- On a cursory glance, I am a little concerned with the tone and approach of this article, there is a too-frequent "me Tonto you Kemosabi" attitude in some places which paints Irataba as a "primitive" person. Some of this tone is due to an overreliance on direct quotations, I think.
- Examples? Perhaps some of the early life background you're referring to? I agree to an extent if that's what you mean.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that this is too vague to be acted upon, but anything in quote marks shows the attitude of the speaker at the time of the quote, and we shouldn't white wash or censor attitudes. Having said that, if you provide some specific examples we would be able to address the concern.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The phrase "according to" appears 19 times in this article, followed by some expert's name, then usually (though not always) a long quotation. This is really poor writing style; the material is footnoted, the filler about "According to Expert foo" is not needed, one can read the citation if it's important. I'd like to see way fewer of these.
- Yes I agree, in fact I removed half a dozen of them when I earlier edited this. At an earlier stage a few of the reviewers asked RO to attribute everything I believe. I don't agree with it either. "According to" should really only be used where the information given is disputable or potentially inaccurate.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I just went through the article, and "according to" is only used now to introduce direct quotes.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've removed some further ones and paraphrased a number of others.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- See below, but in my opinion, almost all of them other than some of the primary source letters or reports. Certainly anything that says "Expert foo" - at least if "Expert foo" is the author.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I am concerned about some potentially outdated source material; material from the 1950s and 1960s is apt to have been superceded by better research since, even if it was pretty well done in its time. More recent sources are in the article, but are underutilized.
- Such as? I looked extensively through google books and couldn't find anything in further detail on him, certainly not recent material, although I live in the UK and can't access some online resources. If you're going to claim this I want full evidence of the sources which are accessible and are "underutilized".♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- apt to have been superceded by better research since As far as I can tell, the most recent piece written specifically about Irataba was Woodward's 1953 bio. Sherer (1966) and Scrivner (1970) offer some specific insights about him, but were written about the Mohave in general. If there is a more recent piece of research about Irataba neither me nor Dr. Blofeld, and we've had help from
We hope and others in this regard, have been able to find it.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Montanabw Can you mention some sources you want used here?♦
Dr. Blofeld
20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'll be looking more at tone, will post specifics as I get to them.
Montanabw
(talk)
00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Though I understand it is the main biography on Irataba and written by a respected historian, there is some overreliance on Woodward 1953.
- Disagreed. There's a wide range of sources used and it's normal for the most reputable biography of somebody to be used more than other sources.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I also disagree, as Woodward wrote one of only two biographers of Irataba. I count 15 cites out of 85 to him, which is less than 18%. On the other hand, at
Donner Party, 39% of all cites are to the Rarick source.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Phrasing such as "head chief" is potentially archaic wording; unless the Mohave people today are specifically OK with "chief," is is generally unwise to use it unless absolutely necessary (such as when quoting someone or to show the views of white people at the time). Overuse may be viewed as inappropriate and even rather condescending.
- In your opinion perhaps. We go by what the sources use. I think it is important to go with what he was commonly referred to at the time and what the sources mainly call him and leave modern political correctness out of it.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "In your opinion" is not an effective rebuttal. Just some basics:
[4],
[5] (I can find quite a few more examples, but that's a sampler) . In essence, unless you have a source from the MOHAVE PEOPLE that says "chief" is acceptable today, try to avoid using it save where you have a direct quote or an absolute necessity to do so.
Montanabw
(talk)
00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- In March 2015, Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch commented:
"we have had great leaders, like Chief Irataba." That was the Mohave Tribal Chairman speaking three weeks ago on the reservation that Irataba helped establish 150 years ago.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
- The terms chief, head chief, and great chieftain have specific meanings, but they are all leaders. If we remove "chief" for leader, these distinctions will be lost. Also, this Google NGRAM (
[6]) shows that "Indian chief" is significantly more common than "Indian leader".
