User:AverageEccentric/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

'''The difficulty, as a (history) graduate student, is the way Wikipedia (understandably) doesn't allow a thesis statement, original research, use of primary sources, etc., and only wants a round-up of what's already well-known and well-accepted on the topic. Probably the best alignment between this assignment and my skillset (and the skillset I'm in graduate school to hone) is approaching this like a historiography which uses anthropology (which I've done before), which won't then be followed by my own work on the topic. Or, breaking down a theoretical concept into everyday language, gathering ideas from several sources.'''

Option 1

 * Achulet massacre (stub) :
 * Article Evaluation
 * - Only has lead section, which oversimplifies settler-Indigenous conflict.
 * - A lot of statements need refinement, like "The Anglo people were also eager to acquire land occupied by the Tolowa. This led to a very brutal encounter between the two groups." (The settlers weren't entirely Anglo, and there are a lot of steps between "eager to acquire land" and "brutal encounter.")
 * - What is there is sort of neutral, but since this is a "stub" it lacks a lot of the context that would make it both informative and neutral (it really doesn't have enough info to take one side or the other). It also lacks discussion of the pressures on non-indigenous people that prompted them to take such steps; their situation was more complex than basic desire.  :
 * Sources
 * Sources are not fantastic. Some aren't peer-reviewed.
 * If Wikipedia allows it, citing newspaper articles from the appropriate time/place and noting them as "the way the settlers told the story" would, I think, be very good here (and is something I'm equipped to do; this was the focus of my BA thesis last year and remains central to my research).
 * PDX library search turns up peer-reviewed Norton, Jack. “If the Truth Be Told: Revising California History as a Moral Objective.” The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills) 58, no. 1 (2014): 83–96. doi:10.1177/0002764213495033.
 * Also: Collins, James. Understanding Tolowa Histories : Western Hegemonies and Native American Responses . New York: Routledge, 1998.
 * And: “Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Tolowa Nation.” The Federal Register / FIND . Vol. 79. Washington: Federal Information & News Dispatch, LLC, 2014.
 * I also suspect Julius Wilm's recent book "Settlers and Conquerors", Lindsay's "Murder State", and Elliott West's recent survey on the US West would provide historical context. S
 * Talk page says " This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Notyourtherapist . Peer reviewers: Febreeze560." :
 * And: “Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Tolowa Nation.” The Federal Register / FIND . Vol. 79. Washington: Federal Information & News Dispatch, LLC, 2014.
 * I also suspect Julius Wilm's recent book "Settlers and Conquerors", Lindsay's "Murder State", and Elliott West's recent survey on the US West would provide historical context. S
 * Talk page says " This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Notyourtherapist . Peer reviewers: Febreeze560." :
 * I also suspect Julius Wilm's recent book "Settlers and Conquerors", Lindsay's "Murder State", and Elliott West's recent survey on the US West would provide historical context. S
 * Talk page says " This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Notyourtherapist . Peer reviewers: Febreeze560." :

Option 2

 * Klamath River Wars (stub) :
 * Article Evaluation
 * Very incomplete and also not very well-written. Lots of long sentences which don't have clear subjects, for instance.  The way it began likely could be fleshed out significantly and, like Option 1, could stand to have complexity and nuance added.
 * This statement needs a lot of work: "The massacres of Native peoples along the Klamath River are considered to be part of the California Genocide. This fighting is not to be confused with the Rogue River Wars which occurred in southern Oregon beginning in 1851 with fighting from June 17 to July 3, 1851, then again from August 8, through September 1853, and then again during 1856 from March to June."  For instance, why would anyone confuse "California Genocide" with "Rogue River Wars" -- there's rich opportunity there to explain the relationship between the two and why they might be confused.  Links to the geographic areas would be helpful.
 * Wilm, Lindsay, and West could again be good sources for this article. There's some opportunity to explain why they're considered genocide, because people do tend to think that using the word "genocide" means an article is biased.  The statement should probably be refined as "So and so historian/writer/etc names this event as part of the California Genocide", but add some discussion such as "some Native American people prefer the word genocide not be used because it implies they are all gone", and "some average people think genocide shouldn't apply to these incidents but here's why it often is."
 * Sources
 * It appears PSU has (access to) a lot of potential sources. It'll take time to exclude sources speaking about present-day "water wars" in the Klamath Basin, but I notice the existing article stub includes many aliases for this set of conflicts.  :
 * Sources
 * It appears PSU has (access to) a lot of potential sources. It'll take time to exclude sources speaking about present-day "water wars" in the Klamath Basin, but I notice the existing article stub includes many aliases for this set of conflicts.  :
 * It appears PSU has (access to) a lot of potential sources. It'll take time to exclude sources speaking about present-day "water wars" in the Klamath Basin, but I notice the existing article stub includes many aliases for this set of conflicts.  :
 * It appears PSU has (access to) a lot of potential sources. It'll take time to exclude sources speaking about present-day "water wars" in the Klamath Basin, but I notice the existing article stub includes many aliases for this set of conflicts.  :

