to keep moving through the unrated items. (Considered asking you to try your hand at some B-class assessments, but I don't want to distract you from creating and improving articles, which is more important ...) Djembayz (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed you had edited and evaluated several articles I worked on. It's a pleasure to see such professionalism. Smallchief00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 5 December 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar Awarded!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded to content creator Smallchief in recognition of an accomplished body of work that, on examination, I find both impressive and intimidating. On behalf of those who benefit from your efforts in the past, present and future, I salute you as a notable Wikipedian! Jusdafax19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The recognition is much appreciated. Smallchief 03:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. I find very little to dislike in your work. I started with Fetterman Fight and moved on from there. I have visited the site in Wyoming, by the way, and think the description of the actions to be accurate and comprehensive. Don't be too discouraged at the current lack of recognition... as the years go by, it will dawn on editors how much quality material you have written here. Jusdafax03:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Jane Elliot's account of the Battle of Dagu Forts
Hi Smallchief-- I see that you are doing some editing at Battle of Dagu Forts. I posted a question on the Talk Page, but will ask you directly, just in case: Jane E. Elliott, Some Did It for Civilisation, Some Did It for Their Country : A Revised View of the Boxer War (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2002) makes the argument that western armies at the time and western historians have seriously neglected the Battle of the Dagu Forts, some even denying that it even took place. Would you as someone more knowledgable like to evaluate this claim and perhaps work it into this article? The Google book is at Jane Elliot Some Did it For Civilisation Cheers in any case ch (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, CH. Looking at your credentials on China, they're more impressive than mine. However, I have been a long time collector of material on the Boxer Rebellion, and I'm familiar with Elliot's book -- although it's been several years since I looked at it. As I recall, she was very laudatory about the Chinese performance at the Battle of the Dagu Forts. And looking at the Boxer Rebellion article, I see that the battle gets no mention (or at least I didn't find a mention of it) but it should. Because, if I recall correctly, it was the attack on the Dagu Forts that definitively made up the Dowager's mind to support the Boxers. I'll refresh my memory and add a sentence or two in the Boxer Rebellion article regarding the Battle of the Dagu Forts -- or if you wish, you can do it. Smallchief
Wow, thanks, Djembayz. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Wikipedia gift. I'm proud to be a wikipedian. I like to write and I decided a couple of years ago that I get more gratification -- and, importantly, more readership -- by writing on Wikipedia than by writing articles and books. I appreciate the recognition -- and I hope I get a T-shirt, cause I love T-shirts with a message that tells who you are, but doesn't make people angry.Smallchief
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Smallchief! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gareth Porter may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
].<ref>[http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2391202002C.pdf Transcript]</ref> Author [[William Shawcross commented that Porter's and his co-author's "apparent faith in Khmer Rouge
Hi Smallchief. Just FYI, images are not supposed to be placed opposite other images or infoboxes in such a way that they squeeze the text between them or indent headings. See various pages MOS:IMAGES, WP:IUP. Yworo (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Image size
From WP:IMGSIZE: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible."
Generally, we only increase the size of the lead image, or images with detail such as text or maps. Manually sizing the image prevents the Wikipedia editor from setting their own default image size in their preferences, and harms the ability for the visually-disabled to use Wikipedia. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I think you're pettifogging. Who is the collective "we" you're citing? I am also a member of Wikipedia entitled to utilize some judgement as to the sizing and placement of photographs and the organization of articles. I've done it hundreds of times and I've never had a complaint before, so you are unique in that respect. I suggest you take this issue to higher authority, whoever or whatever that may be. In the meantime, I'm going to focus my time and effort on trying to produce accurate, authoritative, and interesting articles for wikipedia, which I thought was the purpose of this activity. Smallchief (talk21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm visually disabled and have visually disabled friends. I have been correcting this issue for years and most editors get it and stop doing things that make Wikipedia harder to use for the visually disabled. Jerk. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!
Ok,I've worked my way through the Vietam War article and the Vietnamese Boat People article. (By the way, I havent finished working on the latter sections of the present unsourced and unreliable boat people article yet). The Vietnam war article doesent say that 3.0 million "boat people" fled. It says that "over 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians fled, many of whom were Boat people." So, there's no obvious inconsistency there with giving the numbers of boat people at 800,000.
