Template:Did you know nominations/Douglas Indian Village
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Douglas Indian Village
... that in 1962, the Douglas Indian Village was burned down and condemned by the city of Douglas, Alaska, and around twenty homes were destroyed? Source: Juneau Empire, Indian Law Resource Center 17-18- ALT0a: ... that in 1962, the Douglas Indian Village was condemned and burned down by the city of Douglas, Alaska, and around twenty homes were destroyed? Source: Juneau Empire, Indian Law Resource Center 17-18
ALT1: ... that in 1962, the Douglas Indian Village was burned down and condemned by the city of Douglas, Alaska, and the Tlingit residents received little to no compensation? Source: Juneau Empire, Indian Law Resource Center 18- ALT1a: ... that in 1962, the Douglas Indian Village was condemned and burned down by the city of Douglas, Alaska, and the Tlingit residents received little to no compensation? Source: Juneau Empire, Indian Law Resource Center 18
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Verdi Square
- Comment: Not sure how best to word the last part of ALT0 (about the 20 homes)
Created by Name Omitted (talk). Nominated by Eviolite (talk) at 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: The article, while certainly substantial enough, is entirely about the circumstances and events leading to the village's destruction, not an accessible overview of the village itself. Likewise, it's driven by a pair of news sources from 2015–2016 revisiting that event, rather than sourcing which provides evidence of the enduring notability of the titular topic as a whole. As such, the article's creation smacks of WP:RGW. Also, while the village is within Juneau corporate limits today, that wasn't the case when the village existed. Douglas was a separately-incorporated community from 1902 to 1970. This is described somewhat at the bottom of the article but not consistently described throughout. The hook's reference to "burned down and condemned" is problematic, considering the article text makes it clear that the condemnation preceding the burning. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RadioKAOS: Thanks for pointing that out, it's a valid point. I've tried to find some information but didn't come up with much; maybe Name Omitted (as the creator of the article) knows some sources. I'm a bit confused about the Douglas/Juneau stuff though; I thought it was clear enough given that the article consistently talks about the "City of Douglas", but I added another mention at the end to try and help that. eviolite (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed the hook issue (sorry, didn't see that you'd edited the comment when I was typing mine.) I haven't been able to find good book sources but I'll take another look in the evening; there might also be contemporary newspaper sources. eviolite (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've searched a bit and can't find anything. There aren't any other books or journals with significant information, and newspapers from collections like Gale and Newspapers.com have a brief mention at maximum; nothing usable, unfortunately. eviolite (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are more sources available if you open the scope of the research to include the raising of the Yanyeidì Gooch kootéeyaa pole raised in Memorium to the village in the upland park created when the harbor was dredged. Most of those sources don't add a lot to the existing section of the article, although I do anticipate a feature section about modern healing/reconciliation that may include them.
- RadioKAOS, with respect to WP:RGW, this is an ongoing concern and topic of conversation. A federally recognized tribal government essentially ceased to be for 20 years before being essentially re-formed in the '90s. It's a fascinating story, and the events in this article are an important part of that story. This is important local history, and while the article needs a lot of fleshing out it is not righting past wrongs.
- Eviolite, I am thrilled that you think this article is worthy of a DYK, thank you. I respectfully don't think it is yet, for many of the reasons RadioKAOS has brought up. I hope that more information can be found to flesh this out into a complete article, and if it is I do think it would be worthy of a DYK. Doing so would take some deep scholarship into primary sources (such as BIA records) that I don't have access to at this point. Hopefully, in the wonderful collaborative community that is Wikipedia, there are others who have those sources. Name Omitted (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Name Omitted: Thanks for the reply and work. DYK articles don't necessarily need to be "complete" as long as they are long enough and within policy, though I understand RadioKAOS's concerns may relate to NPOV. If you want me to withdraw the nomination, I'd be happy to do so, though keep in mind that to submit it again you'd need to expand it 5x or bring it to GA-level. Regards, eviolite (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Let's see if we can add a section on the "Time for Healing" project and the totem poles that were erected for that project within the DYK timeframe. That will add current relevance to this article. That will provide a more complete story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Name Omitted, it's been three and a half weeks and there haven't been any edits to the article since the above discussion ended. If you don't see any edits occurring soon, perhaps it would indeed be appropriate to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I don't believe a full review has actually started yet, but if Name Omitted is okay with it being withdrawn I'd be willing to do so. eviolite (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Name Omitted seems to edit with large breaks: prior to their March 26–29 edits, their previous contributions were in 2021. It's been a month since they last edited and they haven't responded to my ping above; I think we have to proceed on the assumption that they won't be returning to editing sufficiently soon to make those edits they were talking about. If you prefer to have this get an actual DYK review, let me know, but it will be up to you to deal with any issues that may arise. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Sorry for the delay, forgot about this. In that case I will withdraw the nomination; feel free to close it as such. eviolite (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Name Omitted seems to edit with large breaks: prior to their March 26–29 edits, their previous contributions were in 2021. It's been a month since they last edited and they haven't responded to my ping above; I think we have to proceed on the assumption that they won't be returning to editing sufficiently soon to make those edits they were talking about. If you prefer to have this get an actual DYK review, let me know, but it will be up to you to deal with any issues that may arise. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I don't believe a full review has actually started yet, but if Name Omitted is okay with it being withdrawn I'd be willing to do so. eviolite (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Name Omitted, it's been three and a half weeks and there haven't been any edits to the article since the above discussion ended. If you don't see any edits occurring soon, perhaps it would indeed be appropriate to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, Let's see if we can add a section on the "Time for Healing" project and the totem poles that were erected for that project within the DYK timeframe. That will add current relevance to this article. That will provide a more complete story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Name Omitted: Thanks for the reply and work. DYK articles don't necessarily need to be "complete" as long as they are long enough and within policy, though I understand RadioKAOS's concerns may relate to NPOV. If you want me to withdraw the nomination, I'd be happy to do so, though keep in mind that to submit it again you'd need to expand it 5x or bring it to GA-level. Regards, eviolite (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've searched a bit and can't find anything. There aren't any other books or journals with significant information, and newspapers from collections like Gale and Newspapers.com have a brief mention at maximum; nothing usable, unfortunately. eviolite (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)