Talk:Homer Davenport

Untitled
Montanabw - here's a few links to photographs, etc in the Library of Congress. I do NOT know the copyright status on these. Photograph Photograph2 Ealdgyth | Talk 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See my comments in the Babson article. You can probably chance it if the site is maintained by the US Government, check the wiki guidelines, but generally if I can't find a copyright of any other sort, I'll consider it US Gov't work and call it good. Montanabw 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone
Though this article is improving, there is still an issue with the unencyclopedic tone. Items like "great food" at a festival and "free-thinking" parents do not meet wikipedia guidelines. Same with "work became so influential" and "penchant" and other peacock terms. See in general WP:MOS and WP:BETTER. Aboutmovies 05:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The way this article was initially written strikes me as a copyvio, but I can't find a source on the Internet, so perhaps it is copied from a book? Here's the diff from when the language with questionable tone was added, if anyone can get ahold of the books and check if they have been copied verbatim. Katr67 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I spent about four hours last night trying to get rid of the worst stuff, I missed the bit about food, will fix that. FYI, if you want to help fix the peacock adjectives, go for it.  My original stake in this was the Arabian horse stuff, and the rest was originally someone else's work, so whatever we can fix, I am all for working together.  I think the original editors may have abandoned it.   Montanabw (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I just didn't want to get into an edit war with someone trying to promote this person/the annual festival. I'll see what I can do to tone it down. Aboutmovies 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it some, I suppose it doesn't really have to be in there, though the fact that the guy has his own festival is of some interest. Feel free to fix, I have no investment in that bit.  Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Conn, George H. (1972): Unknown parameter |lc= ignored

 * lc = 57-12176

--Frze > talk  20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, we'll deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this at talk, Frze, instead of in the article space. The book is old,predating ISBN numbers.  "lc" is for "Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number", which is what they used at the time.  I will check WorldCat and see if I can replace it with an OCLC number.   Montanabw (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement drive
Wehwalt, noting at the World's Fair, Davenport's book has a great tale of how his drawings of Arabians also upset the Bedouin who accompanied the horses because he did not draw them accurately at first (neglected to properly portray the high-carried tail that is a breed characteristic), they grabbed his drawings and tore them up. Worth adding? This was also where he claims origin of his lifelong passion for the Arabian horse. Is that the best section to note this as well? Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I envision is a separate section for his horse activities, which could certainly lead off with the tale you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how it's set up now, so no problem. For a parallel structure, will the layout I used in William Robinson Brown (another horse breeder who also had an extensive non-horsey career) work?  We had some complaints that it wasn't chronological at FAC, I think, but it passed anyway.   Montanabw (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would work, but his non-horse career probably occupies the majority of space here. Possibly combine a couple of paragraphs from each for a "legacy" section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The trick is to figure out relative weighting. In the cosmic scheme of the universe and scholarly sources, he was a famed political cartoonist.  In terms of Google hits and contemporary influence, it's his contributions as a horse breeder and founder of the Arabian Horse Club Registry of America.  I'm open as to how to balance the two, but no question that his horse herd had a profound impact on the Arabian horse breed worldwide.   Montanabw (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that there's room enough that we can each write what we need to and it won't be an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Groovy. I'm probably not going to get much done on this until next week, so carry on!  Montanabw (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the section and subsection headings need to be simplified. Possibly list chronologically or by which newspaper/employer he worked for once he came to New York. As it sits, the 1896 election is somewhat over-emphasized and out of context, given content in the "Later years" section. Also wondering where to put the "personal life" section, if it's in the best spot, or if the bits and pieces of it should be split up and put into various chronological sections. Good content, I'm more looking at organization and structure. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is, but I have not had the opportunity to move beyond 1896. Davenport reprised his role in Hanna's 1897-98 Senate campaign, he also was back in 1900.  I'm not done yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1896 election is certainly going to be the heftiest part of the cartoon part of the article. But that's because all the sources go there.  I'll eventually import much of my Hanna bibliography, it looks like.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So long as the focus is on Davenport and we make use of "Main" links for details that may not be needed here.  Montanabw (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rearrangement discussion
Hi Wehwalt, actually, I'm not certain dumping Davenport's entire personal life into the end of the article is the way to go. I can see the argument for it, but I also am trying to think if there's a better way. He's a complicated character with his dual love of horses (plus other critters) and cartooning running through his entire life. There's an argument to be made that we should know who this individual was as a person up front to answer the "why should we care?" question. The choice to put personal life up front was modeled on William Robinson Brown, another person famous today mostly as a horse breeder in spite of remarkable other professional accomplishments. However, I admit Brown did have a far less complicated personal life than Davenport! I am not certain I have a solution, as I realize that the long personal life narrative up front is also problematic. Perhaps some of the animal-loving material (such as the paragraph on Duff) could go into the early life section, leaving his marital life and east coast farm ventures where it is at?? Feel free to tweak as you see fit. I have to mull this over a bit. Maybe bring in some outside eyes to help us break it loose?? Mine have crossed... Montanabw (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt that as there are specific things the reader might be looking up Homer Davenport for, i.e. cartoonist and horse breeder, it would be best to prioritize those things. I was more concerned about making sure that there weren't the discontinuities I pointed out by email, but I think making the reader wade through Davenport's personal life twice is an error, and that if you go through his life before going to the personal life, you don't have to have two death scenes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point on the death part! I agree that discontinuity is a concern too.   I guess that I wonder if there is any better way to structure the article so it is more chronological; that would mean jumping back and forth between the newspaper stuff and the horse stuff.  I think the article was originally structured that way, so we kept with it.  But, for example, the material on the Columbian Expo would all work better up in that section, and the desert trip and establishment of his horse farm fits mostly into his less active cartooning 1905-1912 period.   Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the point either way. Thoughts from reviewers?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's go round some up! LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Some review comments
I have been asked to provide some review comments during the development of this most interesting article. Here is an opening batch, dealing with the first few sections.
 * Lead


