Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive2/archived discussion
Comments by RHM22
Support When I first read the article, it seemed to me comprehensive based on what little is available about such historical figures who were born in more primitive times. However, a considerable amount of information has now been collected by the authors, and it looks much better than its first incarnation. Although I've supported, I do have a few points which may be addressed:
- I would mention in the body of the article that Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain. It mentions that the location is modern-day Arizona, but it only says in the infobox what it was called at the time.
- It's not really sourced; it's OR, so I guess I should remove it. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have any source that says "Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain (modern-day Arizona)", but maybe you two sources, one that says "Irataba was born in some place" and another that says "some place used to be called Alta California." Do you think that would be possible? I'd prefer to leave in the information if it is indeed accurate, assuming there's some way to verify it.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- All the sources say Irataba was born in present-day Arizona, which at the time was Alta California, New Spain, but none of them that I have seen mention what that area was in 1814. I added it because it's certainly accurate, but I have no way of verifying it in the Wikipedia sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is, if I were you, I'd find a source that says Arizona was then Alta California, New Spain, which shouldn't be terribly difficult. The source doesn't have to say that Irataba was born there, since you already have that cited from other sources. In fact, I think the name of his birthplace should be included both in the infobox and in the article itself.-RHM22 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- All the sources say Irataba was born in present-day Arizona, which at the time was Alta California, New Spain, but none of them that I have seen mention what that area was in 1814. I added it because it's certainly accurate, but I have no way of verifying it in the Wikipedia sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have any source that says "Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain (modern-day Arizona)", but maybe you two sources, one that says "Irataba was born in some place" and another that says "some place used to be called Alta California." Do you think that would be possible? I'd prefer to leave in the information if it is indeed accurate, assuming there's some way to verify it.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really sourced; it's OR, so I guess I should remove it. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- "According to Fulsom Charles Scrivner, author of Mohave People (1970), Irataba was born to an influential family, and his father was either a chief or was closely related to an important person." I would add a citation after this sentence, since it's really just a paraphrased quote.
- I'd probably link European American in the lede.
- "According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published"." Were the italics used by the original author?
- Yes. The italics are in the original source. Should I note that? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't worry about that. I'd only make note of it if they were your italics.-RHM22 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The italics are in the original source. Should I note that? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe this has been brought up elsewhere, but shouldn't Rose-Baley Party used an en dash rather than a hyphen? A hyphen would usually be used for people with hyphenated names, but since Rose-Baley seems to refer to two people, it seems to me that it should use an en dash.
- On my initial reading, I thought that Hoffman dispatched 50 dragons. Words cannot describe how disappointed I was to see that second 'o'.
- Thanks for that! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- This sentence is a little cumbersome: "After Cairook's death, Irataba became the Mohave's head chief, and he attained the title of Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch, which designated him as the leader elected by the people, as opposed to the head chieftain whose position was hereditary and carried primarily moral responsibility." How would you feel about splitting it thusly: "After Cairook's death, Irataba became the Mohave's head chief, and he attained the title of Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch. This designated him as the leader elected by the people, as opposed to the head chieftain whose position was hereditary and carried primarily moral responsibility."
That's all I can point out. The article being sufficiently comprehensive and well-written, these are just minor points. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I got them all ([1]). Thanks for your support! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support had my say at the peer review and my suggestions seem to have been mostly implemented. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou Wehwalt and RHM for your earlier input and support here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Mirokado
Support. I have also already reviewed the article. It has been extended during the excellent peer review and is now a much more coherent narrative with background filled out from further sources (for example the reference to dreams is now justified). I have read it through again, and have just a couple of further comments:
Contact with emigrants and explorerswas featured in Ives's 1861 congressional report. I would have written "...Ives' 1861 congressional..." here, we already have "United States' military might" later on.- I'm not sure I follow. Can you please explain? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's another matter of style really. We "always" say "United States' military might" for a plural possessive and I would say "Ives' whatever" rather than "Ives's whatever" for the possessive of someone ending with an "s". Checking various web pages it seems that either is correct for a posessive. Looking at grammar.ccc.commnet they prefer apostrophe-s but suggest that something like "Mrs Chambers's estate" is clunky and I would say that the same applies to Ives. If you prefer the apostrophe-s, just say so!
