Talk:Anna Mae Aquash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disappearing text

Too much text is disappearing from the article, without edit summaries or discussion here. I am restoring it unless this is explained. Nothing personal, the facts are most important here. Badagnani 03:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do. - N1h1l 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I know that Antoinettenora has added a lot of good material (especially to the "Activism" section); however, a large amount of sourced material has been removed from the article with no discussion on the talk page. Due to the number of edits in the last 24 hours, I cannot seperate the "good" edits from the "bad" edits. Please feel free to add stuff back in, but please don't remove anything without mentioning why on the talk page! - N1h1l 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh, now you've deleted some of my last few additions and corrections. Badagnani 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I got confused by the large number of recent edits. Is it something that you can easily copy and paste from the edit history? - N1h1l 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Some cleanup is needed. For example, references to stateside, unless in quotes or as part of a name are ununstable for Wikipedia. Try USA. Furthermore, some more up to date information is needed. Is Graham still fighting his deportion or is it over? What's Looking Cloud doing? Nil Einne 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Letter

Regarding the controversy over the letter, a photo of the letter itself should be placed on the site, allowing others to see that it is in Aquash's handwriting. This would go a long way toward resolving any doubts people might have about its authenticity. Badagnani 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Claypoole is not credible. She is trying to make a name on this case. She is not a recognized authority by Native People. She has removed reference to material by Native Writers. Claypoole is not Native. It is unfortunate that she is demeaning this case with her greed.

Aailth

Early life

According to the article here:[1], our article is missing most of the information about her early life. It will be good to add some information about this. Badagnani 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Who Killed Anna Mae?

I have read the section on Who Killed Anna Mae? several times now and I have to confess that I find it to be, frankly, poorly written. There is almost no coherent flow to the section and it is unbalanced several places. There are POV sentences in here that clearly do not reflect Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. For example, “One of Aquash's two daughters, Debbie Pictou Maloney, is a Constable with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which engaged in surveillance against AIM members in the 1970s, provided intelligence regarding AIM to U.S. security forces, and arrested Leonard Peltier in Alberta, leading to his extradition to the United States and ongoing imprisonment." and "If Looking Cloud's confession is not true, this would render some comments made by certain Native journalists and some of the Pictou/Maloney family questionable." After looking over the history of edits I feel that this is probably a case of so many edits having been made over time that grammar and flow were lost. Rather than embarking on a significant rewrite of the section and making arbitrary edits, I do want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to express themselves first. I would like to emphasis that my concern here is that the article is grammatically correct and encyclopedic in nature. Sláinte! --Cafe Irlandais 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just edit it so it makes grammatical sense, preserving content. That's normal. Badagnani 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but judging from the tone of your comment, are you telling me that I am not allowed to make any change to the content of the section? I am fairly new to Wikipedia but everything else I have seen says that I should be bold in my edits, but you appear to be telling me the opposite. Is there someone whose permission I am supposed to ask in order to make a change? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand how things work. Cheers! --Cafe Irlandais 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you may edit as you see fit. However, just be aware that many skilled editors have spent months (or years) building the information here. I personally try to be as judicious as possible and use the "discussion" page before making large content edits (unless something is clearly and blatantly inaccurate), in order to respect the previous contributions of others. It's a community of editors and everything works best if all the editors can agree upon the new versions. This system usually works really well. Badagnani 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Items for deletion

There are two items in this section which, after attempting to reword them, I really feel should probably be deleted from the article altogether. The first is the rather lengthy quote from Leonard Peltier. While at one time it may have been notable that Peltier “has made five statements on the U.S. government's case against Looking Cloud and Graham”, I think that this notability has been overcome by events. The fact that Peltier, through his own Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, has issued a statement distancing himself and the LDPC from John Graham and the John Graham Defense Committee invalidates the quote in the manner in which it is currently presented in the article. The comment that this statement "has never been verified as coming from Leonard Peltier himself” is, well, ridiculous. If not by the LPDC of which his own lawyers, friends, and family are members, then by whom is the statement's authenticity supposed to verified?

