Talk:Big Bottom massacre

Need a more balanced discussion of the Ohio Company of Associates
The article appears to be biased against the Ohio Company of Associates. A more balanced discussion would be helpful. A number of references are available which provide an alternative point of view, suggesting that the settlers of the Ohio Company were more friendly with the Indians, but were caught in between disputes with the Indians and more provocative settlers in Virginia (modern West Virginia) and Kentucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias claim never supported
Chevron suggested adding sources, but never did so. Further, the issue of 'friendliness' is better dealt with in the Bill (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Warbox should replace Infobox civilian attack
Items such as Perpetrators are inherently judgemental. All parties in the event require NPOV which is now impossible.Bill (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do with no reply
Not sure if this person is still active. Is Requests for comment best, or 3rd opinion.Bill (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: No debate about Ohio Company
Can someone remove the dispute box as it appears to be resolved?Bill (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This tag was removed in error. The npov box in the article is four years old, and any dispute seems resolved.Bill (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The war box is also inappropriate and should be replaced. Bill (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis - I hope we have the same goal. Thx. Bill (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Harmar Campaign
The article Harmar campaign states in the Aftermath section the Big Bottom massacre was, at least in part, initiated as revenge for the U.S. attacks just months earlier. No mention of that is made in this article. Should the Harmar campaign have at least a casual mention in this article, or should Big Bottom be removed from the Harmar article? Canute (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)