Jump to content

Talk:Kit Carson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Carson and Languages

The reference for this is www.coloradohistory.org. Permission obtained. Richiar 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Further documentation: permission obtained a second time from Mary Ann McNair, Coordinator of Education, Colorado Historical Society, on this date, at 2pm, per phone conversation. ph: (303) 866-3682. If you need further clarification, call her. Richiar 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • See "A Truly Decent Chap" [1]

Richiar (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from a descendant

first off thank you for adding my great great great grand father to your list of famous people. it means a lto to me and my family. secondly, i am indeed related to the one and only kit carson. i am a blood decsendent. i carry his blood in my vains wcich i think is the coolest thing ever. umm thats about it thanks again.

Kit Carson was an Indian Killer

Plain and simple, Kit Carson was an Indian killer. The public media and many history writers have glamorized his actions and campaigns to fit the American "Wild West" image. Ask any native American in the Taos area and vicinity and he is reviled and hated. In fact a favorite pastime of many locals is to spit on his grave. That's probaly why they built a fence around his grave and now charge admission to see it. 61.67.119.135 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is taken over by Cazedessus

As of Jan 1st 2007, this is article is just an opinion by the user names above. FALSE, I have the facts Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I do not have the time to fight him. Your problem, not mine Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Kit Carson's image does not accurately the misery he brought to the Navajo. A twisted falsehood that ignores the MISERY the Navajo brought to the citiznes of the Territory of New Mexico, including several other Indian tribes. Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Cazedessus WILL delete anything bad about him. No, only anything that is falseCazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

false, I only delete lies and distortions. And so what, some lunatic at Wiki simply deletes my corrections and the lies and distortions are reposted. Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
if this is true...grow up Caze.--Count Mall 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

--and if it is not true..what, grow down?Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a couple of negative incidents I've read of, and they are intact here. For example, the SF revenge killing at Fremont's orders (added a reference for this). --Deangup (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Let's be clear, I can read of "a couple of negative incidents" of anyone who ever lived. For instance, because General Patton slapped a soldier, Patton's entire career is dismissed?Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. If I had "taken over" the Wiki article on Kit Carson, it would not have the lies and destortions

that it now has. Since it DOES have many "lies and distortions", clearly, I have NOT 'taken it over."Cazedessus (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Working here in the Wiki catacombs reminds me of being interviewed by the Spanish Inquisition, or the Gestapo, or anyone who is in absurd denial of details that can be demonstrated to be facts.Every correction that I have posted about Kit has been deleted, with no explanation. I wonder why? Creepy. Cazedessus (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I don't consider personal rants that belong on the talk page to be "corrections", and will revert them despite excessively dramatic analogies. Furthermore, if you equate having edits on Wikipedia reverted with being dragged from your family, tortured and being put to death, you need to take a break from using it. Immediately. - Vianello (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Carson's other two wives

I don't believe this article suggests Carson's previous two wives. The first wive's name was Waa-nibe, and Arapaho Indian. the tow had one daughter named Adeline. Waa-nibe died after a while. Carson's second wife was named Making-out-Road, she was a Cheyenne Indian.They had no children, but she stayed with him for a short period of time, then left him. Can someone put this in for me? thanks! I found this in this website: [2] 70.170.93.169 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Kit Carson, but the text of the article right now gives the same name (with a spelling variation) for his first two wives. It also says that each marriage produced a daughter named Adeline. Surely this is not correct??? Other than raising it here, I don't know how to highlight what seems a pretty glaring error in the article.72.83.247.43 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I requested permission from the corporate office in Salt Lake City to use that information.Haven't heard back from them yet. If I do, I'll add it. Richiar 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

KIT CARSON & HIS THREE WIVES, A Family History, by Marc Simmons (Univ. New Mexico, 2003, 195 p. including Index) is the answer here. Mr. Simmons is an expert on Spanish/Mexican/American Southwest and this book is at least 99% accurate. All the details are there, and more.Cazedessus 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HERE ARE THE FACTS: Kit Carson was "married" three times: to Waa-nibe/Singing Grass (Arapaho), one daughter: Adeline; to Making-out-Road (Cheyenne)[maybe "Making-our-Road"?]; and to Maria Josefa Jaramillo (b. 1828, d. 1868), 8 children: Carlos, Julian, Teresina, Christopher, Charles, Rebecca, Estella and Josephine. Cazedessus (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the family history as given as best I could with the references I could find. It should be, if not completely accurate, much more accurate than it was. The only thing I'm shaky on is the number of children Kit had Josefa Jaramillo. The original article suggested 15. Two of my sources say seven or eight. The more trustworthy of the two (I feel) lists eight, so that's what I went with. Aaronstj 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions being made to the article

I'm making additions to the article here and there, to add in details that hopefully will add to the understanding of Carson. I will have more. All additions for now are coming from Blood and Thunder. Richiar 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Kit Carson and the Indians" by Tom Dunlay has more detailed facts about Kit Carson than found in the H. Sides book, which is nonetheless, excellent. Cazedessus (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries in "popular culture" should be noteworthy and relevant; an obscure song by a minor writer is not noteworthy and I have therefore deleted it. rewinn 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ten-four" Richiar 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I told Nareek this months ago, 10-4! Cazedessus 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

February 21, 2007 edits

A number of sections were added tonight. It would be nice to have sources and citations. The POV might be off in one or two added sections. Ronbo76 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some additions and re arranging: while generally keeping the same information, I have added material which seems fitting to understanding Carsons life, expanding what is known about him, and having the flow of the article blend in. All the material added is from "Blood and Thunder", pp. 10-16, and 29-31. I find Hampton's book quite thorough, and extensively documented. I hope others like the changes, but any comments are welcome. Richiar 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As an afterthought, There is more material that could be added that would seem to help illuminate Carson in a general article. If people prefer, I'll make proposals before making other changes. I think the material I added would require some alteration of the structure of the paragraph or two below what I added. Richiar 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New additions proposed

I'll finish up a few details on Carsons trapper years that I didn't have a chance to complete yet, if no one objects, in the next day or two.

Also, I am proposing some additional material be added to the article, and a little rearranging, mostly adding more material to the article rather than taking anything away. I would suggest a heading something like "The Fremont Explorations and the Army of the West", where Carson worked as a guide for Fremont and Kearney. I was considering adding material on the Klamath Lake incident, the San Quentin incident, and the Battle of San Pasqual. Any comments or discussion? Richiar 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I finished up the additions to the trapper years; the last two paragraphs that were there before were removed, as it was either the same information in a different form, or it will be covered with (hopefully) new material to be added on Fremont and Kearney. Some of the links were taken out that were previously there, because they didn't seem to contribute to the substance of the article. Richiar 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. the material is from "Blood and Thunder" pp. 32-34

I added a header and some material on Carson's first two expeditions with Fremont. It will need a little cleaning up and a little more material added to clairfy it, which I'll be adding to rtly. Richiar 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the murder of the three Mexicans: I am considering a small footnote to clarify Fremonts 3rd expedition, which seems to have been politically motivated as a larger campaign by the US to obtain California by force. Also, for the sake of ending the Fremont section, it may be a good idea to consider Fremonts and Carsons involvement with Commodore Stockton as part of the military service section, which also has the additional complexity of how Kearney and the Army of the West becomes involved in the Battle of San Pasqual. Any comments or discussion? Richiar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-write of Military Service section