Option 3

 * Pitt River Expedition (stub) :
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article appears to have been written from the "US Military History" lens, which is a very limited lens. It seems there's probably-accurate historical information but it reads very much like "history is written by the victors."  There's little analysis of how the conflict arose in the first place and while it doesn't outright say "because of course they'd bring in the military if the Native Americans were attacking the settlers", it fails to discuss why such attacks might have been taking place and otherwise excludes the Indigenous point of view.  It misses the possibility that US settlement might be an act of aggression.
 * One clue of how much this article could use some updating is that it refers to the Native Americans involved as the "Pitt River Indians" which is unlikely to be how they referred to themselves.
 * If I worked on this one I'd like to look and see whether "Pitt River Expedition" might have alternative names that are less clinical.
 * This statement has a lot of opportunities for expansion, context, complexity, etc: "In the following three months, Captain Byrnes' rangers had many minor clashes with bands of Indians and captured more than 500. Due to the snow blocking the route over the coastal ranges to the Mendocino Reservation, the captive Indians were taken by steamboat from Red Bluff to the Tejon Reservation."  The number 500 needs some context -- is that big or small?  What does "captured" mean?  There's also problematic stuff going on with the language.  The US military calls it "captured", but the Indigenous people involved might call this "forced migration."
 * Sources
 * A military source, a museum, and an 1896 "Historical sketch" by Maynard Merrill & Co. Such 1896/97 "historical sketch" books by this and similar publishers are extremely problematic sources because they were produced for profit as a US bicentennial celebration.  If they're like others I've read they're evidence of what people in 1896 wanted to believe about themselves and their country, not evidence of what happened.
 * PSU library possibility that could be very interesting: [Claims of the Pitt River and the Apwaraki Indians of California Against the U.S] . S.l: [s.n.], 1920.
 * This statement has a lot of opportunities for expansion, context, complexity, etc: "In the following three months, Captain Byrnes' rangers had many minor clashes with bands of Indians and captured more than 500. Due to the snow blocking the route over the coastal ranges to the Mendocino Reservation, the captive Indians were taken by steamboat from Red Bluff to the Tejon Reservation."  The number 500 needs some context -- is that big or small?  What does "captured" mean?  There's also problematic stuff going on with the language.  The US military calls it "captured", but the Indigenous people involved might call this "forced migration."
 * Sources
 * A military source, a museum, and an 1896 "Historical sketch" by Maynard Merrill & Co. Such 1896/97 "historical sketch" books by this and similar publishers are extremely problematic sources because they were produced for profit as a US bicentennial celebration.  If they're like others I've read they're evidence of what people in 1896 wanted to believe about themselves and their country, not evidence of what happened.
 * PSU library possibility that could be very interesting: [Claims of the Pitt River and the Apwaraki Indians of California Against the U.S] . S.l: [s.n.], 1920.
 * A military source, a museum, and an 1896 "Historical sketch" by Maynard Merrill & Co. Such 1896/97 "historical sketch" books by this and similar publishers are extremely problematic sources because they were produced for profit as a US bicentennial celebration.  If they're like others I've read they're evidence of what people in 1896 wanted to believe about themselves and their country, not evidence of what happened.
 * PSU library possibility that could be very interesting: [Claims of the Pitt River and the Apwaraki Indians of California Against the U.S] . S.l: [s.n.], 1920.
 * PSU library possibility that could be very interesting: [Claims of the Pitt River and the Apwaraki Indians of California Against the U.S] . S.l: [s.n.], 1920.

Option 4

 * Perpetrators, victims, and bystanders:
 * Article Evaluation
 * There's almost nothing in the article; it's designated as a stub, which attaches to "big" articles on Genocide Studies. It notes very broadly but vaguely that this is a very important concept and it's controversial; it doesn't really explain what the concept is.
 * Sources
 * In my opinion this article has tremendous opportunity precisely because all it says is, essentially "this idea is a Really Big Deal, but also controversial, and here's a big reading list." IE there are a lot of sources which look quite good, but no content.  Unlike the above stubs, this one looks very "doable" because it'd include evaluating the listed sources for quality, then doing the grad-school-type-reading of "skin and gut" the sources, then breaking down the concepts into everyday language (which I'm trained to do as a historian: remove the jargon).  The article is listed as "low importance", maybe because it has so many sources, but saying also that the idea is key to genocide studies signals perhaps it should be considered as more important than it is.  Quite possibly nobody wants to do the work of reading those sources and breaking down the concept.  :
 * In my opinion this article has tremendous opportunity precisely because all it says is, essentially "this idea is a Really Big Deal, but also controversial, and here's a big reading list." IE there are a lot of sources which look quite good, but no content.  Unlike the above stubs, this one looks very "doable" because it'd include evaluating the listed sources for quality, then doing the grad-school-type-reading of "skin and gut" the sources, then breaking down the concepts into everyday language (which I'm trained to do as a historian: remove the jargon).  The article is listed as "low importance", maybe because it has so many sources, but saying also that the idea is key to genocide studies signals perhaps it should be considered as more important than it is.  Quite possibly nobody wants to do the work of reading those sources and breaking down the concept.  :
 * In my opinion this article has tremendous opportunity precisely because all it says is, essentially "this idea is a Really Big Deal, but also controversial, and here's a big reading list." IE there are a lot of sources which look quite good, but no content.  Unlike the above stubs, this one looks very "doable" because it'd include evaluating the listed sources for quality, then doing the grad-school-type-reading of "skin and gut" the sources, then breaking down the concepts into everyday language (which I'm trained to do as a historian: remove the jargon).  The article is listed as "low importance", maybe because it has so many sources, but saying also that the idea is key to genocide studies signals perhaps it should be considered as more important than it is.  Quite possibly nobody wants to do the work of reading those sources and breaking down the concept.  :

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources: