Talk:Cogewea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Essay-like tone

I'm worried that this article is developing into an essay rather than something appropriate for an encyclopedia. Phrasing such as "Cogewea's print history is fraught", "Editing as a western cultural, economic, and epistemological practice is grounded in systemic discrimination and colonization" and "This incident sheds light on how systemic racism and colonialism continue to operate in subtle (and not so subtle ways) to control and even erase Indigenous writing" appear to be the views of the author rather than summaries of secondary sources about the subject. If they do reflect what secondary sources say, then this needs to be made clearer through in-text attribution and references. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes, although I am concerned that what you are objecting to are facts, but they don't fit into your worldview. Wikipedia is meant for everyone, including Indigenous folks. I removed two of the above sentences and provided overwhelming evidence that western forms of editing are grounded in systemic discrimination. If you evidence to the contrary, please share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is for everyone, but it should be written from a neutral point of view and not like an essay. I suggest that you have a read of WP:NOT#ESSAY. Wording such as "Examples from western-oriented editors and publishers offer further evidence" suggests that you are presenting original research. What secondary source says that those editors and publishers offer further evidence, for example? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, you have written that "The contrast between Armstrong's Silyx Okanagan description of Mourning Dove as a knowledge keeper and the western framing of her as a long-suffering, under-educated Indian author provides insight into the ways in editing can frame the reader's perspective of an author". Which source establishes that the contrast provides this insight? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The three examples (one from an autobiography and one from a publishers website) establish a pattern. That's hardly a large chunk of text. However, I will tinker with it a little more, but not to the extent of removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's you who is concluding that they establish a pattern, then that is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If a secondary source says that they establish a pattern, then that's fine, but you need to cite that source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed all the material you - Cordless Larry - said was "original research" and a tone you didn't agree with. I have referenced all claims, except the summations of the novel. I said this in my edits, so this is now seeming rather redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am now collecting data on other novel pages on Wikipedia and noting that there are many others who do not require the citations you have asked that I include.Seems rather unfair? I'll be writing about this wherever possible. Trentprof (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there are some terrible articles amongst the five million or so on Wikipedia, but if we use them as an excuse to allow new articles to ignore the rules, then Wikipedia will never improve. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, Cordless Larry, but you want a citation proving that the Silyx Okanagan People and the Colville's are thriving? You say it's "original research" - Do you see how this is an odd request (e.g. please prove these people exist and live their lives?)? I provided references to the websites of the nation and the tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be original research, because you it would be constructing an argument rather than reflecting what sources about Cogewea say. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it’s not an argument that people exist and live well. Anyways, I modified it. Trentprof (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Challenge to “Original Research” claim

I gathered sources that prove Cogewea is common to post-secondary classrooms. That’s not original research. Trentprof (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, because they're not secondary, published sources, but rather primary evidence. Please see WP:PSTS, which notes "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The syllabuses are not the primary source, Cogewea is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cogewea is the primary source in most of the article, but when discussing what is taught at universities, then university syllabi are primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the original research, having received a third opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cogewea. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

May I have access to this third opinion? I see none here. The definition for original research is as follows: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I am suppying reliable and published sources. Sylabuses are sources published via a university. They are a type of contract - and since you have a doctorate Cordless Larry, I know you are aware of this. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate edits, but this one is disputable. If you would like me to put up more sources, for this statement about Cogewea's standing as a common reading on post-secondary courses, then I will. I am also going to seek another opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You can see the third opinion by clicking on the link I provided. Even accepting that these reading lists count as published sources (which I doubt, because members of the public can't access them), can I ask which of them states that the edition is used widely in post-secondary classrooms? If they don't explicitly state that, then please note the sentence following the one you quoted from WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The public can access these syllabuses ( despise the plural syllabi, btw, so pretentious). I'll include the links, if that's the actual issue. I don't think it is, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct - the main issue is that you are synthesising material to reach a conclusion that I presume is not explicitly stated in any of the reading lists (but I am happy to take a look at them to confirm that). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with Nblund's assessment at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cogewea. When we make a statement that implies something has a degree of prevalence, it is generally a secondary source that is compiling information from elsewhere. Primary sources can easily be utilized correctly to source supporting information in an article, but the statement This edition is often assigned is synthesis from an aggregation of multiple primary sources. The explicit definition of original research is tricky as it may seem like it applies to this situation (without the added requirement of no synthesis in WP:PSTS, a page that Cordless Larry mentioned earlier), but that is why verifiability is another core content policy.