At this point, based on the case’s development, it appears Peltier’s relevance to this article may come from whether or not he or his actions played a role, directly or indirectly, in Aquash’s death. This not to say in any way that Peltier was anywhere near the scene of the crime. Every reputable source agrees that he wasn't. Rather that he or his actions may have been a motivating factor for others. However, this is highly speculative and represents only the stated opinions of some, and certainly not all, of the principals. As such, if it is mentioned in the article at all, it should be clearly identified and treated as speculation and opinions, and no more that.

The second item that I feel should be deleted deals with Graham’s refusal to take a polygraph. As the paragraph states, no authoritative entity has requested that he take this test, therefore mentioning his refusal has an unfair and pejorative connotation to it. I understand the Indigenous Woman for Justice may feel that they have a vested interest in having a polygraph administered, but I feel that their lack of any type of official status precludes its request from being included in this article.

Unless there is a reasonable objection, I will move to delete these two items. Cheers, Cafe Irlandais 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first proposal and have no strong opinion on the second. A quick Goolge search seems to indicate that the polygraph challenge is notable [2], regardless of "official status".

Thanks for spending the time to clean this section up! - N1h1l 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had a specific request not to delete either paragraph. I will go back to working on the rewording. Thanks, Cafe Irlandais 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hendricks

What is thought about Hendricks' book? I am curious about what others think about this publication regarding more recent information about Anna Mae Aquash's murder. Anishinaabe-bimaadizi 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read it. What are your thoughts? Badagnani 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read most of it (bits and pieces here and there), and am not exactly sure what to think. I picked it up for a paper I'm writing about the political contexts in which the documentaries Trudell and Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story were made, and also because it pertains to things I am passionate about. Hendricks definitely went to great lengths to get as close to the bottom of Anna Mae Aquash's murder (and the events leading up to, and surrounding it) as he could get. I like the fact that Hendricks was so unbiased. As someone who looks up to many of the AIM noteables, as well as the movement itself, it was extremely hard to read some very specific things said during Arlo Looking Cloud's trial. Sometimes the truth hurts though, eh? (What of it was actually true anyhow...Kamook Nichols' words hurt the most) However, I must say that I respect Hendricks for fighting the FBI as hard as he did to force the release of documents relative to his investigation (he sued them multiple times for violating the Freedom of Information Act). And while Hendricks made some disparaging remarks about some people that I greatly respect, I think Hendricks' heart is in the right place...all in all, I would recommend reading it. I hope it gets a great deal of mainstream attention, to be honest. A lot of what has been pointed out in this book is information that the greater public needs to know. Luckily, Hendricks didn't get tied up in court for speaking the ugly truth like Peter Matthiessen did with In the Spirit of Crazy Horse. Everything that happened with all of this has always, and will always, make me sick to my stomach. Miigwech. Anishinaabe-bimaadizi 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve just had the opportunity to read Steve Hendrick’s book and I would like to join Anishinaabe-bimaadizi in recommending it to anyone who is interested in the story of Anna Mae, AIM, and the events that occurred on Pine Ridge. It is well researched, entertainingly written, and presents quite a bit of new information as well as expanding, clarifying, and tying together facts that were already public knowledge.

All too often investigative books such as this will gloss over the misdeeds of one side while those of the other are hyped. That’s not the case here. He gives AIM, on the whole, an evenhanded, warts and all portrayal, and for this he should be commended. Steve does not pretend that AIM was simply a peaceful, well-intentioned organization working to improve the dire conditions of Native Americans but who was victimized by an overzealous FBI for their efforts. Where “AIMers” have committed egregious acts he pulls no punches (save on one or two notable occasions). Nor does he let WKLDOC, and in particular Ken Tilsen and Bruce Ellison, get a free pass, and nor should he. Both of these “gentlemen attorneys” are, it would appear, deliberately withholding key information.

I don’t believe that I would call the book entirely unbiased, particularly with respect to the FBI. Indeed, anytime an author asks the likes of Peter Matthiessen to vet their work it’s a pretty good indication of which way the wind is going to blow on the subject, and on that score Steve’s book doesn’t disappoint. His portrayal of the FBI is decidedly uncomplimentary. That the FBI engaged in actions that, I believe, any reasonable person would find reprehensible is beyond doubt, and for that they should be “stomped”. But I seriously doubt that everything they did was evil, corrupt or incompetent. For reasons like this I am always a little bit leery when I read a book of investigative journalism where little or no good is said about one of the principals, regardless of which side of the argument they’re on. It makes me feel as though I am being lead to a certain conclusion under the guise of being asked to look at the facts and then decide for myself. But then Steve is under no obligation to follow Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, and I am glad that he doesn’t. I firmly believe that the FBI should be held to a higher standard, and that they should also be held accountable for their transgressions.

