Talk:Rose–Baley Party/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Close paraphrasing concerns

I'm about to tag this article for close paraphrasing/copyvio. The source is online here and in the first 10-11 pages I found the instances below. Pinging Moonriddengirl for advice about how to proceed. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

page ix

Source: "The Mojave Road was an extension of Beale's Wagon Road from the Colorado River to San Bernandino and Los Angeles". (p. ix)

Article: "The Mojave Road stretches from where Beale's Wagon Road meets the Colorado River to San Bernardino and Los Angeles, California."

The source material is not creative enough; i.e.; there aren't any other ways to say this road ran from here to there. Per WP:NONENGPLAG "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information; sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not sure there is a clear way to express this that is substantially different I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

page 2

Source: "L. J. Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany, on May 1, 1827. When he was eight years old, he immigrated to the United States" (p.2)

Article: Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany in 1827; he immigrated to the United States when he was eight years old.

Again, this is basic information that is not creative. Per WP:NONENGPLAG "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information; sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Something like At the age of eight, he immigrated to the United States might work, but I overall agree that this also falls under WP:NONENGPLAG. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

page 3

Source: "After selling most of his property and settling his debts, Rose had a net worth of more than $30,000, a small fortune in those days." (p. 3)

Article: "Rose sold most of his property and settled his debts, amassing what was then a small fortune of $30,000. "

I agree that this is too close, but it's just a listing of facts that lack creativity. Rose sold most of his property and settled his debts is the simplest way to convey those basic facts. I've now paraphrased this. It was a simple fix. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To finance the venture, Rose sold the majority of his assets, and after paying-off his debts was left with $30,000, then a considerable amount of money. is the current version, and I think it is an improvement. Paraphrasing aside, I think getting rid of terms like "small fortune" is good since it comes off as somewhat idiomatic. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: "He was able to put together one of the best equipped wagon outfits ever to travel the western plains. He purchased a herd of 200 of the best cattle on the market, mostly thoroughbred Red Durhams. He knew he could sell these animals in California for a hefty profit. For driving the loose stock, and for scouting and hunting, he purchased twenty of the finest horses that he could find in Iowa and Missouri, including a Morgan stallion, Black Morrill, valued at $2,500 and two matching Morgan fillies at $350 each (p.3 )

Article: "This enabled him to finance one of the best equipped wagon trains of the era, including an animal stock that featured two Morgan fillies, valued at $350 each, and a Morgan stallion named Black Morrill, valued at $2,500. He also purchased twenty of Iowa and Missouri's finest trotting horses and two hundred head of thoroughbred red Durham cattle, which he planned to resell in California for profit.[8] "

Ditto. "small fortune" is a common term, i.e.: "use of common expressions and idioms". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been re-worked. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is currently, These funds enabled him to finance an especially well-equipped wagon train that included an animal stock featuring two Morgan fillies and a Morgan stallion named Black Morrill; their combined value exceeded $3,000. He also purchased twenty trotting horses and two hundred head of thoroughbred red Durham cattle, which he planned to resell in California for profit. To complete the train, Rose acquired four large covered wagons and six oxen to pull them. I'm satisfied this description is sufficiently different than the source text. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

page 4

Source: "Rose purchased four large prairie schooner-type wagons, each with high sideboards and covered by a heavy painted canvas … Three yokes of oxen were required to pull these stout but ponderous vehicles … Three of these prairie schooners were used for carrying equipment and supplies, while the fourth was used by the Alpha Brown family … For transporting his own family, and his inlaws, Rose purchased an old ambulance, pulled by two mules". (p. 4)

Article: "To complete the train, Rose acquired four large prairie schooner covered wagons and three yoke of oxen to pull the massive vehicles. Three of the schooners carried equipment and supplies, and the fourth was used by Alpha Brown and his family. Rose's family traveled in a small wagon known as an ambulance, which was pulled by two mules."

This one is a little close, but again, it's relying very basic and non-creative information. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reworked it some, it's farther from the source now. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Current phrasing is, To complete the train, Rose acquired four large covered wagons and six oxen to pull them. Three were loaded with supplies, and the fourth was used by Alpha Brown and his family. Rose's family traveled in a small wagon known as an ambulance, which was pulled by a yoke of mules. I think this is sufficient rephrasing from the source. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

page 5

Source: "The Rose company left Van Buren County, Iowa, in early April of 1858. They set their course for Westport (present-day Kansas City, Missouri) where they crossed the Missouri River by steamboat" (p. 5)

Article: "The Rose company left Iowa in early April; their first significant destination was Kansas City, Missouri, then named Westport, where they crossed the Missouri River on a steamboat"

Same. There is no way to paraphrase this without losing meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How would you paraphrase this? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: which they reached via steamboat across the Missouri River. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

page 8, 10, 11

Source: "During the spring of 1858 four families from Missouri were also making preparation to emigrate to California. These were the two Baley and the two Hedgpeth famiies" (p. 8) "Another factor that may have encouraged these families to leave Missouri in 1858 was the unsettling times that existed on the Kansas-Missouri border as result of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. This legislation admitted Nebraska into the Union as a free territory, but provided for the people of Kansas Territory to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be organized as a free or as a slave territory. (p. 10) The result was what might have been expected-open warfare between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces … The Territory became known as "Bleeding Kansas" so great was the violence. Soon the conflict began to spill over the border into the western counties of Missouri, including Nodaway" (p. 11)

Article: "In April 1858, four families from northwestern Missouri – two Baleys and two Hedgpeths – left for California. Several factors influenced their decision to leave the Midwest, including the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which granted Nebraska admittance into the Union as a free territory and Kansas the right to determine whether they would be free or slave-holding. The resulting tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups drove conflict near the Missouri border, with Kansas earning the unofficial nickname, "Bleeding Kansas".[11] The ensuing violence spilled over into Missouri's western counties, including Nodaway."

I agree that the last sentence is too close, but you've locked down the page now, so these simple fixes will have to wait. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently this is, Two Baley and two Hedgpeth families from northwestern Missouri also left for California in early 1858. They were political and economic reasons for them to leave the Midwest, including the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which granted Nebraska admittance into the Union as a free territory and Kansas the right to determine whether they would be free or slave-holding. The resulting tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups drove conflict near the Missouri state line, with Kansas earning the unofficial nickname, "Bleeding Kansas". The ensuing violence affected Missouri's western counties, including Nodaway, where the Baleys and Hedgpeths lived.

I would suggest the following to rephrase the description of the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Political and economic factors prompted two Baley and two Hegpeth families to leave from northwestern Missouri for California in early 1858. One major factor was the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which admitted Nebraska into the Union as a free territory and granted Kansas the right to decide on the legality of slavery within the state. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking a look and making suggestions and edits. I've adopted all of your above ideas, except I wasn't sure if you meant for me to remove this part, which I think is crucial to clarity of the first point. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Much of the bold text is non-creative common knowledge and or terminology. Like, "Beale's Wagon Road from the Colorado River to San Bernandino and Los Angeles", "L. J. Rose was born in Rottenburg, Germany, on May 1, 1827", "Morgan stallion, Black Morrill, valued at $2,500", "thoroughbred red Durham cattle", "Rose acquired four large prairie schooner covered wagons", "where they crossed the Missouri River by steamboat", "the Kansas–Nebraska Act", "pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups". A goof 50% of the supposed close paraphrasing is comprised of generic common terms. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright clerk comment

Rationalobserver, you can work on a re-write of the affected section on a temporary page by clicking on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose-Baley_Party/Temp&action=edit&preload=Template:Copyvio/preload

Having said that, while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view. At most {{Close paraphrasing}} should have been added to the section so that the material could be re-worked where necessary. Clerks who aren't admins, e.g. me, can only remove the blanking template after it has been in place for five days. If an admin doesn't deal with this first, I'll revisit the article and the temp page in five days and deal with it myself. Voceditenore (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a close paraphrasing template; that would have been helpful to know about. Do we advertise these things? At any rate, I had no idea that template was quite so draconian or that it would "blank" as you say, but once I hit save I couldn't go back. I don't object to having an uninvolved admin remove. Re the close paraphrasing, I've re-formatted the above, and keep in mind that's only a single section of the article using a single source. Today I went through about half of the next section with the same results - all from the same source - so I don't fully agree with your assessment. I'll post the rest when things calm down a bit. Victoria (tk) 03:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding: to put into perspective, the article is in excess of 4000 words and it appears to use seven sources. But Zappia is only used in a note, Kroeger's FN52 (a) fails verification, Bonsai is used in a very long quote, Woodward used for a single short sentence, and Ricky used for a single sentence. All the rest comes from a single source and so far all the material checked from the single source bears a close relationship to the text. The sourcing in its entirety needs to be taken into consideration. Victoria (tk) 04:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, you are once again mistaken. Kroeber & Kroeber, page 53 states: "One of the chiefs, upon hearing that California was the promised land, seemed to not believe that the whites did mean to move on." Which does indeed support the preceding prose: "The emigrants sensed that the chief who granted them passage was hiding something". I think you are not the best judge of this article, and I am respectfully requesting that you un-watch this page and leave me to improve it with the help of others. The close paraphrases will be ironed out in due time, but there are no pressing issues here that require such intensive supervision, especially not from you considering our recent history. Is that acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I oversimplified for the sake of brevity. Let me explain. First, Kroeber is a reprint, but the g-book version doesn't show (at least to me) a copyright page. He died in 1960 and the bulk of his work about California native tribes was written in the mid-1920s so somehow the book's publication history has to be pinned down. Beyond that, we can't know who said what or who thought what in the mid-1850s so it can't be in Wikipedia's voice. A better practice is to attribute - and this is why the dates are important- something along the lines of in 19xx anthropologist Kroeber wrote blah blah, and put the "blah blah" in quotations. Then you're pinning directly to the source. The same holds true of the Baley source. I could have missed it, but how do we know what Udell said? When I was reading the book, I noted a lot of quotes from him. Did he leave a journal that one of the Baley descendent used? If so, that would be interesting to add and by doing so it builds distance directly from WP's voice - in other words assert that such and such Baley says or writes that Udell said blah blah, or "blah blah". Having to attribute in this manner doesn't always make for the best or smoothest writing style but it's the best way to really understand our referencing requirements on GA and particularly FA articles. To be honest, I don't think your GA reviewer did you a favor, but that's often typical when the Wikicup is in full swing. Anyway I hope this make sense and clarifies my earlier comment. I'll cross post your page too, since you asked there for me to step away. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All I ask is that you give me some space, as you are the absolutely wrong person to try to force mentor me, especially at this time. I'll go through the article top to bottom looking for close paraphrasing and missing attribution before bringing it to peer review, but I'd strongly prefer that you left me alone. Had you used the ctrl+f function for "journal", you would see that the article states: "Udell, a 62-year-old Baptist minister who had left his home in Missouri with his wife, Emily, kept a daily journal of the party's travels, recording the locations of their campsites and their estimated distance from Missouri, the weather and road conditions, and the availability of grass, water, and wood.[26]" I'll study up on Wikipedia attribution expectations and seek guidance from other, such as Moonriddengirl, who has advised me in the past. But please don't continue to confront my work after what you put me through this week. Okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, the template {{Close paraphrasing}} is featured rather prominently at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in the section on addressing concerns. It's very useful for situations like this. I want to stress that deciding when paraphrasing is too close is a judgment call and not a cut and dried science. People will differ in their judgement. Problems can definitely result where an article is largely based on a single source. Special care has to be taken. However, in this case there are virtually no other comprehensive secondary sources about the party apart from that by Charles W. Baley. The Michno source is based on his book, for example. The road West: saga of the 35th Parallel (University of New Mexico Press, 1980) looks like it may have some useful material, although it's only in snippet view on Google Books. Thus, the number of available sources is somewhat restricted. There is also the problem that a historical narrative will inevitably follow a fixed sequence of events, with fixed participants (who have rather fixed key characteristics), leaving little wiggle room.

