Talk:Texas–Indian wars

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attribution and References 

message: "...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)
thread_title:  Anglo-American settlement of Texas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive Length 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Establishment of a "Indian Wars as Genocide" Section, or some other solution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV concerns

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite begun, everyone please check!

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Parkers among the Comanches 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plains Indians, dates of arrival, Cherokee, Delaware 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worst Genozide in history did not happen in Texas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lamar and Indian Policy(ies) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence structure and grammatical errors 

message: 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:
#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?
#If not, are we justified in inventing a proper noun?
#Is there a reason not use Indian wars involving Texas?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Restart

message: 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: 
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 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Texas–Indian wars]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Illustration Copyright Violation?