Talk:Mandan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Mandan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 9, 2005.

Mandan appeared as a selected article on the The Indigenous peoples of North America Portal on June 26, 2006.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Ganymead (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Directions

"The body would be placed with the head towards the northwest and feet to the southwest." This isn't possible, unless the body is bent. Is it supposed to be northwest and southeast?

I hadn't noticed the discrepency...I'll check my sources and figure out what is correct. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know much about Great Plain Indians but...

Didn't the Pawnee indians have permanent villages too. Or are they part of the Mandan?Lazylizards8 00:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pawnee, Omaha and other Plains tribes most definitely had permanent villages; I've corrected that sentence. –Swid 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my oversight! This is what Wikipedia is all about! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I've corrected the front-page blurb. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedantries

Ganymead, you link simple years. I haven't changed it, because it's commonly done, but I think policy has changed (I'm for one would be glad of it), and you're not supposed to link them any more. User:Tony1 frequently makes this point on WP:FAC, and I haven't seen anybody contradict him. Simple years aren't affected by date preferences anyway, please see this Manual of Style page: "If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it. This is an important point: simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so." Best, Bishonen | talk 22:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone through and removed many links (years and centuries included) as well as checking many links. Damn, I never imagined that so many links would need to be corrected. It seems this might become a major issue on Wikipedia in the next few years. Thanks for all of your help, you have been very helpful! Too bad we can't do acknowledgements on here. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 01:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so notes have now been created...how do they look? *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 04:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, what a lot of fiddling with links, but then it looks excellent now, with the meaningful links standing out! Er, are you sure you want to lengthen so many captions with the "Courtesy of the Library of Congress" thing? Or is is something you have to do? (Surely not?) And you know you can specify pixels for the thumbs if you want to, right? (I 've experimentally done that with the oval painting of a lodge interior.) They look small, for me, but that's a matter of taste, of course. What a stroke of luck that those great pics are available.
The footnotes are elegant. If you want to be super-picky, you might put them all into a consistent short style, which refers in turn to the full bibliographical notation in the References section; thus, note 4, "Jahoda, p. 174" and note 11, "Jahoda, pp. 177–82." Somebody'd have to be mad to care enough to bring that up on FAC, though. (Why people ever bring up formatting issues there instead of just fixing them is beyond me.) A more practical point: the sources for notes 9, 12, 15, 19 can't easily be found in the refs section, since they're formatted differently there.
Hmmm, what else... there are some short sections, and short paragraphs. I'm hoping you'll be able to expand the paragraph on the fascinating language. (Mark Dingemanse seems to be around at the moment, if you want to try to involve him, he's a great guy.) Anyway, the whole thing's looking good! Best, Bishonen | talk 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

A lot of them need to be cropped. The "pure" images could always be retrieved again from the U.S. government sites if that concerns anybody. I'll do it myself if no one objects or if someone else wants to do it.—jiy (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Knock yourself out! The only images I would like to keep the way they are are the round-ish Catlin images and the first image of the Indian standing on the bluff above the Missouri (it's such an "artsy" image). Feel free to work on the others. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I was so surprised to see an Indian Tribe article featured on the front page. I have seen so many on Wikipedia that need lots of work. This artical is fabulously organized, cited, and illustrated. Wonderful job to those of you who helped. --Schwael 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto...Top notch article. Rlevse 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I was surprised to see not only an Indian tribe featured, but one with which I am relatively familiar, having grown up 30 miles from New Town. Good work, everyone who contributed to this article. Ari 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A great job!!! have enjoyed watching the article progress the past few weeks. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

"After awakening, the warrior would sacrifice the little finger on both hands [...] those completing the ceremony twice would gain everlasting fame among the tribe." What sacrifice was made second time around? Rich Farmbrough 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

None of my sources have ever said...I think they sacrificed another finger, but don't quote me on that. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O-Kee-Pa

Was the O-Kee-Pa/Okeepe information not accurate? The history of that article stub says it was redirected because the information already existed here, but now it is gone. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Ĥ

While I didn't redirect the article, I think it was redirected as there wasn't much information in the article itself. Looking at the article history, it appears to have only one sentence while there is a whole paragraph plus context on the Mandan here. Should you wish to expand the article on the Okipa beyond the one sentence, fee free to do so and make sure this article links to it. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minor quibble

I was wondering if this part could be rewritten a little:

"the Mandan developed a religious ceremony to bring the buffalo closer to their villages. This ceremony, known as the Okipa, served not only to attract buffalo, but also to renew the world for another year."