- Okay, I see now! That went over my head. I tend to agree with you, so I've fixed it ([2])! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's another matter of style really. We "always" say "United States' military might" for a plural possessive and I would say "Ives' whatever" rather than "Ives's whatever" for the possessive of someone ending with an "s". Checking various web pages it seems that either is correct for a posessive. Looking at grammar.ccc.commnet they prefer apostrophe-s but suggest that something like "Mrs Chambers's estate" is clunky and I would say that the same applies to Ives. If you prefer the apostrophe-s, just say so!
- I'm not sure I follow. Can you please explain? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
later noting his enthusiastic handshake with Irataba: I had to read this twice since first time I thought "his" referred back to Ives. Perhaps we can add one word to make this easier to read through: "later noting his own enthusiastic handshake with Irataba, lamenting that their only form of communication was sign language."- It was Irataba that shook Möllhausen's hand enthusiastically. Is this better: ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is much better, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was Irataba that shook Möllhausen's hand enthusiastically. Is this better: ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
External linksPerhaps add{{commons category}}
?
--Mirokado (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's all from me. Thanks for your always prompt responses. From this, I learnt how to access JSTOR (earler comments) and saw an encouraging example of a really good peer review. --Mirokado (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, Mirokado! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, cheers Mirokado.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, Mirokado! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Irataba.jpg: where are you getting that authorship possibility from?
- In 1864 Irataba went on a tour of the eastern cities and was frequently surrounded by military officers of the American Civil War. He'd have had formal photographs taken by the army I think. Of course we can't be certain but it is very likely. Either way the photo is clearly public domain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've tried to trace the origin of the photo; everywhere I've been agrees that it's from 1864 but all of them indicate the photographer is unknown. We hope (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- In 1864 Irataba went on a tour of the eastern cities and was frequently surrounded by military officers of the American Civil War. He'd have had formal photographs taken by the army I think. Of course we can't be certain but it is very likely. Either way the photo is clearly public domain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Mohave_Indians_by_Mollhansen.jpg: what are the authors' dates of death?
- File noted with death information, author of book and publication date at Commons. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- We hope, I'm not seeing your changes on the file page? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry-I was working on the wrong file. File:Mohave Indians by Mollhansen.jpg is the same as File:Mojave Indians.jpg, exception being that some scans of the book were done in color and some weren't. Also note that the black and white image has been rotated. We hope (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- File noted with death information, author of book and publication date at Commons. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Amiel_Weeks_Whipple.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - this has to have come from somewhere
- Found the source and noted it on the Commons file. NARA does not provide a year for the photo. He died in 1863. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. As the life+70 tag indicates, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Changed this to PD-US. We hope (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Found the source and noted it on the Commons file. NARA does not provide a year for the photo. He died in 1863. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, it would help if the date parameters reflected creation or publication rather than upload dates
- File:Homesteader_NE_1866.png needs a US PD tag
- Changed to PD-US. We hope (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Fort_Mohave_sketch.gif: source credits this to the state archives rather than the army - where is that attribution from?
- The file traces to the AZ State Archives (author's credit), however, it's not online there, so we can't see who the artist was or when the sketch was done. We hope (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- File:Washington,_D.C.,_April_1865_34773v.jpg: source is a search page, can we link directly to the image description?
