Talk:Council House Fight

Untitled

A large portion of this article is a blatant copyright violation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldwindybear&oldid=138325123. --Butseriouslyfolks 10:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks The language was removed, and was attributed previously - but removed to quell any quesion of a copyright violation. Respectfully, the putting such a notice back up when the language in question has already been removed is harrassment. Please stop. old windy bear 10:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks good morning. old windy bear asked me to examine the article. I carefully looked at it, and to the best of my ability to identify them, it does not presently contain any sentences which are exact copies of material from other websites. It does contain material which is close, but that material is correctly sourced, and Bear is right that when dealing with historical data, there is only so many ways you can cite it. I feel you both have a point. I ascertain from Bear's posting that he felt he had sourced the material, thus negating any question of a copyright violation. But you correctly noted we need to be extra careful, given the accusations of plagerism which have recently plagued wikipedia. Bear must have agreed, he went through the article, and changed any sentence which was copied, attributed or not. This removes any copyright questions, unless you can identify which sentences you presently say are copied? I feel you both have a point. He was extremely careful to source the material, and attribute it - which certainly no one attempting to plagerize does! - but again, given current issues with copyrighted material, you made a valid point as well that whether it legally constituted a copyright violation was irrelevant to the larger issue of the perception of one. Nonetheless, I have examined the article(s) and cannot find a sentence copied verbatim. Would you identify any you say are? I have checked it carefully for such violations, and cannot find any. Stillstudying 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the language I cited above is still there, so I don't need to look any further. I guess I better spend some time with the article removing the copyvios myself. Thanks for looking it over though. --Butseriouslyfolks 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks I am sorry, but while you certainly edited language, nothing you changed was a direct copy - and you did not identify what you claim was a copy. You stated earlier that this was the paragraph in question:

<copyvios deleted>

Which by your admission was not an exact copy, and further, was attributed. I am sorry, but I don't feel you listed sentences which were exact copies - instead you resorted to wholesale editing for the sake of doing it - and bad edits! I have to agree with oldwindybear, I think you were harassing him. Your edits were just to save face in an argument you were plainly wrong on. I will let oldbear see if he wishes to revert your pointless edits, and I will back him on it if he does. Stillstudying 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Two of the three sentences were an exact copy, and the third was a concatenation of two more sentences. Swapping a period for a conjunction does not make it any less of a copyright violation. I suggest you spend some time at WP:C and related pages before you jump down my throat on copyright issues. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Date gone - do you claim that was a copyright violation?

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)

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)

I will not spend the day arguing with you either - I have a job to do also. It will be up to Bear to put it back, or revert your edits, which I have made clear I see as pointless. He had removed or changed any exact sentences and complied with WP:C -- you did not remove those, you ripped the article apart, in my judgment. I am being honest, and this is the last time I post on this. It is up to Bear how he deals with you, he asked for my opinion, and I posted it. Stillstudying 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I want to thank you in this public place for remaining civil even though you disagreed with me, and also for rewriting in your own words the sections I had challenged. Peace it shall be. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Guess I should join in and say all is well that ends well...(sigh) Stillstudying 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

How's that again?

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)

Amity150 It is true that the fact Matilda Lockhart was mutilated and had been badly abused was left out, and it should not have. HOWEVER, you ignore the fact that the Texas leadership had already posted the militia in hiding, with orders to fire in as soon as the windows were thrown open, BEFORE they ever saw Ms. Lockhart. This needs to be clarified, which I have, because otherwise it sounds like the attack was purely a rage response at the abuse of Ms. Lockhart. This is simply not historically true - the Texans had planned the ambush before they ever saw her. I do thank you though - the fact of her condition needed to be in the article, and I simply forgot. I appreciate your adding it. old windy bear 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Old windy bear. I can't lay hands on your reference for the charge that the Texans were planning in advance to to fire on the Comanches. To tell you the truth, I thought I had read just about every primary source on the Council House fight, plus several secondary sources, and I never heard that charge before. So can you tell me more, please? On what is the allegation of premeditated murder based? Amity150 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, oldwindybear, I can't get your link to work. I have always known about having troops staged around the council house, but only as an obviously sensible precaution, considering the chiefs WERE NOT disarmed. I have never seen even an allegation until now that the Texans were planning for things to come out as they did, planning to attack the Comanche, and would appreciate whatever you can provide. How about the name of the soldier who refers to plans to "take hostages"? That would be a start at least. Right now the allegation looks pretty unsubstantiated. Amity150 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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[1] 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)

