Talk:Sha-có-pay

Other articles

Chief Shakopee gives short biographies of three chiefs of this name, one of whom appears to be the subject of this article. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Shakopee, Minnesota also bear the name, and Little Six Casino is a reference to it. Kablammo (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see from your first source (pp 116–18) that there is some ambiguity here. Perhaps CJLippert can help. Given that ambiguity, it may be advisable to make this article about the painting, rather than the man. The painting surely is notable in its own right. Kablammo (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue raised by Kablammo. The three Shakopees were from "Aboriginies of Minnesota" by Winchell, and he was quite complete about this for Minnesota... but this excludes anyone from other areas who may bear the same name. Because of the Biitan-akiing- Enabijig, the Dakota name Shák'pí does exist as an Ojibwe name, Ojibwafied as Zhaagobe. If Sha-có-pay whom Catlin portraited had a parent or a grandparent who was a Biitan-akiing- Enabijig or was a Dakota who was adopted/naturalised as Ojibwe but retained his Dakota name, it would be very plausable for him to be Ojibwe with a Dakota name... and if exterior of Minnesota, then Winchell wouldn't have recorded him. By the 1890s, there were quite a few Ojibwe named Zhaagobe because Shakopee III was considered a great Ojibwe hero, just as he was considered a great Dakota hero. One way to figure out if Shakopee III and the Sha-có-pay whom Catlin portraited are the same or different persons is to compare the portait with the photograph. CJLippert (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Shakopee III would be to young to be the subject of the painting. Shakopee II would fit the age better. Rmhermen (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

CJ, thanks for coming by. My question is based on the source, which suggested that the subject of the painting may in fact be the Mdewakanton Dakota chief, in which case we already have an article. Given the uncertain identity of the painting's subject it likely is best to have the subject of this article be the painting, especially as all we really know about him comes from the painter. But on such questions I am happy to defer to you. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears the Sha-có-pay painting was done in 1832, which means if one of the three Minnesota Shakopees, it would have to be Shakopee II, as Shakopee III didn't become a Chief until his father's death in 1853 plus was only 21, while Shakopee II would have been 38. But there still is a possibility that the Sha-có-pay depicted in the painting isn't one of the Minnesota Shakopees but a different Shakopee altogether. Let me ask the M'nisota Makoce Project folks in St. Paul, MN, and see if they have anything that may resolve this issue. CJLippert (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)