Talk:Irataba/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Feedback

Hi Rationalobserver, I feel bad that I took so long to get to this. It was mostly because of FGM. I felt worn out by the TFA, the reading I had to do before it, etc. But it was also because I wasn't sure how to handle a review of this article. I'm commenting now because I see you've nominated it for FAC.

I enjoyed reading it, and it's nicely written. One issue is that I think it should maintain more distance from the source material. For example, Frank Waters was born in 1902, decades after Irataba died. This means that Waters didn't interview Irataba, so the question is how he was able to reconstruct dialogue. I can only see snippets of Waters, so perhaps he lists his sources. If his source is Mohave oral history, that should be made clear.

A few other points: I wouldn't use language such as "he did not venture into the unforgiving wilderness," and when you're quoting, consider adding in-text attribution. For example, it's not clear who said "his most trusted sub-chief": Waters or someone Waters interviewed?

I hope this helps a little, and again I'm sorry for being so slow about it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to add something about the images. If you want them that size, that's fine. But if you remove the upright parameter, that will give you the default thumb size of 220px. File:Homesteader NE 1866.png and File:Boundary Cone from Mohave Valley 1.jpg are very small with upright. But it's up to you. I'm adding this just in case you don't realize that upright shrinks things.

Two pages you might find helpful: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Size and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sarah. I'll resolve these issues now. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sarah. I've tried to resolve them with this series of edits, but I'll also address your points here:

As you suggested, I've tried to distance the prose from Waters, specifically the quoted material, and to answer your question, he used many of the same sources that I used, including: Woodward and Devereux, both of which included some Mohave oral history in addition to written accounts by Ives, Whipple, Beale, and Rose. Please let me know if this issue is resolved.

I also removed the upright parameter from most of the images, but I think a few of them needed it, as they really crowded out the text at 220px, at least on my 23-inch screen.

Thanks for taking a look; please consider stopping over at the FAC! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi RO, those edits have helped. I still have an issue with the wording and sourcing. The narrative is presented in places as an eyewitness account without saying who the eyewitness was (e.g. that Ives implored them to get into the skiff, the crew quickly set up camp, and immediately realized they had left food behind). If Ives was the source, the text (or at least the footnote) should say so. If not, how do we know that he implored and that things happened quickly or immediately? (Also, "unknown wilderness of the Grand Canyon" is similar to "he did not venture into the unforgiving wilderness.") It might be helpful to begin with a section that explains the sourcing or historiography. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but Waters used Ives's first-hand account, but I'm using Waters as a secondary source, so why would I present material from a secondary source as if it were from a primary one? I'll take another look for unencyclopedic prose, but I'm not sure I agree regarding the sourcing. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: It might be helpful to begin with a section that explains the sourcing or historiography

I'm not sure I understand. I used Waters, who used Woodward, Devereux, Ives, Whipple, Beale, and Rose. How can I include an original analysis of Waters' sourcing method, when all I have is his bibliography? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the article seems to mix myth and history without telling us which is which. I haven't seen Waters (except for snippet view), so I don't know what kind of work it is, but if he doesn't cite his sources in the text or footnotes, that's a problem. You could use the primary sources directly or via academic historians.

By a section on the historiography, I meant one explaining what the primary sources are for this material, and how we came by them, i.e. how does anyone know anything about Irataba? For example, if you look at Marshalsea, I included one paragraph about the sourcing for the first Marshalsea prison (this section, last paragraph), and a section about the sourcing for the second prison (this section). I think something like that is needed here at the start of the article to give readers a sense of where all this came from. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Waters is not a reliable source? Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote the foreword, where he praises the book and Waters's work in general. Are all sources that do not cite their sources in the text or footnotes also unreliable? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any sources that describe Waters's sourcing method for this book or any others, so how would I cite a section that describes that Waters used all the available primary sources when writing his biographical history of Irataba? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Based only on snippet view, I wouldn't use his book as a source (but I might change my mind once I had access to it). I would use academic historians as far as possible (who usually cite their sources), and I would use the primary sources when appropriate. Ives's report is online here. I don't know how much has been written about the Mohave, but I assume historians explain where information about them comes from, and it would be helpful to introduce the article that way. I'll leave it there for now, and you can perhaps give it some consideration. I hope the feedback hasn't been too discouraging. I do intend it to be constructive, but I know (from my own experience!) that these things can be hard to digest. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's been quite discouraging. I've requested outside opinions about the reliability of the Waters source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Frank Waters, Brave Are My People: Indian Heros Not Forgotten. But am I correct that you are equating all Native American oral history with myth/fiction, so that nothing from their oral history can be considered reliable, including reliable secondary sources that draw from Native American oral history? Waters used Ives, so I'm not sure why you are saying I must skip Waters and only use Ives to report what Ives did or said. It sounds like you are suggesting I use only primary sources, but WP:PRIMARY and WP:ANALYSIS suggest that primary sources ought to be used with care, while secondary sources "provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", which is exactly what Waters, a highly respected historian and writer did. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has been discouraging. I know the feeling and wouldn't have commented if you hadn't asked me to. I'm not equating all Native American oral history with fiction, and haven't implied that. I'm saying that the sources should be identified in the text or footnotes and the writing made more encyclopaedic. But this is just my opinion; others may disagree. I'll leave it there, and I sincerely wish you all the best with it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But Sarah, you haven't really explained how I could write a section that details that Waters, a secondary source, used primary sources that drew on Native American oral history, or why this is required. Every single biography of Charles Dickens drew on the original bio by Forster, but we can freely cite to Ackroyd and Tomalin even though much of the material in their books is derived from Forster. Why would this be any different? Either Waters is a reliable source or he isn't, and I seriously doubt that this book would be judged by Vine Deloria as Waters's "best" if it was unreliable. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You both seem to be talking past each other, not disagreeing over reliability. Sarah's point is one that I run into in every article, and it's a good one. She's saying that as a reader, the sources aren't explicitly attributed to tell the difference between first and second-hand accounts, and she's given you specific suggestions on how to fix it. Read her comments again. She's not questioning the reliability but rather the scholarly presentation. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just doing my best here, but if Waters is a reliable source (Based only on snippet view, I wouldn't use his book as a source) then why shouldn't I use him? I've been editing all day to address concerns about "scholarly presentation". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't fixate on the RS question. The question is, does the article rely primarily on the opinions of academic historians and primary sources as necessary, and is the reader able to tell the difference either inline or in the footnotes? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed lots of cites to Waters and done a bunch of copyediting, but only you can answer that question. Will you please read the article and look at the references, and then give me your opinion? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm mobile at the moment running chores due to the holiday, so I can't do it right now. However, you are better off finding someone who is active in the topic area and/or participating in the FAC process, as that will closely align with your goals. The question I posed was more for you to answer and reflect upon, based upon my reading of Sarah's concerns. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I apologize for being overly defensive yesterday. I've read Waters for decades, and it never occurred to me that his writings weren't a reliable source for information about Native Americans. However, after thinking about what you said, and realizing that you know infinitely more about what constitutes a reliable source here at Wikipedia than I do, I've copyedited the article to all but exclude Waters entirely. I only used him for once, for a brief part that speaks to Mohave culture, and the article does not rely on him for any important factual assertions. So will you please take another look, and tell me if your concerns are now resolved? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, will you please take a look at the article when you get a chance? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but since I'm not an expert in this topic area nor active on FAC, I'm not exactly going to help you reach your goal, which is why I recommended finding someone who met one or both of those criteria. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, but it's a ghost town over there. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem is that we are coming off of a holiday weekend and are about to go into spring break. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I first posted there more than a month ago, and since that time there have been a total of five non-bot edits to that page. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

FTR, Frank Waters is no longer cited to in this article. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rose-Baley Party

I've just posted this comment about close paraphrasing on that article's talk page. Looking at this article, which links to that one, I see that the section "Rose-Baley Party Massacre" uses much of the same language (though I see the sourcing is different). Anyway, cross posting to here as well and again pinging Moonriddengirl. Victoria (tk) 17:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

P.s this got removed, here. Although the sources got swapped out here, I think it's important because much of the language I found in the sources at Rose-Baley Party might still be here since this too has a Rose-Baley section. Also, I'm adding another section after this. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Waters

I realize that much of this article has been reworked in the past few days, but to show what made me wonder, I had a look before the rewrite, probably this version or thereabouts, and found the issues pasted in below.

Article: "The Mohave Desert stretches for miles to the west, but as a child he did not venture into the unforgiving wilderness.[2]"

Source: "To the west stretched the vast Mohave desert where the boy seldom ventured"

Article: "Irataba excelled at archery, hunting game such as rabbits and deer in the mountains to the east.[2]"

Source: "In the crinkled desert mountains to the east, he hunted rabbits and deer, becoming skillful with his bow and arrows."

Article: "he helped his tribe cultivate corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins"

Source: "would help to plant corn, melons, beans and pumkins."

Article: "In an effort to alleviate the intense heat of summer, he covered his body with river mud, which also helped to keep insects away, and conserved energy by resting in a thatched hut made from willow branches known as a ramada"

Source: "In the blazing heat of summer, he would plaster his head and naked body with mud to keep away insects and laze in the shade of a willow-thatched hut, or ramada.