Realistically, here is what I think happened, and as far as I know this is what the historical record WILL substantiate: The main motive for the meeting was to achieve return of the hostages held by the Comanche. One of the potential ways to do this was to take the Comanche chiefs hostage to use as a bargaining lever, and this was no doubt in every Texan's mind. When the Texans saw Matilda Lockhart and heard her testimony that quite a few other whites were being held, and tortured, the stakes went up dramatically. When it was announced to the chiefs that since they wouldn't or couldn't guarantee that the hostages would be returned, they themselves were now hostages, the Comanche then pulled out their knives and whatever other sidearms, and then the signal was given by the Texans to fire. The principle at work here is the exact same one used by modern police forces and soldiers, i.e., if they pull weapons on you, shoot first and ask questions later! So I hardly see a need to characterize this as perfidiously as has been suggested in the article. The Texans had no earthly motive for planning to massacre the representatives of those who held their children hostage. Would make no sense, now or then.

Send your report to me, oldwindybear. Really at some point if these allegations of premeditated massacre cannot be substantiated then I am going to have to change the article.

I do think the story would be added to by including Mary Maverick's description of what happened to the surviving and not-surviving Comanches after the battle. Amity150 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) amended by amity Amity150 06:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Amity150 I will check the wording - but here is the bottom line. The chiefs came in under a white flag, which everyone believes means you are safe. The President of Texas, and the Secretary of War, had ordered they be held hostage. Orders were given, by the reports, to fire on the chiefs. This violates the white flag. It is a premeditated act, and grossly violates the rules of civilized conduct between parties. There is no correlation to a modern police force, bec ause the chiefs were from another independant power, not outlaws in Texas! All this is powerfully substantiated by the written record! I will add that I have already submitted htis article, and the companion ones in the series, for review. As you know, consensus is the way we edit here, and so far, the majority agree that the wording is fair. If anything, it goes out of it's way to gloss over the normal mistreatment of Indians which was so savage, and normal, on the frontier.old windy bear 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Here again, oldwindybear, you are leaving out something verrrrry important even in your short summation in youre paragraph immediately above: The Comanche pulled their weapons! Ergo, they got shot! If you want to add a section discussing the propriety of the Texans attempting to hold the Comanche chiefs hostage, or why the Comanche could not return all the white hostages they held immediately as the Texans demanded, I think that would be a great addition. My problem is with the assertion that this was a premeditated massacre. The Texans would have to be stupid beyond belief to have gone through the thought process "Hey, they are holding our kids hostage! Yeah, let's lure them here under a white flag of truce, and then kill them all!" Surely you can see that. So please find a source for that allegation or let's take it out of the article. Amity150 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Amity150 I disagree with your logic - the Indians only pulled their knives when told they were hostages! But, I will put together a paragraph discussing the propriety of the Texans attempting to hold the Comanche chiefs hostage, or why the Comanche could not return all the white hostages they held immediately as the Texans demanded, and have it ready in tomorrow, and you can review it, and if you agree it covers your concerns, we will call this one a happy compromise, is that okay? If it is, I will get to work on it now, and have it in by this time tomorrow. I guess what I am trying to say, is I can put together a paragraph/section that precisely addresses your concerns, and source it, and have it in tomorrow - and will start it now, if you agree to review it, and if you don't like it then, we will try something else! old windy bear 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with my logic or not, that IS what the historical record shows. I have never once read that the Texans were planning in advance to open fire on the Comanche chiefs, or seen any evidence of that. Please do provide some primary source for that, and I will be quite satisfied.

Also, I hope you will consider writing about the fate of the survivors and the bodies. Amity150

Amity150 Hello! I removed some of the offending lanuage, and added a section which I believe addresses your concerns! If so, you can remove the neutrality tag! I have made a separate section that I think does addrses the issues you raised, and did some rewording - let me know, I am anxious to achieve consensus. old windy bear 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Old windy bear, if you wish to use language like "ambush" and maintain the allegation that the attack was premeditated, then please provide a source. That is all I am asking for, and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, I think the tag should stay for now. Amity150 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Old windy bear, you are using incendiary language to try to establish something that you have not proven using available primary source materials. Please provide your proof that an ambush or massacre was planned. Secondary sources do not carry the same weight, since they can be used to "prove" most anything. We need some primary sources to back up the conclusions of the secondary sources. Three is usually thought to be a good round number in historical research.