If a reliable source exists that supports that statement without the use of synthesis or analysis ("no original research"), then that source should be provided. Otherwise, original research might exist, which degrades the quality and reliability of the project's article content. Something that could be said with a few primary sources as examples might be "This edition is used in …" or "This edition has been assigned …", but this is extremely vague and provides little perspective or meaning to the reader as it could be ten courses in the 1990s or 200,000 courses in the most recent few decades. Rhinopias (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not see a statement that would support the use of "often" or "frequently" in some promising results on a Google Books search. A Scholar search turned up this interesting thesis, which may have some material (either primary or secondary in nature) that supports such a claim or a source that does. Rhinopias (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why new editors for wikipedia is declining and you are exemplifying the issue. There is wiggle room or acceptance of differing system of knowledge and understanding. It's disappointing and part of the reason I rarely contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to publish your own analysis of the popularity of a particular edition of this book, then I'm sure there are scholarly journals where you could submit such an analysis, Trentprof. Once published in such a journal, we could then cite your analysis here on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So journals are the only source of evidence you'll accept? Seems awfully eurocentric for a platform that claims to represent all of human knowledge. There are other ways of knowing and wikipedia needs to recognize this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not just journals, Trentprof, but that seems to me the most appropriate place for you to publish this analysis. There are many other types of reliable source (see WP:RS), but you cannot publish your analysis directly on Wikipedia. We just summarise what secondary sources say about topics. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you completely, Trentprof. I believe this is a great example of editors with disagreements very appropriately coming to an agreement. After all, it was you that sought a second non-biased opinion, which I provided. Wikipedia's three core content policies have been in existence since 2003 (see Wikipedia:Core content policies § History), so your assertion isn't likely. Misunderstanding the complexities of the community that creates content in an encyclopedic style may be a reason new editors leave, but an editor's wish to contribute content that is not neutral, verifiable, and without their own analysis or synthesis, isn't something Wikipedia is likely to ever accommodate as that would defeat the point of the project. Rhinopias (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, I believe this entry no longer contains original research. TrentStudent20 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Failure to Declare Bias Claim

Trentprof has conducted extensive original research on Cogewea, her livelihood as a professor is in part dependent on public understanding of Cogewea. Trentprof declares that she has written this page on her Twitter page. If Trentprof should delete this Tweet, I have a screenshot of it. Part of Trentprof's work on this subject is available online as the Cogewea project.

Suggest TrentProf read the following from Wikipedia's Rules for editing page: " If you have a personal or financial interest in the subject of any article you choose to edit, declare it on the associated discussion page and heed the advice of other editors who can offer a more objective perspective." I am new to Wikipedia, so unsure if bias has been declared. Unsure what should be done about this bias in any case. Call on CordlessLarry to determine what Wikipedia rules dictate in this case, or if any part of my addition to this page is inappropriate. Thank you in advance. TrentStudent20 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, TrentStudent20. I would prefer not to get too involved in any investigation of this, as I clearly have a stake in the outcome given my previous disagreements with the other editor over the article's content. The best thing for you to do would be to explain the situation at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which will alert uninvolved editors to the situation. Thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the conflict of interest in the original article, in part by adding sources detailing the controversy around the book's editing. But I believe more work is needed, especially around the major themes section. TrentStudent20 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am a composition and rhetoric prof, who is editing an edition of Cogewea but nor no money (all royalties goes to the Okanagan nation - I am happy to supply the clause in the contract, if requested.). I am an academic, therefore, my interest is purely that: academic. I am not paid to do work with Cogewea. I am paid to teach students writing and rhetoric. I am not a relative of Mourning Dove. I do not have investments associated with Cogewea or Mourning Dove. I published in page in the spirit of open scholarship, but I admit, my relationship with Wikipedia has not been friendly or welcoming. Your editor Cordlesslarry left a cryptic message on my blog that I was being investigated for COI. This is odd behaviour and disturbing to tell me via my blog rather than via Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not post on any blog about this issue, Trentprof. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. As I commented above, I would prefer not to get involved in this issue any further, so the last thing I would want to do would be to post about it outside of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then someone is using your email. I am sorry to hear this. I have a screenshot of the comment that identifies the user; happy to share if you tell me how (new editor here) I certainly hope someone hasn't stolen your identity! Trentprof (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