"Boat People" is often used in the generic sense to refer to all the Vietnamese who were resettled worldwide after 1975. However, the text of the Vietnamese Boat People article which I am in the process of revising refers only to those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat -- not Cambodians, Laotians, or the 40,000 or so Vietnamese who fled overland to Thailand. Nor does the term Boat People apply to the 135,000 Vietnamese who were evacuated during the Fall of Saigon in 1975. Nor does the term boat people apply to the nearly 500,000 who left Vietnam to travel directly to the US after 1979 under the Orderly Departure Program. Nor does the term boat people refer to the 250,000 Vietnamese who fled overland to China. In other words, the term "Vietnamese boat people" in this article applies only those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat and turned up on the shores of other Southeast Asian countries or Hong Kong. That point needs clarifying in the article -- which I will endeavor to do.
My source for statistics used in the Vietnamese Boat People article is the UNHCR's report: "The State of the World's Refugees: 50 Years of Humanitarian Action" This is the most complete and credible source for international statistics concerning the "boat people" as the term is used in the restrictive sense I have explained above.
I'll hopefully clear up the statistical maze as I work through the Vietnamese Boat People article. I think, perhaps, that a mention is needed in the lead to the Vietnamese Boat People article that the term "boat people" is often loosely applied to all Vietnamese who ended up resettled in the US and elsewhere -- but that this article is only about those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat. Smallchief (talk20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it might be better to change the title of the article "Vietnamese Boat People" to "Vietnamese Refugees" and cover the whole spectrum of the subject. "Vietnamese Boat People" could be redirected to "Vietnamese Refugees" Smallchief (talk20:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I was just reading the Indian Wars section of the Thomas Moonlight article, and I noticed some discrepancies between that information and what I just read yesterday in "Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors" by Stephen E. Ambrose. According to the author, Moonlight was actually out trying to fight Indians in late May 1865 (he left Fort Laramie, along with most of his cavalry, because he was trying to respond to attacks by the Cheyenne and some Sioux on the Oregon Trail around that time). He didn't end up finding any Indians, although he marched all the way to the Wind River. While he was gone, Two Face and Blackfoot brought Mrs. Eubanks to Fort Laramie as a sign of peace. She claimed she had been raped continuously by the Cheyenne, then bought by Blackfoot (who raped her) who then sold her to Two Face (who of course also raped her). The same morning of the day they brought her to the fort, she claimed that a "whole horde of Sioux" raped her. The (drunk) temporary commander at Fort Laramie immediately ordered Two Face and Blackfoot to be hanged with iron balls attached to their legs. A soldier guarded the bodies (so they couldn't be taken down) until the legs finally rotted enough that the iron balls caused them to fall off.
I just paraphrased what Ambrose wrote. See pgs 155--156 for the details.
I'm no historian, but I notice a few differences. One is that Moonlight wasn't around when Two Face and Blackfoot were hanged. Another is the spelling of Eubanks, and that, from the sounds of her "testimony", she actually wanted to the Indians to be hanged. I just wanted to call this to your attention, in case you want to edit the section. Thanks
Thanks. I'll see if I can find my copy of Ambrose and check what he says against the present text. I recall when I was writing this that the stories of this incident were incompatible. I'll see if I can straighten out the text, or at least note that there is disagreement among sources. Smallchief (talk11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Chomsky / Cambodia
I have no experience editing Wiki so rather than try I thought I would approach you as you seem to be the author of the content in question. Regarding Chomsky's opinion that Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero was "'worth reading' but unreliable", this seems intentionally deceitful on your part. Chomsky said the book was "serious and worth reading", true. But as far as him saying it was unreliable Chomsky noted multiple inaccuracies in the book which Ponchaud corrected for the American publication. His opinion was it was serious and worth reading. That it was unreliable is fact since corrections were made when inaccuracies were pointed out by Chomsky.
Also you use the quote "great care" from Chomsky and Herman's book regarding Ponchaud's refugee sources. They were simply reiterating the very same point Ponchaud made in the book and thus this quote seems rather pointless, unless your sole intention is to smear Chomsky by creating a false impression though selective, out of context quoting.
You've posted Chomsky's rebuttal to an article criticizing him. You might want to read a counter-rebuttal to Chomsky by Sophal Ear, a Cambodian-American scholar who has published extensively on the subject of the academic community and the Cambodian genocide.
You might be interested in hearing what Ponchaud had to say about Chomsky:
"Mr. Chomsky was of the opinion that Jean Lacouture had substantially distorted the evidence I had offered, and, considering my book to be 'serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited,' he wrote me a personal letter on October 19, 1977, in which he drew my attention to the way it was being misused by antirevolutionary propagandists. He has made it my duty to 'stem the flood of lies' about Cambodia -- particularly, according to him, those propagated by Anthony Paul and John Barron in 'Murder of a Gentle Land.'"