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That is due to 400 years of racism, not because it's good history. ngrams are useless here. And no, these words don't have "specific meanings" unless you can provide to me a NATIVE MOHAVE source that says so — these terms are the white man's invention, just like the word "Indian." Compare something equally archaic like
this
Montanabw
(talk)
00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- According to Sherer, writing in "Great Chieftains of the Mojave Indians". Southern California Quarterly 48 (1): 1–35.(March 1966), "The words 'chief' 'head chief' and 'great chieftain' in the Mojave language are borrowed from Anglo-Americans. When Mojave Indians use these words, they carry to them meanings from two native words, yaltanack, leader, and huchach, head of a group. These correspond reasonably well with 'chief'." So yes, I realize these are English words, but my point is that "chief", "head chief", and "great chieftain" have slightly different meanings that would be lost if we replaced them all with leader.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- So say "leader" and "head of a group." Stuff from 1966 still had gobs of politically incorrect (i.e. unintentionally racist) phrasing. They said "negro" instead of "African American" a lot in those days too.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- In the case of Irataba, more modern sources that presumably have consulted with the modern tribe
example use the term "leader"; other sources specific to Irataba use "head man" or related words. The word "chief" appears 43 times in the article, at best a thesaurus could be applied.
- Yes, head man could be used alternately for variation. I've added nearly half a dozen instead of chief I think.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There are currently only 8 instances of "head chief" in the article, and "chief" occurs 25 times in 3,900 words.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree on this point, which is incredibly minor. So I'll assume it's not actionable.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Then I shall continue to oppose this FAC.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There are currently no instances of "chief" in the article outside quoted material ([I've now removed the last occurrence of "chief" outside quoted material (
[7]). ]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Chief Cairook" is one example, per
WP:HONORIFIC, it definitely isn't appropriate in that context. "Cairook" is better.
- Either are acceptable., in fact even modern sources often refer to him as Chief Cairook
[8],
[9]. I removed Chief in the first instance of linking though as desired.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There aren't any instances of Chief Cairook in the article as of this writing, but one wonders why Lieutenant Ives is appropriate but Chief Cairook is not.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm part Native American, and I can assure you that "chief", in this context, is absolutely not offensive.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure we even need an infobox period, but I'll respect the views of the others on it.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that this is a particularly minor point, but I've swapped the type as suggested and added several more fields. If you think we should add more parameters please suggest specific ones.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The infobox isn't a huge deal, I'll take a look and if I see a need to add more parameters, I'll propose them.
- I feel the article is also burdened by unneeded random images, such as the one of the Nebraska homesteaders (not even the right part of the west) or the two random Mohave men in loincloths (where there are already several images of Irataba, one in a loincloth), and I question why the material on the Rose-Batey party is in there, as Irataba appears to have had nothing to do with that incident.
- Yes I thought that originally too, I agree, I've removed a few of them you mentioned. The Rose Batey party info I believe is very relevant to Mohave history and his background. I cut it earlier to have more focus and to appear more relevant in context.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- It would be odd to go from the Ives Expedition right to Hoffman and his army of 500 soldiers without explaining why the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- But FTR, there are currently three sentences of Rose–Baley Party background (
[10]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Also, why do we need all the background on the Mohave people? Stuff like "The Mohave caught fish in the Colorado and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using bow and arrow or traps..." should be in the
Mohave people article; focus just on what is relevant to Irataba; the hereditary leadership stuff, the role of head leader, the warrior culture in which he was raised.
- I removed a fair bit of background material when improving this. I believe I've retained mostly what is relevant to him and his background. There isn't that much specific biographical material for Irataba. I think there's a fair balance currently, but others at the PR were wanting more background info than we evne have and I said I think there's more than enough as it is.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've further trimmed the early life for relevance, hope this is a little better for you now.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I also think we currently have a nice balance of background and specifics, but as Br. B said, as recent as two days ago people were calling for more background detail.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for your comments, Montanabw. Except for the concern about the tone of some quoted material, I believe all these above concerns are fixed.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "According to" now down to 15 uses, better but still too much reliance on direct quotations and excessive "expert foo" phrasing. I have taught history at the college level, a freshman term paper handed in looking like this would be about a B- paper, maybe a B at best. A featured Article needs to be "A" quality. Here are some specifics — a few now, more to follow>
Montanabw
(talk)
22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm also an educator. How did you do on your GRE?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Above 95th percentile on both the GRE and the LSAT. Your point?
Montanabw
(talk)
01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Just a joke about dropping credentials ala Appeal to Authority.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
01:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer described Mohave leadership traditions as relayed to her by tribal elder, Gwegwi nuor: "The governmental 'set up' ... consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders or chiefs, a head chief or head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. The head man was also the hereditary leader of one group. The Matha lyanthum and the Kavi lyanthum had one chief each, but the more populous Huttoh pah had five."[5]" This could be rephrased as "Mohave leadership consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders with a head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. [5]." The rest is largely irrelevant, we just need to establish how Irataba became a leader and move on.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, I agree with this one. Done (
[11]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
22:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- " "The Mohave must dream that he will be a leader and gradually work toward this end."[6] According to anthropologist Alfred L. Kroeber, dreams, or visions, are "the foundation of Mohave life ... there is no people whose activities are more shaped by this psychic state."[7] In Mohave culture: "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens."[8]" Why is this even there? There is nothing else in the article about Irataba himself having dreams or his actions being dictated by dreams; this is content for the article about the Mohave people.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- It's important background that should stay, as it relates to becoming a Mohave chief, but FTR, material regarding dreams was specifically requested at PR just two days ago (that last quote was
specifically chosen by a Peer Review participant), and
Maunus has
indicated his approval of the topic's current treatment in the article. I agree with him on this point and pretty much all others.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Can you source Irataba's dreams or why any of it is relevant to the article? PR participants are not FAC reviewers, PR is a much gentler process. I would want to see a connection directly to Irataba to withdraw my objection.
Montanabw
(talk)
23:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- If we were writing about Dickens, we could describe Victorian England using sources that do not specifically mention him. Irataba was a Mohave chief, and the material regarding dreams pertains to all Mohave chiefs; therefore, the material pertains to Irataba.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
- You are missing my point; what's the relevance to Irataba? He was a leader, what do you have about how he became a leader? You are using a bit of
WP:SYNTH to extrapolate the general background to what is relevant about Irataba's life. Did he mention his visions or dreams, for example? (Sometimes this is significant; for example,
Sitting Bull had a vision prior to the
Battle of the Little Bighorn of soldiers falling into the camps of the Native people)
- At least 14 people have reviewed this article, and you are the only one who has raised this concern. If others agree with your Dr. Blofeld and I will reassess.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Irrelevant, we have had articles pass FAC with blatent copyright violations, just because others missed this or didn't realize it was a problem doesn't make it right.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- My point is only that many others thought this was okay, so this is kinda like a consensus of one.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Close paraphrase: "The Mohave caught fish in the Colorado and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using bow and arrow or traps." The source
here "They also caught fish; hunted game such as rabbits and beaver with bows and arrows, traps, or deadfalls." And again, why does this even need to be there?
Montanabw
(talk)
23:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That material lacks sufficient creativity to call foul on paraphrasing, but this should take care of it (
[12]). It's there to give the reader a background on what Irataba's life must have been like before he enters Western literature in 1854.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There's more; and we can @
Moonriddengirl: for help on this. But IMHO, you need to be far more careful. And it isn't necessary to Irataba, it's like saying "President Foo came from a white culture that focused on roast beef and mashed potatoes." I see no relevance to a biography.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, the error is in the source you're citing. The first European that Irataba met was Lorenzo Sitgreaves, who traveled through Mohave country in 1851.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- More unnecessary context: "In the spring, when the river flooded the bottomlands, they cultivated corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins.[10]" Again, who cares? It might be relevant to say that the Mohave cultivated some crops, but almost all native people who cultivated crops grew corn, beans, squashes and tobacco (watermelons are new -and NOT verified by the source cited on p. 218...).
Montanabw
(talk)
01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've trimmed, I thought it a basic background understanding of economic practices. And I don't think the average random reader would know that "almost all native people who cultivated crops grew corn, beans, squashes and tobacco". If another editor agrees on its removal I'll remove it.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Chief
Since you've repeatedly suggested that use of the word "chief" is offensive. In March 2015, Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch commented:
"we have had great leaders, like Chief Irataba." That was three weeks ago on the reservation that Irataba helped establish.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
FWIW, I have no issue with swapping out every occurrence of "chief" for yaltanack, huchach, Aha macave yaltanack, Aha macave huchach, and Aha macave pipataho, as the case may be, but I assumed that overuse of Mohave words would confuse readers of the English language Wiki.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Don't snark, you know what I am saying here. Also, this is a FAC, I'm not arguing with you, I am saying why I oppose this FAC; it's your job to fix the problems or show me source material that addresses my concerns...see below.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- And the current leader is called a "chairman," not a "chief." It's a fine line -- saying "Chief" instead of an English translation of the actual title such as "diplomatic leader" or "war leader" is akin to many Native people who say things like "well, I guess you can call me an 'Indian' but I'd prefer to be called Lakota/Cheyenne/Mohave/whatever'" So "Chief" is best confined to those situations where it is horribly clunky to do it any other way. And good writing for wikipedia suggests that you work to minimize honorifics in general. For example,
Elizabeth II doesn't say "Queen Elizabeth" every time you turn around, (it's used 18 times, and almost half of those are "main" references to other articles with "queen" in their title) and everyone there agrees she's the Queen, no one is offended that she's called a queen and so on! "Chief" isn't his name.
