Talk:Texas–Indian wars

Untitled

When Indians murdered whites, it´s called massacre. When whites murdered indians, it´s called a battle.

Steffen Ackermann 28/5/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.229.97.136 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article appears to be very biased throughout. Also, it goes well beyond what would be considered encyclopedic content, resulting in its great length--longer than almost any article I have seen in Wikipedia. Taquito1 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the POV-check template because the more I look, the more evidence I find of non-neutrality. I have not read the entire article yet, and I am not particularly knowledgeable in the subject matter. But every section I read is loaded with non-neutral language. I suggest that editors of this article should consider taking part in a general effort to improve it by cleaning up a bit here and there, and eventually the job will get done. Quite a lot of work and care has apparently been given already, and I expect that this can become a great article. Taquito1 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I made significant changes to the conclusions section directed entirely at addressing the POV problem. The result is not what I consider good, but it has at least moved toward NPOV in that section. I am aware that my edits may raise disagreement, but I give my assurance that they are made in good faith--my goal is to make the article neutral, and, while any edit in that direction might be seen as attacking the views of some editors/readers, that is not my intent.

The portion, "Activist Ward Churchill, a former professor of ethnic studies fired for research misconduct from the University of Colorado..." is a very distasteful solution to me. I edited it that way to address the problem of POV material from a questionable source. I would prefer to omit the paragraph entirely as it is a generalization that is tangential to the topic of the Texas-Indian Wars, and of much broader scope, but I chose to leave it in with some clarification of the quality of the source. Now that it is worded this way, I think a later deletion of the material will be more understandable. I do not do this as a game of any kind, but to leave a trail that can be understood and debated if the occasion arises.

I deleted:

Nor is this attitude something completely in the past – Texas Online has an article on the Cherokee which states: "Viewed as a whole, the Republic of Texas waged a successful campaign to clear East Texas of Indians, to rid the area of an undesirable race, and to open it to economic development."

Whether the statement is true or not is not of interest to me here. I deleted it because the article is on the Texas-Indian Wars, not present attitudes. If someone wants to make a section on something like, "Aftermath of the War in Modern Society", or whatever, perhaps the material could be supported, assuming it was done in a balanced, NPOV way.

Deleted: "The Plains Indians cannot be presented as some kind of saints." No one is trying to present them as saints--this is an encyclopedia--but the statement with its implied "...but..." foreshadows the POV that filled the conclusion. The deletion leaves the next sentence as a lead-in, for which it is unsuited. I suggest someone should improve it.

Deleted: "...just as thunderstorms were a part of life." I'm sorry; it is very poetic but unneccessary and quaint.

Edited:

Texan Anglo Settlers did not accept the Plains Tribes, or virtually any Indian, or acknowledge the Comanche as the Lords of the Southern Plains. Cultural imperatives were different with the Texans – they would not put up with their children and women being stolen, nor would they tolerate groups of people they regarded as savages interfering with economic development. These attitudes, combined with advancing technology, put an end to the Plains Tribes and their way of life.

This part is full of thoughts of people long-dead, that we cannot verify. I tried to clean it up. The result, again, is not entirely pleasing to me, but it moved in the direction of Wikipedia's guidelines on such things.

Again, please recognize that these edits have been made in good faith, with the goal of a neutral, good, and useful article. I, in turn, recognize that a lot of work went into the article before me, and I respect that work.

Taquito1 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV-Dispute template, in accordance with JohninMaryland's (talk) comments below in both the Peer Review section and the Gary Anderson/Genocide section. Taquito1 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Analysis--Disease

I changed the wording regarding the use of disease as a weapon. Something unintended should not be called a weapon, I think, and if it was intended, we should have a reference. I am happy to restore if there is an appropriate reference. By "appropriate", I mean that it should be an instance that occurred in the region and time of the the Texas-Indian Wars. The idea that biological warfare was practiced knowingly by Europeans against natives certainly exists (viz., Ward Churchill's work), but I understand that it has been the subject of a lot of controversy, and the examples of deliberate spreading of disease have dwindled under scrutiny. Thus, I am reluctant to assume that it occurred in the Texas-Indian Wars, unless someone has a source. Taquito1 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I edited the intro a bit. Most should be fairly non-controversial. One sentence I edited to this: "Their war with the Plains Indians became one of racial animosity, slaughter, and, in the end, near-total conquest." I did this to try to capture as neutrally as I could the nature of the conflicts. Regardless of a reviewer's POV, if any, I suggest this statement should be considered. Is it accurate and fair? Note that I changed this from "Native Americans" to "Plains Indians"; regardless of what was going on elsewhere, I believe the Texas-Indian Wars are properly seen as being between white Texans (largely) and Plains Indians, rather than all Native Americans. Taquito1 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I don't have any problem with the way you edited the introduction. In fact, I thought you did a nice job of capturing the nature of the conflict, and identifying the parties. (All Native Americans were not involved, only the Plains Tribes, and indeed, 30% of them were genetically white or mexican! It was far more a cultural clash than just a racial one) You did a good job of making clear that this was a particularly vicious conflict, with no quarter given on either side. The violence has left scars that exist to this day. I support the modifications you made, and frankly, you did a better job than I could have. JohninMaryland (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Attribution and References

I noticed after my edit that the material I modified may not have been correctly attributed; although the footnote showed the correct source, the material should have been in quotes, as it was lifted verbatim from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWsatanta.htm. In academia, this is considered plagiarism. I do not fully understand Wikipedia's policy at present, so please note that I am NOT claiming that it is plagiarism in this context--I don't know, but I will look at policy. However, I would caution previous contributors to this article to consider whether there may be more such material. Taquito1 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-American settlement of Texas

"...and began encouraging Anglo-American settlement of Texas..." I have removed this phrase to the discussion page because the sentence appeared to me to be grammatically incorrect, and I was not sure of the original meaning. Please fix it if you can. Taquito1 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary Anderson Quote and Genocide Statement, First Paragraph

I removed this quote from the first paragraph for two reasons, below.