In other words, if I read that correctly, Chomsky was telling Ponchaud to toe the ideological line, e.g. denial of the Cambodian genocide. Barron and Paul's book, by the way, was based on interviews with hundreds of Cambodian refugees and proved to be spot-on.
You are welcome to find a quote from Chomsky about Ponchaud which you believe is more representative of Chomsky's opinion of the book -- but let's not lose track of the important fact. Ponchaud, a man of the Left who initially welcomed the Khmer Rouge, was correct in his analysis of the character of the KR -- and Chomsky and the other doubters, deniers, nay-sayers, were wrong. Smallchief (talk11:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Smallchief. I'm on my way to the edit-warring noticeboard to report your latest edits at Gareth Porter, but I would rather not. Is there any reason why I should not? You just recently implemented a blind revert without addressing a single issue raised with your edits on the Talk page. Not good editing form at all. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I would note that it was you who deleted material that was verifiable with good references and had been in the article for months or years without dispute. What you replaced it with was material favorable to Porter which was misleading and, in fact, inaccurate in some cases. My objective is to write and edit good and accurate articles -- not to promote a particular prejudice or point of view. Porter was wrong in the evidence he cited to justify his support and approval of the Khmer Rouge. He has admitted that himself. To whitewash his previous opinions of the Khmer Rouge, as you wish to do, would be contrary to truth and a disservice to Wikipedia. Porter is responsible for what he said publicly and in print.
The fact that Porter has recanted his previous views is important, admirable, and worthy of being included in the article. Why have you reverted that? Smallchief (talk22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding on the article Talk page; I've addressed the issues you've raised there.
I have not removed any properly referenced and accurately conveyed material, and I'm sure you well know that just because content survives "in the article for months or years", that is no guarantee that it is not in violation of Wikipedia policies. I'm glad to hear that it is not your intent to promote a particular prejudice or point of view, at least we are on the same page to that point. However, when you say "To whitewash his previous opinions of the Khmer Rouge, as you wish to do...", now you are just being nasty and untruthful, and I'll have to ask you to stop. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
FULRO in Vietnam war
FULRO fought against both North and South Vietnamese forces during the war, and were armed and trained by the China, Cambodia, and America. They really don't belong on the same side as either North or South Vietnam but when I open a third column for them on the article, someone keeps on deleting it. For some reason they are not even mentioned in the article.Rajmaan (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete the phrase "Indigenous languages of the Americas|linguistic factors" and I, given my limited knowledge of DNA, can agree -- although I believe the section would be more comprehensible and interesting if you referred to the origin and location of the "24,000 year old sample" which I would assume is the Mal'ta Buret people of Siberia. Others might appreciate knowing where this sample came from and understanding that the Mal'ta Buret connection might account for the "Caucasian" features of some early American Indians -- such as Kennewick man. The Mal'ta Buret connection, if in fact it is verified by additional research, may also pretty much put the much-ballyhooed Solutrean hypothesis in its grave.
The quoted text below is an exact quote from Raghavan et al .On a wide scale ''14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from'' a population basal to modern day western Eurasians. And the ''western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans''. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that ''is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages''[2] Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA. [1]209.236.86.201 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Smallchief. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Adam Matthew account signup. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
You weren't kidding about that article going downhill. I looked at it briefly during the infobox photo discussion, but didn't remember it being this bad. Poor sourcing, weak sentence structure...it's a mess. Intothatdarkness21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the additions to the Dismal River culture article. Two things worth considering are: 1) if you're going to add content into cited verbiage, it's good to either verify that information is in the source or add citation information or pages for the new content (I took care of your additions this time) and 2) it would be good to have citations for the uncited content. I added two cn tags - do you know where the uncited content came from? It would be nice to keep it if you've got a source (i.e., otherwise it could be considered original research and need to be removed). Thanks again! It's nice to see the article grow!--CaroleHenson(talk)23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Adam Matthew account check-in
Hello Smallchief,
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Adam Matthew through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Please make sure that you can still log in to your Adam Matthew account. If you are having trouble let me know.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email me and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Hard to argue with someone who doesn't think you can have peer reviewed evidence for this. You probably didn't notice, but he outed another editor on my talk page (now oversighted). That was the 3rd time he outed the same editor, with blocks each time (including I see this time). Thanks for your edits. I just found "On The Inferred Age And Origin Of Lithic Bi-Points From The Eastern Seaboard And Their Relevance To The Pleistocene Peopling Of North America"[3]:
"After several years of multidisciplinary examination, it is now clear that the proposal that Solutrean hunter-gatherers crossed the Atlantic Ocean during the Pleistocene (Stanford and Bradley 2012; see also Bradley and Stanford 2004, 2006; Collins 2012; Stanford and Bradley 2000) is not currently supported in any scientific field (Bamforth 2013; Dulik et al. 2012; Eren et al. 2013, 2014; Eriksson et al. 2012; Fiedel 2012; Goebel et al. 2008; Haynes 2013; Kashani et al. 2012; Lepper 2013a, 2013b; Morrow 2014; O’Brien et al. 2014a, 2014b; O’Rourke and Raff 2010; Raff and Bolnick 2014; Raghavan 2013; Rasmussen et al. 2014; Shott 2005a, 2005b; Straus 2000; Straus et al. 2005; Surovell 2014; Westley and Dix 2008; Whittaker 2013)".