Montanabw
(talk)
00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The only occurrence of "Chief Irataba" in this article is in the above quote from Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch. Can you please point out some specific occurrences of chief that would benefit from the use of an alternative?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Also note
[13],
[14]. etc. Just because it's done doesn't mean it's ideal. As I said above "Chief" is of variable concern, more offensive in some quarters, less in others; some tribes embrace it, others do not, but in all cases, it's at best an honorific and not his name, so don't overuse it.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Just occurred to me that this is akin to using non-gendered language - "man" used to be used for the generic human, now "person" is preferred. Similar thing with "chief;" it's not that you never use it, but you must be very careful of the context.
-
this source uses modern form: "an important leader"; "a hereditary leader"
examples:
- "Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1854, when he and a Mohave chief named Cairook met Captain Amiel Whipple..." Multiple overuse of honorifics. Better to say something along the lines (don't have to say it exactly this way) of "Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1854, when he and a fellow leader, Cairook, met Amiel Whipple, then an Army captain (or whichever military branch he was - his bio says he was an engineer who eventually rose to the rank of major general)..." and so on, in fact Irataba and Whipple's paths cross later and when they do, Whipple is a Lieutenant...
Montanabw
(talk)
01:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Is this indicative of things that you think are actionable objections? Fixed (
[15])?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- It was 1851, not 1849 even though several sources erroneously state 1849.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The point is you have 1854 in the lead, and even your own article contradicted that.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think it is an error to think that "chief" is necessarily offensive. It is offensive when used inappropriately in contexts where it is not the right word. Here it is the right word. The phrases "head chief" and "head chieftain" correspond to two specific titles for political offices in Mohave, and is based on the usage of specialists in Mohave culture. For that reason it is not offensive to use the word. Using the word "chief" is offensive when applied to people who do not have political offices or when they are used as generic titles for Native American leaders who would be better described by another English title, this is not what the article currently does. Rather it uses "head chief" as an English translation of a specific Mohave expression. I think the article should be more explicit that "head chief" is the translation of "Aha macave yaltanack" and "head chief" is the translation of "Aha macave pipatahon".
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ·
03:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- For the record, I agree with Maunus; in my opinion, Montanabw's comments regarding the tone of the article are off-base. I think her comments regarding the relevance of some of the information are valid, although my personal belief is that the generic data has been toned down to a suitable level.-
RHM22 (
talk)
05:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The tone of the article at the time I assessed it read like it was written in 1950 - or 1850. I will have to reassess now that more work has been done.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree, but Montana has stated that
they will oppose until we remove them, so I've now removed the last occurrence of "chief" outside quoted material (
[16]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I didn't say "all" - and I was responding to snark with snark.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Again I disagree with this change. I thought it was fine to mix in chief with head man.♦
Dr. Blofeld
17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I can live with very limited uses of "chief," (I didn't tag ALL instances with hidden text, I must note...) particularly if intersperced with other phrases such as "leader", "head leader," "head man", "Irataba" and occasionally the native language terms. But I am not "off-base" to urge that this be handled with care. I can agree with Maunus' statement "It is offensive when used inappropriately in contexts where it is not the right word." But my point is that it is more often not the right word - I also think that
WP:HONORIFIC should be applied firmly "Chief" isn't part of anyone's name. (as "Queen" is the title, not the name Elizabeth II and so on) It was overused in the version I looked at initially. I will reassess when the dust settles.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with the "not part of name" rationale, surely we dont want "Chief Irataba" to be the general way of referring to him. On another note I just spoke with a Kumiai man this morning about and he referred to his tribal leader as "one of our chiefs". It is about context.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ·
02:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Works for me.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Continuing
Easier to start a new section:
Montanabw
(talk)
01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Here's a good example of an "according to" that could be redone in your own words - and why it should be... the paragraph beginning "According to Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics," -- who says this person is an "expert" (no source on Hinton's expertise) - and so to avoid that whole problem, wouldn't it be better to just say, "Irataba was considered an excellent public speaker and may have been the first Mohave to learn English. [14]" Short, simple, concise.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Leanne Hinton is the foremost expert on the Mohave language and Californian languages in general. I do agree that it is not nbecessary to give inline attribution to the author of every study that is cited.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ·
04:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I added this content Montanabw and she is an expert. I agree in some instance on removing "according to" though. I think the "unusually eloquent" quote is an excellent one here which should be quoted, I'm not sure how we can address it though without mentioning that it was Hinton who said it. ♦
Dr. Blofeld
08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "On March 19, 1851, most of the Oatman family, traveling by wagon train in what is now Arizona, were killed...After a year with the Yavapai, the girls were sold to Irataba and the Mohave.. OK, so this happened. What is its significance? Is this how Irataba learned English, from his captives? Did he marry one of them? Was Olive a source for historians later? Was this evidence he was a compassionate or cruel person? Absent context, it's just a random fact. Expand or chop.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I also added this content. One author goes into great detail about Irataba's involvement with Oatman. Irataba had bought her as a slave. It was controversial given that the family were murdered by the Yavapai. It's relevant and leads on later when we mention that they met up in New York on friendlier terms. Given that little is known about Irataba's life biographically I think it's important to cover this and what we do know. And no, it's not a random fact.♦
Dr. Blofeld
08:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "The Mohave lived in groups of houses along the riverbank, and eschewed centralized villages. During the winter, they lived in half-buried dwellings built with cottonwood logs and arrowweed covered in earth. In the summer they lived in open-air flat-roofed houses known as ramadas, which provided shade.[11]" Again, why do we care... the only thing in this entire paragraph that seems relevant is the "fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressors" bit, and even then, you go on to say that Irataba was in a defense warrior society - so what's the analysis? If the point is that Irataba was a promoter of peaceful relations, then you need to put that in... as it sits, this is just a string of meaningless factoids.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I did remove a fair bit of the background material like this as I wanted it to focus more on his actual biography, at one point there was probably three times as much of this sort of thing. I retained this as I thought it would give the average reader who doesn't know the Mohave how Irataba would have lived. I think its basic stuff which might improve reader understanding and isn't unreasonable in his article here. It is informative about how he'd have lived and relevant IMO. Nonetheless I've trimmed it a little to improve flow. ♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Here is an example of the "bloodthirsty savage" tone: "Although they did not plunder their enemies' possessions, they took prisoners and scalps." Is this needed? If Irataba himself scalped people but then gave it up for peace, that might be relevant, or if Irataba urged the Mohave to stop scalping, that might be relevant, but given that scalping itself was a practice Native people learned from Europeans, in this context, it's just sensationalistic; you already mentioned the Mohave were aggressive people, why gild the lily?
Montanabw
(talk)
02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which is Stewart, Kenneth M. (1971). "Mohave Warfare". In Heizer, Robert Fleming; Whipple, Mary Anne. The California Indians: A Source Book. University of California Press. pp. 431–44.
ISBN
978-0-520-02031-3, and per
WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not my point, the point is that you don't need it, it's sensationalistic and duplicative.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That's basic background. What exactly do you suggest? Should we start the narrative at 1854?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Chop that sentence. Or else tie it directly to Irataba if there is something specific about Irataba's position on scalping. I'd prefer you just chop it.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- You're wrong, but fine; it's removed.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think she is right, there is not much reason to include it.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ·
04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Disorganized - the section is "background and appearance": "Irataba was one of the tribe's sub-chiefs, serving with Cairook, a man even taller than himself with a barefoot height of nearly 6 feet 6 inches (198 cm).[17] Edward Carlson, a soldier based at Fort Mohave who knew Irataba well in the 1860s, described him as having a "very powerful frame, but very gentle and kind in demeanor", noting that he was "a staunch friend of the whites".[18]" The bit about "a staunch friend of the whites" probably should go someplace else, here it's a bit out of place -- you are basically trying to cram everything in fn 18 into one place when the material probably belongs in two different parts of the article - appearance here and the fact that he became a "friend of the whites" elsewhere. Here, the point you are trying to make is that he was a big, tall person, so why do you need to directly quote people? Just say "Irataba had a powerful frame and stood about 6 foot 6 inches, but was said to have a "gentle and kind demeanor" [footnote9s)]" Another "according to Foo" that you don't need. (I do like ""the old desert giant" bit, though I think you can just say "Albert S. Evans called him..." instead of the wordy "American author Albert S. Evans, writing in The Overland Monthly..." that's the beauty of wikilinks, we don't have to include all the background in the article body text.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Irataba's size is described by dozens of authors as one of his most notable characteristics. He stood out at a time when the American average height for a male was probably no more than 5 ft 6. I thought the quote was an apt description of him. I've trimmed/paraphrased one of the quotes.♦
Dr. Blofeld