I am not especially interested in "fair." I am interested in FACTUAL. I am not necessarily doubting that you CAN prove what you say, but the ball is in your court to do so. This is a history article, and we must use good historical methodology in researching and writing it. Nor am I taking the white side against the Comanche side, because I would probably agree with you on most aspects of that conflict, but I am not at all sure this is going to turn out to be one of those instances. I have never seen the Council House Fight in the light that you are seeking to present it here, and I am just asking you to present your sources for that statement.

And yes, the language does need to be toned down quite a bit here. If I were to look up the Holocaust I doubt the language used in writing that article would be so emotionally charged as what you have used in this article. It is not only inappropriate, but it damages the credibility of what could be a fine article. Amity150 04:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you like my latest rewrite a bit better, old windy bear! We'll get there! I did rewrite mainly to remove redundancy and some of the most extreme language. I hope I didn't delete any of your sources that aren't cited somewhere else in the article. I think the article needs to be expanded on, frankly. Let's just focus on telling the story in detail, and the readers can draw their own conclusions. Sound good? Amity150 04:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Windy bear, you are not even talking to me anymore. The reason I reverted your last edit is that it again has veered over the edge into polemic. Especially in the first paragraph, we should be aiming for a neutral tone. Amity150 14:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Amity150 I did not ignore you, I was at work, where I cannot edit on wikipedia. I reverted to your opening, with the sole change that all the chiefs WHO CAME IN were killed - otherwise it is yours, which was better balanced. Is there anything else you feel needs doing? I think it is far more balanced, and now we have to flesh it out - thoughts? Jonas, Ewulp, Still, any thoughts? old windy bear 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to give enough focus to the article's specific NPOV issues, but I believe that if Native American sources characterize the incident one way and Texan sources characterize it another way, it's fair to say just that, e.g., "While Native American sources generally condemn the Texans handling of the situation as an ambush (cite references), others point out that the Commanches refused to do whatever they refused to do. (cite more references)" That way, you're fairly presenting both sides' POV's so the reader can draw conclusions. The truth is usually somewhere in between anyway. Hope that helps. -- But|seriously|folks  20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jonashart 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 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)

Amity150 I hope you notice I reverted still back to your opening - yes, it is much better! -- with the sole change that since every chief who came in was killed, I put "all" in, but otherwise, it is your wording to the t. I will be offline for a few hours while I take my grandkids out and about, (and fix dinner when I return!) but will check wikipedia before I put them to bed, so if you levae a message, I will see it about 8 or so. I think your work was quite good, and I am heading to the library of congress to get more sourcing so we can flesh the article out from here - let me know your thoughts! take care, and I would have answered you earlier, but I was at work and could not. old windy bear 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 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)

Relation to other articles

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)

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)

Pulling tag

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)

Status of article

 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)

I'll try to spend some time on it tomorrow.--Jonashart 03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonashart Thanks, I am trying to get this one resolved. I appreciate the help! old windy bear 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article keeps NPOV. Wandalstouring 08:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A few things...

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)

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)

It is interesting to note that once the Texans held the Comanche survivors hostage after the Council House Fight, the Comanche leadership did manage to bring in additional captives to redeem them. I don't know that the historical record shows how the Comanches managed to do this; whether they were actually holding additional white hostages, which they had in fact confirmed already at the outset of negotiations (corroborated by Matilda Lockhart, remember?), or whether they contacted other groups of Comanche and worked out side deals. But the fact remains they brought in more white captives. I think the article is good as it is, but that might be a point worth mentioning in "Aftermath" or elsewhere. You all have done a great job with this article. Amity150 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought, but still relevant: It seems that Comanche tribes brought white flags to other incidents which did not end peacefully: Fort Parker. This posibly accounts for the lack of reciprocity of peaceful intentions on the part of the Texas authorities. Amity150 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All killed or 30 killed

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.[2]

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)

For now I've decided to cite the numbers given by Col. McLeod one week after the incident; it's not clear to me that historians have challenged his body count. If sources differ on number of chiefs killed, it may be due to uncertainty about the number of chiefs among the adult males. Giving the numbers from his report, and substituting "leaders" for "chiefs" in a few places elsewhere in the article, seems like a good solution. Ewulp 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Importance" tag

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)

I agree this should be far higher in importance. See this site, [3] and many other sources indicate that the next bloody 40 years were due directly to this incident. "There was never again peace between Texans and Amerindians." JohninMaryland (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Plaza and the Council House - Correction

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)Ret_77375.