- Added this to the Commons template information--it's from LOC. We hope (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Montanabw
- Oppose in present form but Reviewing: I am here as one member of WP:Indigenous People of North America (I am white, if that's an issue for anyone) and also a member of WP:Old West. On one hand, I am glad to see an article about a Native American leader be brought to FAC, but I see a lot here that needs work. Some initial comments follow below. I see substantial room for improvement. It will take me a couple days to go over it in detail and be more specific. With changes, it is possible this article could gain my support. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
hatting my entire review due to block of lead editor. Will re-review when Dr. Blofeld and Maunus feel they have it ready for prime time
|
---|
ChiefSince you've repeatedly suggested that use of the word "chief" is offensive. In March 2015, Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch commented: "we have had great leaders, like Chief Irataba." That was three weeks ago on the reservation that Irataba helped establish. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) FWIW, I have no issue with swapping out every occurrence of "chief" for yaltanack, huchach, Aha macave yaltanack, Aha macave huchach, and Aha macave pipataho, as the case may be, but I assumed that overuse of Mohave words would confuse readers of the English language Wiki. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
examples:
ContinuingEasier to start a new section: Montanabw(talk) 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Look at your own article: My suggestion is to rephrase German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba, whose rendering was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report. According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]" to read, "German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba. Möllhausen's drawing was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report, making Irataba "among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]" Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm kind of fried, more later, maybe tomorrow. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Continuing 2Because the article has been changed a bit since I wrote my above comments, and there has been some discussion of general concepts where it seems there is room for differences of opinion that do not necessarily impact the FAC criteria, I have hatted most of the above sections I created in this FAC discussion to assist editors in seeing my current critiques of the article. The hatting does not imply yea or nay if my concerns above were addressed, only that the discussion got so complex that no one can keep it all straight! I will address the current version as of my signature stamp, understanding that the article may change even as I assess it. Montanabw(talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
|
- @Dr. Blofeld: and @Maunus:: Though I believe some of my above comments may help you two if you want to continue to look at them, I am hatting my entire review and will not comment in the above section. Other than the concerns about single sentences or paragraphs being sourced to a 10-page section of a book, which I think do need to be addressed (luckily, it looks like almost all sources are online, somewhere, often Hathi trust or Google books) I will wait to comment further until the two of you have had a go at the issues you yourselves see and feel the article is again ready for prime time. Ping me when you think there is enough polish for me to trot back over and take a fresh look. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Maunus
- April 2nd: Seeing that the main contributor has been blocked, I am willing to take over the responsibility of seeing this article through the review if that is deemed appropriate by the nominator Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- That would be terrific. I'll suspend my review for now, as I many of your concerns below mirror my own. I'll give you some time to take a whack at the article and hat my above review until you ping me that you think it's ready for a new look. @Dr. Blofeld: Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Gosh even 18 hrs away from the project a lot of drama can happen.. Sure Maunus, I'd be very grateful for assistance with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have a couple of very busy RL days ahead of me and will probably not get to this untill after tuesday. I hope you can wait that long. Also I have decided to get a hold for Frank Waters book which was previously used as a source to see how much some of the sections lean on its way of presenting Irataba. Particularly the "waning influence" section seems to be contradictory to the Kroeber sources, and draw on a more literary narrative representation. I will see if this is due to influence from Waters remaining in the text. I suspect there will still be some revision of textual contents to be done to reconcile the discrepancies between the different sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
My concerns are the following:
- I see an overreliance on direct quotes and the phrase "according to X". There is no reason to use direct quotes for simple statements such as ""continued to hold to the policies advocated by Yara tav", which could just as easily be paraphrased as "who followed Yara tav's lead in pursuing friendly relations with the whites" (which I think is clearly what is meant). Direct quotes should only be used when the quoted text expresses something better, clearer or with more significance than a paraphrase. Some of the quotations come across as sloppy writing, or perhaps as fear of paraphrasing too closely. Most of them should however be turned into paraphrases.