 * In what way did Davenport "chronicle" the Arabian horses at the Columbian Exposition? "Chronicling" generally implies writing about things.
 * He followed them around constantly and made many drawings. I'll rephrase, does that work?-- MTBW
 * Better now Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "That same year, he married his wife Daisy, with whom he had three children." I don't think this incidental detail is lead worthy.
 * Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "...one of the greatest newspaper staffs ever assembled". Maybe, but this needs rephrasing so as not to read as editorial opinion, e.g. "...what has been considered one of..." etc.
 * Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "though McKinley was again successful" → "when McKinley was again successful"?
 * changed to "victorious".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually suggesting a change from "though" to when", though "victorious" is better than "successful". Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's massaged away by Montanabw.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is "fancy" poultry?
 * Exotics of various sorts, show-quality. The menagerie is described in detail later in the article. Not sure how to best link, there is no article on "poultry fancy" - I will link to the animal fancy article; hope that doesn't lead to a "sea of blue" concern(?)  See what we get on a search. --MTBW
 * I'm not sure that two separate links, on "fancy" and on "poultry" is the best idea. Prsonally I would simply replace "fancy" with "exotic", a word which carries an immediate meaning to most readers and which seems to cover the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that works. Done!   Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Childhood and early career


 * Link Indian agent
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "once traveled as far as Portland" – can you indicate the approx. distance in miles? "As far as" suggests a great distance.
 * Done, though added a bit earlier.If I add it there, it sounds like too much making fun of the yokels. "Forty Miles in a Saddle" by Major Assburns and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally, the section needs more date referencing. There's nothing in the last two paragraphs that indicates when these events were taking place.
 * These are youthful jobs. I've never seen them precisely dated.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sources are vague, as the primary source for everyone is Davenport's account in Country Boy, and he was not terribly specific there.  --MTBW
 * Certainly, in his somewhat overdetailed childhood memoir, Davenport doesn't bother with dates; he uses "some time later" and "a few years on" and similar vague formulations. I found a reference to "Cleveland's first election", i.e. 1884, but otherwise found it impossible to assemble a chronology. To provide a very broad framework for the Silverton years I think I'd give the year that they moved there (1876), rather than the boy's age, and I'd begin the sections final sentence: "Although after 1889 his work took him from Silverton..."
 * Except I think he did the circus gig prior to 1889 when about 17 or so, his memoirs about his dog Duff indicate he got the puppy when he was 17, owned the dog for six years, and in that time it appears this was his transient period. 1889 is when he started newspaper work, so there is a period of about age 17 to 22 that we are discussing. (Now I'm kind of confused - maybe just pop some hidden text into the article at the spot where you see a hiccup that needs a fix??)   Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * West Coast years


 * Again, the section begins in a time limbo. For example, we are told that Davenport was fired from The Oregonian in 1890, but not when he began work there.
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any information as to the nature of the family relationship between Davenport and Smith?
 * Spelled out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "helped him in get a job..." – presumably s/b "helped him to get a job..."
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "he attracted reader attention for his ability to draw animals". Either "through", "by" or possibly "with", but "for" does not work.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Transfer to New York Journal


 * "...began to assemble what was later acknowledged as one of the greatest staffs in newspaper history". This is a better formulation than the wording in the lead, but it needs ascription and citation.
 * I will do it, but about the time we get to Mark Twain, I think it qualifies, as we lawyers say, as res ipsa loquitur.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The noun "standout" is listed in my dictionaries as "informal", and may not meet the criterion for encyclopedic language (I am slightly uneasy, too, about "fired", used several times earlier in the article).
 * Fired is the commonplace word in American English. Did he quit, or was he fired.  I fear the reader would wonder why we did not use it if we did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed --MTBW
 * Commonplace, but informal, perhaps? "Dismissed" might be more encyclopedic, but I won't press for that. However, "standouts" is a bigger concern. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replaced "standouts" with " talented staff" -  Revert if there's a better way to do that. As for "fired," it is not informal in American English, it conveys a level of intensity that is widely understood, with an implication of an element of strong emotion (by either the actor or the recipient, take your pick)  Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Davenport was teamed with Lewis and soon forged a solid relationship". Sounds a bit one-sided; perhaps "Davenport was teamed with Lewis, and the pair soon forged a solid relationship".
 * "Two" instead of pair, otherwise done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two successive sentences begin "In order to…"
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1896 election and Mark Hanna


 * "Davenport borrowed from the animal kingdom for his creation, drawing Hanna's ears so they stuck out like a monkey's and the cartoonist described Hanna's eyes as like a parrot's, leaving no movement unseen, other times describing them as those of a circus elephant—scanning the street for peanuts." The sentence needs to be split, to separate the information about what Davenport drew (monkey's ears) and what he "described" (parrot-like or elephant-like eyes)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "Wiliam McKinley" should be listed along with props such as moneybags, skulls, cufflinks etc. Perhaps reword along the lines: "...and a shrunken, though dignified depiction of William McKinley…"
 * I am following the way the source describes it. It seems to me appropriate.  McKinley was usually an appendage to Hanna in one way or another in these cartoons.  It was one of the recurring themes in the Davenport cartoons, such as Hanna resting his feet (or sometimes, a bullwhip) on a laborer's skull. I'm open to other ideas, because I do see your point, it is unusual to lump animate and inanimate together, but these are simply depictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In images such as File:Man_of_Mark.jpg, McKinley is hardly "dignified," and most definitely a prop, but I'm going to tweak the phrasing a wee bit, either of you are free to disagree with me on this --MTBW
 * He is still wearing his frock coat and himself dignified, even if something undignified is being done to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, and it's sourced, I'm OK. --MTBW
 * I I have no objection to the current woding. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Even so, the figure seemed to lack something..." This reads as opinion, and should be reworded more neutrally.
 * I think it is passable. I know of no contrary school of thought on this.  If there were those who felt the initial cartoons were the ne plus ultra of cartooning art and were not susceptible of any improvement whatsoever :), that view has not survived.  We cannot take sides for or against an unknown school of thought.
 * As a way out of this conundrum, a question to Wehwalt: White is the source on that, what's the wording or sense there?  I'm thinking in terms of the origins of the view - was it Davenport's himself, or later analysis? --MTBW
 * Davenport's, and I've made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Groovy. I guess it's back to Brian now. --MTBW
 * I happy with "Davenport felt the figure seemed to lack something..." Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Scott remembered being with Hanna as he viewed his caricature wear a suit covered with dollar signs, trampling women and children underfoot, and the Ohioan stating, 'that hurts'". There is some confusion here: "wear a suit" should be "wearing a suit"; is "the Ohioan" Hanna, and is the remark "that hurts" being said by the real Hanna or by the depicted Hanna?
 * I have tweaked it to make it clearer and clear up that glitch.


