Jump to content

Talk:Indian Head cent/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Comments only reading the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the WP:LEAD is suppose to define the subject. I find it odd to make this correction given the number of coinage articles that you have done, but cent seems to be a slang term. I might start with something like "The Indian Head cent, also known as an Indian Head penny, was the official denomination of coinage bearing the value of one percent of one dollar of United States currency produced from YYYY to YYYY." or something. In the first paragraph, I would use the term one-cent piece and clarify that this is equal in value to one percent of 1 US$ or .01 US$. Then somehow teach us that the term cent is a common referent for one percent of one dollar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cent was defined as 1/100 dollar by the Mint Act of 1792. Although, admittedly, terminology has varied over the years, with sometimes the coin referred to a "cent" or "one-cent piece", there is no doubt about the official status what 1/100 dollar is. "Penny" is the nickname, but it has such wide, er, currency, that I do include it in the one-cent articles just because there's no use fighting it. I've made this a bit clearer in the lede.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pursuant to congressional authorization, the Mint in 1857 reduced the size of the cent" sounds both casual and lacking in context. You need to define what a cent is here or above. Then you need to give some context to the reduction in size. I.E., from YYYY to 1857 the one-cent coin had dimensions of x and y (possibly naming the coins of this description). Maybe just add a phrase like After XX years of producing one-cent coins of X and Y large dimensions, Congress authorized ...--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clearer that the cent, as a denomination, was defined by the 1792 act. Much of the information you seek is in Flying Eagle cent. I think the fact that it was about the size of the half dollar may be helpful to the reader. I think people know roughly how large a half dollar is, or was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Inception
Added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Piped.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Design
All of the facial features are that of a white woman on the cent. The headdress is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding this political correctness hot potato. Is it that white people have noses and natives have snouts? horns? Is it 2 eyes vs. 3?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that an actual Caucasian served as the model?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Longacre worked from his daughter or a Greek statue the model was a white woman, and he made no effort to make her appear Native AmericanWehwalt (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status=2ndopinion--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that actually did anything that will let anyone know that a second opinion is wanted. Could you take a second look at that?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GAN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redesign and change of composition (1859–1864)
Yes. Employees were playing games, likely for private profit, or at Snowden's order as discussed. At this late date, we don't know which. Until about 1890, and sometimes even later, there was a lot of this going on, whenever a new issue came out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
This must be a typo. I have removed the first w.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closest concept is gift certificate. The idea being that if you pay with sixty-five cents in coin for a sixty-one cent purchase, and the merchant cannot give you change, he would give you a certificate worth four cents on your next purchase. You can either keep it and use it or try to get someone else to take it for value. The concept of legal tender did not include the requirement to give change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify the issue about the obligation to give change and note the similarity to the modern gift certificate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneWehwalt (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. By general agreement, the private tokens were worth one cent. They would be widely taken at that value, even if there was nothing behind it, because the alternatives were worse. They were about the size of a cent, and in the emergency, passed as such. I do link to Civil War token.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the old westerns where a prospector would buy a round with a gold nugget. O.K. state in proper terms that the merchant tokens were similar in size to the one-cent pieces that contained one-cent worth of precious metal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you misunderstand the barkeep would have taken the nugget after weighing it and probably allowing for impurities because gold was dollar in those days a given quantity of gold was a dollar. Here, these tokens usually didn't even contain as much copper as the cent. At first they were redeemable at stores but more durable than the credit slips I talked about. Later on especially after the government made an illegal they didn't carry the name of any place where they could be redeemed. But so what the government wouldn't accept the sense as legal tender until 1864.Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is clear on this point. Pollock's quote that the public was seeking convenience and would accept lightweight base metal coins for low denominations seems to dispose of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cents that the government sold to the public were not legal tender and the government would not take them back even in small amounts until 1864. They were, really, tokens. No one had to take them. This wasn't just the US, it was the same in Britain, and likely elsewhere. They were a public convenience. Keep in mind that until 1857, the cent contained copper worth about its face value, hopefully a little less, so they could be melted down and you'd get back most of your money in theory. Until 1933, the dollar was defined as a given quantity of gold, and the gold coins contained that amount of gold. Silver (after 1850 or so) was legal tender up to about five dollars, and copper for much less, because the prices of those metals varied against the dollar whereas gold by definition did not. This led to the gold standard battles of the late 19th century, see Cross of Gold speech.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Please explain that and why they were not legal tender.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence in the background section explaining why cents were not traditionally legal tender; since the article mentioned subsequently at least twice that this continued I think the reader is on notice.Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later years (1865–1909)