- Yes I agree, but the earlier reviewers of this I believe were responsible for making RO attribute everything. I removed a lot of the earlier instances but it still might be addressed further. I'll give it a read shortly and try to address this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's correct, Dr. B. Some of the first "feedback" I got on this article was, "when you're quoting, consider adding in-text attribution", so that's what I did, because as far as I knew that was good advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've reworded and paraphrased a fair few now, hope this is an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that you received good advice, quotes should generally have intext attribution. Better though is not to quote, unless there is some reason a quote is more meaningful than a paraphrase.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are currently zero uses of "according to" in the article, so I think it's now fixed. If there are any more quotes that should be paraphrased I would appreciate specific examples so I can address this. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see that you have mostly rephrased the attribution but kept the quotes. Here is one that illustrates my point. In Kroeber's opinion, "the event sealed the fate of the Mohave as an independent people." Nice phrase, but what does it mean? The quote is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is Kroeber's opinion. What is important is the significance of the event. By using the quote you give the appearance of describing the appearance of the veent but really it is empty of information. Much better here would be to unpack the meaning of Kroeber's statement for the reader by paraphrasing it: "The attack forced the US authorities to turn their attention towards the Mohave, starting the process that would eventually lead Irataba and the Mohave onto reservations."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- How's this ([27])? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I mean. Thanks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind fixing these. Which other ones would you paraphrase? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I mean. Thanks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- How's this ([27])? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see that you have mostly rephrased the attribution but kept the quotes. Here is one that illustrates my point. In Kroeber's opinion, "the event sealed the fate of the Mohave as an independent people." Nice phrase, but what does it mean? The quote is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is Kroeber's opinion. What is important is the significance of the event. By using the quote you give the appearance of describing the appearance of the veent but really it is empty of information. Much better here would be to unpack the meaning of Kroeber's statement for the reader by paraphrasing it: "The attack forced the US authorities to turn their attention towards the Mohave, starting the process that would eventually lead Irataba and the Mohave onto reservations."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are currently zero uses of "according to" in the article, so I think it's now fixed. If there are any more quotes that should be paraphrased I would appreciate specific examples so I can address this. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that you received good advice, quotes should generally have intext attribution. Better though is not to quote, unless there is some reason a quote is more meaningful than a paraphrase.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've reworded and paraphrased a fair few now, hope this is an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's correct, Dr. B. Some of the first "feedback" I got on this article was, "when you're quoting, consider adding in-text attribution", so that's what I did, because as far as I knew that was good advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, but the earlier reviewers of this I believe were responsible for making RO attribute everything. I removed a lot of the earlier instances but it still might be addressed further. I'll give it a read shortly and try to address this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a lack of engagement with the wider historical and sociopolitical contexts of the events. They are often simply described as this happened Irataba did this, etc. but little context is provided for the importance and historical significance of those events for Mohave people. For example in the section on the creation of the reservation it seems almost to be assumed as something that is taken for granted that the Mohave would eventually enter a reservation, and that the main question was where. Rather I think the section would focus on the fact that this was a struggle for political independence as a people, and that it was a clash between indigenous policies and Anglo policies of "Indian management" that caused the split of the Mohave, that led to Iratabas trip to Washington and which caused them to end up on a reservation by a dried up river. I am going to read some more of the sources later this week and will contribute some writing that I hope will create a little more of this kind of context.
- Montanabw believes there is already too much background info and context. You're saying the opposite. I had thought there was a fair balance as it is. If you can see anything important missing though you're welcome to add it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mean background information. And I don't mean adding more. I mean doing a better job at describing the context in which all of the events recounted are taking place, which will go towards showing why they are important. It is not so much about adding content, as it is about improving the way that the history is narrated throughout so that it doesn't look just like a series of random events that happened to Irataba, but shows that the events in Irataba's life was an event in the larger history of the dispossession of Native Americans.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here is an example of the problem I mean: The Colorado River Indian reservation section begins: "After the completion of Fort Mohave, Irataba and several hundred of his most ardent supporters moved to the Colorado River Valley in hopes of establishing a farming community there." This makes it sound as if this was merely an idea that occurred to Irataba and that the US authorities put the reservation was put at their disposal just out of the kindness of their hearts, allowing them to establish a farming community. This is of course not what happened, or how the sources used describe the even: rather the US wanted all indians on reservations and were continuously pushing (with part sweettalk and part military might) for them to accept these kinds of arrangements. Poston convinced Irataba that it would be best for his people and Irataba decided it was and convinced his followers to go. So the section currently fails to articulate the relation to the Rose-Baley attack, the significance of the Fort Mohave (to control the Mohave with military might) and the role of negotiations between Poston and Irataba in establishing the reservation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, I agree there is a "lack of engagement with the wider historical and sociopolitical contexts of the events." My objection was the stuff about how the Mojave hunted, fished, trapped and grew corn, beans and squash (like just about every other Native group of people in the Americas!).