I won't do more because it's hard with snippet views, but his is only from the very first section of the article. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, none of these remain now, so this is irrelevant. But I also don't see any of these as problematic, and this opinion is based on my extensive discussions with Moonriddengirl (see links below). I'll wait to see what she says, but I think you are making a big mistake trying to prove that I have a problem with paraphrasing at the same time as accusing me of being a sock-puppet, but then your sock-puppet case kinda relies on the close paraphrasing, doesn't it? You are wrong on both counts, and this is borderline harassment now. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

These threads are relevant: [1], [2], and [3]. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this documentation even though most of that text is now gone. I hadn't realized until I pulled up the version I used that this article went to FAC only a day or so after passing GAN with this text in place. These are only a few examples from only the first section found using only snippet view. Victoria (tk) 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, and none of these examples are problematic. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging Ian Rose, Graham Beards, Laser brain, Nikkimaria and SandyGeorgia so as to keep all this in one place. Victoria (tk) 20:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just as relevant. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You're pulling out all the stops here. That sock must have really rattled your cage. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why we are pinging half of Wikipedia to this SPI case? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They want to be sure to finish me off, and they are canvassing uninvolved people to help pile it on. See, women can be just as aggressive and domineering. They are bullying me like the best of em'! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I pinged because it's about an enormous sock drawer Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ItsLassieTime, and lots of people have been involved over the years. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87 it's best not to hat this section as you did earlier. I looks like when I posted on an edit conflict that hatting got undone, but let's leave it as it is. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This isn't the place to have this discussion though, it is off topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC) But KK87, if they didn't post this stuff to these talk pages they can't be sure enough people see it, and the point here is to shames and discredit, which won't be as effective in the evidence-less SPI. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article would benefit from an IPA for Irataba. While I think I know how that is pronounced, cross lingual currents make it only a guess. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's pronounced phonetically, but I totally agree that we need it described properly, but I have no idea how to do it. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There are IPA people in wikipedia. And they need familiarity with Mohave language. I don't know who fits the bill. What if we post the concern on the Mohave article? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't seem that his actual Mohave name was Irataba it doest make much sense to IPA it, any approximation would basically be the English pronunciation. You need a source that explicitly states what his actual Mohave name was.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Although it still isn't a common English language name, and these couple be long or short "A"s, for example. What do you suggest? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically I think that with that many different versions of the name in the Sherer source basically we have to say that we don't know his name or how it was actually pronounced in Mohave.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for the form eecheeyara tav? That would be the source to go to. I have looked through Kroeber's description of Mojave phonetics, but it doesnt give any useful hints of how to parse that name phonetically. It might well be something like [iːt͡ʃiːjara tav] but it could also be [ɛːt͡ʃɛːjara tav], and it is impossible to tell without better sources for the name and its meaning. Unfortunately it seems that not much is written on Mojave language in recent times.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sherer, who lived amongst the Mohave, quotes their Tribal Orator, Atalk hear, who said the name is a combination of two words: eeecheyara, which means bird, and tav, which means good or beautiful. I assume the pronunciations are phonetic. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that assumption doesnt make sense. We dont have the pronunciation, we have Sherer's letters, and unless they gave us a phonetic transcription in standard notation as well, we have to guess about what sounds they meant those letters to represent. For example we don't know if ee means the long i vowel in "beet" or a long "e" as in "bet". It could be either. Secondly we cant assume that Sherer, unless they were a trained linguist was actually able to fully distinguish the sounds in the Mohave language correctly. Usually anthropologists are not trained linguists and their transcriptions are not accurate but simply represent the way the sounds sound to the untrained anglophone ear. This means that any attempt at converting Sherers transcription to IPA will be OR, based on our guesswork. In short the way it is now, where we simply cite Sherer's transcription without attempting to interpret it phonetically is the best approach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like the best course of action here is to exclude any attempts at IPAs that might rely on WP:OR. Is that accurate? I'll take another look for reliably sourced pronunciations, but I'm fairly certain that none exist, at least not in any of the sources that I've looked at so far. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unless we can find some source that gives us enough information about Mohave phonetics and the specific words in question to be able to make a transcription that doesnt rely primarily on our own guesswork, I think that is best.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for turning over a rock and engendering all this. It was meant only as A Modest Proposal, and was my reaction to the rather obvious hole. Little did I know. Fools rush in ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it would indeed be great to include. Just not really possible given the lack of sources. This is not uncommon when dealing with names and words in poorly documented indigenous languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I second Maunus; there is no need to apologize! We needed to discuss this, and the sooner the better, so thanks for raising this valid point! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reservation

It seems to me upon reading Sherer 1966 that one of the most important aspects of Yara Tav's legacy for his own people is the fact that he negotiated the establishment of the reservation and led a large group of Mohaves away from their traditional lands and onto the reservation. The fact that another group stayed behind led by Homoseh Quahote refusing to enter the reservation caused the split between the two groups. I.e. in political terms Yara Tav was pursuing a collaboration/appeasement policy relative to the US army and state, whereas the Fort Mojave group were reluctant to do so. This political difference in how the Mojave leaders reacted to white intrusion is the origin of the division of contemporary Mojaves into the Fort Mojave and the Colorado River Indian Reservation groups, which can then be traced directly to Yara Tav's attitudes and actions. That division, is something that one would think could merit its own section, and Sherer 1966 provides the information needed to do so. It also would require more detail on the relation between Homoseh Quahote and Yara Tav, the circumstances of the formers "abdication" as Aha macave yaltanack "head chief" (but not as Aha macave pipatahon "Head chieftain") and Yara Tav's precise leadership title. The significance of the titles is that otherwise it is difficult to understand why some Mojave would stay behind with Homoseh Quahote after he had "abdicated", but since he continued to be the head chieftain, with a more significant moral authority than Yara Tav's primarily political authority seems to have been key in the split.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reread the first 6 pages. The date and circumstances of Homoseh Quahote's accession are unknown, and there is only one known description of him, which is what the tribal elder told Sherer, so there is no more reliable info about him than that. Is there? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Accession? You mean abdication no? And the point is that it was his abdication that led to Yara Tavs becoming head chief office, while Homoseh Quahote remained head chieftain with the main moral responsibility and authority for the tribe. I dont see how your comment relates to the query I am making. Namely that the article does not sufficiently describe the political process that led to the creation of the Colorado River and Ft. Mojave reservations, and the split of the Mojave nation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You're making a mistake about how Sherer uses the term abdicate. Cairook was head chief, and when he died the people elected Irataba as head chief when they could have chosen Homoseh Quahote who bowed out. Sherer says he is all but a mystery; that's my point. There is no more to learn about him. It's one description from an elder made 50 years or more after Homoseh Quahote died. What more can we say about him? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont know of any possible use of the word abdicate to mean its own opposite, accede. I have not requested any information about Homoseh quahotes accession which Sherer says is unknown. But she gives a fair bit of information about him, including the fact that he was Aha macave pipatahon which she describes as the highest leadership. And that he acted as head chief in 1859 (not Cairook) is established by Gwegwi nuor, an eye witness. This is further corroborated by the statement that in 1860 or 1861 he abdicated the office of head chief, while retaining the chieftainship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right; I just reread that piece, and there are good reasons to question this chronology, as it's not clear cut. The northern group definitely stayed with Homoseh Quahote, who is at times referred to as head chief by soldiers at the fort, but does Sherer come to any usable conclusions? As you said, Irataba really wasn't a chief anyway, that's an English word. I'll take another look and see if more detail could be added, but I'm pretty tired right now after a long day. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure what Cairook was exactly in Mohave terms, but it seems likely that since the Huttoh Pah had 5 chiefs that he was one of them, and tha Yara Tav was another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll bet you're right, but that's OR, isn't it? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My special agent OR says maybe Cairook and Homoseh quahote are the same person, and Cairook never died at prison, but was released five years later and took back over as head chief. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be OR to include yes. I think your last suspicion is unlikely to be correct. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Me too, but it sure is fun! And there are accounts that misname Homoseh quahote as someone else, so its not impossible that he is a composite figure. Why did the US army think Cairook was head chief, but Sherer never mentioned him? And why is there only one description of Homoseh quahote if he was head chief before and after Irataba? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is unsatisfactory not to be able to resolve that question.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Sherer, Seck-a-hoot did attend the meeting with Hoffman, but was not named as head chief, so I think your assumption that Cairook was one chief, or maybe the main chief, of the Huttoh pah clan, and early explorers mistook him for a Mohave head chief. Maunus, I've added a sub-section with more detail on the founding of the Colorado River Indian Reservation ([4]). What do you think? Do we need more detail than that, or are you satisfied that this element of the story has now been adequately covered? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to have a look at the two sources Victoria presented on my talkpage, but I wint have a chance untill wednesday. If I find anything I'd like toadd I'll do so myself. Thanks for your work!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent addition you've made to the reservation section, Maunus. I see now what you meant about the lack of political context. Beautiful work! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Last Head chief

