The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Murray Hoag[edit]

J. Murray Hoag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Also possible WP:HOAX unintentional creation of a composite person consisting of two (edit - or more) unrelated people.
Subject has a one paragraph mention in one book, simply noting his promotion. He has a relatively incidental mention in a second book. A third book contains, literally, one sentence (and this may not even be about the same Murray Hoag). A BEFORE fails to find sufficient additional references to sustain this as a standalone article. In "further reading" there are several paper letters mentioned which, I guess, the article's author must have in his/her possession, however, emails, message board comments, and postal letters don't generally held establish notability or meet WP:RS standards. We don't even have his first name or DOB.
It also invokes a reference [1] to a completely different person named Hoag that doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. (I'm also not entirely convinced the man in Iowa who raises Shetland ponies isn't even a third different person, possibly a son.) Ergo, this may also qualify for deletion under WP:HOAX as a composite character of several different people and not a single biological person. Chetsford (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of identity of individual[edit]

Question Are you discounting the entire Georgia Historical Quarterly article? That's not multiple RSs in and of itself, but it looks like a very good start. Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination. LadyofShalott 01:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am. After reading the article it's about Hettie Sabattie, a teacher at an African-American school, and analyzes her through the context of Hoag's letters as that was the side of the correspondence preserved. There are three short sentences of biographical information on Hoag in the 15 page article and the article is really about Sabattie. Hettie Sabattie would certainly pass GNG, but Hoag - unfortunately - does not.

"Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination." None of the sources connect the Murray Hoag who raised ponies in Iowa in the 1890s with the Murray Hoag who fought in the American Civil War. If we can find one source that bridged the gap that would resolve my concerns about this being a composite character, however, we don't currently seem to have that. (To clarify, I'm not saying this is an intentional hoax, however.) Chetsford (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised that those are different people. To me hoax implies malice. Though you say that is not what you mean, I would use an entirely different term for an error than deliberate mistruth. LadyofShalott 01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [2], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people. I'm certain the Quaker connection is yet a third person in this composite character, however, I can't confirm that with 100% veracity yet through RS; will update as soon as I have. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was a poor choice of words as I didn't mean to imply intent. I've struck "hoax" accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reconsideration of that point. LadyofShalott 01:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your findings about the two different men, I have gone ahead and removed the part about the pony breeder from the article. LadyofShalott 02:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LadyofShalott! I've also added a "not in citation" tag to the part about the Quakers. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see; I'm just looking at that now! LadyofShalott 02:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... And I concur. LadyofShalott 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a Quaker serving as an infantry officer in the Civil War would probably - by itself - pass GNG. I'm not sure we have any examples of that happening. Actually, not to add to the confusion, but it appears there may be a fourth person composited into this article. It appears there two were J. Murray Hoags at the Freedman's Bureau; I'm just working to verify that point with RS as well, and will update again, shortly. (Though it looks like the composite character is being introduced into new articles [3], so I may have my thumb in the proverbial dyke on this one.) Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like one person to me. Served in the New York artillery and then captained 4th colored. Is such a tranfer not possible? If there were two J.M. Hoag's one may habe died in 1864 and been buried at Andersonville.