I'll be adding material on the prelude to the battle of San Pasqual, which leads into Carsons chance meeting of Kearney, which leads to the battle of San Pasqual. To do so, I took out the Military Service section: the information in there will be kept, but with the added material, I thought the section would require a re-write. (Also, the preceeding paragraph had some identical information). Richiar 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I expandecd the Military Service section by adding events that occurred from the time of Fremonts return to the Sacramento Valley, through the conquest of San Diego and Los Angeles, until Carson goes cross country carrying messages and by chance meets S. Kearney in the middle of New Mexico. Kearney then orders Carson to turn around and lead him back into California, where they end up in the Battle of San Pasqual, and are nearly wiped out, except that Carson gets through enemy lines and brings reinforcements. This sequence of events sets the stage for what happens next in Carsons life (he gets passed along from Fremont to Stockton to Kearney to Carleton-sound like a familiar pattern? (What do you mean?Cazedessus (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)). I changed "Military Service" to "Military Service with Kearney" because of the different phases of Carson's military service. I added a couple of footnotes to the San Quentin incident and the meeting of Kearney at Valverde because I thought the information helped clarify the story, and I didn't see any easier way of putting it in. Finally, the previous version of this article stated that the 3 Mexican men were executed at Point San Pable, rather than San Quentin. I don't know which version is more accurate. If anyone has any information here, please help out. Also I removed the first three sentences from the previous version but the information was still kept. Richiar 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I earnestly suggest that you read Tom Dunlay's book KIT CARSON AND THE INDIANS, as it has more details than found in Hampton Side's recent BLOOD AND THUNDER. Cazedessus (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edit needs copyedit

This line appears, "Mr. Carson, your duty," to which Carson then complied. Dunlay Kit Carson and the Indians". Not sure what Dunlay applies to?

Thats the refernce from which the statement is taken. It might need to be modified to a proper format, but I wanted people to know to source of the information. I had an edit conflict while adding my explanation and will try again in a minute. Richiar 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I took out the reference to Dunlay. I had put it in, because I thought the incident might be controversial and thought some might want to have a reference. Is this better? Richiar 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Material added on Battle of San Pasqual

I added material from H. Sides. I think I forgot to sign in. The previous version states that Carson crawled 2 mi barefoot through the desert. My impression from Sides was 30 miles: I don't know which version is accurate. Also, Sides leaves the impression that Kearney was 30 mi from San Diago, and at another place leaves the imperssion that it was 25 miles. I put 25 just to keep some consistency. Richiar 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Recent additions

The recent changes to headings and the added map seem to be nice additions to the article. Thanks. Richiar 02:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome. I like your recent additions and hope my minor changes help. WBardwin 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the image to enlarge? Richiar 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A little better: I was hoping the image could be expanded several times by clicking on it, but I traced it to the source (Lt. Emory's diary) on the link at the bottom of the article, and the source website itself won't allow the image to expand, it seems, which is too bad, because some of the Civil war battle maps can be expanded several times and one can really see the detail quite well in some instances. Richiar 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Courier and White massacre added

The material I added is from Sides pp. 241-259. The irony here is Carson trying to rescue Ann White and failing, while she has in her possession a fiction book about Carson rescuing a white female captured by Indians. Richiar 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Added material to Navajo campaign

I added material that gave background information to the Navajo campaign. While it may seem like a lot, actually it is quite compressed, given the amount of information there is about this event. I kept the previous material as it was except for a couple minor changes. This completes what I have in terms of making major changes to the article. Anything else will be copyedits for me, or minor additions. Hope this helps people to know something about Carson's life. I certainly benefited from the research. Richiar 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a paragraph from H. Sides on Carson's view of the Native American issues to the Reputation section. I believe thats all the content I have to add to the article. I might do a copy edit here and there if I come across something that needs to be fixed. Richiar 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Added to Good Articel review

I requested a good article review. This article is 43 kbytes long. Although it is long, I think it reads nicely. It would probably be a good idea to not add more content to it. Richiar 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time for several reasons. The intro needs to be expanded from its one line to several paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:Lead. An infobox would be great to add, look at WP:Bio for the most appropriate infobox. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are a few footnotes and some Harvard referencing it looks like, but many sections are lacking inline citations. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability. Once you have addressed these issues, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Free masonry

I think the page should mention that Kit Carson was a member of the Free Mason's. His home in Taos was repaired and is owned and run by the Taos lodge (Bent Lodge #42). There is a plaque in the wall of Kit Carson's home in Taos from the lodge re-dedicating it. The museum there sells masonic gifts.

Dunlay and Sides in conflict

Dear Cazedusseus: I noticed you came back and left an edit today. I joined Wikipedia just at the time you left last year. I thought you had a lot of good things to say, but there was a lot of controversy and disagreement on some issues. The conflict is documented in the archives. As you can see, I worked long and hard on upgrading this article. Most of my additions came from Hampton Sides. I would say he is an established Carson authority, not a crank author. There are a number of other sources: I haven't read them all, and I am not trying to be partial to one author above another. Sides' book is exhausively referenced. I put a lot of his material into the article only because his book is so well written and referenced.

I haven't read Dunlay's book: it is one I would like to read. I would assume he is also an authority on Carson. From your edit, it looks like there is a conflict between Dunlay and Sides. I would suggest we come to a compromise statement which will include both points of view. But what you did was dismiss the statement from Sides, which is nearly a direct quote. If these two authors contradict each other, then it seems appropriate to come to a compromise statement. I will place a possible compromise statement here in the discussion for everyone to review in a few days.

Anyway, welcome back, and hopefully we can develop the article in a positive way.

Richiar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I made an adjustment on the section of the May 9 prelude to the Klamath Lake incident inorder to give a more complete and accurate portrayal of the event. Richiar (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted changes to article

This is in regards to the changes made by "babelover": you can't come in and just make significant changes to the article like you did without good cause. There are reliable texts that note "Singing Wind" passing away after the birth of her second child, and it seems this is the main accepted view. The references have been given, which you removed. And you gave no references for what you said. I don't know if this is a joke, or just erroneous judgement of a newcomer, but please check Wiki policy, and discuss any major changes on the talk page before proceeding. Hopefully, this is a sincere effort to make a contribution, and if so, welcome to Wikipedia, and let us know if you need any assistance.Richiar (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm on holiday right now, and cannot confirm or deny that Waa-nibe "Singing Grass" (not Singing Wind) died after the birth of her second child since I didn't bring my books with me. But I will look it up when I return to my library.Cazedessus (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Accumulated vandalism?

Looking over the article's history, it looks like a series of small "sneeky" changes have been made on Carson's age during significant events of his life. Someone with a book/biography should probably recheck. Don't have a book at hand at the moment. WBardwin (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lindsey Carsons death and date issues

In reviewing the edits made recently, a modification of Carson's age at the time of his fathers death was made from 7 to 9. I looked this up in H. Sides and Dunlays books. The date is Sept 1818. That calculates out to Carson being 8 at the time. H. Sides said "seven" even though he placed the year as 1818. It would seem then that Sides made an error in calculating Carson's true age. I made the appropriate correction. Richiar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Adjustments to the duel

The paragraph was not quite accurate as it was, so I made some corrections that are a more accurate portrayal as described by historians. Richiar (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of sentences added by 71.74.216.39 read as follows:

1) "Although Carson had ridden home before the march began, he was held responsible by the Navaho for breaking his word that those who surrendered would not be harmed."