Various edits and deletions

I just did some rewording, editing, making some additions and a number of deletions. I thought I should post the larger deletions (edit to see footnote refs) here with my reasoning.

• The Comanche underestimated the Texans. The Comanche had held the Spanish colonies in check by ruthless raiding, and ferocious cruelty. They grew used to the presents given them by the Spanish and French in their first encounters with them. They were unprepared for organized resistance from the Texans as settlements began to steadily encroach onto the Comancheria.

• • This apparently comes from a 1933 source and sounds like it. It has an anti-Comanche tone and makes guesses about what the Comanche were thinking about as if plain fact (eg, that the Comanche "underestimated" the Texans). It is misleading on the use of presents in Indian diplomacy and it is plain wrong about organized Texan resistance and settlement in Comancheria (at least before 1840).

• On January 10, 1840, three Comanche chiefs brought a Mexican captive to San Antonio to discuss the possibility of a peace treaty. They explained that the Comanche had held a general council in late December and had chosen a chief to discuss peace terms with the Texans. The military commandant in San Antonio informed them that a treaty would only be discussed if the American captives agreed, and the chiefs promised to return with the remaining captives. They were given presents as they left.

• • Some of this is described earlier in the article. Some is dubious (the promise of returning "remaining captives"). Some is unclear ("..if the American captives agreed" ...to what?)

• The Comanche peace chiefs expected the same kind of treaty which they had made with the Spanish. These treaties allowed some of the 35 or so bands of the Comanche to trade peacefully, while others continued their ruthless raiding and horse-stealing.

• • Dickshovel.com is not the most reliable of sources. Again there is a guess being made about what the Comanche chiefs were thinking, expecting. There is also anti-Comanche POV tone about "ruthless raiding and horse-stealing"--the Comanche-Spanish relationship was far more complex than this oversimplified statement. There is the implication that the Comanche had somehow tricked the Spanish, or that the Spanish were foolish to make such treaties.

• The peace chiefs expected the normal presents they were given at such events, and they expected to make speeches, and return a captive or two.

• • I don't understand why this statement is being made. Of course peace talks between Comanches (and all other Indians really) and Americans/Europeans involved presents, speeches, gestures of good faith such as returning captives. It doesn't need to be said.

• Although the Texians had broken previous treaties with the Comanche, they distrusted the Comanche for also breaking treaties. The Republic of Texas Secretary of War ordered three companies of soldiers to go to San Antonio and prepare to seize the Indians as hostages if they again failed to release their captives. Adj. General Hugh McLeod and Colonel William G. Cooke were chosen to be the negotiaters, and they were instructed not to present gifts to the Comanche.

• • This also seems unnecessary. So both sides had broken treaties before... and? Is this trying to say that because the Texans distrusted the Comanches they were unwilling to go through the normal rituals of peace negotiations (such as presents)? Also, the info about the Secretary of War occurs earlier in the article. Perhaps something could be said about presents and the lack of them in this case, but it ought to be clearer if nothing else.

That's all. Hope my edits caused more help than harm. I don't mean to sound anti-Texas, but I think the article as it is comes off rather pro-Texas. It also seems to paint a rather dated and misleading picture of the Comanches. Pfly (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, I try not to get involved with controversial POV editing, preferring to make my comments on the Talk page. When I read this article, I was struck by its heavy pro-Comanche POV. So, I was surprised by Pfly's comment that the article appeared to be "pro-Texas." I'm familiar with Texan relations with the Comanche and the other plains tribes, and therefore I am familiar with the Council House Fight, having read numerous accounts in different sources over the years.