My first response is to ask whether someone can post on your blog using an e-mail address that they don't have access to? In any case, you can contact me via Special:EmailUser/Cordless_Larry. I'll reply and you can send me the screenshot if you want, though I don't think the person can have access to my e-mail account. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say: that will only work if you have your own e-mail address set in your account preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to attach the screenshot to the Wikipedia email, but I'll do you one better and send it to the email listed by the user. That should clear up the confusion. Trentprof (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said that I would reply and then you could attach it, Trentprof. Anyway, yes, I've got your e-mail. I think that someone who knows my address has just tried to impersonate me. Can I ask again whether someone can post on your blog using an e-mail address that they don't have access to, because I do not believe that my e-mail account has been compromised. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this: an expert on a subject is too biased to write about that subject? Yes, we researchers apply for grant money for our research (mostly to support grad students). We also publish books, from which, by the way, we almost never make any money. Calling this "bias" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia rules, which is more about not letting people use the platform as an advertising venue. Believe me, I will get zero credit from my University for contributing anything to Wikipedia. If anything, it is a loss because it's funneling time from work that my University does value. If you say that every professor who contributes to Wikipedia must be flagged as "biased", there is something backwards about that. Shepherd660506 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Shepherd660506

Trentprof has removed the passage to which the editor objects, despite the fact that her original wording accurately reflected the current status of thinking and research regarding this text. The additional truculent hammering reads like a concerted attempt to prevent contemporary views on the status of authorship in this text to reach readers--to sway them, in fact, to doubt Trentprof's reliability. I would use Wikipedia more, and would allow students to use it as a source, if it in fact had more educated scholars contributing to its pages. Education is not a conflict of interest; it is an interested activity of contextualizing and recontextualizing information within systems of knowing. "Decentering" McWhorter is essentially what the discussion has been about for the past twenty years, and that way of knowing is not biased, it is informed and implicitly speaks to the bias present in the early part of the 20th century. teflonsandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teflonsandals (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You know what, I was mostly wrong here. It's not that TrentProf (not tagging because she no longer wishes to be involved) gains financial compensation for her edition of Cogewea. It's that TrentProf overlooked a source of controversy about this book. I should have focused on the content. TrentStudent20 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Extent of use.

I have removed the word staple. This is a WP:WEASEL word and does not have its place in an encyclopedia. The book is used that is a fact. Anything else that widely used, staple, extensively, largely etc etc is unacceptable. If there are secondary sources that show the number of courses on which the book is used we could eventually add that but it is of very little interest to the article about the book unless the number is unusually high compared to other works. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I am editing an edition of Cogewea but not for money. I teach the book once in a while but that’s not personal interest. Wikipedia is about public scholarship and openness. That’s what I’m engaging in. I’ll happily “disclose,” if that’s what’s needed. Trentprof (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

But you do have a professional interest in this subject being as noticeable as possible I would imagine? Can you confirm that you will not receive any payment of any kind for the editing that you are doing either now or in the future? This is a totally pro bono job? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a contract to edit Cogewea for Wilfred Laurier Press.  Any and all royalties (which is only 4% of the sales) will go to the Okanagan Nation. I am not being paid to create the game you link to above - it's an experiment (now THAT'S original research, which is why it's not mentioned in the article). In fact, I have to contribute 8 000 to even get the edition published (it's a convention of Canadian publishing). Professors, generally, to not get paid for their research, which makes neutral and objective. If you are going to penalize me then you had better remove any and all work by Dr. J. Hillis Miller, who is another Wikipedia editor. He is a professor and has published on much of what he has contributed. In fact, you had better charge all profs and students on Wikipedia with COI, since students get grades and profs are paid academics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 

Trentprof has applied for a grant, and therefore money and academic notoriety, for her edition of this book. From her blog: "So far, I have applied for money, so I can keep building an editing team – it’s a massive project with a print edition, digital edition, and gaming edition. I need more help! I have received a huge amount of help from The People and the Text (thank you!), but now I need to build the team for the print edition (which needs to go out first to give instructors another option to order)."

Regardless of whether Trentprof will see any of that money in her own pocket, she is certainly biased and willing to use Wikipedia to attempt to present her perspective of this book's editing history as the only correct interpretation, changing this COI discussion into a Neutral Point of View discussion. As you'll see on her academic blog, TrentProf has written about this topic and revealed their goal with their previous edits to this page was to "decenter McWhorter as the authority figure" of this book.

Full quotation from the blog: "The above excerpt [TrentProf's previous entry to Cogewea's page which was removed] decenters McWhorter as the authority figure and repositions Indigenous knowledge as key to understanding the text. This example shows how Indigenous editing practices can decolonize a text from its entrapment in Eurocentric knowledge systems (I hope, anyways)." There is, however, conflicting sources which feel McWhorter was a major contributor, even primary contributor, to this book.

