# Talk:Francis Amasa Walker

Is there any hope of being more specific that attributing his death to apoplexy? —SlamDiego←T 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was 1897 so that's the best they had I suppose. I'm guessing that an overweight, sedentary man in his mid 50s with a stressful job would never have any heart problems. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that it would violate WP:OR for someone here to exhume the body…. —SlamDiego←T 04:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Francis Amasa Walker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  
Generally well written, but some sentences are not crisp and contain too much detail so that the important material becomes lost in the whole.
e.g. "Although Walker continued Census-related activities by traveling to Washington every three weeks, he began to lecture on political economy as well as establishing a new general course of study (Course IX) emphasizing economics, history, law, English, and modern languages." (I use this as an example because under "Legacy" you mention Course IX, and each time I read that I have to use word find to locate where in the text  Course IX is mentioned, giving no indication there that it will be a major focus of his legacy.)
I believe I've addressed this and the related issues of tangential commentary. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
b (MoS): 
Per WP:Lead, the lead should be an accurate summary of the article, including the main sections, and  emphasizing the main points.
Still needs to be addressed. I welcome bold edits or suggested biographies of other multifaceted individuals. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
Well referenced
b (citations to reliable sources): 
The sources are reliable
c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspect 
Is there more information on Walker's specific contributions to the methods of conducting the census? Any info on the statistical methods they used?
I believe his contributions were namely the emphasis on professionalizing the conduct of the census takers and presentation of the information. I haven't encountered anything that definitively states what if any statistical methods he innovated. I suspect the use of "statistics" in that era may just connote "arithmetic of big numbers". Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
b (focused): 
The article seems to cover major and minor events equally. Some of the information on MIT e.g. why he was chosen president, seem overly detailed and not directly related to Walker. Some of the extra info not related directly to Walker could be toned down or eliminated, so that the article would focus more clearly on Walker.
The "Legacy" section seems focused on MIT, particularly on Course IX, which is only touched on in the body of the article. There is too much detail on the buildings and course at MIT after he left, without sufficient evidence that he was directly responsible for these later changes. His contributions to the Census and statistics, for me the most interesting, are ignored. Apparently he had no other legacy from the various other aspects of his career.
I have removed some of the more tangential commentary. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 
tagged with rationales
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
captioned

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold while problems in focus and an appropriately summary lead are sorted out. Also, if the sentence structure could be clarified so that the important information stands out, that would help.
Walker sounds like an accomplished man with an interesting history. This information is in the article but it needs to stand out.
Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will address this in the days ahead-I've been traveling recently. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK.  —Mattisse (Talk) 14:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that you have immensely improved the article and taken care of the points above.Also, the suggestions on the talk page are good ones and benefited the article.  It clearly meets the GA criteria.
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written  b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Reliably sourced  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects  b (focused): Focused on topic 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass! 

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some comments, as you requested. Although there are some general comments here, I have focused primarily on the military history portions. All in all, it is very well written.

The Wikipedia guidelines for the lead section (the text before the table of contents) say that you should summarize the article in three or four paragraphs at the most.
The style we use for military biographies does not repeat the date of birth or death in the main text of the article -- they are already in the lead and in the infobox.
Stylistically, I would reduce the number of times you say "participated in" such and such battle or campaign.
Although colloquial usage might disagree with me, the use of "decimated" is not appropriate for a military history article written in a formal style.
The sentence beginning "despite his older brother" is confusing because of multiple clauses.
In that same sentence, you identify John Andrew by title, but the relatively unknown William Schouler does not have one; perhaps reverse the two names.
In "did not see battle until May 1862" it would be better to say combat, to avoid two uses of the word battle in the same sentence.
He served "in" the Army of the Potomac, not under it.
The reference to Berkeley plantation needs more context.
Burnside was the Army commander, but the sentence referring to him makes it sound as if he were the II Corps commander.
The II corps was not reassigned to Grant; it remained in the Army of the Potomac. (Grant closely supervised George G. Meade, the Army commander.)
I don't know that I would say "encircled" when referring to an individual. Surrounded?
We generally use the form <number> <state> Infantry, rather than regiment or Regiment.
Eicher (* Eicher, John H., and  Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3.), p. 549, a reference that we use widely for dates and ranks, lists his resignation as January 9, 1865.
We frequently say "postbellum" instead of "post-war" because it is a well-known term specifically oriented toward the American Civil War.
These are all pretty minor, so great job. Good luck on your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your request for comments. Overall, I find this article interesting and generally well written. Walker is obviously an important figure and his importance is reflected in this entry. I'll organize my comments section by section starting with the lead.
Lead section
I feel the lead section needs to be reorganized so that Walker's main accomplishments are mentioned in the first paragraph. His war service is less important than his statistical work on the Census, his economic theories and his presidency of M.I.T. I would suggest therefore, that you reorganize the lead so that readers will see immediately why Walker is an important figure. What are the two or three things readers need to know about him? Or to put it more colloquially, what is his main claim to fame? I would also suggest that you condense his war service so that the lead section is reduced in length from 479 words to between 350 and 400. (Note: I made a few minor edits to the lead section to correct minor glitches in spelling and grammar.)
Background section
I feel this section is interesting. It also gives useful background information. I have a few specific suggestions:

