Talk:Comanche/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Population

There is an apparent contradiction in the population figures for the 19th century. In the intro, 45K is mentioned; in the body, a range below this is given. Either one or the other is wrong or the numbers refer to different thing (times?0 -- but the latter, if it is the case, is not at all clear to me.211.225.34.173 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Language term

What does "low-level sound changes" mean? 211.225.34.173 (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that they were not changes to the underlying phonemic system, but only changes to surface representations. --Taivo (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncited books culled from article

If anyone needs this information, I've pulled the following uncited books from the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

  • Bial, Raymond (2000) Lifeways: The Comanche Benchmark Books, New York, ISBN 0-7614-0864-9, juvenile audience
  • Lodge, Sally (1992) Native American People: The Comanche Rourke Publications, Inc., Vero Beach, Florida, ISBN 0-86625-390-4, Juvenile audience
  • Lund, Bill (1997) Native Peoples: The Comanche Indians Bridgestone Books, Mankato, Minnesota, ISBN 1-56065-478-3, Primary school audience
  • Mooney, Martin (1993) The Junior Library of American Indians: The Comanche Indians Chelsea House Publishers, New York, ISBN 0-7910-1653-6, Juvenile audience.
  • Richardson, Rupert Norval (1933) The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement: A Century and a Half of Savage Resistance to the Advancing White Frontier Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, Calif., OCLC 251275170; reprinted in 1996 by Eakin Press, Austin, Texas, OCLC 36404766
  • Streissguth, Thomas (2000) Indigenous Peoples of North America: The Comanche. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books. ISBN 1-56006-633-4, Juvenile audience
  • Rollings, Willard (1989) Indians of North America: The Comanche. Chelsea House Publishers, New York, ISBN 1-55546-702-4, Juvenile audience
  • Secoy, Frank (1953) Changing Military Patterns on the Great Plains (17th century through early 19th century) (Monograph of the American Ethnological Society, No. 21) J. J. Augustin, Locust Valley, N.Y., OCLC 2830994
  • Jones, David E. (1974) Sanapia: Comanche Medicine Woman. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, ISBN 0-03-088456-X.

Uyvsdi (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

File:Cradleboard of the Kiowa or Comanche people .jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cradleboard of the Kiowa or Comanche people .jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comanche Wars

Umm, I think it's inappropriate for this article to contain a sub-section, Comanche Wars, that links off to several other main article topics, w/o providing any summary whatsoever. This could be a perfect place to provide the reader with information concerning the Comanche's practice of torture, mutilation (of the living and corpses), rape, gang-rape, and other brutalities, but in a NPOV-way, of course. Azx2 19:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If your source is Empire of the Summer Moon, then you are quite poorly read in Comanche history and culture. See my comment in the previous section for more reliable sources that you can read if you are actually interested in Comanche history and not just in the sensationalistic journalism of Gwyne's imbalanced narrative. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The south plains were not empty when the Comanche took them. There ought to be some mention in this article of the various peoples who were displaced, mention by tribal name not the anonymous remarks about women and children adopted and people sold into slavery among the Spanish and Anglo settlers. It would be ridiculous to judge the Comanche by twenty-first codes of conduct but it seems that no one thinks it ridiculous to judge the settlers by such codes. Conquest and bloodshed were the way things were done and once the Comanche got horses they did it very well. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The Southern Plains weren't empty then, and those tribes are still around today, i.e. Wichita, Tonkawa, Caddo, etc. So the word "conquered" hardly applies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
You've got a point, anon IP. But the Comanche didn't take Wichita, Tonkawa, Caddo land, they displaced the Plains Apache, who were pushed into marginalized regions of the South Plains in SE New Mexico, SW Texas, and north central Mexico. Some of their descendants survived as the Lipan Apache, but remnants of the rest merged into the Jicarilla and Mescalero. Perhaps something appropriate should be mentioned about the prior inhabitants who were pushed out. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Many tribes, many causes for displacement or disappearance: Category:Native American tribes in Texas. Some of it was this: Spanish missions in Texas. Some of the smaller tribes no longer exist on the earth. No one answer fits all. As for the native Americans, survival by conquest and war started on this continent when they crossed the Bering Strait. And coming up from the southern side: Spanish colonization of the Americas. Blood, guts, gore and glory. The Comanche did not have a lock on those practices. 209.77.244.132 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly not, anon IP. My point is that the particular tribes displaced by the Comanche might appropriately be mentioned. "Appropriately" doesn't mean lurid tales of slaughter and torture or the impression that Native American warfare was either invented or uniquely pursued by the Comanche. "Appropriately" means a mention of the dispossessed groups and their ultimate disposition. --Taivo (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a bit more info at Comanche history, for what it's worth. Pfly (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

Once we get a section up about that, aside from the cars, Rennick also strongly argues that Paducah, Kentucky, was named for the Comanches. — LlywelynII 14:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical Error: Should be "an" instead of "a"...

Under the "Government" category, there is a grammatical error. In the sentence, "As of June 1, 2012, Wallace Coffey is the Tribal Chairman, and Robert Komahcheet, Tribal Administrator. CBC members recalled in April 2012 have been reinstated per a emergency interim order by Judge Phil Lujan..." the words "per a emergency" should read "per an emergency."

216.185.249.175 (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Taivo (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another view

Just read this article in a major, reliable UK publication (online): The truth Johnny Depp wants to hide about the real-life Tontos: How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family And it doesn't portray the Comanche in much of a sympathetic light.