"first postulate" - you wrote "The Solutrean Hypothesis was first postulated when, in 1974, a stone tool resembling Solutrean stone tools was" but Bradley and Stanford's first book was published in 1998, and the first sentence of the lead says 1998. Doug Wellertalk15:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
To be clearer, this sentence should possibly read "The Solutrean Hypothesis was first postulated in 1998 based in part upon the 1970 discovery of a stone tool resembling Solutrean stone tools uncovered by a scallop dredge off the east coast of Virginia in an area that would have been been dry land prior to the rising sea levels of the Pleistocene Epoch." (The date of this discovery depending upon the sources is either 1970 or 1974, so take your pick.) Smallchief (talk15:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
About the stats (completely out of order), you are entirely right. That's a shame. And a real shame for Wikipedia ! Best regards. --86.73.64.12 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you're about. Sechin Alto needs a separate article in English -- and Serro Cechin needs to be revised. Sorry for the revert. Smallchief (talk21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Smallchief. I'm getting in touch in hopes you can direct me somewhere concerning the Wiki article about Yvette Pierpaoli. She was a friend of my wife's 30 years ago in Thailand during the refugee crisis there. In her Wiki article, there's a footnote about an unpublished English translation of her memoir. If I'm reading the history correctly, you added that footnote. So, I'm wondering if you might be able to point me somewhere to find that English translation. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! Thanks. Writer128 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Writer. I'll have to consult the person who had this book translated to see if I can get you a copy. He had some hopes of having it published, so I don't know whether he will release a copy. Meanwhile, the French original of the book used to be available, and maybe still is, on Amazon. I'll get back to you on this. Smallchief (talk18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help, Smallchief. And sorry for the late acknowledgment--just saw your reply now. We'll have a look on Amazon, but we're not very good at French. Writer128 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Smallchief. Believe it or not, I only just now saw your message of last October offering the English translation of the Pierpaoli book. If you're still willing and able, I'd love to see it, and will abide by the copyright restrictions--no commercial use or reproduction. It will be just to read ourselves and remember her by. My email address is johnburgess@gmx.com. Again, thank you for your reply and willingness to provide it. Writer128 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Wagon Box Fight
Dear Smallchief, you reverted my edits to the Wagon Box Fight today for being unreferenced POV. I did reference them: Hyde, Red Cloud's Folks, p. 159 f. It is a quote from a historian who actually talked to Indian participants of the fight (other than ppl. like WW II author Stephen Ambrose...) which contradicts and thus balances the interpretation that the wagon Box Fight would have been a lopsided US victory. I want to take your deletion of my work as an opportunity to talk this over how to best present this important other interpretation. I believe that the decolonization of NA history must be reflected in Wikipedia articles. Instead of blocking such efforts, do you have an idea how to do it in a good way here? Best regards,
Here are my specific problems with your edits. In your first edit, you inserted "white settler" history instead of the more neutral term of historians. It wasn't white settlers who wrote histories used in this article. It was historians, most of them in the present day.
Your second edit, in the next para is "white historians". The implication is that "Indian historians" wrote different and inaccurate accounts -- and therefore you should mention what those different accounts say and reference them. I also object to the term "white," as if a "white historian" cannot attempt to be objective. Also, calling somebody's book "stupid" is a no-no.