- Here is an example of the problem I mean: The Colorado River Indian reservation section begins: "After the completion of Fort Mohave, Irataba and several hundred of his most ardent supporters moved to the Colorado River Valley in hopes of establishing a farming community there." This makes it sound as if this was merely an idea that occurred to Irataba and that the US authorities put the reservation was put at their disposal just out of the kindness of their hearts, allowing them to establish a farming community. This is of course not what happened, or how the sources used describe the even: rather the US wanted all indians on reservations and were continuously pushing (with part sweettalk and part military might) for them to accept these kinds of arrangements. Poston convinced Irataba that it would be best for his people and Irataba decided it was and convinced his followers to go. So the section currently fails to articulate the relation to the Rose-Baley attack, the significance of the Fort Mohave (to control the Mohave with military might) and the role of negotiations between Poston and Irataba in establishing the reservation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mean background information. And I don't mean adding more. I mean doing a better job at describing the context in which all of the events recounted are taking place, which will go towards showing why they are important. It is not so much about adding content, as it is about improving the way that the history is narrated throughout so that it doesn't look just like a series of random events that happened to Irataba, but shows that the events in Irataba's life was an event in the larger history of the dispossession of Native Americans.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw believes there is already too much background info and context. You're saying the opposite. I had thought there was a fair balance as it is. If you can see anything important missing though you're welcome to add it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with Montanabw that there is a need to change most of the occurrences of the word chief. The word is clearly appropriate here and is not used in a vague, misleading or generic sense - rather "head chief" and "head chieftain" are translations of specific Mohave terms, "Aha macave yaltanack" "Aha macave pipatahon" respectively. It could be possible to use the actual Mohave terms instead, but this would not be good English prose so I think it is best to keep the translations. Probably at the first mention it should be mentioned explicitly that the words translate specific mohave terms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Head man" is also acceptable and used and I changed a few for variation, but to censor the word "chief" I think is most peculiar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure head man is acceptable, that depends on what it means in terms of Mohave politics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed all occurrences of the term "head man" ([28]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Head man is used in plenty of sources too I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Both chief and head man are absolutely acceptable, but if the goal of this is to resolve the concerns of the reviewers I think it's best we fix this nit-picky stuff without debate. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but at least two reviewers disagree with the removal of the word "chief".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see that it has been replaced i several occasions with the Mohave term. I think that is a clear improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but at least two reviewers disagree with the removal of the word "chief".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Both chief and head man are absolutely acceptable, but if the goal of this is to resolve the concerns of the reviewers I think it's best we fix this nit-picky stuff without debate. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Head man is used in plenty of sources too I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed all occurrences of the term "head man" ([28]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure head man is acceptable, that depends on what it means in terms of Mohave politics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Head man" is also acceptable and used and I changed a few for variation, but to censor the word "chief" I think is most peculiar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Changes made
I think the article is now ready for a second look by involved reviewers (@Montanabw:, @SlimVirgin:). I myself would feel prepared to support it now, but having taken the responsibility of RO as co-nominator I will refrain from doing so. A short summary of my changes to the article: I've made the following changes:
- I have reordered the sections to be more chronological, instead of mostly thematically arranged. For example the reservation was founded only after Yara tav's return from the East coast, but the previous organization placed them after eachother.
- This reordering made clear that the section about "waning influence" was of dubious veracity. His "waning influence" supposedly happened exactly in the period after his return which was the exact period in which his influence led to the creation of the reservation and the movement of his 800 followers to the new reservation. So his influence clearly only waned among those Mohave who chose to stay with Homoseh quahote at Fort Mohave. Hence I renamed the section. There is still some chronological overlap between sections, necessary to keep themes together, but it is not as misleading as it was previously.