Why isn't this perspective more accurately and fully represented in this article? Azx2 04:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Taivo: please don't delete my talk page comments again. You can respond to them here in writing however you see fit, but deleting them is hardly acceptable. Azx2 19:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear User:Azx2, this material is just racist claptrap based on sensationalist 19th century scare tactics. The "Daily Mail" is not a reliable source for descriptions of Comanche life and history any more than Fox News is a reliable source for Sherpa life and history. There's more error and pseudo-Christian judgmentalism in that article than I can reasonably refute in just a few bytes. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The source for the article seems to be Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne. This is a recent book and appears to be reliable. And I agree with Azx2 - please don't edit or delete other people's talk page comments. Jay-W (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've read S.C. Gwynne "Empire of the Summer Moon" and the author does an excellent job of sensationalizing aspects of Plains warfare that were common throughout the Plains. The author's point in ESM is to focus entirely on the Comanche and ignore the broader cultural milieu in which the Comanche lived. This book is actually not a sterling example of scholarship about the Comanche. Azx2 would do far better to read the much more balanced and far less sensationalized "Comanches, the Destruction of a People" by T.R. Fehrenbach or "The Comanches, a History 1706-1875" by Thomas W. Kavanagh. These are much more solidly researched and more scholarly resources. Kavanagh and Fehrenbach are actual scholars and their work is authoritative; S.C. Gwynne is a journalist with no scholarly credentials. --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you prefer other books is irrelevant. The book is a modern source, not 19th century propaganda as you claimed, and appears to have been well researched and well received. Jay-W (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If you actually read the reviews of the book (as I have) you will find that the reviewers are all newspaper and literary reviewers who love the "vivid story-telling style", but know virtually nothing about Comanche history (and they all admit that). Sure, as a person's first time read of Comanche history, they'll appreciate the vivid writing, but I've yet to find a single, solitary scholarly appraisal of the book. That means that this would not be qualified as a scholarly source. It's a simple fact--Gwyne is not a scholar. --Taivo (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't found a scholarly review of it yet (because scholars generally ignore such unscholarly work), but I found this quote from Kavanagh on a forum:
"To all who have picked up "Empire of the Summer Moon":
Put it down. Now!
Back away slowly.
Take a deep breath.
ok?
Why do I say this? Because it's a piece of kwiitapU.
I have tried many times to write a formal review of it, but every time I get started, I have to, well, put it down, and back away.
I have tried to be objective. I really have. I have tried to ignore the fact that even tho my book, _The Comanches: A History_, is his second-most cited reference after Wallace and Hoebel (1952), it takes him almost 280 pages to spell my name right.
I really have tried to write a review. But I get bogged down in pointing out that he continually gets details wrong, mis-reads sources, mis-cites references. At times it seems as if each chapter had a different copy editor, with no one keeping track of continuity. Thus statements made in one chapter are contradicted in a later chapter.
The best I can say about it is this: Put it down. Walk away. Regret you ever picked it up. You have better things to do with your time.
tk
Esimotsoraivo
[Last month, I was in Oklahoma to give a talk to the Comanche Nation College. I heard that Larry McMurtry has bought the film rights to EotSM. arrrgh]
Read more: http://amertribes.proboards.com/thread/1745#ixzz2cWOrZXKG" (end of quote)
That's what an actual, legitimate scholar of the Comanche thinks of this book. (For those of you who don't know the Comanche language, kwiitapU means "shit".) And you can read the further comments he has following this one on the forum thread. Kavanagh is the world's leading authority on Comanche history and culture. His is the final word on the topic. (He doesn't like Fehrenbach's book, but it's nowhere near as bad as Gwyne's.) --Taivo (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


