Template:Did you know nominations/Estevan Ochoa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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: promoted by Orlady (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Estevan Ochoa[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Allen3 (talk). Self nom at 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hook: Short enough, interesting. He wasn't forced to travel in that direction, at least according to the article. Perhaps ALT1 ... that after assisting with the creation of the Arizona Territory, Mexican-born merchant Estevan Ochoa was forced to leave during the Civil War? AGF on offline sources.
    While you are correct that he was not forced to travel eastward (the route he took), what other viable options existed in early 1862? Tubac was under Confederate occupation and had been largely abandoned due to Apache attacks. The Butterfield route to Fort Yuma was longer westward than the route to Mesilla was eastward. Everything north of the Gila River was unexplored by white man until you reached the Salt Lake Valley. The only other possible destination was the Mexican town of Hermosillo, but traveling through hostile and unfamiliar territory without the benefit of a road for at best a 10% reduction in distance (a reduction that requires the traveler to find and use an efficient route) is not a wise or viable choice. Given the options it is not hard to see why Ochoa chose a route he had used before.
As for ALT1, the Arizona Organic Act was not introduced to the U.S. Congress until a month after Ochoa was forced to leave Tucson. The alternate hook is thus historically incorrect. --Allen3 talk 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Contextually he had very little choice, but that is not quite the same as being "forced". ALT2 ... that Mexican-born merchant Estevan Ochoa was forced to leave Arizona during the Civil War after arguing for it to be a new territory? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Article: New enough, long enough. Seems neutral, no images. Sourcing seems fine, paraphrasing from the second reference (only online one as far as I can tell) is fine. AGF on offline sources
Summary: Please provide feedback as to an ALT hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Still needs a good hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Your supposition that an act taken under threat of summary execution is not "forced" is not supported by the definition of the word in American English (please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced and meaning three of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force?show=0&t=1316441033). As for ALT2, it is factually flawed and is not supported by any of the article's sources. As pointed out in the examination of ALT1, Arizona did not yet exist. Even if you ignore this fact, the proposed boundaries for the territory in early 1862 were the portions of New Mexico Territory south of the 34th parallel north. As a result, Ochoa's journey occurred completely within the proposed boundaries of the day and he thus was not "forced to leave Arizona". --Allen3 talk 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted above, he was forced out of town under threat of summary execution, not to take a certain direction. There is a difference, and your original hook is implying that the direction was also forced. Perhaps something along the lines of ALT3: ... that Mexican-born merchant Estevan Ochoa argued for the creation of the Arizona Territory despite receiving threats of summary execution there? I'd appreciate a third party's opinion as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You are still making up facts that are not supported by any reliable source. As explained earlier, there were no other viable routes to safety that were shorter. The only possible explanation for your objection is if you are asserting that at least one of the alternatives was not through Apache territory. As Apache were indigenous throughout the area that currently comprises Southern Arizona and Northern Sonora, no such route can possibly exist. This is a matter of simple geometry. Draw a circle around Tucson with a radius of 250 miles and try finding a path that does not satisfy the original hook. --Allen3 talk 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You said he was under the threat of summary execution. You said that the the legislation for the formation of the Arizona territory was after his exile. I'd appreciate you not branding me with the OR tag, when you yourself have yet to even attempt to fix any of the hooks or suggest an ALT. A discussion is a two way street, and I have made my concerns perfectly clear; you have only shot down my attempts to get this through with a hook that won't be torn apart by editors on the main page, and not suggested any alts yourself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
While I am personally fine with this alt, at 222 characters in length it is over the traditional 200 character limit. --Allen3 talk 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I find the alt hooks less interesting than the original, and I think the issues with the original can be resolved:
The article says he was "escorted out of town", so i don't think the word "escape" in ALT6 works. --PFHLai (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Better supported by the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That rewording vastly reduces the interest level in the hook -- the before-and-after wording is far less interesting than wording that describes cause-and-effect. Anyway, I believe that your objection is based on just one interpretation of the meaning of the verb "escape." Merriam-Webster gives several definitions for this word. The example provided in the first definition for escape as an intransitive verb is consistent with the meaning you are inferring: "to get away (as by flight)", as in "escaped from prison". The usage in the above hook is consistent with "escape" as a transitive verb. The first definition for escape as an transitive verb is "to get free of; break away from" (escape the jungle or escape the solar system). The second definition for "escape" as a transitive verb is "to get or stay out of the way of; avoid" (efforts to escape poverty). It is not necessary to physically break free of captivity in order to "escape." It is clear from the article that he undertook his journey in order to escape from the demand that he swear a loyalty oath. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "to escape from a demand that..." works. After he was "escorted out of town", the demand was apparently not there anymore. IMHO, he was just using a familiar route to get to wherever he could stay. More like escaping from the wilderness. Anyway, today is my last day on the wiki this month. I cannot help with this nom any further. My suggestion is to just get the simplest hook to prep soon. We need hooks on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the sources (and I've added another sentence to the article to help tell this story), he refused to swearing the loyalty oath with the expectation that this meant he would be required to leave town. Leaving town was the only way he could avoid (i.e., "escape from") the oath. He was not taking a "familiar route to get to where he could stay"; the sources indicate that no one expected him to survive in the territory of the hostile Apaches (that aspect of the story many not be sufficiently clear in the Wikipedia article). Saying he left town "after" refusing to sign the oath converts a dramatic story into a ho-hum item (it sounds like a businessman leaving town on a commuter train after refusing to sign a contract). --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Not only does that proposal deviate from the content of the Wikipedia article, but it enters the territory of non-neutrality by making allegations about the Apaches. (I added the {{subst:DYK?no}} mark to that hook and to earlier suggestions that were conclusively determined to be inaccurate.)
It has been established that he was not "forced" to travel through Apache territory, since it appears from the article that he could have taken the oath and stayed in Tucson. Presumably he also could have chosen execution. It's apparent from the sources that travel through Apache country was thought to mean certain death, but that's not altogether clear in the article. I stand by my suggested ALT6 (... that Mexican-born merchant Estevan Ochoa traveled through 250 miles (400 km) of Apache territory after refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederate States of America?). Another possibility:
I think ALT8 is okay. --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Moved to prep 2 --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Estevan_Ochoa&oldid=829009570"