 * "...both men were content to have Hanna be attacked if it meant that McKinley would not." Sentence is incomplete as it stands. The intended sense is "both men were content to have Hanna  attacked, rather than McKinley."
 * I've added "be" to that. I rather like that turn of phrase and am reluctant to lose it.


 * There is likely to be an issue with the gallery that dominates this section. The images are very large, and I'm not convinced that four such are necessary to demonstrate the manner in which Davenport caricatured Hanna. Bear in mind, too, that this is only the first of three such galleries, along with copious standard images. According to WP:IG: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made."
 * My view on the 1896 ones is one is relevant to McKinley's debts, discussed in the text. One shows the sheer dominance of Hanna over McKinley that Davenport alleged.  The third demonstrates some of the "props", i.e. the moneybags and the skull.  I did not want exactly to include only ones discussed in the text, as I felt the same space would give the reader more information and variety.  The fourth one shows one of Davenport's cartoons used on the front page of the Journal, which I felt would be interesting.  It's also one that does not include McKinley, showing that Hanna would be well-known enough to include (on the front page of the Journal, no less) without the need of including the presidential candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, I was the one who cooked up the galleries, as otherwise our choices were to bloat the article with scattered images, or leave out a lot of representative examples. (as it sits, there are hundreds of cartoons to choose from here) and while normally I am the queen of "galleries discouraged on wikipedia," there is a clear exception for artists, and I reviewed several FA-class articles about artists where galleries are used to display representative works; here I did them broken down by period with representative works.  We are certainly willing to discuss what's in and what's out, but the concept of using four images seemed to work for flowing across the screen fairly well, and the size is negotiable, but on my laptop, anything smaller became difficult to view.  If you have a way to use markup syntax to render the "upright" tag to work in a gallery, I'm all ears, I couldn't figure out anything better than forced sizes. --MTBW

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've left a few that I felt Montanabw would be the better person to answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Got 'em and a few comments throughout. We appreciate your input, Brian!   Montanabw (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Second instalment
 * 1897–1901


 * "well paid" is hyphenless in its postpositive form
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you mean add or remove the hyphen? (I just removed it...?)   Montanabw (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You were right to remove it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am curious as to what aspects of the Dreyfus affair Davenport might have encountered on his European trip, which seems to have taken place from late 1896 to early 1897. This was a relatively quiet phase in the affair; Dreyfus had been degraded in January 1895, while Zola's intervention came in January 1898. So to say he "covered" the affair is maybe not the best wording.
 * What it says is (page 107 of Huot and Powers) 'In France he went to Rennes to cover the Dreyfus trial, with not only a sketch of the sad, unglamorous Dreyfus, but with over a dozen faces of French judges, lawyers, witnesses, and spectators. "To picture makers," he paid (sic), "all men don't look alike. Very few have strong features in their faces. If in an American courtroom you find six picturesque faces you are very lucky. But in the courtroom at Rennes, when I say that every face, barring none, was something of a picture, I am not exaggerating as much as usual. Even the press representatives and artists looked as if culled by someone trying to pick out the freakest specimens.  They looked like people designed by nature to work in no other place than a French court." '
 * The Rennes trial was the second Dreyfus trial, and took place in August 1899. On his European trip Davenport interviewed and drew Gladstone; the cartoon was published in New York in 1897. (Incidentally, Gladstone died in May 1898). Unless the European visit extended over several years, Davenport can't have sketched Gladstone and the Rennes trial in a single visit. It seems more likely that the Dreyfus drawings were made on a second, later European visit which your source may have conflated with the first. I will leave this with you, but clearly some shifting of content and rephrasing is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most likely so. Worked on that assumption in my edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "He was impressed by the large muscles of the work, and immediately conceived of it as representing the trusts—the status of these corporate amalgamations was then a major political issue." I think that a stronger introduction is to "the trusts" is required, as this is their first mention. Possible rewording: "He was impressed by the large muscles of the work, and immediately conceived of it as representing America's powerful corporate trusts, the status of which was then a major political issue."
 * Looks like Wehwalt fixed that one too.  Montanabw (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Thereafter" means "from that time on", rather than on a specific future occasion, and is therefore an inappropriate word.
 * Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "pounded a drumbeat" – excellent journalistic imagery, but not encyclopedic language.
 * I've used it before, e.g. United States Senate election in California, 1950 and Mark Hanna. Same context in the latter. Precedent's everything to lawyers ;).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "under way" is two words
 * Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Same concern as in previous section on the overpowering cartoon images. I think this is an issue that requires some separate discussion.
 * We will open a fresh talk page topic on this. But see James B. Longacre, his fellow artist.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1901–1912