Why can't the J. Murray Hoag who survived the war have served in various roles in the Freedmen's Bureau and then retired to photography and / or pony raising in the Midwest with his family? Regardless, the officer role commanding colored troops and then leading Freedmen Bureau activities in Savannah area and perhaps elsewhere are certainly notable. Saving Savannah has pages and pages indexed to this dude. Plus all the historical letters and other coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the fact that you, as the article's author, are having to ask these questions - that this "dude" [sic] has so little notability we're not even sure of these basic biographical details - probably demonstrates this is an appropriate article for deletion. Second, aside from the fact that transferring from a New York artillery regiment to a Maryland infantry regiment (the 4th Colored Infantry) would have been highly unusual, there's also the fact the Maryland militia roster shows him serving in it 1863-1867 [4], the same time period the other Hoag was serving in New York. Third, as previously noted, he was not a Quaker minister. (In general, Quaker ministers didn't serve as combat infantry officers during the Civil War but - more specifically - this one specifically didn't as demonstrated by the source.) As previously explained, this is not an article on a real person, it is a composite character of between two to four different people who share the very common surname "Hoag". WP biographies, as a general rule, need to be about real people. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising at all. It's a Quaker family so while anti-slavery and Republican sentiments ran strong, military service was somewhat controversial, especially for a family of Quaker ministers. But you seem very confused. This individual was never as far as I can tell a minister. But if you want a connection between the small town in Iowa and his war service here you go. Joseph Hoag's grandson and Lindley Murray Hoag's son. For some reason he was buried as Joseph Lindley Hoag instead of Joseph Murray Hoag, I'm not sure why. Perhaps to honor his father? Did you know his father's brother, Murray Hoag, died very young? Yes, It's all a bit confusing because of the Quaker prophet names running in the family. But all it took was a bit of time to sort it all out. It's the same dude. I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming. And as far as the links you've put up I can't find anything at all relevant in them. In contrast I've established exactly who this guy was an who his family were. The notice of his mustering out is online as his appointment to Freedmen's bureau on the front page of a contemporary newspaper account. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does that prove? The J. Murray Hoag of New York, later of Iowa, belonged to the Grand Army of the Republic. I'm sure he did, since he was a veteran. I'm sure the other Murray Hoag - the subject of this article from Maryland - did as well. I'm sorry you're upset but I don't really know how better to explain this to you: this article is a composite character of two to four different people. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Chetsford, seems like a composite of multiple people, serving both in New York and Maryland doesn't make any sense. This is a mess, without even dealing with the question of notability, the article cannot be kept. In order to have an article, we need sources that make it clear who the person was and where they lived.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's the officer Hoag mustered out with. He served in an Ohio unit and then was an officer for the 128th colored troop organized in South Carolina. So obvioualy colored troop officers coild be drawn from areas that weren't where the colored troops, freedmen, were from (including areas in the South). Despite Chetsford claims he hasn't shown any evidence there are different people in this article. What are the birth and death dates of these supposed people? Other info loke graves or parents? FloridaArmy (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't mention the name "Hoag" anywhere in it. What you are doing is analyzing historical texts to find connections that would support a conclusion, which is fine if you're writing a book but on WP is WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said a soldier serving from one state and then being an officer of colored troops from another didn't make any sense. I was showing you're wrong. There is no OR involved. Lots of sources covering his military service and family history. As well as his later career as a druggist and pony breeder in Iowa. Sources on his father and grandfather as well discussing Lindley's move to Iowa. It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S." OK, noted. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment Yuck. I've tried to clean up the article. The connecting tissue comes from his GAR record ("Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic Membership Records, 1861-1949," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q23N-SCTS : 2 June 2016), J Murray Hoag, 1861-1949; citing Iowa, United States, Military Service, State Historical Department, Des Moines; FHL microfilm 1,487,403.). There are two obits in the current article, which do a bit of the work, as well. There is also a picture. A bag of Trouts to FloridaArmy, you can't just make things up and add random stuff and expect editors to understand and clean up your mess. Yes, I agree this individual is suitable for the encyclopedia, but it is important make sure your work is verifiable and as correct as possible - mistakes are ok but not guessing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he wasn't from a family of famous Quaker ministers [5] Smmurphy and went by the alias Lindley Murray Hoag? Or was he? Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he was, I don't see it as a notable part of his life. I removed that stuff from the article, it didn't seem clear that it belonged. This article is clearly meant to be about a J. Murray Hoag who was a member of the Freedmen's Bureau. The only such person was John Murray Hoag (1843-1917). Alternative forms of his name include John M. Hoag and J. Murrah Hoag. Lindley Murray Hoag (1808-1880) may be a relative, but I don't see how. Ancestry.com family trees suggest John was the son of Hiram Cook Hoag and Sally Ann Wyman and that Hiram was the son of a Benjamin Jr, none of whom match the Quaker Joseph Hoag (1762-1846) linked to in an earlier version of this page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Here's a military career summary page. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to your newest source, he was 19 in 1863, making his DOB 1847. You've previously claimed he went by the alias Lindley Hoag and was from a family of famous Quakers [6]. In that version you cited a source [7] showing a DOB of 1808. Can you clarify? Chetsford (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 years old comes, I think, from his enlistment record. That same civilwardata page does give a DOB of 1843, though, matching his tombstone and GAR records. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So was he born in 1843, 1837, or 1808? Was his name J. Murray or J. Lindley? Are we using RS or are we using Findagrave and ancestry.com? Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to use ancestry.com. The question was if John (1843-1917) was related to any Quakers. I don't know where FloridaArmy got that from, but it isn't in any sources I see on the current or any past versions of the page. Thus, I checked ancestry to see if there was anything that might be in family history or something from which such a connection could be made. I didn't find it there either. I don't know why FloridaArmy made that connection. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy then who is this dead person? FloridaArmy (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question those sources. I know we don't consider findagrave reliable and I'm not sure about civilwardata.com--Rusf10 (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Joseph Lindley Hoag (1834-1900) is. Iowa Falls, where he is buried, is a long way from Maquoketa, Los Angeles, or Arlington, though. Also, the civilwardata information includes birth and death dates which match those currently in the article and which are not 1834 and 1900 respectively. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another person named Hoag. It's a fairly common name which may be the source of your frustration when you created the composite article that merged the Quaker minister Hoag and the Civil War officer Hoag. That's one reason we try to discourage OR. Otherwise our article on John Jones might claim he was a championship water polo player, instead of John Jones. Chetsford (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Lindley Murray also here. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is this an article about Joseph Lindley Hoag, born 1834 in New Hampshire; Joseph Lindley Murray born 1808 to a Quaker family; or J. Murray Hoag born 1843 who served in the Army in Maryland? We've gone through a few different versions so I just want to make sure I know which we're currently on. Chetsford (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the person FloridaArmy intended to write about was the person in the Freedmen's Bureau, John (1843-1917). Also, here is John's (1843-1917) grave: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/49204946/john-murray-hoag. 07:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Smmurphy^(Talk)

Hmmm. But he just - above - left a cryptic note about "Joseph Lindley Hoag" born in 1837 in New Hampshire. I think that may have to do with what he previously included in the article that Hoag was from a family of famous Quakers and used the alias Lindley and was born in 1808 (which would mean he was a championship breeder of Shetland Ponies as a 111 year old man in Iowa). Also, we should probably avoid using Find-A-Grave to source articles as per Rusf10's comment. Chetsford (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I first found Hoag's grave using the find a grave thing-y at the arlington national cemetery website, but that doesn't create a url, so to provide a link I looked for it on find-a-grave. We do, in some instances, consider a grave stone to be a useful primary source. I don't care for the practice but if we really wanted, we could use it here to provide a name for his wife (Caroline). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So was Caroline Hoag's (b 1808), Hoag's (b 1837), or Hoag's (b 1843) wife? Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article, John (1843-1917) married a Belden (happens to be sister of Scott Belden, for whom Belden, Nebraska is named). John's (1843-1917) tomb also has the name of Caroline Belden Hoag. Caroline is the wife of the John who is the sunject of this article, John (1843-1917). Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's according to findagrave.com? Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of this comment repeats my earlier comment, but: John (1843-1917) is buried at Arlington National Cemetery according to his obituary and his GAR record (both linked in the article). You can find an image of his grave on the Arlington National Cemetery website, there is only one John Hoag who died in 1917 when you search for it. The image is the same as the image at findagrave. Looking at the image (the grave is a primary source, if we believe the image is accurate, we can consider it a primary source), John (1843-1917) was buried with a person named Caroline Belden Hoag (1838-1927). The article currently says that John (1843-1917) married a sister to Scott Belden, citing a newspaper article. From this, I conclude that John (1843-1917) was married to a woman named Caroline. I don't think this belongs in the article as while I believe my logic is sound, I don't think it is interesting enough that we should IAR NOR just to add her first name to the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how the breeder and colored unit commander could be the same person. According to Chetsford " I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [2], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people." He seemed so sure of himself!