Talk:Council House Fight

message: Your edits were terrible.  You basically ripped up a good article to save face.  You resorted to wholesale editing for the sake of doing it - and bad edits!  You even deleted the date the fight took place - what was the point in that?  Do you claim the date was copyrighted? I leave it to oldwindybear as the author of the article you destroyed for no good reason to revert.  But I hope my feelings are clear.  Stillstudying 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please be civil.  I don't understand why you need to make this personal.  Second, WP:C is clear:  We cannot cut-and-paste sentences from other websites to create our articles here.  It says on every edit screen that material copied from other websites will be deleted.  My edits removed the sentences that were copied from other websites.  Obviously, the date is not copyrighted, and you're welcome to put it back, as long as it's not part of a copied sentence.  I'm sorry I don't have time to rewrite the article, but there are other articles with copyvios that need attention and I really should be working on my RW job. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you review my changes and compare them to the two articles Oldwindybear copied from, you'll see that most of them were exact copies.  The others had a word added here or there.  I'm sorry you don't agree.  I think it's quite clear from a copyright perspective. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did compare them, and we honestly disagree.  I printed out the article, and the websites in question, and don't feel that there was a copyright violation.  I don't want to make this personal - an editor who I respect asked me to look at the article, and I did.  I feel he complied with the law, (are you an attorney?), and we honestly disagree.  Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted.  With all respect, I have studied the polices at WP:C and am fairly conversant with copyright law, (though I admit I am not an intellectual property attorney).  I simply feel you are wrong, and personalized this. Stillstudying 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Greetinngs Still.  While I appreciate your support, I don't want to engage in an edit war.  I prefer to think that Butseriouslyfolks was sincere.  I put back the date, and some of the other information, and would like to move on to other articles.  Let us have peace!  Thanks for your efforts, both of you, the article is unquestionably fine now, which is the important thing.  I believed I was correct, I might not have been, who knows? It is not worth an edit war, certainly.  Still, I appreciate your strong support, but you will learn as you go along in wikipedia that you cannot take everything personally.   I am not happy with his methods and I agree with you that legally there was no copyright violation, and the edits were poor ones generally, and I corrected them without restoring language in dispute.  It just is not worth the argument.  old windy bear 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My friend, I accept your thanks with gratitude and thank you also. You are a VERY experienced editor, and who knows, I might well have been wrong - we must, as we have, work together and if there is ANY question of a copyvio, correct it.  I felt your request I rewrite a fair one, and I did so as best I could, and thank you for your efforts, (even if we did not agree on every detail, we agree on the necessity to work civilly together!)  I try to mentor younger editors and advise them, (Still, this is for you!), that we must work together and avoid ugly unfounded accusatiions.  Butseriouslyfolks Thank you for working with me, and the end result is a better article, and no questions about plagerism.  I assume you were sincerely trying to protect wikipedia given the ugly accusations against us in that sector, and the article is better for your efforts.  Peace and take care, old windy bear 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: With all the issues lately with with copyright violations, Butseriouslyfolks was doing the right and prudent thing to bring any questionable sentences to my attention and help to rewrite.  I want a nice series of articles on the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas, with no problems.  I appreciate everyone's help.  old windy bear 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date gone - do you claim that was a copyright violation?