- This in turn led me to realize that some sources seem to be confused and contain misunderstandings or be based on exaggerated, sensationalist claims, and on skewed chronologies. Scrivner for example is not an academic source but he seems to be a missionary who writes semi-fictionalized accounts of indigenous personalities from the Old West (like Frank Waters). These seem to be the source of the "waning influence" meme, which seems unjustified in light of the fact that Irataba was chief among the Colorado River Mohave untill his death and clearly had the responsibility of leadership untill then. Ricky 1999 is also not a highly reliable source (it is not a scholarly publication it seems), and its sources are unclear. Also in the waning influence sections a couple of sources were news reports from the 1860s-1870s. In this period news was a different genre than it is today and it was often meant more to be entertaining than to be accurate, and this was particularly the case when reporting about Indians. When you read those accounts you can see that they are meant to be humorous depictions of "savages" and their ideas and customs. They cannot be assumed to be reliable accounts of events in Irataba's life, but rather examples of how whites in the period related to Yara tav and Indians in general. In one case, regarding Irataba's defeat to the Paiutes and the loss of his uniform, Chooksa homar tells a very different story of the events, which I have included. Regarding the news report of the Mohave burning down their entire village in mourning their dead chief, I also consider that to be a likely exaggeration meant to depict Indians as absurd savages. Instead of summarizing its account as fact I have simply noted that news of Irataba's death funeral and was reported as far away as Nebraska.
- I renamed the section titled the "Rose-Baley party skirmish and aftermath" to "Mohave War and subjugation of the Mohave" which seems to more accurately reflect the most significant part of the content. The attack on the party was important in contemporary media, but for the Mohave and for history the importance of that event was the military campaign it motivated. I also renamed the "becoming Aha Macave Yaltanack" to "As Aha macave yaltanack", since it is not exactly clear when and how he became that. And I renamed "waning influence and death" as "later years", since there is no realy evidence for waning influence among the CRIT Mohave at any point.
- I used the accounts by Kroeber 1965 and Chooksa homar to add information about Yara tav's role as a mediator and peacemaker in the conflictive relations between Mohave, Paiute/Chemehuevi, Yavapai and Walapai in the area.
- I added information about the legal status of the reservation which in contrast to most other reservations was not established by a treaty but by executive order, following Poston's negotiations directly with Yara tav - their agreements were never ratified by the US congress, which has repercussions for them legal status of the CRIT tribes today.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by SlimVirgin
Extended content
|
---|
Dr. Blofeld, I had intended not to comment on this FAC, but as RO is attributing the abundance of "according to" to me, I'd like to respond. I briefly commented on article talk on 15 February during the first FAC nomination. I did this only because RO had asked me to review the article for GA and I hadn't had time. Discussion at "Feedback," Talk:Irataba/Archive 1. At that point the article closely mirrored just one source, and in my view not an appropriate one, a chapter about Irataba in Frank Waters, Brave Are My People, Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 1993, pp. 125–134. I only suspected this at the time based on snippet view, though I later confirmed it. I wasn't sure what to say that wouldn't have been very discouraging. Four things I suggested were: use academic sources instead, add a historiography section, "maintain more distance from the source material" and "when you're quoting, consider adding in-text attribution." Of course I didn't mean fill the article full of quotes and "according to". RO was not happy with my comments, and responded by removing Waters as a source, but without much rewriting, slotting other sources in instead. In light of the response, I withdrew rather than offer a full review. It's worth adding that I was surprised to see the peer review close in the middle of Victoriaearle's and Maunus's helpful comments. It was leading to clear improvements, and allowing it to continue would have led to more. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi Maunus, I'm responding here to your ping. I did write out a comment, but the article and sourcing are changing a lot, so can you ping me when you've completed your reading of the sources (including Waters)? I can then update and post the comment. Thanks for all the work you're putting into this. I like your addition of the historiography paragraph. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from Krimuk
- Support: This is beyond my area of expertise, but I gave it a thorough read, and I must admit how well-written and informative it is. I believe it satisfies all the requirements of a featured article. Good job! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Krimuk. Much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Krimuk! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It seems that RationalObserver has been blocked, so he/she will not be available to respond to comments. Am I correct in thinking that Dr. Blofeld will handle the rest of the FAC?-RHM22 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Oops, never mind. I see now that Maunus is helping with the FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I contributed to the peer review, since when the article has received more than 500 edits, so I don't know how much of the text that I saw survives. Also, I see from this page that the main contributing editor has been rusticated, a new captain has undertaken to pilot the article through this FAC, and there is discord among certain reviewers about who said what to whom, etc. I think I'll wait for a bit more stability before plunging in, but meantime I have looked at the sources:
Sources review
- Spotchecks not done
- Inconsistent page range formats: compare, for example, refs 4 and 16 with 8 and 27. Decide on one format and stick to it.