My problem with it is that, as written, the sentences imply causation: that the religious ceremonies actually had the effects described. The statements should be prefaced with something like "The Mandans believed that ...". Or I am mistaken, and there is evidence that the religious ceremonies really did somehow attract buffalo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.253.2 (talk • contribs) 11:09, October 24, 2006 (UTC)

Writing about religious beliefs is always tricky. What about "According to the Mandan people, <assertion>{{cite}}."? -- nae'blis 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "The Mandan believe..." without the citation (it's cited in the paragraph on the Okipa). Let me know what you think before I change it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, now I see, I thought you were talking about the Okipa section down below. Looking at the greater context, I'd change:
"...the Mandan developed a religious ceremony to bring the buffalo closer to their villages. This ceremony, known as the Okipa, served not only to attract buffalo, but also to renew the world for another year."
to:
"...the Mandan developed a religious ceremony known as the Okipa, with the dual purpose of attracting buffalo and renewing the world for another year."
Shorter, and makes no value judgements about the efficacy of the ceremony (I don't think). -- nae'blis 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I'll go ahead and add it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion! If you notice anything else that should be changed, let me know. After looking over the article, I think it could use a bit of polishing. Any suggestions you have would be helpful. Thanks for your interest! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I really enjoy working on obscure, out-of-the-way pages more than big firey cataclysms... err, I mean popular pages. I'll see if I can take a look at it later, I seem to remember having some quibbles with page structure myself. -- nae'blis 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement about Lewis and Clarke

The following statement has been removed until I can be sourced.

As the Mandans encouraged conjugal relations between their women and European and American explorers and fur-traders (probably in an attempt to incorporate their perception of a cultural advantage over enemy tribes), a "lighter skin color" would in time be a natural consequence. The Journals of Lewis and Clark often refer to members of the expedition being invited to spend the night in the Mandan lodges, and it was likely there that several of these men copulated freely with the women of the tribe and contracted venereal diseases. Today the hunt for the original site of the expedition's next winter home at Fort Clapstop, Oregon, at the headwaters of the Columbia, relies on a search for the capsules of mercury which members of the expedition used to treat the disease.

A note was left on the editor's talk page, but if anyone else can provide a source for this, please do. However, I would prefer to add this statement back myself as I think it should go elsewhere in the article. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

' As John Ewers has written, the "concept of the transmission of power through sexual intercourse seemed to have played a part in the eagerness of Mandan women to cohabit with white men in the early days of the fur trade. '[1] ¦ Reisio 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ward Churchill does not belong here

The committee investigating him said "Our investigation has found that there is some evidence in written accounts of Indian reactions in 1837 and in native oral traditions that would allow a reasonable scholar who relies heavily on such sources to reach Professor Churchill’s interpretation that smallpox was introduced deliberately among Mandan Indians near Fort Clark by the U.S. Army, using infected blankets.181 We therefore do not conclude that he fabricated his account." http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf T heir contention with him was over improper footnotes not making false accusations.

His "improper footnotes" include citing sources to support his claims, when they do not, and omitting the sources that he later claimed were his main ones. Moreover they concluded that although the broad accusation was arguable, he fabricated the details of his account. (See "Summary Conclusions for Allegation D" in the above citation.) 62.56.90.91 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viking theory