I don't doubt that Carson was held responsible by the Navajo for this. This is a point of view which should be included, but it has to be documented. There are those with the point of view that he shouldn't be implicated. Both points of view should be in the article, but because of the controversy involved, could you please back up this statement with a reference? I haven't come across any reference that states that.

Let's face it. A "point of view" is simply an "opinion." And everybody has "opinions", while not everybody has "the facts." The fact is that Kit Carson was NOT directly or even indirectly "involved" with the forced march of several thousand Navajo to Bosque Redondo. It is also a fact that many Navajo were permitted to take their horses and sheep. It is also a fact that many Navajo were riding in wagons or behind soldiers on horseback, so not all of them "marched" anywhere. see: "Long Walk of Very Slim Man" Desert (magazine), April, 1946.Cazedessus (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2) "As many as 3000 died...and many more..."

This is a controversial statement. It needs a reference. Here is a quote from Kit Carson and the Indians by Dunlay: "Frank McNitt, the tireless researcher of the Navajo wars, broke down the official figures on the Long Walk and decided that 11, 612 Navajos were sent to Bosque Redondo. Of these, 336 were officially reported to have died on the march...." p. 304

And Frank McNitt is correct. The "3000" is a lie, meant to smear Kit Carson.Cazedessus (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Locke does not indicate figures that high, he indicates more like several hundred at most. Richiar (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Raised near Franklin

1. Kits family (ie, mother and stepfather) apprenticed him at the age of 14 to saddler David Workman, in nearby Franklin. He went to Franklin from the nearby country. He was raised in the country. Franklin was the head of the Sante Fe Trail, where Kit would have met mountain men in Saddler David Workman’s shop, and formed his plan to relocate at age 16 to the Southwest. Kit Carson and the Indians, T. Dunlay, p 36.

2. Boonslick is a subregion of a larger region where D. Boone inhabited, not a specific place. “Daniel Boone left Kentucky in 1799 and took up a Spanish land grant along the Missouri River. The Booneslick area took its name from salt licks, a resource that two of Boone’s sons began to exploit in 1805.” T. Dunlay p. 27.

So Carson was not raised in Booneslick.

3. “Permanent settlement of the [Booneslick region] began just a year before the arrival of the Carsons in 1811, the year the traveller Henry Marie Brackenridge noted a “flourishing settlement” of seventy five families living mostly on the banks of the Missouri in the space of 4 or 5 miles. They constituted the westernmost settlement in the territory of Missouri; many of them were from Kentucky, and like the Kentucky pioneers, they “forted up” in stations formed of groups of cabins arranged in an enclosure completed by a stockade. There were three significant ones (which implies there were more) in the immediate area---Cooper’s Fort, Fort Kinkead, and Fort Hampstead.” T. Dunlay, p. 27.

It is in one of these settlements that Kit Carson was “raised”.

Based on this information, it would be technically most correct to say that KC was “raised in a country settlement which was part of a system of over 75 families that clustered around the three forts of Cooper’s Fort, Fort Kindkead, and Fort Hampstead, on the Missouri River, near to the town of Franklin.”

If we can all agree that this is an ackward statement for the article, then perhaps the most concise and readable way to express this is to say, that KC was raised near Franklin. I will adjust the wording accordingly.Richiar (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunlay further documents the Carsons moving to the "Boones Lick" region in 1811, when Carson was 1 year old. p. 27. Richiar (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


New Mexican

What is the term New Mexican meant to describe in this article? It sounds like a nationality or ethnicity. Does this refer to white settlers, Spanish colonialists or Mexican residents caught up in the confict? Diastar (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)diastar

I think your question is a good one: I believe it refers to post-Spanish colonial Mexican residents of the New Mexico territory. The term is widely used in the historical writings I've read, but I haven't been able to find out the origin of the term, or an authoritative validation of what I think it means.Richiar (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Quoting from "Blood and Thunder"

The first paragraph ending "The Boone and Carson families became good friends, working, socializing, and intermarrying." is almost a word-for-word "lift" from "Blood and Thunder" by Hampron Sides. Paulburnett (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of children

It seems there is a question about the number of Carson children, whether there were 14 or 15, and whether Kit was the 6th or 9th or 11th. Not being there at the time, I can't say which figure is accurate. Dunlay p. 26-27 says "In 1793 his first wife died, leaving him with 5 children and in 1796 he married Rebecca Robinson, who bore him ten more, including Christopher, the sixth". Sides says "The elder Carson had an enormous family-five children by his first wife and ten by Kit's mother, Rebecca Robinson. Of those fifteen children, Kit was the eleventh in line". I don't care if the article says fourteen and Kit was 9th, but there shouldn't there be a reference to support that?

The change of Carson's second Indian wife's name from "Making Out Road" to "Making Our Road" was a good edit: it expresses the true meaning from the sources I've read. (M. Simmons, Kit Carson and His Three Wives, p. 36).

The sentence about the Boone and Carson families was put in my myself and was intended to be derived rather than lifted, but I found it difficult to modify Sides work sometimes because he is such an effective writer.Richiar (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(RfC) Ongoing dispute, consensus/input requested

A quick look at this change summary (and the article's prior/subsequent edit histories) should cover some of the changes User:Cazedessus wishes to institute in this article. Discussion between us has thus far, viewable at User talk:Cazedessus, has not proven fruitful in reaching a compromise. Thus, I would like to turn this over to the consensus of our fellow editors. For those who would rather not untangle the skeins of the talk page, my position is that the great majority of these inclusions as worded constitute POV and/or OR and/or unpublished synthesis of published materials. In the meantime, I resolve to make no further edits to this article until consensus is reached. If it cannot be, I will instead present this to WP:RfC, and so on up the dispute resolution chain if/as needed. I would like to thank everyone who offers their input on this, as well as User:Cazedessus for putting up with this convoluted and clearly frustrating process, as well as with some immature initial commentary on my part. - Vianello (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Presented to RfC. - Vianello (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I am removing this from the 3PO list as it is an RFC, not 3PO. NJGW (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, technically you'd be correct. Thank you. - Vianello (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His last words were "I just wish I had time for one more bowl of chilli". I cant remember the source, if someone could please find it i'd be greatful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a myth. I've yet to find any reliable sources that confirm this. - Vianello (Talk) 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A description of the last day of Kit Carson's life is in Dr. Tilton's letter at the back of J. S. C. Abbott's LIFE OF KIT CARSON, and his last words were "Adios, compadres" and positively NOT anything about chili. 70.180.32.227 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Prelude to Navajo campaign

This section seems unreasonably long, as Carson had no part in it. It could be summarized, rather than each event and variation being told in detail. --Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ed Quillen

