User talk:OwdSeyin

Leabe a message avter the bleep

OwdSeyin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi OwdSeyin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Trail of Tears, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gave a completely different reason for changing the edits on the other page. You falsely accused me of REMOVING information with a citation, which I did not. I gave a reason and I had a citation for my edit. I ONLY added to the article, I did not take away from it. You are lying and smearing me for unknown reasons. You are clearly not being coherent right now. --OwdSeyin (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)OwdSeyin[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 16:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OwdSeyin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello DiscoSpinster. I sincerely did not mean to damage or disrupt the page. I did remove an image with no direct reference to the 'Trail of Tears' and added an image of a book that coined the phrase. I believe the information about this book deserves to be on the Wikipedia page and not completely expunged, including DeSoto's conquest of Florida, George, Alabama, & Mississippi. I will admit there is an entire sub-section of the page named "Terminology" that could be thoroughly fleshed out in regards to how the Trail of Tears became known as the "Trail of Tears" that we all know now. Having said that, the truths from this origin I believe merits an accreditation in the header for it changes the pages history from one of objectivity to one of subjectivity and possibly outright myth. I realize that I was probably blocked for appearing to vandalize the header rather than putting it in the sub-section of 'terminology'. I truly didn't mean to detract from the page. I won't make brash edits and I will instead inquire about this in the talk page. If this appeal is deemed "out of hand" I apologize. I understand that ignorance of the rules is not exemption of the rules. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis. It is extremely useful. I completely understand the good that comes from it operating this way. I'm sorry for any inconvenience and thank you for taking your time vetting this. -OwdSeyin

Decline reason:

The POV-pushing below. It is clear that this user has exhausted the patience of the community in dealing with them. As per the suggestions of two admins who seemed to have held on to their good faith till their bitter ends, access to this talk page will be revoked after this unblock is declined. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're basing your edits on that page on the 1932 fiction book by Ada Loomis Bary? And you don't seem to understand why that is not an acceptable WP:RELIABLE source for your information or you POV? And on top of that, you want Wikipedia to give credence to a work written nearly 100 years ago, that seems to have affected the scholarship of this area so little that the only mention of her name in a web search is this 4chan thread (https://boards dot 4chan dot org/pol/res/334349572 , change the dot to a . to see link ) started today and dealing only with the vandalism of the article in question? He iro 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heironymous Rowe:If you get a chance to look at the book you will find it is a mythology mixed with fact. DeSoto did cause a trail of tears for the natives in the 1500s, his Wikipedia page confirms this. That part of Yanini's story is true. If you look on Newspapers dot com there is a plethora of news articles about the trail of tears book from the 1930s onward. I think it is right to include this subject in the 'Terminology' section of the page. It is my belief that this discussion should continue on the talk page of the Trail of Tears Wikipedia page, even in the event of my block being upheld. Also, I made a spelling error, its Ada Loomis Barry, with two Rs in Barry. You will get more google results with that. OwdSeyin (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. This edit is inexcusable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: I know I shouldn't be the one asking questions, but could you please cite a wikipedia rule as to why that edit's content is completely inexcusable? OwdSeyin (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heiro already did: WP:RELIABLE. I'd throw in WP:FRINGE since if you want us to believe that this work was serious scholarship, searching Bary's name should bring up more than just a 4chan thread. It's inexcusable to push the idea that a shameful piece of American history (amounting to ethnic cleansing) never happened e^π/💬 22:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: It is Ada Loomis "Barry", with two Rs. I did not push the idea that this never happened. I linked a source from the 1980s that says the way the Indian Removal is perceived by Americans in the 20st century largely a myth that stems from this book. Ada Loomis Barry admits to the critics at the end of her book that although some of what Yuinini says is myth, the Trail of Tears should be accepted as the truth of the Indian Removal matter. Historical documents show the native Americans were treated quite nicely, and even refused VACCINATION from the Federal Government, which hurt them dearly. OwdSeyin (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)User:OwdSayin[reply]

(uninvolved non-admin comment} just searched for any info on Ada Loomis Barry only thing I could find was sites that were selling the book, which means that bc no sources exist which comment on the accuracy of the book exist the book is not a reliable source, you are digging yourself into an even deeper hole here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my citation from Newspapers dot com. There is a ton of sources on that search engine. OwdSeyin (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)User:OwdSeyin[reply]

(edit conflict), Further explanation to the above comment by me: It appears that the book was apparently not "serious scholarship" as given its age if it was serious scholarship sources would exist, heck I am used to seeing ppl cite papers and books from the 19th century in my field of study. Also that's just a newspaper hosting site, which is not in and of itself reliable. You really need to read WP:RS if you think that all newspapers are reliable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101: You have moved the goal posts. I genuinely believe this discussion needs to happen on the Trail of Tears Wikipedia Talk page. OwdSeyin (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving the goalposts just explaining that your sources fail WP:RS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "no sources exist which comment on the accuracy of the book exist". I showed you a source that commented on the accuracy of the book. You nebulously point me to WP:RS but never say what is unreliable about that citation. Please explain to me specifically how this particular newspaper article is unreliable? I believe you have moved the goalposts by first denying that there are any sources and then having been shown a source you deny the sources reliability. The ground you defend has moved. I could show you plenty of other articles but they are mostly puff pieces. These articles are also all equally reliable to your former standard, which was supposedly acknowledgement of the books mere existence. OwdSeyin (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your source that "comments on the accuracy of the book" actually does not and only briefly mentions said book and it is not on me to establish a source as reliable or not it is on you to show the source is reliable not just claim it is note that I never said that the newspaper is unreliable I said that the site is "not in and of itself reliable" i.e. It may have some reliable sources on there mixed in with unreliable sources, it is on you to show that the cited article comes from a reliable source (i.e. that the Daily Press meets RS criteria). Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and that's why I think this discussion should be on the Trail of Tears Wikipedia Talk Page so that the community may verify the information. OwdSeyin (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason it needs to be on a talk page, I can't find any information relating to the importance, accuracy, or details of this book or anything you've attempted to cite in your edits. It's not only baseless, but outright offensive to Native American history. You will need far more substantial, modern scholarly sources to assert something as inexcusable as calling the Trail of Tears a myth. Korkon1 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Korkon1: If you look at the talk page, you will see the words "Genocide" and "Ethnic Cleansing" have been REMOVED from the main page. This was SUPPORTED by somebody who accused me of being "Inexcusable" for citing multiple sources that called the Trial of Tears mythology. This belong on the talk page. This is what COINED the term "Trail of Tears". You can't just magically make this go away. It belongs in the "Termology" section of the Trail of Tears Wikipedia page. Can we at least agree on that? OwdSeyin (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your source had a scholarly impact of 0, that is even worse than Young Earth Creationist papers, no scholar appears to have commented on it (note: newspapers don't count in scholarly impacts) so your claim that the book was "serious scholarship" falls flat; further I see no evidence to your claim that your edits were called "Inexcusable" or that the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" were removed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the book "Trail of Tears" by Ada Loomis Barry had a scholarly impact on the way we view history from 1932 onward. That truth cannot be denied unless proof of an earlier work with the same terminology exists. The person who called me "inexcusable" was 'Novem Linguae', with the bold green text above. They also gave support for removal of the word Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Trail of Tears Wikipedia talk page. I apologize for any confusion, and am still wondering if we can agree that the coiner of the term "Trail of Tears" should be acknowledged in the "Terminology" section. OwdSeyin (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you claim the book had a scholarly impact without showing any scholarly impact, it is on YOU to show that it did have a scholarly impact (such as who cited it in scholarly articles etc.) also the proof is on YOU to show that it WAS the origin of the term (via showing that the book had a scholarly impact). No reference to the book exists in scholarly reviews, ect. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if the scholarly impact is obvious, as you claim, it should be easy to find scholarly references to it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my claim I had citations. A web search is not scholarly research. OwdSeyin (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "citations" of scholarly impact was a news article and a search of the authors name in a newspaper archive, again that is not evidence of a scholarly impact the fact that you keep saying it had a scholarly impact while only providing newspapers demonstrates that you don't know what scholarly impact means, I also didn't specify what type of search I did, you just presumed I did a web search (I did a search for the authors name on scholar.google.com and on an online university library search both of which the only hits where for the book itself and only one citation usage in a dissertation thesis (which also don't count towards scholarly impact)). Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a search of the author of the dissertation thesis to see if the author of that made any further impact and again the author of the dissertation did not have any scholarly impact. So in total zero visible scholarly impact. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indian Removal" affair was not referred to as the trail of tears until 1932. This is a fact that cannot be omitted from the trail of tears Wikipedia page. OwdSeyin (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outright false. The origin of the term comes from the natives who were moved themselves. While specifically 'trail of tears' may be more modern, I see no evidence to see it came from this book specifically whatsoever. The Cherokee nation used the term "nunahi-duna-dlo-hilu-i" to refer to the removal, which translates to 'The trail where they cried'. Even earlier is historical references saying the Choctaw used a similar terminology. The Indian Removal Act was signed and executed by Andrew Jackson, and these people would have obviously cried being removed from their historic lands. I really don't see how you can in good conscience determine based on solely a book and a newspaper that it was 'a myth', so I must determine you aren't speaking in good conscience. Have a good day. Korkon1 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citations for these claims? If so they would make a great addition to the Trail of Tears Wikipedia page. OwdSeyin (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, looked into it just now using Google's books section to search for "trail of tears" specifically. Ruth Muskrat Bronson is a Cherokee poet who lived from 1897 to 1982. On February 1, 1922 in the University of Oklahoma magazine, volume 10 issue 5, she wrote a poem titled and describing the Trail of Tears, 10 years before your book that you cited. The only issue you seem to be concerned with is semantics on when 'trail of tears' specifically was coined, when variants of it go back much further than this as I already described. Sadly digitized books of the 19th century aren't exactly comprehensive, so it's very likely there's earlier or lost examples of the exact words Trail of Tears that go back further. Either way, this proves your unreliable source as bunk. Korkon1 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Yunini's story wasn't amplified until 1932 by Ada Loomis Barry's book, it most likely circulated Oklahoma when he told it from the Wampum belt in 1907, which is mentioned in the book. OwdSeyin (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see the point you're getting at. The terminology clearly didn't originate with this book, you can provide no evidence the book was circulated significantly or was used as a scholarly source anywhere. And the events are clearly accurate based on primary sources of the time and passed down oral histories of the related tribes. This book is utterly irrelevant. I literally can't find a single instance of this author being cited, much less the catalyst that produced our modern education of the subject, falsely as well even. This rings conspiracy more than an argument. Korkon1 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology originated with Yunini's wampum belt in 1907, although it was implied the 'trail of tears' was a term well before the Indian Removal of the 19th century. I recommend reading the book before making assertions about it. OwdSeyin (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last post I'm bothering with. As said before, the book is irrelevant because its contents are unverifiable, unimportant, entirely uncited. In your own words you use it to say in your edit, "The Trail of Tears was an admittedly mythological tale told from the wampum belt by Yanini in Oklahoma territory, 1907." clearly stating that the ENTIRE TRAIL OF TEARS is merely a made up story by 'Yanini' who I can't actually find direct information about by the way. Primary sources such as “Memorial and Protest of the Cherokee Nation,” written by John Ross and sent to the U.S. Congress on June 21, 1836. and "An 1837 message from Brigadier General John E. Wool to the Cherokee Nation warning them of the consequences of resisting removal." show the intention and ultimate execution of using soldiers to forcibly remove, with inhumane treatment, of natives from their land. This is also in addition to the clear racist tones of America at the time towards natives. All citable, reliable sources point to, yes, the trail of tears happened. Korkon1 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users have their talk page enabled so they can articulate why they think they should be unblocked. Instead of doing so, this user is pushing more WP:FRINGE POV nonsense. If user can not articulate a convincing argument for why they should be unblocked and assure the community that they will edit within policy if unblocked, then talk page access should be revoked. He iro 17:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am being accused of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". I'd like to believe my composure here proves the opposite. If you want to accuse me of pushing fringe POV, do it on the Trail of Tears talk page, as it is your opinion. I am completely willing to comply by the rules and discuss this further. This is not about me its about the facts of the Trail of Tears terminology matter. OwdSeyin (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe POV Pushing is literally the not here part of your block, that you fail to see it is not our issue, your responses here only further show the POV pushing Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that the citations are pushing a POV, and the discussion should be had on the Trail of Tears Wikipedia talk page. I am completely willing to comply with all rules to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic reputation. OwdSeyin (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here one more time as you are showing IDHT behaviour, your citations are pushing a POV as they LITERALLY state that the trial of tears is fake. THAT IS THE DEIFNITION OF POV. NOte that all sources show a POV on the issue they discuss. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations claim the Trail of Tears was a native mythology going all the way back to DeSoto. We can agree that it is wrong to claim that the trial of tears is fake. I do not believe that was ever the intention. OwdSeyin (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone else replying here:

Editor has been apprised of what actions need to be taken to be unblocked.
Editor refuses to take those steps.
Editor can not reply or edit anywhere else on Wikipedia except for this page.
If we ignore the editor from now on, they will either go away or get their talkpage access removed. You can't reason with this person, they refuse to read and understand the relevant policies. He iro 22:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heironymous: I have not been apprised of what actions specifically need to be taken to be unblocked. I am willing to take any and all steps. I've already apologized several times for my brash editing. If you would like me to stay completely away from the Trail of Tears wikipedia page and talk page I will. I use Wikipedia every day. OwdSeyin (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. Specifically, you need to articulate a convincing argument for why you should be unblocked and assure the community that you will edit within policy if unblocked, and not become of a timesink of combative WP:IDHT WP:FRINGE WP:POV pushing. And yes, I'd make a it condition of your unblock that you keep a wide berth from Trail of Tears and all articles about ethnicity/genocide/ethnic cleansing. But in my experience, people who have to be told to keep away from articles like that, or who make edits like the ones you made at ToT, don't last long here. But I suspect you already know that, because I seriously doubt this is your first/only account here. I wont be arguing with you about it, this is my last post, so don't bother. The only thing that will get you unblocked are the first several sentences of this paragraph. He iro 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 47137

UTRS appeal #47137 has been declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)+[reply]