Trentprof knows this as she writes: "For years, Mourning Dove’s authorship or her own book was questioned, and by Wikipedia’s standards, this information is accepted knowledge, even though it was patently wrong."

TrentProf knows there is a debate on the issue, but intentionally left such knowledge out of her original version of the page because she believes the debate itself on this topic is wrong. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules about maintaining a neutral point of view.

It's also telling that TrentProf did not declare her professional interest in Cogewea during previous discussion about this article. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am under the impression one is supposed to reveal such information. The COI page is littered with users declare their potential bias BEFORE they create or edit a page.

Regardless, the page now accurately reflects the controversy around the editing topic, though there is still work to be done to erase the whole of TrentProf's bias, in my opinion.

I would also like to add that it was not me who commented on TrentProf's academic blog, though I was the one who brought her conflict of interest to the Wikipedia community. TrentStudent20 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I receive no personal economic benefit from this project. Much of this is ad hominem attack. You are screen grabbing stuff from my social media accounts and I am transparent. I’m not espousing my beliefs but the edicts of Indigenous knowledge and proven research (not original) about Cogewea. The info I share in the article is well known (by mainly Indigenous scholars). I have pushed back against suggestions to create critical inquiry, but have included most suggestions. This debate is bordering on trolling. Just do you know, grant money in Canadian universities cannot be used for personal gain. I will be hiring students to help with the project. I am a teaching professor. I cannot get tenure. Your assertions are incorrect. This is exhausting and awful. Is this really what Wikipedia is about? Constant attacks? Trentprof (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion needs to go on elsewhere as per WP:FOC. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

To note my strikeouts, it would have been better if I had focused on why I believe the controversy has to be included, even though TrentProf (not tagging as she no longer wishes to be involved) believes such controversy no longer exists. Even if a group of scholars believes other scholars are wrong, we still need to include the other scholar's opinions, without overemphasizing them or giving them undue attention. TrentStudent20 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Editor Controversy

I will/have undone an edit by Shepherd660506 suggesting that Beidler does not consider McWhorter an author of this book. Read Laura G. Godfrey's quote on Beidler's perspective: "Peter Beidler notes, in his article on Cogewea's reading of western romance The Brand, that he "[uses] the terms author and Mourning Dove to refer to the writing team consisting of an Indian woman and her white male collaborator" (48). While he recognizes that Cogewea is one of the earliest books with an Indigenous author, he does not think she is the only author. TrentStudent20 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I take your point, but I think it's misleading to focus on the Beidler source because he's really not focussing on the authorship per se, but is just making that claim as a convenience so he can get on with what he really wants to talk about, which is how the novel writes back to The Brand. The article's take on authorship would be better if it consulted scholarship that actually focusses on the nature of the collaboration (e.g. Bernardin, Karell). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepherd660506 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have undone an edit by AmlitProf which removed details of editor controversy from article lede. Lede must include a summary of article information. If you disagree with the content of that section itself, please note why here. TrentStudent20 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will/have undone an edit by Shepherd660506 where he/she removes the information that McWhorter is sometimes considered the primary author of Cogewea. It is substantiated in the Laura G. Godfrey article which is referenced in that section. Godfrey writes, "Still, evidence of his [McWhorter's] textual insertions is so great that some authors do not even refer to Mourning Dove as the author of Cogewea." They instead refer to McWhorter. Further note to Shepherd660506, if something is not substantiated you do not remove it, you insert a citation needed tag. Would you have done so, you would have seen the citation. If you would like to disagree, please do so by writing here. TrentStudent20 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please respond at the bottom Shepherd660506 and add your signature, for clarity. You can do so by pressing the "~ ~ ~ ~" symbol in the editing view. I do reference a source that focuses primarily on authorship, Godfrey, who has simply used Beidler's opinion as part of her own research on the matter. Regardless, please stop deleting things you believe are unsubstainiated on this matter. Instead please add a citation needed tag and explain yourself here. Thanks. TrentStudent20 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

TrentProf I have seen the note you left on Melcous' page. If you have information that McWhorter is no longer considered to have substantially contributed to this novel, it would be great if you added it here. Then we could discuss it! It has been my honest understanding that there remains controversy about exactly how much he contributed, based on scholarship by Fisher and Godfrey. Is there scholarship I am unaware of that discredits them? TrentStudent20 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