 * "One Davenport column..." was he writing stuff as well as providing cartoons?
 * Introduced. Haven't been able to find out much info about them in general.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Again he marked the campaign..." I assume this is a reference to the 1904 presidential election? This needs to be made clear, with (minimal) information as to the candidates.
 * I see this has been done, plus a further tweak from me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Republicans spent $200,000 reproducing it..." That's a huge sum for those times, many millions today. In what forms did they reproduce it? I also not two [56] citations in close succession. I don't know why the citation at the end of the paragraph is not in the standard form.
 * Wehwalt made it standard, it was done as an efn because it's a citation to two different pieces of music, but if it's OK like this, I'm OK w/it too.  Montanabw (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the $200K figure, there is no explanation in the text. Other sources, including online, also use that figure.  Where it comes from, no idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "...exhibiting his animals at Portland's Lewis and Clark Exposition". What animals? Maybe I've forgotten, but I don't think these have been mentioned since the lead (fancy poultry etc).
 * Wehwalt's source, he will have to see what it says. I saw a reference to it in another source, but it was vague, just that he was there and did something...   Montanabw (talk)
 * Four Arabian horses and an assortment of interesting poultry. Plus two dogs.  Pages 156 and 157 of Huot and Powers. I've just tweaked it to mention the animals, but we might want to consider internal links, that is, liking to a section ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The non-American reader should not be forced to use the link to find out what "Chatauquas" means; a few words of explanation would be helpful.
 * Explained. I doubt many Americans could tell you if you stopped them on the street, either.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the text to avoid an unnecessary repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt is correct that the word is not a familiar term; the problem is that the parenthetical is a gross oversimplification, the chatauqua movement was quite complex and rather sophisticated (often attracted the well to do of regional communities, sometimes people traveled for miles to attend, sort of libaral arts education-meets-tent-revival, but more). I'm open to a good way to briefly explain the concept, but I'm not sure we have a real good solution beyond going to the linked article.   Montanabw (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Open to rephrasing. It isn't something I'm too familiar with.  They said Bryan was good for fifteen acres of Model-T's at any hour of the day or night.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Davenport also authored..." followed closely by "He also published..." One "also" should go.
 * Also done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Davenport suffered a breakdown in 1909, related to his divorce case..." Neither a marriage nor a divorce has been mentioned thus far, so the reference to a divorce case is a bit bewildering. Nor, I see, is divorce mentioned in the section dealing with Davenport's personal life, except an oblique reference within a footnote. Some clarification/reorganisation required here.
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "That evening he fell ill..." There is no specific date to which "that evening" can refer. However, the account of Davenport's death appears to have been duplicated in the text; he dies in both the penultimate and final paragraphs.
 * That's fixed now. Artifact of an earlier organization of the article we didn't catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Arabian horse breeder


 * "Davenport initially bought some Arabian horses outright..." The word "initially" is unnecessary
 * Fixed --MTBW
 * Desert journey


 * "Originally intending to travel alone, but soon joined by two young associates anxious for an adventure in the Middle East, C.A. "Arthur" Moore, Jr., and John H. "Jack" Thompson, Jr.,[73] he traveled throughout what today is Syria and Lebanon, and successfully brought 27 horses to America." Too much subordinate info for a single sentence, and therefore hard to follow. I suggest something like: "He originally intended to travel alone, but was soon joined by two young associates anxious for an adventure in the Middle East, C.A. "Arthur" Moore, Jr., and John H. "Jack" Thompson, Jr.[73] He traveled throughout what today is Syria and Lebanon, and successfully brought 27 horses to America." Alternatively, since there is no further vmention of either Moore or Thompson anywhere in the article, perhaps drop them altogether?
 * Fixed structure. I may add more about the trip, the two younger men proved helpful.  But if I don't do the expansion, I will consider omitting that bit.  OTOH, the original reason I mentioned them is that some works on Davenport by horsey folks imply that Peter Bradley went along, when he did not, he was just the financier. I suppose that's sort of an "inside baseball" thing for the horse enthusiasts to keep them straightened out.   Montanabw (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a chronological problem in the section. Towards the end of the first paragraph we have: "Upon his return to America...", while the following two paragraphs chronicle his adventures in the Middle East, including his encounters with Abdul the Damned.
 * I'm not sure of the relevance of comparing Abdul's appearance with that of one Congressman Dingley. Was the latter of notoriously unprepossessing appearance?
 * Davenport's analysis of the Sultan was fascinating, he felt rather sorry for the fellow, felt he was burdened by the weight of his office and that tales of the Sultan as a cruel and evil man were unfounded. I'm open to ideas of where to go with this; here's the direct quotes, your thoughts?  --MTBW



"'He looked like a combination of the late Nelson Dingley, of Maine, and Mr. Nathan Strauss, of New York. I can say this with all due respect to the three concerned. The Sultan's forehead is a thoughtful one, although his fez prevented me from seeing how high it was. His eyes and eyebrows,while showing the strain under which he lives, also show that he is a kind father, and would, if permitted, be a kindly home man.' and 'If you ever saw Nelson Dingley walking up and down the aisle of the House of Congress, even through the worry and stress of the Dingley Tariff Bill, you saw in him a kindness so stamped that it showed through the slight snarl of expression brought on by overwork and bad light. So when the Sultan turned to help his little tots, who were playing generals, he was Nelson Dingley turning, though tired, to listen to the jest of his famous colleague, Tom Reed.'"
 * Oh, and he had a point, see images. (I'm going to tweak that a bit more to add Strauss
 * The only further change I'd make is to clarify the chronology by prefacing the second paragraph with the words: "During his Middle East visit, Davenport..." In any event, the paragraph should not begin with a pronoun. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually added an additional paragraph about Davenport's time in Constantinople before heading to the desert, then a transitional sentence to the paragraph in question. Take a look and see if that is an improvement.  Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "had been officially been allowed" (word duplication)
 * Fixed, hope split infinitive is OK. --MTBW


 * "...but also mares, which were treasured by the Bedouin and the best war mares generally were not for sale at any price." Delete inappropriate "and", and replace with either a full stop or semicolon after "Bedouin".
 * Fixed with semicolon. --MTBW


 * Repeated link on Bedouin
 * Fixed --MTBW


 * "Haffez considered the timing of Davenport's visit to constitute a great honor..." Maybe omit "to constitute"
 * OK --MTBW