In the first paragraph, why is the reference to Holmes significant? Unless I missed it, there is no further reference to this friendship in the article. I would suggest either eliminating the mention of the Holmes family or adding something to indicate why it's significant.
First paragraph: "As a boy, Walker..." You need to mention his name here.
First paragraph: You might consider adding a bit more information about Walker's temper and personality. Why was his temper "noted" for example? There is very little in the entry to show the force of Walker's personality and it may be possible here to convey something more about Walker, the man.
Second paragraph: "Beginning his schooling at the age of seven..." "Although he had planned to matriculate..." and "While he had entered with the class of '59..." Too many sentences here in which you "back into" the subject. (The last two sentences appear consecutively.) They make the writing seem a bit labored.
15th Massachusetts Volunteers section
I'm not sure but there may be a bit too much detail here about Walker's various military rankings: "However, the lieutenancy never materialized and Devens instead offered Walker an appointment as a sergeant major, which he assumed on August 1, 1861, after re-tailoring his previously ordered lieutenant's uniform to reflect his enlisted status. However, by September 14, 1861, Walker had been recommended by Devens and reassigned to Brig. Gen. Darius N. Couch as assistant adjutant general and promoted to captain." It's easy to get bogged down in this passage with its two consecutive sentences that begin with "however". You might consider condensing this passage. It depends on how important you feel these details are to a reader's overall understanding of Walker's military service.
Second Army Corps section
An extremely interesting section! I'd suggest a few relatively minor changes.

I found the second sentence confusing. It begins, "Although the II Corps later saw action..." It's not clear to me whether Walker actually fought at Antietam and Fredericksburg. (I assume he did, but I think it needs to be stated more explicitly.) And why mention the Mud March, if Walker and II Corps had nothing to do with it?
The last paragraph mentions that Walker resigned his commission "as a result of his injuries and health." I think more detail is needed here. His injuries are well described, but there's no information on the state of his health. I'm wondering too if any of the source material you consulted describes the effect his war experiences had on him.
I wonder if the information in the final paragraph of the "Other interests" section could be included here with some slight rewording. Something along these lines: "Based upon his experiences in the military, Walker later published two books describing the history of the Second Army Corps (1886) as well as a biography of General Winfield Scott Hancock (1884). Walker also continued his affiliation with the military. In 1883, he was elected Commander of the Massachusetts Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States and he served as President of the National Military Historical Association."
Postbellum activity
Just one minor comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "representation" in the last sentence. A bit more detail is needed here.
1870 Census
Another highly interesting section. I have a few relatively minor editorial suggestions.