Point One: Under the subheading "Background," the article goes into detail telling how the "Comanches' captives were often incorporated into the society and adopted into families. The Comanche made little distinction between people born Comanche and those adopted." (How lovely!) These two sentences are here to make us see how wonderful and humane the Comanche were, and that when they took white captives it was only to adopt them into their own families. I wonder why it wasn't considered important to also explain that some captives were tortured, skinned alive, burned alive, repeatedly raped, etc. Why wasn't it important to explain the building anger among the Texans at these outrages? The article bends over backwards to explain the seemingly unexplainable behavior of the Comanche by saying these were simply Comanche customs. They'd always taken captives. They had always mutilated their enemies families and children. They'd always taken scalps. They'd always raped and tortured their captives (before adopting them). So, since they'd always done these things, and since this was simply their custom, then it was okay. It was the bad, bad Texans fault for not "understanding" the Comanche customs. Why is there no attempt to explain the Texans' custom of being outraged and angered by the Comanches' dysfunctional behavior?

Point Two: This article doesn't mention the fact that the Texans were already angry about the literally hundreds of white settlers who had been murdered, mutilated, captured, tortured and raped by the Comanche in the years leading up to the Council House Fight. Many, if not most of these, had been attacked in areas of Texas that were far outside of "Comancheria," indicating that the Comanche had gone east of their natural boundaries for the express purpose of attacking white civilians.

Point Three: This article seems to ignore the fact that the principal stipulation that the Texans had placed on a peace council was the return of white captives. This was the single most important issue to the Texans. When three Comanche chiefs rode into San Antonio in January 1840 seeking a peace council, they were told they could have a truce if they brought in their white captives. Of course, we know that the Comanche reneged on this and only brought in one token white captive, Matilda Lockhart. This outraged the Texans.

Point Four: This article seems to excuse the Comanche for not bringing in the captives (which was considered a breach of good faith by the Texans) by simply repeating the Comanches' excuse that they couldn't bring in any other captives because the other white captives were with other bands or villages that they could not contact or control. This was a lie, and the Texans knew it was a lie, as the Texan women had already discovered from the testimony of Matilda Lockhart who was able to list the other captives being held. It is clear that it was the Penateka Comanche who never had any intention of negotiating in good faith at the Council House. They lied when they said they would bring in their captives, and they lied again when they returned said they didn't have any.

Point Five: The last paragraph of the "Background" section includes the parting shot that other chiefs like Buffalo Hump said the Texans could not be trusted. This is just one of the many, many no-so-subtle pro-Comanche POV comments. Why not include add the same kind of comment at the beginning of a sentence in the previous paragraph so it would read: "Knowing that the Comanche could not be trusted, Albert Sidney Johnston, the Texas Secretary of War, had ordered San Antonio officials to take the Comanche delegates as hostages if they failed to deliver all captives." Or better yet, why not just leave out all the pro- and anti- POV comments? Why not just tell what happened without trying to justify the actions of the Comanche?

I've said this so many times before, in so many different talk sections: "This is what is wrong witht the whole concept of Wikipedia." Writing encyclopedia articles isn't as easy as everyone wants to think. It takes a professional approach, and it takes someone willing to leave their prejudices out of it. PGNormand (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't go into each and every error in your posting, but will point out one of the most glaring, because it typifies what is wrong. You wrote:

"The article bends over backwards to explain the seemingly unexplainable behavior of the Comanche by saying these were simply Comanche customs. They'd always taken captives. They had always mutilated their enemies families and children. They'd always taken scalps. They'd always raped and tortured their captives (before adopting them)."

Respectfully, it is by no means certain that the Comanches introduced the practice of scalping to Europeans - in fact, scalping in North America did not become extensive until the eighteenth century, when warring European groups adopted the custom of posting rewards for scalps in order to terrorize the foe of the moment. The Spanish in Mexico made wide use of the practice, and probably introduced most Native Americans to the concept, though no one knows for sure. As to the rest of your posting, certainly the Comanche had a fierce and brutal warlike culture; as to whether it was worse than the European ones it was fighting, that is a matter of perspective. You write that editors on wikipedia need to leave their prejudices out of it - but this applies to you as well. Pv86 - Talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

PGNormand wrote: "They'd always raped and tortured their captives (before adopting them). So, since they'd always done these things, and since this was simply their custom, then it was okay. It was the bad, bad Texans fault for not "understanding" the Comanche customs. Why is there no attempt to explain the Texans' custom of being outraged and angered by the Comanches' dysfunctional behavior?"

