Jump to content

Talk:Modoc people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled section

[edit]

This isn't right. It'd be like the article for Mexico redirecting to Mexican American War. I'll get a stubby article about the Modoc up in a little bit. Gentgeen 08:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Categories

[edit]

I think only the tribes in those states that don't have a Category:Native Americans tribes in XX, should be in the main category Category:Native American tribes. That is how most other categories are sorted. If there is a difference with the native tribes articles, could you show me where it has been discussed? Thanks! Katr67 00:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is aimed mostly at RhymeNotStutter, who reverted my category cleanup, though it fits in with what Katr67 asked about above.
Normal usage for categories, as shown at Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines, third bullet, is that, while there are exceptions, articles generally should not be placed in both a category and any parent/grandparent/etc category of the first category. All categories above the first are automatically implied by the placement in the first category. So, unless you can describe why this article should qualify as an exception, then it does not belong in any of the state categories, because all those categories, as well as the main tribes category, are implied by the presence of the Modoc tribe category. Whether it's intuitive or not to you, that is how categories work here on the project.
In the end, the goal I'm currently working towards is to depopulate, as much as possible, Category:Native American tribes by either clearing it off of articles already in subcategories, or pushing the articles down into the subcategories myself. Category:Native American tribes had well over 400 articles when I started working on it yesterday. I've got it down to a bit above 200 by doing the easy stuff, finding those already in the sub-cats. Now I just have the harder task of pushing as many of the remainder down into the sub-cats as I can. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My message above was in response to this edit. I can see both both RhymeNotStutter's and TexasAndroid's points in the more recent matter. You might want to see if User:Cuchullain, has an opinion. I was also going to suggest contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, but I see you have already done that. Let's keep the communication going. Katr67 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my contact to that wikiproject really had nothing to do with the above issue, but rather had to do with renaming a couple of the state categories, particularly California and Virginia, which have names in a different format from the rest of the similar categories. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I see that now. I was going to revise my post, but too late. Anyway, you might want to ask about this there too. Katr67 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't object to eliminating membership in "grandparent" categories (like "Native American tribes"). I didn't revert TexasAndroids's numerous other category deletions for California tribes. But the job needs to be done with a little discrimination. "Modoc" is genuinely a first-level subordinate member of the category "California tribes" (as well as the parallel categories for "Native American tribes in Oregon" and "Native American tribes in Oklahoma"). It doesn't make any sense to consider "Modoc" a member of the category "Modoc tribe". The latter category should probably be eliminated, with the individuals listed in it being moved to a section such as "Notable Modoc people" inside the "Modoc" article. Leaving the reader of "Modoc" with only "Modoc tribe" as a category link isn't helpful. Any other primary articles on Native California groups should also keep their "California tribe" category memberships, although deleting "North American tribes" is perhaps okay. (Although even that is perhaps debatable. The number of distinct ethnolinguistic groups in Native North America is large, but not that large. A reader might very well appreciate being able to browse through a category listing of all those groups, rather than just seeing a depleted list of the ones that haven't yet been grouped into a state category, or having to choose an individual state listing to look at. But that's another issue.) RhymeNotStutter 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in some way we may have to agree to disagree. You have a vision of how you think categories should work that IMHO is in conflict with the project policy of how they do work. Big, overloaded categories, like Category:Native American tribes was before I started working on it are discouraged. The guidelines for category use specifically encourage pushing articles down into the sub-categories in order to prevent having huge categories like the one you say people might want to see. I'm not going to argue how things should be. That's a discussion for the talk page of the categorization policy.
OTOH, I am also not going to get into an edit war over this. It is far from worth it. My time is much, much better spent working on more clean-up. I got the Category:Native American tribes category down to around 140 articles yesterday, and it would be nice if I can give the remaining articles at least a once over each before I head for holiday. At the current rate, I'm guessing I should be able to get the category under 50 entries when I'm done. The remainder will likely just need to stay, as some I cannot see from the article easily where to move it, and some would need to be in a large number of state sub-cats to be effectively moved, at which point the cure becomes worse than the problem. - TexasAndroid 14:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architect Timothy Bailey

[edit]

I suppose it's Timothy; his brother Willy referred to him as Timmy; both were from Redding and had a parallel life in Quesnel, British Columbia where their mother works; through her they are descendants of Kintpuash and Willy was a friend of mine - I know this isn't a social networking site but if a Modoc happens to know Willy I'd almost say he's notable too, although his career in Saudi royal security I guess isn't a matter of public record/newsworthiness. But from what I know about Tim, he was possibly notable as a Native American professional - a rising architect whose death at the hands of some State Troopers on the "back way" through Idaho/Eastern Washington to California from Quesnel outraged Willy whenever he talked about it (he maintained his brother was targeted for being too successful); not sure how "high" Timmy got in architecture, but if there's someone who knows this story has legs please write it up; I haven't heard from Willy in years but in respect for his friendship and what he taught me about the Modoc people and Captain Jack I'd like to honour the family by at least proposing that a bio of Timmy be written, if he's suitably notable; their mother Sharon Bailey may also be, for all I know (I don't know here even though I'm in BC).Skookum1 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Apparently the page is lacking sources. So, heres a few to help: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/northamerica/modoc.html http://www.nativeamericans.com/Modoc.htm http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/modoc/modochist.htm http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/oregon/modochist.htm

Axxus (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post forwarded from WP:CITE

[edit]

This was posted at WP:CITE. Could anyone here help this person? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this person know that you've moved the discussion here? Katr67 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that person has any intention of coming back to Wikipedia. I think they are hoping someone will write or email them. There's a small chance someone here will help. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking For Modoc Scroll Of Indians

[edit]

I am new at this so please bare with me. I am Modoc Indian. My mother had all the paperwork i.e. scroll, type of Indian, ect. When she passed away, I could not find any of the paperwork she had. We all were paid a certain amount for our land, but still being able to use it. I would like to know how I can find out where the scrolls are located and ask for information regarding how to get myself and my childrens names on the scrolls. I know we are on them. Need a phone number or address to get me started. I have been looking all over the net and cannot seem to find anything regarding this information. If you could be of any help I would surely appreciate it.