Having said all that, I think one of the issues here is that the narrative in the WP article is too detailed and often ascribes emotions/thoughts/reactions/motivations to the participants. It is also rather heavy on adjectives. In this sense, it follows the style, if not exact wording or sentence structure, of the Baley source and ends up having a similar "feel". But Baley was writing a chronicle and rather in the style of a "ripping yarn" based on John Udell's diaries and interviews with descendants of the party. An encyclopedia article should be more pared down, dry, and boring (for want of a better word)—especially since Baley's book is online for readers who want a detailed blow-by-blow account.

Another source that could be useful for improving the article and is online in full view is John Udell Journal, kept during a trip across the plains, containing account of the massacre of a portion of his party by the Mojave Indians in 1859. Although arguably this is approaching a primary source, it also has an introduction written in 1945. There is also some material at this database of newspaper articles related to the history of Solano County, California.

I'm going to recommend replacing the CopyVio blanking template with {{Close paraphrasing}} so that the article can be improved in situ, possibly using some of the sources I've mentioned without the complication of a temp page and history merge. Does this sound like a plan? Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I also agree very much with Victoria that in-text attribution would help create more of an encyclopedic distance as well as help the article comply with proper attribution. It might even be useful to go into more detail about Baley's book itself: how it was written, on what it was based, etc. There's a detailed review of it in The Journal of Arizona History, available on JSTOR here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the links to sources. I'll certainly heed your comments. Are you willing to stick around and monitor my progress here over the next month or so? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: what do you mean the GA reviewer didn't do any favours? I took this GAN along with Irataba as requested and as a GA reviewer I take a conventional approach on prose first and everything else after. The article was well written and comprehensive; I think those are the two main qualities a reader is looking for. I would like to make it clear that reviewing this has nothing to do with the WikiCup, but with that being said, I never take the WikiCup seriously! I don't want to get involved with the dispute here or over at the SPI, but I am puzzled why I didn't do Rationalobserver any favours? Don't worry, this isn't any kind of retaliation, I'm just curious... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, by not doing any favours, I think she means that you didn't provide useful feedback about the quality of the sources, the lack of appropriate citations, and the quality of the prose. This led Rationalobserver to think that her article was ready for FAC when it wasn't, triggering all kinds of concerns.

Did you apply each of the six criteria in WP:GACR? The thing is, an article based almost entirely on a single source really can't be neutral or avoid original research (Criteria 2 and 4), because the editor is relying on that one point of view and source for facts and tone. And it requires weaving and composing an article from this one source, in this case Charles Baley, so as to avoid plagiarism. If he is a professional historian, his work will be cited in other sources such as textbooks, journal articles etc., where there may be contrasting points of view. Also the citations are misleading (Criteria 2). For example, there is extensive information that is "according to Udell's journal", but it all comes from Bailey as the citations indicate. A reader may not realise this, if they don't look at the footnotes and readers mostly don't. As Voceditenore says above, this article "ends up having a similar feel" to Baley, who wrote rather in the style of a "ripping yarn", heavy on adjectives and details.

As for Kroeber, he was a cultural anthropologist, not a historian, and studied Native American's in California and elsewhere, primarily looking at cultural artefacts. Kroeber is not a source for American history. According to the google link provided in the references,[4] this was written in 1903.

Further, the "Notes" section gives really detailed info, unnecessary in my opinion, and although they give the appearance of scholarship, are also from Baley. EChastain (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Kroeber & Kroeber book was first published in 1973. I'm curious, EChastain, did you used to have another account or did you edit as an IP? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, EChastain. I've had a look through the article and can still confirm the prose itself is looking good, if not better from the GAN. Regarding the incorrect picture, which image did you mean? If it's the lead image, one can argue that it's representitive of the Old West era, even if the dates do not match whatever is in the article, it is still portraying the 'theme' of this article. I've reviewed a few articles in a similar situation, for example a picture of a 'community' denotes a picture of people working together. I always apply each of the six criteria in every GAN, as I put a template above every review. A transition from Start, C, or B class to GA is a 'stepping stone' for FA, so naturally there are always problems in a GA that FA reviewers notice. RO can always submit this for a peer review, but given the amount of comments here it seems that it doesn't need one. I'm always happy to help out if needed. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. I was asked by Rationalobserver to evaluate the concerns with phrasing here. I've removed the prior copyright violation tag and replaced it with one about close paraphrasing, which the concerns here seem to be more consistent with. The initial tag is generally used when content requires immediate blanking, because it is blatant and wholesale copy-and-pasting from a copyrighted source. That does not appear to be the case here. I agree with Voceditenore's assessment that the article can be improved through discussion here; a separate draft is not necessary to address these concerns. I do not have time at this moment to evaluate the actual concerns with prose, but I will start to do that later today and tomorrow. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by EChastain

A few more tips that are meant to be helpful, if you choose to accept them:

The book may have been published in 1973, but Kroeber died in 1960. According to the Google link you provided in the article: "In 1903, a noted anthropologist, Alfred Kroeber, collaborated with his son . . ."[5]

I have a print copy in front of me, and it was first published in 1973. Yes A.L. died before that, but that's why the book has two authors, A.L., and his son C.B., who put the work together for publishing after his father's death. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Kroeber was of the school of cultural anthropologists that sympathised overly with their subjects, contrary to methods of postmodern cultural anthropology, so his statement can be seen as biased and in no way factual.