TrentStudent20, I don't believe Trentprof has left any notes on my talk page, you might want to clarify what you are referring to there? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! I meant on Domdeparis's page! Thanks. I didn't want to link out to avoid annoying! TrentStudent20 (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, good point TrentStudent20 - I did leave a note on your talk page asking for calm and letting you know I did notify the scholars you are misrepresenting. That is not sock puppetry for meat puppetry, it's ethical.I did nothing in secret (hence your ability to troll my accounts). The scholarship you are citing is now considered colonial and has been for at least a decade. I am trying to reach a consensus with you but you can't expect to drop names of scholars, misrepresent their work, and not be called on it. =I am going to drop Melcous here so they can see that I am really trying to reach consensus, even though TrentStudent20 escalate the situation by accusing me of bias and sock puppetry without discussing anything here. In any case, let's try again:these scholars MENTION the debate in their articles, but the consensus is that Mourning Dove wrote the novel, which you do not acknowledge in your edits. The irony here is awful - Mourning Dove was accused by an Indian agent of not producing her own work. McWhorter was furious - he received the entire manuscript in 1913 and their letters do not show major changes (although she did not like his inclusions of rants against the Bureau if Indian Affairs et al). The article did mention this controversy, but you have slated it to seem as if the controversy still exists when it doesn't (see Jace Weaver, Louis Owens, Jeanette Armstrong, Victoria Lamont, and Susan Benardin). Can you simply state that Mourning Dove is the author, there was debate and represent these scholars ethically? Then this can all be over. We both want the same thing (I hope): to share correct info about a novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that the page does call Mourning Dove the author, and the debate is highlighted. Scholars on both sides of the debate are represented fairly. Their views are added, but not overemphasized. I don't think a reader of this article would think McWhorter was the author. I think they would think he may have contributed to this novel.

I didn't accuse you of sock or meat puppetry, the more senior wikipedians I asked for help suggested both ideas and acted on it. I did point them to my talk page and your Twitter page as proof of their intuition.

Would you feel Mourning Dove would be better represented if we added the detail that the Indian agent was forced to retract their doubt? I just feel that erasing the debate, as other editors to this page have tried to do, doesn't accurately reflect the subject. Some scholars have written that McWhorter was a large contributor, right? TrentStudent20 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Only in scholarship that has been debunked. See Owens, Weaver, Lamont, Bernardin, Godfrey, and Brown. The consensus is that SHE wrote the novel. This is a really touchy subject because of the Indian Agent accusation and the fact that Indigenous peoples were called "savages," who were not capable of intellectual thought (incredibly incorrect and awful). So to state that McWhorter is a major contributor is to re-open a debate that has been closed. Of course, it's totally fair to say there WAS controversy (I thought I had but adding to it is fine). I would really like you to modify your edits. They are not ethical (and I mean this in the kindest tone possible). Or cite exactly where these scholars make these claims - I can't find what you are talking about. And can you stop reporting me all over the shop? I did notify those scholars but not to create consensus, but to show them their work is being misrepresented. There's a BIG difference. I also displayed your edits on Twitter and FB, to give others a chance to chime in, not to dogpile (which hasn't happened - two users have come on to add edits and they did not make huge changes that I can see, whereas you have. You also reverted their changes, which shows vindictiveness on your part). By the way, I read what you wrote and you did accuse me of sock puppetry completely - it's all open on the Request for Comment pages. You also accused me of bias and trolled my social media accounts. It's all been way strange and out there. You know who I am and are sharing my info - verging on doxxing. Let's keep it civil, okay? Trentprof (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate does not appear to be closed about how much McWhorter changed. You say he added minor changes about the B of Indian Affairs. But, according to Fisher and Godfrey, Mourning Dove's letters show McWhorter changed the political message, as well as some plot and character changes. Some believed the changes were substantial. It's not siding with those people to point out their ideas.

I have cited this information in the article. It's not vindictive to revert changes, as I believe they were done without reading my sources, and I believe they were wrong. Other editors have since seen those reversions.