As far as I can read Sherer, Yara Tav was not the last independent head chief of the Mojave, he replaced Homoseh Quahote as head chief in 1861 (not as head chieftain), but Homoseh Quahote later retook the office for the Ft. Mojave group, while Yara Tav was head chief of the Colorado River group. So no, Yara Tav was not the last independent head chief. In a certain way he was the first dependent head chief, since he was the one who led his group onto the Colorado River Reservation. Specifically Sherer states on page 12 "By 1870, Homoseh quahote was referred to as the head chief of the tribe and Yara tav as the chief of the Mojaves on the reservation". Also it is not clear what is meant exactly by "independent", even on the reservation the Mojave leaders continued to be leaders of an independent nation. And they both had successors in their offices as head chief of their respective groups. So I think a different definition sentence would be in order. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sherer is going off letters written by soldiers who were at times confused, and at times she is also confused, but yes, there were and still are two bands of Mohave. Anyway, I changed it back to one of the last to be safe ([5]). Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is meant by "independent"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ask Deveroux and Woodward, because the term comes from them. I'm just doing the best I can with scant sourcing. I wish there were more sources and more people willing to add a paragraph or two, if they are needed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this fleshes it out pretty well ([6]), but let me know if we want more detail. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that works, yes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is meant by "independent"?. That's a good question. I think all it means is that Irataba was the last head chief of the Mohave before a fort was built and a reservation system started. By 1865, both were in place and the independent Mohave were no more. At least I think that's what Devereux meant, and I'm pretty sure it came from him originally, as Woodward quoted him. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was good that we got rid of both the "last" and "independent" - I would imagine that Mohave people on both reservations may agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Irataba via Chooksa homar's 1902 account to Kroeber

Maunus, we've discussed this at my talk, but I wanted it to be here for the record. I want to be sure that it's okay to quote Irataba via Chooksa homar's 1902 account to Kroeber. We have a couple of quotes in the article now that were first recorded 43 years after the events they describe. Is it acceptable to present a direct quote from Irataba that wasn't recorded until four decades after the fact, and is in-line attribution all we need to include to retain scholarly presentation? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning is this: Chooksa homar was an eyewitness, he actually understood Mohave, his recollections may not be verbatim but they provide a unique perspective on how Mohave people remembered Irataba and his speeches and actions after his death. We quote and cite dozens of white officials and scholars regarding their views and opinions about Irataba, most of them never met him and wouldnt have understood what he was sayin if they had. Surely the Mohave perspective as presented by Chooksa homar is indispensable for giving a full view of who Irataba was. Most of the concerns I have seen expressed aout the source were based on misunderstandings about its publicaiton history or provenance. For example, I agree we shouldnt cite Frank Waters or other sources that may pretend to represrnt Iratabas words without attributing them to a direct source such as Chooksa homar or another eyewitness, but we should use the Kroeber and Kroeber source directly and attribute the words to Chooksa homar's recollections of what Irataba said. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, Maunus. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

First footnote

The first footnote relates to the choice of Mohave rather than Mojave. Tribal preferences are not a valid reason for ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. Use our article title or suggest that the article title itself requires changing. An analogy would be that we use Ganges rather than the Indic preference, which is Ganga. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no conflict with WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Both names are equally common, but hardly any uses with j exist for the CRIT tribe, only for the Fort Mojave tribe. For some reason there is also a statebased distinction where California uses j and Arizona uses h. Again suggesting that the appropriate use here is Mohave. By the way I dont even think WP:COMMONNAME applies to article text, only to article titles. Also it is an unfounded claim that documented tribal preferences carry no weight in determining usage - they do and they should carry weight as arguments in determining usage outsise of titles. And in this case all the footnote does is note that the preference exists - the usage was already established in the article before the note was written. (Maunus editing logged out)172.0.128.110 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that footnote was added by Maunus, but FTR, I used Mohave when I created this article because the page dedicated to the actual people is currently Mohave people. Further, Mojave is the Spanish spelling, and Mohave the English, which I think is also a good reason to use Mohave at the English language Wikipedia. Having said that I don't have a strong preference either way. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, tribal preferences ARE a very valid reason. Plus, one of the problems that cost this article FAC the last time was archaic tone and outdated language. But as both words are not in the Mohave language, the ngrams may be useful, and they demonstrate that "Mohave" is the more archaic spelling, while "Mojave" is the more contemporary form - in English. Rather than "Ganges" as {[yo|Sitush}} mentioned, I would suggest the more useful equivalent is "Bombay" and "Mumbai." Google gives me about 9 million hits for "Mohave" (some to "Mojave) and 14 million hits for Mojave. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont think ngrams are useful here, since the results for Mojave with j are skewed by the name of the desert. Also as noted above there is a state and tribe based discrepancy in the usage, so it is not just about what is newer.172.0.128.110 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert by Montanabw

Montanabw, I presume that with this revert ([7]) you are invoking WP:BRD. Is that accurate, because you restored some hyphens where there should be en dashes, and some inconsistent capitalization of "White" where it should be "white", as John had pointed out during the recent Peer Review. Does every single edit I made to this article today really need to be discussed? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally White and Black is capitalized when used as names for ethnic/racial groups and not as color adjectives. Discussion is a good idea, when a bold edit is reverted. APart from the the only edit that struck me as odd was removing Yarate:va as a variant name. This is used by Kroeber, and apparently given as his name by Chooksa homar.172.0.128.110 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but how about hyphens where there should be en dashes? Do we also need to discuss that, because I think we are expected to do partial reverts in cases where some aspects of the edits were not contentious? I removed that name because it's not cited or included yet in the article. I add to the article first, then to the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I thoiught all the style stuff was fine, I dont use dashes myself, but let the gnomes add those when they feel like it. Probably a good thing to add them before another FAC. Also your wording changes seem fine to me.172.0.128.110 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Per our MoS we should always use en dashes for number ranges, and it is expected at FAC. I also fixed a harv error and added a missing ISBN, and those edits were also reverted. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, all fine edits.172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My concern was the edit that changed a linguistic form of Irataba's name and other content changes. I take no position on the capitalization wars that rage across wiki, whichever side I take, it's inevitably the other version that will be deemed correct. I don't care about the dashes. However, I think that given all the content changes made by Maunus and all the problems he found (and his were on top of all the ones I found when I was doing the FAC review), ANY content changes need to be discussed. This article ~~failed FAC,~~was withdrawn from FAC due to substantial changes so I think it is critical that all changes be discussed. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is good to remember that it failed on stability issues due to my expansions, but there were a clearly emerging consensus in support. But discussing content changes is good, especially in terms of sourcing.172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No it didn't fail Montana. In fact it was on course for promotion and still will be once Maunus has fully expanded it. I withdrew it, a BIG difference, have some respect for me if nothing else. It didn't even fail on stability, I withdrew it myself out of concerns of stability during the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough that it didn't fail. That said, I was a reviewer and I was not comfortable with support at the time. I will correct my comment Montanabw ^(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Were my edits changing content? I thought they were non-substantive ([8]). I only removed the linguistic form of Irataba's name because it was not and still isn't cited to or included in the article (see WP:LEAD). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I didnt have a problem with them. But Montanabw obviously did. Not much point in discussing about the revert, better to discuss how to move forward.172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever can be specificially sourced can be in the lede, anything else should not be, per WP:LEDE. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see John's pretty reliable, and he told us that we ought not capitalize Native or Whites, and nobody has disagreed with that until now. I don't really care, but right now the article is inconsistent, which even GA standards require. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think decapitalizing consistently is fine, apparently only some style guides suggest capitalizing white and black when used as racial-ethnic terms. I do know some people who are offended by lacking capitalization though.172.0.128.110 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The capitalization was not a concern to me, I've learned that arguing on that issue - in either direction - was a lose-lose. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: this edit, we use en dashes in this article, not em dashes. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

lol. I didnt even know there was a difference. :) This is why I never nominate FAs.172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The em dash is appropriate where we could otherwise use two dashes in the old "typewriter" model: -- = — . For dates, page ranges, and such, endashes are appropriate. However, on my screen, I frankly cannot distinguish between a simple dash and an endash, so if someone can do it with a script, that is fine. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, drop this and move into something else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Name issue

The lead needs to reflect what is sourced in the article body. The lead states "Irataba (also known as Yara tav, Yarate:wa, and Arateve –" The body text states: "Irataba's name, also rendered as Yara tav, Arateve, Yarate:wa, and Yiratewa," with sources. But prior to the last edit, we had "Yarate:va, and "Irateba." Further, they don't match the cited source visible online: The body sources Sherer 1966, which is not viewable online and Ricky, 1999, p. 100, which states (and note the spellings): "Iretaba was also known as Irataba, Arateva, Yaratev..." So, at present there are no citation for Yara tav, Arateve, Yarate:wa, OR Yiratewa. I am not taking a position on whether these are all proper variations, I'm only saying that the Ricky source doesn't verify any spelling listed other than Irataba ... now Sherer might have all the others and I presume Maunus has viewed that work, as I think this was his addition(?) At any rate, as a veteran of the assorted dramas over punctuation and transliteration of Native language names at WP:IPNA, I think that proper sourcing on these variants is crucial. So what sources exist for the other names? (this source p. 8 verifies Yara tav if that helps). Montanabw ^(talk) 22:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I added the names to the article body, but Maunus added some to the lead. To answer your question, as the citation says, all the names currently included are listed in Sherer 1966 page 6. If you like I could email you the PDF, but it's also available at JSTOR. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to the JSTOR abstract? I can probably get access there via my faculty account,(it's just a minor pain as I am a mere adjunct). Montanabw ^(talk) 02:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you go: Sherer 1966. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

All the name variants are listed on the first påage of Krober and Kroeber.172.0.128.110 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can send full texts of most of the works in the article through email to anyone who needs them.132.239.192.32 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Maunus (talk · contribs) editing logged out.