An interesting discussion, but it doesn't address the point - were the Comanches noted for their extreme cruelty to captives or not? Did they or did they not torture them to death, burn their noses off, gang rape etc etc as a matter of common practice? If they did then it should be mentioned in the text. And if they didn't, then the slander needs to be refuted in the text Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.132 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Anon IP, I've been pretty clear about what I think of this whole thread--it's nothing but sensationalistic bombast directed at pushing Gywnne's "demonic possession" theory of Comanche activity and add lurid, unnecessary and irrelevant details to a serious discussion of Comanche warfare. Gwynne's narrative doesn't deserve even a mention here because it has been rejected by actual scholars. Should we find examples of the worst abuses of American Marines on the Iraqi people (both real and imagined) and highlight them in a history of the US Marines in order "to refute" the rumors? Or perhaps you think that Curious George is a valid reference on primate behavior? --Taivo (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You claim the book has unnecessary and irrelevant details, but you don't deny that it is accurate. You say it has been "rejected by actual scholars" but your only evidence is a message board posting. It seems you just don't want to include anything negative about the Comanche. Jay-W (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read what the number one scholar on the Comanche has to say about the book. It doesn't matter whether that is a message board posting or not, it is definitive for what actual scholars--you know, the people with PhDs who are the respected authorities on the subject--have to say about the book. The other books listed in the further reading are all written by scholars and recognized by scholars as authoritative. This book is a piece of sensationalistic crap. Unless you have scholarly support for it, I'm going to remove it from the list of further reading. "Further reading" is for works that have the authority of scholarship behind them. This book does not. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of the Comanche and everything to do with the poor scholarship and lack of acceptance within the scholarly community. Just look at the other books under "Further Reading". Every single one of them is a serious scholarly text written by scholars--historians, anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, etc. Gwynne is not. There have been hundreds of popular books written on the Comanche, but we don't include every piece of Comanche writing on this list. This list is of the most serious and reliable works. Gwynne's book is not scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
But, Jay-W, if you can find a scholarly review of the book that praises it, then I will reconsider. But until you've got more evidence than literary or newspaper reviews, which are not qualified to comment on the scholarship, then you've got nothing to support your POV. --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
With respect only to the question of whether this book should have been deleted from the "Further Reading" list, I agree with Jay-W. Based on what's been presented here, the deletion did not accord with WP:NPOV. A book that's been short-listed for a Pulitzer and has received extensive praise should not be removed from a reading list because an editor and a forum poster (however eminent) don't like it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Arxiloxos, The Pulitzer has zero to do with scholarship. It is a prize for journalism and literary accomplishment. When they reward a non-fiction work, it is not for the quality of its scholarship, but on the quality of the writing. Those are different things completely. So the Pulitzer nomination is completely and totally irrelevant here. What is relevant here is the judgment of scholars in the field and when the number one scholar in the field says that this book is not worthy of note on a scholarly basis, that is the definitive judgment, not the Pulitzer committee, which consists of zero scholars in Comanche history and culture. And your "extensive praise" is also not from the scholarly community, but from the literary community. You won't be able to find any scholarly "praise" for this work. You think that the book editor for the New York Times knows anything at all about Comanche history and culture? I guarantee you that the answer is "No". That "forum poster" is the number one scholar in the field. Period. And I'm not just some "editor" on this topic either--I also have scholarly work listed in the References section of this article. Your argument is that somehow the scholars in this field don't count, only the New York Times book reviewer counts. That is one of the fundamental problems with Wikipedia and why so many scholars laugh at it--because editors like yourself don't understand what scholarship is and think that counting up literary reviews in the nation's newspapers equals scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't agree with much of anything you've said here. To be clear, I am not taking a position on any of the content issues in this article. I am simply stating that the book has been clearly demonstrated to be worthy of inclusion in the Further Reading section. And when you veer away from discussing the merits to making assertions that "editors like [myself] don't understand what scholarship is", you leave the waters of reasoned discussion and head into the shoals of ad hominem irrelevancy. Anyway, we edit by WP:CONSENSUS and so far the consensus here is against you. I will wait a while to see if anyone else has a view about the book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't agree with what? That the leading scholar on Comanche thinks the book is not scholarly? That no other Comanche scholar thinks the book is scholarly? That the book's only recognition is from non-scholarly sources? It's a very simple matter--either the book is scholarly and worthy of listing under "further reading" or it is not scholarly and therefore not worthy of listing. Show me one single bit of evidence that the book is considered scholarly by those who know how to judge such things and I will reconsider my opposition to including it here. --Taivo (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you post any source to prove that Thomas W. Kavanagh is a worthwhile source? We have a stub article on T. R. Fehrenbach, but not one on Kavanagh. His book is cited as a source on a couple of bio articles, George K. Sanderson and Bartolomé Baca, but he is not quotted or used much as source. Are we unfairly ignoring an expert, or is he overlooked due to relative obscurity? Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this him? Prof Kavanagh Seton Hall Univ — Maile (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is him. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
In the field of Comanche historical and cultural studies, he is certainly not obscure. And, based on some of the comments here, he is probably simply being ignored. He is the head of the field, however. Even in the Gwynne book, references to Kavanagh's work are only superseded by references to Wallace and Hoebel. That's why Kavanagh can so easily assess the Gwynne text--he is the leading living scholar on the subject. (Wallace and Hoebel are both deceased.) --Taivo (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, also, the reason Wikipedia has no article on him, is that you would just about have to be an academic to know where to find information about Kavanagh. All I've seen is the Seton Hall Univ link, and over at Worldcat a list of his works. The combination of the two wouldn't make a very informative article. He doesn't seem to have his own web site or seem to be doing anything to generate publicity for his work. One assumes that this man would make no false claims about himself on his employer's website (Seton). Ergo, his being Consulting Anthropologist for the Comanche Nation is notable.
A few years ago, I was reading about Texas county histories back in the years when Native Americans still roamed free, so to speak. This was mostly the eastern part of Texas and did not involve the Comanches. Reading about the atrocities nauseated me. However, I have come to view them as parallel in many aspects to the Palestinians. From their perspective, the white man invading their territory and killing off the buffalo resulted in a bad situation on both sides. The history of Texas is bathed in blood from all sides. But you know what? So is every other place on earth. So is the history of just about any culture that has existed on this earth. It's not that it shouldn't be mentioned here. It's how it's handled that is the key. Wikipedia is not a movie, nor is it a tabloid. . But there's nothing quite like a Hollywood movie and its review to get people fired up. — Maile (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I find interesting about this thread. The structure of Wikipedia enables anyone to edit and source articles. So, if someone feels something is missing from an article, they are free to edit in and source what they believe is missing. Then, of course, their own edits are open to a challenge. All I've seen here, and elsewhere are complaints and tagging about POV, started by someone who got worked up by a British movie review of a Johnny Depp movie. (I personally take issue with Dances with Wolves, because Native Americans of that era did not really work out in a gym and look as gorgeous as Graham Greene stripped to the waist.) After a while, this is repetitive and just not productive. And of course, none of us work for anyone else at Wikipedia, no one gets to boss anyone around or intimidate anyone into writing for them. No one here can force anyone else here to obey their will. If you have the courage of your convictions, write it and source it . Put up or shut up.— Maile (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The measure of scholarly credentials is not whether or not one has a Wikipedia article. It is whether and how much other scholarly works rely upon the contributions made by a scholar. In the case of Comanche history and culture, the names of Wallace and Hoebel (as a united pair) and Kavanagh stand head and shoulders above all other scholars. Kavanagh has the added advantage of knowing the language as well (Wallace and Hoebel worked in an era when this was not considered important). And, Maile66, you are quite right that an article on him would be short indeed, but that is not the measure of his impact and importance in Comanche studies, especially Comanche historical studies. His history of the documented pre-reservation world is definitive. And as a measure of his primary place in the documentation of the Comanche, he was the author of the Comanche article in the Handbook of North American Indians from the Smithsonian. --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added the Gwynne book to the further reading section. It clearly is a notable book, whether you like it or not. If it really has been rejected by scholars then you should be able to find some evidence for this. The book has been widely praised and was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. Your only criticism comes from someone on a message board complaining that the book spelled his name wrong. If the author of that posting had written a scholarly rebuttal of the Gwynne book then that might be different, but a whining posting on a message board carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. Jay-W (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should actually read this thread before commenting because I have countered all of your comments before. That scholar who posted on the message board is the leading Comanche scholar in the world and he makes far more substantial comments than just "he spelled my name wrong" (follow the link and then scroll down to read more of his comments). If you don't know the Comanche literature, then I can understand why you don't know who Kavanagh is, but then you should back off trying to make comments here. But if you know the Comanche literature, then you know who Kavanagh is and that his opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. As stated above a Pulitzer is worthless when it comes to scholarly literature since it is a prize for writing and not for scholarship. The Pulitzer judges are not subject matter experts, they are literary experts. Those are different things entirely. As I have stated earlier: if you can find a single scholarly review that praises this book, then I will reconsider, but in lieu of that the only scholarly voice that counts at this point is Kavanagh's and his voice is negative. --Taivo (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Taivo, at least three people have now added this book to the reading list. You are clearly in the minority here and your position is not defensible, so please stop deleting it. I'm not going to try and meet some arbitrary definition of yours as to what you think is or isn't scholarly. The book has been nominated for a Pulitzer prize, that proves beyond doubt that the book is of sufficient quality to be listed here. If you want it to be removed then you have to prove it has been "rejected by scholars" as you claim, a claim that at the moment has no evidence to support it. I don't care who Kavanagh is and I don't care what he wrote on a message board, because writing on a message board does not constitute a scholarly rejection. Jay-W (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
1) If you don't know who Kavanagh is, then you don't know anything whatsoever about the Comanche or Comanche history and should not be editing here.
2) I have made it real clear that the Pulitzer Prize is irrelevant here in terms of judging academic or scholarly quality, it is an award for writing and literature, not for scholarship.
3) Show me one single, solitary scholarly review of this book (not a literary review in a newspaper) and I will reconsider my objections.
4) You have zero evidence that this is a reliable scholarly source and votes do not count in Wikipedia, only scholarly reliability. Since Kavanagh, who is the leading scholar in Comanche, says it is not a valuable piece of scholarship, then it isn't. --Taivo (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