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: I think you have no right to be smug here. Probably none of us do, but you created the mess. Just because I tried to clean it up doesn't mean that Chetsford wasn't trying to clean it up as well. I think you should apologize and strike your comment. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears I was correct, it was a composite article of J. Murray Hoag (born 1843) and the Quaker John Lindley Hoag (born 1808) [8]. Now that's settled and Smmurphy has de-composited it by removing the references to separate person J.L. Hoag, we should move forward with a discussion about its suitability under WP:NSOLDIER. I'm not seeing he meets any of the eight criteria, and the sources contain such incidental mentions that they don't pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy is clearly the hero here, but I am troubled that Chetsford keeps putting out misleading information. Joseph Lindley Hoag (born 1834 and died 1900 OR 1902 depending on source) and John Murray Hoag (born 1843 died 1917) are the people we are differentiating. The sources on the Captain of the colored unit and Freedmen Bureau are abundant. Saving Savannah index shows the book is full of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? You are the one who created a semi-fictional, composite biography by blending in the life history of an entirely different person to create an article that contained bits and pieces of two different people [9] and - when challenged - then claimed this individual must have been buried under an alias [10]. But yes, Smmurphy is owed thanks for undoing that. If you'd like, you can even thank me for also undoing that when you attempted it again at this other article [11]. Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is hard for other editors to read and am going to format this a bit; add a discussion about identity of individual sub-section head and then a discussion about suitability for encyclopedia subsection head so that this is all easier to read. I'm striking my earlier vote into a !comment and writing a new !vote in the new subsection (still keep but with clearer rational) @Rusf10: if you think this would be a good idea, could you move you !vote to the new subsection? @Chetsford: if you think this would be a good idea, feel free to restate your nomination based on the current article either at the very top or the top of the new discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia section. If doing so is obviously wrong to someone, feel free to remove my formatting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why are people getting worked up about editor errors on an article about a 19th C person? The subject is so old that it errors could be coming from a hundred directions.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's one thing if errors are introduced by relying on sources presumed to be reliable. It's another thing if they are introduced by sloppy original research.  --Lambiam 19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia[edit]

• Keep - Hoag's role in the civil war received a mention for gallantry, which is provided in numerous listings of such mentions, including Williams 2012. During the war, there were few medals for gallantry other than the Medal of Honor (I don't think he would qualify for the Butler Medal, for instance). His role in the Freedmen's Bureau in Georgia is given mention, generally passing, in numerous books, including Cimbala 1997, Jones 2009, and Harris and Berry 2014. He is a central character in Cimbala 1997, with mentions on 8 pages in the text and 10 more in the notes. His relationship with black teachers is analysed in Whittington 1991. After leaving the bureau, he moved to Iowa where he became one of the most prominent Shetland pony breeders in the country, operating what was for a time the largest Shetland pony ranch in the country and being president of the main US Shetland pony association. Most of the 308 newspapers.com results for a search for '"J M Hoag" OR "J Murray Hoag"' during his lifetime are really about him and most of those are about his farm career (https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22j+m+hoag%22+OR+%22j+murray+hoag%22&dr_year=1860-1917). Between the Spanish-American War and World War I, he was an army recruiter in Buffalo, which resulted in his promotion to major and in numerous other mentions in newspapers. When he died, he had obituaries in minor Iowa and New York newspapers that I can find. His GAR record provides a clear thread so that connecting these different phases of his life is not OR. The article has a variety of sources, so I think it passes WP:V, and is neutrally written, passing WP:NPOV. I would suggest that Whittington 1991 and Cimbala 1997 go a long ways towards GNG, with his obituaries contributing to that case as well. His work in Shetland pony breeding in America has a weak claim to ANYBIO#2. He doesn't quite meat SOLDIER, but almost meets #1 and #2 as being mentioned for gallantry was the second highest way of being honored for valor at the time and holding the rank of Major is a significant degree of promotion for someone who enlisted as a private. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is sufficient information above and in the article and citations here to convince me that this soldier, politician in the Freedmen's Bureau, and important pony breeder should be kept in Wikipedia.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now that the identity of Hoag has been sorted out, the sources demonstrate notabilty per WP:BASIC particularly with regard to his work at the Freedmen's Bureau. Nice improvements. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient information to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.