08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered a large group of European Americans, including Captain Amiel Whipple and Lieutenant J.C. Ives, who were leading an expedition that crossed the Colorado en route to California. " How about just saying something like (doesn't have to be this exact wording) "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered an expedition led by military officers Amiel Whipple and J.C. Ives, as the group crossed the Colorado en route to California..." Also explain why we should care -- i.e. it was a positive experience for all involved, apparently. Does one of your sources explain? Was this was when Irataba first developed in interest in working with whites, perhaps? - explain the historical significance.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've adopted your language (
[17]), but I think it's relevance is self-explanatory.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba, whose rendering was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report. According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]" Another "according to" you can alter... perhaps something like "...Irataba. Möllhausen's drawing was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report, making Irataba "among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]<-- the footnote has all the Elsasser stuff, we don't care about Elsasser or that he's an anthropologist, we just care that it's verified.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think you're wrong about that. Möllhausen hasn't been mentioned by name yet. Are you saying we can jump right to calling him by his last name only?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yes you did, right in the preceeding paragraph..."German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba..." sorry I didn't repeat the sentences fully.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think you should re-check, unless you mean the caption in the first picture in article body.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Look at your own article: My suggestion is to rephrase German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba, whose rendering was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report. According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]" to read, "German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba. Möllhausen's drawing was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report, making Irataba "among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]"
Montanabw
(talk)
03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed, but now there is unattributed quoted material. (
[18]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- One more "bleech" phrasing: "A report by Ives in 1861 documented that..." just say "Irataba guided Ives' party into the Mohave Canyon.[fn]" The footnote covers that it was an 1861 report, and so on...
Montanabw
(talk)
02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
02:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think the thing to do with the "Rose–Baley Party skirmish and aftermath" section is to make it another subsection of the "Contact with emigrants and explorers" section... hanging out there alone it just doesn't fit well. I think the point is that you were tracing the history of Mohave relations with whites generally and particularly Iataba's, so I think the thing do to is to explain that all of the nice stuff Irataba was doing was ashcanned by that attack... tie the chronology together, don't just present as a set of random facts.
- Done (
[19]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- @
Dr. Blofeld: or RationalObserver: Can one of you fix this awkwardly-phrased run-on sentence? It's problems should be quite obvious. (
Montanabw
(talk)
03:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)) "On April 23, Hoffman arranged for a meeting between him and his officers and several Mohave leaders, including Cairook, Irataba, and Homoseh quahote, known by the whites as Seck-a-hoot, who was head chief of the Mohave at the time, with Pascual, leader of the Yumas, translating from English into Spanish, Yuman, and Mohave – and vice versa."
reply
- This has been fixed.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
I'm kind of fried, more later, maybe tomorrow.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've trimmed that.♦
Dr. Blofeld
08:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- @
Rationalobserver: Can you try to avoid making remarks towards Montanabw like "pedantic semantics", it's really not helping the situation. 50 people could look at something and you'll still get others who pick up on different things! I don't agree with many of her points, but I agree with a fair few on relevance and attribution which I'm trying to deal with. She's well within her right to be picky here, that's FAC, even if I'm unconvinced we can get her to support this. I would hope that she would respect the fact that I'm trying to help promote an important figure in US history (and remember that I have helped her promote content in the past) and that we can work together to produce the best possible result here without conflict.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Continuing 2
Because the article has been changed a bit since I wrote my above comments, and there has been some discussion of general concepts where it seems there is room for differences of opinion that do not necessarily impact the FAC criteria, I have hatted most of the above sections I created in this FAC discussion to assist editors in seeing my current critiques of the article. The hatting does not imply yea or nay if my concerns above were addressed, only that the discussion got so complex that no one can keep it all straight! I will address the current version as of my signature stamp, understanding that the article may change even as I assess it.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Lead
- "was an important leader of the Native American Mohave Nation" You don't need to say "Native American Mohave Nation"; "Mohave Nation" will do. Wikilinks will help non-American readers who don't recognize "Mohave" as Native people. Rest of paragraph one is good.