Most of the next two paragraphs are unreferenced or repetitive. Doubts of claims of heavy Indian casualties had already been expressed in the article-- and what you put in here (unreferenced) about casualties repeats or contradicts what is written elsewhere in the article -- The point that most early accounts of the battle had vastly overestimated Indian casualties has already been made.
Your last paragraph quotes George Hyde. I'm familiar with Hyde and an admirer of his -- but he was opinionated and his opinion was not always right. It seems to me that this quote trivializes the war by making it appear that the Indians were only fighting because it was fun. I don't believe that. The war was a deadly serious business to them -- as witnessed by their persistence and near daily attacks on the soldiers in their country. In other words, in attempting to slant this article more toward the Indian side of the story, I think you have done the reverse with this quote -- which is only an opinion by a "white historian" -- the ilk of which you deride elsewhere.
I don't disagree with your apparent intention of trying to focus this article more on the Indian side of the story, but I think the article is already balanced. There's room for disagreement on that point. 150 years on, I think the Indians get a fair shake in the article as now written -- but there are always other points of view which may merit mention, providing that the sources are authoritative and credible.
Thanks for your reply! You have some very good points here!
Coming back to the "folklore" part - the wagon box fight has been celebrated by this folklore as you know, and I still think it's reasonable to make the point that we're not talking about a universal folkore here but a decidedly partisan one - white settler folkore. When I inserted "white settler", I meant it to qualify the very next word in the text - "folklore". There is certainly also a native folkore take on this episode, and it's almost certainly quite different.
I agree with your deletion of the following "white historian" insertion. I certainly didn't infer though that Indian historians would have been wrong in coming to different conclusions.
The next two paragraphs aren't unreferenced as they are a block quote from Hyde's book, source given right there. I put them into inverted commas and added the source.
Hyde may have been a white historian, but he was the only one mentioned here who interviewed Indian participants, and his points that the Indians didn't consider this a defeat at all as they concluded that they had inflicted more fatalities than they had suffered and captured a great deal of lifestock is crucial in my view. As a little aside, as for Hyde calling Dodge's book "stupid" in passing, yes, that's opiniated and rude - but in fact very much justified, I don't want to waste your time going into specifics but it's in large part a racist, derisive piece of fantasy (e.g. all young Cheyennes do the Sun Dance as a rite of passage (nope), those who pass it all become Dog Soldiers (nope), those few that fail become Berdaches (nope), and it just goes on like this). I just think that if we delete that one about the Indians not considering it a defeat at all, isn't that indeed unbalanced?. How about reinserting the first paragraph of the Hyde quote and leaving the second one deleted?
Sorry, I don't have time now to respond to you in detail. Obviously you are aware that many of the accounts of the battle are exaggerated -- so I leave it to you to take my comments into account in revising the article. I would probably call the results of the battle "inconclusive" as neither side seemed to win much of anything, although the war of attrition was being won by the Indians. Smallchief (talk22:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Weaving a fine thread.
This page is a nightmare to maintain. I appreciate you joining in. I am happy to discuss any aspect but where to start. The article is about weaving which is now all about air-jet and water jet looms which we have not touched yet. We have sections to add on weaving patterns and artificial fibres! We have input from the hobby sector and have to maintain a balanced narrative that will satisfy the ´average' reader. In a sense we are a top level article that will direct the reader to other more detailed articles
In 2011 and 2014 we floated sections that were becoming over dominant etc., which I suggest is the way forward. In preparing for that I rarely delete- but comment out text so it can be transferred easily. I do zap bad formattting and out of context photos. I hope you see what I am doing. At the moment I am trying to maintain the integrity of the history section from Sumerians to recent post shuttle looms- and will then attempt a prècis to shorten it- I am concerned that the Andean civilisation do need a higher profile (from the cultural POV) but can't think of the best way to do this. Suggestions?
