Talk:Red Horn

Further Alterations

Introduced a section entitled "Son of Earthmaker" to show the mythical origin of Red Horn and his divine mission. Redacted the "Chief of the Herok'a" story to shorten it a bit. Put all the archaeological material together in a new section entitled, "Red Horn and archaeology", and moved the Big Boy picture down to that section. (The Big Boy picture that we have is not much good, since it does not show the prosopic earpieces that he is wearing. This is the only thing linking him to Red Horn.) What should be discussed in this section is Hall's bilobed arrow motif and Red Horn's name of "He who is Struck with Deer Lungs"; "long-nose god maskettes" as artifacts; Big Boy carving; Bird Man; Gottschall Rockshelter; and Picture Cave. Diete003 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 October 2008

Change of title

The peer review assessment mentioned that the article is clearly not about a legend, but about a personage, Red Horn, who is the protagonist of various stories (legends, myths, etc.). The object is not just to give an account of legends, but to describe the state of knowledge on this deity. The Winnebago describe him as a man, but in a very broad sense, like the Norse mann, which denotes not only mortal humans, but members of various divine races. Given that English is a little more restrictive in this way, I don't advise "man" in the parenthetical part of the title. "Deity" is probably safe enough when broadly construed. He is at least a supernatural being. He is not found in Algonquian sources, nor in Caddoan. One can adduce by argument other cognates all of which are from Siouan tribes. It is probably safe, therefore, to describe him as a "Siouan diety". This is based on what we know, archaeological speculations aside. Diete003 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 October 2008

Adjustments

Making some alterations to bring it into line with the suggestions made by the referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diete003 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition

I added a section entitled "Chief of the Herok'a" which is drawn largely from unpublished sources. It develops Red Horn's identity with the arrow, and shows that his name not only makes reference to his red scalp lock, but to the arrow. In the published secondary literature, none of this material is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diete003 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

I've recently re-written and significatly expanded this entry, with citations, a reflist, illustrations and links to related material, new categories, etc. There are still plenty of other red horn cycle myths, plus plenty of astrological associations for all of the different characters (it would be cool to have a whole section on that) that could be added if someone wants to help! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. ClovisPt (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-title?

Should the title of this article be changed from Red Horn (man) to something like Red Horn (legend)? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should and was going to suggest it myself, just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I'm not sure why someone named it (man), except to maybe differentiate it from some cartoon character, which seems to have the redhorn name. I'm not sure what to suggest tho, Redhorn (legend), Redhorn (myth), Redhorn (god)?. What do you think would work best? Is there a precedent already set with other mythological characters on other pages? Would have to keep Red Horn (man) as a re-direct page, that or go change all of the links to it, lol. Thanks for the props above. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Red Horn (legend), with an additional page move of the other article to Red Horn (Zoid) and a disambiguation page created at Red Horn. Good enough? ClovisPt (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hope no one minds. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad link

The link to tenous arguments at (Gottschall — Debate and Discussion.) goes nowhere. Could you correct this please Diete003? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No POV or Original Research

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:

	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.
	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,915,969 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Wikipedia:Five pillarsHeironymous Rowe (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

userdiete003, would you mind reading the above material? You are adding unsourced, POV material and making attacks on the profession of archaeology, neither of which are welcome additions to an encyclopedic article. Please respond here and let us work together to make this a good article, sincerely, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added an inappropriate tone tag to this article until certain issues can be addressed. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the footnote from the image. What we have here is, I think, someone who is an expert but who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and is treating the article as though it was a scholarly essay rather than reporting what reliable sources have actually written. Unless the material in the footnote can actually be found in a source mentioning the legend, it is original research. I hope Richard Dieterle will understand this -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources have published and that readers can verify. Richard, if you have published something that says what the footnote said, maybe that can be used. But if not, then Wikipedia policies say it is original research, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even an expert's opinion can't be used unless it is published. Doug Weller (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller. I keep trying to communicate with DIETE003, but he doesn't seem to respond to the talk pages, altho he may occasionally read them, as he blanked one a few days ago after I'd left him a message. I think he may feel I'm attacking him, since so far it seems to be me on here, but I just want the article to be good. I'm glad you've stepped in and he can see it's not just my opinions. I'm glad someone of his status has stepped in to help with the article, I just fear he may go over board with issues "extolling the garbage-like ideas of my bitterest academic enemies"(User talk:Xenocidic#Ho-Chunk mythology). Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Paintings

Can we have some sources for these please? Specifics about the originals, etc? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

Could someone familiar with the source in note #68 check for typo: sclupture -> sculpture? LilHelpa (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Horn. 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/20090726132211/http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/caribbean/244/oraltrad.html to http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/caribbean/244/oraltrad.html

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) 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)