The claim of Viking influence and ancestry seems to have no substantial support. The only reference is a self-published text, which merely propounds the theory with many weasel words and hardly any evidence (Vikings in Newfoundland, some blue eyed Mandans, disputed runestone in Minnesota). Unless there is a better source, this paragraph is unjustified and should be removed. Kanguole (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim indeed has little or no meaningful support. This wholly unconfirmed speculation should be mentioned in the article since it is, in itself, somewhat notable, but the article should clearly characterize it as such. It seems to have arisen from reports following the very earliest European (post-Columbian) contacts. The Mandan were a small group even then and have been so thoroughly assimilated into other groups, any confirmation of these centuries-old accounts as to hair and eye colouring, religious practice or lodge features would be deeply problematic. Moreover, there could be other explanations. I've created a tiny sub-section for this which notes the speculation and the utter lack of support for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
When you say "has very little support among anthropologists and professional historians", you mean "has no support etc", don't you? The anthropological observations seem to be all Catlin's Welsh theory, now debunked. What makes this notable? The source isn't even good enough for establishing notability of an unsupported theory. Kanguole (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The cited source has to do with speculation about Vikings, not Catlin's Welsh theory. Did you read the source? There are many others to be had. This (mistaken) speculation itself is notable enough, I've been running across it for years. One can't say "no" support, even among anthropologists and historians, since, given all the speculation, there is no way to prove a negative like this. If you wish to erase any mention of it at all from the article I would not support that: Some readers will come to the article specifically looking for more information about the Viking/Welsh tales. There is nothing misleading or unencyclopedic about including a mistaken legend or idea and then noting support for it is lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant that one of the three strands of evidence presented in that article was Catlin's observations of complexion, hair and eye color etc, and that the notion that these were European features had been debunked along with his Welsh theory. Anyway, as you say notability is the key issue. Kanguole (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Gwen Gale above. The theories/speculations should be included and briefly discussed. The reasons why the theory was disproved or abandoned should also be covered. These type of ideas reflect the world view and preoccupations of their time and so are part of Mandan "history". Just because a theory or idea can't be proved as "true", or even probable, does not mean it is not notable for our readers. WBardwin (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it is worth discussing notable theories, sound or not, e.g. the discussion on Ward Churchill's allegations re the smallpox epidemic further down the page. But where is the evidence that this theory is notable? The current cite, a self-publication on a web site, is inadequate even for that purpose. I'm not determined to remove the discussion, but I'd like to see evidence of a real controversy. Kanguole (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Vikings, Ancient America, Mandan" on Google just gave me 10,000+ entries, not all of them applicable. Although their credibility varies (!!!), I'm sure this number of sites indicates enough interest for Wikipedia to address the issue. A solid, academic rebuttal of the idea would, however, be very good for the article. WBardwin (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a scholarly controversy, only a low-level popular one, in that almost any discussion of the Kensington runestone tends to sooner or later bring up those early descriptions of the Mandan. There is zero evidence of contact between Vikings and Mandan, only controversial interpretations of 18th century reports their lodges had "Nordic" features, their religious tradition had a flood myth (fascinating but not so remarkable in itself) and some Mandan during the 18th and 19th centuries reportedly had blue/hazel eyes and so on. The pith is, many anthropologists these days will concede the possibility, even likelihood, of very small and scattered groups of pre-Columbian Europeans now and then stumbling into North America and assimilating with the existing population but making the leap of saying these 18th century characteristics of the Mandan are evidence of Viking contact is utter speculation, not evidence. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes -- see the half-academic/half-popular ex link I added to the article -- American Heritage Magazine: Martians & Vikings, Madoc & Runes (accessed 17 January 2008). But -- if the heading says Viking, why don't we lead with Viking? WBardwin (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence uses the term Viking. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is not the subject of the sentence! See below. WBardwin (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combining both speculative theories

Gale, I think that combining both the Welsh and the Viking theories in one section should work - although I don't like the title I gave my initial combined effort. Both theories origininate in the 19th Century, although distanced in time. Both of them received a good measure of popular support during their time period and both are referenced today in more speculative publications, with the Viking theory currently more popular. I see no reason why Catlin can't be in two succeeding sections, so I moved his musings down a paragraph. Other ideas, anyone? WBardwin (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, combining them is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Copyedits

Civil Engineer III made some copyedits today, some of which were useful but he also removed the Marshall T Newman reference and that article is key to any discussion of the European Mandan arguments (which he debunks). I reverted his changes and then put back a few of his edits manually.--Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw this and do support your revert and following edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrading Article

I've just order the classic study Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization by Alfred W. Bowers & Gerard Baker which should help upgrade this article so it really deserves to be and gets back its status of Featured Article.--Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)