If you both agree, then I'm fine. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Organization

Montanabw, I openly admit that I was skeptical and stubborn at first to many of your suggestions, but reading over this page now I can see that your ideas for organizational changes were paramount to having cohesive sections. I never would have thought of that stuff myself, so thanks for your key addition to this collaboration! RO (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always a job; It took months for five or six collaborators who all got along pretty well with each other to get Yogo sapphire into shape. I think it took three of us a couple of years to get Appaloosa whipped into shape for FAC. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed

This sentence is currently unsourced,

Irataba, weary of the constant conflicts and worried that further conflicts with neighboring tribes would draw more attention from the US soldiers, subsequently organized a peace expedition to the Maricopa, settling the ancient disputes between the two peoples.

Maunus, I assume you added this. Can you please include the appropriate citation there when you get a chance? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence combines the information from from Kroeber and kroeber about the peace expedition to the Maricopa with information from Kroeber 1965 (Mohave as nationalist) describing how Irataba saw conflict among the tribes as posing a risk for attracting unewelcome attention from the US army.132.239.192.32 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I was hoping that you knew which pages so I wouldn't have to dig that up. There's no hurry of course, I just wanted to identify it so I could move on with my copyedit of the rest of the article. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll check it tomorrow when I will be able to log in again.132.239.192.32 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No hurries, Maunus. Thanks a million. You've added some really great stuff here, and it's made a huge difference! RO (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)able to lo in again.172.0.128.110 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was May 1st today, but it is tomorrow I will be

Another

This also needs a source:

With Irataba and an engineer, Poston traveled down the Colorado River to survey a location.

As, unless I missed it, it's not in Sherer 1966, which is the only citation around. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I forget where I read this, maybe it is Caylor. I'll take a look again.132.239.192.32 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No hurries, Maunus. RO (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who killed the Bentners?

I see that Maunus has added this to the article:

Another family group who were not with the main party during the attack were killed, in an event that has often been blamed on the Mohave but which was more likely carried out by a band of Walapai, along with seven renegade Mohaves.[52]

And it's definitely in the cited source (Sherer 1994, pp. 82–85), though on page 86, but I have some concerns. Sherer does not provide a footnote for this point, and while she says that "subsequent investigations" revealed that Walapai with renegade Mohave killed the Bentners, she does not indicate who investigated it. I think it's quite possible that this came solely from Mohave oral history, which might not be the most neutral source for this specific point. She may well be correct, but since this is a decidedly minority viewpoint, with the rest of recorded history blaming the Mohave, I thought we should discuss this here. Another tangential point is that why are the Mohave renegades if Cairook ordered the attack on the RBP? Why would attacking them at the river be sanctioned but not in-between camps? That doesn't make sense, IMO. What do you think, Maunus? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the claim they were killed by Hualapai is probably a Mohave post fact rationalisation, but I dont think the source is any more biased than the US government reports who claim the Mohave killed the Bentners, or the settlers who simply assumed it but are unlikely to have been able to distinguish between. It may make sense to attribute the view specifically to Sherer and her informants. Also we dont know if Cairook ordered the attack, that is itself speculation - it seems more likely I think that it was the other kwanami who were not friendly with whites who did. And clearly the argument is that the Bentners who traveled separately were not killed in the attack, but in a separate unrelated event where some Mohave participated, but not as part of the coordinated attack on the wagons. I think the main mistake here is to think that any single Mohave leader at any pooiint had full control over the entire groups of warriors - it seems clear that that is not how the Mohave practiced warfare. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also look at page 95, there is a long quote from Hoffman's report which concludes that the Bentner's were killed by "Walupies" and seven Mohave, and that the Mohave were now at war with the Walapais because of this incident. So it was hoffman's investigation that determined this, not Mohave oral tradition, although Hoffman relied on Mohave testimonies.Maunus (talk · contribs) logged out.132.239.192.32 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, but Hoffman claims the emigrants corroborated this, but neither Rose nor Udell did, and all the Bentner's were killed, so there were no surviving white witnesses to the attack. So which emigrants corroborated the story? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Rose's eyewitness account ([9]), before knowing of the attack on the Bentners the emigrants witnessed some Mohave near the river waving a pole with several scalps on it. They later assumed they came from the Bentners, only one member of which was ever found; the rest vanished without a trace and were never seen again. Udell reinforced this point in his journal ([10]). Rationalobserver (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And who was waving a scalp pole at the Colorado River if the 7 Mohave who attacked the Bentners were all killed during the attack? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont think we can assume that the settlers observation of scalps has any relation to the Bentners. They were terrified and had no knowledge of what was going on outside of their camp. They may or may not have seen scalps that may or may not have been the Bentners. That is a lot of "may or may not"s for us to start speculating about.132.239.192.32 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

After some discussion with Maunus I agree with his addition of this material, and I've made an edit clarifying that Hoffman is the source for the exoneration. Really nice work, Maunus! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My own feeling is that a 1966 source is inherently one that needs to be looked at very closely, as the modern western history analysis which examined events in light of historical white racism and cultural bias didn't really get going until the 1970s. In the case of articles on Native people, the "heathen savages" view may look like a majority view historically but has been largely disproven by modern research. I'll defer to Maunus as he has the actual hardcopies, but I am going to be quite wary of the older sources on matters such as these. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Montana, sometimes it makes sense to read the sources in question before making automated responses. Sherers entire work is based on representing Mohave views collected through fieldwork over decades with members of the Fort Mojave tribe and correcting for the earlier biased and racist accounts such as Woodward 1953. Sherer 1994 was actually published by the tribe itself, who wanted her account of their history to be published. Also you are wrong about the time frame, Anthropologists already slowly started becoming aware of the racist bias and trying to supply native perspectives collected through actually talking to native people in the 1890s. What happened in the 1970s was only that the anthropological perspective on minority inclusion and bias became mainstream. The problem is that sources such as Scrivner and Waters worked from Woodward (a historian and journalist) who himself worked mostly from racist news paper accounts from the 1860s and 70s, and not from the anthropological sources based on fieldwork among the Mohave. Clifton Kroeber and Sherer are both really good because their aim is to present Mohave people as political actors who are working to further their peoples politial goals, and not just as mindless savages overrun by civilization as previous accounts tended to (with the exceptions of Kroeber sr. and Stewart, and partly Devereux). 172.0.128.110 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have the work and access to its provenance, then I'm OK. I agree that Krober is solid, have run across them before. Sherer was new to me. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sherer was actually born at Needles and grew up around the Mohave, then she studied anthropology and worked with them for 4 decades. She left the manuscript to Bitterness Road unpublished, but the Mohave wanted it to be published and asked two other anthropologists to finish the manuscript and seem to have paid for the publication. The book also has copiuous notes with comments from Frances Stillman, Sherer's main Mohave collaborator. So I think it is fair to consider it "Mohave approved" - at least by the Fort Mohave tribe (which I think is why Irataba doesnt figure prominently in the book at all, which focuses more on Homoseh quahote).172.0.128.110 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

9000 Warriors

Seems a wild exaggeration sourced to a primary source, which is not likely to be reliable for details on Mohave society. Other figures say that the 800 people who followed Irataba constituted 20% of the entire Mohave population. So having 9000 warriors seem to be considerably more than the entire Mohave population at the time. Furthermore it doesnt seem to me that any Mohave leader had the warriors "under their command" - it doesnt seem that that is how Mohave military discipline worked - it seems there was a lot more consensus building rather than commanding going on in preparation for attacks etc.172.0.128.110 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I also thought that number was ludicrous, and that's why I removed that specific claim, but I see that Montanabw has restored the bit ([11]), which was taken out more than one month ago, maybe even two months. RO ^(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer cutting that entire sentence too - I did, then changed my mind and tried to salvage it, but frankly I'm Ok with tossing it. IMHO, the NYT source doesn't really verify the statement given. He didn't really "command," as Maunus says... Montanabw ^(talk) 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman "quote"

I'm pretty sure we should remove this quote:

"It was a singular coincidence, that after the lapse of 8 years the wild savage and the released captive should again meet; not among the mountain solitudes of the Pacific slope; amid the filth and degradation of an unmitigated barbarism; but in the metropolis of the highest civilization; not in the wigwam; but in the beautiful adorned reception room at the Metropolitan. We met as friends giving the left hand in friendship, which is held as a sacred pledge, among some tribes."[85]

It's sourced to Mifflin's book, but her footnote cites Stratton's story, which I removed during the Peer Review because it was deemed an unreliable source for an FA. I'm not sure this is actually a direct quote from Oatman or one of Stratton's fictions. RO ^(talk) 00:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mifflin explicitly says it is from her lectures, she does not cite the Stratton book for this. Mifflin uses Oatman's own handwritten lecture notes as a source.172.0.128.110 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you certain about that, because the Mifflin footnote that follows this quote indicates it was from Stratton? RO ^(talk) 15:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note 12 for page 180 indicates Oatman "Narrative", which is this book ([12]), which was written by Royal Stratton. RO ^(talk) 16:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I think I messed that up, sorry for the brain fart. I still dislike the content, even if it is an actual quote from Oatman's lectures. RO ^(talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind removing it. It is perhaps more appropriate in the article on Oatman where it can be given more analytical commentary.2602:301:77E9:9BD0:247A:25F3:2EDB:F3A1 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Maunus (talk · contribs) editing logged out.