- Not sure what you mean here as some pages are in three figures. Can you fix this one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- What I mean is that "725–27" is a different page range format from "431-4", and that there are other examples of inconsistency. I'm afraid I don't have time to go all the way through fixing these. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here as some pages are in three figures. Can you fix this one?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- ref 50: italicize New York Times. Also, be consistent about whether to include "The" in the paper's name – it appears as The New York Times in the sources.
- ref 58: To what does "Carleton and Ehrenberg" refer?
- ref 77: italicize Daily Alta California
- ref 85: italicize Omaha Daily Bee
- ref 91: same point with regard to The Yuma Daily Sun
- Sources:
- "Ireteba Peaks Wilderness" (Bureau of Land Management) – link goes to an unrelated page. Also, confirm "Ireteba" spelling
- Done and confirmed, although there is a typo on the title.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The San Bernadino County Sun (Cook article) requires a subscription
Ives book: you say the page is unnumbered; since the page previous to the source is number 64 and the one after it is 66, the source is clearly page 65
- Not sure what you mean here, don't we use other pages from that book?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that the word "unnumbered" referred to the source's pagination, but I see it is the report itself which is unnumbered. Misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here, don't we use other pages from that book?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kulp article requires a subscription
- Omaha Daily Bee: You should link here, which is just about readable, unlike your present link.
- Parker Troth article requires a subscription
Otherwise, the sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, yes it's had a lot of editing. I don't think the bulk of the content has changed much though. I've addressed all I think except two points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I think all have been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from Jaguar
- Support After reading through this article again I see that it has drastically improved since its GAR thanks to the efforts of numerous people. I'll support this transition from GA to FA and look forward to seeing this on the main page. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Jaguar for your kind words and support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from Simon Burchell
- Support I took part in the recent peer review, and see that the article is much improved since then. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Simon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Ipigott
- The article has now reached a very high standard and I am very close to giving it my support. There is however one detail which perhaps deserves a bit more attention. In earlier versions of the article, Irataba's first contact with European Americans is given as 1849 with a ref to Woodward 1953, page 54: "In 1849, Irataba, Chief Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered a large group of European Americans, including Captain Amiel Whipple and Lieutenant J.C. Ives, who were leading an exploratory expedition up the Colorado River." Ricky 1999, page 100, also refers to this encounter. As both sources continue to be used for the history presented in the latest version of the article, I find it strange that no further reference is made to this event. I think it's worth checking out and at least mentioning that some sources quote this date as a possible first encounter with white men.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes good point, I did ask Rational observer why that was changed. Perhaps Maunus could deal with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- She claimed the source was wrong and the first encounter was 1851. But given that there are now two sources referencing 1849, and given that RO wasn't always as meticulous about things as would be ideal (the lead originally said 1854 until I spotted that error), I think it may be worth a bit of digging. Montanabw(talk) 20:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Irataba was older than I thought!
- Heh, my dang typos! Fixed that to the right century! Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since there is some disagreement across the sources, maybe this would be an appropriate time to use an "according to..." instead of choosing one over the other. That way, there's an out in case that information does turn out to be wrong.-RHM22 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's worth assessing the sources; sometimes there really are errors. Or both, but it's best to use a "there are two accounts" structure instead of the endless expert Foo says stuff, which is weak writing unless used quite sparingly. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Irataba was older than I thought!