This edit which restores an individual's opinion of Kit Carson is inappropriate. Ed Quillen is not a historian or a scholar of any sort. He simply expresses cracker barrel "progressive" commentary. His opinions are not the opinion of The Denver Post, nor are they based on reliable sources. Fred Talk 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:RS or WP:V in this bit by Quillen. He was not writing for his own Colorado Central magazine, but he was writing in the Denver Post, so that newspaper must accept that they are the platform for his statement. Other authors have taken apart his assertion that the Navajos were put in a concentration camp, as it had a hospital and a school. I guess it is easier to take Quillen out than to add the requisite rebuttals. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Quillen does not belong because his opinion, whatever it is, is not notable. His opinion is being used for unsupported assertions which are not relevant to Kit Carson in any event. Carson was not in a decision making role with respect to transportation to the proposed reservation nor in the selection or maintenance of it. I will do quite a bit of editing soon on this article, but my reference books have not arrived. I am working on a research project related to Carson's reputation. Ed Quillen's calumnies belong in article on him should he be considered notable enough. They are not related in a rational way to Kit Carson. Fred Talk 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 14:05, 3 December 2010 Fred Bauder version is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Violates WP:NPOV

I believe the introduction and 5. Civil War and Indian activity sections to include biased content. Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee has a very different take on Carson's relationship with the Navajo and other Southwest tribes, and suggests that the indigenous groups had serious provocation for their raids on Fort Defiance and Fort Wingate. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Brown, Dee Alexander. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1970), 14ff.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Bdk1521 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The introduction - the first thing people read - paints Carson a cruel individual. 71.199.179.157 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove the second paragraph from the introduction of this article. Besides violating POV guidelines, the information in that paragraph is specific to a single event and does not belong in that section of the article. The first paragraph alone will suffice as an introduction. FaclonsFan (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No notable source available

I propose we remove the entire sentence below:

Carleton ordered Carson to kill all the men of that tribe, and say that he (Carson) had been sent to "punish them for their treachery and crimes."

First, this sentence is repeated verbatim across several web pages, and thus the Wiki article either plagiarized it from elsewhere or is itself being plagiarized by other sites. Second, since no notable source seems available, citing these other non-notable sites creates a circular reference from this article and back again. Vdavisson (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Famous Last Words

"Adios Compadres"!? What happened to his famous quote I'd always heard, "I just wish I had time for one more bowl of chili." I've always loved that quote. What's going on here!?64.203.10.167 (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that's an urban myth. There are a bunch of unreliable sites on the Internet that claim those were Carson's last words. I find no reliable sources that make the same claim. Yworo (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

whitewashing?

I saw you reverted my edit to Kit Carson. I wasn't whitewashing. Read the actual treaty refereed to, it doesn't match what the article said. I check the sources footnoted, and I didn't find them to bear it out either. Jehorn (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit changed
The treaty forbade the Navajo to raid or make war on the New Mexicans, but allowed the New Mexicans to make war on the Navajo if they saw fit."
to
The treaty declared "a firm and lasting peace and amity ... between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.
That does appear to be whitewashing since it doesn't discuss the thrust of the original statement: that the Navajo could not make raids but that the New Mexicans could attack the Navajo. Your edit is far from WP:NPOV and so I'd say it's "white"washing.
The fact that it's referenced and your material isn't is also problematic. I see that you've removed the referenced material again. This is unacceptable behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the text of the treaty or the sources that are referenced? According to this page the treaty said:
ART. I. A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.
ART 2. The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people.
ART 3. A mutual trade, as between people of the same nation, shall be carried on between these several parties; the Americans, Mexicans, and Pueblos being free to visit all portions of the Navajo country and the Navajos all portions of the American country without molestation, and full protection shall be mutually given.
ART. 4. There shall be mutual restoration of all prisoners, the several parties being pledged to redeem by purchase such as may not be exchanged each for each.
ART. 5. All property taken by either party from the other, since the 18th day of August, last, shall be restored.
That is not at all what the article says. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, but as it stands the article is demonstrably false. Jehorn (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
And isn't quoting what the actual treaty said instead of a summary that misrepresents it WP:NPOV? Jehorn (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. The treaty is a primary source ad as such, should not be used.
The sources that are being used are secondary sources: Locke, Raymond, The Book of the Navajo, Mankind Publishing Company, 2001. ISBN 0-87687-500-2. pp. 204–212 and and Sides, Hampton, Blood and Thunder, Doubleday, 2006. ISBN 0-385-50777-1. pp. 152–54. They have an understanding of what really happened, not just what the treaty stated. That's why we use secondary sources over interpretations of primary sources: to avoid issues like WP:NPOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Now, WP:BRD, which is an acceptable form of editing when conflict arises, states that you should be bold and edit, but then if you're reverted, you discuss. It also suggests that one should not continue to edit while discussing. You and I are both a WP:3RR and I suggest that if you want to continue to edit against the sources, expect a discussion with an admin. That's not a threat, but advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a long time since I looked at Wikipedia policy and its seems I didn't follow the proper procedure. But WP:PRIMARY doesn't say primary sources shouldn't be used. It says:
"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
This is a textbook example of this. The question that sentence of the article was addressing is what were the provisions of the treaty. That's not really up for debate, and I think the quote I chose is a clear summary of what the treaty said. Now if the question is how was the treaty applied, or what the parties were intending to gain by it, than you are right. Secondary sources should be used. But as it stands, the statement is factually wrong. Secondary sources can't be used if they clearly wrong about what a document says. But they aren't.
It seems clear to me that you haven't actually looked at the sources. They in no wise back up the sentence in question, and the pages referenced in Blood and Thunder aren't actually text - they cover a title page.
And by the way, the quote of the treaty I used was properly referenced, it is included in The Book of the Navajo on p. 211. Jehorn (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's not a textbook example of where a primary source should be used. If you want to use the primary source, feel free to, but do not remove the secondary sources.
And WP:NPA says not to discuss contributors. In this case, whether they have or have not read the sources. The pages referenced in Blood and Thunder are from a different edition than the one scanned bu Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't supposed to be a personal attack. You are saying I am removing referenced material, but I think the references were for the entire paragraph not just that sentence. The sentence is contradicted by a basic reading of the treaty
It seems apparent that we are not going to be able to resolve this, and I'd like to have other(s) look at it. What would be the best way to do this? WP:THIRDOPINION? WP:RFC? etc. Jehorn (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this section even necessary? There's six paragraphs on events in which Carson was not involved. It seems this should be greatly condensed or moved to another page. Jehorn (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Carson was involved in the events that led up to the signing of the treaty. Had it not been for Carson's involvement, the treaty would not have been signed. He is involved.
The best way to deal with this is to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion and then go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which is linked in the "General overview" section of WP:BRD, which I linked on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


(Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non expert)I scanned through The Book of the Navajo and couldn't find where it stated the treaty "allowed" New Mexico to attack the Navajo. Google's copy of Blood and Thunder doesn't even have the pages referenced, and don't discuss it in that page range. Where it is discussed (p. 326), I didn't see such a statement. The intent of the treaty for this line is irrelevant - what a treaty forbade and allowed is based on the text of the treaty itself. If the article is reworded to address intent, then clearly the Navajo were not forbidden, since the very next line states they continued to make war. Since the treaty itself does not require "[a]ny interpretation" (primary source), I'm not clear on why it's not allowed, but I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia standards. If it's agreed a secondary is required, then I don't see where one has been provided that explicitly makes this claim. Frankly I wouldn't trust any historian that went from "A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians," and "The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people," to "The treaty... allowed the New Mexicans to make war on the Navajo if they saw fit". But there may be other documents, etc., so if a secondary states it, I'd like to see the source with a specific page or a direct quote.Roguetech (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Walter Görlitz, do you have a quote from a secondary source that supports what the article? Do you still have a problem with me changing it? Jehorn (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've stated what I think you should do: state what the primary source states before the interpretation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another opinion. The Bear Springs Treaty of Nov 21 1846 says, "A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians" and "The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people." There is nothing whatsoever in that language to support the statement that New Mexicans had the right to attack the Navaho. Quite the opposite. Explicitly the opposite.
Moreover, one of the referenes cited, Hampton Sides, says nothing to support the view that New Mexicans had the right to attack the Navajo. If the other source cited, "The Book of the Navaho", says otherwise, it is not supported by (1) a primary source and (2) a well-regarded secondary source. This misleading sentence should be changed back to "The treaty declared 'a firm and lasting peace and amity ... between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.'" Smallchief (talk 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another option: stop trying to remove the fact that the Navajo were systematically destroyed by the actions of this man and you can add all the other sort of whitewashing you want. Someone will come along and remove that anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Having just looked briefly at the "Book of the Navajo," it does not say that the treaty gave the New Mexicans the right to make war on the Navajo. In other words, neither of the references cited support that view. Smallchief (talk 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You said earlier that the book was a cover page, but now you state that you've "looked briefly at" it. I too looked at it briefly. Which edition? Which pages? Where did you find this book? Sorry that I'm doubting you, but you have an agenda to make it seem as though the Navajo were treated fairly when it's clear that they were not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Go to Google Books, look for "Book of the Navajo" published 2001. Read the cited pages 204-212. You will find on one of those pages a statement by General Kearney in September 1846 that calls for attacks on the Navajo in reponse to their raids. However, the treaty came later than that statement in Nov 1846 and was intended to end the attacks and raids by both New Mexicans and Navajos. That the treaty was a failure is pretty clear as it did neither. But the language of the treaty did not give the New Mexicans, explicity or implicitly, the right to raid the Navajos.
If you would like to elaborate on this point, I suggest you add a sentence atating that the treaty had little or no impact on the the emnity between New Mexicans and Navajos and that raids on each other continued. The cited references both support that view. Smallchief (talk 02:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the timeline of events, I learn that Kit Carson wasn't even present on the "First Navajo Campaign." He was in California at the time of the campaign and the signing of the treaty. This whole section of the Carson article should be deleted or placed elsewhere where it may be relevant. Smallchief (talk 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Walter, please stop accusing people of whitewashing and trying to push an agenda. These are just factual questions of what the treaty said and what its effect was. Jehorn (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I have removed most of the text on the first Navajo campaign to Navajo Wars and Bear Spring Treaty. Jehorn (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Good call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "in popular culture" section based on what reliable third-party sources had to say. However, the sources I dug up in my rather cursory search only covered early popular culture, mainly 19th century. If someone knows of sources about later depictions of Kit Carson, that would help. Huon (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources agree on birth order

My reading of these sources is that they agree that Kit was 11th in birth order. There does not appear to be any controversy about it, as was put in a note. From an earlier version: <<There is controversy about how many children were in the Carson family, and what Kit Carson's birth order was: "In 1793 his first wife died, leaving him with 5 children and in 1796 he married Rebecca Robinson, who bore him ten more, including Christopher, the sixth". T. Dunlay Kit Carson and the Indians, pp. 26–27.>> Note: So, if Kit is 6th in the second family, after the first family having five children, he is 11th overall. Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

An editors says, <<Compare that statement with the following: "The elder Carson had an enormous family—five children by his first wife and ten by Kit's mother, Rebecca Robinson. Of those fifteen children, Kit was the eleventh in line." H. Sides Blood and Thunder, p. 8. This article has used Hampton Sides version, as there is no decisive reasoning to resolve the conflict, and his was the original version used for this article. There remains some controversy about which version is correct.>> Again, as Kit is said to be 11th, he was the 6th child born to the second wife.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Illiterate?

In the introduction it is said Carson was illiterate and could not sign his name, but underneath his picture is his signature, apparently from 1866. Are there sources that verify he indeed was illiterate? --Maarten1963 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected that and provided a reliable source that supports what I wrote. Huon (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. --Maarten1963 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Carson was illiterate and there are countless sources to verify this. In the last years of his life, he learned to write his name and read a little. 208.125.213.94 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Poorly referenced material about the subject's appearance should not go before historic information

Why should poorly referenced material (what's Kit Carson mean?) go before historic information? Please fix the reference and don't place such trivial information before actual historic information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I take part of this back. The material is now sourced to "http://www.historynet.com". It still should not go at the front and have multiple short sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisions 2014

Some of the text needs desperate revision. Carson was an Army officer for a mere eight years. His career as such was undistinguished and too much ink has been spilt on recording his every movement with the Army. This can be trimmed. Additionally, all the streets, schools, parks, shopping malls, etc can be trimmed as well. This sorts of lists are a waste of space and interrupt the flow of a well written article. They belong in a standalone article about their content. Any thoughts? SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So he was an army officer. That qualifies the use of that infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
A career in the military certainly justifies the infobox. Surely some means of reorganisation would be nice... I have access to some of the cited secondary sources, perhaps they are a start. The references are a bit lazy and bloated so I guess I'll start there. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As written "The miitary business has bee given too much weight here. Carson was more than a military man, and the focus ness to shifted to these other roles or at least given "propoer weight" in consideration of the military business. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok so I cleaned *some* of the references but I'm noticing some flagrant issues. For two books, one by Lewis and the other Dunlay, there are two editions cited through out the article. I have access to the more recent 1990 edition of Lewis' work, so I think I can figure that out. The problem I'm seeing is that I have the older 2000 version of Dunlay's tome, and not the other more recently cited 2005 version. Does anyone have the latter edition? If so it would be grand to have some verification on the cited pages to ensure they are all one edition and not from both. A more pressing issue however is a list of citations merely saying 'Volpe', who I assume is one 'Vernon Volpe' who apparently made several works about or related to Kit Carson. Yet I don't know which, any ideas? I'll check through the Lewis citations later today. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volpe is coted to an encyclopedia. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I detest engaging in edit wars and prefer finding acceptable compromises for interested editors. Here's a proposal for updating content for most of article, thoughts?

Trapper years - Ok, so this is pretty informative. The issue I have is that it kind of rambles, like the paragraph about the Rendezvous system. There is an article about them, so I feel the useful content of this paragraph should be moved over, with an article link placed within this section.

Guide with Fremont - Only a bit of tinkering is required for the sub-sections. The Berreyesa killings need to be in the Mexican-American War section for chronological purposes.

The Bereseya killings can be trimmed. It was not a significant moment. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexican-American War (I don't think "service" is necessary) - Some of the introduction can use some trimming, nothing drastic.

Battle of San Pasqual - There are four paragraphs with Carson mentioned in only three sentences. I really think this can be cut down to two paragraphs, maintaining key details of the overall operations and Carson's experience.