Disaster at the Colorado: Beale's Wagon Road and the First Emigrant Party, the source for this article, was written by Charles Baley whose great grandparents and their children, as well as his great-great uncle and his wife and children, were in the party. Baley had heard tales from his father and his relatives, according to the first page of his preface to the book. So maybe the article would benefit from refocusing. It could be about the book and how he wrote it, begining with his interest in his family's genealogy, if you can find reviews of the book. In any event, you'll need more sources, as it's hard to justify a whole article based on a single source that has no index.

I suggest that you remove the Category:Trains that puts the article in with various types of trains. (If you look in the category you'll see what I mean.)

Also, according to the GA criteria, "mages must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The lede image captioned "European American homesteaders, c. 1866" has nothing to do with the lede sentence about an event that took place nearly 20 years before and in a different area of the country: "The Rose-Baley Party was the first European American emigrant wagon train to traverse the 35th parallel route known as Beale's Wagon Road, established by Edward Fitzgerald Beale, from Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico to the Colorado River near present-day Needles, California." (The image description: "The Covered Wagon of the Great Western Migration. 1886 in Loup Valley, Nebr." A family poses with the wagon in which they live and travel daily during their pursuit of a homestead.")

The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is almost certainly the wrong man, per the link to the name. "Edward Fitzgerald Beale (February 4, 1822 – April 22, 1893) was a national figure in 19th century America. He was naval officer, military general, explorer, frontiersman, Indian affairs superintendent, California rancher, diplomat, and friend of Kit Carson, Buffalo Bill Cody and Ulysses S. Grant.

The GA reviewer didn't notice these problems, but at FAC they certainly will. I didn't check the other images.

Good luck with your endeavours! EChastain (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked at the Commons and they updated the file description of File:Homesteader NE 1866.png to 1866, since the image is of people on the Oregon Trail. EChastain (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Voceditenore

I'll check in later after RationalObserver is finished re-working the article to see if it's appropriate to remove the {{Close paraphrasing}}. Just a couple of further points here as I don't want to get involved in the detailed discussions about the article content.

The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is the right man. EChastain, did you read the entire article which discusses his trail explorations? There are multiple reliable sources attesting to the fact that "Beale's Crossing" is named after him.
While further sources would definitely improve the article, there is nothing wrong with using the Baley book as a principal source for an article about this subject. It's published by Utah State University Press and has reviews in several journals as well as being used as a source in several later books. I've linked to one of the reviews in my previous comment from The Journal of Arizona History which described it in 2004 as the first (and only) "comprehensive account of the Rose-Baley incident". However, the suggestion that this article should be refocused on his book instead of the incident itself strikes me as very inappropriate. Incidentally, Baley's book certainly does have an index—6 pages long to be precise. I repeat, it's fine to use this book as a principal source.
EChastain's assessment of Kroeber and the source used is generally correct, especially re the date it was first published. It could still be used as a source for some things, properly attributed as his assessment, especially for how the Mojave Indians viewed the incident and its consequences for them. However, I find it not suitable as a citation for "The emigrants sensed that the chief who granted them passage was hiding something, but they continued to labor nonetheless."

Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I've already re-worked much of the article, adding in-text attribution and swapping in several cites to Udell's journal. Can you please take another look and tell me if I am making progress? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Replies by EChastain

Voceditenore, I did read the whole article Edward Fitzgerald Beale and I don't doubt the wagon trail was named after him. But I'm confused about his importance to this article and whether it warrants the large image of him. His involvement was not direct, and I was confused by it at first, thinking it was of Baley or someone actually in the party. Beale's only mentioned a few times and isn't fundamental to the story line, other than the trail was named after him.. Per the Beale article, "He surveyed and built a wagon road that many settlers used to move to the West, and which became part of Route 66 and the route for the Transcontinental railroad." "In 1857, President James Buchanan appointed Beale to survey and build a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) wagon road from Fort Defiance, New Mexico to the Colorado River, on the border between Arizona and California. The survey also incorporated an experiment for the Army using camels" from the United States Camel Corps." Per Beale's Cut, Beale "had an important passage named after him due to his widening of a cut used by the Butterfield Overland Mail, a stagecoach that operated mail between St. Louis, Missouri and San Francisco. In 1862, he dispatched a crew of Chinese workers to widen an 1858 cut, which also reduced the climb by 50 feet (15 m)."

According to Paths of Empire: The Story of the Old Trails Along the Santa Fe under "Beale and His Camels": "Busy with Indian affairs during 1854-55 and 1856, General Beale was called upon in 1857 to make a Wagon Road Survey from Fort Defiance, Arizona to California. It was this survey which marked out for the first time a practicable highway along the 35th parallel that has been used from that day to this. (For more than half a century the Santa Fe Railway has rolled its trains along this one-time Wagon Road.)" ... "And to prove that the route was as good in winter as in summer, Beale retraced it in 1858, going from the Colorado to Zuni in twenty-four days during January and February. It was on the westbound 1857 trek that Beale took the famous United States Camel Corps."