 * "Haleb had been given to Pasha as a reward for keeping the camel tax low". I'm not sure of the relevance of this, to the extent of it requiring a double citation. In any event, Nazim Pasha should not be referred to as "Pasha", which is a title, not part of his name.
 * Sourced to Edwards only. The significance was that this horse was a big, big deal, the kind of animal not for sale at any price, and was a gift from the Bedouin to the Pasha what had a lot of political implications. (perhaps TMI, but Haleb covered something like 200 mares a year for the Bedouin, which is a LOT for a horse that has no help from artificial insemination technology) and then to turn around and be given as a gift to an "infidel" who would export him was also a big deal.  I can't go into OR territory, but this was probably a pissing match between Nafiz and Haffez over who was the bigger, more important man and who would get the most status for being the more generous (Wadduda, Haffez' gift to Davenport, was considered the finest war mare of the desert, not for sale at any price, and mares were valued more than stallions by the Bedouin). However, every single source we have calls him "Nazim Pasha" (though sometimes with spelling variants) and it's the wikipedia article title too. So, given that the wiki article gives his first name, but none of our sources do (and we can't use wiki to cite wiki), I am open to discussion of how to solve this "Pasha" dilemma.  Do you have suggested phrasing?   Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling him the Pasha is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I did in the second instance. Does that work?   Montanabw (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "...Arabian horse breed in America..." – do you mean "breeders" or "breeding", rather than "breed"?
 * No, the breed as a whole; the Davenport horses and Davenport's work had a profound impact overall. I'm not bound to my phrasing, but definitely the breed itself.   Montanabw (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments on last few sections will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we've addressed or responded to all to date. Many thanks for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto, look forward to your responses on the things we had discussion on, above.  Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Third instalment
 * Arabians in America


 * USDA needs spelling out at first mention
 * Done. --MTBW
 * The first reference to the Jockey Club (third line of section) is presumably to the American Jockey Club. This needs to be clarified, and the appropriate link included there, rather than at a later mention.
 * Done. --MTBW
 * "On one hand" is unnecessary verbiage
 * Done. --MTBW
 * I got confused among the various "Jockey Club" references in the latter part of the first paragraph. Some rephrasing/clarification necessary.
 * Tweaked, hope this helped--MTBW
 * Morgan linked twice in rapid succession
 * Done. --MTBW
 * "Abu Zeyd" is preceded by an asterisk. What character or mark is this representing?
 * It designates a horse imported to America from another nation. See the footnote immediately after his name; I also had to do this for poor *Abu Zeyd at the FAC for WIlliam Robinson Brown, where we addressed the same issue.   Montanabw (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal life and other interests


 * "While living in a New York apartment between 1895 and 1901 not much is known of the Davenport home life except that the furnishings were luxurious, as mentioned in a letter from a visitor." The grammar needs fixing.
 * Trimmed. Wehwalt may want to look at that bit also. --MTBW
 * Looks OK. The reason that's known is one of the Geer relatives visited them and mentioned it in a letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The list of house guests is unnecessarily long. Some of them (e.g. the "Florodora girls") are somewhat obscure these days.
 * But fun to wikilink. Also, each person represents a different group (writer, actress, inventor, politician, western artist, etc...)  The obscure ones are the most enlightening (the pretty girls...) If it gets in the way of the FAC, it can be trimmed, but for now would prefer to keep it.  But thoughts?? --MTBW
 * "By 1901, Davenport had bought both a house in East Orange, New Jersey, a suburb of New York City, and a farm in Morris Plains, New Jersey, which was more distant though connected to New York by rail." I'd repunctuate, to avoid the impression that he bought a suburb of New York City, and I don't think I'd bother with the "more distant though connected to New York by rail" info.
 * Trimmed. Chopped some material here. --MTBW
 * On reading further, the section seems to be somewhat overburdened with trivia. Do we need to know what rail line Davenport took to New York? The story of the 17-year-old Davenport teaching his dog to perform tricks is hardly noteworthy. "...he spent months recuperating in a resort hotel in San Diego, California at the expense of his friend, sporting goods mogul and retired baseball pitcher Albert Spaulding" is another example of too much detailed information. These are examples; I think there are opportunities for cutting this section considerably, without losing any of the necessary comprehensiveness.
 * The point was that the dog's tricks got Davenport considerable money when he rented out the dog to the vaudeville show. But I rephrased a bit, glad to do more to make this more lively. Also edited a little on the San Diego section, but Wehwalt should weigh in here also.  --MTBW
 * Looks OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We've wrestled with this section, from where it is located to what is in it. I think the problem is that we have some tantalizing details that are NOT well-documented: why did his marriage fall apart, why was he so depressed, etc...?  I think I will wait until Wehwalt can weigh in to figure out what to do here.  But I do hear your sense that the section is klunky and we are aware of that concern, ourselves.   Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that Davenport has never been the subject of a scholarly biography. So there are many times in this article where we are piecing things together.  We cannot do better than the sources do. There's no magic fix. Newspapers were reticent about divorce cases in those days, and since Homer was one of their own, what I call "the thin inky line" would have led to less coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Legacy