{od}So let's take a look at the academic journals in the field. From JSTOR, the leading repository of academic journal articles, a search for "Comanche" and "Kavanagh" in the full text yields 156 results, many of which are reviews and announcements of Kavanagh's books and some of which are Kavanagh's articles in academic journals. A search for "Comanche" and "Gwynne" in JSTOR yields 46 results nearly all of which predate Gwynne's book and are thus irrelevant. There is not a single reference in these scholarly journals to a review of Gwynne's book. If the premier academic data base doesn't have a mention of Gwynne's book, that is fairly convincing evidence that it has been ignored by scholars in the field. --Taivo (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no requirement that books have to be reviewed in an academic journal before they can be added to the further reading section. There is also no requirement that they have to be "scholarly", this is your own invention. They have to be of good quality, and I consider the Pulitzer Prize to be a mark of good quality, and so does just about everyone else.
You're determination to keep removing this book is out of all proportion to the significance it has in the article. The book is only being added to the further reading section. It is not claiming this as the greatest book that has ever been written about the Comanche. It's a recent, significant, acclaimed book which is directly relevant to the subject matter of the article. Its appearance in the reading list can only enhance the usefulness of this article for readers.
You show clear signs of WP:OWN. Please don't ever again tell me or anybody else that we don't have the right to edit a Wikipedia article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and the site works by consensus. As 4 different users have either added the book or have stated that it should be included, it's clear there is a consensus that it should be included. You should now respect that consensus and move on. Jay-W (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be of the opinion that scholarly opinion doesn't count. And you also seem to be of the opinion that editors who are ignorant of the scholarship should have an equal voice to people who actually know what they are talking about in cases such as this. While those who know the scholarship must always consider the opinions of those who don't, it is never the case that ignorance of the scholarship trumps knowledge in Wikipedia. We have clear evidence that the principle scholar in the field doesn't consider this work to be a work of scholarship. I have continually pointed out to you that the Pulitzer Prize does not count because it is not a measure of scholarship, but only a measure of writing. Since we have clear evidence that the major scholar in the field doesn't consider this to be a work of scholarship, then you do, indeed, need some kind of evidence that other scholars in the field disagree with him. In the absence of dissenting scholarship, then this book is not a valuable contribution to the reading list. You simply keep ignoring the only opinion that really counts at this point (Kavanagh's) and trying to make an irrelevant award count more than scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added the book back to the reading list as per the consensus. I think we've discussed this to death and are not going to reach agreement. The book's inclusion in the reading list is reasonable and your objections to it are not. The consensus has been to include it, and you should respect that consensus. If you continue to remove the book I will just add it back again as per that consensus. If you don't like that you can ask for a dispute resolution. Jay-W (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The leading expert in the field has rejected this as a reliable source on Comanche. I've provided quite sufficient evidence to that fact. If you find a single, scholarly source that uses this work or presents a positive review of it, then you will have an argument. A popular book is not a scholarly, reliable source on the Comanche, especially when the world's authority on the subject says it isn't. You talk about consensus as if that trumps scholarly authority. Gwynne is a journalist, not a scholar; Simon & Schuster is a publisher for mass market consumption, not an academic or scholarly press. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Komon'teia

I propose to add the origin of "Comanche" as follows.