I did not accuse you. I asked for help, the senior editors had an intuition, and I concurred and gave them evidence. They acted on my information. I am not out to get you. TrentStudent20 (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate is closed. It’s a real illustration of Frants Fanon’s theory of colonization that you can’t see that your changes are not only incorrect but harmful and disrespectful to Mourning Dove and all Indigenous authors. It’s a sad state of affairs in Wikipedia but does illustrate how control and power are more important than actual knowledge sharing in western culture. And,, seriously, you are out to get me. That’s a ridiculous thing to claim after stalking my social media accounts and trolling my blog. I wish you well. The page is yours. I will add into the new edition the story of Cogewea on Wikipedia to warn others, but also illustrate that the trials Mourning Dove went through proving her authorship are not over. Trentprof (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Trentprof I'm sorry to read this and not sure what you mean here by the debate is closed. If you mean that you have decided not to continue editing here then that is up to you, but it is not correct or helpful to say 'the page is yours' to one other editor. (Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by any editors). The article has been temporarily semi-protected so that everyone can take a step back from what was becoming an "edit war", but discussion can certainly continue here in seeking consensus for how to best move forward. I am also disappointed that you say you will 'add ... the story of Cogewea on Wikipedia to warn others' in your writing as it sounds like you are saying what has gone on here is deliberate silencing which is not the case. I believe much of this was caused by lack of understanding of how wikipedia works and what it is and is not (and cannot be). As a volunteer edited encyclopedia, wikipedia works by certain guidelines including the establishment of consensus through discussion, and also the reproducing of what has been published in other sources rather than the inclusion of opinions or original research. I think if you are able to step back and take some time to understand these policies (and the limits of this kind of project) you might find that there is a way forward rather than viewing this as a 'battle' that has been 'lost'. As I said to Shepherd660506 on their talk page, it is great to have new editors with expertise join the project, but the conflict of interest guidelines also exist for a reason and while it may seem counterintuitive at first, it would perhaps be better to edit areas that you are not necessarily as invested in first in order to gain experience in how this project works (in all its quirks). Cheers, Melcous (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Trentstudent20, I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the protocols and mechanics. In the interest in dialogue, let me explain my point of view: I think it is misleading to refer to McWhorter as a "primary author" because that is not where the scholarship is at right now. None of the most recent scholarship refers to McWhorter as a primary author, not even Godfrey, According to your quotation, she attributes this to other scholars and does not take that position herself. To support this claim convincingly, you should check her original sources and cite them, paying close attention do their exact words. I need to see citations from the scholars who actually say that McWhorter is the primary author. Most of your citations on this issue cite indirectly rather than going to the original source. Yes, it is the consensus that McWhorter edited the manuscript quite heavily in places. That is what editors often do. There are many cases in scholarship of work that has been heavily edited, but that does not affect the attribution of authorship--Zane Grey is still considered the "author" of his works even though his wife substantially edited his work. Why is is so important to you to attribute this work to McWhorter as author, but not in the case of writers like Zane Grey? Moreover, if McWhorter is, as you say, "a primary author," then wouldn't it be more accurate to call him a collaborator with Mourning Dove, which more accurately reflects their relationship? The term "collaboration" conveys the equality of the relationship, which their own correspondence clearly shows was how they felt about their own process, and which the most recent scholarship shows was the case. Thus I propose changing the phrase in the lead paragraphs to use the term "collaboration," citing, among others, Bernardin and Karell.Shepherd660506 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Shepherd660506

This page does not say that McWhorter is the or a primary author. It says he has been considered a primary author. Further, it is much preferable for me to cite Godfrey's synthesis of how McWhorter has been perceived, than collecting how each scholar has thought of McWhorter myself, as that would be original research (I think, I am also quite new to Wikipedia). TrentStudent20 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned here on Trentprof's talk page we have to avoid ad hominem comments. If there is a debate in reliable sources as to the influence that McWhorter had on the content of the novel then the article should reflect this debate with the different opinions expressed if they are backed up by reliable sources. It may be in your opinion User:Shepard660506 that most recent scholarship has shows that it was a collaboration but that does not negate the previous scholarship. Tomorrow if someone produces a paper saying that she never wrote the novel should we remove all references to her simply because the most recent research shows this? I think not. I do not have access to all the sources, does any scholar (Godfrey or another) use the words "primary author" ? If not then it is better to use his words rather than extrapolating. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If I may add my side in regards to your question DomdeParis, I write above that Godfrey alludes that some scholars do not call Cogewea the author at all. Here's a quote: "Still, evidence of his [McWhorter's] textual insertions is so great that some authors do not even refer to Mourning Dove as the author of Cogewea." They instead refer to McWhorter. I used the term "primary author" only to make this clear, I didn't want to call him the "real" or the "actual" author. Is there another term we could use Shepherd660506, that you feel would be more reflective of the truth? TrentStudent20 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

but who are the authors she is refering to? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe she (Godfrey) elaborates on which consider him the "primary" author. She writes that he may be considered a second author: "Much has been written about the collaboration between Mourning Dove, an Okanogan woman, and McWhorter, her mentor and editor in creating the 1927 western romance novel Cogewea: The Half Blood. Cogewea is in some sense a text with two authors, for Mourning Dove received more from McWhorter than literary advice and help in finding a publisher. As her letters make clear, McWhorter is responsible for significant parts of the text, including critical elements of plot and character as well as much of its politics.