Montanabw
(talk)
01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed (
[21]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1851... Thanks for fixing that error. That said, as a white person, I don't object to simply saying "Irataba first encountered white people" or something akin to that. While "Native American" and "African American" are clearly de riguer in academic writing, "white" doesn't seem to offend white people. However, this one is not a FAC make or break - just sounds clunky. Rest of paragraph is fine
Montanabw
(talk)
01:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'd prefer to retain the term, but if others also object we will reassess.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Third paragraph needs work, I'd suggest something like this (don't have to phrase precisely this way, just an idea) to tie Irataba to the topic
In 1858, the Mohave attacked the first emigrant wagon train to traverse Beale's Wagon Road though Mohave country. Irataba was believed to have distanced himself from the encounter, but as a result, the US War Department responded by building Fort Mohave near the site of the battle in April 1859. They also imprisoned several Mohave leaders, including Cairook, who had ordered the attack. When Cairook was killed during an escape attempt, Irataba was made leader of the Mohave Nation. He negotiated the creation of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and led several hundred of his supporters to the Colorado River Valley, though others preferred to remain in their ancestral lands near Fort Mohave.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done (
[22]); thanks for the specific suggestion.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'd restructure the fourth paragraph entirely to mention the DC trip, but less about all the gifts, etc... the "eroded his influence" bit is fine but transitions too abruptly to "The Irataba Society," - in-between I'd instead note when he died, comment on the opinions vis-a-vis hero or collaborator (which is a crucial point) and then a tighter recap of the present day stuff. I think if you tighten the prose it can all fit.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- How does this look (
[23])?
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Background and appearance
- Done.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav (meaning "beautiful bird"), also rendered as Irateba, Arateve, and Yiratewa, was born into the Neolge, or Sun Fire clan of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans c. 1814.[1]" All needs to be there, but for readability could use a bit of formatting and a little better punctuation. Italics, some lang templates, etc. @
Dr. Blofeld: might be able to clean that up a bit.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've reworded, some good points here which I agree with
Montanabw, thanks.♦
Dr. Blofeld
11:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Given that by a group of sharply pointed rocks known as the Needles links to the Needles, California, and the "group of rocks" appears to be
these (which are more like a rock formation to me) and the terrain outside of Needles seems to be rugged (I have never been to Needles) perhaps say "near a rock formation that gave its name to present-day Needles".
- I've reworded and trimmed this, better?♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Second paragraph fine. I'd consider adding the bit at the end of the third paragraph, "The Mohave were often involved conflict with the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples.[9] Irataba was a member of the Mohave warrior society called kwanami (Mohave for brave or fearless), who were dedicated to defending the tribe.[10] to the end of this paragraph, to keep info on Irataba's leadership and roots in one place.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I still think all the culture stuff about what they ate and where they lived is overdone and should be moved to the
Mohave people article unless there is something there that impacted Irataba directly (like George HW Bush not liking Broccoli...).
Montanabw
(talk)
02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, thanks to your great suggestion of moving up the conflict material I found a way to cut this and reword it into the first paragraph about where he lived. Should both be resolved now. Mentioning the type of house he'd have lived in is fine.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The caption of the image "A rendering of Irataba by German artist Balduin Möllhausen" is more than needed. I'd suggest just "Irataba in 1857" or at most "Irataba, 1857 image by Möllhausen". You mention Möllhausen being German and all that later in the narrative.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics, described Irataba as "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker" in his own language, and "probably the first Mojave to learn English".[11] Having wikilinks is a beautiful thing; you don't have to say, "an expert in American Indian linguistics" - especially when her biography suggests more nuance. Just say something like, "Linguist Leanne Hinton described Irataba as "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker" and "probably the first Mojave to learn English." Tight and concise.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- OK, done.♦
Dr. Blofeld
10:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Contact with emigrants and explorers
- I'd start with Irataba's first white contact here. The Irataba had previously assisted Captain Lorenzo Sitgreaves during his 1851 exploration of the Colorado.[20] info appears in the middle of the Whipple paragraph with no explanation - explain it here and that it was his first white contact (if it was...)