Settlers adopted the term Comanche as borrowed from the Ute Komon'teia, which means "one who wants to fight me", or the Spanish camino ancho for "main road". Waldman, Carl (2009). Atlas of the North American Indian. Infobase Publishing. p. 371. ISBN 9781438126715. The Comanche title is Ne-me-ne, or "true Human being".--Kyle(talk) 08:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That Ute form is wrong. The Ute form is kɨmantsi, 'enemy'. It's not Spanish at all. Waldman is not a linguist. See William Bright, Native American Placenames of the United States (2004, University of Oklahoma Press). (Bright was a linguist.) --Taivo (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that using the Bright reference would be an improvement. Would you accept the following;
Settlers adopted the term Comanche (Camanche) as borrowed from the Ute kɨmantsi, 'enemy'. Native American neighbors sometimes referred to them as Padouca.[1]
This proposal is a duplicate of the entry found in Comanche language, where the origin is referenced from Edward Sapir. 1931. Southern Paiute Dictionary. Reprinted in 1992 in: The Collected Works of Edward Sapir, X, Southern Paiute and Ute Linguistics and Ethnography. Ed. William Bright. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter. Since this entry would be a duplicate, I will not add it here. --Kyle(talk) 07:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't settlers who adopted the name "Comanche", but the Spanish in New Mexico. The word "Comanche" was appearing on Spanish maps decades before the first settlers in Texas had contact with them. And the term "Padouca" was from a Dhegiha Siouan term meaning "enemy" (in general and not just the Comanche) through French and was applied to both the Plains Apache and Comanche on the Southern Plains. (The Ute term is also a general term for "enemy" and was not exclusively applied to the Comanche.) The Bright volume is also the source for the etymology of the term "Paduca" (spelled Padouca in French). --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

Under the Notable Comanche section, Lotsee Patterson - the "c" is missing from the word "educator". Casegrfx (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Casegrfx

edit completed as requested. thank you. Kyle(talk) 04:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Lowercase and starting sentence with "and Similarly"- Settler section, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders88 (talk • contribs) 20:18 28 March 2014
Corrected. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Descendant of Henry Sackett Texas Ranger AND Quanah Parker

Henry Sackett one of Maltby's Minutemen fought the Comanches in the eighteen-sixties at Camp Colorado Coleman County Texas my hometown. In 1870 my great-great-grandfather Henry Sackett purchased the old Army Post turning it into the first merchant store for all of Coleman County Brown County and surrounding areas. Paying taxes in 1924 of $57,000 and also serving four terms in the House of Representatives. Quanah Parker and family settled in Coleman County. Quanah great great grandson also Quanah Parker was my age and our families would get together when I was a child Slater understanding that my father being half Comanche from the West is a direct descendant of Quanah Parker, Bigfoot, and chief Ten Bears. My great-great-grandfather Henry Sackett shot Bigfoot ricocheting off his waist to his face later causing an infection in which resulted in his death. Three generations later the same Comanche tribe with my father being half Comanche and Henry Sackett, Texas Ranger, my mother's great grandfather marry in Coleman Texas 1974. I was born in 1981 and my brother Crockett in 1979. My brother is a beautiful mixture of Quanah and Davy Crockett our 7th generational uncle. I have blue eyes like my great-great-grandfather Henry, but have Comanche features. I am very proud of my family history! I also have many many pictures of Henry, Texas Ranger service certificate, his spurs, and pictures of the Army Post. I also have many pictures of my Comanche family. you may find me on Facebook. I post many stories and pictures. Robin Crockett Mills (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Comanche killed Jedidiah smith

smith was one of the best hunters in his clan then a tribe called Comanche attacked him because he hogged AL

Comanche

how long did the Comanche live — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.4.171 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comanche. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vicious cruelty..... revision or what?

Where is the at least 1 paragraph about their heinous and wanton cruelty and sadistic physical torture/maiming common towards all of their victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.57 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a source on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And would you also care to dial back your own personal prejudice? --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comanche. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Comanche. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Today, the Comanche Nation has 15,191 members

ROFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.21.123 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ute-Comanche Relations

The intro mentions "Comanche" is from the Ute word for "enemy," yet the article does not mention Comanche-Ute relations/warfare whatsoever. This must be added to become a credible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.254.1.7 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since about half of the English ethnonyms of First Nations languages are the word for "enemy" in a neighboring language, this is not remarkable. --Taivo (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Revisionist history

Several times this glaring omission about the culture of the comanche was brought up, and sources were requested. This article cites sources directly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html Batvette (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisionist history

The truth, it hurts. Source, as requested. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html Batvette (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I recommend taking a look at WP:DAILYMAIL. To summarize, the source is WP:DEPRECATED because it is often unreliable, and it should therefore generally be avoided as a source. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
And a daily newspaper in England is not a reliable source anyway compared to scholarly works written by historians and anthropologists doing research in situ in the United States. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose youre implying the DailyMail fabricated these historical accounts out of thin air?

S C Gwynne, author of Empire Of The Summer Moon about the rise and fall of the Comanche, says simply: ‘No tribe in the history of the Spanish, French, Mexican, Texan, and American occupations of this land had ever caused so much havoc and death. None was even a close second.’

