Talk:Mohave people

(Vocabulary)

If there is an interest in including some Pipa a'ha macave words and phrases, I could add some.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertphile (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 July 2003

Clean Up

When I wrote this page (a long time ago) I had a dearth of time on my hands. I note that a request to "clean up" the article and "conform to a higher standard" is noted on the page. I have the time and documents to do so, but not the inclination to do so.... at least not at the moment. What I researched over the last 15 years on the subject is not easily rendered back into reference footnotes.
There are two Macave--- the Fort Mohave and the Mojave. My original entry noted this fact: where did it go?
-- Desertphile, 2005May30
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.22 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

    How doest thou confuse me ...?

1. A dearth is a shortage, and a surfeit is an excess. I infer that User:66.82.9.22, who seems to claim to be the same person as User:Desertphile had a surplus of time at an early date, but a shortage of at least will (and perhaps time?) in 2005.
2. User:Desertphile edited what is now titled Mohave people only once in 2003, and User:66.82.9.22 only once, 4 minutes after the above; to me, neither change appears to add material that i would describe as you have described your "original entry" -- and which doesn't seem to be the first edit of the page, at 15:31, 18 June 2002 by User:63.165.128.52.
3. The accompanying article has been renamed ("moved") about a half dozen times in its history, so there may be substantial opportunity for your material to still on the page you worked on, but its name no longer to be the same as the name you recall.
4. There are probably more good reasons for removing content than good reasons for a user to believe their contribution should have been preserved, so your probably face the burden of providing much more help in clarifying the problem.
5. I think i have a relatively high tolerance for poking into edit histories, but i've lost interest in working with the vague clues you've provided. Unless you can dredge up something more specific as to exact wordings, the user name or IP address used for your edit, or an exact date (specifying UTC or time zone) from memory, i predict you question will go unanswered for another 5 years or until you develop some skills reading the edit histories yourself.

--Jerzy•t 07:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

    Huh! There is apparently relevant material, that was masquerading as part of the move discussion, at my retrofitted heading #(Northern and southern Macaves) below.
--Jerzy•t 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

Mojave people → Mohave Mohave Is the correct term, and was where this page was originally at. --Hottentot 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

The automatic timestamp placed by Vegaswikian is that for their mostly struck-thru first edit of bullet point. The earlier but not struck-thru portion is just the word "Support"; the rest was struck thru and replaced by new text before and after the struck thru portion, by User:Vegaswikian at 03:11, 22 November 2005.^{--Jerzy•t 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)}

• Support a rename to Mohave (people). That was the way things were and there is no reason provided for making the change. So unless somone knows Mohave to be incorrect, this change should be made. Also, the Mojave page will need to be corrected since that was also changed. I changed what the rename should be to since Mohave has several other uses including a place name Arizona and a brand of tires. Vegaswikian 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this is definitely the most important definition, and we can just have a Mohave (disambiguation) page for all those place names. --Hottentot 17:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moving back to Mojave and Mojave to dab page. If consensus is for Mojave and Mojave (people) you can do that yourselves too. Rich Farmbrough 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Move closed. --Hottentot 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

(Northern and southern Macaves)

Please note that Mohave and Mojave are both correct; when Fort Mohave was built and the Mohave reservation created, southern Macaves followed the advice of their Head Men (such as Chooksa homar and Yara tav) and relocated to the reservation. Northern Macaves resisted the reservation and are generally referred to as the Mojaves.
I am a bit ashamed of myself for having ignored this page for an entire year (to the day) without making the changed and additions I had promissed myself I would do. It has been mere laziness on my part.
--Desertphile 2006-May-30

Get to it. We're waiting looking forward to an improved article. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New Update

Welp, jumping right in, here is a major expansion/rewrite, with much left to be done. I subheaded much of the Devereaux material from the SOUTHWEST MUSEUM LEAFLETS brochure, online at [1] (which I think is desertphile's website) and while there is some content there which could (and perhaps should) be reworked and reintegrated, I'm not for its inclusion wholesale. I am of the opinion that a link to that material would be adequate. The content is largely very dated and pretty trite, again, my opinion, especially when the page prominently displays an image of a photo of a semi-nude woman. By the way, who is young Judith, when was the photo taken, and is she (or her family) game to have her image shown in this way? Not taking a prudish standpoint, more one of respect and deference. Also, noting the prior brief discussion but protracted switch, back & forth from mojave to mohave, etc., I want to ring in on that. It should be Aha Macave, according to Aha Macave elders. What's anyone think about changing at the very least, the tribal page, to reflect the correct name as the title of the page, with perhaps redirects from various misspellings? I tried to address this matter actually, in the text of the article. Duff 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the impressive update. I had been waiting for a member of the Mohave tribe, or a historian of Aha macave, to do the actual writing instead of my piecing together the web page--- out of cultural respect. It has been three years since I suggested to Tribal Council that a Fort Mohave person do the write before someone else did, to avoid errors from a non-Mohave perspective.

Regarding the usage of the phrase Aha macave, as others have pointed out that is one of several names the Mojave Indians in general, and the Fort Mohave ones in particular, used: there is a much less common, but apparently more accurate, name that they called themselves by in the 1850s. I have not written that name here because in Mojave tradition, names have power and I am an enemy (i.e., I am from European invasion cultures).