This section can be sent to a stand-alone Battle of San Pasquel article. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian activity - The opening paragraph should for (again) chronological reasons be in the Mexican-American War.

Fame - So this was a bit tricky at first. The paragraph starting with "Carson's public image as a hero had been..." along with "Later, when a friend offered Averill's book as..." should be moved to "In popular culture" with perhaps a specific section for the Averill book.

Peace treaty efforts - Because of how short it is, I don't see why it needs to be separate from the rest of the section.

Battle of Valverde - Some tweaking could happen to freshen up the section.

~~This section can have a stand-alone article. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Campaign - Ok so I think a lot of this content is important, but much of it isn't directly related to Carson. I think the best thing to do is to reduce this section to focus heavily on Carson's actions and thoughts, rather than painting a generalised picture of events. Any details removed not found on relevant articles should be moved. Think of it this way, on a biography of someone the largest section shouldn't be rife with details (directly) unrelated to the subject.

I made an attempt at cleaning up the Early life and Fur trapping sections. I'd say they are both a bit more focused, though I don't want to go any further without *some* input from others. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The most important years of Carson's life were the trapper years. This is when he acquired his fame. His military career was brief and undistinguished. He was tired and tried to resign only to have his resignation refused. The section needs to be trimmed. It gives undue prominence to this part of his life. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not familiar with Carson's military career? Carson was instrumental as a scout for Lt. Fremont in the conquest of California; he saved his army unit from being massacred in the Battle of San Pascual; he rode coast to coast with military dispatches from California about the war (incidentally bringing the news of the California gold strike to the eastern United States); he led a battalion in the largest civil war battle in New Mexico; he led the army in one of largest Indian battles on the southern Great Plains; he led the army on the decisive campaign against the Navajo Indians; and he was a brevet brigadier general despite the fact that he couldn't read or write. Smallchief (talk 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these. Perhaps you are unaware that Carson was not in the military at this time. He wasn't "military" until 1861 when the Civil War broke out. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to trimming the military section. If anyone feels that other aspects of his life are more important, write about those and bring them out of this shadow. Other wise it is like trying to even a table by trimming the legs. All you get is a shorter table, or in this case, article. Carptrash (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reputation

The statement about Carson traveling to Washington in 1868 does not belong under the heading "Reputation", because it says nothing about his reputation. I'm not sure where else in the article it should go, but it shouldn't be where it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

Not possible for GA due to recent and even current content disputes. -- Orduin Discuss 23:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kit Carson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 208.81.212.222 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

can this even commence?

How can there be a GA review when there is an ongoing edit war and two open RfCs? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Since you're one of the parties involved in the war, and since you think it's aimless, perhaps you should be the bigger spot and stop the edit warring. Good faith would be reverting your third revert and actually discussing rather than invoking authority over the article and process. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is correct. Per WP:GACR, this should be failed right off the bat due to the extremely recent edit warring (of content disputes that are still unresolved as far as I can tell.) EDIT: There's an active WP:RFC on significant content from this article. There's no way a GA can be done. Close this up. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Why is there a second nomination when this one hasn't even closed yet? -- Orduin Discuss 21:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Please ... we are not focusing on the content of the article. We are focusing on minute details and technicalities. Please correct these technicalities. No one is standing in your way. The article can only make progress if we all chip-in to make it better. Please use recent scholarly materials rather than materials that are 50+ years old.. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Nomination

RFCs are still running and aren't working towards a conclusion. Do not start another GAN until at least a week, or it will be considered disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has been renominated. Edit Warring has ceased. Readers should take their comments and insights to the Talk Page. Please! ... no OR or Original Opinion. If your comment cannot be cited to a credible source, forget it. Trash it. If you have a comment please be sure it is cited to a credible and verifiable source. Uncited material cannot be considered. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@SeeSpot Run: currently, there are 2 active RFCs, disputes on the talk page, and there are sections requiring additional citations. Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures -- Orduin Discuss 19:40, 1OK February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't find the RfCs. Other objections have been met. Small technicalities that can be corrected within minutes should not be substance for a FAILED. Disputes on the Talk Page? Fix 'em up. The disputes have no bearing on the text anyway because most of them are uncited.. I'll simply fix things up and renominate. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC) SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@SeeSpot Run: the RFCs:
The dispute:
All issues should be addressed (even uncited ones) before GA. Anything else? -- Orduin Discuss 19:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The content is however, unstable, as it may change in relation to the RFCs and disputes. As well, the next GA review has not been opened yet, unless you consider opening a closed discussion a new GA nomination. -- Orduin Discuss 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The content is secure. What happens in the future is of no concern to promoting this article to GA. The article is evaluated in the here and now -- not disputes on the talk page. I don't have time to consider a comment like "I heard somewhere Carson was bixsexual." OK, bring a source. I just don't have time to track this down. Ya gotta source? Put it here. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Please realise that at any time, a GA can be reevaluated, and have its GA status removed. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Also note that the tags in the article should be mostly dealt with before GA. You still have not addressed these. Also, these disputes are not based off of vague accusations, they have serious concerns behind them. -- Orduin Discuss 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a bit too zealous

