Wikipedia

Talk:Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers/Archive 1

< Talk:Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Kintetsubuffalo in topic POV and Merge
Archive 1

Info

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be helpful or appropriate to add a section on this entry that details the Koshare show information e.g.:show times, ticket prices, address of kiva, etc.? Would an infobox be a more useful display of this information?Nickeyrc (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The reason that I did not add this to the museum is because there is a lot of information still to be added to the dancers and I think that it would become too long and clunky and get lost if it were tacked onto the Koshare Indian Museum entry.Also, the museum is a place, while the dancers are a group, they seem to be 2 different subjects.Nickeyrc (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the two entities are essentially the same group of people, which is undue weight for Wikipedia. I love La Junta and all you guys do, but in the end two articles are just not warranted. Can you think of a better combined name, like Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that name works. How does a merger work? Is this something that I will have to combine the info from what is already on the Koshare Indian Museum entry with my whole new entry? Nickeyrc (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There was agreement above that some type of merge was warranted, but it was never done. Given the stub status of the Koshare Indian Museum article, it seemed reasonable to merge that material into Otero Junior College#Koshare Indian Museum, so after a reasonable amount of time without discussion following the placement of the merge tag, I have done so.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your merge was opposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Otero_Junior_College#Merge of Koshare Indian Museum/Dancers--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

POV and Merge

Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion

I removed the anonymous comment:

It's a shame the Boy Scouts of America sanctions this activity. The Koshare "Indian" dancers are not Indian and are mocking the tribes they stole the ceremonies from.

...because there was no citation, which would be needed for such an extreme opinion. However, I agree with that opinion and see the current article as nothing more that a promotion piece based upon the POV of the Boy Scouts. What is needed are reliable sources beyond their own websites that support a NPOV regarding the Koshare Indian Dancers and the Koshare Indian Museum.

I also think the two articles should have been merged as previously discussed.

FriendlyFred (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A google search yielded few Refs that are not travel-related, but here are some -

FriendlyFred (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon further research, having found no references beyond promotional websites, the merge should be to summarize both the museum and dancers within the section in the Otero Junior College article. There does not appear to be anything notable about either the museum or the dancers alone that warrant separate articles.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose merge-your own sourced content-removal is more POV than the supposedly "promotional" material you removed. We can take it to 3O, I'm happy to do so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed merge tag here. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Link rot, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The participation of others is apparently needed, since your response to my edits, the only ones in several years, strike me as the opposite of wp:Assume good faith. FriendlyFred (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd welcome the input of others. Your edits to skew the article toward a negative viewpoint put the lie to your own username. Perhaps you should consider "SJWFred" instead. I have no time to entertain your ego in some sense of "working with you".
The points that you removed, which I have replaced repeatedly, are to wit:
"They have been dedicated to maintaining Native American culture through dance since 1933." If that's their credo, it is what it says it is. How much it is adhered to may be another matter, just as the president swears an oath. The oath is what it is, the occupant of the White House takes it seriously or not. Not POV.
"Koshares must create an historically accurate dance outfit, including leatherwork and beading." Again, there would be minimum requirements to meet, same as the requirements for getting a driver's license-they apparently have standards and research, vide alta. Not POV.
"They travel around the country and perform traditional Plains and Pueblo Native American ceremonial dances at their kiva located at the Koshare Indian Museum in La Junta." Not POV.
"The Koshares have performed in 47 states." Fairly factual claim, not an ounce of POV.
So no, based on those points, I don't feel there is any good faith on your part to assume, more like WP:POINT. If you don't like what they do, and apparently others share your view, that is your paradigm. If your claim is that they are doing it wrong, or should not be doing it at all, take it to Facebook or the local news. But it doesn't allow you to skew the article because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

New article

My research has led me to a number of other Boy Scout Troop "Indian Dancers" in other states. This might be the basis for a new article on all of them.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard posting