It was. It was a low mintage, and there weren't many coin collectors in that era, so most weren't saved, meaning a lot of them were worn in circulation and eventually melted (by then, as was mentioned, the Mint would take them back in $20 or larger lots)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
1877 seems to be an ambiguous referent as presented.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per numismatic convention you call them by the year. There's no ambiguity; if they've also been struck in San Francisco we say 1877-S.Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN huh?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're saying there's a further issue here I added text to clarify the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I again see no changes with your recent edits. However, upon further review it looks O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images
I don't think it's a sentence it's not intended to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cent-sized Civil War token, issued privately as federal coinage was hoarded" seems to mean to say "Cent-sized Civil War token, which was issued privately as federal coinage, was hoarded."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to convince me this is not a sentence without proper punctuation. Why do you only use one comma? Although more natural if it had a The in front of it, I think "Cent-sized Civil War token" is a noun and was hoarded is a verb. Why not end with a period?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the opposite I think this is a sentence and the period is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a period.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other
Thank you, I think I've now caught everything. Could you check and see if there are any points that are unaddressed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the request for a second opinion American Indian is a perfectly valid and active term. National Museum of the American Indian (2004) I think would be dispositive as the present day equivalent of the post office delivering letters addressed to Santa Claus to a man with a beard.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request about WP using the term American Indian. It is a term about wikipedia describing whether a subject looks like an American Indian. The discussion of whether the white model misrepresented American Indians who by implication have totally different features than Caucasian people may be offensive. If you drew something and told me that it really didn't look African-American enough, it might be offensive to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not touching that one. I had my say above about the model. This is based on mainstream numismatic sources and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever got upset about how they are phrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the sources: if they discuss it a lot then there's little reason to omit it; if they state consistently that the person looks like a white woman and not a Native American man, then that should be what's in the article. Hedge with a statement on that consistency if required; I definitely recommend adding at least one source at the end of the first sentence in para 3 (ending "the headdress of a Native American man"). (An aside: should "portion of out national inheritance" in para 1 be "portion of our national inheritance"?) EddieHugh (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 2nd opinion. However, since this week we had a report from WP:IPNA, I am pinging their representatives (Montanabw, CJLippert, RadioKAOS, Djembayz and Maunus) to respond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some very minor stylistic edits, and also provided some additional wiki-links. On the issue on the model of the "Indian Head", as long as the sources cited discuss about non-Native female in otherwise generally a Native male head-dress, that should be fine, because although from a Native culture, inappropriate, this was commonly portrayed theme in the United States at that time. And as long as that message is clear and citable, it shouldn't cause a problem here. CJLippert (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I swung by because TTT pinged me. In the United States, "Indian" is understood within governmental contexts as legal term of art for Native people, and within that context, such as here, "Indian Head Cent" is as appropriate as "Indiana" or "Indian Child Welfare Act." I presume the main issue here is the sentence, "the facial features of the "Indian" are essentially Caucasian, meaning that a White woman wears the headdress of a Native American man", and possibly, "Later issues depict more accurate Indians". I suggest that the first could be softened a bit by saying something like, "Critics such as Foo noticed as early as (year) that the facial features of the "Indian" closely resembled that of a caucasian woman, akin to the "Lady Liberty...(blah, blah, blah)" i.e. give a bit of background to provide context; teach the controversy, in other words. With a bit more context, I see no problem with offensiveness beyond the simple offensiveness of the direct quotations of the times, which can't be helped; the attributed quotes are what they are. The second sentence I would consider rewording to say something like "Later issues depicted Native people (or men, if all were male) more accurately (and if based on real life models, say so). Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, could you respond to Montanabw and post a list of articles for consideration at WP:IPNA so we can wrap this one up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away from home and don't have my references with me so I can't give a complete list of Indian/coin articles. The ones in the articles are the major ones depicting Native Americans. There's probably one or two additional commemoratives, but I don't know them all "by heart" and would have to leaf through the catalog. The only one where it is very clear the sculptor worked from actual Native Americans is Buffalo nickel. It's uncertain which Indians, and that's all set out in that article. But we don't know what Pratt was working from with the Indian Head gold pieces, yet the features he came up with are much more conventionally Indian (if there is such a thing) than previous versions. So we can't say Fraser was the first with the nickel, because we don't know the full story. We could run a parenthetical after the mention of the nickel that Fraser used real Indians as a basis, I can get a source from that article.