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644452526&oldid=644298653 I think we lost too much here. Please explain the deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The material in this section duplicates other material in the article. Material that is not duplicated has been moved to appropriate sections. No need for a separate section on this. Carson had a brief and undistinguished military career. He tried to resign but was refused. He was old and ill. Too much prominence has been given his military career in this article. It needs to be cut back to equal other sections in length, vocabulary, importance, etc. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If it duplicates, that's fine.
As for your repeated assertion that he had an undistinguished military career, we have commented above that it doesn't matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Carson must be taken in whole. He was most famous as a mountain man. He said these were the happiest years of his life. Undue weight has been given to the military career. It has to be cut back to keep it in balance the entire article. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, and in whole, he served in the military. Undue weight is giving to his civilian life if his military career is not given precedence. I would like to hear form others on this before it's removed again. I will go to dispute resolution over this if nothing happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry disagree. His lackluster military career should not be given "prominence". He was old and tired. He hated the military. He preferred being home with his wife and children. He spent 12 virile, active years as a mountain man and 8 somnabulant years as a military officer. No contest. No discussion. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Distinguished or not, that Carson's military career can be the subject of an 8 page article Did Kit Carson Win at Adobe Walls? (Alvin R Lynn, True West, November 2014, pp 28-35) shows that there is still, more than a century and a half later, interest in the subject. Carptrash (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It is your opinion that it is lacklustre. I don't see it as such and since, as is pointed out below, it is half the article, I'd say it's not even an accurate assessment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is your opinion that his military career was not lackluster. Scholars and other authorities are in agreement that his military career was lackluster, boring, drab, and useless. He accomplished little as a military man and couldn't wait to get out of the service. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We are not asking that question. WPP is not a "military fan" magazine. That may be but this sort of news article is too detailed, too long for a wp article. Add it to the further reading section. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Nor is this a news article from a newspaper. At only 60k bytes, the article certainly isn't "too detailed" or "too long". Either way, edit warring over an infobox is just childish. I don't understand the "undistinguished" career claim, except as something pointy; added as part of this silly edit-war. I've removed it. Such a heading is contrary to the lede anyway which says, "Carson was [...] celebrated for his rescue mission after the Battle of San Pasqual and for his coast-to-coast journey from California to Washington, DC". How can someone celebrated for two military things have had an "undistinguished" military career. For the record, military careers are not limited to those specific periods when someone was enlisted. They can include guerrilla action, civilian action in support of military endeavours and other things. Having two infoboxes seems silly and the logical one to use (given 1/2 the lede and 1/2 the article relate to his military-related activities) is the military person infobox. That said, start an RFC instead of edit-warring over it. Get a consensus and stick to it. St★lwart111 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Carson had an undistinguished military career and no serious academic investigations exist to declare it anything else. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Then it can simply be referred to as a "military career". The addition of "undistinguished" is just pointy editorialising. St★lwart111 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
SeeSpot Run, you do realise that the point of these discussions is to develop a consensus, right? Simply declaring "No contest. No discussion." will get you nowhere. In fact, you are likely to turn people away from your point of view. Things here are not decided arbitrarily and there is not such thing as a "Chief Editor". At the moment there is little support for your point of view and your unilateral declarations aren't helping. St★lwart111 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@SeeSpot Run: Again, you seem to understand the subject well, but I don't buy your blanket statement. If about 30% of the article, starting at Mexican-American War, is about his military career we have a serious problem with either your statement or the article. Also the fact that he "was breveted a General and appointed commandant of Ft. Garland, Colorado" seems to imply he was an important military figure at the very least. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again, your opinion ignores recent scholarly research. The article is based on the recent materials by distinguished historians and scholars. The idea that the consensus of "military fans" pouring over old magazine articles should determine the content is absurd. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Please show me the scholars who say that his military career was not distinguished. I want detailed proof not vague implications. Some historians may focus on other parts of his life, but that doesn't mean his military career is undistinguished.
And for the record, the next time you attempt to malign me or anyone else with name calling ("military fans", etc.) I will report you for making a personal attack. Focus on the content of the article, not on the editors who are trying to improve the article. I have looked the other way several times but I've had quite enough. Wikipedia talk pages are not fan forums or bars where you can trash talk your opponents into submission. They're not courts where you can lawyer your way around the facts. This is an encyclopedia and other editors are your colleagues, not your opponents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not have to answer your rude demands. You have admitted you know nothing of Carson. You can do the research with current materials by scholars and historians to answer your own questions. True, this is an encyclopedia, but there is one editor in particular making rude demands and changing researched contributions to his own personal preferences. He is not collegiate nor is he a valued member of the team. You will have to do your own research on Carson because I cannot invest my time in answering your demands, which are already aanswered in the text. If you would take the time to read the text, your demands are answered. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have stated nothing of the sort. I have stated that you are more knowledgeable than I am though. You also offer no facts to support your opinions. You claim to have done research with current or recent articles, but offer no proof to support a claim. That's weak research. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, Spot, I'd point you to WP:CONSENSUS. Your aggressive and stand-offish approach is turning people against you and your unwillingness to support your opinion with evidence suggests you other assertions should be called into question also. To be collectively described as a "military fan" isn't particularly insulting to me (though I'm not a member of any project that would suggest such an affiliation) but throwing insults around at all means you'll never get consensus support for your POV because your POV is antagonistic. I'll happily concede I know nothing of the subject. I came here because of your ill-thought-through ANI post. In everything else I've been guided by the direction in which you've led the discussion. At the moment, your opinion that the military infobox should not be used enjoys little to no support, which is entirely of your own doing. I came to this with an open mind and now feel inclined to oppose your POV because of your combative attitude in this discussion. St★lwart111 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of old revisions

Due to the recent concerns in the references and information, I decided to review older revisions of the page. I briefly checked:

Their notes sections appear to be much superior to our current ones (permalink -18:04, 8 February 2015). What is better in those notes is the fact that information from the source is presented in the reference so that the information can be checked by anyone who does not have access to the book. The notes section should contain more information than the book and page number. I have also found that these revisions do not contain the sections that were debated on. However, these revisions are all improperly cited. I would suggest updating our current notes section to be similar to the older ones in that they actually contain notes. I would not, however, recommend reverting the article to a previous revision. The improvements we have made to the article are great, but some older versions have better building. Anyone have any suggestions on how we can improve the current version using qualities from the past? My idea is to improve the notes section to actually include notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orduin (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war and GA

No it has not been resolved. I made an edit to the article based on a suggestion here, but there's no indication that this is a consensus decision. There is no need to rush, unless you're on your deathbed and then we could ask for the RfCs to be closed and I could grant you your dying wish: to see this reach GA before you die. If, however, you're not on your death bed, it can wait. While it takes two to edit war, I stopped before I was blocked and have decided to discuss and try suggestions from other editors. I am not willing to leave the infobox person as it stands though and agree with the other editor that military is the correct infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No Spot, the edit war only stopped because Walter got sick of reverting your disruptive edits. The article now reflects your "favoured version" though you have managed to established very little support for it here. You need to accept that this is unlikely to get to GA status while you maintain your aggressive and disruptive stance here. St★lwart111 08:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This article used to be a lot better in content and tone. Smallchief (talk 11:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on your input, not necessarily all of the best research. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"Recent" is not a synonym for "best." This article is not as good as it once was. Smallchief (talk 15:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Carson, given the choice between facing (1) a dozen charging Blackfeet, (2) two dozen attacking Confederate soldiers or (3) the fight going on here, that he chose the middle choice. Now to just find the source . . . . ...Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

One criticism I would make of the article is that nearly one-half of the references come from one book by Roberts which is more about Fremont than Carson. More balance and reliance on a wider range of sources -- of which there are many -- would be preferable. Smallchief (talk 21:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The reliance on Roberts is also concerning due to his evaluation of Carleton. His "psychopathic hatred of Apaches" claim (although apparently quoted from another source, which is concerning in and of itself) isn't supported by either Sides or Utley (one of the main authorities on the Indian Wars). Intothatdarkness 19:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a single source tag would be a good idea to add to the page -- Orduin Discuss 22:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Another problem I have is that the section "Indian fighter/"Injun killer" seems overly simplistic in its description of Carson's views about Indians. The word "killer" is judgmental. To take a contemporary example, would the Wikipedia article call the character Kyle in the current box office smash "American Sniper" a "Muslim killer" or an "Iraqi killer?" I don't think so.Smallchief (talk 22:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Still another problem I have is that the lede seems overly judgmental (in the opposite direction from the characterization of him as an "Injun killer"). To cite "his deeds of selfless heroism and gallantry" seems to be fluffy and POV. Smallchief (talk 22:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)22:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The current lede, IMO, is pretty much junk. I'd undertake a rewrite if there wasn't so much flack about the article right now. Intothatdarkness 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Not too much flack at all. Feel free to work on it. If you find too much "flack" in the action, you may use your sandbox and point editors to that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish that I had taken a picture of the Carson historical marker in Kit Carson Park in Taos NM, right next to Taos Pueblo on which someone had written "He murdered indians" in blood or red paint or something. If Kyle is referred to as "Muslim killer" I'd have no problem adding it to his article. The "Injun killer" here is in quotes, not sure from who or when but likely from when that moniker was considered a good thing. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I must say that the phrase "Carson thought American Indians who . . ... " sort of begs the question, "Where are these thoughts spelled out?" Carptrash (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Volpe

  • Vernon Volpe can be found online. The paragraph was cited to an online article. World Book was cited to volume, publisher, and date of publication of an online article.SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Then please provide a link to the online article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources if you need help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Volpe [3]

SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a link to the bio, not the article. Intothatdarkness 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The sourcing, as a result of the latest edits, is now an absolute mess with some using proper p.xx peramaters and some simply listing numbers after names, some of which are still not included in the references list. There are errors and broken citations through the article. We're going backwards. St★lwart111 23:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny Section

In killing Indians, Carson was making America safe for settlers heading west to build their homes, farms, and villages. He had the approval of the United States government and its citizens. In addition, Senator Thomas Hart Benton, the United States Congress, and President James K. Polk had developed and were working with a concept called Manifest Destiny. This concept stated that it was the will of God that the United States push America's western boundary to the Pacific Ocean at all costs. Manifest Destiny spurred the movement of American settlers to the West.