Thanking you in advance. Pat Roth aka Rambo and Maloney Rambo from Mom, Irish from Dad. Personal information commented out I was born in Klamath Falls, lived in Merill till I was 5, then moved with Mom to San Francisco. Still in California, am located in the beginning of the Sierra Mountains.

I look forward to hearing from those who have any info I can get.

Thanks, Pat 173.16.63.222 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia isn't really here to help people with questions such as these and talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles. However, I'll leave a note in a couple of places and see if anyone can direct you to a place where you can find help. You might try our Reference Desk. Also, have you checked in with the Klamath Tribes and the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma about their tribal rolls? (links to the tribal websites should be on those pages) Good luck! Katr67 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are looking for are not scrolls. You are looking for Tribal Rolls, Contact the Klamath Tribes Tribal Office at P.O. Box 436 501 Chiloquin Blvd. Chiloquin, OR 97624

Phone: (800) 524-9787 or (541) 783-2219.

The Modoc, Yahooskins and Klamath Tribes were all joined together by the U.S. Government in years past. All rolls are housed in the same Tribal Office. http://www.klamathtribes.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwindwalker (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Sourcing

[edit]

One of the perils of failing to correctly cite sources is determining later what the original source was, after everybody and his brother has scraped the content from Wikipedia, either first-hand or second-hand.

For example, the only source clearly attributed for this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modoc#Treaty_with_the_United_States is: http://www.oklahoma-tribes.com/modoc-tribe-of-oklahoma/

Attempting to learn when this content was published, I did a dated Google search of what should have been a unique phrase from that page, whic shows that this phrase appeared on AbsoluteAstronomy.com as early as April 1, 2000: Dated Search. Therefore, if AbsoluteAstronomy.com had scraped this content from Oklahoma-Tribes.com, that would mean that they had this content at least that early.

However, AbsoluteAstronomy.com DID NOT scrape that content from Oklahoma-Tribes.com! Rather, they credit Wikipedia as their source. Further, the first mention of Modoc Google can find on Oklahoma-Tribes.com only dates to February 1, 2001: Dated Search

Returning to this very Wikipedia article, I find that it is indeed the source of the unique phrase quoted from Oklahoma-Tribes.com - a fact that I could have recognized with much less fuss, if only I had been paranoid enough to search for such duplicity.

I'm removing the circular citations, tagging the section as unreferenced, and tagging paragraphs with citation needed. To avoid further circular sourcing, it would be best to cite sources older than Y2K. Downstrike (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved There was a consensus that, absent a centralized discussion about the naming of ethnicity articles, and without primacy of topic being proven, the article should not be moved. Note that the nominator is currently blocked for RM-related disruption. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modoc people → Modoc – target page is a dab page, started as "Modoc (disambiguation)" on April 25 2006 by Dpv, then moved to "Modoc" by Parsecboy on June 21 2011, citing "fixing dab location"; the people article was originally at Modoc but was moved by Kwami on May 15 2011 in violation of WP:UNDAB and WP:Conciseness. A survey of what's on the dab page shows nothing that could be construed as a more PRIMARYTOPIC than the people. Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose absent evidence of primary topic. Modoc County, California and environs are the first things that come to mind when I hear the term. That's largely borne out by a glance at modoc -wikipedia, though there are several other uses there as well. The tribe fares better in a Google Book search, but still falls short IMO. Google Scholar results also support there not being a primary topic. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modoc County is a two-word title and not eligible for PT per the guidelines there; I'll run view stats on all that's on the dab page but as noted, "Modoc" was the title here for five years before being arbitrarily changed per NCL, which needs revision so that it is not in conflict with TITLE/PRECISION/etc and more. Suffice to say that Modoc County is not referred to as "Modoc" but always with its full name.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a difference between Canadian and American English, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that a county is never referred to without "county." In official contexts? Yes, you're more likely to see Foo County for clarity. That's why we wouldn't title a county without "County" in the name. But in common usage, counties can definitely be referred to by name alone, especially when they are relatively unique. It's analogous to the Mississippi River case described at WP:PTM. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • re "There was a consensus that, absent a centralized discussion about the naming of ethnicity articles, and without primacy of topic being proven, the article should not be moved. " = there was no such consensus, and as CambridgeBayWeather has repeatedly observed in other RMs that have resulted in closed/moved and in some where his point has been rationalized away by wiki-lawyering that were not moved, the guidelines mandating such moves already exist (and I mean TITLE and NCDAB and more, not just NCET, which is a spin-off of NCP).Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lutuanian ?

[edit]

Are the Modoc people relations of the Lutuanian people ? Tjlynnjr (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Modoc people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Thorough content, may need work; NB categories for Modoc War, Modoc tribe, Battles of the Modoc War --Skookum1 (8 May 06)

Last edited at 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 00:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modoc people. 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:

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) 03:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modoc_people&oldid=1206967054"