Talk:Battle of Pease River

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Pease River article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Military history / Texas Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance).

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Battle of Pease River was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Twisting History

I am no expert, but I tend to believe Quanah Parker that his father did not die at Pease River. Isn't it fascinating how the winners make history? This sounds like a wholesale massacre of men, women, and kids, and it is presented as a "Battle" in most history books! Nice job! Stillstudying 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstudying I agree, and all too many of the so-called battles in the indian wars were similiar massacres. Thanks on the thought I did a good job. old windy bear 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWB, don't worry about it. The article fits NPOV standards--it's just facts. And usually, the winner of a battle, war, etc. gets to name it. If we changed it to "Massacre of Pease River" no one might know it. By the way, I don't think that the background of Cynthia Parker should be a part of the article. Although an interesting fork to the article, she isn't really germane to the battle. Orangemarlin 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin I agree and I went back and changed the article to reflect that. I left enough info so that people knew why the public at the time regarded her "rescue" as national news and a cause for rejoicing. Sadly, she was busy starving herself to death while they were still passing bills giving her money and land! Thanks for your help in getting this article improved! old windy bear 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination failed

This article is stable and neutral. However, (1) it needs more inline citations, (2) needs a broader coverage, and (3) should use a more encyclopedic writing style.

(1) Many more inline citations are needed to support what is being said, and a consistent referencing style should be used throughout. Ideally, references to a book should include a page number where possible, especially when supporting a direct quote. Long quotes should be indented and set off from the main text for readability.

(2) The article bogs down with too much detail, especially when discussing whether or not Peta Nocona died at Pease River or got away. I noticed an early edit summary which described the article as "... part of a series on the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas" and this sort of background material would have helped to put the Battle in context.

(3) The article in some parts seems like story-telling, and a more formal tone is needed. Especially in the middle part of the article there are many long paragraphs, and long and complicated sentences, with multiple commas. These need to be edited quite heavily and some detail should go.

I found the last paragraph of the article to be confusing and wonder if it should be omitted. -- Johnfos 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos I appreciated the critique, and when (and if) I return I will address these issues, especially the citing, and get the article up to snuff. I particularly appreciate the detailed listing of what needs to be done, it makes correcting it easier, whether it is myself or someone else. To me this is a particularly interesting subject, because of the genuine controversy over whether Peta Nocona did die at Pease River, Thanks again, old windy bear 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of suggestions. First, go to WP:CITET and begin adding references in a consistent manner, utilizing the templates. It cleans up the article, allows casual readers to find relevant sources, and is a standard that is part of the whole GA process. Second, you need more references, even if it comes from 3-4 sources only. Just refer to them over and over. Usually, every paragraph deserves a reference. Finally, the paragraphs are too long. Each of your paragraphs are almost a section or subsection by themselves. That's my opinion :) Orangemarlin 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The tone of this article is biased. The Comanches are good, the Texans are bad. An encyclopedia article should not be biased. It should be neutral. The biased formulations should be edited out.

Anonymous, I don't read it that way. It seems neutral to me. If you have a suggestion on how to rephrase, please post here and let's discuss it. Likewise, you could WP:BEBOLD and change it yourself (see also WP:BRD). Buffs (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of Pease River" No Battle

As a desendent of both Cynthia Ann Parker & Peta Nocona (on both the white & Comanche families), I have done extensive research into the lives of my ancestors. The so-called "Battle of Pease River" was NOT a battle, as people around the area are well-aware. My family is from Foard County, not far from Pease River. As is stated in the family book "Tottys & Totty Ties" (another line of Cynthia Ann's & my white relations), & in several other well-known books, it is stated that the men & teen-aged boys, which included Peta Nocona & Quanah Parker, were out on a hunting party when the MASSACRE occurred. The only people in the camp when Sul Ross & his "men" attacked were sleeping women, children, & the eldery--no warriors were in the camp that pre-dawn morning of murder. The out-come would have been very different if there had been. Cynthia Ann herself was almost killed; she held her infant daughter, Topsannah (Prairie Flower), up in the hopes that the white men would let the baby live. THAT was when it was noticed that she (Cynthia Ann) had blue eyes & was therefore a white woman. One of her Totty relations, Francis M. Totty, was present, & tried to talk to her, but she had forgotten almost all of her English. He made the comment "I guess we'll never know what happened to her. Poor Cynthia Ann." She DID remember her white name, & rather nonchanlantly said, "Me Cynthia Ann". This was reported by Francis M. Totty, & is recorded in the family book "Tottys & Totty Ties", etc. She was taken captive & returned to her white family against her wishes, & she tried many, many times to escape with Topsannah & return to her family, the Comanches. She was watched 24 hours a day to prevent her escape, & virtually was a prisoner. When Topsannah sickened & died, her only reason for living was gone, & yes, she did starve herself to death--a very slow, painful death. For his part, Francis M. Totty always regretted being part of that event at Pease River, as well as Cynthia Ann & Topsannah's capture; he stated so many times, as well as that in his opinion, Cynthia Ann & Topsannah should be returnd to their Comanche family. Again,this is stated in the family book "Tottys & Totty Ties" as well as other books. As for Quanah, he was 14 years old when his mother & baby sister were taken, & it is around that age when a young Comanche male changes his name from the name given him at birth to one that coincides with his "vision quest" & his name as an adult. Quanah was extremely close to his mother, & terribly haunted & affected by her & Topsannah's disappearance that morning--he never got over it. As a tribute to his mother & a sign of his love for her, he never changed the name she gave him at his birth. He was born "Quanah", & he died "Quanah"--the name Cynthia Ann gave him at birth. By the way--"Quanah" is the Comanche word for "fragrant". ----B.J. DeGrauwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.205.215 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS applies in spades here. Please read and add accordingly. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article name contradicts the contents

Folks, it has been stated before that the term "Battle of Pease River" is the universally known and accepted term and should be kept because otherwise nobody would find this article. The problem is only that we have the facts together that 60 Rangers launch a surprise attack on a sleeping village and kill everybody inside like a bunch of bugs - 16 women, two children and two old men. There is something distinctly morally despicable in calling such a slaughter of hapless noncoms a "battle". There can't be the slightest doubt that, had the tables been turned and only half the number of people had been killed, it would certainly be called a "massacre". Calling this slaughter of fleeing women and children a battle is nothing but racist whitewashing of ethnic cleansing - I don't think this deserves a place in an encyclopedia.

Suggestion: 1.) Rename article "Pease River Massacre"; 2.) Create a referrer "Battle of Pease River" to the renamed article.

Lookoo (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about stating it much more explicitly in the introduction? We should use the name that is most recognizable, but it could be referred to as a "massacre" in the introduction instead. --Ornilnas (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the term "Battle of Pease River" is the universally known and accepted term is really all that needs to be said. WP:RS isn't optional nor is Wikipedia the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe the battle in the introduction

The introduction currently states quite soberly that this was a battle between Comanche Indians and Texas Rangers. My understanding is that almost all of the Indian participants in the battle were women and children who were not really fighting as much as fleeing their camp. The current introduction does not create this impression at all. While it might be reasonable to stretch the word "battle" to describe this confrontation, I think it is also relevant to state in the introduction that most of the Indian participants were not in fact fighters. I therefore added to the introduction that most of the Indians were women and children (to give a more accurate description of events than what you would get from just saying it was a "battle"), but this was reverted. Can someone tell me why this should not be specified in the introduction? Ornilnas (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see above Buffs (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Pease River. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]