I can't tell if his role is correctly represented in the Rose-Baley Party. Shouldn't the info about Beale come from other sources than what Baley writes about Beale? Frankly, I'm confused and others can better sort it out. EChastain (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, you said "The image of Edward Fitzgerald Beale is almost certainly the wrong man". It was not the wrong man nor was it the wrong image. Beale's Cut refers to the road through the mountains near Los Angeles. It is not the same place as Beale's Crossing which is on the Colorado River between Arizona and California and where the Rose-Baley massacre took place. Whether a separate section on Beale in this article as currently written and sourced is appropriate is an entirely separate matter. However, Beale's Crossing and his new route are rather central to the story here. Beale was pushing for this new route to be used (via somewhat idealized descriptions of its benefits) with the goal of constructing a permanent wagon road. The Rose-Baley party decided to go for it, despite strenuous objections by John Udell who considered that travelling a virtually untried route with large numbers of women and children in the party was foolhardy in the extreme. Interestingly, when Udell and his wife finally made it to California in 1859, they travelled from Albuquerque to the Colorado River with Beale's road construction party. Sometime in the future, I feel the article would be improved by an Aftermath section. What happened to to the survivors, for example and how the establishment of Fort Mojave was pretty much spurred by the massacre. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I've already tried to address your comments above about the wrong man (19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)) when you mentioned my mistake the first time but didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't confusing Beale's Cut with Beale's crossing. Admittedly as a new reader of the article, I was confused by the large image of Beale when the Rose-Baley Party was the subject; at the time there was almost no explanation of Beale and all of it was via Baley's book. (That may have changed now; I haven't looked at newer versions.)

Once I looked into the subject as I described above, one that I knew nothing about originally, I saw (what I think) is the larger picture. I tried to give some info re Beale in some large quotes from a source, hoping some references to it could be incorporated into the article with more sources pertaining to Beale directly rather than relying on Baley's info alone. My links to other wiki articles, like Beale's Cut were part of this effort to help expand the subject and show that the Rose-Baley Party's experience is part of it. I thought it was clear that I wasn't confusing it with Beale's Crossing but giving glimpses into the overall subject that includes the role of Beale and probably others. I was thinking that Rose-Baley Party is one of a group of articles that could relate to each other more than is the case now to expand on the subject of the development of southern routes, since so much focus has been on the Oregon Trail.

I'd link permission to suggest some other images (or art work) from the Commons for the lede image showing an actual wagon train with a caption that could drive home Baley's comment, with a link to the Oregon Trail, that the Rose-Baley Party (and probably others) have been overlooked while the Oregon Trail has received much attention. I'm trying to be constructive. (My first posts, written late at night when I should have been in bed, were faulty for which I apologise and will be more careful.) EChastain (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore I only objected when Baley's book was essentially the sole source.[6] EChastain (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by others

I would like to see a followup section as well. In fact, that was my only complaint when I first read the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully intend to add an aftermath section that deals with their depravation lawsuit against the US government, but last week's drama has put all that on hold. I'll get to it after we resolve the issues at hand. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Kroeber & Kroeber 1973

In response to the repeated suggestion that the Kroeber & Kroeber source has inaccurate publishing information I'll attempt to clarify this misnomer here.

First off, yes, A.L. Kroeber died in 1960, but in 1958, he and his son C.B. Kroeber had started collaborating on the material – collected in 1903 – in preparation for publication. In the book's preface, C.B. Kroeber states: "So this collaboration is of two parts—[A.L.'s] work done mostly during the late 1940s and 1950s, and mine mostly since 1960 ... to make a long story short, since 1958, I have been taking available time to read, and to visit libraries and archives".(Kroeber & Kroeber, 1973, pvii) The book was first published in 1973, thirteen years after A.L. died, but well within the lifespan of the co-author, C.B. Kroeber, who was still publishing books in 2003. I'd also like to say that I am disappointed in people that would simply look at the publication date and compare it to A.L.'s death year, yet look no further before declaring that a mistake has been made based on a preview in Google books that does not include the preface (look here). I own a copy of the book, and I am quite capable of reading it and finding the copyright information, which again is 1973. For the record, the Kroeber & Kroeber source is only used to cite one statement by A.L., and it's not used for anything else. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits: change from "massacre" to "fight"

Johnbod, I appreciate that you took a look at the article, but I wanted to discuss your change of "massacre" to "fight". First off, no reliable sources call it a fight; they all refer to it as a massacre, and while I sympathize with your point that, with 17 Mohave killed, "who massacred who" would seem like a legitimate stance; however, the Mohave killed five unarmed children and mutilated their bodies, but the Mohave who died were all killed in self-defense; i.e., the Mohave died while attacking, they weren't attacked, which is kinda needed to call something a massacre. I won't change it back just yet, as I'd like to hear from you about it first. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems a very loaded term, although thanks for clarifying who was "massacred". I find it rather hard to believe that all sources always call the encounter a "massacre", but even if they do I don't see we need to follow their emotive vocabulary. I substituted "attack" and "fight" which seem perfectly supported by the rest of the referenced account. If you don't think it can be called a "fight", please explain why not. The pre-existing text has "After several hours of fighting,...". By the way it does not have anything about "mutilated their bodies". If used at all the term "massacre" would need to be given context and referencing, not used in the header or a throwaway in the last line. I can see this article has become something of a battleground, which I have no intention of getting dragged into. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Bentner family was massacred, as all 7 members of the family, including 5 children, were ambushed, killed, and mutilated, i.e., "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." The 17 Mohave were killed, in self-defense, in a gun fight, and I don't think it's accurate to say that they were massacred or the Bentner's died during a "fight". I left details about the mutilations out, as the article is brimming with details, but it is certainly verifiable to say they were mutilated. The girls were also stripped nude, and their faces were basically removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The numbers seem somewhat small (on the American side) - you might look at the definitions at massacre. There's something distinctly odd about a massacre where more of the perpetrators are killed than of the victims, and where a relatively small % of either side dies. I'm not stuck on "fight", though I don't see how it is "inaccurate", but I think "massacre" is best avoided without the extra stuff I say above. There's a variety of more neutral terms available. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The current version does say that the Bentners were massacred. Are you okay with that if we refer to the other exchanges as an attack and fight? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Or "battle", "combat", "fighting" etc in the last line. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well I think we are in agreement here. The Mohave "attacked" the RBP, and a "battle" ensued, but they also "massacred" the Bentners, who were not involved in the battle at Beale's Crossing. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision. RO, I also think that you need to take the advise about the tone of the article. For instance this para:

The men quickly armed themselves as women frantically hurried their children to the protection offered by their covered wagons.[68] After several hours of fighting, an especially tall Mohave chief, who appeared to be leading the attack, stepped out in front of his warriors and taunted the emigrants, as if to dare them to try to kill him. Gillum Baley, a veteran of the Black Hawk War and a noted marksmen, accepted the challenge and was able to take the chief down with a single rifle shot from a distance. Demoralized, the Mohave warriors retrieved the chief's body and retreated from the battle.

This sounds more like a children's story than an encyclopedia article. For instance "quickly armed", "frantically hurried", "to the protection offered", "an especially tall", etc. To say that the chief taunted them, was taken down with a single shot from a distance, and that the warriors became "demoralized", lean towards more storybook terminology. I'm not saying that I believe they all need to go, but as a whole it begins to sound storybook-like. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing this type of stuff. I appreciate the suggestions, and I'd appreciate any contributions you'd like to make. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

RO, I remain quite critical of this section and feel that it should be completely rewritten. IMO, you have been too influenced by the source, which I find to be more interested in entertainment than a good historical source. Using this source too closely has, IMO, resulted in a section that sounds more like an article in an early Boys' Life magazine than a good WP article. "War whoops", for instance. However, this is only my opinion and I'm not a very good writer myself, so it is only one POV. By the way, it is my understanding that only one in the party was killed, not eight...? Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"War whoops" is the correct term. I don't know why you think only one died, Alpha Brown and the entire Bentner family of seven were killed, totally eight people. Here's Udell's journal stating that, and here's Rose's account. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about the section, but your criticism is sufficiently vague that no concrete points are contained therein. I.e., anyone can say they don't like a section, but if you have no explicit examples of things that should be fixed your comment is virtually meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you find my comments virtually meaningless we are not at all on the same page here and I won't attempt to make any more comments. Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is good; could it be better? Probably, but the GA criteria states that a GA is a decent article, and anyone who says this article is less than decent is flat wrong. To clarify, if your comments are too vague to be addressed they are meaningless. If you have specific concerns that I can actually address they are helpful, but I get the feeling you know that already. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Rose's letter

I found a online copy of Leonard Rose's 1859 account of the Mojave attack published as a letter in the Missouri Republican. It's on p. 306 of The cattle on a thousand hills; Southern California, 1850-1870, by Robert Glass Cleland. (The whole book is online.). This might provide an interesting counterbalance to or corroboration of Udell's version of events, although it obviously needs to be treated with caution and clearly attributed to Rose's voice. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice work at John Udell! Can you find Joel Hedgpeth's Some recollections of a trip across the plains 1858-1859 online? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and other concerns

Hi! i came here because this article is listed at WP:CP. Unless Voceditenore or anyone else disagrees, I plan to close the listing there, as I don't feel that the problem here reaches the level of copyright violation; I'm very open to suggestions on that, though, and would be happy to call in the real expert if any doubts are expressed.

But after a very brief reading of the page and the source, I'm convinced that there is a problem. The article reads as slavishly based on the book; even if the the words have been changed around, the feel is the same. Somehow even the pompous old-fashioned prose style of the book comes through in our article. I suggest a thorough rewrite, conveying the meaning of what the book says, but without using the same kind of language. Instead of "To finance the venture, Rose sold the majority of his assets, and after paying off his debts was left with $30,000, then a considerable amount of money. These funds enabled him to finance an especially well-equipped wagon train that included an animal stock featuring two Morgan fillies and a Morgan stallion named Black Morrill; their combined value exceeded $3,000. He also purchased twenty trotting horses and two hundred head of thoroughbred red Durham cattle ..." why not write "Rose sold most of his assets to pay for the trip, and raised $30,000. He fitted out a well-equipped wagon train, and bought twenty good horses, including three Morgans worth over $3000, and two hundred cattle, many of them purebred Red Durham stock ...".

I'm also concerned at the number of misreadings of the source I found in the short passage I looked at (the Formation section). Specifically:

the cattle were surely not thoroughbreds
the source does not say that the horses were trotters, let alone Clay Trotting Horses, nor is it remotely likely that they were
Rose must have bought a lot more than six oxen, as the wagons needed three pairs each at a time

Also, the "prairie schooner" image is a picture of a smaller wagon, drawn by just one pair of oxen. I suggest that the article be looked over by an expert on the old West, which I most certainly am not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: the close-paraphrasing tag was removed by Dr. Blofeld while I was writing this. That ends my involvement here. I'll ask Moonriddengirl if yet again she would be good enough to give an authoritative opinion on the copyright situation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

the cattle were surely not thoroughbreds

Baley page 3 says the cattle were "mostly thoroughbred Red Durhams". Rationalobserver (talk)