- She claimed the source was wrong and the first encounter was 1851. But given that there are now two sources referencing 1849, and given that RO wasn't always as meticulous about things as would be ideal (the lead originally said 1854 until I spotted that error), I think it may be worth a bit of digging. Montanabw(talk) 20:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Woodward got the date wrong, and Ricky probably just followed Woodward. Whipple recorded the exact date as February 23, 1854; there is no question that the Whipple expedition was in 1853 to 1854, not 1849. Ipigott Based on this what would you like me to do? Please tell me exactly what you'd like me to change! A footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be appropriate to mention that at least two sources refer to a first encounter in 1849 but this now appears to be a result of confusion over the date of the Ives expedition along the Colorado River. Maybe the information could simply be included in a footnote. The problem for me is that you cannot really get away with using a given source in support of some historical facts while ignoring others without explanation. It took me only five minutes to turn up the discrepancy when I first looked at the article and I soon found other sources mentioning 1849, e.g. this. Others interested in the history are bound to uncover the date of 1849 too. I actually first came across it here. So to summarize, a short explanatory note as you suggest. Thanks to all for looking into this.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I added a footnote after 1854 here. Is that OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support: I can now give my full support to an interesting, well researched article.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from SchroCat
- Support. I've been watching the development on this for a while, and it's been through some very beneficial changes from the first visit to FAC. I've made some minor changes to the page formatting to make them consistent throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated Schro, thanks for the edits too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from Ssven2
- Support. Nice work, Doc and RO. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This will need another copyedit once Maunus is finished with his changes I believe. I can spot a fair few glitches. Help from any of the reviewers will be most appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- All copyedits, language improvement and factual corrections are certainly appreciated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The first source, "Irataba". Arizona Weekly Miner XI, is not being referenced at all. It shows an an error to one of my scripts. BollyJeff | talk 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I must object to the use of "subjugation" in one of the section headers. There's little to suggest that subjugation against the Mojave didn't occur, but that paragraph doesn't contain anything that could really be labeled as such, in my opinion. How about something like "Mohave War and aftermath" or "Mohave War and hostage negotiations"?-RHM22 (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reworded as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would be OK with "aftermath" as neutral, just FYI. I could also see keeping "subjugation" if more content was added. But maybe neutral is best. Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Subjugation is exactly what happened: Hoffman defeated the Mohave in battle with a large military force including Howitzers and he then demanded that they agree to his terms or they would be destroyed. That is subjugation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I disagree; maybe it depends upon the variant of English being used, but to me, "subjugation" implies systematic oppression and subservience. When used in the context of "subjugation of the Mohave", it strongly suggests widespread subjugation of the entire race. Besides that, it's extremely loaded and not really appropriate in that context (in this article), in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was the beginning of systematic oppression and domination supported by military force, the sources are clear that this is why the bad decision to attack the settlers caused the end of the Mohave as an independent people. Fudging this does not make the article more accurate or neutral imo. I am ok with removing it from the title, but the section has to be clear that this is the result and the wider significance of the events in 1858-59. I am no fan of dicdef arguments in general, but here the Merriam-Webster at least shows that there is nothing weird in using this word for this kind of situation[38].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I disagree; maybe it depends upon the variant of English being used, but to me, "subjugation" implies systematic oppression and subservience. When used in the context of "subjugation of the Mohave", it strongly suggests widespread subjugation of the entire race. Besides that, it's extremely loaded and not really appropriate in that context (in this article), in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Subjugation is exactly what happened: Hoffman defeated the Mohave in battle with a large military force including Howitzers and he then demanded that they agree to his terms or they would be destroyed. That is subjugation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, just so the FAC delegates know, I will re-review when Maunus or Blofeld ping me that they think they've knocked off all the rough spots; the material Maunus had to fix was extensive and I will have to start from scratch. Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Maunus has completed his work on it and checked the sources I believe and considers it to be an excellent article and he's a scholar himself. I think we're ready now for a re-review if you're up for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ping me Friday if I haven't started... RL calls tomorrow... Montanabw(talk) 08:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
Very happy to support. Meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. Tim riley talk 10:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Tim, and for your earlier helpful comments at the PR. In fact if it hadn't have been for your initial comments at the PR I'd likely not have done so myself and begun working on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)