Montanabw
(talk)
03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The Oatman family stuff reads in a clunky fashion, we don't clearly see the whole connection to Irataba; you need to do something to explain what Irataba had to do with any of this - I looked at the Google books version of the Braatz and Mifflin sources and it is unclear what role he played in her life other than apparently being the leader of the band where she lived (?) - it would be useful to be specific: i.e. she came to live in his band, or she lived with his relatives, or just in the village - whatever the case was. This would be a good place to add that she later gave or wrote (?) an account of her captivity (and year published would be useful). That will put it all in better perspective. I also have problems with the sourcing, Braatz (p. 75) states that six members of the Oatman family were killed, a boy survived, and the two girls were captured.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Dr. Blofeld added all the Oatman stuff, so I'll let him address this and related points, but FWIW, I agree with Montana, and if it were up to me I'd remove all the material related to her.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not convinced no. If another editor has a problem with it then I'll consider it.♦
Dr. Blofeld
21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Also seems more appropriate to note in the later section that Olive said she and Irataba meet "as friends" later in life. --I'm also not thrilled with the long "unmitigated barbarism" stuff you cite later in the article; it seems she was writing with the usual "captive narrative" tone popular in the time, the Mifflin book in particular suggests her feelings may have been more complicated.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Whipple Expedition
- Sourcing concern I have issues with the entire first paragraph being sourced to a seven-page section of a book, I'd prefer to see individual pages footnoted with each sentence or significant bit of info - i.e. p. 112 mentions the trading, but "eagerly" is an unneeded adjective that I'd remove - seems that everyone was happy, but let's not attribute motive. p. 114 verifies the corn and flour, etc... be specific. Also, p. 114 states that the young Mojave men played a game with a hoop and poles, but says they "amused themselves" - nothing about teaching it to the soldiers. Be careful not to extrapolate what isn't there.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done (
[24]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I have a similar concern with the first sentence of the second paragraph being sourced to a 10-page section of the book; whittle it down to the specific page or pages, it didn't take 10 pages to find that.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'd say "drawings were" not the singular, as it looks like several Mollhausen works are in the report. I think you can work around a direct quote of Elsasser - use your own words, then cite Elsasser.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- This is optional, but I'd put the final paragraph in the Whipple section, about Beale, down with the Rose-Batey party as the intro, keeps that whole bit together. Your other option is a subheading just for Beale, but given that it's one paragraph, that's clunky.
Montanabw
(talk)
03:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Done.
Rationalobserver (
talk)
16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Ives Expedition
- Lots of stuff to clarify here: When the boat stopped and its crew revealed themselves, Irataba quickly realized that their leader was his old friend, Lieutenant Ives. Ives was leading an expedition to the Grand Canyon in a steamship named the Explorer, and he asked Irataba to guide them into the canyon. Meh, flowery. And not supported by Ives - who says he say Irataba and then Irataba introduced him to Cairook. Also, you will need a different page or different source to verify that Ives was in a boat called Explorer and that it was a paddleboat. (I don't dispute it but Ives 69-70 doesn't verify it). The narrative reads like a children's history. Let's write like an encyclopedia: May I suggest something simpler like: " In February 1858, Ives returned to the area in a paddle steamer named the Explorer {[cn}} (Can be Ives, just different page) He was leading an expedition to the Grand Canyon
citation needed(dito) and he asked Irataba to guide them into the canyon." I would also note that Ives said Nahvahroopa was age 16. Also, though Cairook traveled for a day or so on the steamer, it was Irataba who was the guide, Cairook stayed behind - but you could note that he gave Ives' group supplies.
Montanabw
(talk)
04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed. Page 71 says the Explorer and page 76 says it was a steamer. (
[25]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
17:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- As the expedition progressed, the rapids grew in strength and intensity, and the rock walls increasingly towered above them. Also kind of flowery and dramatic, how about just chopping that bit and mentioning that the river became rougher until the ship crashed on a rock... you also cite pp. 95-120 for the first two sentences of that paragraph, I'd think you'd do better to narrow that a bit... You also don't need to say Ives explained how, using their skiff, they towed the Explorer to shore, just say, "the crew towed '"Explorer to the shore... I would also caution you a bit about overuse of a primary source; I'm OK with you using it, but do skim
WP:PRIMARY.
Montanabw
(talk)
04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed (
[26]).
Rationalobserver (
talk)
17:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'll wait a bit to review the above, haven't yet gone through the rest of the article, note I took just under three hours reviewing last night, will get to the rest and then review all once folks have had time to digest. May not be today, but wanted to touch bases and acknowledge some hard work is being done here. Fwiw,
Olive Oatman is interesting and that info might be able to stay if contextual material is improved. Her "captive narrative" tone of how horrible things were is pretty 19th-century, though, particularly when the source material (and the WP article about her) indicates that she perhaps in reality was quite integrated into the tribe while she lived with them, one source even hints that she could have married there... anyway, just keep plugging away at it and I'll get to the rest.
Montanabw
(talk)
23:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
|