Talk:Battle of Little Robe Creek

Neutrality
The language in this article seems to favor the Comanche POV, as evidenced in phrases like: Caknuck 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "76 killed and 16 caught and imprisoned in what the Comanche call a massacre"
 * "...and scouts (or spies, as the Comanche called them)..."
 * This was plainly a massacre where a sleeping village was attacked without warning, and the population slaughtered, later eaten, (more on that below), or enslaved."
 * Their raids into Mexico were so unstoppable and terrible that the Mexicans were willing to sign the unequal treaty ending the Mexican-American War because the United States promised to do what the Mexicans could not, and end the Comanche raids south.

Hello Caknuk. I certainly did not mean to be pro-Comanche, and I appreciate your bringing the language in question to my attention. What I did to alleviate the problems you were kind enough to point out, was: I think you will find your concerns addressed - if not, leave me a message, and I am sure wording can be found that reflects the facts of history without our seeming to take either side. I really do appreciate your pointing out potential pitfalls - I worked very hard on this article, for some period of time, because this incident, though history has mostly forgotten it, functioned as the real turning point marking the end of the era of the Comanche as Lords of the Southern Plains. Not since they had curtailed Spanish expansion had their villages been attacked with inpunity in the heart of their domain, and this "Battle" marked tactics which would destroy the Comanche, Kiowa, and other plains tribes. Let me know if you see anything else which needs working on - if you have no other concerns, other than those which have been addrssed, would you remove the POV tag? John1951 20:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) in the case of whether or not attacking a sleeping villiage was a massacre, simply changed the language, eliminated that which you pointed out could be POV, and instead quoted a historian;
 * 2) eliminated the word "spies" which you rightly pointed out could have POV implications.
 * 3) again, changed wording to avoid weasal words and POV, and cited historians.
 * 4) again, changed wording, avoided weasal words, or POV, and cited sources.

Neutrality tag being removed as all concerns have been addressed, unless other ones are raised
Caknuck every concern you raised has been addressed, and you have not been back, so I am removing the tag in the am, if it okay - if not, please just let me know what else needs repairing. I appreciate the help! John1951 03:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
The article also has sections that seem to represent WP:OR and need some clean up. Argos ' Dad  19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I need to know what exactly you consider original research in order to rewrite anything which violates WP:OR. I am uncertain what you are referring to, but certainly will rewrite anything which violates guidelines, but I must know exactly what is being referred to. Thanks! John1951 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Argos, Sorry, I think now I see what you were referring to, and I rewrote, with tighter, sourced language - please let me know if this is okay! I am really trying to make this a good article, because it really was teh shape of thigns to come, and the beginning of the end for the Plains tribes. Thanks for your help! John1951 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and POV issues in Battle of Little Robe Creek
I appreciate the help of everyone who pointed out problems with OR and POV related issues. I pulled all the phrases which anyone had noted, and either eliminated them altogether, or at the least, dramatically rewrote, and removed ALL weasal words. If no one opposes, I will remove the POV tag at the end of a week following this notice. I greatly appreciate everyone's help in pointing out flaws which needed correction, but believe the areas requiring rewriting have been either eliminated altogether, or at the very least and last, rewritten totally. This battle is far more important than one might think, at least according to a number of reputable military historians, because it not only marked the first occasion a foreign power had penetrated the Comancheria to it;s core, but demonstrated the changed technology - rapid phase revolers and repeating rifles - which would spell the end of Comanche battlefield supremacy on the plains. Thanks to everyone for their help - I hope you will review the changes, and help me finish up! THANKS! John1951 10:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tonkawa cannibalism
On the chapter where you talk about the Texans recruiting Tonkawas but not publicizing their alleged cannibalism I guess that you put too much importance and faith into this alleged cannibalism. When the Texans went to recruit the Tonkawa to help them agaisnt the Comanche, it was not the first time Euro-Americans used Native allies against other Natives. So this Tonkawa recruitment is to be seen into a more broad view than just indians being used because they were cannibals and thus could "eat" Comanches. By the way I guess that Tonkawa cannibalism had pretty much stopped in those years, and even if it did happen sometimes, it was done in a ceremonial way. Whereas in the way you present it, using the words of the then Texas Rangers, it seems to imply that the Tonkawa ate human flesh for food ; something they did not for sure !! Still on the subject of cannibalism, please remember that many Great Lakes tribes were cannibals until late in the 18th century (Ottawas, Iroquois...) but this cannibal image didn't stick to them when they stopped the practice. So why the Tonkawa ? Talking about Tonkawa too often implies talking about their ceremonial cannibalism and it too often presents a bad image of the tribe, an image that is no better than the one their traditional enemies, the Comanche, would have given 150 years ago. So please, the Tonkawa need to be reconsidered, they had all the reasons for sizing against the Comanche in favor of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.134.107.112 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?
article is plainly biased 49.182.80.26 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

General bias
do better stop showing your personal opinions 49.182.80.26 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)