message: This article left out the very important fact that Matilda Lockhart, the young girl returned by the Comanches on their mission to the Council House, had been very badly mutilated.  This is no doubt largely responsible for the otherwise unaccountable actions of the San Antonio leadership in opening fire on the Comanches in the Council House, so it seems a significant omission.  I have inserted it and plan to revisit this article later and add more detail.  Amity150 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amity150 Greetings!  I would not call it premeditated murder, more along the lines of intending to take hostages, and intending to use whatever force was necessary.  It depends, I suppose, on the person's viewpoint - the Comanche certainly view and viewed it as murder, the Texans did not, given the number of settlers killed, mutiliated and kidnapped!  One good source for the instructions given in advance to the militia guards is [http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/indian/war/mcleod-mar1840-1.html} which is a copy of the literal report to the President in which it states "it became necessary to execute your orders and take hostages."  (of the Comanche chiefs).  He admits they had troops, and ordered them to fire.  Wording is important, as you know, which is why I was very careful to avoid the use of the words "premeditated" or "murder" even though the Comanche certainly consider it such. The Texans also admitted stationing heavily armed soliderw with orders to fire if the doors and/or windows were opened.  (Presumably as a signal)  Again, I was very careful to not use POV words.  Let me know if you need more.  Thanks for the help!old windy bear 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amity150 Hi my friend!  It is in Hugh McLeod's Report on the Council House Fight,March 20, 1840, which is in the Texas State Archives, as a report to the President, and refers specifically to implementing his plan to take hostages.  I will try the link again - but if you wish, I can email you a copy of his report, it makes really fascinating reading.  There is also the Secretary of War's written instructions which refer specifically to taking hostages. Here is the link again to Hugh's report.  Let me know on the other!  I have been VERY careful (so careful I get critisized for not calling it murder, but as you know, no one was accused or tried, so all we can say is what is in the reports and histories!) Thanks again for your interest - I am delighted that people are takign an interest.  Want a laugh?  When I set out to write this whole series, I was told no one would read it - you have already proved that wrong!old windy bear 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Guys, just remember that any conclusions should not be drawn by us, but by the sources we use.  It's not for us to examine the situation and decide how to characterize it.  That's a synthesis in violation of WP:NOR.  We're just to report how others see it, not editorialize.  We can remove POV in favor of neutrality, but not draw our own conclusions. -- But|seriously|folks  19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amity150 Hugh McLeod made it for me - he stated in his report that he implemented the President's plan to take the chiefs hostage!  That is an ambush!  Read The Comanches: The Destruction of a People which flatly states this was an ambush.  I leave it to other editors to decide whether the language is NPOV. i feel it is, and what you seek is endorsement of the ambush of the chiefs.  I have gone as far as I think fair and the other editors need to review the language.Butseriouslyfolks I need your opinion on this, and Stillstudying Ewulp I need all of your review - I think the current language is more than fair, and that the changes sought would be POV in whitewashing an ambush which hardened Indian attitudes for decades.  old windy bear 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The bear posted a message he is unable to log in, which is why he has not talked to you.  I changed your opening because all the chiefs there were killed.  I was one of the ones asked to review this. Stillstudying 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll give this a day or two, see what people think. OWB's re,re,re,re,re,re,re,re,verts :) to the current opening are a good place to start. As I told OWB, there's some word-smithing to be done, but nothing major. I understand the issues involved with retrospectively gauging people's intent (Texans/Commanches), so one must tread...judiciously. There are certainly some debatable issue here. I'd suggested the use of more secondary source material, if people have access. It'd be helpful to see what history recorded, other than the few accounts of those there. Yeah, a bit counter-intuitive to how we might like history to be presented, but might add some prospective, and thus, clarity. I have my eyes on this one, happy to lend a hand.--Jonashart 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Jonashart 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But|seriously|folks  and Jonashart  I agree also.  I re-reverted to Amity's opening, with one word changed, (still, bear with me, get the joke, b-e-a-r instead of bare?) and I had originally planned to go the Library of Congress before today ended up with matters that called me home. I plan to hit teh major source material again, and get some really good quotes, to the page number, and should be able to rewrite again on wednesday, after talking to Amity and Jonas somemore, and Ewulp has promised to help as well.  I think we all acknowledge we are treating on a minefield trying to get this NPOV with the feelings that have lasted to this day on it being mass murder undr a flag of truce vis a vis doing what it took to rescue captives being tortured.  I will hit the books again!  Thanks to everyone!  Amity, hollar at me when you can! old windy bear 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  But|seriously|folks  and Jonashart Amity150 Ewulp Stillstudying  I wanted to assess where we stand - everyone seems to agree that Amity's opening paragraph is the way we go, with the single word "all" for the number of chiefs killed in the Council House, since all of them who were there were killed.  As to the remainder of the article, it needs fleshing out.  I am going to the Library of Congress and compiling a list of dynamite quotes, which I will post on this page wednesday afternoon.  I would suggest we all "huddle" at that point, and do what everyone has agreed on, which is put a "viewpoint" section together comparing and contrasting how the two cultures looked at this incident, and why.  I will be able to exhaustively cite each line by page numbers, and if we all agree on the fleshing out, we will have the article rewritten, and NPOV.  is everyone okay with this scenario?  I am heading to bed, (forgive an old man!), but will check this site tomorrow before heading in to work, and then off to the Library of Congress.  I htink we all agree what we lack here are details and citations, and I will be able to provide both.  I think we can all agree on a set of quotes that fairly reflects history without appearing to favor either side.  I am very concerned about not appearing to be the typical "cowboys vs, indians" article where we whitewash very real wrongs on the part of the settlers, on the other hand, we cannot forget the horrific plight of the captives.  Anyway, as I said, I will check in tomorrow morning, and if evreyone is on the same page, we will be good to go as soon as I rpovide the final source material.  Goodnight! old windy bear 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How's that again?