Not much to say on this section, though I am surprised to see Davenport's legacy as a cartoonist discussed pretty well entirely in terms of the reputations of Hanna and McKinley. Neither of these are much remembered now, 100 years on. I thought that perhaps Davenport may have had some general influence on the way in which hostile political cartooning developed during the 20th century. Is there nothing in the sources along these lines, which would enable a rather more solid legacy to be presented?
 * I did not see any. I do not think that Davenport's cartoons were groundbreaking in the way you suggest.  They were just very effective.  Re sources, most of them are sources dealing principally with other people, and Huot and Powers is a bit episodic. I will look at the online sources and see if I can come up with anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The analysis that his more lasting contribution was as a horse breeder is well-taken. I've owned Arabian horses for 40+ years, his cartooning was only mentioned in passing as how he funded his horse activities. FWIW as far as legacy, I studied Thomas Nast in history class at school, I did not study Davenport--his work was more famous in his own time.  Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That completes my review comments. I will return to make a few observations on your responses, and perhaps to participate in the separate discussions on image overkill. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ping when you want me to take another look Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Galleries
Brianboulton expressed some concerns re the galleries. Thoughts anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For those who wish to weigh in, here is what guided the current structure: From Image_use_policy:  "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."  I am most open to ideas about how to format them better, but per talk above, the images are hard to decipher if they get too small, particularly on a laptop.  I also reviewed all the FAs at Featured_articles and this layout coincides most closely to Longacre, but see also Charles_Holden, where there is a similar layout, and John_Michael_Wright.   I believe our structure is far superior to the raw "dumping ground of representative works" seen at FAs such as El_Lissitzky, Adolfo_Farsari, Caspar_David_Friedrich, or Henry_Moore. The only other useful format I can see is the double image layout at El_Greco, but I tried that here, and it didn't really work.  (Might try it for the horse images, though...)  Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By chance, the TFA for 28 October is the cartoonist George Herriman. This article employs a similar image presentation pattern to that used in Davenport, so clearly my fears that such a presentation might not be acceptable at FAC are unfounded. In the case of Herriman, the images are smaller and neater than in Davenport, with much shorter captions. I suggest you reduce the sizes of your galleries (maybe 200px), and at the same time reduce captions to a few words in each case – let each picture tell its story. Readers can of course use the thumb to incease the size of each individual pic. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WHEW! Put all galleries at 200 px (they seem a little small now, though? Except the first set, which didn't shrink... Whazzup with that?). trimmed captions (Wehwalt, may want to review my edits) Does that work?   Montanabw (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I see it now, it is the second set, not the first, which is still oversized. Try it on 220px – you'll get a good result. And an even better ione if you make the captions "small". Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Albert Spaulding /Albert Spalding
The link to a wikipedia article on Albert Spaulding refers to the wrong person. It appears that it should be Albert Spalding, different spelling. The one linked was born after Davenport's death. Incorrect link used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Spaulding

This is likely the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Spalding

Puckety (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've fixed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Article additions
Some new material was added to this article. We can use some of it (such as the names of the children Davenport's parents lost) if we have proper sourcing for this info, and we can add the other material if the google books links check out and are properly formatted - I will start that part. I want to encourage people to contribute to our wikipedia articles, but on this particular article, we have to be more precise about how we go about it. Montanabw (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey wehwalt
Was digging around in the drive-by editor's source material and came across a few things of interest. Would you add your two cents if these sources pass WP:RS in your view? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Let me know. Dandy stuff if they will work here. Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) http://1859oregonmagazine.com/homer-davenport
 * 2) http://davenport.liberaluniversity.org/twd-history-pub/
 * 3) http://davenport.liberaluniversity.org/the-brooklyn-citizen/
 * The first one, I'm reasonably certain. The other two are a little foggier because they look to me like blog posts.  Borderline.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on their connection to a university per WP:NEWSBLOG? Just trying to figure out mostly if the stuff on Timothy Davenport (ink #2) can be used.   Montanabw (talk)  03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a page that explains who is behind the Davenport Project? What I want is evidence there's some sort of editorial oversight.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents. 1859 (magazine) is legit. Off the top of my head, I think I've rejected the "liberal university" blog as non-reliable source on the Silverton, Oregon article before. Valfontis (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The place I found the "liberal university" edits was at Bobby the Wonder Dog. Added here, removed here. Here's more background on the "liberal university" project. appears to be the same as G. F. Brazier. So there's like some COI, and I can't find any evidence of oversight. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the Liberal University Press has author Gus Frederick. Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally Gus Frederick is considered a legit source. Arcadia Press book, local coverage of same, story by Frederick in the Statesman Journal. Valfontis (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so, of the above links, the first one, to the 1859 magazine, is legit and copacetic. But what about the other two? Blog posts, yea or nay?   Montanabw (talk)  19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with using them. But we should try to cover the material later with better sources.  If GFrederick goes ahead and starts a page on Timothy, our problem may be solved.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

More
If Gus is a RS then this is a goldmine: http://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/davenport_timothy_woodbridge_/#.VN2YzjqFarI   Montanabw (talk)  06:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oregon Encyclopedia is a reliable source. Valfontis (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping user
Hey folks, the "drive-by editor" might like to be informed of this discussion. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings all: It is I the above mentioned "drive-by editor" Gus Frederick. Actually, if memory serves, it was I who originally set this Wiki page up maybe a decade or more ago? Over the years I have watched as it has grown, (I am assuming!) by the help of my good friends in the CMK/Al Khamsa Communities, and no doubt others. Anyway, I just recently got back on Wiki and decided to correct a few errors that I observed, (most notably surrounding the "Smith Brothers," several wrong dates and some relevant links). I currently live in Davenport's home town of Silverton, Oregon and have taken on the task of "Town Historian." I am the promotion chair for the Annual Davenport Community Festival, frequently lecture on Davenport and other aspects of local history. I also maintain the Liberal University domain, including the main root site, "The Davenport Project" site as well as the "Liberal University Press" that is my publishing arm, as I am the editor and author of the annotated edition of Davenport's 1898 book "Cartoons." I wrote the 1854 article "The World According to Davenport," and additionally, I have compiled and published the collected works of Davenport's pioneer politician father Timothy. I will be starting his Wiki page shortly. Next up is an annotated copy of "The Dollar or the Man," Homer's second collection of cartoons. By profession I work as an Instructional Technologist for the Oregon State Fire Marshal. My skill set includes print, web, and related digital design as well as video production, animation and editing. To those ends, I am in the process of creating a video "Bio Doc" on the life and times of Davenport. An updated printed biography will follow. MUCH about Davenport's life was missed or misrepresented by his previous biographers, notably Huot & Powers as well as my dear friend the late Mickey Hickman. They of course lacked access to modern research tools. I continue to find incredible "Davenport Droppings" in many different archives, which help bring a clearer focus on the man. Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded. I will be creating my "Wiki User Page" tonight, so that my name will no longer be red, and thank each and everyone involved with this site's maintenance! And I hope I am following proper protocol by responding here as I have. GFrederick (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for weighing in! Actually, I have no connection to the CMK/AlKhamsa crowd, though I am an Arabian horse owner and have background in history.  (Wehwalt's interest is in the politics of that period) The problem is that blogs in general are not considered "reliable sources" for Wikipedia.  Also, self-published materials that haven't been vetted by a neutral third party are also not suitable.  (See:  WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SELFPUB.) This is a BIG problem for both you and the CMK project, unfortunately. I use those resources the same way University professors tell students to use Wikipedia itself - it points us to potential reliable sources, but is not reliable itself.  Now, that said, I as an individual editor have no reason to doubt your info (e.g. the name of the previous children of Timoth and Florinda, Daisy Moors' origins or the identity of "Zadah"  Plus the spiritualism stuff is very intriguing)  The best way to approach this is not to link to the blog, but to provide the same research/ bibliographic info you'd use if you were footnoting a submission to a scholarly journal. (WP:PRIMARY is a minor problem, but not for things like the names of people's children) - i.e, where did YOU find this stuff?  (And, in a perfect world, the sources might be scanned into either Hathi trust or Google books so anyone can verify them, though that's not mandatory...) So... the 1859 magazine article is OK, and the editor's annotations to the reissue of "Cartoons" are OK - at least if we add them (if you do, it's kind of a WP:COI problem.  So, long story short, I would love to see at least some of this additional material added, but we may need YOUR help to access theproper offline sources.  Montanabw (talk)  18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with him adding his own works, within reason (that's what the policy actually is). I've done it myself, see Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok then.  Montanabw (talk)  06:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK... I will get all my sources in a row. Several have ALREADY been referenced. Zadah's maiden name of "Howard" is referenced in Hickman's book, for example. I got the full name from the Knight Library of University of Oregon, which has the Davenport papers in their collection. She sent two telegrams at the time of Homers Death to his sisters in Pasadena. I will go through these errors one by one and get back to you with the sources later, as they are on my home computer. As for my "Self Published" material, in the case of TW Davenport, that was actually RE-published from the Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, and includes a biographical sketch of his son. And my "Annotated Cartoons" is fully referenced.