Thanks for letting us know that you believe, probably based on Pioneer propaganda history, that the Comanche were a dysfunctional society. It is telling that you even bvelieve that Comanche would first rape and mutilate captives before making them beloved family members. Can you name but one white female captive who was later adopted who would have been even old enough for rape at the time of her capture? Usually only captives who were still pre-pubescent children would get adopted. What's more, the number of Anglo-Texan women who endured captivity among the Indians was no more than one or two dozen. Rape was tacitly assumed by white Anglo-Texans but I would challenge you to present but one authentic first-person captivity narrative of an Anglo-Texan woman where such a thing would have been claimed by the ex-captive herself. The opposite was stated in several accounts by the women after their release´.

Quite remarkable, what naivete some people can feign. Considering the mentality of this era, how likely would it have been to admit having been raped by a woman held in captivity by Indians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1206:456F:E3A0:BD12:28BD:FC8D:CA40 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

PGNormand wrote: "Point Four: This article seems to excuse the Comanche for not bringing in the captives (which was considered a breach of good faith by the Texans) by simply repeating the Comanches' excuse that they couldn't bring in any other captives because the other white captives were with other bands or villages that they could not contact or control. This was a lie, and the Texans knew it was a lie, as the Texan women had already discovered from the testimony of Matilda Lockhart who was able to list the other captives being held."

Nope. Mathilda Lockhart had no knowledge of ten other captives the Texans had hoped to get back and only mentioned Mr. Webster and her three children who, unknown to Lockhart, had just escaped and thus were indeed no longer in Comanche custody. Lookoo (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

References

NPOV - August 2013

Added the {{POV|date=August 2013}} tag, as the neutrality of this article is severely in doubt. Azx2 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV??? - September 2015

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)

Indian Depredations in Texas

"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)

I think it is quite obvious why it's not mentioned. It contains a few facts which do not fit in with the general tendency of the article that 'noble savages' were treacherously slaughtered by uncivilized pioneers. For example, Captive Mrs. Lockhart had told the Texans that she had seen Mrs. Webster in the Indians' camp just a few miles away. And Wilbarger (the author of "Depredations") reports that the other white captives - allegedly being with other bands - were promptly handed over after the incident, in exchange for 27 Indian hostages.

Rephrase - Matilda Lockhart

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)

I agree that it merely expresses an opinion. This opinion isn't even referenced with a footnote where you can look up things. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's a mere opinion, and we're not even told whose opinion. I 'll take the liberty to delete this phrase. If users see reason to keep it, please state your case here so we can discuss the matter and maybe find a different solution.. Lookoo (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That Miss Lockhart had NOT been severely maltreated because a certain officer did not mention it in his report, is not only an opinion, but a sheer speculation. One which is probably false. See the report given in 1912 by one of the abducted Putnam girls (later Mrs. Elizabeth Mitchell), "Five children captured by indians", blog 'Frontier Times'; according to her testimony, Lockhart and another girl were treated with extreme cruelty while herself and others were treated with a degree of kindness. See also J. Wilbarger ("Indian Depredations..."), according to whom, in 1880, a few ladies who had examined Miss Lockhart's body after her release, and who had seen her horrible scars, were still alive when he published his book.

Mainstream Texas sources, to the present day, take it as a fact that the attempted arrest and accomplished masacre of the peace delegation was prompted and justified by having been presented with a white captive girl whose nose had been burnt off. What is stated in the article is that this version was brought up by Mrs. Maverick almost four years after the fact and that the officer in charge of the operation who questioned Mathilda Lockhart commented on her condition in his after-action-report, mentioning her intelligence but failed to notice a burnt-off nose. Likewise, her sister-in-law who took care of her in the weeks after the incident, wrote back home about her condition and failed to mention a burnt-off-nose. A burnt-off nose isn't something you decide is too unimportant to mention, especially if it could serve to justify your action. Anderson's assessment is that her condition might therefore have been exaggerated later on. This assessment by a noted historian is referenced with a footnote. Lookoo (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed unsourced claim from the Aftermath section

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)