Indeed, writer Gary Anderson declares in his book “The Conquest Of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing In The Promised Land, 1820-1875 that there existed a “state of war for 50 years in Texas” between the Indians and the whites, before genocide left the Indians nearly as extinct as the buffalo.

1) It represents the opinion of Gary Anderson (and others, of course), and it does not seem correct to put it in the introductory paragraph. Let's keep the intro to clear, undisputed facts at an introductory level.

2) It appears to mainly serve the purpose of giving the article a point of view. In fact, since the whole article seems to consistently maintain that point of view, it might be seen as a logical introduction, but Wikipedia articles should not have a POV. If the same or similar material can be moved elsewhere in the article, perhaps it would be more appropriate, provided a NPOV of the overall article is maintained. To accomplish NPOV, I suggest something like a "Wars Viewed as Genocide" section. The bulk of the article should present simple, verifiable facts. Taquito1 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I don't think presenting Anderson's conclusions is POV, provided they are detailed as his conclusions, not presented as fact, per se. I think the fact the vast majority of historians agree with his conclusions. We have a quandry here; we cannot ignore the history, and it paints an ugly picture. I am not Comanche or Kiowa, and have no ax to grind, and am eager to avoid an edit struggle. What about a peer review, where we ask a group of interested editors to examine the article? I understand what you are trying to do, but respectfully, by editing out Anderson - and, as you pointed out, many other historian's - views that a state of war existed that ended with the vast majority of the Native American Population dead is also POV. It is pretending that such incidents as Pease River, (the slaughter of mostly women and children painted as attacking a large war party!), did not exist. Peer review? I have asked Karanacs (talk) andJacksinterweb (talk) to take a look at the article, and the edits in question. I think we have a fundamental problem in that history in recent decades for the first time has questioned the old presentation of manifest destiny, and the settlers as the unblemished heroes of the Old West. Historians, and writers such as Anderson, have taken a hard, and sometimes controversial, look at the fact that manifest destiny destroyed whole cultures, and slaughtered whole populations. I think that viewpoint needs to be presented. I absolutely agree with Taquito1 that we need to avoid POV, BUT, I think in editing out historical conclusions reached by Anderson and MANY others, we are doing precisely that, leaving the traditional cowboys and indians viewpoint undisturbed. In any event, hopefully other editors will take a look, and see whether the disputed language should be restored - obviously, I believe it should be, in some form. I dispute the edits, though I believe they were undertaken with good intentions, I think they did exactly what they purported to eliminate, and created POV.JohninMaryland (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the Gary Anderson quote I deleted earlier, somewhat modified for non-controversial improvements (I hope). This is only done as a gesture of good faith and willingness to work together--if you disputed my earlier edit, let's leave it in for now. I still think it ought to be elsewhere in the article, or deleted for POV, but I want to demonstrate that I do not want to be a hack-and-slash editor. By the way, the original quotation marks were botched I think, and I attempted to correct them, but it is only a guess. If you know how they should be, please fix them. Here is the quote now:

Writer Gary Anderson says in his book, The Conquest Of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing In The Promised Land, 1820-1875, that there existed a “state of war for 50 years in Texas between the Indians and the whites, before genocide left the Indians nearly as extinct as the buffalo".

Taquito1 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I appreciated the gesture of good faith, (I never doubted your good intentions!), and tried to receprocate by moving the quote to the conclusion section, and rewording the introduction to show the terrible bitterness and toll taken on both sides by this near 60 year conflict. If you feel it needs further work, please feel free to reword it! I believe we can work together and correct the problems the article currently has. On the length issue, I asked about specific remedies on your talk page, and am waiting for word back. Again, I believe we can work together, and with others, and whip this article into shape! JohninMaryland (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello John! I have responded at my talk page. Taquito1 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Length