She also writes: "Some critics suggest that McWhorter intruded unfairly—even oppressively—on Mourning Dove's text. Yet McWhorter himself openly protested claims that he had "written" the novel for Mourning Dove, and in his early attempts to interest potential readers and publishers he often de-emphasized his role as collaborator. In April of 1916, for example, he writes in a letter to Walter Woehlke (a potential buyer) that, "besides a few notes written by myself," the narrative is solely Mourning Dove's (Box 27, folder 241). Still, evidence of his textual insertions is so great that some authors do not even refer to Mourning Dove as the author of Cogewea; Peter Beidler notes, in his article on Cogewea's reading of western romance The Brand, that he "[uses] the terms author and Mourning Dove to refer to the writing team consisting of an Indian woman and her white male collaborator" (48). Others, like Alanna Brown, argue that without the help of an influential and knowledgeable advisor such as McWhorter, Mourning Dove's novel would likely not have been published at all ("Mourning Dove's Voice" 3)."

Also, in his intro, Fisher says, "McWhorter unquestionably had a tremendous amount of control over her manuscript."

Godfreys also quotes Mourning Dove: "I have just got through going over the book Cogeawea and am surprised at the changes that you made. . . . I felt like it was someone elses [sic] book and not mine at all. In fact the finishing touches are put there by you, and I have never seen it. . . . Oh my Big Foot, you surely roasted the Shoapees [whites] strong. I think a little too strong to get their sympathy. I wish we had not gone too strong now. That is the only thing I am afraid of."

Fisher also cites Charles Larson, who says he has a "suspicion" that Mourning Dove worked with a "collaborator" (the letters do not seem to have been available at that time).

Lukens writes that McWhorter "trespassed" on the book by adding political messages contrary to what Lukens believes Mourning Dove would have agreed with.

Krupact writes that "McWhorter undertook his own independent revision, expanding the text by adding passages critical of the government's Indian policy and "elevating" Cogewea's diction in many places." TrentStudent20 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that a part from a vague reference to "some authors" none of this warrants using "primary author" or even author for that matter. All editors exerce control over manuscripts in some way but they are not authors, the quotes talk about help, collaboration, influence, intrusion, textual insertions, changes, trespass, finishing touches etc. I can see no justification for saying that he was one of the authors. It would be fair to say that his inputs had a important impact on the structure of the novel and he added certain passages in an effort to insert political messages (it would be interesting to point to these passages) but suggesting he was an author is extrapolating I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately I will bend to your opinion, because I may now be biased about this due to conflict with TrentProf. But I think second author is not extrapolating, because Godfrey says, "Cogewea is in some sense a text with two authors" and Beidler uses the word "author" to refer to McWhorter and Mourning Dove. I can certainly agree to take "primary" out of the entry. TrentStudent20 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It also might be important to note that scholars use the fact that McWhorter took Mourning Dove's manuscript, edited and inserted things, and sent it right to the press without consulting her, as their reason he is more than an editor. There was no back and forth that I am aware of. TrentStudent20 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody i think is denying that his role was more than a simple editor. This has to be seen in the context of the time where even with his benevolence she was not only indigenous but a woman so his actions would seem normal. What was the context of her saying that "it was in some sense..."? And how did Beidler use the word author? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That quote from Godfrey is on the very first page of her article, there is no more context. Also, Godfrey and Fisher are writing in the 1980s, not the 1920s when the book was first published. TrentStudent20 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dom from Paris it may interest you to note I have removed the entry's reference to McWhorter as a "primary author" and added quotes from Mouring Dove and the novel to contextualize the editor controversy. I am now afraid the entry overall gives undue weight to the controversy. But, it is my intent to also expand the main themes section, so that may help. Any thoughts appreciated. TrentStudent20 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

the phrase as it stands is not supported by the quotes that you have given above. You are extrapolating and this is original research. If you can provide a quote from each of the people you have named as saying that they consider he was an author than leave it if not remove it and replace it with a sourced. You are pushing your POV in the exactly the same way as the other editors did. The vague phrase from Godfrey is not sufficient if there is no context to back up the "some sense" and you have not provided the way that Beidler uses the word author as I requested. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it is not supported as it stands.