I'll withhold judgement briefly -- but I don't in general favor deleting material unless the subject is adequately covered in another article. This article is unbalanced. More attention in your formulation is given to Huguenot weavers in England in the 18th century than is given the whole 11,000 year history of weaving in the Americas, especially the Andean civilizations in which weaving was a major art form.Smallchief (talk10:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The information in the article was correct, but I said Harlan instead of McDowell country; and made the same mistake in the footnote was mistaken. I fixed it. Smallchief (talk01:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The source you cite doesn't say that Trump's crowd was 25 percent of other inaugurations -- and to compute that number would be misleading unless you define the time period of the inaugurations you're talking about. Nor does the source define the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration which makes any such calculation speculative. Smallchief (talk00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
On 5 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sabinoso Wilderness, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 16,030 acres (6,490 ha) of Federal land in New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness are inaccessible without trespassing, because they are entirely enclosed in privately-owned property? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sabinoso Wilderness. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sabinoso Wilderness), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Smallchief, I just read your comment on the nomination page, and I can't tell whether you still wanted to pursue this nomination or to withdraw it. I hope the former, and if so I'll look into formatting the proposed hook properly, but if it is the latter, please let me know so I can take care of it. Thanks. I'm sorry the DYK instructions seemed so opaque. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alex Morgan, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on the talk page for WP:FOOTY. It was explained to you how the inclusion of this data is not in agreement with community consensus. Feel free to continue. Since you refused to raise your concern with the community and decided that you know best and I'm a vandal, I have raised it. You have been warned.Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And it continues. Have you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? In the WP:TPYES section is a paragraph WP:MULTI (you may have to find WP:MULTI after the page loads because of formatting on the page). Not only did you post the same thread in second talk page, you intentionally copied the discussion from one talk page to another. Allowing assists and minutes played is a guideline discussion and not specific to one article alone. The outcome of the discussion, should it change consensus, will affect more than just Morgan's article. Feel free to point back to the specific section there (although it will be archived in about a month, unless the discussion continues for longer than that) even though there are several links back to the footy talk page, but don't get yourself into trouble by copying the discussion and splitting it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This tone can be perceived as aggressive, not constructive. Please review the policy WP:CIVILITY and let's see if we can continue the discussion on the Alex Morgan talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Saegar & the Payagua
Quick nit: in this edit, you didn't list which of Saegar's works you were referencing... was it "The Chaco Mission Frontier: The Guaycuruan Experience" that you referenced elsewhere? (Also, I think at least SOME reference to the deadliness of the raids is merited... modern people forget what raiding often entails. "Murder" might be the wrong word, but it's still close.)
Also as a total side note, I've been meaning to email Saegar himself for more than a year... I think he's like the only English-speaking expert on colonial Paraguay in the world. But since he's emeritus now I have no idea if he even bothers responding. SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the nit. I'm just beginning to edit this article, so have begun by deleting material which I thought was not neutral in tone. You're right that the Payagua raids were murderous, but as I read the history of the area, it wasn't only the Payagua and other Indians (I wish that term was still politically correct), who were guilty of murderous raids, but also the Spanish and Portuguese. Thus is seemed unfair to me to single out the Payagua for "murder" as if they were the only aggressors and bad guys. I'll try to get the right tone in this section and reference it.
I hope that Saeger responds to you. I'd be interested in hearing his critique of the various articles, some of which I'm contributing to, on the Guaycuru peoples. In addition to Saeger, I've also located an article by Barbara Ganson on the Evueví which is an alternate name for the Payagua. Smallchief (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Area of Beijing's Legation District ca. 1937
I admit I was a little skeptical of that value when I wrote the article, but that's what French says in the source cited. Of course, given the critique of his book later on in the article, I should perhaps have even more reason to doubt it.
I've read French's book and I noticed that he described the legation quarter as 2 acres in size -- which is obviously incorrect. I've seen sources, none of which are at hand at the moment, which describe the Legation Quarter as one mile long and one-half mile wide or 320 acres. Conversely, there is also a map in the Beijing Legation Quarter article which has a one-half mile scale and by my eyeball on that map the Legation quarter was not quite that big, a rectangle about 4300 feet by 2300 feet or 225 acres, but with an appendage (the US Legation) which would add a few acres. I confirmed that size by another scaled map which is in "Goodbye to Old Peking", p. xxv.) Anyway, I felt safe in saying that the legation quarter was about 1 square kilometer in size, about 247 acres. (Am I guilty of the sin of "Original Research" here? I hope not.)