Wikipedia:Article_size

This article is significantly longer than the US Civil War article. Many of its sections are historical background, and some portions are lifted directly from other Wikipedia articles. Intuitively, I sense that this article should be perhaps a quarter to a third of its current length. Moving in that direction will necessarily involve large-scale removal of material, and I propose to begin that process. If a section matches another article, I propose to delete it and substitute a pared-down reference to the other article. If this process concerns any editor, let's discuss it here--I have no wish to do anything rash, and would welcome the thoughts of others. Thanks. Taquito1 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the "This article may be too long" template after checking lengths of several other war articles. The Vietnam War article is slightly longer, and has the "too long" template already. The Crimean War article is less than half as long. The French and Indian Wars article, spanning a much longer time, is a tiny fraction of the size. The Hundred Years War article is a bit more than half the size (it is worth noting that that war featured Joan of Arc, and the population of France was reduced by 2/3). Even the WWII article is just about 2/3 the length! Obviously, some of these articles are heavily supported by other articles, which is how they manage to be relatively compact. Taquito1 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I started working on rewriting this article this morning, and one problem we are going to have is that some of the information offered here - details on the Indian policies of the Republic of Texas, for instance, under Presidents Houston and Lamar - are not offered anywhere else on wikipedia. We can condense many of the sections, (good comprehensive articles exist on the Battles of Adobe Walls, for instance, or the North Fork of the Red River, or the attack on Fort Parker!), but others we either have to keep intact, or write separate articles on the subject covered, such, as I noted, as the Indian Policies of the Lamar Presidency of the Republic of Texas. Before I get deeper in, do you have a preference for which way we do this? Keep the information here, or write a separate article on each of these areas? Thanks, JohninMaryland (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See comments at my talk page. Briefly, I favour more short articles rather than less long articles. I prefer not to delete good material for the sake of brevity. A couple of the early sections might be separate articles: 1.1 Indians in Texas; 1.2 Anglo-Texan Settlers. Someone should review the whole list of battles, raids, etc. to see which have articles already. I suspect that you have a much better sense of this than I do. So, would a raid on a camp with a handful of casualties warrant a separate article? I am thinking, "Why not?" If it was significant for any reason other than sheer statisitics (e.g., psychological effects, turning of the tide, crossing a Rubicon, new technology, etc.), than that would seem to warrant an article, and there is nothing innately wrong with short articles! If it is without significance, maybe we should consider just deleting it, or mentioning it only briefly. Regards, Taquito1 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I have responded on your talk page, but briefly, most of the sections have adequate articles in their own right, and can be trimmed without loss of information. I will have that ready by this coming weekend. Several of the sections however, most specifically: Indian relations during the First Houston, Lamar, Second Houston, and Jones presidencies, the Civil War years on the Plains, and the military analysis of the Texas-Indian Wars, lack articles that address the issues discussed. I can, and will, prepare articles on Indian relations during the First Houston, Lamar, Second Houston, and Jones presidencies. The other items can either be left in the current article - which will be MUCH smaller once the other sections are trimmed appropriately - or the subject of other, separate articles. What I propose is to do all the foregoing, and then see where we are, in terms of article length, next weekend. Your thoughts? JohninMaryland (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on the Comanche Campaign article. This topic covers 1867-1875, so due to the excessive length of this article, I plan to remove those sections that are relevant to the Campaign from this article, and put them in my article. When it is completed, I will add a link to my article on this one. I am not removing a large section, so the integrity of this article should not be affected. Keefeju (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review?

I suggest a peer review. I don't question Taquito's intentions, but I believe the results of his edits, such as eliminating language by Anderson, is to create a POV slant that effectively glorifies the good old cowboys and indians fantasy. I stress I believe his intentions are good. I have asked Karanacs (talk) andJacksinterweb (talk) to take a look at the article, and the edits in question. I think we have a fundamental problem in that history in recent decades for the first time has questioned the old presentation of manifest destiny, and the settlers as the unblemished heroes of the Old West. Historians, and writers such as Anderson, have taken a hard, and sometimes controversial, look at the fact that manifest destiny destroyed whole cultures, and slaughtered whole populations. I think that viewpoint needs to be presented. I absolutely agree with Taquito1 that we need to avoid POV, BUT, I think in editing out historical conclusions reached by Anderson and MANY others, we are doing precisely that, leaving the traditional cowboys and indians viewpoint undisturbed. In any event, hopefully other editors will take a look, and see whether the disputed language should be restored - obviously, I believe it should be, in some form. I dispute the edits, though I believe they were undertaken with good intentions, I think they did exactly what they purported to eliminate, and created POV.JohninMaryland (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, pleased to "meet" you! I have no problem with other people reviewing; that is what Wikipedia is all about. As I made my edits, I sensed that you would agree with some points of critique and not others. I am eager to discuss any particular edit or the overall article, as well as plans for future editing. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, it seems wise to be direct about things; I have tried to make clear in my comments that I have two main concerns, and these are:

1) NPOV

2) Length

as well:

3) Proper attribution of referenced material

4) Avoiding duplication of material contained in other articles

I do not wish to erase or bury history or anything like that. The article is simply very long, and reads like a book, rather than an encyclopedia. The thoroughness of it may actually interfere with its ability to communicate effectively. For example, rather than giving a history of Comanches in Texas, why not let another article do it, and the reader can go to that article if desired? Notable battles may be better detailed in their own articles--and it appears that many of them already are--while this article can give the highlights. I suspect the WWII article does not detail the Pearl Harbor attack, for instance.

Another characteristic of the article that makes it read like a book--and it could be a delightful quality in that context--is the intimate tone in which some of the ideas are conveyed. "In the end, deciding not to spend the rest of his life in prison, Satanta killed himself on 11th October, 1878, by diving headlong from a high window of the prison hospital. Thus, the proud war chiefs of the once free Kiowa were reduced to prisoners at a State Prison" would be great writing in a book, but is not encyclopedic in style. Likewise, "Perhaps the best tribute to the memory of the Plains Tribes is the inscription on Quanah Parker's grave..."; an encyclopedia is not the place for a tribute.

It may be partly through that intimacy of style that a POV appears to be established. "The best tribute..." seems clearly POV to me. So does, "Quanah Parker, who had led the last campaign of the Plains Tribes against the U.S. Army, then went tirelessly to work to help his people adapt to the Anglo world which had crushed them." These are fine pieces of writing, and my hat is off to the Wikipedian that composed them. But they are not encyclopedic and are elements of the POV that is built up throughout the article.

Gary Anderson, Ward Churchill,and David Stannard may be valid sources, but, since they are controversial, it is essential that their contributions are balanced or put into careful context. When I chanced upon the article and saw that it opened and closed with "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", and quotes from these sources, I guessed that I would find a pervasive POV. I did, and that is why I am here.