 * Groovy. All we really need then are full bibliographic citations (including page number if a book) or if the material is in your blog posts above that we have determined to be of adequate reliability, we can also cite to them.


 * Starting date at the Oregonian: 1890, not 1889. I have copies of the illustrations from the paper with the dates. He was there off and on for a period of about six months.


 * I believe you, but can we verify he published on date "X"? (We do have online access to "Country Boy", though we've noticed that Davenport was not above a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole, so his autobiographical material has to be taken with at least some grains of salt) -- (Montanabw)


 * The "prizefight" in New Orleans (1/14/1891). AGAIN, referenced via the Wiki pages (I had linked to) for both combatants, Dempsey and Fitzsimmons. The paper, according to Davenport ("The Country Boy") was the "Sunday Mercury," NOT the "Portland Mercury."


 * Wikipedia can't be used to source another wikipedia article, but what we need is verification that Davenport went there for that specific fight; from there the date is easy enough to verify off-wiki. Presume the paper had more than one name or an official and an unofficial name.  We can check that easily enough.  (Montanabw)


 * Daisy Moors: ("s" on the end. "Plural"). Through personal correspondence with her Great-Grand Nephew, I learned of her brother Harry Moors, author of "With Stevenson in Samoa."


 * Can we verify the "s" in a newspaper or other source? It stinks, but unpublished personal correspondence is Original research unless you have it "published" somewhere?  If so, just point us to it. (Montanabw)


 * The Smith Brothers: Charles was not affiliated with the Associated Press in any way. He was a railroad executive. Hout, Powers & Hickman all got this wrong, (as did you by repeating them). His BROTHER William Henry Smith was the AP guy, (check out his Wiki page). Information regarding this came from the hand written memoirs of T.W. Davenport, (transcribed by Ann Davenport Vasconi, a Davenport relative from the original at UO). T.W. also mentions this in the biographical sketch he wrote on his son, (Oregon Native Son Magazine; V.1/N2 1899 - scanned copies on GoogleBooks). I personally have copies of letters from the Smith brothers obtained during a research trip to the Indiana Historical Society in Indianapolis, where their research library is named for W.H. Smith. Also, I did not include the fact that the Smith Brother's nephew, named for his "Uncle Charlie," was Charles Warren Fairbanks, T. Roosevelt's vice-president and namesake of the Alaskan city. Again, I have copies of personal correspondence between Davenport and Fairbanks, via the Fairbanks papers at Indiana University at Bloomington, as well as from the WHS Library.


 * Again, I believe you, but WP can't be used to source WP (because those article could also have errors). We can probably fix the WH vs Charles Smith stuff if you can toss us a link to the T.W piece. If you can give us the bibliographic info for these letters (just as if you were footnoting a piece for a scholarly journal ) that verify anything else we need to add, groovy (Montanabw)


 * Further information regarding Anna Howard Reakirt, (aka "Zadah") was obtained through personal correspondence and interviews with Michael Bowling of the Homer Davenport Arabian Horse Conservancy, as well as newspaper accounts of the era surrounding her divorce, the antics of her husband Llewellyn and her involvement with the Mazdaznan nutrition cult.


 * If you can provide the actual source material, many old newspapers are now archived online. Bowling is also pretty prolific, cite to anything he's written, I can vouch that he is an RS within the Arabian horse community. (Montanabw)
 * Also, my "blogs" are only such in that they make use of the WordPress software. To imply that the use of a particular software to create and maintain a website, somehow renders the content "unreliable" tells me that you have not bothered to look at my sites, and(or) lack a basic understanding of modern web-based information systems. "WordPress" is what we in the industry refer to as a "Content Management System" (CMS). The fact that this particular CMS is often used to make blogs is irrelevant to the content of my sites.


 * I did not intend to insult you, and there is no need to be insulting in return. I failed to be clear: My point is explained at WP:USERGENERATED - blogs are generally viewed as "self-published} sources and unreliable, though there is a loophole for people like you at  WP:BLOGS:  "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications...Exercise caution when using such sources:" It looks like you will pass the "established expert" standard, and so Wordpress material can work so long as it is clearly identified as "by" you and particularly when individual articles identify your source materials or have evidence of clear  third-party oversight.  For example, the CMK web site materials work where they cite to or reproduce independent third-party articles. (Montanabw)


 * At this point, I really don't have the time to make changes only to have them erased with the errors I have corrected restored. I can appreciate your concerns regarding accuracy. I share them! Which is why I made them in the first place. I'm thinking it would be better if I simply provide you (whoever you are) with whatever "proof of my claims" you may require, and then allow you to correct these blatant errors yourself. Errors I might add that do not help Wikipedia's reputation as a viable information source.