If you'd like to reference the area, it would be Letcher, John Seymour, edited by Jeans, Roger B. and Lyle, Katie Letcher (1998), Good-Bye to Old Peking: The Wartime Letters of U.S. Marine Captain John Seymour Letcher, 1937-1939, Athens: Ohio University Press, p. xxv. Smallchief (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Tania Morales
Thanks for your comment at the AfD. I had misread the article and thought it stated that all her international appearances were for junior teams in Olympic games qualifying. I have closed the AfD as keep accordingly. Sorry for the confusion. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Sandboxes in mainspace
Hi, I assumed you didn't really mean to put an article called sandbox in mainspace, so I've taken the liberty of moving it to User:Smallchief/Manso River. Hope that's OK with you, cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the first time complaining (after 8 years on wikipedia) and I hope it will be a long time before I do so again. I appreciate the kind correction. Smallchief (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Smallchief, I was updating various Wichita tribal articles. I could not find a single published source that indicated that the Rayados were distinct from the Wichitas and there are no published sources even describing them as a separate subtribe. Your article mainly dealt with the archaeological site visited by Spanish explorers. Since a vast amount of new information has been discovered about the city (which you've doubtless read) since you started your article, I folded the Rayado information into an Etzanoa article and the main Wichita people article. Yuchitown (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Glad you are okay with it. BTW thank you for covering Native history in a region that few pay attention to. People in the Southern Plains should know their history! Yuchitown (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Rollback granted
Hi Smallchief. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk16:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I've read Vigur's thesis, but I think she is wrong on this point. Witherington arrived in France September 22/23, 1943, months before Wilen started training in early 1944 in England. Witherington met Wilen about April 16, 1944, four days after Wilen arrived in France. A time when they could have trained together doesn't seem possible. Another source, Beryl E. Escott, The Heroines of SOE, doesn't say anything about Wilen training with Witherington. Pearl Witherington's biography, She Landed by Moonlight, mentions Wilen a couple of times (p. 214, 225) as "Sophie" but doesn't say anything about knowing her in training.
I noticed that you reverted my edit in article Camp Holmes Internment Camp, where I changed the word "make-shift" to "makeshift".
I believe that this was a straightforward correction of a mistakenly hyphenated word to the correctly joined compound word. It was not part of a quotation, so there should be no reason to keep it as presented. In other words, I don't think "make-shift" is a true English word and that it should be "makeshift". Can you please explain why you reverted this? Thanks! - Jkgree (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Did I really do that? I must assume I did, because the edit summary says I did. I can barely spell my own name, let alone debate makeshift vs make-shift, which makes it weird that I saw a need to change the spelling. Sorry. Smallchief (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Food and Agriculture in Nazi Germany; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You started the edit war by not taking this to the talk page when I asked you to. Please explain your position calmly and quietly, rather than accusing me of an edit war. I have also responded to your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I plan to take a nap, so don't expect an immediate response to any further comments you may choose to make.Smallchief (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Escape and evasion lines (World War II), which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Pronunciation of "Juan"
"Juan" is indeed pronounced with an M sound at the end if the next word begins with a P sound (or a B sound, or another M sound). Spanish is like that. Consonants assimilate to ones that follow, even if it is one in the next word. ¡Modifica el texto sólo cuando estás seguro de lo que haces! Si se trata de un idioma que no conoces, ¡no hagas nada! Kelisi (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I just raised the question 5 minutes ago on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Maybe the forum you recommend would be better. I'll look for it. Thanks. Y a proposito, para Kelisi, yo hablo castellano, pero gracias por tu inestimable sugerencia.Smallchief (talk)
Hi @Smallchief, just a friendly reminder that after your GA Review Van Sickle Island you need to do some more steps, please have a look at WP:GAN/I#PASS - if you do not feel confident to do so let me know. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I had no idea that I had additional tasks.:) I'll try to do what needs to be done. Smallchief (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Well done. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Indians
American Indians is a completely acceptable term (indeed the preferred term among American Indians in the United States), so if you prefer "Rayado Indians" in Etzanoa, I'm happy to change it back.
Also, this is a very long talk page! You might check out template:archive :) Have a good one! -Yuchitown (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
@Yuchitown: Thanks for the message. I anticipate one of these days we will go back to "Indians" and get rid of the clumsy "Native Americans" moniker. Your suggestion to archive is welcome, but I have just spent an hour of my life trying to do it, and failing (and another few minutes learning how to ping you). As my talk page says, I am not good at technology. So, no disrespect, but my talk page will apparently have to grow like Jack's beanstalk.Smallchief (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry for the time waste. I'm going to change Rayado back to Indians, but didn't want to edit war with you. The current names tribes use for themselves today exemplifies how much "Indian" is in current parlance. Yuchitown (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
That sentence about sedentary farming was written by an editor with a history of socking
That whole paragraph is a bit misleading, especially about South America. While a lengthy section about the Americas doesn't belong in an article about the Neolithic Revolution of the Old World, I may undertake a revision after I finish a current project to get at least the dates right.Smallchief (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Smallchief, since your focus is early Southern Plains tribes, would you care to look over the Lipan Apache people article? I've trying to overhaul it and provide neutral, readable information that might be useful to people. Any additions, removals, or corrections you care to make would be most welcome! Yuchitown (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
@Yuchitown Hi, Yuchitown. I don't know much about the Lipan, but I took a quick look at the article. It needs a lot of revision, as you rightly point out. I wasn't familiar with the Mescalero report cited as a source; I'll be interested in what it says. I made one change in the article, adding a link to Teyas Indians in the Texas panhandle. I doubt however they were absorbed by the Lipan. More likely, in my opinion, the Teyas were Caddoan and related to the Tejas people of eastern Texas who gave the state its name. (I looked at the Teyas article which I wrote about 12 years ago. It needs work.)