I don’t agree with all of Steve’s conclusions, and on occasion I felt his interpretation of the facts was “interesting”. There were three things in the book that I took outright exception to. But having said all that, I thought the book was simply excellent and I highly recommend it. It was an enjoyable read and I look forward to reading it again. If you are thinking about getting it, do so. You won’t be disappointed. Cheers! Cafe Irlandais 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CBC Story

CBC News has a story on new charges that may be useful here:[3]. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit to the murder section

After reading the Murder section I rather felt that it was a bit of hodgepodge. What I mostly did with this edit was to try rearrange the presentation in a more coherent manner and add a few subtitles. I added some information on the possible motive from the article on Peltier and the fact that Graham and Rios had been indicted by South Dakota. I also removed the back and forth between Robideau and Peltier. Not really sure that that exchange brought anything of value to the article. There were a couple of other things that I deleted, and I apologize as I am sure that not everything that was should have been. Anyway, my intent with this edit was just to bring a little order to the section. I realize that some more work is needed and I’ll try to add some stuff here shortly, mostly on what transpired prior to her untimely demise. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Boston before the muliticultural school

I just translated this article for German WP and noticed some minor redundancies, but also 1 rather strange mistake: As the linked biography of her (1st item in the Weblinks section) makes perfectly clear, she went to Boston in the early 60s, the Tea Party thing also was before the school thing (it seems her daughters simply went there). I would change it myself, but am a bit fed up with the whole Aquash murder mess at the moment.--Radh (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A movie about her life and death

I know the existence of a movie about her named: The Spirit of Annie Mae by Catherine Anne Martin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469833/) and produced by the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) but I don't really know where to put it in the article, if someone find it that useful, feel free to add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kro3n3n (talk • contribs) 06:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Info box seems a bit long

The infobox repeats everything in the article, whats the point of an article if everyting is crammed into the box? It's an article wthin an article, all it needs in the box is her shoe size and favorite brand of breakfast cereal :)7mike5000 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll undo my edit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It kind of looks a bit neater now. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

An editor called for a cite on an assertion that after her death, it was found that Aquash's life was threatened by the FBI. I checked the Weller article (the cite for the rest of the paragraph) and it definitely is not in there, so I deleted the statement. Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced POV edits

There have been POV additions that are unsourced (i.e., DeMain wrote articles about this because he needed work), which have been deleted, as well as additions in the text in areas where the context was wrong. Additions are being checked against cited sources and are deleted if not in the source (e.g. assertion that Kamook was jealous of Aquash and spread rumors about her - cite used was Kades article, but it does not appear in there). Parkwells (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Location of Aquash at time of FBI murders

An editor had added that Aquash was at Pine Ridge at the time of the murders. This is incorrect; she was in Cedar Rapids, as documented in a reliable source (RS).Parkwells (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus of article

This is supposed to be about Aquash, not only about the trials related to her murder. It is Undue Weight to add too much detail about trial testimony. Wiki Policy is that editors are supposed to use secondary sources - what journalists and academics have written about the trials, rather than citing their own selections from primary sources, such as testimony. Parkwells (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More huge edits with disappearing text

More material is disappearing, never with any comment. I've asked nicely several times now (and I don't think it's too much to ask). Would you please follow the normal Wikipedia practice and explain your large edits? Otherwise they will be reverted. We're a community here, remember. Badagnani 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck Badagnanai. I've followed the AIM sagas for years and there is no end to the shenanigans. I agree with the wikipedia entry and that the Looking Cloud / Graham cases are highly questionable. It's hard to understand why people are still out to get AIM. The organization has been defunct for at least 20 years and there is no threat to anyone posed by the people involved back then. Looking Cloud was a defenseless alcoholic person living on the streets, manipulated by some very sick people with agendas having nothing to do with solving the murder. I am amazed that this wikipedia site has been left untouched by the viscious and largely unsupported accusations surrounding this murder.