First paragraph: The writing is excellent up to the sentence which begins, "Among the problems facing Walker included..." This wording is not grammatically correct. Better to write something like: "The problems facing Walker included..."
First paragraph: I can't fully understand the sentence I refer to above. For example, I think there needs to be a fuller explanation of the marshalls' involvement as well as the influence of local political interests. I'd say a bit more information is needed to fully explain why Walker had no control over key aspects of the Census.
First paragraph: The last sentence needs more explanation. You appear to be referring to additional problems that Walker faced. You need to be explicit about this and you need to add something --- such as the word only --- to indicate more clearly why conducting a Census five years after the war is a problem for Walker.
Second paragraph: I notice that you start capitalizing Census while using lower case in the first paragraph. You need to be consistent. I think you should probably capitalize it, but I'm not absolutely sure. You might consult your source materials to see how this issue is handled.
Second paragraph: Not sure what you mean by confluence.
Second paragraph: If it's possible, you might include a brief description of Walker's health problems. He seems to have been troubled by ill health all his life, yet he accomplished a great deal.
Second paragraph: The length of the second sentence makes it difficult to absorb all the information in it in a single reading.
Second paragraph: I also found the third sentence a bit too long and I had forgotten who Bowles was. There needs to be a better explanation of what you mean by "go around."
Second paragraph: What do you mean by "visual statistics"? Charts and graphs or something else?
Second paragraph: I'm wondering why it's the Smithsonian Institute and not Institution.
I'm wondering if material from the "Other interests" section could be moved to the bottom of this section. I'm referring specifically to the paragraph which begins: "Walker also took an interest in demographics later in his career..." I'll comment on that paragraph when I get to the "Other interests" section, but I do think that logically, it belongs in this section.
Indian Bureau

The second sentence is too long and needs to be split into two or three shorter ones for the sake of readability. Maybe something along these lines: "In the post-war era, the government redoubled its efforts to issue western land grants to settlers, ranchers, miners, and railroads. The new land grants heightened tensions with Native American tribes that had already been displaced from their homelands as well as stripped of their ostensible sovereignty following an 1872 act of Congress."
Not sure if it's chieftains or chiefs.
"Walker echoed Grant's recommendation that the Native Americans be secured on reservations of limited mineral or agricultural value so they could be educated and reformed." I think the idea that the reservations had limited economic value needs to be separated from the part about education and reform. Maybe something such as: "Walker echoed Grant's recommendation that the Native Americans be secured on reservations in areas with little mining or farming potential. Once on these reservations, the Indians could be educated and reformed."
I have a couple of questions however, about the ideas in the sentences quoted immediately above. Was it just that the reservations had little in the way of minerals or agricultural value, or do you mean that the reservations were on land with few resources? What about timber for example? Depending on the facts, you may need to broaden these sentences. Maybe something like: "Walker echoed Grant's recommendation that the Native Americans be confined to reservations on land not suitable for farming and with few resources such as minerals or timber." I'm also wondering if you can be more explicit about what you mean by "reformed."
The word disinterest is contentious. It indicates impartiality, and some editors object to using it to mean lack of interest.  In this case, "lack of interest", seems a bit understated. How specifically did the Modoc War motivate Walker to resign? For example, did the war convince him that the work of the Indian Bureau was futile?
Walker served as Superintendent of the Indian Bureau but he resigned his position as Commissioner. This needs clarification.
Last sentence: It's not clear to me whether you mean that Walker criticized his successors' graft, corruption, and abuse of power in his book The Indian Question.
Other engagements
The theme of this section seems to be Walker's rising prominence. Therefore, I think your headline here should reflect this in some way. "Other engagements" seems too vague and general. Some of this section is not about Walker's actual engagements. I'm thinking for example, of the Boston Post editorship which I assume Walker did not take. (It's not completely clear to me that he turned the job down.)

Second sentence: I'm not sure that you need to name Horace White and Charles Nordhoff. I think their names just add needless clutter. Since this section seems to follow chronological order, it might be useful to say when in 1876 that Walker was being recruited for the newspaper job.
Third sentence: I'm not sure you need the reference to the Mugwump movement. I think it would be more useful for readers if you gave a bit more detail about Walker's actual platform. (I read Wikipedia's Mugwump entry, but it didn't shed much light on Walker's political positions in the campaign you refer to here.)
Fourth sentence: I'd suggest slight changes for greater clarity. "In the summer, the faculty of Amherst [College?] attempted to recruit him to become its president, but the position went instead to the Rev. Julius Hawley Seelye to appease conservative trustees."
Second paragraph, first sentence: Again I don't think you need to name Charles Francis Adams. Eliminating his name would also avoid the two "bys" that make this sentence awkward.
Note: I made a few edits to the rest of the second paragraph to improve flow and readability.