I have been considering adding a paragraph in WikiPedia regarding slavery among the Mojave. It was common, before and after the Oatman captivity. --Desertphile (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Peace brothers. Let the dogpile begin. -Duff 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

History vs current reality

While this is an impressively detailed article, I have to note that it seems based almost entirely on old records. Almost none of the sources are more recent than the 1960s and many are much older. So when it talks about whether they smoke or chew tobacco, this is a historical and anthropological observation many decades old, not remotely current. References to their religious beliefs are in past tense, as if none of them remain today. This is not clear in the article. The whole article reads like a historical treatise about an extinct culture. There must be more current information than these documents.

And not to put too fine a point on it, there needs to be a more WP:NPOV tone to it. The attitudes about the people embodied currently seem distinctly distilled from rather racist assumptions from the original source documents. It would also benefit from more inline citations rather than the big pile of refs at the end which make it difficult to source accurately. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of these points, particularly that inline citations are needed. Several of the statements seem like contentious or value judgments, and adding citations to their particular sources would do a lot to alleviate any perceived POV in the article. I've tagged it with {{nofootnotes}} accordingly. -kotra (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would cheerfully add in-line references if I knew how. I will have to ponder the Wikipedia help files on the subject. As for the complaint about the article being in a "racist" point of view, the only way to "fix" that is to delete from this article every sentence based on historical documents humanity has. Anthropology is fundamentally "racist" no matter who is writing, no matter the subject, no matter the time. As noted 4 years ago, I have asked the Pipa 'aha macave tribal council to consider adding modern commentary to this article: they have ignored my requests. The Mohaves are still very xenophobic, as they have not always been, and they tend to not want information about them to come from secondary sources and certainly not from Anglo invaders (i.e., the Hayiko).

The whole article ought to be destroyed and a new one written; that will probably not happen unless a Mohave or an athropologist comes along willing to do the work. For example, the name is not "Aha macave:" use here on the internet of the actual name of the people would be an insult, so I have not placed it here. Also, the public name is "Pipa 'aha macave," with the glottal stop for the word "water." A glottal stop after the h, "ah'a," would mean "cottonwood:" the letters "aha" without the glottal stop as found in the article is not a Mohave word at all. --Desertphile (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be one of those subjects that are clearly notable yet have insufficient recent reliable sources, unfortunately. If there are modern accounts of the Mohave (or "Pipa 'aha macave"), I'd be happy to help out with a partial rewrite (I think the historical parts are fine, just the cultural parts need updating). However, a cursory glance over Google revealed hardly any new accounts (though the name "Desertphile" cropped up quite a bit). If there was a recent book or anthropological study on them lately that would be great. -kotra (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ariel?

The Mohave did have a wonderous appetite for ariel. They shared it when unweary guests were visiting.

What is "ariel"? In our Ariel disambiguation page, the only thing that could be considered food is Dorcas Gazelle, which is only in the middle east. Dictionary.com gives a few other ariel animals: a "squirrel-like Australian marsupial", a "beautiful Brazilian toucan", and the "ariel petrel" (which I couldn't find any information on, but petrels are mostly southern hemisphere). I think maybe this line (added here) may have been vandalism. I'll remove it unless anyone knows what "ariel" is referring to? -kotra (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It was added here:[2], by a one-edit anon on a New York ISP who gave no explanation. I'd guess vandalism. Good catch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've removed it for now. If anyone knows what "ariel" is and the statement is legitimate, they're welcome to re-add it. -kotra (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I just want to note that the etymology of Mohave < hamook habi is certainly older than the 1917 handbook referred to in the article. It was apparently the accepted interpretation of that name in 1886, featuring in J.P. Dunn's Massacres of the mountains of that year. Zwart (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamok means "three" and "habi" is a bastardization of "'avii" meaning "mountain," but it also has a root element meaning "stone" and "place." So "'avii" is generally used in conjunction with a place name that is noted for rocks or boulders. Whipple (and Ives) got the name wrong on his 1854 map, though: in the Yuman, one would speak of "'Avii hamok" and not "Hamok 'avii" or "Hamok habi." For example, a mountain was named after Whipple, and its Mojave name is "'Avii Kur'utat." --Desertphile (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(Presumed nonsense)

This was the top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.79.108 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    The unsigned contrib was at the bottom of the page when added, and was appropriately pushed away from the 23 April 2010 contrib that it immediately followed by a remark clearly responsive to what had preceded it. It was the IP contributor's first edit on :en:WP, and so far their last.
    Oh, yeah, please start your contrib with a heading, unless you are saying something in response to the section that precedes it!
--Jerzy•t 07:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Most of the content from "Culture" through the end of the article is copied verbatim from SOUTHWEST MUSEUM LEAFLETS, Number 22, "MOHAVE ETIQUETTE" BY GEORGE DEVEREUX, published by SOUTHWEST MUSEUM HIGHLAND PARK, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90042. He footnotes his own pamphlet from his articles, but this is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy to present this way. I am deleting the material.Parkwells (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Slight clean up of lead

I moved a little overly specific info from the lead (about the tribe headquarters, etc) to a current status subsection. It was too specific to a particular part of the article (i.e. the semi-related details about the organization of tribes to which the Mojave belong) to be in the lead.12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mohave or Mojave?

Whilst both spellings appear to be acceptable, it's strange for both variations to appear throughout the article, switching back and forth depending on the section. It would make sense to settle on one to use consistently here, wouldn't it? 80.193.25.91 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(6 years later) Is this situation going to be fixed? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohave people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016025752/http://anza.uoregon.edu/siteindex.html to http://anza.uoregon.edu/siteindex.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114054018/http://critonline.com/critlibrary/ to http://critonline.com/critlibrary/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)