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)

• "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)

• 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 explorers
  • was 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)

  • 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)

• External links
  • Perhaps add {{commons category}}?

    Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

--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)

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)

• 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: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)

• 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

On a cursory glance, I am a little concerned with the tone and approach of this article, there is a too-frequent "me Tonto you Kemosabi" attitude in some places which paints Irataba as a "primitive" person. Some of this tone is due to an overreliance on direct quotations, I think. Examples? Perhaps some of the early life background you're referring to? I agree to an extent if that's what you mean.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I agree that this is too vague to be acted upon, but anything in quote marks shows the attitude of the speaker at the time of the quote, and we shouldn't white wash or censor attitudes. Having said that, if you provide some specific examples we would be able to address the concern. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Sit tight, I am going through paragraph by paragraph, it's going to take a bit... Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The phrase "according to" appears 19 times in this article, followed by some expert's name, then usually (though not always) a long quotation. This is really poor writing style; the material is footnoted, the filler about "According to Expert foo" is not needed, one can read the citation if it's important. I'd like to see way fewer of these. Yes I agree, in fact I removed half a dozen of them when I earlier edited this. At an earlier stage a few of the reviewers asked RO to attribute everything I believe. I don't agree with it either. "According to" should really only be used where the information given is disputable or potentially inaccurate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I just went through the article, and "according to" is only used now to introduce direct quotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Still in there 15 times at last check, you are overusing direct quotes. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I've removed some further ones and paraphrased a number of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Which quotes are unnecessary? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) See below, but in my opinion, almost all of them other than some of the primary source letters or reports. Certainly anything that says "Expert foo" - at least if "Expert foo" is the author. Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I am concerned about some potentially outdated source material; material from the 1950s and 1960s is apt to have been superceded by better research since, even if it was pretty well done in its time. More recent sources are in the article, but are underutilized. Such as? I looked extensively through google books and couldn't find anything in further detail on him, certainly not recent material, although I live in the UK and can't access some online resources. If you're going to claim this I want full evidence of the sources which are accessible and are "underutilized".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) apt to have been superceded by better research since As far as I can tell, the most recent piece written specifically about Irataba was Woodward's 1953 bio. Sherer (1966) and Scrivner (1970) offer some specific insights about him, but were written about the Mohave in general. If there is a more recent piece of research about Irataba neither me nor Dr. Blofeld, and we've had help from We hope and others in this regard, have been able to find it. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Montanabw Can you mention some sources you want used here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I'll be looking more at tone, will post specifics as I get to them. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Though I understand it is the main biography on Irataba and written by a respected historian, there is some overreliance on Woodward 1953. Disagreed. There's a wide range of sources used and it's normal for the most reputable biography of somebody to be used more than other sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I also disagree, as Woodward wrote one of only two biographers of Irataba. I count 15 cites out of 85 to him, which is less than 18%. On the other hand, at Donner Party, 39% of all cites are to the Rarick source. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Phrasing such as "head chief" is potentially archaic wording; unless the Mohave people today are specifically OK with "chief," is is generally unwise to use it unless absolutely necessary (such as when quoting someone or to show the views of white people at the time). Overuse may be viewed as inappropriate and even rather condescending. In your opinion perhaps. We go by what the sources use. I think it is important to go with what he was commonly referred to at the time and what the sources mainly call him and leave modern political correctness out of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) "In your opinion" is not an effective rebuttal. Just some basics: [4], [5] (I can find quite a few more examples, but that's a sampler) . In essence, unless you have a source from the MOHAVE PEOPLE that says "chief" is acceptable today, try to avoid using it save where you have a direct quote or an absolute necessity to do so. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) In March 2015, Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch commented: "we have had great leaders, like Chief Irataba." That was the Mohave Tribal Chairman speaking three weeks ago on the reservation that Irataba helped establish 150 years ago. Rationalobserver (talk) The terms chief, head chief, and great chieftain have specific meanings, but they are all leaders. If we remove "chief" for leader, these distinctions will be lost. Also, this Google NGRAM ([6]) shows that "Indian chief" is significantly more common than "Indian leader". Rationalobserver (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) That is due to 400 years of racism, not because it's good history. ngrams are useless here. And no, these words don't have "specific meanings" unless you can provide to me a NATIVE MOHAVE source that says so — these terms are the white man's invention, just like the word "Indian." Compare something equally archaic like this Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) According to Sherer, writing in "Great Chieftains of the Mojave Indians". Southern California Quarterly 48 (1): 1–35.(March 1966), "The words 'chief' 'head chief' and 'great chieftain' in the Mojave language are borrowed from Anglo-Americans. When Mojave Indians use these words, they carry to them meanings from two native words, yaltanack, leader, and huchach, head of a group. These correspond reasonably well with 'chief'." So yes, I realize these are English words, but my point is that "chief", "head chief", and "great chieftain" have slightly different meanings that would be lost if we replaced them all with leader. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) So say "leader" and "head of a group." Stuff from 1966 still had gobs of politically incorrect (i.e. unintentionally racist) phrasing. They said "negro" instead of "African American" a lot in those days too. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) In the case of Irataba, more modern sources that presumably have consulted with the modern tribe example use the term "leader"; other sources specific to Irataba use "head man" or related words. The word "chief" appears 43 times in the article, at best a thesaurus could be applied. Yes, head man could be used alternately for variation. I've added nearly half a dozen instead of chief I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) There are currently only 8 instances of "head chief" in the article, and "chief" occurs 25 times in 3,900 words. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC) about 20 times too many. Keep working at it. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I disagree on this point, which is incredibly minor. So I'll assume it's not actionable. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Then I shall continue to oppose this FAC. Montanabw(talk) 03:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) There are currently no instances of "chief" in the article outside quoted material ([I've now removed the last occurrence of "chief" outside quoted material ([7]). ]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "Chief Cairook" is one example, per WP:HONORIFIC, it definitely isn't appropriate in that context. "Cairook" is better. Either are acceptable., in fact even modern sources often refer to him as Chief Cairook [8], [9]. I removed Chief in the first instance of linking though as desired.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) There aren't any instances of Chief Cairook in the article as of this writing, but one wonders why Lieutenant Ives is appropriate but Chief Cairook is not. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Any are too many. See WP:HONORIFIC: "Chief" is "ugga mugga me Tonto you white" man offensive. Chop it. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I'm part Native American, and I can assure you that "chief", in this context, is absolutely not offensive. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Also, Infobox Indian Chief has been renamed, Template:Infobox Native American leader should be used and at least a few more of the parameters filled in. I'm not sure we even need an infobox period, but I'll respect the views of the others on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I agree that this is a particularly minor point, but I've swapped the type as suggested and added several more fields. If you think we should add more parameters please suggest specific ones. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The infobox isn't a huge deal, I'll take a look and if I see a need to add more parameters, I'll propose them. I feel the article is also burdened by unneeded random images, such as the one of the Nebraska homesteaders (not even the right part of the west) or the two random Mohave men in loincloths (where there are already several images of Irataba, one in a loincloth), and I question why the material on the Rose-Batey party is in there, as Irataba appears to have had nothing to do with that incident. Yes I thought that originally too, I agree, I've removed a few of them you mentioned. The Rose Batey party info I believe is very relevant to Mohave history and his background. I cut it earlier to have more focus and to appear more relevant in context.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC) It would be odd to go from the Ives Expedition right to Hoffman and his army of 500 soldiers without explaining why the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) But FTR, there are currently three sentences of Rose–Baley Party background ([10]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Also, why do we need all the background on the Mohave people? Stuff like "The Mohave caught fish in the Colorado and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using bow and arrow or traps..." should be in the Mohave people article; focus just on what is relevant to Irataba; the hereditary leadership stuff, the role of head leader, the warrior culture in which he was raised. I removed a fair bit of background material when improving this. I believe I've retained mostly what is relevant to him and his background. There isn't that much specific biographical material for Irataba. I think there's a fair balance currently, but others at the PR were wanting more background info than we evne have and I said I think there's more than enough as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I've further trimmed the early life for relevance, hope this is a little better for you now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I also think we currently have a nice balance of background and specifics, but as Br. B said, as recent as two days ago people were calling for more background detail. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) More to come later, but at this point, I cannot support this FAC until the above issues are fixed. Happy to answer any questions or clarify my concerns. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, Montanabw. Except for the concern about the tone of some quoted material, I believe all these above concerns are fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) "According to" now down to 15 uses, better but still too much reliance on direct quotations and excessive "expert foo" phrasing. I have taught history at the college level, a freshman term paper handed in looking like this would be about a B- paper, maybe a B at best. A featured Article needs to be "A" quality. Here are some specifics — a few now, more to follow> Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I'm also an educator. How did you do on your GRE? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Above 95th percentile on both the GRE and the LSAT. Your point? Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Just a joke about dropping credentials ala Appeal to Authority. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "Anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer described Mohave leadership traditions as relayed to her by tribal elder, Gwegwi nuor: "The governmental 'set up' ... consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders or chiefs, a head chief or head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. The head man was also the hereditary leader of one group. The Matha lyanthum and the Kavi lyanthum had one chief each, but the more populous Huttoh pah had five."[5]" This could be rephrased as "Mohave leadership consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders with a head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. [5]." The rest is largely irrelevant, we just need to establish how Irataba became a leader and move on. Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Okay, I agree with this one. Done ([11]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) " "The Mohave must dream that he will be a leader and gradually work toward this end."[6] According to anthropologist Alfred L. Kroeber, dreams, or visions, are "the foundation of Mohave life ... there is no people whose activities are more shaped by this psychic state."