Since I am not interested in name calling or engaging with anyone who does, the discussion needs to be broadened to produce a consensus on how to proceed. I am in favor of merging the museum article into the community college article, and retaining the dancers article with a balance between the Boy Scout and the Native American content, although creating a new article that includes other "Indian" dance troops is another possibility. However, being only slightly interested in the topic, unless there is other input I will not waste my time, but allow the articles to return to their backwater status, essentially unedited for six years.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made two changes to the lead section making the language neutral. If they remain, I am satisfied with the balance in the article. My other WP research may produce sources for additional content, but that is unlikely.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Reverted the deletion of my expansion of the content from "Playing Indian" which makes it clear that a noted Native American scholar provides a basis for understanding what the Koshare performances are really about, and why Native Americans object to them. When I encountered it, this entire article was a soapbox for the point of view of the Koshare Dancers, likely written by former members. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
And imagine my surprise that you didn't even follow the instructions properly there. Yawn.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Above, you said "being only slightly interested in the topic, unless there is other input I will not waste my time," there is no other input even when you go fishing for it, so please stop trying to shoehorn in material on other topics, that have their own articles, such as Playing Indian, which is hyperlinked so anyone interested doesn't have to have it spelled out for them.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's three reverts, so you are "officially" edit warring instead of discussing the content in a reasonable manner. I was mainly done but thought that the Deloria content was mealy-mouthed so summarizing the book's thesis based upon what the publisher, Yale University (not me) said was to be my final edit. The fact that the book specifically mentions the Koshare makes it relevant, and the idea that a relevant source cannot be cited because it has its own article is nonsense.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh I am so scared. With all the guidelines you routinely break, you should look in the mirror. Long and hard. Yes, the book says that. You don't need to cram in "presents his thesis that, from the Boston Tea Party to the present, white people have used their version of "Indianness" to build an American identity while ignoring the conquest and dispossession of the actual original inhabitants of this continent." which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A simple "In chapter four yadda yadda, Deloria cites the Koshare Dancers blah blah" would suffice, and relieve you of the baggage you're trying to dump here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As to your specious claim of "personal attacks and insults", what I said would be "personal attacks and insults" if it were not true. One look at User:FriendlyFred/scratchpad, filled with diverse and only tangentially related material such as Scout dance teams, high school mascots and "Native Americans are the group most likely to die in confrontation with police, and receive the most severe sentences. They are also the most likely to be the victims of violent crime." show this to be more than "only slightly interested in the topic," this is your crusade, and it is a case study in what Wikipedia is not. I refuse to "work with you" because you're trying to build a blog, not an encyclopedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this discussion has since been listed at NPOVN, I removed it from 3O. I also suggest that everyone now continue the discussion at NPOVN, but I also suggest that both of you chill out as well; this back and forth name-calling and edit-warring could get you both sanctioned. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I will leave this topic until there is some additional editorial interest. The lack of interest tends to support my original impression, that both Koshare topics lack the notability to have their own articles, being about one BSA troop and one roadside attraction with no secondary sources presenting an unbiased opinion on the significance of dancers or the "museum". Instead there were primary sources, the Koshares own websites and tourist/travel sites that often duplicated the same information, all of which I have called promotional because of their uncritical tone. Also finding many dead links, my original edits that removed material were based upon a combination of notability and verifiability, not POV, in spite of the lengthy and pointless attempt to prove bias by saying so.
There is little point in trying to have a discussion with someone who does not assume good faith. Collaborating with someone you mainly agree with is easy and trivial, and rare on WP. After several years of contributing I cannot claim to have learned all of the guidelines. If my interpretation of a guideline is questionable, I expect a civil exchange in response, not an attempt to use such edits as proof that I should not be editing. With regard to the accusations of personal bias in the content, I reject all since I add nothing that is not supported by reliable sources. The contentious material here comes from a book written by one of the best known Native American scholars, and published by Yale University. Since Deloria mentions the Koshare by name, excluding an unequivocal statement summarizing the book would be cherrypicking, a form of original research that is contrary to maintaining a NPOV. I continue to think that these articles could simply be deleted as not notable, but at long as they exist they need to present a balanced point of view.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Any purported issues in tone or POV have long been addressed, and the article has been stable for over a month. The supposed POV and attendant issues have been canvassed to at least three other editors/administrators[1][2][3], who have not accentuated any marked POV. The discussion at the POV notice board was left up for a month before it went stale and was archived. I am therefore removing the POV tag as resolved, per Template:POV#When_to_remove point 3.Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Koshare Indian Dancers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Merging the Koshare Indian Dancers article here is probably best. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?148.177.0.100 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A good explanation of why is provided at Talk:Koshare Indian Dancers#Merge proposal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Koshare Indian Museum & Koshare Indian Dancers

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand why you keep insisting that commons:Category:Koshare Indian Museum and commons:Category:Koshare Indian Dancers do not exist, and keep removing them from the article. Those commons categories were created at the same time as they were added to the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Twice they were empty, so that is not true. Now they are populated. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Chotomate kudasai. If they were empty, that means that they existed; the edit summary was complaining that the cats did not exist, not that the cat was unpopulated. After creating the cats it took a couple of minutes to populate them -- if you look at the the edit history of the files in those categories, they were all added to these categories within 2 minutes of the categories creation. Yoroshiku onigaishimasu. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No, empty means when you clicked on the link, it said "Wikipedia Commons does not have a category with this name. And you don't need to be smug in Japanese, you're not warranted. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my use of Japanese offensive or otherwise inappropriate. I looked over the edits again to see if I could understand better what happened and this is what I found, based on the the diffs and the time stamps to go with them.

From revision history of Koshare Indian Museum on Wikipedia:
From revision history of "Category:Koshare Indian Museum" on Commons:

It's clear from this that the commons category didn't exist the first time you checked. I use tabbed browsing when I create commons categories, and it's obvious that I clicked the save page button too early here on WP; I should have finished getting the commons category setup right first. It's also clear that the commons category did exist at the time of the second revert. I don't know why you were not able to see it, but it was there. I'm sorry for any frustration I caused you, and I hope you can see that this was not intentional on my part. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that's very big of you, thank you. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and merge

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

See: Talk:Koshare Indian Dancers#POV and Merge. FriendlyFred (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Link rot, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
My deletion was based not only on link rot but the significance of the content and the quality of the citations.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
merge was opposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Otero_Junior_College#Merge of Koshare Indian Museum/Dancers --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Koshare_Indian_Museum_and_Dancers - FriendlyFred (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no responses there but you and the crickets. No one but you is interested in pursuing this. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koshare_Indian_Museum_and_Dancers/Archive_1&oldid=1092303558"