Taquito1 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) I think your points so far have been well thought out, and the edits good ones. I thought the Anderson, Churchcill, and Stannard quotes and theories should stay in, BUT, I agree with you that Anderson was inappropriate for the opening paragraphs, and inappropriate in the context it was presented in. The others, believe it or not, are fairly representative of a growing number of historians who believe what occurred to the Native Americans was unquestionably genocide. Even those who don't believe genocide occrred believe that "manifest destiny" was murderously wrong in most cases. Hopefully, both problems have been rectified with the move and general rewording so that all viewpoints are fairly presented. I think the total rewrite will address all remaining problems, and we will together craft a fair and balanced article which is also shorter! JohninMaryland (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of a "Indian Wars as Genocide" Section, or some other solution

Taquito1 (talk) I believe your idea of moving the Anderson quote to a different part of the article may be part of a viable solution. As I noted, I believe your intentions are good ones. I also think that the article should reflect, as you noted, simple, verifible facts. (like the fact in 1834, it is estimated there were 15,000 Native Americans in Texas, and in 1875 there were less than 500!) I think the article also needs to reflect the reality that the Texas-Indian Wars were different - in the opinion of most historians - and far more bitter, than most of the struggles waged by the Native Americans against white enchrochment. In recent years, most historians have changed their view of western expansion, and the article needs to reflect this also.

I will take a shot at rewriting the article late next week, and have it ready by the weekend. I will post the proposed changes here, let you, (and anyone else) comment, and see if we cannot work out a compromise that addresses your concerns, and mine as well. We both have the same goal, a non-POV article that reflects the reality of what occurred during the struggle of the Native Americans to keep their land, (one view), and the struggle of the settlers to expand west. (the other view) I also agree the article needs to be trimmed, and I will try to address that as well. Would you like to do the same, and then compare suggested revisions, or would you like me to post a suggested revision, and then go from there? I think we can work together (and hopefully the excellent editors I asked for help will look at this) and craft a better article. JohninMaryland (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John! I'm afraid my approach will be piecemeal, and I hope that doesn't make it difficult to do a comparison between versions, if I understand your suggestion correctly. By "piecemeal", I mean that I will look at a particular statement or section and consider what I believe is necessary to improve it. If a section on a battle is covered by an article elsewhere, for example, I might drastically reduce the material in this article. If there is a POV concern with a statement, I would be inclined to edit the statement in situ. The history file leaves a record, and you can see that I am making a concerted effort to use this discussion page to explain the reasoning behind my edits. Let's see where this leads us! Regards, Taquito1 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) Your approach is fine - each of us edits in whatever way we are comfortable with, and mine certainly is no better than yours! I will work piecemeal with you while I am attempting to completely rewrite as well. I believe we can craft an article which is leaner, and less POV. Let us start with the Anderson statement - while I am suggesting a wholesale rewrite, do you think moving it to the conclusion, as I have done and substituting other language to make the point about the fierce nature of this struggle is sufficient to avoid a POV issue? I agree with you that in the opening paragraph it can carry implications that we are "siding" with someone in this now century-plus old struggle! I moved it to the conclusion, since I agree with you in the opening paragraph and with the present wording it is inappropriate. Let us work together! I attempted to reword the opening by moving the Anderson quote to emphasize the bitterness of this struggle, without wording that may give rise to a POV issue. Please feel free to reword further, our goals are the same.JohninMaryland (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

Hi, I'm here in response to John's invitation to take a look. This is the first time I've looked through this article, and I only read about half of it. I think there are definitely some POV issues, and I am concerned about some potential factual inaccuracies as well. There is almost no information about the Indians Wars of Spanish Texas. The Apache, and, to a lesser extent, the Karankawa, were a problem for the European settlers before the Comanche arrived. I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is that the article should present the facts without drawing conclusions on whether something was "good", "wise", "evil" etc. Allow the reader to draw those conclusions for themselves, or use quotes from a respected scholar. Here are a few of the things that jumped out at me.

• I think the lead is a little POV
• "The Comanches first encounter with the Anglos brought them smallpox (1780-81)." - this line is a little misleading. First, the Comanche had already had frequent contact with Europeans (Spanish and French descent), which probably needs to be mentioned, and there were many wars between them until there was a peace around 1780 (see Spanish Texas). It should also be mentioned which Anglos these were -- Brits from the future USA?
• This sentence likely should be left out "Thus, the Comanche had reasons to fear the Anglo settlers"
• "Spain had literally been stopped from expanding into Texas from New Mexico because of Comanche dominion over the Comancheria" - this is not entirely true either. Several towns existed in Texas, and the main reason more settlers hadn't moved there was because it did not have the riches that NM did. It is true that they thought having more settlers would help decrease Indian attacks
• Anglo-American settlers weren't invited because they were more formidable, but because the gov't couldn't convince enough Mexicans to settle in Texas.
• "During the entire period of 1821 to 1835, Anglo settlers were basically helpless against Comanche raids, despite the formation of the Texas Rangers in 1823. " - I don't think this is true. Stephen F. Austin organized quite a few raiding parties of his own, and his settlers managed to force many of the Indians out of his area.
• I think the Parkers are given too much emphasis in the article. Although that massacre is probably the most famous of European settlers, I don't believe it's impact on the Texan-Indian wars is proportional to the amount of space it gets here. If the massacre is going to be included, the description of the events should be very short and the main focus should be its impact on the wars.
• "The Republic under Sam Houston made the wise choice to try to negotiate with the Comanche, who were perfectly willing to be bought off." - this is definitely POV

Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I appreciate the assistance. (It is always good to have other eyes examine the same issues!) I am in the process of rewriting the whole article, removing some of the "Parker" emphasis, and correcting some of the other statements raised by yourself and Taquito1 (talk) . Thanks again, and when the edited version is ready for review, I will hollar at you, if you don't mind, so you can take another look. JohninMaryland (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for taking such interest in these articles—they really deserve more attention than they've gotten. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Karanacs (talk) -- what a nice thing to say! To be fair, Taquito1 (talk) was the one to catch these problems, and has been working hard to correct them. I am doing an article rewrite because, as you know, I simply work better that way than piecemeal, but Taquitol1 has done some very nice piecemeal corrections on this article. I feel that all of us are engaged in a team effort. You bring a very dispassionate and well educated view in assessing these for problems that need correcting. Jacksinterweb (talk) does as well. (so did Taquito1 (talk) ) Once you have all reviewed the article and supported what changes are needed, I can veer that direction in the rewrite. Taquito1 is already rewriting much of it! We are all interested in buttressing these Texas/Native American Frontier history articles! I don't know why they have been so lacking, but we are all working hard to correct it. Thanks again, and thanks to everyone who is helping! I must note that it is refreshing to have a group of people who are not interested in edit wars, or endless quarreling, but whose only interest is to improve the article. JohninMaryland (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lamar--Battle of Neches

