Talk:Chief Joseph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Why is it that when it comes to the peoples of the First Nations, the story reads with such wierdness? The strnageness being, all mentioning death, some (their) shame, lost honor and other tripe. Why cannot Whites, even now, in 2006 relate and talk about these peoples as persons with everyday needs, desires and so forth? Most of what is written regarding Chief Joseph (or any others that I've ever read about always, but always, read with this strange style -- annotated by stylized death, belief in their death, more smelly death and just death. Never (or rarely) has it ever been mentioned that genocide was directed at the peoples of the First Nations and that we cannot possibly now convey what were their true beliefs and thoughts. And that the some oral traditions that were recorded (and being reflected now on WIki) are limited and distilled through many, many a White man's filters. So much so that it might as well be pure fiction; better than even Frank Herbert's _Dune_... So, could it be possible that Wiki might state this someplace in the article and at least try to be the first place and acknowledge that it's being honest about all the previously written tripe?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.45.237 (talk • contribs) 06:58, October 5, 2006 (edit)

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
View comments (edit) Why is it that when it comes to the peoples of the First Nations, the story reads with such wierdness? The strnageness being, all mentioning death, some (their) shame, lost honor and other tripe. Why cannot Whites, even now, in 2006 relate and talk about these peoples as persons with everyday needs, desires and so forth? Most of what is written regarding Chief Joseph (or any others that I've ever read about always, but always, read with this strange style -- annotated by stylized death, belief in their death, more smelly death and just death. Never (or rarely) has it ever been mentioned that genocide was directed at the peoples of the First Nations and that we cannot possibly now convey what were their true beliefs and thoughts. And that the some oral traditions that were recorded (and being reflected now on WIki) are limited and distilled through many, many a White man's filters. So much so that it might as well be pure fiction; better than even Frank Herbert's _Dune_... So, could it be possible that Wiki might state this someplace in the article and at least try to be the first place and acknowledge that it's being honest about all the previously written tripe?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.45.237 (talk • contribs) 06:58, October 5, 2006

	Oregon Portal This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
B	This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Contradiction

After a five-day siege only 30 miles from the Canadian border, he surrendered
Chief Joseph formally surrendered on 5 October 1877 in the Bear Paw mountains of Montana, 40 miles south of Canada (near Havre, Montana).

Those two lines are clearly contradictory, but they're both in the article, so which is right?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuvatar (talk • contribs) 22:20, October 5, 2004

Here's the coordinates of the Bear Paw Battlefield where Chief Joseph surrendered: 48° 22' 38" N 109° 12' 35" W. I'm sure there's a way to figure out what the distance to the Canadian border is, but it'll need to be someone who is more concerned with an answer. -- RobLa 04:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

they could have moved 10 mile before signing the treaty after all he did want to find his missing people. so moving a 10 miles away to sign the treatry makes it no longer contradictory. -- User:Drachenkonig 00:04, February 10, 2005

[edit] Same Event Mentioned Twice?

"In 1877, after the cavalry threatened to attack, Chief Joseph and other leaders began the journey to the reservation. On a night that Chief Joseph was away from camp, a young Nez Perce man and his friends, avenging the killing of his father, attacked and killed a white settler."

"But, in a reversal of policy in 1877...As they began their journey to Idaho, Chief Joseph learned that three young Nez Perce men, enraged at the loss of their homeland, had massacred a band of white settlers."

Both happened in 1877, and may be the same thing. Anyone have any confirmation or denial of this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swwarmuth (talk • contribs) 01:44, February 23, 2005

[edit] Eighteen billion Indians?

"With 2,000 U.S. soldiers in pursuit, Chief Joseph led 18,642,916,000 Nez Perce toward freedom at the Canadian border."

That can't possibly be right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.98.70 (talk • contribs) 14:52, May 4, 2006

Always check the page history for vandalism when questions like this arise. Katr67 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "band" appropriate?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "band" also as "a group of people", yet in common use (apart from musicians) it is used for outlaws mostly. Is it proper to call Indian warriors "bands"? Are groups of indigenous people invaded by settlers "bands"? Is a Native American Indian glad to read this here, or maybe even in History books (if it is also used there too -I am not familiar)? Hoverfish 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that in Canada the term has (had?) meaning, certainly no suggestion of illegal activity. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations "A First Nation is a legally undefined term that came into common usage in the 1980s to replace the term "Indian band". Elder Sol Sanderson says that he coined the term in the early 1980s.[1] A band is defined as "a body of Indians for whose collective use and benefit lands have been set apart or money is held by the Canadian Crown, or declared to be a band for the purposes of the Indian Act" [2]. There are currently over 600 First Nations governments or bands in Canada. Roughly half of these are located in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia." --mgaved 10:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same as the "warbands" of ancient German tribes. Aran|heru|nar 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, very enlightening the First Nations article (warbands redirects to "warrior society", which hasn't been created yet). Another help was Band societies, where I will link the first mention of band in the article to. It may be usefull to more readers not familiar with this use of the term. Hoverfish 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is informational.

This is informational about chief Joeseph, don't you think?

Thomasreay 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting a large addition to the article

By this edit, an anon added a big chunk of text at the end of the article, making no attempt to integrate it. I suspected a copyvio, but, at least according to one website, it's from a 1918 book that's now in the public domain. I haven't reviewed it line-by-line to see what, if anything, might be worth incorporating in the article in proper faashion. JamesMLane t c 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)