I've split my comments and suggestions into two parts for easier editing. I'll continue discussing each of the sections in the order in which they appear in the entry.
1880 Census

I would suggest re-arranging some of the sentences in this section.
The first sentence establishes the fact that Walker undertook the Census because of reforms spearheaded by Garfield. I feel it would be more logical to follow this sentence with the one in which you give an overview of Walker's achievement: "The tenth Census which resulted in the publication of twenty-two volumes, was popularly regarded as the best census of any up to that time, and definitively established Walker's reputation as the preeminent statistician in the nation."
This sentence could be followed with the one discussing some potential problems: "The Census was again delayed as a result of its size and was the subject of praise and criticism on its comprehensiveness and relevance." (I'm not quite sure however, what you mean by "comprehensiveness and relevance." It might be necessary to explain a bit more. Do you mean for example, that this Census was praised for its comprehensiveness, but criticized because its delayed results were no longer relevant by the time they were published? Readers need to know exactly what you mean here.
At this point, I would suggest inserting the sentences which discuss how the 1880 Census cast a new light on Walker's earlier work. You would need to insert some kind of transition. Perhaps something along these lines: The improved methods used in the 1880 Census exposed discrepancies in Walker's earlier work. Its results suggested for example, that population throughout the Southern states had increased improbably over the 1870 census. However, an investigation revealed that the earlier Census had been inaccurately enumerated. Walker publicized the discrepancy even as it effectively discredited the accuracy of his 1870 work." (Note: My suggested wording is far from perfect and still needs refinement. I'm assuming that the improved methods in 1880 exposed other discrepancies and that population increase in the Southern states was only one example. But that may not be accurate.)
I feel that the last two sentences in this section belong where they are, but I would tweak them a bit. Something like this: "Walker also used his position as superintendent of the Census to advocate for the creation of a permanent Census Bureau. He argued such a Bureau would ensure not only that professional statisticians could be trained and retained, but that the information they gathered could be better popularized and disseminated. Following Garfield's 1880 election to the U.S. presidency, there was wide speculation that he would name Walker to be Secretary of the Interior, but Walker had accepted the offer to become President of MIT in the spring of 1881 instead."
Academic career