How about this trim that retains the important part, but avoids the racism ([13])? RO ^(talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How does this look ([14])? RO ^(talk) 16:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you two agree, I'll go with the majority, that said, I also favor removing the quote, so the present version works for me. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Overwhelming

You may want to slow down a bit. 90+ edits in two days makes it difficult to follow what you are doing, ~~particularly when entire paragraphs are being rewritten. I am going to restore some material to the status quo, as Maunus did a TON of work on this and he isn't around a lot.~~ The wiki will still be here tomorrow... I added back in some small things that appear to have been deleted that I think can stay. Made some wikignoming edits that I think are a little better form, mostly restoring versions used by Maunus. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't foresee having to make many more edits, but there were numerous little glitches that needed to be fixed, and now most if not all of them are fixed. RO ^(talk) 17:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right. I just hate sorting through over 50 edits because it's more difficult to compare diffs; the number of changes sometimes looks more dramatic than was actually the case (as here). But then, I tend to do tons of edits in one sitting and then hit save and often have to endure edit conflicts, so I can understand a desire to save frequently. I suppose it depends on whether you have other editors working on the article at the same time. "Preview" is my best friend, though even then I inevitably miss some typos. I recognize work style preferences exist, but maybe consider using preview in order to consolidate edits of the same general nature (wikignoming in particular). This isn't even really advice, just rhetorical commentary that all are free to ignore! Montanabw ^(talk) 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You can condense 500 edits into one diff ([15]), so you don't have to look at them individually. RO ^(talk) 18:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Numerals

The rationale behind this revert ([16]) is misguided. Per MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Montanabw, next time you revert me based on the MoS, please take a minute to reread the relevant section, as this isn't the first time you've reverted me based on faulty information (see above). Further, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers states: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor", which is me. RO ^(talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't a "reversion," that was a copyedit. Your "another unnecessary reversion" tone fails to AGF, and is unacceptable personal attack. Per your interpretation of MOS, I am willing to defer to your preference on numbers expressible in one or two words. The comparisons of like units is a fair point also. However, 250 is three words, so I changed that one. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a revert because you changed the content of my very last edit to this page ([17]). RO ^(talk) 21:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly none of this is necessary at all. And it is not likely to make it easier to get the article to FA if you two keep bickering about irrelevant details like this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not an improvement

This edit ([18]), is obviously not an improvement, and it contains a punctuation error, but I won't revert it because I've already reverted Montanabw once today. RO ^(talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit ([19]), Maunus. I'm not crazy about the grammar, but at least the factual and punctuation errors that the edit introduced have now been fixed. RO ^(talk) 22:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Inviting Navajos to the rez

Maunus, do you remember seeing anything about Irataba allowing Yavapai and Navajo people to live at the Colorado River rez, because I saw this before, but can't remember where. RO ^(talk) 22:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, what I have read is that the Navaho and Hopi arrived later in the 1940s, and started out as just a few families.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's probably what it was. Thanks! RO ^(talk) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chemehuevi were assigned to the reservation earlier, in the 1890s I believe, so still after Irataba's death. The Yavapai invited by Irataba had to leave when scarcity of food made the situation untenable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

After Cairook's death

I think this might be a bit confusing: "By 1860, after Cairook's death, whites living near the Colorado River began to view Irataba as the main leader of the Mohave.[70]" because we make no effort to establish that Cairook was looked at as a leader by whites or anybody else. RO ^(talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the deal is we need to maintain some fuzziness here because we simply dont know how exactly the relation was in terms of authority, so what I understand that sentence to mean is that chronologically, not necessarily causally, Irataba emerged as leader in the period after Cairooks captivity. I will reread Kroeber/Kroeber to see how Jo Nelson describes the relation, since he is probably the best source for understanding this development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's my point, that after Cairook's death does imply some causality, and since the year is already mentioned it adds nothing of real value to the chronology. RO ^(talk) 17:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it leaves the possibility of some causality, and the way I read the sources it is quite possible that there was a degree of causality involved. Before his captivity Cairook seems to have been the main figure with which the Whites interacted, both the expeditions which considere him chief and Irataba "subchief" and Hoffman who considered Cairook the main figure responsible for the attack on the settlers. Then after his captivity, Irataba takes on the role as the mediator with whom the Whites interact. I actually think that this change is what made Irataba emerge as a leader, because the people saw that he was able to maintain good relations. The error we should avoid I think is to depict Mohave leadership as a question of having "offices", very often that has not been the way that Native American leadership worked, but instead it had a more organic consensus based form of leadership where certain people emerged as natural authorities depending on how many people found them convincing at any given time. On that note I also think we should remove the "in office" and "succession" parameters from the infobox.2602:301:77E9:9BD0:247A:25F3:2EDB:F3A1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair position. I agree with you about the infobox parameters, so I've removed them ([20]). RO ^(talk) 17:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I follow Maunus' reasoning on this one, we have chronology and causation, which may or may not be correlated, but he is right that leadership and titles were very different for Native people than for whites, and the whites were always looking for a head chief or other grand poobah. So perception is the deal (similarly, if we look at someone like Chief Joseph, he was a diplomat, not a war leader, yet the whites wanted to make him grand poobah of everything- and later blame him for everything!) Montanabw ^(talk) 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this is amazing: In Oatman's lecture notes, just the sentence before the one we already discussed she wrote this: "Having learned that among the number, was the Chief, I sought an interview with him & found it was not the same chief that reigned when I was there among them, but his Brother. The old one had died & his Bro. had been elected in his place." This very strongly suggests that Cairook was Irataba's brother! I don't think there is any source more likely to be aware of the family relations between different Mohave people than Oatman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Did Oatman learn to speak Mohave? Because none of the Mohave could speak English while she lived with them. She might have gotten mixed up by the sign language. RO ^(talk) 23:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

She claims to have spoken Mohave in D.C. 8 years later. So maybe she did master the language in 4 years. RO ^(talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Any cognitively normal teenager would speak a language fluently after a couple of years of total immersion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Very cool. Did she leave any good linguistic information in her notes? RO ^(talk) 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not any that her biographers seem to comment on. She was not entirely literate in English, so she probably wasn't what you would consider a sophisticated language user with much language consciousness in Mohave either. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad, because there doesn't seem to be much out there on the Mohave language. That's maybe an open field for people like yourself! RO ^(talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pamela Munro did her dissertation on Mohave in the 1970s, and Susan Penfield has worked on it for decades since then, so there is enough that I have planned an substantial expansion of the article on the language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! RO ^(talk) 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Overlink

Unlinked second appearance of Hoffman. I thought about tossing "Colonel William" but decided it could repeat from the lead; just not the link. Per WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks." (emphasis mine). I am of mixed opinion on this, but pretty much every FAC I have ever worked on (and it's more than the ones I take credit for as a "substantial contributor") has reviewers insisting that there is one link per article and that's it - and I have argued about it, to no avail. Room to discuss, of course. But be careful to read guidelines before quoting them. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

One link in the lede, and one in the body is the way I always do it. I believe SchroCat, Cassianto and Tim riley do the same. I'm sure at various points most of us have actually told editors to link in the body when they'd only linked once in the lede at FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I always like linking at least once in the lead and one in the body. And I also think it is OK to link several times in the body when occurrences are far away from each other and links are not overcrowding the paragraph. I think this work best with how people read articles, and use link, I think most people dont read from beginning to end, or necessarily think of going back to the first occurrence if they realize they want to read more about x topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I go for once in the lead and once in the article, unless the artcle is too short to make the repetition ridiculous. This is a long article, so two links is probably OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't matter to me; I've had precisely the opposite experience from you all - getting screamed at for overlinking if I had it in the lede and the body. Whatever the rules are this week, go for it. Sigh... Montanabw ^(talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Round two

Montanabw, your recent edit ([21]) removed the only link to Mohave people in the article body. I thought the above discussion indicated that it's okay to link once in the lead and once again in the article body, and I thought you had agreed to this. RO ^(talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I guess I can live with either outcome, but that said the link appears in the very first sentence of the article and while I can see a good argument that readers would forget who Hoffman was, I don't the same is true of the Mohave people ... but that said, if you want to put that link back in, I won't kick about it further. I've been slapped silly so many times for overlinking that it's almost an instinct now... but not a moral issue, so no harm, no foul. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like they were wrong to tell you only once in the lead. There's a handy dandy duplicate link tool available at User:Ucucha/duplinks. It shows all the dupes that ought to be removed. RO ^(talk) 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I will not argue with the FAC promoters or the most experienced FAC reviewers, but thanks. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ampersands in quotes