 * You can either add the sources or give them to us. All we really need are solid citations for each specific point. I'm sympathetic; I've written stuff for publication off-wiki, I find it much, much easier because I don't have to cite every three words.  So,  I'll explain why you got reverted below, OK?  (Montanabw)
 * Gus Frederick
 * The Davenport Project
 * gus@liberaluniversity.org

GFrederick (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go ahead and insert changes, referenced of course? I'm afraid we do tend to revert first and ask questions later, but I doubt this will be the case now we are more familiar with your bona fides.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mostly be sure you have FULL citations (the "cite" templates that appear in the editing box are handy because you just need to fill in the blanks); it's a real pain to have to fix partial or incomplete information when we don't have access to it. If you are at all worried, present your edit here with the best job you can do for citation and if it's fine, we will let you know or offer how to fix it.  The main thing is that we have to follow WP:RS.  (FWIW, I have "met" Michael Bowling via email on a different project; anything you can find that he has published under his name I can vouch for).   Montanabw (talk)  06:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I said I'd explain why we reverted your earlier edit. Here's the edit diff, and here were the problems: Hope this explains what we need. Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Most problems were because you inserted material without ANY sourcing, and the footnotes we already had in here didn't verify what you added. Specifically:
 * 2) "children—Olive "Ollie" and John "Little Johnny"—in infancy from diphtheria in 1860" were inserted before a citation to the Eileen Sass article; Sass doesn't verify the children's names or that they died of diptheria - you need a different source (we can integrate the material if we have the source).
 * 3) Russell Thacher Trall, That was marginally OK (IMHO), I'd say it would be better if we had an en.wiki article on this guy, but I would not necessarily have reverted this if it were the only edit. But I'd quickly start an article on en.wiki to eliminate the inline link.
 * 4) Davenport's first job in journalism, in 1890: Our sources said 1889, so you need a source different from the ones we used.
 * 5) "...to New Orleans for the January 14, 1891 Prizefight between Portland, Oregon champion Jack Nonpareil Dempsey and Bob Fitzsimmons."  Ditto - no source for the prizefight and our sources don't verify ( has Huot - confirm lack of verification?)
 * 6) " William Henry Smith, general manager of the Associated Press, and also Timothy Davenport's first cousin. Smith's brother Charles Warren Smith, Vice-president of the California Southern and California Central Railways, " Same problem, no source.
 * 7) "Daisy Moors, sister to Robert Lewis Stevenson biographer Harry J. Moors, " this source doesn't verify that Daisy was the sister of Harry J. Moors and our sources didn't verify. Also, we have confusion between "Moor" and "Moors"
 * 8) "On his return trip from the Middle East in 1906, he met Anna "Zadah" Howard Reakirt, (ex-wife of Cincinnati, Ohio industrialist Llewellyn Reakirt)." and "Zadah and her sister were active in the Mazdaznan "nutrition cult" established by German immigrant Otoman Zar-Adusht Ha'nish, from which she obtained her new name." - also completely unsourced.
 * 9) "Homer Davenport Community Festival," We don't like to do inline links like this in featured articles.  When we have these articles at the Featured Article review process, the reviewers inevitably tell us to remove them.  When tempted to insert an inline link, best to just create a small wikipedia article about the event anyway.

Formatting of references
Personally I rather don't think the formatting of the references is a valid rationale to remove relevant, well-sourced content, Featured Article or no. The content should be our primary concern; a tidy formatting is a secondary issue. A "form over substance" approach worsens the article. That said, I'd ask Montanabw to please explain what was wrong with the formatting of this reference which made use of the cite news template, in line with various other cite web, cite news and cite journal templates used in the article. Huon (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah! I did miss that, I thought you just reverted the earlier version that did not have the cite template, saw the "undo" in the edit summary and assumed no changes had been made.  Thank you for BRD, for pointing this out, and I'll restore your material, I had to copyedit a bit, though.  As far as the general principle, actually FAC is unbelievably fussy about all the citations being uniform and correct.  It's one of the first things they spot.  In articles where the citations are added willy-nilly and not consistently formatted, I have been on teams where we have spent hours and hours fixing citations, it's very painstaking; must easier to do it properly from the outset.  It's also low-hanging fruit for those who review articles for potential TFA slots...  Montanabw (talk)  03:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Homer Davenport. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/ESHDav.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/DavReview.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/WonDav.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homer Davenport. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/ESHDav.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/DavReview.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3095/WonDav.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021110428/http://www.arabianhorses.org/marketplace/mah_articles/MAH_Maynesboro_Stud_Sept12.pdf to http://www.arabianhorses.org/marketplace/mah_articles/MAH_Maynesboro_Stud_Sept12.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homer Davenport. 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/20060422024720/http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_bedouin.asp to http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_bedouin.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homer Davenport. 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/20120905202412/http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_bloodlines_domestic.asp to http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_bloodlines_domestic.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Source

 * https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/davenport_homer/#.WT9KexiZNo4 --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks useful at first glance, for example the detail of who provided over his funeral., what do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the long delay; appears to be RS, a publication of the Oregon Historical Society. I say yes!   Montanabw (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know we aren't supposed to use Find-a-grave, but when Homer's father remarried, he and his second wife had five more kids:. Worth mentioning? Montanabw (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's worth any flak from using it. Sort of fact that we can include, not include, the walls of the city won't fall down either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homer Davenport. 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/20080513201028/http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_north.asp to http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_north.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homer Davenport. 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/20130921060601/http://www.arabianhorses.org/OriginAHRA.asp to http://www.arabianhorses.org/OriginAHRA.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014174101/http://www.arabianhorses.org/AHRAdates.asp to http://www.arabianhorses.org/AHRAdates.asp
 * Added tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89052497484%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D8

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)