I don't like to imply controversy where none exists. The major controversy in numismatic circles (and it isn't much of one) is was it Sarah Longacre or was it not? And pretty much all the juice is sucked out of that one. The Indian is not controversial, because everyone has known it was not a "real" Indian for time out of mind. With respect to the suggestion about easing into the controversy, I suppose we could put Snowden's comment first, but he's talking a bit poetically and I'd rather give the reader a blunt statement in plain English and then give them Snowden's comment, less likely to confuse. All of this is cited to mainstream books, some very recent, some not so, and there's no mention of controversy. There's nothing in reliable sources I am aware of that says that anyone has been offended by this coin. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator. If we imply controversy where none has existed, we do the reader a disservice.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you have looked at Montanabw's comments and decide to leave the article unchanged?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge deal for me one way or the other, I just made a suggestion that could be used, but doesn't have to be. Montanabw(talk) 06:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asserting that any of the articles are controversial. I am just saying that they may want to tag the articles for their project, like WP:CHICAGO has tagged Isabella quarter and Columbian half dollar. I am merely suggesting that you offer them a list of articles for their project. I would put several coins in their project, but they might not consider them appropriate for inclusion. Can't you just come up with a list from Template:Coinage (United States).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that James Fraser in designing the Buffalo nickel worked from Native American models. We don't know a lot about how some coins were designed. You have all the regular issue US coins that depict Indians. We do not have articles on all commemoratives and I need to look at the designs and I need my references for that and I am away from home at present. There's at least one where the Indian appears as part of the city seal on the coin but I don't remember which one.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've said I'll provide a list when I get home. Is there anything further that needs to be done here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A week from Monday--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on examination of my references, I find the following coins have a Native American on them, in addition to the ones mentioned in the article: Daniel Boone Bicentennial half dollar (1934-8), Arkansas Centennial half dollar (1935-9), Providence, Rhode Island, Tercentenary (1936), Long Island Tercentenary (1936), American Buffalo dollar (2001), Jamestown 400th Anniversary dollar and half eagle (2007), and the American Buffalo $50 (bullion coin) American Buffalo (coin) is the only article we seem to have on any of them. However, as I reach them in the ongoing commemorative effort, I shall make sure to add the wikiproject, and to be more careful about such things in general.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a part of WP:IPNA and am not commanding that you add them to your Native American subject coins. I am asking that you ask if they want to be added. They may prefer to be uninvolved in those articles. They may consider them a nuisance or distraction from the main purpose of the project. There have been mixed responses toward whether the coins are relevant. Put a list of coins with articles on their project page and let them decide. Just say I suggested it since we at WP:CHICAGO are pleased to have a couple of your coin articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The period in the caption? it's added and I put a note above in this edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article again?

[edit]

Hello, I'm pretty sure that this was a featured article earlier this year. Am I right, or just thinking of something similar? AllyGebies (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Head_cent/GA1&oldid=1076254716"