message: I am presently reviewing Great Raid of 1840 as a Good Article Candidate and that article contains a description of the Council House Fight which is a bit POV (if I am following this discussion correctly) and I was hoping that when you resolve the POV issues here that that will translate to the other article and I can complete my review.  Sound reasonable? Argos'Dad 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argos'Dad Yes indeed, I wrote that, and I am actually going to resolve that right now, so you can complete the review!  I have changed that language to reflect the differing purposes of the talks - the Comanche wanted presents and recognition fo the Comancheria, the Texans wanted return fo their captives - and I think you will find the language less POV.  There is only so much that can be done however to discuss the fact the chiefs were attacked under a flag of truce.  I did emphasize the state of the cpatives, and I think the language is okay - let me know!old windy bear 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to other articles

message: Since Amity's opening is there, (and mine was reverted) and he has rewritten much of the article, and deleted what he thought was POV, the tag should be removed, and unless someone has a good reason for keeping it, I am removing it. Stillstudying 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulling tag

message: But|seriously|folks  and Jonashart Amity150 Ewulp ]] – folks, where are we on this article?  I think the offensive language has been removed.  I have some really good stuff to flesh the article out, but before I begin, I would prefer to have agreement as to where we are – is the present article, right now, NPOV?  I would appreciate everyone’s viewpoint!  I think our first priority, as Amity wanted, is to make sure the article - which is more an outline than a full article, right now! --is non-POV and neutral in tone.  Once we all agree that is done, THEN, I will flesh the article out, and let Amity, Ewulp and Jonas do their magic on firming up my work, with Butseriously giving us his good counsel! old windy bear 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to spend some time on it tomorrow.--Jonashart 03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonashart Thanks, I am trying to get this one resolved.  I appreciate the help! old windy bear 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the article keeps NPOV. Wandalstouring 08:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wandalstouring Thanks for the look, I am trying to get this one resolved.  I appreciate the help! old windy bear 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some minor cleanup of the wording.  I tried to make some of the statements less emphatic.  I'm not sure the connection that the article tries to make between the injured girl and any rage and motivation the Texans may have felt is supported by the sources. It may be OR.  To me, the Council House meeting was designed to trap the chiefs with little concern if any came out alive. This trap was planned before the meeting took place.  Even the reason for the meeting was probably a red herring. The Texan's knew the main demand of freeing the hostages,  could not be met. Mytwocents 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've done. I think your last statement is raises an issue, however. See my issues below. In short: is there any legit way to know what the Texans did or not know or believe? While it appears that their intent was, let us say, less than fully honorable, as noted above, there are some disputes about these various intents. Raises too many "what ifs": what if they had brought all the hostages? Would the Texans have found another reason to open fire? Would they all have shook hands and been on their merry way? As I asked OWB, how do we know what the Texans knew or did not know? Not trying to be contentious at all, just careful of what assumptions we use. Again, I do like the language changes.--Jonashart 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of article