Maunus, please read the relevant policies before reverting based on policy: ([22]) and ([23]). Per MOS:AMP: "Quotations (see also MOS:QUOTE) may be cautiously modified", and per MOS:QUOTE: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud, such as: Normalizing archaic glyphs and ligatures, when doing so will not change or obscure the meaning or intent of the text. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the. See also § Ampersand, above." RO ^(talk) 21:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The MOS is frequently contrary to good sense. When it advises to falsify quotes that is one of those times.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers." (added emphasis) But can you revert editors based on your personal opinion when it clearly contradicts the MOS? RO ^(talk) 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

it is a historic verbatim quote, how does one pronounce the ampersand sign? This isn't a verbatim quote, it's an archaic typographic and style choice that should be adjusted to suit our house style as per the MOS. RO ^(talk) 21:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can. The MOS is a guideline not holy scripture. But for anyone who works professionally with historical sources deliberately changing letters or style choices in direct quotes from primary sources is at best unprofessional scholarship and at worst falsification. The ampersand sign is pronounced "and". Furthermore the MOS says "may" not "must".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the ampersand and the word "and" are pronounced the exact same, so no change is made to the content of the quote by swapping & for "and"; therefore, no falsification occurs by doing so. No matter, this is a pretty meaningless point that I won't belabor. RO ^(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is an disingenuous statement. When you reproduce a written quote you are not just reproducing the meaning, but what is actually written in the source. When the source has typographical errors you include them as well (sometimes with a subsequent [sic] to emphasize that the error was in the original document). I have heard the claim that "publishing houses do this all the time" before, but that is simply false when we are talking about publications in the field of academic history. It is quite simply contrary to academic practice.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"disingenuous" implies someone is intentionally being dishonest or insincere, so are you sure you don't mean inaccurate or misguided? RO ^(talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I think you know very well that quoting a text is not just representing the meaning or sound of the quoted text, but also representing the actual written letters. So yes, it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that substituting "and" for "&" cannot be a falsification because it is pronounced the same. You didnt know for example that [sic] is used by scholars when they quote a text that has a typographical error in it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did I imply I didn't know about sics? Look, I disagree with you here, but I just want to let it go, as it's not worth it. RO ^(talk) 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that if you know about sic's, then by extension you also know that you can't just change typographical elements because they are read out aloud the same.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right in terms of academia, but sometimes the MOS ignores academia in favor of consensus, and it's just easier for me to check the MOS and almost always do what they suggest. Otherwise it leads to petty disagreements that take editors like you and I away from our real calling, which is content creation. I'm fine to leave it as you suggest. I won't change it again. RO ^(talk) 22:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"his friend"

The photo caption saying "his friend" sounds like a third-grade yearbook - perhaps we could use the LOC as a quote, "Ah-oochy Kah-mah & his friend Irateba" and source it. Would be less amateurish-looking and reflect the tone of the times instead (the other images captioned were even more hair-raising). Montanabw ^(talk) 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just mentioning the name of Ahoochy kahmah makes no sense, if his name is going to be mentioned it is necessary to introduce him somehow. Excluding the image all together would be another option.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's only two free images of him available, and this is one of them. So it would be better to crop then to exclude altogether. RO ^(talk) 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A third option would be to crop the photo, indeed, and that might be the best solution, though more work for someone. But we could as easily just tweak the caption to say something like "Image identified by the Library of Congress as "Ah-oochy Kah-mah & his friend Irateba". I just think the existing caption makes us (and now that I've worked on the article I include myself) look amateurish. But given that the photographers of the time identified it that way, we can acknowledge the terminology of the time. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just found it one of those things that made me go "ouch." (Just because a FAC review flags something as a problem doesn't mean we can't be creative in the solution...) Montanabw ^(talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with either of those solutions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Maunus and I seem to be Ok with either an image crop or a caption tweak, you have the deciding vote here... which do you prefer? And... I suppose if I raised this fuss, I suppose this means I gotta be the one to do it??? Montanabw ^(talk) 23:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I could crop it in 15 seconds, but I think it would be better to improve the caption. RO ^(talk) 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Then lets go with Montanabw's suggestion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would very much prefer to avoid cropping the image to remove the second figure, so I would also go with MontanaBW's suggestion. --Mirokado (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that the article is at FAC, I want to be sure we all are on the same page would you recommend we also footnote that the caption is that of the LOC collection? Something like: "Image titles transcribed from mount as "Ah-oochy Kah-mah & his friend Irateba" sourced to either [24] or [25] description appears to be "Series of photographic views and portraits of Arizona and Arizona Indian tribes / Charles Gentile" -Library of Congress... yada, yada - appropriately formatted, of course. I'm a bit tired right now, feel free to interpret what I just wrote in some light more coherent that I am at the moment... Montanabw ^(talk) 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The note could be a bit briefer: "Caption as transcribed from original mount (Library of Congress)." --Mirokado (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked and sourced. Feel free to tweak further. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we change this to "Irataba with Ahoochy Kahmah, a Yavapai leader, photographed during the trial following the Wickenburg Massacre".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's much better than "friend". I agree. RO ^(talk) 22:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It would also make the & question irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can affirmatively source that to a RS, I'm good with it. Would be a way better caption. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah-oochy Kah-mah

Ah-oochy Kah-mah was the leader of the Yavapai during the time when Irataba welcomed them "onto the reservation after they had been subject to massacres by US troops, or suffered starvation due to having been driven from their lands." Maybe we can do better than to just call him a friend, but I can't find anything in RSs about him. Do Kroeber 1965 or Farish 1918 mention him by name in this context? RO ^(talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Which source mentions that? That is excellent, that definitely makes sense to mention that in the caption then. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Library of Congress ([26]). RO ^(talk) 22:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this photo must have been taken in the context of the trial of the Yavapai who attacked the stage coach, since that was the Date Creek - also it mentions directly that there are prisoners among the photographed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah-oochy Kah-mah might have also been called Ochecama, but that person is thought to be a Yuma leader. This picture ([27]) looks like Ah-oochy Kah-mah, but he's not very tall like in the picture with Irataba, where he looks close to six feet. They identify one of the seated men as Chim-A-Hua-Ra-Sal, Chief of the Mojave tribe, which is interesting that he does not look old enough to be Homoseh quahote. RO ^(talk) 22:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont think they are the same because the Ah-ochy Kah-mah picture must have been from the early 1870s just like the Ochecama picture who looks quite a bit older imo. Again with Chim-a-hua-ra-sal I dont think we can assume that people called "chief" are one of the two people we rcognize as the main political leaders (or that we necessarily know of all the main political leaders of the time).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Ah-ochy Kah-mah picture is dated 1870, and the Ochecama picture is 1874, and people often age dramatically in the last 3-5 years of their life. I'm sure you're right that Chim-a-hua-ra-sal was probably a sub-chief, but I was hoping we could connect it. Think about if Chim-a-hua-ra-sal is similar to any other names you've read, like if you drop the first syllable Homoseh quahote sounds a lot like Seck-a-hoot. RO ^(talk) 22:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire event around the photo is explained here: [28]. Ochocama, whom I think we can actually assume is Ahoochy kah mah, was killed by guards in an altercation during the trial. This could actually easily carry another paragraph in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think another paragraph is going to do injury to stability, so please do add it! RO ^(talk) 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that the annotations at the LC collections are often taken verbatim from whatever people wrote on, by or with the photograph. Just handle with caution and be very careful about SYNTH with the names - even if you are right, we are all mere editors... Montanabw ^(talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right, hedging it may be a good idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, other images confirm that the person standing with Irataba was called Ahoochy Kahmah, and this one: ([29]) in particular confirms he was the leader of the Yavapai Apaches at Date Creek, who according to other reliable sources was Ohatchecama. These are obviously two spellings of the same Yuman name. RO ^(talk) 23:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an RS that gives several variations of his name: ([30]) RO ^(talk) 21:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a great book, but it says Ochocama lived through escape and later plotted to kill Irataba. ([31]) RO ^(talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This one also says that he plotted a revenge killing of Irataba ([32]) RO ^(talk) 21:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the plot thickens! Great work RO! I will look at those sources immediately.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I know it! Thanks. Here's another, though I can't speak to the quality of the source:([33]), but it does appear that these men are one in the same, and that he wanted to kill Irataba for turning them in to Crook. RO ^(talk) 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to all build on one single military report that says he wanted to kill Irataba but was told that he was not the one who reported them. So we probably shouldnt say it as straight fact, but I have included it as a possibility.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call and nice work! RO ^(talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually all the sources seem to agree, and Braatz also mentions it, so I have changed it again to just say it in straight language. This is really amazingly interesting detective work. I think we have that incident well covered now. Please make any copyedits you see necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