I made free-ranging edits for style, NPOV, brevity, etc.--nothing terribly controversial, I hope-- but the second sentence of this short paragraph stumps me:

The Battle of Neches is called by some historians the "second most important battle in the history of Texas, second only to San Jacinto."[30] This refers to the seizure of the valuable lands held by the Cherokee, and other civilized tribes, and the opening of those lands to Anglo settlement.[31]

That statement appears doubtful, to me. Do the historians who say that (the quote in the first sentence) really refer to the battle as important because valuable lands were seized? Or does the second sentence refer to the San Jacinto? Or is it a poorly-worded alternative view?

Anyway, that quote cannot be found at the source referenced (#30, 31), and the sentiments of the second sentence cannot be found there either, unless I am mistaken. So I am returning to the article to delete the paragraph in question. If anyone wants to restore it in a more supportable way, please do so. And let me know if the references look correct after all.

Taquito1 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) It certainly is not at the link it was ostensibly cited out of. I do remember seeing such a statement - or something similiar - somewhere, but I don't personally think that is so historically, so before I go find it, do you want me to find the source? Is that a statement you want in the article? I do remember seeing it somewhere, so I can find it - but do you want it in the article? I am fine with it being out if you are. Give me some direction...JohninMaryland (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your soliciting my thoughts on this, but I suspect you are more knowledgeable of the subject than me. Is it important to say the battle is second most important? I am inclined to think it is not necessary. But the second sentence was my main concern; if the historians making the first statement are really referring to what is stated in the second sentence, than the second sentence is supportable as correct clarification. If it is only inferred that that is what they are referring to, then I think the second sentence should be left out. If it is only partially correct, and if only some historians are referring to that, than the second sentence is misleading. Since this whole thing gets complicated to write and read, I would leave it out. Readers can draw their own conclusions, and the knowledge imparted by the article will still be the same, I think.

This may be a better approach: we can make the statement ourselves, without trying to pin down exactly what the historians are referring to. After the Cherokee were "removed", their lands were open to settlement.

Regards, Taquito1 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taquito1 (talk) Greetings my friend! I like your approach. As to the alleged importance of the Battle of Neches, it was important in the economic sense, for it opened a lot of East Texas to white expansion. But it certainly was not the second most important battle behind San Jacinto! (Though Stephen Moore, at this link, said so...[1] But I would dispute it, and certainly there are numerous historians I could quote who say that the Council House Fight, or Plum Creek, just to name two, were far more important than Neches! I think you are right to leave it out. It is not, militarily, the second most important battle of the Republic - the Council House resulted in 45 years of war, for goodness sakes! I like the way you reworded the paragraph in question, and I would prefer to leave that intact, rather than source a claim I happen to think wrong in fact. But I wanted to let you make the call, as you are doing very well! Take care, JohninMaryland (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite begun, everyone please check!

I began the rewrite by posting significant cuts in the article - but note only so much trimming is possible when the article covers a 55 year period, where a half dozen different wars were fought, (Council House Fight-Great Raid, Plum Creek era, Antelope Hills Campaign, Adobe Walls I with Carson's winter campaign, and more!). We either have to create additional articles for the Indian Policies of the First and Second Houston Administration, the Lamar Administration, et al, or leave significant information on each in this article, because it is nowhere else in the encyclopedia. At any rate, I trimmed what I could, reworded to eliminate POV phrasing, and tried to address the issues that Taquito1 (talk) brought up. I stress again that to further reduce in size, we have to create several articles. Otherwise, I think the wording is now NPOV and at least the length has been reduced some - thoughts anyone? JohninMaryland (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV Tags?

When Taquito1 (talk) posted the tags, the article did need significant changes, which I think have occurred. Taquito1 (talk) has rewritten the introduction, the Anderson quote was moved, and the context changed, and other language which was POV has been eliminated or reconstructed. Does anyone object to removing the POV tag? If anyone wants to keep it, can you list the items which still need correcting. I think the main issues have been addressed by Taquito1 (talk) with some help from us...Thanks everyone. JohninMaryland (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted the idea of removing the POV tags yesterday, as the language has been fairly substantially changed, with all the specifics that had been identified either removed completely, or reworded and relocated so that the article reflects an encyclopedic neutrality. As to length, I removed as much as I could without removing information - such as the Indian policies of the Lamar and Houston administrations - that is nowhere else on the encyclopedia. I am open to writing more articles on those subjects, but it won't be immediately, as I am working on several now. The length is considerable, longer, as was pointed out, than WWII. But we also have to look at the length of time covered by this article, over 55 years! And the number of wars, Indian policies of a Republic through its three Presidents, etc. For now, I think we have done the best we can. If no one has any objection, I will remove the tags today. If anyone feels the article needs further work, please identify it, so we can get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohninMaryland (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look much, much better, but I don't think it is quite ready to remove the tags yet. Here are a few other issues I see-

• • • The half-century struggle between the Plains Tribes and the Texans became particularly intense after the Spanish, and then Mexicans, were driven out, and the Republic of Texas, and then the United States, opposed the Tribes. Their war with the Plains Indians became one of deep animosity, slaughter, and, in the end, near-total conquest. = This sounds POV and it is also implies that the Indians drove the Spanish and the Mexicans completely out of the area. That isn't completely true - the Mexicans drove out the Spanish and the Anglos drove out the Mexicans, although the tribes did help.