The historian T R Fehrenbach, author of Comanche: The History Of A People, tells of a raid on an early settler family called the Parkers, who with other families had set up a stockade known as Fort Parker. In 1836, 100 mounted Comanche warriors appeared outside the fort’s walls, one of them waving a white flag to trick the Parkers.

‘Benjamin Parker went outside the gate to parley with the Comanche,’ he says. ‘The people inside the fort saw the riders suddenly surround him and drive their lances into him. Then with loud whoops, mounted warriors dashed for the gate. Silas Parker was cut down before he could bar their entry; horsemen poured inside the walls.’

Survivors described the slaughter: ‘The two Frosts, father and son, died in front of the women; Elder John Parker, his wife ‘Granny’ and others tried to flee. The warriors scattered and rode them down.

‘John Parker was pinned to the ground, he was scalped and his genitals ripped off. Then he was killed. Granny Parker was stripped and fixed to the earth with a lance driven through her flesh. Several warriors raped her while she screamed.

Sources are cited, and the story of the Parkers is well documented in Texas history. You know, in the United States. Batvette (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Note the wiki article Fort Parker Massacre contains the following directly cited passage

John Parker was castrated and then scalped. His wife came out of the woods when she saw his torture and was captured.[7]

Exley, Jo Ella Powell (2009). Frontier Blood: The Saga of the Parker Family. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-109-4. Batvette (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it always circles back to sensationalist 19th century newspaper accounts written on the Texas frontier by white settlers and journalists with an anti-Comanche agenda. No, the Daily Mail is nowhere near a reliable source for the history of the Comanche, whether they read the sensationalist account by Gwynne or not. Actual scholars of Comanche have uniformly dismissed his work. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you will find some reason to discredit these as well. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/lockhart-matilda The indian wars of Texas, Mildred Mayhall. https://jack0204.tripod.com/gen/Heskew/council.htm http://www.tolatsga.org/ComancheOne.html (Describes how rape of women captives and cutting off the noses of adulterous women was common practice.)Batvette (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your contribution regarding Comanche torture of captives, etc. is that it gives undue weight to one aspect of Comanche behavior. All wars and all peoples are capable of human rights abuses and torturing their enemies, but I don't believe the Comanche were uniquely evil or uniquely cruel. The Comanches took captives for three reasons (l) ransom; or (2) eventual adoption into the tribe, as they suffered from a shortage of manpower and labor, given the size of their proto-empire; and (3) revenge for perceived wrongs done to them.
The story of Cynthia Lockhart which you cited as an example of Comanche brutality may or may not be true or may be exaggerated. If you carefully read the Texas Historical Society article you cited, you will see that the allegations of Lockhart's torture were made "later." Yes indeed, much later, 55 years later to be exact -- and the credibility of the witness to those tortures has to be questioned. Was the story of Cynthia Lockhart's tortures used as a justification for the massacre of 20-30 Comanche chiefs in the Council House Fight? Possibly. (I could argue that this article should be titled the "Council House Massacre" rather than the "Council House Fight." The "fight" or "massacre" was an atrocity committed by whites against the Comanche.)
Did the Comanche on occasion torture captives? Yes, of course, as all combatants in all wars since the beginning of time have done. But the Comanche captured and enslaved thousands of Mexicans, Americans, and other Indians and, while most were probably initially mistreated and some were tortured, many of them after a rough initiation were adopted into the tribe and became enthusiastic Comanches.
Did the Comanche sometimes behave like arrogant, imperious assholes? Yes. They were the "Lords of the Plains" and all peoples at the top of the food chain behave that way. But the contribution you wish to make gives undue weight to incidents of Comanche cruelty based on the purple prose of 19th century tales. There are a large number of recent sources which give a more balanced picture of Comanche society. If you wish to pursue this subject, I suggest you consult more recent studies of the Comanche and craft a paragraph or two about their treatment of captives. James Brooks Captive and Cousins is a good study of slavery in the Texas/New Mexico borderlands; another is Comanche Empire by Pekka Hamalainen. Scott Zesch in The Captured devotes a whole book to children captured by the Comanche and their fates. Smallchief (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I was mainly concerned that this aspect of the Comanche had been rejected as discredited. IMO some aspects of the Comanche were unique, for instance their incredible adeptness at horse warfare. Ive heard descriptions of them shooting arrows hanging upside down from the neck of their horses. However the dark nature of their reported propensity for torture, and seemingly making sport of it, did not bode well for the treatment of the other tribes of the region as settlers moved west. They conquered virtually all tribes they encountered and became the predominant tribe of the midwest by the early to mid 19th century. This must have given both the government and settlers the idea that eradication (genocide) was the sensible course of action in light of their cruel nature. In an alternate world without the Comanche, would the west have been settled more equitably with Apaches, Cheyenne, etc, without such atrocities? I think so. So the intent here is not to single out the Comanche, malign them or even justify white settlers reprisals which were as a whole more deadly. Just perhaps a seed of thought that their utter efficiency at warfare and culture which embraced related brutality betrayed the fate of other tribes and dictated the philosophy of govt policymakers. I also think a flaw in the evolved history is the homogenization of the indigeneous peoples, many tribes were peaceful, could be negotiated with, had the metrics of advanced civilization like sustainable agriculture and irrigation. I dont think its inaccurate to portray the Comanche as uniquely savage if they lacked those qualities. (Unique in their region and era. Accounts of northeastern tribes in the late 17th-early 18th century contain some grisly stories including cannibalism, which apparantly the Comanche abhorred)Batvette (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This comment from User:Batvette is so full of racist judgement that it's hardly worthy of keeping. Comments like "cruel nature", "dark nature", "uniquely savage", etc. are completely racist in their implication that somehow Comanches were born with natures that were the opposite of the "pure" values belonging to white men and "tribes that could be negotiated with". Do you honestly think that whites were any less "cruel" than Comanches? Also, as I have previously stated, much of the "eyewitness" accounts from Anglos on the Texas border were exaggerated as they moved from the events, through selective racist memory, to racist sensationalist publication. I will continue to revert each and every attempt to insert this Eurocentric racist claptrap into the article. The Comanche were quite adept at warfare and protecting their families from the ravages of cruel and racist Anglo slavers and land thieves, whose cruelty toward the Comanche was in tacitly unpublicized extremes. Ever heard of the Sand Creek massacre? The "Battle" of the Washita? The Bear River Massacre? The sources you try to cite are nothing more than outdated Eurocentric racism. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that your editing here is for purposes of pushing your own POV, and not a consensus of what reliable sources on both sides reflect? If feel the words savage, dark and cruel accurately describe the eyewitness accounts provided, do you seriously disagree? Furthermore, since no tribe of indigineous people in what would become the united states utilized the written word for record keeping, its quite bizarre you claim to reject "euro centric" historical accounts. You first rejected adding material on the grounds the references werent reliable, when reliable references were provided the goalposts shift to now the history books dont match the version you want presented. Wikipedia coddles this type of behavior, which is why so many editors have stopped wasting their time here.Batvette (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what a reliable source is when you think that Eurocentric racism is "reliable". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Comanche are well known to have been brutal. The dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source. This does not mean the information in the article is not true, or that it has not been well worked into a readable narrative. It means, find other sources to corroborate. Ideally, find Johnathon Foreman’s sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, "the Comanche are well known to have been brutal" is a Eurocentric 19th century racist narrative that is based entirely on lurid European 19th century narratives. One-sided primary sources cannot be the basis on a reliable narrative of Comanche "nature". That is a Eurocentric racist assumption from the ground up. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The word choice, “known” might be swapped, but “brutal” or similar is sourceable, eg refs 23-26. Biased to lurid sources? Sure, a lot of bias. Not the point. Biased sources are allowed, and if primary for sure. The point is that where someone’s source is accused of being unreliable, like dailymail.co.uk, the answer is to look for more and better sources, not to argue dubious facts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed addition about Comanche brutality is that it portrays the Comanche as uniquely cruel and evil. Suppose I were to propose inserting the following language into the lead paragraphs of the article titled Americans.
"The Americans were infamous for their cruelty of their wars and their brutality as a people. They killed hundreds of thousands of people in World War II with nuclear and conventional bombs; they massacred Native Americans and imprisoned them under unimaginable conditions on reservations; they invaded and brutalized the country of Vietnam; a large number of them fought a bloody civil war to preserve the institution of African slavery; they humiliated and tortured prisoners of war in Iraq during one of their innumerable aggressive and imperialistic wars."
If you believe that the above is an accurate and unbiased summary of the character of the American people, insert it into the article about Americans and then we can discuss similar language with regard to the Comanches. Smallchief (talk)
(ec) The only way that "dubious facts" should ever be included in an article is by clearly labelling them as "dubious" in the article, not as stating them on a par with actual facts. "The Comanche were brutal" is not the same as "The Comanche were buffalo hunters" when it comes to factual content. Anyone who thinks so, just because there are racist lurid Eurocentric accounts from the 19th century and equally racist 20th century works that use them as sources, is pandering to that very Eurocentric racism. The only way that such racism should be mentioned in Wikipedia is with a clear disclaimer that "this information is unreliably racist". But stating this racism as reflecting fact is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Something like, "19th and 20th century accounts from Europeans falsely paint the Comanche as 'brutal' in an attempt to minimize and exonerate European brutality" is only way that such racist claptrap should be included. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Humans can be brutal. Comparative anthropology of different ethic and cultural groups is very interesting to many and very prone to bias. Something special about the Comanche was their recent earlier territorial expansion, their successful resistance to Spanish expansion, and their being the particular focus of war by the US army, which would naturally encourage and amplify negative comment on them. Comparative anthropology is interesting, but I believe it needs to be sourced to especially high quality sources. What is exactly is the new material proposed to be added? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Smallchief and I think that nothing needs to be added. Batvette wants to add the racist nonsense that the Comanches were categorically cruel based on 19th century Euroracist primary sources and 20th century Euroracist secondary sources that rely uncritically on those 19th century primary documents. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mislabeled location for Palo Duro Canyon

Under the heading "Western Comanche" is the following statement: " plateaus of Llano Estacado in eastern New Mexico and found shelter in Tule Canyon and Palo Duro Canyon in northeastern Texas. "

Palo Duro Canyon is in northwestern Texas. Some of it does extend into northeastern New Mexico, however, which could be the source of the mistake.

Fixed. Good catch. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to make a section accurate without being offensive

"They also took thousands of captives from raids on Spanish, Mexican, and American settlers, assimilating them and incorporating them into Comanche society."

This is referring to the forced abduction and rape of women right? They took the children as well, they weren't complete monsters that would kill unarmed children or leave them to starve, but no one involved had a choice in the matter.