They had 62 total oxen, three yoke pulled each wagon. Baley say Rose was going to breed the horses and start a trotting stable, so I guess I assumed they were trotting horses. I'll fix that now. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, just in passing, "thoroughbred" is a poor word choice when one means a purebred animal. Thoroughbreds are horses, use for other purebred species is seen, but is not correct. I'd suggest a wording change. Also, the Clay horses were a specific bloodline within the Standardbred; if you are wanting to discuss trotting harness horses but can't verify they were Standardbreds (which at the time would need verification, a lot of Morgans and other breeds were bred for trotting races), I suggest a link to harness racing would work if the sourcing otherwise pans out. But RO, this is the same sort of difficulties you are having at "Irataba" - there too one could say " the pompous old-fashioned prose style of the book comes through" and "[t]he article reads as slavishly based on the book." Montanabw ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This was the second article I ever created, so I'm not surprised it's far from perfect. You should be more encouraging to user who are just learning the ins and outs of content creation. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, your view of the prose problem is very similar to the one I expressed above when I first had a look at this issue [7], i.e., while it does not rise to the level of copyright violation, the style and emphasis in the Baley book narrative is too closely adhered to. If Moonriddengirl has the time, I too would find her opinion very helpful because it can be useful in similar cases should they arise. But leaving that aside, your recommendation of a thorough re-write would vastly improve the article from an encyclopedic point of view, regardless of copyright issues. Your rephrasing of "To finance the venture, Rose..." above is a model that should be aimed for throughout the article. I can't comment on the livestock issue, as my knowledge of that is zilch, but I think some of the other facts in the article could use some rechecking and revision. For example, Udell and wife did not join the Rose-Baley party in Albuquerque. They joined the Rose party in western Missouri, as did the Holland and Daly families and travelled with that party to Albuquerque where the Rose and Baley parties were formally joined for the crossing into California. Baley's party had been travelling the Santa Fe Trail at the same time as Rose's and in fact camped near them while both parties were still in the Kansas Territory. See Wright's introduction to Udell (1946), p. ix, and Udell's subsequent diary entries. Note that Udell spells Baley as "Bailey". Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Udell and wife did not join the Rose-Baley party in Albuquerque. They joined the Rose party in western Missouri, as did the Holland and Daly families and travelled with that party to Albuquerque

Reread page 15. The Baley company joined the Rose company near Westport, Kansas (as the article states), not Missouri, and page 35 states that the Holland and Daly families joined in Albuquerque, which is also what the article states. I appreciate your attempts to help here, but if you are going to criticize my presentation of the facts, at least take the time to read the pages of Baley that the disputed facts are sourced to. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, I have read the pages of Baley, as well as the introduction to Udell and most of his diary. I'm not talking about when the Baley and Rose parties informally merged in Kansas. I'm talking about the Daly's, Holland's, and Udell's, who joined Rose's party in Western Missouri before Rose and Baley informally merged in Kansas. In Albuquerque, they left Rose's group over a dispute about their share of the fees for the guides, etc. and joined Baley's party. But as Baley (the author) points out, they were going to travel Beale's road as essentially one party anyway thus it made little difference. See Baley pp. 31-32. Therefore, the sentence "The wagon train reached Albuquerque, New Mexico on June 23, where several families, including the Udell's, the Dalys, the Hollands, and their livestock joined them before making the journey to the Colorado River..." is misleading/confused at best, but in my view is essentially wrong. It makes it seem as if the Udell's, Daly's, and Holland's materialised out of nowhere and joined the party in Albuquerque. I came here because you left a note on my talk page. I spotted something that potentially needs fixing. You've made it quite clear that my comments were unwelcome. So be it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So, in order to fix the issue with close paraphrasing the narrative should follow the book even closer than it is now? Udell said the Baley party met the Rose party in Kansas in May (page 15), if you think we should monitor the different groups as they traveled across Missouri then feel free. Anyway, the window in which I was engaged enough to fix these things was more than a month ago, and you ignored me several times since then. I have less than zero interest in this topic in general, which I was never too keen on anyway, so I really don't care what happens to this article, and I am not willing to make any more contributions to it. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the narrative should not paraphrase the source even more more closely, but it must not contradict the facts presented in the sources, as was the case here. In light of the fact that you no longer intend to edit the article, I have fixed the sentence myself by removing the assertion that Udell et al. joined the party in Albuquerque. Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

FTR, this was a work in progress when the drama hit in February, so it was left in a state of disarray, and I agree that things needs to be worked on. However, at this point I have less than zero interest in improving this article or fixing any of these issues, as I don't think I want to spend anymore time on this topic. If someone wants to delete the article, I won't oppose. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

the pompous old-fashioned prose style of the book comes through in our article.

The Baley book was published in 2002, and it isn't written in a "pompous old-fashioned prose style". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am just starting to look into this, but have to comment that the date of publication is not the sole determination in writing style. :) In 2002, the book's author was 80 years old. He may well have hearkened back in his prose to an earlier day. However, what constitutes "pompous" and "old-fashioned" is surely subjective. I found the book Awakenings almost unreadable for that reason, even though it was published a mere 20 years earlier. One reviewer found the prose beautiful. I found it stilted and, yes, pompous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested two bits: First, I see two copyright clerks (User:Voceditenore, User:Justlettersandnumbers) and a highly sensible admin (User:I JethroBT) who have agreed at various points ([8], [9], [10]) that there were or are paraphrasing problems that do not rise to the level of copyright concern. I agree. In my review, I did not see any specific sentences that follow so closely on the source that one would say, "Yup, that's a copy-paste." What I see is a similarity in concept and feel (see Substantial similarity#Total concept and feel test for more on this) that makes this read a little bit more like a summary than like an independent article that is getting information from a source. I'm going to offer one example, but I want to make very plain that this is inherently not the kind of thing that can be measured by one example. The courts don't do it that way for a reason.