[7] In Mohave culture: "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens."[8]" Why is this even there? There is nothing else in the article about Irataba himself having dreams or his actions being dictated by dreams; this is content for the article about the Mohave people. Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC) It's important background that should stay, as it relates to becoming a Mohave chief, but FTR, material regarding dreams was specifically requested at PR just two days ago (that last quote was specifically chosen by a Peer Review participant), and Maunus has indicated his approval of the topic's current treatment in the article. I agree with him on this point and pretty much all others. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Can you source Irataba's dreams or why any of it is relevant to the article? PR participants are not FAC reviewers, PR is a much gentler process. I would want to see a connection directly to Irataba to withdraw my objection. Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC) If we were writing about Dickens, we could describe Victorian England using sources that do not specifically mention him. Irataba was a Mohave chief, and the material regarding dreams pertains to all Mohave chiefs; therefore, the material pertains to Irataba. Rationalobserver (talk) You are missing my point; what's the relevance to Irataba? He was a leader, what do you have about how he became a leader? You are using a bit of WP:SYNTH to extrapolate the general background to what is relevant about Irataba's life. Did he mention his visions or dreams, for example? (Sometimes this is significant; for example, Sitting Bull had a vision prior to the Battle of the Little Bighorn of soldiers falling into the camps of the Native people) At least 14 people have reviewed this article, and you are the only one who has raised this concern. If others agree with your Dr. Blofeld and I will reassess. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Irrelevant, we have had articles pass FAC with blatent copyright violations, just because others missed this or didn't realize it was a problem doesn't make it right. Montanabw(talk) 02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) My point is only that many others thought this was okay, so this is kinda like a consensus of one. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "Close paraphrase: "The Mohave caught fish in the Colorado and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using bow and arrow or traps." The source here "They also caught fish; hunted game such as rabbits and beaver with bows and arrows, traps, or deadfalls." And again, why does this even need to be there? Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC) That material lacks sufficient creativity to call foul on paraphrasing, but this should take care of it ([12]). It's there to give the reader a background on what Irataba's life must have been like before he enters Western literature in 1854. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) There's more; and we can @Moonriddengirl: for help on this. But IMHO, you need to be far more careful. And it isn't necessary to Irataba, it's like saying "President Foo came from a white culture that focused on roast beef and mashed potatoes." I see no relevance to a biography. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Error: According to this source, Irataba's first encounter with white people was in 1849, not 1854. Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Actually, the error is in the source you're citing. The first European that Irataba met was Lorenzo Sitgreaves, who traveled through Mohave country in 1851. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) More unnecessary context: "In the spring, when the river flooded the bottomlands, they cultivated corn, watermelons, beans, gourds, tobacco, and pumpkins.[10]" Again, who cares? It might be relevant to say that the Mohave cultivated some crops, but almost all native people who cultivated crops grew corn, beans, squashes and tobacco (watermelons are new -and NOT verified by the source cited on p. 218...). Montanabw(talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I've trimmed, I thought it a basic background understanding of economic practices. And I don't think the average random reader would know that "almost all native people who cultivated crops grew corn, beans, squashes and tobacco". If another editor agrees on its removal I'll remove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Chief Since you've repeatedly suggested that use of the word "chief" is offensive. In March 2015, Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch commented: "we have had great leaders, like Chief Irataba." That was three weeks ago on the reservation that Irataba helped establish. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 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) Don't snark, you know what I am saying here. Also, this is a FAC, I'm not arguing with you, I am saying why I oppose this FAC; it's your job to fix the problems or show me source material that addresses my concerns...see below. Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC) And the current leader is called a "chairman," not a "chief." It's a fine line -- saying "Chief" instead of an English translation of the actual title such as "diplomatic leader" or "war leader" is akin to many Native people who say things like "well, I guess you can call me an 'Indian' but I'd prefer to be called Lakota/Cheyenne/Mohave/whatever'" So "Chief" is best confined to those situations where it is horribly clunky to do it any other way. And good writing for wikipedia suggests that you work to minimize honorifics in general. For example, Elizabeth II doesn't say "Queen Elizabeth" every time you turn around, (it's used 18 times, and almost half of those are "main" references to other articles with "queen" in their title) and everyone there agrees she's the Queen, no one is offended that she's called a queen and so on! "Chief" isn't his name. Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The only occurrence of "Chief Irataba" in this article is in the above quote from Mohave Tribal Chairman Dennis Patch. Can you please point out some specific occurrences of chief that would benefit from the use of an alternative? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Also note [13], [14]. etc. Just because it's done doesn't mean it's ideal. As I said above "Chief" is of variable concern, more offensive in some quarters, less in others; some tribes embrace it, others do not, but in all cases, it's at best an honorific and not his name, so don't overuse it. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC) There are zero instances of us calling him chief in place of Irataba. So I'm not sure what you mean by this. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Just occurred to me that this is akin to using non-gendered language - "man" used to be used for the generic human, now "person" is preferred. Similar thing with "chief;" it's not that you never use it, but you must be very careful of the context. this source uses modern form: "an important leader"; "a hereditary leader" examples: "Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1854, when he and a Mohave chief named Cairook met Captain Amiel Whipple..." Multiple overuse of honorifics. Better to say something along the lines (don't have to say it exactly this way) of "Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1854, when he and a fellow leader, Cairook, met Amiel Whipple, then an Army captain (or whichever military branch he was - his bio says he was an engineer who eventually rose to the rank of major general)..." and so on, in fact Irataba and Whipple's paths cross later and when they do, Whipple is a Lieutenant... Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Is this indicative of things that you think are actionable objections? Fixed ([15])? Rationalobserver (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, but also fix that 1854 date - you yourself note he also encountered whites in 1851, and another source puts it at 1849.. Montanabw(talk) 02:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) It was 1851, not 1849 even though several sources erroneously state 1849. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The point is you have 1854 in the lead, and even your own article contradicted that. Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I think it is an error to think that "chief" is necessarily offensive. It is offensive when used inappropriately in contexts where it is not the right word. Here it is the right word. The phrases "head chief" and "head chieftain" correspond to two specific titles for political offices in Mohave, and is based on the usage of specialists in Mohave culture. For that reason it is not offensive to use the word. Using the word "chief" is offensive when applied to people who do not have political offices or when they are used as generic titles for Native American leaders who would be better described by another English title, this is not what the article currently does. Rather it uses "head chief" as an English translation of a specific Mohave expression. I think the article should be more explicit that "head chief" is the translation of "Aha macave yaltanack" and "head chief" is the translation of "Aha macave pipatahon". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) For the record, I agree with Maunus; in my opinion, Montanabw's comments regarding the tone of the article are off-base. I think her comments regarding the relevance of some of the information are valid, although my personal belief is that the generic data has been toned down to a suitable level.-RHM22 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The tone of the article at the time I assessed it read like it was written in 1950 - or 1850. I will have to reassess now that more work has been done. Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I agree, but Montana has stated that they will oppose until we remove them, so I've now removed the last occurrence of "chief" outside quoted material ([16]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't say "all" - and I was responding to snark with snark. Montanabw(talk) 02:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Again I disagree with this change. I thought it was fine to mix in chief with head man.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I can live with very limited uses of "chief," (I didn't tag ALL instances with hidden text, I must note...) particularly if intersperced with other phrases such as "leader", "head leader," "head man", "Irataba" and occasionally the native language terms. But I am not "off-base" to urge that this be handled with care. I can agree with Maunus' statement "It is offensive when used inappropriately in contexts where it is not the right word." But my point is that it is more often not the right word - I also think that WP:HONORIFIC should be applied firmly "Chief" isn't part of anyone's name. (as "Queen" is the title, not the name Elizabeth II and so on) It was overused in the version I looked at initially. I will reassess when the dust settles. Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I agree with the "not part of name" rationale, surely we dont want "Chief Irataba" to be the general way of referring to him. On another note I just spoke with a Kumiai man this morning about and he referred to his tribal leader as "one of our chiefs". It is about context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Works for me. Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Continuing Easier to start a new section: Montanabw(talk) 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Here's a good example of an "according to" that could be redone in your own words - and why it should be... the paragraph beginning "According to Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics," -- who says this person is an "expert" (no source on Hinton's expertise) - and so to avoid that whole problem, wouldn't it be better to just say, "Irataba was considered an excellent public speaker and may have been the first Mohave to learn English. [14]" Short, simple, concise. Montanabw(talk) 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Leanne Hinton is the foremost expert on the Mohave language and Californian languages in general. I do agree that it is not nbecessary to give inline attribution to the author of every study that is cited.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I added this content Montanabw and she is an expert. I agree in some instance on removing "according to" though. I think the "unusually eloquent" quote is an excellent one here which should be quoted, I'm not sure how we can address it though without mentioning that it was Hinton who said it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "On March 19, 1851, most of the Oatman family, traveling by wagon train in what is now Arizona, were killed...After a year with the Yavapai, the girls were sold to Irataba and the Mohave.. OK, so this happened. What is its significance? Is this how Irataba learned English, from his captives? Did he marry one of them? Was Olive a source for historians later? Was this evidence he was a compassionate or cruel person? Absent context, it's just a random fact. Expand or chop. Montanabw(talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I also added this content. One author goes into great detail about Irataba's involvement with Oatman. Irataba had bought her as a slave. It was controversial given that the family were murdered by the Yavapai. It's relevant and leads on later when we mention that they met up in New York on friendlier terms. Given that little is known about Irataba's life biographically I think it's important to cover this and what we do know. And no, it's not a random fact.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "The Mohave lived in groups of houses along the riverbank, and eschewed centralized villages. During the winter, they lived in half-buried dwellings built with cottonwood logs and arrowweed covered in earth. In the summer they lived in open-air flat-roofed houses known as ramadas, which provided shade.[11]" Again, why do we care... the only thing in this entire paragraph that seems relevant is the "fierce warriors who were frequently the aggressors" bit, and even then, you go on to say that Irataba was in a defense warrior society - so what's the analysis? If the point is that Irataba was a promoter of peaceful relations, then you need to put that in... as it sits, this is just a string of meaningless factoids. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I did remove a fair bit of the background material like this as I wanted it to focus more on his actual biography, at one point there was probably three times as much of this sort of thing. I retained this as I thought it would give the average reader who doesn't know the Mohave how Irataba would have lived. I think its basic stuff which might improve reader understanding and isn't unreasonable in his article here. It is informative about how he'd have lived and relevant IMO. Nonetheless I've trimmed it a little to improve flow. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Here is an example of the "bloodthirsty savage" tone: "Although they did not plunder their enemies' possessions, they took prisoners and scalps." Is this needed? If Irataba himself scalped people but then gave it up for peace, that might be relevant, or if Irataba urged the Mohave to stop scalping, that might be relevant, but given that scalping itself was a practice Native people learned from Europeans, in this context, it's just sensationalistic; you already mentioned the Mohave were aggressive people, why gild the lily? Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which is Stewart, Kenneth M. (1971). "Mohave Warfare". In Heizer, Robert Fleming; Whipple, Mary Anne. The California Indians: A Source Book. University of California Press. pp. 431–44. ISBN 978-0-520-02031-3, and per WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Rationalobserver (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Not my point, the point is that you don't need it, it's sensationalistic and duplicative. Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC) That's basic background. What exactly do you suggest? Should we start the narrative at 1854? Rationalobserver (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Chop that sentence. Or else tie it directly to Irataba if there is something specific about Irataba's position on scalping. I'd prefer you just chop it. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC) You're wrong, but fine; it's removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I think she is right, there is not much reason to include it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Disorganized - the section is "background and appearance": "Irataba was one of the tribe's sub-chiefs, serving with Cairook, a man even taller than himself with a barefoot height of nearly 6 feet 6 inches (198 cm).[17] Edward Carlson, a soldier based at Fort Mohave who knew Irataba well in the 1860s, described him as having a "very powerful frame, but very gentle and kind in demeanor", noting that he was "a staunch friend of the whites".[18]" The bit about "a staunch friend of the whites" probably should go someplace else, here it's a bit out of place -- you are basically trying to cram everything in fn 18 into one place when the material probably belongs in two different parts of the article - appearance here and the fact that he became a "friend of the whites" elsewhere. Here, the point you are trying to make is that he was a big, tall person, so why do you need to directly quote people? Just say "Irataba had a powerful frame and stood about 6 foot 6 inches, but was said to have a "gentle and kind demeanor" [footnote9s)]" Another "according to Foo" that you don't need. (I do like ""the old desert giant" bit, though I think you can just say "Albert S. Evans called him..." instead of the wordy "American author Albert S. Evans, writing in The Overland Monthly..." that's the beauty of wikilinks, we don't have to include all the background in the article body text. Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Irataba's size is described by dozens of authors as one of his most notable characteristics. He stood out at a time when the American average height for a male was probably no more than 5 ft 6. I thought the quote was an apt description of him. I've trimmed/paraphrased one of the quotes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered a large group of European Americans, including Captain Amiel Whipple and Lieutenant J.C. Ives, who were leading an expedition that crossed the Colorado en route to California. " How about just saying something like (doesn't have to be this exact wording) "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered an expedition led by military officers Amiel Whipple and J.C. Ives, as the group crossed the Colorado en route to California..." Also explain why we should care -- i.e. it was a positive experience for all involved, apparently. Does one of your sources explain? Was this was when Irataba first developed in interest in working with whites, perhaps? - explain the historical significance. Montanabw(talk) 02:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I've adopted your language ([17]), but I think it's relevance is self-explanatory. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba, whose rendering was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report. According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]" Another "according to" you can alter... perhaps something like "...Irataba. Möllhausen's drawing was featured in Ives' 1861 congressional report, making Irataba "among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published".[23]<-- the footnote has all the Elsasser stuff, we don't care about Elsasser or that he's an anthropologist, we just care that it's verified. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I think you're wrong about that. Möllhausen hasn't been mentioned by name yet. Are you saying we can jump right to calling him by his last name only? Rationalobserver (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Yes you did, right in the preceeding paragraph..."German artist Balduin Möllhausen accompanied the Whipple expedition, and made drawings of several Mohave, including Irataba..." sorry I didn't repeat the sentences fully. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I think you should re-check, unless you mean the caption in the first picture in article body. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 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) Fixed, but now there is unattributed quoted material. ([18]). Rationalobserver (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) One more "bleech" phrasing: "A report by Ives in 1861 documented that..." just say "Irataba guided Ives' party into the Mohave Canyon.[fn]" The footnote covers that it was an 1861 report, and so on... Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I think the thing to do with the "Rose–Baley Party skirmish and aftermath" section is to make it another subsection of the "Contact with emigrants and explorers" section... hanging out there alone it just doesn't fit well. I think the point is that you were tracing the history of Mohave relations with whites generally and particularly Iataba's, so I think the thing do to is to explain that all of the nice stuff Irataba was doing was ashcanned by that attack... tie the chronology together, don't just present as a set of random facts. Done ([19]). Rationalobserver (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Dr. Blofeld: or RationalObserver: Can one of you fix this awkwardly-phrased run-on sentence? It's problems should be quite obvious. (Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)) "On April 23, Hoffman arranged for a meeting between him and his officers and several Mohave leaders, including Cairook, Irataba, and Homoseh quahote, known by the whites as Seck-a-hoot, who was head chief of the Mohave at the time, with Pascual, leader of the Yumas, translating from English into Spanish, Yuman, and Mohave – and vice versa." This has been fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I'm kind of fried, more later, maybe tomorrow. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I've trimmed that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Rationalobserver: Can you try to avoid making remarks towards Montanabw like "pedantic semantics", it's really not helping the situation. 50 people could look at something and you'll still get others who pick up on different things! I don't agree with many of her points, but I agree with a fair few on relevance and attribution which I'm trying to deal with. She's well within her right to be picky here, that's FAC, even if I'm unconvinced we can get her to support this. I would hope that she would respect the fact that I'm trying to help promote an important figure in US history (and remember that I have helped her promote content in the past) and that we can work together to produce the best possible result here without conflict.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) As of this writing there are no occurrences of the word "according" in the article. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) This is an example of getting the form but not the substance... you aren't fixing the underlying problem, which RMH22 stated well. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) All of these these "inappropriate phrasing" tags have been addressed ([20]). Rationalobserver (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Continuing 2 Because the article has been changed a bit since I wrote my above comments, and there has been some discussion of general concepts where it seems there is room for differences of opinion that do not necessarily impact the FAC criteria, I have hatted most of the above sections I created in this FAC discussion to assist editors in seeing my current critiques of the article. The hatting does not imply yea or nay if my concerns above were addressed, only that the discussion got so complex that no one can keep it all straight! I will address the current version as of my signature stamp, understanding that the article may change even as I assess it. Montanabw(talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Lead "was an important leader of the Native American Mohave Nation" You don't need to say "Native American Mohave Nation"; "Mohave Nation" will do. Wikilinks will help non-American readers who don't recognize "Mohave" as Native people. Rest of paragraph one is good. Montanabw(talk) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Fixed ([21]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Irataba first encountered European Americans in 1851... Thanks for fixing that error. That said, as a white person, I don't object to simply saying "Irataba first encountered white people" or something akin to that. While "Native American" and "African American" are clearly de riguer in academic writing, "white" doesn't seem to offend white people. However, this one is not a FAC make or break - just sounds clunky. Rest of paragraph is fine Montanabw(talk) 01:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I'd prefer to retain the term, but if others also object we will reassess. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Third paragraph needs work, I'd suggest something like this (don't have to phrase precisely this way, just an idea) to tie Irataba to the topic In 1858, the Mohave attacked the first emigrant wagon train to traverse Beale's Wagon Road though Mohave country. Irataba was believed to have distanced himself from the encounter, but as a result, the US War Department responded by building Fort Mohave near the site of the battle in April 1859. They also imprisoned several Mohave leaders, including Cairook, who had ordered the attack. When Cairook was killed during an escape attempt, Irataba was made leader of the Mohave Nation. He negotiated the creation of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and led several hundred of his supporters to the Colorado River Valley, though others preferred to remain in their ancestral lands near Fort Mohave. Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done ([22]); thanks for the specific suggestion. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I'd restructure the fourth paragraph entirely to mention the DC trip, but less about all the gifts, etc... the "eroded his influence" bit is fine but transitions too abruptly to "The Irataba Society," - in-between I'd instead note when he died, comment on the opinions vis-a-vis hero or collaborator (which is a crucial point) and then a tighter recap of the present day stuff. I think if you tighten the prose it can all fit. Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC) How does this look ([23])? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Background and appearance I'd rename "Background and appearance" to just "Background": appearance is implied. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav (meaning "beautiful bird"), also rendered as Irateba, Arateve, and Yiratewa, was born into the Neolge, or Sun Fire clan of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans c. 1814.[1]" All needs to be there, but for readability could use a bit of formatting and a little better punctuation. Italics, some lang templates, etc. @Dr. Blofeld: might be able to clean that up a bit. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I've reworded, some good points here which I agree with Montanabw, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Given that by a group of sharply pointed rocks known as the Needles links to the Needles, California, and the "group of rocks" appears to be these (which are more like a rock formation to me) and the terrain outside of Needles seems to be rugged (I have never been to Needles) perhaps say "near a rock formation that gave its name to present-day Needles". I've reworded and trimmed this, better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Second paragraph fine. I'd consider adding the bit at the end of the third paragraph, "The Mohave were often involved conflict with the Chemehuevi, Paiute, and Maricopa peoples.[9] Irataba was a member of the Mohave warrior society called kwanami (Mohave for brave or fearless), who were dedicated to defending the tribe.[10] to the end of this paragraph, to keep info on Irataba's leadership and roots in one place. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I still think all the culture stuff about what they ate and where they lived is overdone and should be moved to the Mohave people article unless there is something there that impacted Irataba directly (like George HW Bush not liking Broccoli...). Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, thanks to your great suggestion of moving up the conflict material I found a way to cut this and reword it into the first paragraph about where he lived. Should both be resolved now. Mentioning the type of house he'd have lived in is fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) The caption of the image "A rendering of Irataba by German artist Balduin Möllhausen" is more than needed. I'd suggest just "Irataba in 1857" or at most "Irataba, 1857 image by Möllhausen". You mention Möllhausen being German and all that later in the narrative. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Leanne Hinton, an expert in American Indian linguistics, described Irataba as "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker" in his own language, and "probably the first Mojave to learn English".[11] Having wikilinks is a beautiful thing; you don't have to say, "an expert in American Indian linguistics" - especially when her biography suggests more nuance. Just say something like, "Linguist Leanne Hinton described Irataba as "an unusually eloquent and persuasive speaker" and "probably the first Mojave to learn English." Tight and concise. Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Contact with emigrants and explorers I'd start with Irataba's first white contact here. The Irataba had previously assisted Captain Lorenzo Sitgreaves during his 1851 exploration of the Colorado.[20] info appears in the middle of the Whipple paragraph with no explanation - explain it here and that it was his first white contact (if it was...) Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) The Oatman family stuff reads in a clunky fashion, we don't clearly see the whole connection to Irataba; you need to do something to explain what Irataba had to do with any of this - I looked at the Google books version of the Braatz and Mifflin sources and it is unclear what role he played in her life other than apparently being the leader of the band where she lived (?) - it would be useful to be specific: i.e. she came to live in his band, or she lived with his relatives, or just in the village - whatever the case was. This would be a good place to add that she later gave or wrote (?) an account of her captivity (and year published would be useful). That will put it all in better perspective. I also have problems with the sourcing, Braatz (p. 75) states that six members of the Oatman family were killed, a boy survived, and the two girls were captured. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld added all the Oatman stuff, so I'll let him address this and related points, but FWIW, I agree with Montana, and if it were up to me I'd remove all the material related to her. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I'm not convinced no. If another editor has a problem with it then I'll consider it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Also seems more appropriate to note in the later section that Olive said she and Irataba meet "as friends" later in life. --I'm also not thrilled with the long "unmitigated barbarism" stuff you cite later in the article; it seems she was writing with the usual "captive narrative" tone popular in the time, the Mifflin book in particular suggests her feelings may have been more complicated. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Whipple Expedition Sourcing concern I have issues with the entire first paragraph being sourced to a seven-page section of a book, I'd prefer to see individual pages footnoted with each sentence or significant bit of info - i.e. p. 112 mentions the trading, but "eagerly" is an unneeded adjective that I'd remove - seems that everyone was happy, but let's not attribute motive. p. 114 verifies the corn and flour, etc... be specific. Also, p. 114 states that the young Mojave men played a game with a hoop and poles, but says they "amused themselves" - nothing about teaching it to the soldiers. Be careful not to extrapolate what isn't there. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done ([24]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I have a similar concern with the first sentence of the second paragraph being sourced to a 10-page section of the book; whittle it down to the specific page or pages, it didn't take 10 pages to find that. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I'd say "drawings were" not the singular, as it looks like several Mollhausen works are in the report. I think you can work around a direct quote of Elsasser - use your own words, then cite Elsasser. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) This is optional, but I'd put the final paragraph in the Whipple section, about Beale, down with the Rose-Batey party as the intro, keeps that whole bit together. Your other option is a subheading just for Beale, but given that it's one paragraph, that's clunky. Montanabw(talk) 03:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Ives Expedition Lots of stuff to clarify here: When the boat stopped and its crew revealed themselves, Irataba quickly realized that their leader was his old friend, Lieutenant Ives. Ives was leading an expedition to the Grand Canyon in a steamship named the Explorer, and he asked Irataba to guide them into the canyon. Meh, flowery. And not supported by Ives - who says he say Irataba and then Irataba introduced him to Cairook. Also, you will need a different page or different source to verify that Ives was in a boat called Explorer and that it was a paddleboat. (I don't dispute it but Ives 69-70 doesn't verify it). The narrative reads like a children's history. Let's write like an encyclopedia: May I suggest something simpler like: " In February 1858, Ives returned to the area in a paddle steamer named the Explorer {[cn}} (Can be Ives, just different page) He was leading an expedition to the Grand Canyon(dito) and he asked Irataba to guide them into the canyon." I would also note that Ives said Nahvahroopa was age 16. Also, though Cairook traveled for a day or so on the steamer, it was Irataba who was the guide, Cairook stayed behind - but you could note that he gave Ives' group supplies. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Fixed. Page 71 says the Explorer and page 76 says it was a steamer. ([25]). Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC) As the expedition progressed, the rapids grew in strength and intensity, and the rock walls increasingly towered above them. Also kind of flowery and dramatic, how about just chopping that bit and mentioning that the river became rougher until the ship crashed on a rock... you also cite pp. 95-120 for the first two sentences of that paragraph, I'd think you'd do better to narrow that a bit... You also don't need to say Ives explained how, using their skiff, they towed the Explorer to shore, just say, "the crew towed '"Explorer to the shore... I would also caution you a bit about overuse of a primary source; I'm OK with you using it, but do skim WP:PRIMARY. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Fixed ([26]). Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I'll wait a bit to review the above, haven't yet gone through the rest of the article, note I took just under three hours reviewing last night, will get to the rest and then review all once folks have had time to digest. May not be today, but wanted to touch bases and acknowledge some hard work is being done here. Fwiw, Olive Oatman is interesting and that info might be able to stay if contextual material is improved. Her "captive narrative" tone of how horrible things were is pretty 19th-century, though, particularly when the source material (and the WP article about her) indicates that she perhaps in reality was quite integrated into the tribe while she lived with them, one source even hints that she could have married there... anyway, just keep plugging away at it and I'll get to the rest. Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• @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:

1. 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)

1. 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!).