message: 1)These three sentences seem to be a bit in conflict:
-"The Comanche chiefs said that they had other captives available for return, which was corroborated by Matilda Lockhart. When the Comanches would not, or could not, return all captives immediately, the Texas officials said that chiefs would be held hostage until the white captives were released"
-"Due to the chaotic nature of the Comanche hierarchy, this was impossible." (In reference to being able to bring all prisoners)
-"There were 12 formal bands, and dozens of smaller ones, with none having any authority over the others, so the visiting Comanche delegation in fact had no ability to effect an overall captive return."
Seems like they couldn't, so why would they say they could? And does this illuminate the important differing understandings of what was to take place at the meeting?
2) This sentence seems to suggest an understanding of a mindset via historical interpretation:
-"Republic of Texas officials had one goal in mind at San Antonio, and that was to regain the hostages held by the various bands of the Comanche."
Now, while we may all agree that was probably the case, the idea that we can be sure what their exact goals were may be stretching it. Not sure if a hedging phrase like "'seemed to' have one goal" becomes too weasely, but I get nervous when we apply this kind of certainly to how people were thinking or feeling, unless expressly stated.
3) Does not the written account speak of the Commanches outside fighting with bows as well? I don't see that included anywhere.
Just some thoughts.--Jonashart 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonashart andMytwocents you both also helped considerably - if you get a chance, please look at the added information I put in this afternoon in an effort to enable the uninformed reader just why that tragedy occurred.  Further editing by either of you is welcome, and I pulled the neutrality tag, as no one has objected, and the things Amity was particularly concerned about have been addressed.  Thanks! old windy bear 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things... 

message: Is there any uncertainty in the historical record about how many of the chiefs were killed? I did some work on the Buffalo Hump article and, based on an online source, wrote that 30 of the 33 leaders were killed. In the "Early life" section it now reads:  Their goal was to get revenge on the Texans who had killed thirty members of a delegation of Commanche Chiefs when these had been under a flag of truce for negotiations.This is not something I've researched, but I draw the discrepancy in sources to your attention so these articles can be reconciled. Ewulp 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All killed or 30 killed 

message: I am amazed that this article has been rated "low" on the importance scale ... whatever that is.  It seems that the tag relates specifically to Texas topics, and the Council House Fight is one of the more important episodes of early Texas history, surely.  Who makes these decisions, and is there any way to appeal that?  Amity150 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Importance" tag

message: The picture noted as “The Plaza and the Council House”, is only partly correct. San Fernando church is seen, facing Plaza de las Islas, however, the structure to the right (across Trevino Street) is not the Council House. The Council House was located on the corner of Market (then Calaboza Street), and the plaza, on the opposite side, and cannot be seen  in this picture. 70.244.47.180 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plaza and the Council House - Correction 

message: Added the  tag, as the neutrality of this article is severely in doubt. Azx2 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - August 2013 

message: It has never been substantiated by Azx2 what the supposed NPOV issues were. The article has been substantially improved since August 2013. User Azx2 has left wikipedia and won't substantiate his concerns. I will therefore remove the NPOV tag. If someone believes we have a severe NPOV problem he is free to substantiate his concerns and reopen the issue. Lookoo (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV??? - September 2015 

message: "Indian Depredations in Texas" by J.W.Wilbarger, contemporaneously written, gives quite a different version of this history. Why is it not mentioned?
WithGLEE (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Depredations in Texas 

message: This is just a suggestion (I'm new in Wikipedia and not at expert at all in the subject, by the way). The following phrase is contradicted by the first paragraph which quotes Anderson:
"The Texians most likely were responding to seeing the horrible torture that Matilda Lockhart had endured (burns over most of her body, her nose completely burned off, she had been raped)".
On the other hand "most likely" seems like an opinion. I would not delete the phrase, but I would write that "Some authors claim that the Texians were responding", and I would quote the author/authors. Burocracia336 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrase - Matilda Lockhart 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Council House Fight. 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/20050711082454/http://www.gbso.net:80/Skyhawk/comanche.htm to http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630175749/http://www.historychannel.com:80/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146 to http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509122616/http://www2.itexas.net/%7Eteddun/tedspage.htm to http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Council House Fight. 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/20091114105640/http://www.comanchelanguage.org/Comanche%20History.htm to http://www.comanchelanguage.org/Comanche%20History.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is the sentence I removed: "Yet this violation could not have completely shocked them since 4 years earlier at Fort Parker, it is well documented that the Comanches attacked under a ruse of a white flag." Normally I would simply have added a citation needed marker, but it was sandwiched between these sentences: "The council was sacred not only to the [Comanche] People but to all Native Americans. In response, the captives the Texians sought were killed and Buffalo Hump launched the Great Raid of 1840, leading hundreds of Comanche warriors on raids against many Texian villages." It was just confusing, as the unsourced sentence changed the meaning to the white captives being killed in retaliation for something the Comanche did, which was obviously not the case. Until someone includes the claim properly, and without changing the meaning of the paragraph, the best thing for it is to exclude it. Tsuka (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced claim from the Aftermath section