Source	Article
After selling most of his property and settling his debts,Rose had a net worth of more than $30,000, a small fortune in those days. With this substantial amount of money he was able to put together one of the best-equipped outfits ever to travel the western plains.	To finance the venture, Rose sold the majority of his assets, and after paying off his debts was left with $30,000, then a considerable amount of money. These funds enabled him to finance an especially well-equipped wagon train ....

What we are looking at here, to me, has a very similar concept and feel. The structure of the two passages is nearly identical. "sold property" + "paid debts" + "$30,000" + "lot of money" + "able to put together" + "unusually well equipped for travel". It's important to remember that the words themselves are not the sole determinant of creativity. If they were, translations would not be a copyright problem, because in a translation every single word is changed. It's not in the words; it's the concept and feel. Again, this is not an issue that I believe rises to the level of copyright problem, but the more of this kind of thing you see, the closer you come to appropriating the entire concept & feel.

I believe that this kind of output is a result of very closely annotating the source and following that very close annotation. Often, it happens when people are trying to scrupulously avoid copyright issues but doing so one sentence at a time. It's very, very difficult to put content into your own words in this manner. One way to avoid it is to read your source - not sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph, but perhaps a chapter at a time - put it aside, and describe in your own words what happened. If you then go back to reread, to check for inadvertent close following or for inadvertent deviations of fact, you can more easily avoid inadvertently appropriating the concept and feel of your source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl! That is an extremely helpful analysis and explanation. I'm going to bookmark it for future reference, as this is not an uncommon problem on Wikipedia. Your advice on how to avoid flunking the "feel test" is really helpful and similar to what we tell editors at WikiProject Opera. I think one of the reasons the problem arose here is that Baley's book is the only comprehensive secondary source on this subject. Normally, multiple published secondary sources are available, and using multiple sources can go a long way to avoiding overall similarity. Another reason is that this was an event with a particular time sequence and fixed participants, thus making it extra difficult to avoid similarities that "cross the line". The difficulty is rather similar to that involved in writing an opera synopsis without close paraphrasing of previously published ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Moonriddengirl. I think Voceditenore has astutely identified the main problem here, which is that there is only one source for this entire story, which is locked into a chronology and predetermined set of facts. So it's nearly impossible to stick to the facts without following them closely. I'm sure if I was more experienced at writing Wikipedia articles I might be able to avoid the "feel" of Baley's book, but this was only the second article I started, which might have been a mistake. As I said above, I was never that into this narrative anyway, but now with several people criticizing the work and refusing to contribute edits, I am left with less than zero ambition to improve this article. And that's a real shame, because the first person to identify problems here claimed that they could have fixed the paraphrasing in a couple of hours. So in the end, what was maybe a couple-hour fix turned into Rose–Baley–gate, which has been ongoing for 6 weeks now. Anyway, thanks for your time and suggestions; I'll try to put them to good use should I write any more articles, but as for this one, I'm all done here, and I won't object if someone wants to delete this altogether. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

One more point, Moonriddengirl. While the above example might seem too close, you didn't provide a suitable paraphrase of it. So how would you paraphrase the material while retaining the important factual information contained therein; e.g., "sold property" + "paid debts" + "$30,000" + "lot of money" + "able to put together" + "unusually well equipped for travel". Those events are chronologically tied to that order, so it doesn't seem possible to change the structure while also sticking to the source. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not on the sentence level. That's my main point. What you are asking for is precisely what I have said is "very, very difficult" to do and advised you to avoid. :) That said, chronology does not dictate that you can express things in only one way. One could begin, for example, with something like "Rose funded his wagon train far better than most, using the net gain from the liquidation of his own substantial assets." That's first draft stuff. But it does bring up another point. Sometimes a certain degree of detail may be lost in avoiding following a single source too closely. If I were creating a summary of a chapter that discussed this, I doubt the fact that he had "settled his debts" would stand out to me. That said, even if this is the only source discussing this subject, sometimes there are other sources which could be used to build rather than summarizing simply the one source. For instance, what was the typical funding for a wagon train at that time? What would $30,000 be worth in modern terms? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just my two bits that I also concur in the assessment above. WP:ONESOURCE is a caution for that reason. Also, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and we do not have to go into the level of depth or nuance of a book, though we should also not be inaccurate or have the wrong nuance. We also don't have to slavishly and uncritically follow the source, and the "thoroughbred ... cattle" situation is a case in point: the source indeed did say "thoro-bred" cattle, but we don't use that word to describe purebred animals today - unless they are a particular type of race horse! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

POV Problems

The perspective taken by this article is a one-sided settler based perspective. It provides no context for the attack and depicts the Mohave simply as irrational savages out for blood. Whereas the perspective that they were defending their traditional lands is entirely absent. It comes across as a very old fashioned way of describing grizzly "Indian attacks" in the literature of the old west. Contemporary historiography mostly tries to avoid this kind of ethnocentric writing trying instead to see this kinds of historical events as keys to understanding the sociopolitical context of settler colonialism and the creation of frontiers through military subjugation of indigenous peoples. From a more modern historiographic perspective the only thing that makes this particularly attack notable is the fact that it led to the Mohave War and the subjugation of the Mohave with he creation of Fort Mohave and the Colorado River Indian Reservation. There is almost none of this important context reflected in the article. There are several very good sources for the Mohave perspective on the events and on the subsequent military subjugation of the Mohave. They should be used.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are largely outdated and attributed without analysis. Any improvements you can think of, I'd say WP:BB. You're doing some good work. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)