Talk:Bushwhacker

Untitled
Htt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.227.254 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

bushwacker after Civil war
Bushwacker took the meaning of one who attacks from hiding. In my childhood it was a common insult used in cowboy movies: you dirty lily-livered back-shooting bushwacker. Nitpyck (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapse of Kansas City Jail
http://penningtons.tripod.com/scv1.htm This isn't mentioned under atrocities, although it was certainly thought to have been deliberate at the time. It deserves some mention in the article to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted American Revolutionary War stuff
It looked to be mostly taken from popular myth (the whole dumb-Brits-lining-up-to-be-shot thing) and was riddled with inaccuracies (frontiersmen of the 1770s would have used rifles, not muskets) and anachronisms ("Unlawful Enemy Combatants", "Combat Fireteam"). If anyone wants to take a stab at a well-referenced account, be my guest.--Otterfan (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Confederate era vs. general use of term
Seems to me the article was first about the Confederate Bushwhackers of Missouri - the latter half seems to support this. However, now the first half seeks to generalize the term to apply to other guerilla conflicts, or to groups who may have bushwhacked others. A tad confusing... Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A case could be made for the common usage of the term bushwacker to refer exclusively to the Confederate Bushwhackers of Missouri, and yet they are not even mentioned in the lead paragraph. Johnfancy (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess it depends on how much you are into the Civil War and the Missouri-Kansas conflict in particular. I am more familiar with the more generalized idea of someone who attacks from hiding, probably from this usage in Westerns, as mentioned above. It can also be used figuratively in reference to an unexpected happening, particularly one which is perceived as negative. Wschart (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bloody" Bill Anderson
The article on Anderson contradicts two pieces of information given here. First, Anderson was not tricked into an ambush with Cox's soldiers, although it would have been a fitting irony, given his penchant for killing people in ambushes. Second, the stories of his decapitation are unsubstantiated. On this topic, the wikipedia entry on Anderson cites Wood, Larry (2003), The Civil War Story of Bloody Bill Anderson, p. 157.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bushwhacker. 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/20060505041632/http://centralia.missouri.org:80/massacre/index.html to http://centralia.missouri.org/massacre/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bushwhacker. 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/20051124215546/http://www.lastrebel.com/ to http://www.lastrebel.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://centralia.missouri.org/massacre/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bushwhacker. 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/20051124215546/http://www.lastrebel.com/ to http://www.lastrebel.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

terrorists, insignia, etc.
@Beyond My Ken, @WikiCleanerMan, and @XXzoonamiXX support the inclusion of this new source, asserting that it affirms the contention that the Union regarded Bushwhackers as terrorists because of their lack of insignia. I did not find that in the article, but if that's because I did not read it closely enough, you can easily correct me by quoting from it.

However, when BMK reverted my revert, he also maintained that "This is the lede, where citations are not required. Evidecne in the body of the article is sufficient to support this statement".

Why, then, BMK, did you make this edit, in which you restored the very citation that you say is unnecessary, and have refused to comment on? Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations aren't required in the lede, as long as the material is sourced in the body of the article, but they are allowed in the lede, and removing them (or any reference, without very good reason) is WP:disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's just not true. The words terrorism and insignia only appear once in this article. And even if it were true that there were sources backing that up in the article (which it should be easy for you to provide if there are; I haven't read every single source used in this article, and I'm willing to be wrong), you still re-included the source laetusinpraesens source in the lede, which seems to be a personal blog and also not really be relevant to the claims that you're making. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)