We could use Linda K. Karell, who writes: "Formally titled 'Cogewea, the Half Blood,' the text is 'given through' Sho-pow-tan (Old Wolf), an Indian appellation for McWhorter. In addition, notes and a biographical sketch of Mourning Dove are credited to McWhorter on the title Page. Not only are two authors very evident, each author has at least two cited names, that in turn indicate the varied cultural positions of each occupied." This is from: "This Story I Am Telling You Is True": Collaboration and Literary Authority in Mourning Dove's "Cogewea" In this article, Karrell argues Mourning Dove's perspective on authoring, based on her culture's oral traditions, is about "giving" stories, which would place McWhorter as an author. She does, however, refer to Mourning Dove and McWhorter as "collaborators" whose contributions are "impossible to separate."

This quote from Arnold Krupat may also fit the bill: Mourning Dove's Cogewea: The Half-Blood, was paid little critical attention until 1978, when Charles Larson, in his American Indian Fiction, commented on it in regards to the problems of dual authorship (although Larson only knew that Mourning Dove and Lucullus Virgil McWhorter had in some fashion worked together)." Krupat also calls McWhorter "collaborator/mentor."

I don't have access to Larson, but Robert Warrior mentions Larson is too focused on "the individual identity of authors" to talk about content of Coegewea.

Lamont mentions another scholar, in passing, who argues against Mourning Dove's authorship: "Elizabeth Ammon's contention that Mourning Dove cannot be considered the author of Cogewea." I don't have access to anything by Ammon.

We may also use Albert Braz who, in "Collaborative Authorship and Indigenous Literatures," wrote: " Here I cite only one, Cogewea, the Halfblood.The 1920s novel is often ascribed to the Okanogan writer Mourning Dove, with Lucullus Virgil McWhorter being listed as the editor, responsible for "notes and [a] biographical sketch" (MourningDove n.pag.). Yet the text reveals that it possesses at least two distinct authorial voices."

From Braz we also learn of another expert, Sherman Alexie, who considers the McWhorter an author of this book: " The apparent collaborative writership of Cogewea raises questions not only about its ethnonational identity but also its gender. Mourning Dove was long considered as "perhaps the first Indian woman to write a novel"(Fisher v), but current scholarship suggests that McWhorter "overstep[ed] appropriate editorial bounds" and "intervened" in the writing of "Mourning Dove's novel" (Brown 278-79). The contemporary Okanogan/Spokane writer Sherman Alexie, in fact, characterizes the text as "an example of a book written by a White person which is disguised as an autobiography of an Indian person" (29)."

Along with the above snippet from Brown, in her "Collaboration and the Complex World of Literary Rights" she says: "The primary and most problematic issues for those working on Native texts--such as Mourning Dove's Cogewea, the Half Blood (1927), which was extensively edited and ultimately co-written by L.V. McWhorter... is determining who wrote what and how the collaboration worked. ...the recollections of those who knew the collaborators, the writers' statement, and the texts themselves..." Brown also frequently uses the word "collaborators" in this.

In her "Mourning Dove's voice in Cogewea, Brown says, "L.V. McWhorter co-wrote sections of Cogewea and is responsible for editing the whole novel... Yes, McWhorter intruded into the text ... [but] did he override Mourning Dove's voice in Cogewea? No. In its essence the book is hers..." but also calls it "the first bicultural Indian/white novel."

Unfortunately, Domdeparis, I don't have any other quotes from Biedler or Godfreys I could use to further ground their perspective.

Though I believe I have included the necessary context of "in some sense" as Godfreys says. She immediately adds that the plot, character, and political additions McWhorter makes are the "sense" in which he could be considered the author. But that's in the quotes I previously provided.

In light of this, I propose we include Karrell, Braz, Ammon, Larson, and Alexie in the phrase of contention. Perhaps adding Brown's complicated take. TrentStudent20 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the research that is exactly the kind of sourcing that is needed. I think that it would be fair to say something along the lines. "Certain scholars have questioned the extent of McWhorter's role in the writing of Cogewa. X writes in 19** that ...., Whilst Y says ...in his book...". I would suggest shortening the paragraph limiting the number of quotes and ensuring that both arguments are honestly represented. Be sure to properly cite the different views. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Domdeparis, does the new section look properly cited and balanced to your eye? A better quote from Susan Bernardin could be useful, but I don't have access to her most important article on the topic. Perhaps someone who does, perhaps like Shepherd660506, wouldn't mind giving us her best quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrentStudent20 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Archive 1