German Wikipedia thinks that Ohatchecama and Ah-oochy Kah-mah are the same person, so I've asked there ([34]) if they know a reliable source for it. RO ^(talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that Braatz specifically states that there are many variations, and that we know the location and year of the photo corresponds to the Date Creek meeting I think it is a safe bet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Me too. RO ^(talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ohatchecama, a Tolkepaya Yavapai leader who was tried and arrested for taking part in the Wickenburg Massacre

Is this the same day as the other? RO ^(talk) 00:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It definitely looks like the same day based on his clothes. Btw. it seems it wasnt an actual trial (although some sourcs use that language), apparently they just asked Irataba to point out the Yavapai, and when he did they tried to arrest them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Thanks for clarifying that for me. RO ^(talk) 16:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

VANDALISM: "Korean" substituted for "English"

Irataba is the featured article for 3 August 2015, with the first two sentences of the feature reading: Irataba (c. 1814 – 1874) was a leader of the Mohave Nation, known as an advocate for peace with whites and a mediator with the United States. He was a renowned orator and one of the first Mohave to speak English. The third sentence of this, the actual article, however, says: "Irataba was a renowned orator and one of the first Mohave to speak Korean, a skill he used to develop relations with the US." This is clearly a case of vandalism, which I wanted to document. I will, of course, correct this instance, but I suspect that there may be other instances of vandalism in the article, which at 14 pages is more than I was planning to read. --Wikifan2744 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

At 03:52, while I was writing the above, someone else reverted "Korean" back to "English." Thanks. --Wikifan2744 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oatman captivity?

Was Irataba involved in the Oatman captivity? It's mentioned on this page but he's not tied into it at all. This page also seems to be one-sided. The United States was, after all, invading Mojave land with an intent to colonize it; previous colonizations by whites had already resulted in the complete or near-complete genocide of many nations in California and further east, of which the Mojave may have been aware. This page seems to put "peaceful" Indians on a pedestal and perpetuates the colonial discourse of "friendly"/"hostile" Indians. Imagine if the United States today were literally invaded by a numerically larger group of people who had no problem killing off US citizens like flies - let's say the entire population of China decided to move to the US and murdered in cold blood anybody who got in their way. Of course US people would fight back, even though it would be futile. This is what the Mojave were doing, and Irataba's encouraging people not to do so was likely due to his assessment that the US had greater numerical strength and so the Mojave would not survive a long-term full-scale conflict with such an enemy, and thus the only way to remain alive would be to acquiesce to any and all demands. It seems that the idea of "peaceful is always better" only applies to non-Whites - white violence against natives and blacks is seen as moral and just, but indigenous and slave resistance must always be nonviolent. I personally consider Irataba a hero because his tactics may have saved Mojave lives, since the racist Manifest Destiny ideology of the people and government of the United States meant that Mojave sovereignty could not survive intact. I do not think that avoiding white deaths makes him a hero in any way - if white colonizers didn't want to die, they shouldn't have colonized. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He is tied to it in the sense that the two new eacvhother and that Oatman's accounts are some of the most important testimonies about Mojave life in that period. Whether Irataba did the right thing or not in preferring non-violence is not a question that we need to answer - and there is no agreement about it among current day Mojave people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Maunus, we determined that is was best to not include an attempted pronunciation of his name: ([35]), but I see that someone has added it now. Should it remain? RO ^(talk) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation given looks reasonably likely to be correct according to my understanding of Mojave phonology - but it is definitely a mild kind of OR to include it. I am neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're okay with it then I won't remove it. RO ^(talk) 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

President Grant

The article mentions that "President Grant" created the Colorado River Reservation. One problem: Grant wasn't president in 1865. Brutannica (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch; you're right! The source does not mention Grant on that page. Maunus added that tidbit so I'm glad to say that's one mistake that I am not responsible for! RO ^(talk) 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the source material does not say who or what ordered the act, I've made this edit that is slightly vague, but at least it's now accurate to the cited source: ([36]). RO ^(talk) 20:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Swanton actually says ",... but by Act of March 3 1865, supplemented by Executive orders in 1873, 1874, and 1876, the Colorado River Reservation was established...". So the summary conflated the four documents of establishment and attributed them all to Grant instead of just three of them. It is fixed now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the actual document that established the reservation, and was quite sure it was Grant who signed it. Let me check it again and look at the phrase.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Caylor says it was created by Congress, not the President. I am trying to find the source I look at.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here it is. It was created on March 3rd 1865 by act of congress, but the final limits were established by presidential executive order in November 16th 1874, by Grant. I am still trying to find the actual documents which I believe I saw in one of the handbooks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is Woodrow Wilson referring to the 1874 executive order.[37]. And here is the actual wording of the executive orders:

 Colorado River Reserve.

[In the Colorado River Agency; occupied by the Chemehuevi, Walapai, Kowia, Cocopa, Mohave, and Yuma tribes; area, 376 square miles; established by act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 559), and following Executive orders.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, November 22, 1873.
It is hereby ordered that the following-described tract of country in the Territory of Arizona be withdrawn from sale and added to the reservation set apart for the Indians of the Colorado River and its tributaries, by act of Congress, approved March 3, 1865 (U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 13, p. 559), viz: All that section of bottom-land adjoining the Colorado Reserve, and extending from that reserve on the north side to within 6 miles of Ehrenberg on the south, bounded on the west by the Colorado River, and east by mountains and mesas.

U. S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, November 16, 1874.
It is hereby ordered that a tract of country embraced within the following-described boundaries, which covers and adds to the present reservation, as    set apart by act of Congress approved March 3, 1865 (Stat. at Large, vol. 13, p. 559), and enlarged by Executive order dated November 22, 1873, viz:

Beginning at a point where the La Paz Arroyo enters the Colorado River, 4 miles above Ehrenberg; thence easterly with said Arroyo to a point south of  the crest of La Paz Mountain; thence with said crest of mountain in a northerly direction to the top of Black Mountain; thence in a north westerly  direction across the Colorado River to the top of Monument Peak, in the State of California; thence southwesterly in a straight line to the top of  Riverside Mountain, California; thence in a southeasterly direction to the point of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, withdrawn from sale and set apart as the reservation for the Indians of the Colorado River and its tributaries.

U. S. GRANT.

Thanks for clarifying this, Maunus. Did you get a sense of why it took nearly a decade for a president to sign off on CRIR? RO ^(talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, but it doesnt seem like it was odd in any way given the number of Executive orders moving around reservation boundaries - I would guess it was in response to the developing use of the surrounding territory by settlers that required the initially fuzzy boundaries to be determined with greater accuracy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever added that material kind of did it in a klutzy way; I cleaned it up, but feel free to tweak further. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the klutz in question. Are you sure the executive orders expanded the territory?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh! Yes, that's my read of the legalese of "withdrawn from sale and added to the reservation..." "covers and adds to the present reservation, as set apart by act of Congress..." etc. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable interpretation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

text inserted by User:♥Golf removed

I removed the following paragraphs inserted by User:♥Golf:

In October 1866, George W. Leahy, Superintendent of Indian Affairs of Arizona Territory, was informed of an attack by the Mohaves against the Hualapai tribe who had been the perpetrators of a vicious and murderous attack in the Sacramento district on emigrant miners and settlers there. Leahy dispatched Irataba to reprimand Sickehoot, the captain of the raiding band of Mohaves. Sickehoot had previously been complimented for his actions, in writing, by Richard C. McCormick, Governor of Arizona Territory.

Irataba returned to La Paz fully believing that whatever the actions of Leahy, the Governor and the whites were generally in agreement with the action of Sickehoot. In a November 10, 1866 article in the Arizona Miner, it was reported that, “Mr. Leahy should remember that the moment the Indians manifest hostility, they are to be dealt with in the most summary manner; and from all we can learn, the blow dealt the [Hualapais] by Sickehoot has not demoralized the latter, but united the Mohaves in their friendship to the whites. Sickehoot is the “big Ingin” about Hardyville and Mohave city, and he should be thanked rather than rebuked, by the superintendent.