First sentence: by "editorialist" do you mean editorial writer, managing editor? You need to specify what you mean.
Second sentence: "...he was unanimously offered to fill..." This is awkward wording that also raises unanswered questions. It's not completely clear for example, what you mean by "unanimously." You would need to say which body offered him this position. And I wonder if you need the two names in this sentence. The point is that Walker was offered a position at Yale and he accepted it.
Third sentence: "While at Yale..." You might signpost things for the reader by specifying how long Walker remained at Yale. For example: "During his x years at Yale..."
Second paragraph: I would suggest re-organizing this paragraph to group all the teaching appointments together. That would mean moving the last couple of sentences up to follow the ones that mention Yale. And I would suggest moving the honorary degrees to the bottom of the paragraph.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Francis Amasa Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505144830/http://homepage.newschool.edu:80/het/profiles/walker.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/walker.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis Amasa Walker. 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/20110106050650/http://homepage.newschool.edu:80/het/profiles/walras.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Francis Amasa Walker. 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.census.gov/history/www/director_biographies/010925.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/walker.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719065633/http://www.nextech.de/ma15mvi/ma15mvi-p/index.htm?ssmain=p203.htm%3Bi1812 to http://www.nextech.de/ma15mvi/ma15mvi-p/index.htm?ssmain=p203.htm%3Bi1812
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anne Hyde's Born of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West, published in 2022, offers a more critical take on Walker's service in as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In the "Postbellum Activity" section of this article, within the subsection, "Indian Bureau", the article makes Walker seem like a native-friendly policy maker. However, Hyde writes (in 2022, page 281) "The commissioner of Indian affairs who managed this moment [when natives were not considered US citizens] was Francis Amasa Walker, an Amherst- and Harvard- trained statistician. He laid out his plans with chilling racial logic. Indians had to be incarcerated because 'the supreme law of public safety' demanded it.  He believed so deeply in Indians as a 'beggarly, savage race ... incapable of amibition' that he argued it was unjust and un-Christian for White men to make treaties with them. Crafted in a time of unending war, White reformers named these plans of military concentration and policed reservations a Peace Policy." This quote makes Walker seem like a policy maker for a concentration camp style reservation system. Does anyone think this should be included somehow in the article? Smellyshirt5 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Smellyshirt5, thanks for flagging this. The MIT Museum has a bust of Walker that looks like this, a deplatforming so archetypal I added it to the lead of deplatforming. So it's rather shocking to see that this article currently has no mention of any sort of stain on Walker's legacy in the lead or legacy section, and it leads me to believe that there are either major updates needed since the 2009 GAN or that the review missed major neutrality issues. I'm going to tag the article for neutrality, add a sentence on the photo, and put out a call-out to Talk:MIT, which I'm guessing someone interested in the topic area is watching. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The above reference by Hyde is revisionist and inconsistent with Walker's words and actions.  Regarding reservations, consider this quote by Walker: "Nor are the interests of the Indians any better served by the existing order (reservation system). Many tribes, even were they disposed to agriculture, would not find suitable land within the limits assigned to them. Others are in a position to be incessantly disturbed and harassed by the whites. Others still, while they stand across the path of settlement, are themselves, by ill-considered treaty provisions, cut off from access to hunting-grounds, to fishing privileges, or to mountains abounding in natural roots and berries, which would be of the greatest value to them." P 66 of The Indian Question.
Regarding his view of the natives, consider this quote: "To assertions that the Indian cannot he civilized, can be opposed instances of Indian communities which have attained a very considerable degree of advancement in all the arts of life. To the more cautious assertion, that, while the tribes which subsist chiefly on a vegetable diet are susceptible of being tamed and improved, the meat-eating Indians, the buffalo and antelope hunters, are hopelessly intractable and savage, can be opposed instances of such tribes which, in an astonishingly short time, have been influenced to abandon the chase, to undertake agricultural pursuits, to labor with zeal and patience, to wear white man's clothes, send their children to school, attend church on Sunday, and choose their officers by ballot. To the assertion that the Indian, however seemingly reclaimed, and for a time regenerated, still retains his savage propensities and animal appetites, and will sooner or later relapse into barbarism, can be opposed instances of slow and steady growth in self-respect and self-control, extending over two generations, without an indication of the tendencies alleged. To assertions that the Indian cannot resist either physical or moral corruption by contact with the whites, that he inevitably becomes subject to the baser elements of civilized communities, that every form of infectious or contagious disease becomes doubly fatal to him, and that he learns all the vices but none of the virtues of society, can be opposed instances of tribes which have freely mingled with the whites without debasement, and have acquired the arts of civilized life with no undue proportion of its evils. To the assertion that the Indian must gradually decline in numbers and decay in strength, his life fading out before the intenser life which he encounters, can be offered instances of the steady increase in population of no small number of tribes and bands in immediate contact with settlements, and subject to the full force of white influence."  P52 of The Indian Question.  Or this quote: "Upon the authority of official reports, it will doubtless appear to every candid reader that the Cherokees are entitled to be ranked among civilized communities. Their condition is far better than that of the agricultural classes of England; and they are not inferior in intelligence or in the ability to assert their rights." P57

The definitive masterwork on the relations between natives and the government is "The Great Father" by Prucha which says that Walker: “had strong humanitarian instincts and deep concern for fair treatment of the Indians.” P 584
This article should not have a neutrality tag over this issue. Concordhistory (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Smellyshirt5 This was important to have flagged. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Smellyshirt5, Sdkb,  and SecretName101: Has the neutrality concern been resolved? I know @Concordhistory: mentioned that it was not warranted, but the wall of text is hard to discern. If it hasn't been resolved, is anyone willing to work on this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
There has been a small bit on his racial views added since the tag was placed in January 2023, but it's hard for me to tell whether that's sufficient to address the neutrality concerns without doing a deeper dive into the sources. I wouldn't want the tag to be removed before someone does such a dive; a GAR might be needed to prompt it. Sdkb talk 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Would you be willing to bring this article to WP:GAR, since you would be able to outline the concerns more effectively than me? Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I won't have much time in the next few weeks, but if it still needs doing after that, feel free to ping me again. Sdkb talk 03:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Still willing to bring this to GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)


### Francis Amasa Walker
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
The article has had a "neutrality disputed" orange banner on it since January 2023. A discussion on the talk page indicated that this was because there isn't enough prose on his racial views. There is also uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I find the coverage of his views on race and immigration to be sufficiently clear. There is also a picture of his bust having been taken off the pedestal in a MIT museum. The article seems neutral enough to me. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)