My opinions about the Lipan, not necessarily bolstered by reliable sources, is that they were probably the descendants of the Dismal River culture of western Kansas and were pushed southward to southern Texas by the Comanche from the 1730s onward. The Comanche seemed to still be at war with them in the 1830s. I'll take another more detailed look at the article and get back to you. Smallchief (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link; Teja was my typo. The article has previously been completely useless to a student or someone wanting to learn basic information about this tribe, so if we could just compile a simple summary of what's known about them, that would wonderful. Any help you care to offer is greatly appreciated! Yuchitown (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
@Smallbones: Great minds think alike? Your user page is much more interesting and artistic than mine! I'm neither "small" nor a "chief." What is the origin of your name? Congratulations on producing The Signpost. I'm a regular reader. I'm not sure I understand or remember how to ping another editor. So, as virtual blood brothers, do me a favor and respond to this message so I'll know that I have communicated. A minor triumph if I have managed to do so. Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
See Smallbone for a list of some of the few of us. It's an English family name. Probably the most famous person of that name was fictional - as I recall it - Penelope Smallbone in a James Bond film. But I doubt that I'm related to anybody on that disambig page. For me it's from a very distant relative and I just forgot how to spell it. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I actually spent sometime trying to verify the details and page numbers to see if the references should be "Captives and Cousins – Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Borderlands", as well as checking other works by "Brooks 2008", but couldn't verify it for certain. As I fixed five of the seven broken references in the article, maybe if you don't want broken refs in the article marked at {{CN}} you should make sure there are no broken references in the article to begin with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to say thank you for adding onto to the wikipedia, I have found some of your contributions that I came across to be pretty interesting! Specifically Cerro de la sal, I came across that subject recently in literature I was researching. (Varese, Stefano (2004). Salt of the Mountain Campa Asháninka History and Resistance in the Peruvian Jungle) I would also like to say that I have been contributing to wikipedia's current Rubber boom articles, and the work I have done so far is mainly listed on my page: I would appreciate any contribution or collaboration from your end on some of those articles! Arawoke (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Arawoke: Thanks for your kind words. At the moment, I'm working on articles not related to Peru, but you've given me the idea to look at the "rubber boom," so you may be seeing me around. Latin America is a fertile field for expanding and improving Wikipedia! Smallchief (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Peopling of the Americas
I'm very impressed by the way you explained your revert to that new editor. Tactful and detailed. I admit to some concern about their comments about dishonesty and malfeasance. I wondered if that was a reference to Deloria and who the other scholars might be. Hm, while writing this I looked at his article and found this[5] which I am tempted to delete. Looks like OR in any case and unsourced. In particular, "as many scholars in Religious studies & Anthropology have previously argued." has been made to look sourced. What do you think? Doug Wellertalk08:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I've wrestled with the disagreements between scientific orthodoxy vs research that contradicts said orthodoxy. My opinion is that it is not Wikipedia's role to challenge scientific consensus. We should acknowledge the nay-sayers but without giving their views undue weight. That would be my objection to the above language and the language I reverted in Peopling of the Americas.
However, once in in a while the nay-sayer will prove to be correct. For example, in the article about the Folsom tradition two nay-sayers, Jesse Figgins and Harold Cook, were correct that the first humans in the Americas were here long before the 3,000 years dictated in those days by scientific orthodoxy. Figgins and Cook suffered for their views. I tried to give them posthumous credit in the article and added criticism to the article about their chief persecutor, Aleš Hrdlička. That's about the best we can do: right past wrongs. Avant-garde we are not. Smallchief (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I got off on a tangent there. Yes, I think that edit you propose for deletion should be deleted -- or the language revised to read "as some scholars in religious studies and folklore have argued." Smallchief (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