I removed them for the following reasons: The section is supported only by a single primary source, a newspaper account. We have worked hard to avoid using primary sources such as contemporary news paper accounts in problematic ways and instead focus on secondary sources. Newspaper sources from that time are always strongly biased and often outright racist, secondly they are often not well informed about Indian issues such as the relations between indigenous leaders or their actions. I think the particular news article in question has most of these problems, and it is not clear from it what exactly transpired and how best to represent it. Consequently, I think this is not a good or necessary addition to the article and should be left out untill a secondary source reports and analyzes it . ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My intent is not to edit war, only to add an important paragraph or two to the article. Americans know all too well that our Native Americans weren't treated right in the old days (and still aren't in many cases) but that is no excuse to whitewash historical information be it a "Featured Article" or not. This same newspaper is already being relied on as a good and reliable source in the article (see the quote box). It is not good editing to conveniently leave out information that someone believes is not "in line" with the article when in fact the added information is highly relevant to Irataba's overall story. If any portion of what I added is objectionable, I am willing to compromise by having some of it removed but not all, and I am referring to the "big Ingin" passage at the end of the paragraph. That could be removed as perhaps objectionable to some readers and editors even though it is a direct quote from the source. --♥Golf (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you did editwar and did not show any interest in participating in this discussion untill you reached 3rr, I have started an RfC below to request more outside input. I very much doubt that that particular news paper story merits more than a single line of text briefly summarizing it. Two paragraphs and a quote is entirely out of the question in my view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The quote I speak of is ALREADY in the article (about Irataba's declining health in later years), and its citation is to the newspaper that you now conveniently call "a single primary source". I have lived near indian reservations all my life. I am an advocate of indian rights, 24/7/365, and a proponent for the propagation of accurate indian histories. If I thought my addition to the article was defamatory or "outright racist" as you suggest, I would not have added it to the article. --♥Golf (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to include more of the source as providing important insight that a brief summary cannot, perhaps you can include it in a note. By way of example, I included a contemporary account of a well-known experiment by Fizeau and Foucault in Note 2 of Fizeau–Foucault apparatus. In hindsight, we know that, although the conclusions that they made were correct, the fundamental line of reasoning behind their experiment was entirely wrong. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the text inserted by Golf be included?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to exclude the text. AlbinoFerret 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the paragraph written by User:Golf above be included in the article?

Survey

Oppose - it is based on a single primary source which is a statement of opinion by the news paper, and which may or may not correspond to factual events. It does not provide any new or particularly important information about Iratabas life and unnecessarily introduces racial slurs into the article in the quote. I might support the inclusion of a single sentence mentioning the Arizona Miners suggestion that irataba not take up further conflict with Homoseh quahote (which is incidentally the spelling that should be used of the name).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Although I am not opposed per se on the use of primary sources, the sorts of primary sources with which I regularly deal (peer-reviewed research articles in the sciences) are entirely different than the kind of primary source with which we are dealing with in this controversy. Peer-reviewed research articles in the sciences are generally required to cite other articles to support the research methods that they use. Newspaper accounts are not. Peer-reviewed research articles in the sciences are generally expected to make a good faith effort to place themselves in proper context. Newspaper accounts are not. Peer-reviewed research articles in the sciences have generally been reviewed by at least one other knowledgeable individual not closely associated with the author(s). Newspaper accounts are not.

Overall, I expect great caution to be placed on the use of contemporary newspaper accounts in Wikipedia without corroboration. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - In general I have no problem using a newspaper as a source. The problem here is that it is apparently the editor who is being quoted (although the wording doesn't make this clear). This is not worthy of inclusion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I trust Maunus on this, and he did lots of work to ensure that we only used the most relevant and appropriate points from our source material. RO ^(talk) 15:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Undue, inadequate sources, too much of WP:Primary for the context. We got rid of all this cruft during the FAC, no need to reinsert it now. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Οppose Truly, no serious argument can be made for the inclusion of the contested text aside from a generic demand for "balance." But Wikipedia is not a source for news editorials. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, clearly biased single primary source. I agree with Maunus and with Montanabw. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose until additional sources confirm this incident. I don't think a newspaper constitutes a primary source; however, due newspapers in this era being most likely heavily racist and biased against the Native Americans, it loses the reliability we need. Surely this is discussed somewhere else? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - A single biased paper doesn't cut it, Ofcourse if there were more sources all of which where unbiased I'd be happy to support!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has its own article now

I wrote a peer reviewed journal article about the process of writing of this article and it has now been published in American Anthropologist. The article may of course be used as a source for this article if anyone thinks it should be added. Here is the link to the abstract [38]. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unaddressed NPOV concerns

A while back I raised some concerns about bias in the use of language and perspective of this page:

"Was Irataba involved in the Oatman captivity? It's mentioned on this page but he's not tied into it at all. This page also seems to be one-sided. The United States was, after all, invading Mojave land with an intent to colonize it; previous colonizations by whites had already resulted in the complete or near-complete genocide of many nations in California and further east, of which the Mojave may have been aware. This page seems to put "peaceful" Indians on a pedestal and perpetuates the colonial discourse of "friendly"/"hostile" Indians. Imagine if the United States today were literally invaded by a numerically larger group of people who had no problem killing off US citizens like flies - let's say the entire population of China decided to move to the US and murdered in cold blood anybody who got in their way. Of course US people would fight back, even though it would be futile. This is what the Mojave were doing, and Irataba's encouraging people not to do so was likely due to his assessment that the US had greater numerical strength and so the Mojave would not survive a long-term full-scale conflict with such an enemy, and thus the only way to remain alive would be to acquiesce to any and all demands. It seems that the idea of "peaceful is always better" only applies to non-Whites - white violence against natives and blacks is seen as moral and just, but indigenous and slave resistance must always be nonviolent. I personally consider Irataba a hero because his tactics may have saved Mojave lives, since the racist Manifest Destiny ideology of the people and government of the United States meant that Mojave sovereignty could not survive intact. I do not think that avoiding white deaths makes him a hero in any way - if white colonizers didn't want to die, they shouldn't have colonized."

Certainly, I expressed my own opinions in the comment but the main point was to call out an underlying colonial POV tilt that seems to be present on this page, not inconsistent with certain other Wikipedia pages about similar topics. The very brief response from one of the main authors of this page was that it's not our place to decide whether or not violence was the right or wrong response to US/white actions. While that is true, the issue of NPOV and underlying bias was completely avoided. Part of my objection was the fact that the Oatman captivity/massacre is mentioned when Irataba was not involved in those events. This is an interesting way to start the section titled "Contact with emigrants and explorers". What are the implications of this? By starting this section by mentioning an episode of violence that occurred against white settler-colonial invaders (and the mention is completely devoid of historical context, at that - the Yavapai did not kill/kidnap white people in a vacuum), the article seems to be encouraging a negative perception in the reader of "violent indigenous people" vs. "virtuous emigrants and explorers". Again, Irataba wasn't involved in the Oatman events at all! I'd like to add that "emigrants" and "explorers" are also highly POV terms in this context. If I were writing an encyclopedia by myself, I would replace those with "invaders", but I recognize lots of people would also consider that POV. Back at the time of my original comment, I edited it to say "colonizers", which was abruptly reverted. Were they not colonizers? Is that not a factual term? Note for example that we have Mongol invasion of Europe, not "Mongol emigration and exploration of Europe". If it's possible to achieve neutrality on this article, which I'm beginning to doubt, the current state of the article is certainly not it. I'd love to hear ideas from others - the whole point of my comment in the first place was to solicit an exchange of ideas and collaboration in fixing NPOV issues rather than barging in and rewriting the article myself in a way that would likely start an edit war. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason we describe the Oatman events is because they are important in relation to understanding why the white public turned from seeing the Mojave as friendly to seeing them as hostile, a change which motivates for their subsequent military "pacification", and also because the later meeting between Oatman and Irataba in New York is an important event to describe (and it shows they knew eachother, and as such also goes to describe how Irataba's perhaps earliest meeting with an Anglo-American). As for the difference between exploring and invading I think that difference is factual in this case since the "emigrants explorerers" were not military expeditions, and also it exists in all the available sources. I and other editors have worked very hard to address the colonial POV which was much much stronger in previous versions (I have in fact even published an academic article about the colonial POV in this article and the difficulties in removing it), but I fear it is not possible to escape it entirely since all sources we have are filtered in some way through a settler colonial perspective. If you can suggest some concrete changes in wording that you feel would make the article less subtly colonial, I think that would be a great way to start a discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have tweaked the passage about Oatman a bit, let me know what you think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irataba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530191114/http://crit-nsn.gov/ to http://www.crit-nsn.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Site is alive. --Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Change reverted, bot listing updated. --Mirokado (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irataba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410161420/http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/blm_special_areas/blm_special_areas/ireteba_peaks_wilderness.html to http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/blm_special_areas/blm_special_areas/ireteba_peaks_wilderness.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irataba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526192114/http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/aml.Par.54155.File.dat/Desert%20Fever%20-%20History%20of%20Mining%20in%20the%20CDCA.pdf to http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/aml.Par.54155.File.dat/Desert%20Fever%20-%20History%20of%20Mining%20in%20the%20CDCA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bio tag added

It seems that this talk page never had a bio tag. I have added it and made it FA-class for two reasons: 1) the article has already appeared on the Main Page as a featured article and 2) the assessment aligns with the Indigenous peoples of North America tag which is also FA-class. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 21:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback

Rose-Baley Party

Waters

Pronunciation

Reservation

Last Head chief

Further reading

Quoting Irataba via Chooksa homar's 1902 account to Kroeber

First footnote

Revert by Montanabw

Name issue

Organization

Citation needed

Another

Who killed the Bentners?

9000 Warriors

Oatman "quote"

Overwhelming

Numerals

Not an improvement

Inviting Navajos to the rez

After Cairook's death

Overlink

Ampersands in quotes

"his friend"

Ah-oochy Kah-mah

VANDALISM: "Korean" substituted for "English"

Oatman captivity?

IPA pronunciation

President Grant

text inserted by User:♥Golf removed

RfC: Should the text inserted by Golf be included?

This article has its own article now

Unaddressed NPOV concerns

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Bio tag added