Paul Wolf

Thanks for the input. I guess the best solution would be for those involved (in any way) with the murder to truthfully admit what they did. Not sure that will happen, though. There are wrongs done within and among the members of any group, no matter how altruistic the motive. I think one question is that some members believe they should not be subject to U.S. laws in light of that nation's history vis a vis Native peoples, and that whatever wrongs were done should be righted "in house." The irony is that some might argue that the paranoia that probably helped to incite the murder was contributed to by government itself. Badagnani 04:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Banks supposedly said, that two notorious brothers high up in AIM ordered her killed. This of course is no proof, but even if false shows some remarkable things about your heroes?--Radh (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern and to "Paul Wolf": The American Indian Movement is not defunct. It has never ceased to exist, though membership waxes and wanes. In recent times there has been a large revitalization due to many people of the "7th Generation" returning to traditional cultural ways and resisting colonial assimilation and cultural genocide. SheaSandy (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References

External links

These are not required to be RS, per Wiki policy. Replaced published magazine article - also no reason given for saying this is not RS.Parkwells (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of page and legal name

I'm pretty sure Annie Mae's legal name was Annie Mae (not Anna Mae). I'm thinking of swapping this with the redirect. I'm looking for WP:V published sources on her legal name. In the past it could have been argued that "Anna Mae" was the more commonly-known name for her, but I think this has changed. Google test: About 101,000 results for "Annie Mae" Aquash and About 42,400 results for "Anna Mae" Aquash. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kathryn, you are correct. Annie Mae Aquash was indeed her legal name. I would think the article would be under her actual name. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what everyone is talking about. When I googled Anna Mae Aquash it said that there were "About 85,000 results". When I googled Annie Mae Aquash it said "About 30,800 results". Just looking at the current sources for this Wikipedia article, her daughter Denise refers to her mother as Anna Mae on her website: [4]; and Minnie Two Shoes, (who was a friend of Aquash and said in this sourced discussion, "...I knew Anna Mae, I know there’s thousands of people who claim to know her, but I truly did as a friend.") refers to her as Anna Mae: [5]. Anna Mae appears to be the "more recognizable and natural" way to refer to her per WP: UCN. -Evenrød (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is source it to legal documents on her legal name. Some of her friends and family seem to have used both names, at various points in time. Evenrød, It looks like the numbers have changed since I last looked, and just now I got similar numbers as you: "Annie Mae" Aquash = About 29,000 results. "Anna Mae" Aquash = About 85,400 results. Still, these days her family calls her "Annie Mae", and I am told that was her legal name. I am for going with the legal name and the family's wishes. It's not a BLP issue, but surviving family... - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Question on nationality

Aquash may have been part of the American Indian Movement, but she identified as M'ikmaq and her family had her reinterred "in her own country" at the M'ikmaq reservation in Canada. A claim that she was of American nationality needs to be sourced; I deleted that note in the Infobox.Parkwells (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rape

The article mentions that Marshall and Rios were indicted, among other things, for rape. It is not mentioned whether there were any convictions for rape so this is left hanging.Bill (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FBI Involvement

The article states "The FBI became involved because of its interest in AIM." That is not accurate, the FBI was involved long before they or one of the corporate entities the FBI works for long before they murdered her. The FBI was asked to destroy the efforts that AIM was engaged in long before the FBI or some other corporate entity murdered her. Damotclese (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anna Mae Aquash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125182726/http://www.indiancountrynews.info/aquashmurder.cfm.htm to http://www.indiancountrynews.info/aquashmurder.cfm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125084425/http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm to http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New edits

Let's please have citations for new edits that have previously unknown information (such as who was an informant), or at least edit summaries, so that this information can be verified. When you delete text (the part about drug abuse), please also use an edit summary so we know why you are doing that. Thank you. Badagnani 18:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I second this & am shocked no one else has in over a decade. Missviscous (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Mae Aquash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009135414/http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.7.RobertRobideau.htm to http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.7.RobertRobideau.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexism in article

I've been repairing subtle and not so subtle sexist POV text: referring to subject as "She" instead of Aquash at critical points; referring to Aquash by first name only; referring to Kamook and Aquash as "the women" when describing arrest; reference to rumors of jealousy seems off in word selection; etc. Wll find more and repair. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)