1. 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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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) Some "According to" and quotes are acceptable. We now have the extreme opposite which I'm not happy with. I have no idea why you thought that I suddenly closed the peer review. It had been open a full month and had had probably three times as many people commenting than normal and my concern was that Rational observer was becoming exhausted with some of Victoria's comments. I saw Victoria say "I'm taking this off my watchlist now" so I simply concluded that she'd finished. Maunus mentioned adding more context which I was worried about as I thought there was already more than enough, which has indeed been echoed by montana♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Certainly some instances of "according to" is fine, and my query was more with the abundance of direct quotes where paraphrases would contribute more information and a better prose. I intend to continue the process started at the PR, here, and eventually support the article's promotion when it is ready. I think I have talked about providing context, not adding background information. Context is explaining the significance of related events in relation to larger historical processes, background is telling what went before and motivated the events. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Dr. Blofeld: I haven't been following the edits, so I don't know what the extreme opposite refers to. I don't know how many FAs we have about American native or First Nations people, or how many have been TFA – possibly none. This is therefore an important article, and it would be good to get it right. Does the article currently display depth and breadth of knowledge about Irataba and Mohave culture? I think Victoria, Maunus and Montana can help with that, but it's hard to do it during an FAC. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think any of the three of them are any more an expert on Irataba himself than Rational or I am on this. Biographically I believe it is very comprehensive, yes, I've ransacked a lot of sources on this and think its a good account. However, Maunus might have a point on context in certain places and is knowledgeable generally. I'd ask for his assistance on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I think he meant that now there are zero instances of "according to". I think the article does reflect the breadth of knowledge in the literature. What I think can be improved is the fairness of representation of Irataba and the cohesion of the flow of events and their wider significance.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC) My concern is that overall this article is just not FA quality. The lead editor seems to slavishly adhere to sources but doesn't explain them or provide context. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I think that is not a very constructive attitude. The article is not far from FA quality, and worse articles have been promoted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Of course I didn't mean fill the article full of quotes I think these types of vague criticisms are not helpful. Which specific quotes should be paraphrased or removed? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I don't speak for SlimVirgin, but in my articles, I state facts as such (i.e., "Irataba was born in this year, did that, went there.") without stating the origin of the information. The only thing I add in quotes are opinions ("According to John Smith, "Irataba was the nicest guy I ever met." Jane Doe disagreed, believing that "Irataba was very rude."") or potentially controversial or disputed things ("Anthropologist Jimmy James asserted that Irataba was the tallest Native American ever born.") However, I must say that I disagree as strongly as I possibly could disagree with the assertion that you shouldn't include the profession of the people being quoted, where appropriate. If you don't know that Jimmy James is an anthropologist, then how do you know he has any authority to speak on Native American history or customs? He could be a tabloid reporter for all we know. The reader shouldn't have to go digging through the citations to find the credentials of someone quoted in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Like Well-stated, as to facts don't need the origin. I do think most of the time people's professions and sometimes even their names don't have to be named except in the footnotes though. To say they are an "expert" sometimes means then finding a source to "prove" they are an expert... it never ends. @RHM22:! Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Montanabw I would never say "Native American culture expert...", because that would be POV. I don't think it's cumbersome to include their profession or relevant expertise, and I think names should be given along with every direct quote no matter what. An exception would be if someone is very well known; in the case of somebody like Winston Churchill, we probably don't need to give his position. In other cases, I think it's important to give the reader some sort of context. Attributing quotes is also important because it distinguishes Wikipedia's voice from the voice of another known entity, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Hi RHM22, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but in case anyone thinks I suggested not including professions, or not stating facts, or whatever else the issue is, I didn't. It might be helpful to make clear who has suggested what. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, Sarah (SV); I forgot who said what. I think Montanabw is the one who mentioned above that the credentials of the quoted party shouldn't included. Apologies for the confusion.-RHM22 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) In general it isn't needed, though as RHM pointed out, there are places for it- I "liked" your explanation, it was better than my version but I share your views. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks, RMH22. In the interests of clarity, these are the only comments I've made on this article, up to and including my second comment here. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Sarah, will you please point out a quote or two that should be paraphrased or removed, because this concern is too vague to correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC) RO, EVERYONE has been trying to explain things to you, but whenever we offer specifics, you tend to either get defensive and argue or else you take things to an extreme and use and all-or-nothing approach. I spent about three hours reading this article yesterday, looking at source material, and trying to explain things for you to work on... there comes a point when you have to put on your big girl boots and figure it out for yourself, we can't hand-feed you everything! Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) All I meant was, if you make a comment like this one: Of course I didn't mean fill the article full of quotes at an FAC you are implying that there are too many quotes in the article, but if there were too many quotes one ought to be able to point a few out, to help, which she hasn't done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 1 April 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)