      I did some copyedit, but beware of words like "Interestingly," and peacock terms.

      "The carnage was so bad that echos of the cries were heard in Washington,"

      "The Europeans did not seem to object as long as the Tonkawa stuck to eating Comanches instead of settlers."

      "Unfortunately for the settlers,"

      There is still too much space given to the Parkers, without really explaining why the raid was important and what it actually meant in the grand scheme of things. While it is important to mention that some captives returned voluntarily to live with the Comanche, and that Rachel Plummer's book was the first to tell about captivity, I think the extra detail about the raid and the captives is unnecessary in this article.

      "Lockhart, a sixteen-year-old white girl who had been captured with her sister in 1838, claimed that she had been physically and sexually assaulted. Burn scars, coupled with the mutilation of her nose, seemed to bear out her stories" - This makes it sound as if Lockhart weren't telling the truth. In what I've read about the Council House Fight, I didn't think there was any question that she had been abused.

      "Militia did what they never could have done under ordinary circumstances, which is catch up to the Comanche"

      "Ironically, the same thing, greed, that had made the Comanche vulnerable, saved them."

      " in 1856 he sadly and finally led his people"

      The section on Robert Neighbors gives me the same concern as that on the Parkers. This is given a lot of space for details, which is bordering on undue weight.

      "Commonly missing from the history books was his proclivity for ordering the wholesale slaughter of any Indian, man or woman, he could find" - this is going to need to be further explained, because if it is missing from the history books it would be hard to corroborate. You might need to add, "According to so and so"

Other, general content concerns:

• I'd like to see this article mention more of the fighting between the Spanish and the Apache and the Spanish and the Comanche. See Spanish Texas for good sources and information.
• This seems very unlikely as written "The Comanche effectively united with the Kiowa, and Kiowa Apache, after one Kiowa warrior spent a fall season with the Comanche in 1790." - it might need to be fleshed out a bit more.Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Karanacs (talk) - thanks for the help in removing much of the remaining content, and I will address what issues remain as swiftly as possible. On some of the issues you mention:

• On Rip Ford, the sources cited do make clear he would kill any indian, man, woman, child, because he saw it as fighting back against raids on settlers.
• Military historians state the militia could not have caught the Comanches in the Great Raid except for greed - that is stating their take on the Battle of Plum Creek. The world's finest light cavalry slowed themselves to escort heavily laden mules!
• again, military historians say that the militia failed to pursue the Comanche at Plum Creek for the same reason the Comanche got caught, greed! It is just history.
• the wording on Matilda Lockhart is straight out of the history books. I don't think it means her story was doubted, just that the physical evidence backed her up, since another part of her story - that one band of the Comanche had all the captives -was clearly not true.
• The language on Buffalo Hump leading his people to the Indian Territories "sadly" is straight out of the work "Buffalo Hump, Comanche Diplomat"
• On the Parkers, I reduced it as much as I could - I don't see this as a POV issue, more as a content - I encourage anyone who wants to further reduce it to do so, but I don't think the current information on that family should hold up POV concerns;
• I will research and add information on the Spanish struggle against the Apaches, but this should not hold up removing the POV tag, as it would add information, since this article is directed at the Anglo-Texan struggles against the Indians, and the Apaches had been driven out by that time, by the Comanche;
• The section on the Kiowa-Comanche-Kiowa Apache alliance is poorly written, but true, ironically. They really did effectively unite after a single warrior spent a season with the Comanches. It is heavily documented in history. I will rewrite it, but it is not a POV issue.

You found a number of POV words which do need removing, and I will address that now, and give anyone a chance to respond afterwards before removing the tag. On the other issues, hopefully the above explanations help. Everything you identified will be removed or reworded, and again, thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, you are so responsive! I am not disputing the factual basis of these claims, but they should probably be reworded so as to sound less like POV. Remember, the point is to report what the books say, not to draw conclusions. (ie, Ironically,). Sometimes if you are quoting that conclusion from the book you might want to put it in quotes so people know that's where it is coming from. The Spanish stuff is not related to POV at all, just a content concern. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I am rewording as you suggested, please check by the end of the day, if you have time, and if you approve, I will remove the tag. I reworded on various items, like Plum Creek, to make sure no one doubted what happened to the poor Lockhart girl, et al. I think it addresses the problems. Thanks again for the help! JohninMaryland (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Parkers among the Comanches

His return to the Indians illustrates a little-understood phenomenon, that most captives adopted into the tribes did not wish to return to their original culture.

I replaced the word most with some. Clearly, if you read A Fate Worse Than Death, written by Gregory and Susan Michno, less than 51%, which would constitute the use of most, wanted to remain with the Indians. In fact, the sentence still should raise some eyebrows, since it's quite understandable why a percentage of whites didn't want to return to their society. Mainly, they were those who were kidnapped as youths. Therefore, the term "little-understood phenomenon" should be removed. However, I think that should probably be discussed, since the writer of this phrase may be able to explain or justify it, before it's changed.

