Talk:Tuskaloosa

Serious Issues
There are some serious issues with this article. For example, the spelling of the city of Tuscaloosa is used in some places as his name, in others the alternative spelling is used. The article needs to be renamed and we need better consistency throughout. Obviously there is a need for attribution. I'll be back to it soon.  Jody B 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we calling Taskalusa a Choctaw? This is a serious mistake. The tribe of Taskalusa may have become part ofthe Choctaw nation years later but that is speculation and canot be applied to a leader of this period.
 * I changed the names to Tuskaloosa.  Jody B 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one link on the name [] and another []. Would anyone abject to a redirect? -- Jody B talk 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Page moved and redirect added.  Jody B talk 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, bring your sources and come to the table. We'd be glad to have you.  Jody B talk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New Layout
I like the new layout, and the new info Rob, was just wondering tho, "Cacique (Chief) of Tastaluca", is that a typo? I thought the province shared it's name with him?

Re-write and expansion
I've just re-written the majority of this page, with a significant expansions, citations, illustrations. I've included the de Soto chronicle description of the various towns of the province of Tuskalusa, as well as the battle of Mabila, with it's consequences for the Mabilians and the Spanish. Any thoughts or suggestions? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the article is supposed to be about Tuscaloosa, rather than the de Soto expedition, I think it would be better to present descriptions of his villages as a summary, rather than in the chronicle form - i.e, and on this day they were here, then they went there, etc. The latter format makes the article seem too much an account of the movements of the expedition. Also, it seems as if there is too much information about the chief of Mabila, who likely deserves his own article.Parkwells (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
The Chief Tuscaloosa himself, was said to have stood 7 feet tall.

Yeah, I tried to edit the article and include his height as approx. 7 feet but it was removed for some silly reason. As if you need a source to back up the claim that "he was 7 feet tall" - do the math you idiots, if the Spaniards were averaging about 5 1/2 feet tall, what is 5.5 + 1.5? SEVEN. This is not rocket science. Its easier for people to place a picture of how tall he was when they have a ROUNDED WHOLE NUMBER. Not 1.5 ft + x.

Oh well, logic ended in 1912. --75.175.67.155 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, new posts go at the bottom of the page, so I've moved it there. And now for the list of things you should know:


 * WP:RELIABLE-all information must be WP:CITEd to reliable sources, we don't get to do the math here.
 * WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL-No personal attacks, repeat that idiot remark again and I'll have your arse at WP:ANI.
 * Now, if you have something useful to contribute, lets see it.  He  iro 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic Tatoo Heiro. --75.175.67.155 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is accepted as a reliable source that he was "a foot and a half taller than the Spanish", I agree with saying he was "about 7 feet tall". The reliance on sources does not have to be taken to extremes.Parkwells (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We record what the sources say. If they say "a foot and a half taller than the Spanish", we say that. If they say "about 7 feet tall", we say that. Don't make assumptions, and please remember that the Castillian foot was shorter than the modern foot, so that will skew our math.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So we can say, he was about six and a half, or nearly seven feet tall. This is not in quotes; I agree with other editors at paraphrasing to make it more understandable, for readers who are not familiar with historic heights of the Spanish.Parkwells (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The current wording is already totally clear. We don't need to replace it with a potentially misleading paraphrase. I agree it doesn't need to be in the infobox.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's really stretching the point to say that writing - "he was six and a half or seven feet tall" would be misleading.Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not really, especially when it's perfectly clear to say that "some of the chroniclers [say] he stood a foot and a half taller than the Spaniards".--Cúchullain t/ c 18:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall tone and language
The language of the article is convoluted and over elaborate, in some sections sounding as if it's been taken directly from dated, awkwardly translated chronicles. It is not contemporary usage to write: "Unbeknownst to the Spanish..." Editors can disagree on style - overuse of passive voice slows down the article. It appears to be devoted too much to sources about de Soto, rather than establishing Tuskaloosa and his province. Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording can certainly be improved in some places, but frankly I don't see the bulk of your changes as improvements. Passive voice does slow down the reading, but so does chopping up sentences and unclear wording.
 * There is indeed a lot about De Soto, but that's where the historical information is from. What do you suggest?Cúchullain t/ c 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mississippian culture as ancestors
It would have been more than the people of Tuskaloosa's chiefdom who were likely ancestors to the Choctaw and Creek.Parkwells (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, what's the issue?--Cúchullain t/ c 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the mention in the lede, it is explained further and cited in the article here in this section Tuskaloosa.  He  iro 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder of the latter section; yes, I thought the Lede might have been misleading.Parkwells (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on route
In the article on Hernando de Soto, it says that Charles Hudson's projection/theory about de Soto's route after Mabila is not the consensus of academics and the government. Why are we accepting it as the basis of the map here? (Great map, by the way.) Parkwells (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article on Mabila and battle
Noted that there is a main article on Mabila and the battle, which suggests that the section on the battle should be summarized more here.Parkwells (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in the Infobox?
The infobox says Tuskaloosa was the chief of Tuskaloosa. Is this a mistake? Was there definitely a city or province that was also named Tuskaloosa (which seems odd as the name Tuskaloosa specifically means black warrior)? If so, which was named first, or was it a descriptive title (e.g. "Tuskaloosa's domain") instead of an official name? As far as I know, De Soto's account mentions only that Tuskaloosa lived in Atahachi. Any clarification would be appreciated.108.46.147.132 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tuskaloosa. 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/20081015215758/http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/Biedma/Biedma_frame.html to http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/Biedma/Biedma_frame.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) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)