From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
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.
|
subgroup of Gros Ventres, needs separation for language/people, as well as edit/formatting/wikification of existing and already lengthy text. --Skookum1 (9 May 06)
- I'm not certain if this comment was referring to this page or not. This article is quite good, though. It just needs a bit of expansion, I think (and perhaps in-line citations or the use or <ref> tags to clarify which sources are being used for which statements). I'm going to tentatively rate it as a B class now. --Miskwito 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Dakota,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to North Dakota. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid |
This article is on a subject of mid-importance within North Dakota articles. |
|
The following comments about the quality and importance of this article have been left: (Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation/Comments|action=edit}} edit – Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation/Comments|action=history}} history – Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation/Comments|action=watch}} watch – Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation|action=purge}} refresh)
subgroup of Gros Ventres, needs separation for language/people, as well as edit/formatting/wikification of existing and already lengthy text. --Skookum1 (9 May 06)
- I'm not certain if this comment was referring to this page or not. This article is quite good, though. It just needs a bit of expansion, I think (and perhaps in-line citations or the use or <ref> tags to clarify which sources are being used for which statements). I'm going to tentatively rate it as a B class now. --Miskwito 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota 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 Project's quality scale. See comments |
|
The European influence "theories" on the Mandan tribe are highly speculative and at least a little racist. Any mention of them in this article should not advance them as anything but a marginal theory. --Alexwcovington (talk) 23:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The European theories are highly speculative. I have rewritten this article several times to downplay them. Someone keeps changing it to give those theories more importance AND to add racism to the article, which is misleading. Why not leave the article as factual and neutral as possible?
- It does not necessarily build more import into the paragraph to state the fact that racism played a role in the theories. I wouldn't call "See Kensington Runestone and Madoc" downplay... but that's my personal thought.
- There are many ways to go about it. I choose an approach that attempts to be as descriptive as possible as to why the theories are incorrect and misleading. You seem to be looking from the perspective that as little page space should be dedicated to it as possible. IMO your approach might be more appropriate once a larger amount of information has been added to the article, so there is something for the paragraph to get lost in -- but right now the article is three paragraphs long, and what little information we have up there should be as inclusive as possible. I'll avoid making more changes until this has been discussed a bit more, though. --Alexwcovington (talk) 20:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the change I made today. The problem I had with your wording was that it said the Mandan/Madoc theory was advanced due to racism. I can't find that anywhere in any of the readings I've done, and, in fact, the article we've been playing with was the only one mentioning racism. I have no problem saying the theory is speculative and unproven, which it is.
[edit] Hidatsa+Atsina->Gros Ventres
Just curious about Mandan/Arikara re Hidatsa; I found this page by looking up Gros Ventres, of which the Hidatsa are one part (the other are the Atsina). Also wanted to comment that at some point there's got to be a different "Hidatsa" article, as that's also the name of one of the initiatory longhouse secret societies in Pacific Northwest Coast cultures; I think the word is Kwak'wala, I'm not sure.Skookum1 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Atsina and Hidatsa are separate groups that were called by the same name in French as far as can see - not that they are related to each other. Rmhermen 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