It's a bit whitewashed at the moment, but just stating the facts seems sensationalist and offensive somehow and I can't even begin to figure out wording that feels neutral. Perhaps because later on the colonizers did kill everyone they could, including women and children, and there's a bit of cultural guilt there. 98.239.156.203 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Captive" means, by definition, against their will and they didn't have a choice in the matter, so that wording is neutral despite your thoughts that it isn't. It's not "whitewashed" at all and "facts" can be sensationalist by the choice of words. There's no cultural guilt in avoiding sensationalist, 19th and 20th century Anglo-oriented wording. I could just as easily be stating a "fact" by calling the Anglo "colonizers" "murderers, rapists, thieves, and racist exterminators who stole life and land from the Comanche by brute military force". The "whitewashing" of facts can go both ways. The "neutral" wording that you are searching for is already in the article. You want to make the historical record sound more like the 19th and 20th century white-oriented historical narrative that you grew up with that focuses on Indigenous atrocities in defense of their lands, families, and food supplies and whitewashes the more atrocious invasion and genocide conducted by the ruthless white Christian masses taking land and resources that weren't theirs, tearing children from their starving parents' arms and shipping them off to boarding schools designed to "beat the Indian" out of them and turn them into second-class Americans, whose color would forever keep them from succeeded despite their rudimentary white education (if they survived the experience, that is). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comanche identity

Comanche identity has changed dramatically from before the reservation era when Comanche (including captives) lived in Comanche households within Comanche communities, spoke the Comanche language, followed Comanche cultural mores, etc. Today the authority on Comanche identity is the Comanche Nation, for whom this is also the article. The Comanche defines Comanche identity through tribal enrollment as outlined in their constitution.

The Comanche Nation does not list "self-identification" as an adequate criteria for Comanche identity, and Comanche identity is highly romanticized in Texas so people often claim it without any meaningful connection to the tribe. If a person who is completely unconnected to the Comanche Nation claims Comanche, it could be listed that they make that claim in their article, but it is irrelevant here.

One could argue for the inclusion of Comanche descendants who are ineligible to enroll, since there are people who speak the Comanche language and are employed by the tribe who cannot enroll—or people of Comanche descent who are enrolled in another tribe. These people would need published acknowledgment from the tribe, such as mention in a Comanche Nation publication or another reliable, secondary source outlining their connection to the Comanche Nation. These individuals would then be listed as Comanche descendants as opposed to Comanche Nation members.

Previously, on this article someone had more or less placed the historical (18th- and 19th-century) Comanche first, then the 20th- and 21st-century Comanche. Separating these groups into two sections is an option. But there is still no cause to include people with no meaningful connection to the Comanche Nation. Yuchitown (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Many, many people in Oklahoma claim to have an Indian grandmother or great-grandmother (Why is it always a grandmother and not a grandfather?) The most popular tribes for claimants are the Cherokee and the Comanche. I don't take claims of being of "Cherokee" or "Comanche" origin very seriously -- unless they're backed up with evidence. And neither should Wikipedia.Smallchief (talk)
While I understand the nature of the problem, when a particular individual is recognized by outside authorities to be Comanche (not by self-identification), and when there are named grandparents or great-grandparents, then that should be acceptable. The issue of tribal membership is defined by "blood quantum" (I believe that 1/4 is used by the Comanche, but I could be wrong). I have acquaintances were are active members of their nation and live in the tribal village, but whose children cannot call themselves by the native name or live in the village because their blood quantum drops below 1/4. It is a tribal issue of resource allocation, not anything that Wikipedia is required to follow. After all, Cynthia Parker, as were many non-Comanches in the 19th century, was adopted into the tribe. She had no Comanche blood, but she was Comanche for all intents and purposes. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
If you want to insist that official tribal enrollment is the only criteria worthy of notice in Wikipedia (a position which I disagree with), then the persons section should definitely be divided into two parts--one section for pre-enrollment and one section, labelled "Enrolled tribal members" (to clearly distinguish the legalistic, non-Wikipedia, nature of the list). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have to follow facts. I'm totally fine with two separate lists: historical Comanche people and Comanche Nation members. Other people associated with the tribe can be easily listed in "see also." Yes, historic captives were absolutely considered Comanche, when they all lived together, spoke the Comanche language, followed Comanche social mores, etc.
Do you have any reliable citations for Gil Birmingham or Rudy Youngblood actually *being* Comanche or *being* of Comanche descent, as opposed to simply claiming to Comanche, which as User:Smallchief points out is incredibly common to do without any facts. Has the Comanche Nation ever acknowledged either as being relatives? Many other tribes, especially unrecognized California tribes, have highly complex issues with enrollment, but this conversation should focus on the subject of this article: Comanche. Yuchitown (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

It's been three weeks and no response, so I'll create two separate lists, one for historical Comanche people and one for Comanche Nation citizens. Yuchitown (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I think that's the only accurate and honest way to do it. Otherwise, not listing a person who is widely known and referred to as Comanche because they aren't registered is confusing and hides the real "cut off" for Comanche identity in the modern world. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comanche Empire book

For anyone interested in researching or filling out this page, I recently finished The Comanche Empire. This is a fantastic book which is readily available online and goes deep into every aspect of the Empire. It uses very clear and well-written detail. There is an audiobook available as well, which is how I listened to it.

The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen Poketama (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

torture

adult male prisoners of war were killed and tortured by default by the Comanche. (see e.g. 'Empire of the Summer Moon'). Is that not worth mentioning as a cultural trait? Felixkrull (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

History section ends in WWII

Anything new? AwesomePhilosopher (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Brutality of the Comanches

How come there is no mention of the centuries of violence and horror which was the Comanches way of culture? Oh I see: the previous comment to this effect was squashed as "racism". How VERY dishonest. The Comanches were widely attested, including by First Nations, as the most violent of all the indigenous peoples of North America. 81.187.58.246 (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bright, William (2004). Native American Placenames of the United States. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 117. ISBN 9780806135984.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comanche/Archive_2&oldid=1210750789"