Talk:Santa Anna (Comanche)

Neutrality
This paragraph, under the section "After the Great Raid", particularly the bolded portions, is completely from an individual's POV, and biased against Santa Anna. Furthermore, the ONE link provided as a source leads to a broken link.

"Santa Anna became a proponent of accommodation and peace with the whites following his involvement with treaty talks with the Army, and a later visit to Washington, D.C. in 1847. Before 1845 he was firmly identified with the militant faction of his tribe that opposed accommodation with whites. In point of fact, there is absolutely no record of his ever meeting with officials representing the government of the Republic of Texas. He appeared during this time to be even more militant than Buffalo Hump, who had met with Sam Houston in 1843–44. But in the later part of 1845, he was finally convinced to attend treaty negotiations conducted by United States officials, where he was first exposed to the true numbers and weaponry of the whites. Santa Anna, more than any other Native American of the Plains during this time, was influenced by what he had seen. Convinced that his people could simply not defeat or long resist the numbers and weapons of the whites, he began advocating peace. In May 1846 he was one of those Comanche Chiefs who signed a treaty promising peace between his people and American citizens in Texas."

In point of fact... Yeah? You sure it was a fact? Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING? And it paints Santa Anna as being this militant, which he may have been, UNTIL, of course, he realized that the white people were too tough for him, then backed down and handed over Texas without a fight. Wow. This whole section is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like some anecdotal tale from some white nativist Texan, talking to some "pesky liberal" who "don't know nothin' about Texas!" Chaosthethird (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RE THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE:   The challenger cites absolutely no reference material and is talking from purely personal guesswork. The challengers comments do not merit printing in Wikipedia. The challenger should be told to come back when you have some proof or documentation for your contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.114.197 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

RE The Paragraph Above: That’s not how the burden of proof works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.3.8 (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Since a negative cannot be proven, and the contentiousness of the above, I changed "there is absolutely no record " to "no record has been found". 2603:8080:B200:2E3A:1C70:3271:6205:6AEE (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)