Redlegbronco (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)redlegbronco

Plains Indians, dates of arrival, Cherokee, Delaware

Under the Background section, subsection Indians in Texas, it says: Although the Comanche were by far the best known of the Native American Plains tribes living in what is now Texas, they were the last to arrive in the region. Their allies, the Kiowa and Kiowa Apache lived in what is now West Texas; the Tonkawa, Delaware, Caddo, Wichita Indians and the Cherokee populated eastern Texas. This confuses me in a few ways. First, is it claiming that the Delaware, Cherokee, and other tribes are Plains Indians? Clearly they are not, but the wording seems to suggest it. Second, is this claiming that the Delaware and Cherokee lived in Texas before the arrival of the Comanche--before 1750? Again that seems to be suggested by the wording, but incorrect. Ideas? Pfly (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mentions of the Cherokee and Delaware from the "Indians in Texas" section, since members from those tribes didn't move to Texas until the 19th century, and beginning of that section deals with the 17th century. I mentioned that the Kiowa and Apaches are not indigenous to Texas and listed some tribes that actually are from Texas. Indian massacres aren't my cup of tea, but this article could really use an overhaul. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Worst Genozide in history did not happen in Texas

Even if the Churchill numbers are true, what do they have to do with the subject of the article?--Radh (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lamar and Indian Policy(ies)

It is difficult to accept the fact basis of information on Lamar and topics related to him, when Wikipedia does not even spell his name correctly. Before proceeding with providing "free" information on this valuable Texas hero, it is recommended that his full name and background be explored, corrected, and published on all pages that focus on him and entries about him. Begin with Herbert P. Gambrell and Philip Graham - authorities on Lamar. DBShaw (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentence structure and grammatical errors

This article was rated a B-class in part because sentence structure and grammer criterion were met. I read to Campaign in the Antelope Hills: Texans invade the Comancheria, 1858 ,and found many instance or sentence structure errors such as;

• "...crossed the Red River into Indian Territory. The force then advanced into the portion of the Comancheria in the Indian Territories in Oklahoma. Ford led his men across the Red River, into the Indian Territory...".

I will look this over to correct several instances of errors as soon as I can. Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Title

Looking at hits for this suggests that the actual phrase is usually Texas Indian wars, i.e. those Indian wars which involved Texas. There is one sort-of source for this, but it's a chapter title, and capitalized because it's a title. Is there any evidence for this usage, or have we made up a proper name?

(I looked as a side effect of the hyphen-dash nonsense; but I would ask even if the present title had a hyphen.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen or dash which to use or not at all? You are addressing something that is spread across Wikipedia and here are some examples;

• Spanish-American War
• Philippine–American War
• Mexican–American War
• British-American War

I guess a precedence concerning the use of hyphens (or dashes) on Wikipedia is evident from the examples. I think one article, American Indian Wars is an example of a possible need to use a dash or hyphen. I say this because the title seems to infer wars between "American Indians", which might appear to be an article on wars between Native Americans or is the world-wide community expected to know the difference. The lead explains, "Indian Wars is the name used in the United States to describe a series of conflicts between White settlers or the federal government and the native peoples of North America." This would be "American" (the government and settlers) verses "American" (Native) Indians. Using this rationale I can see where a hyphen would be appropriate. If Indians in America are called "American Indians then it would stand to reason that Indians from Texas would be considered "Texas Indians" and not "Texas-Indians". The article is not about Indians from Texas (Texas Indians) being at war with each other but wars involving Native Americans in Texas against settlers, the Texas government, or the US government. Under the Historiography section; "...historians begin to include the American Indian point of view in their writings about the wars,..." and the article certainly is not about "Texas Indians" themselves.

Considering this I am not sure the hyphen is inappropriate in this article as it separates (verses etc...) the factions involved. I do not think adding a dash or hyphen creates a new word.

In looking around I did see instances of inappropriateness. Consider German American (redirects from German-American); "German Americans are citizens of the United States of German ancestry and comprise about 51 million people", but check out other articles involving these people;

• German-American Soccer League; (There is no hyphen)
• German-Americans in the Civil War; Did we fight the Germans in the Civil War or is this concerning Americans of German decent (German Americans) that fought in the Civil War?

I guess it depends on the author or the references. In 1983 President Ronald Reagan made two references to German-Americans meaning "German Americans" when proclaiming German-American Day. In the article German-American Day the term "German-American connection" would be appropriate but we do not use "African-American" so why did the President proclaim a day against common usage? The article title, "German-American Day", would be correct by name and references.

Your comment has succeeded in giving me a headache as the more I look (Japanese-American service in World War II) the more I see your words, "hyphen-dash nonsense", has merit. You could start a project to clean up inappropriate hyphen usage and would have a plate full but please consider that the use can have advantages if not misused and especially if that is the correct name. Considering all this I feel that in this instance, and with other articles using the same format, that Texas-Indian Wars is appropriate as titled. Otr500 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of a dash in any of those is unidiomatic and poor English; but that is under discussion elsewhere. I'm sorry to drag it in. (See Talk:Mexican-American War (hyphen) and its archives for more than any sane editor will want to see.)

My question for today is why use "Texas~Indian Wars" with any punctuation; does anybody else use that proper name? Is there objection by the regulars here to Indian wars involving Texas (which we would do as a move request)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I object; I gave sound reasoning with multiple angles concerning the use and the reply was that one person doesn't like it, with the belief that it is unidiomatic and poor English, a suggestion to change the title name which precedence will then support the change of all other like articles, and the fact that what I presented was ignored. This last one caused me reread what I had submitted to see if my English is lacking. Upon conformation that I have actually used understandable English I had thoughts that someone is using the old I didn't hear you. Why would I think this? I gave multiple sound reasoning why I felt the title would be presented wrongly without a dash. In return for the amount of reasoning I presented I was given the gift of, "My question for today is why use "Texas~Indian Wars" with any punctuation;", as if I was typing in a foreign language. I have far more patience than most on playing the "silly game" if that is the case. If not, then I suggest rereading my comments and responding to those with reasoning. This will; 1)- makes things appear that a dialog is present, 2)-cause a person to examine things and not feel their comments are being ignored, 3)-Puts people at ease that their opinion is important even if disagreed with. In the absence of a reply or no opposing rationale is presented:

I will not support a name change on the evidence presented and will present this for any arguments unless reasoning can be better presented to explain the above "unidiomatic and poor English".

My question for today is why not "Texas-Indians Wars" personal dislike aside? Under the MOS there is an explanation of the use as I have suggested being "Texas verses Indians". If this is not accurate then someone explain why? It is not making a new word as is presented but the use of currently acceptable tools to create a title. I find it amazing that so many articles are in need of work and instead it is more important to take issue of some minute point that is not, so far, explained enough to convince even me.

I am easy to get along with and hope my unheard "tone" is not misrepresented in my writing. I did however give comments that were ignored and this is not a good way to gain any support from me. Before I would even consider a name change to, Indian wars involving Texas, I would have to be presented with sound reasoning that the current title is flawed. If anyone wishes to attempt to convince me it will have to be through dialog that goes both ways. The real question for today is; why not start over and address my comments that actually covered my opinion that answered, "...why use "Texas~Indian Wars" with any punctuation...?" instead of giving me multiple thoughts of, a)- Did I not present my comments clearly?, b) is my comments considered insignificant? c)- is the person that responded not able to understand English?, d)- is the person playing mind games. None of these are conducive to progress and should be avoided.

If there is presentable sound reasoning I am easily persuaded. I do not ascribe to being difficult or hardheaded. I do take a position against circular discussions that do not have merit. If someone can present reasoning in an amiable dialog I will eagerly await such reasoning but until then I will take the position that I am unconvinced. Otr500 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Restart

These are questions, to see whether it is worth presenting a case to change the name. I see few, if any, answers to any of them above; please answer them succinctly:

1. Does anyone, outside Wikipedia and its mirrors, actually use any of Texas–Indian Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, or Texas Indian Wars for the subject of this article?
2. If not, are we justified in inventing a proper noun?
3. Is there a reason not use Indian wars involving Texas?
4. If the answer to this is that these were Texas Indians, I should like some sources describing the Apaches (for example) as Texas Indians; some of these were long-distance raids from Indians living outside modern Texas. (For a papallel, the Comanches raided Durango, but nobody would call them Durango Indians.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation would imply a war involving Texas Indians (perhaps against each other), not Texas against Indian nations, and a space would mean Indian wars in Texas. But you're right, we may be coining a phrase here, in which case we can coin whichever phrase we like. The current title is, however, concise and clear.—kwami (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen is clearly wrong in WP style, so the 2008 move to en dash made sense; comments of Otr500 above serve to illustrate how much most editors are clueless about when to use hyphens (hint: German American and German-American are both obviously correct in their respective appropriate contexts, but the hyphen doesn't work here). This book uses the dash (old 1875 book, looks more like an em dash) in Texas–Indian Wars (all caps in a title, so that could be why, too); it omits that dash in the TOC; in another chapter it says "Indian Wars in Texas", lending support to the interpretation implies by just using a space. Here's another oldie with a dash; and a newer one. This 2007 book uses "Indian Wars in Texas" (in title), "Indian wars of Texas", and "Texas Indian wars" (no proper names). This one is called "Early Texas Indian wars" (not title case in the title metadata). But this one sets it as proper. This one with hyphen and lower case we would style with en dash per our MOS. this one hyphen and proper. There are lots more, mostly with spacing, mixed cases, mostly lower. And this one says "Texas' Indian wars". So I'd say definitely change to lower-case "war", and either space or en dash makes grammatical sense in our style (hyphen makes sense only in styles that don't use en dash for that "versus" relationship). Either seems preferable to making up "Indian wars involving Texas", but maybe "Indian wars in Texas" would be possible. As Kwami says, the current title is concise and clear; but I'd downcase "wars." I think I'll go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In this diff, $1LENCE D00600D says "We wouldn't decapitalize the "W" in "American Indian Wars". But why not? An inspection of books, including those with "American Indian Wars" in their titles, shows the same thing as for Texas Indian wars: most capitalized uses are in titles, and at least half of uses in sentences are decapitalized. This is a term for a collection of wars, not a proper name. He moved it; Kwami moved it back. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Improper use of sources

After reading through the sources cited on this page I have noticed instances of material being added to the article that is not found in the sources. I removed one particularly prominent example which twice stated that the victims of an attack were "mainly women and children"; this fact was in neither of the two sources.

Orphaned references in Texas–Indian wars

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Texas–Indian wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Carter":

• From Cherokee: Carter JH. "Father and Cherokee Tradition Molded Will Rogers". Archived from the original on November 10, 2006. Retrieved March 10, 2007.
• From Battle of Palo Duro Canyon: Carter, R.G., 1935, On the Border with Mackenzie, Washington D.C.: Eynon Printing Co.
• From Kit Carson: Carter, Harvey Lewis. "Dear Old Kit": The Historical Christopher Carson, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press (August 1990), pp. 38-39 ISBN 978-0-8061-2253-3
• From Warren Wagon Train Raid: Carter, R.G., On the Border with Mackenzie, 1935, Washington D.C.: Enyon Printing Co.
• From Battle of Blanco Canyon: Carter, R.G., On the Border with Mackenzie, 1935, Washington D.C.: Enynon Printing Co.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible Illustration Copyright Violation?

The map of Comancheria is derived by sticking together two maps in Pekka Hämäläinen's book, Comanche Empire, and giving it a general label. Does this pass muster for use in Wikipedia without permission from the copyright owner (Yale University Press)? The publisher, in the book front matter, explicitly asserts copyright over the whole "including illustrations." The Wikimedia user who created the version in this article describes it as a "composite" work, but this is not what composite work means in copyright law, nor does a true composite work get to use its components without regard to the copyright status of the assembled texts. Pechmerle (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply, I propose to go ahead and delete this copyright-infringing map. --Pechmerle (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)