I pulled this section because it's both unsourced and fairly POV/synthesis-laden. If such a section is required, it should be properly sourced. Intothatdarkness 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

His is descendants are his legacy. I have restored information on his grandson. I have also restored that he was buried with no marker. They are from reliable sources, so you need a valid reason to remove them. I see you prefer the two books as references, but the New York Times is a valid reliable source too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • His descendants are not his legacy - unless they're SUPERSPECIAL. Carson was buried without a marker (like many others in the West) to prevent Indians from desecrating his body or his resting place. This was a common practice at the time. Carson is buried with a marker in Taos next to his third wife Josefa. SeeSpot Run (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the only reason people were buried without markers. The practice you're referring to was more common when someone died in the wilderness. In more settled areas (which Taos was by this time) someone might be buried without a marker if they were poor, but fear of Indian desecration wasn't necessarily a driving factor. Intothatdarkness 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We arent supposed to engage in original research. If the New York Times, 2,000 miles from New Mexico, thought it was important to have an article on him having no marker, we shouldn't be arguing that it isn't important and deleting it. It also lets the reader know that the current marker was not placed there at his death. Can you also cite this "SUPERSPECIAL" policy you are invoking to delete the two sentences on his grandson? Again, the New York Times thought it was a notable. It seems you do not like references that are not coming from the biographies you are citing, and delete any other material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carson was first buried near Fort Garland. He remained in this resting place for about a year. His body was then removed == with Josefa's == to Taos. This is not OR. It can be cited to the two most recent tomes on Carson. I'm not going to bother with it because I don't think it is necessary for a GA article. When the article goes to FA, then the material can be entered and cited. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No, your original research is that everyone is buried that way out west, so it is not notable. Not where he was buried. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed this

from the "Indian fighter" section

"Carson thought American Indians who committed outrages like murder, theft, and rape deserved the worst punishment possible. Carson's thoughts about Indians softened over the years, as he found himself in their company more often. He became an Indian agent and a spokesman for some western tribes."

How do we know he thought this? Did he feel that Anglos who who committed outrages like murder, theft, and rape should be punished any less than Indians who did them? And are we to believe that becoming an Indian agent was anything other than another way to collect a paycheck? Indian agents have been very pro and very anti Indian. Was he an Indian agent while engaging in Indian fighting? If not, why is it in this section? Carptrash (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • These are questions you can answer for yourself by reading the article or any good, recent, schollarly tome about Carson. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Technically, we need to provide a link to such a statement. Incidentally, the attitude you've displayed here (I have read a lot of scholarly works, wtf are you questioning my edits) is the reason that the article will fail any GA nomination you make because editors will continue to question your changes from Dec. 2014 and without RSes to support, the article won't meet GA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
good edit. Smallchief (talk 00:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. I saw that yesterday and was tempted to pull it. Good removal. Intothatdarkness 19:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was an uncited sentence floating by itself at the start of that section. That's hardly impeccable sourcing. If you want to attribute it to a source, try either a direct quote or prefacing it with "historian X has stated that Carson..." or something along those lines. Intothatdarkness 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The removed text was speculative and unreferenced. Smallchief (talk 22:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The removed text is based on the cited texts following this introductory. Carson hated Indians. Sorry, but that's the way it was. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Based - meaning that it could be considered synthesis. If the sources say that, it's easy enough to find a direct quote and use it. Sorry...but that's how this place works. Intothatdarkness 22:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I get the gist here. The goal is too ruin a cited text for the purpose of prejudice, bias, texts 50+ years old, OR, and Original Opinion. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Except that you're not actually citing a text. And one of your cited sources actually depends on a text that is well over 50 years old. Sides is a far better source than Roberts when it comes to Carson, and Sabin's work came out in the 1930s (the 1995 edition cited doesn't disclose how old the work actually is). It's also disturbing that Robert Utley isn't cited anywhere...considering that he's one of the major authorities on the Indian Wars. Intothatdarkness 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SeeSpot Run, I've reverted your re-addition of the unsourced paragraph. Consensus is against you here and you still haven't provided a source. You can't simply overrule consensus because you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's not how WP:BRD works. St★lwart111 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The sources follow in the text. If you would take the time to read the text, this and much else wouod be evident. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Then list them here for consideration and, collectively, those involved can determine what should be returned to the article. That's not for you to decide on your own. It's generally not good enough to just vaguely wave at sources out there somewhere or later in the article (without specifying which). Individual claims require individual sources. It's fairly simply really. And you really do need to have a proper read of WP:CONSENSUS. St★lwart111 22:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
A full listing for the cryptic "Volpe" in the cite list doesn't appear in the References section. Nor does "World Book." Hard to check sources that don't appear in the list. Intothatdarkness 22:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we need more that a surname for sources. St★lwart111 22:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact, 10 other claims are sourced to the otherwise unidentified "Volpe". My assumption is that we're talking about the text, "The Origins of the Fremont Expeditions" by Vernon Volpe who wrote extensively about John C. Fremont. But given the questionable nature of associated sourcing, the claims made should all be checked. We're talking about, approximately, 10% of the sources. The equally unidentified "World Book" is also questionable. St★lwart111 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo

This is a pic of Carson very very shortly before his death. He was weak and virtually bedridden. Can we find a pic showing Carson in his virile, youthful, active years? 208.125.213.94 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The picture is very good actually. It doesn't seem as though he's bedridden since he's clearly seated in a chair. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
He doesn't "seem" to be bedridden == but he is. This was his last photo snapped in 1868 -- the year of his death. He deserves better. This photo can be sent to the death section. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be the expert here. I actually read what you added, including references. http://www.historynet.com/kit-carson-the-legendary-frontiersman-remains-an-american-hero.htm

states the image was actually taken "in early 1868". As for "bedridden", this was "taken during a visit to Washington, D.C." So instead of making things up, let's discuss picture quality alone: the Washington photo is of far superior quality than the Pintrest image. I suggest we use the best quality image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That might be worthwhile as I'll be glad to show them your disruptive editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Which image should be used in the infobox?

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to use Photo 1. SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which image should be used in the infobox. Only two opinions were offered here. Again, the choices were

  1. File:Kit Carson, about 1860.jpg
  2. File:Kit Carson photograph restored.jpg

The latter has been completely removed from the article now Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Image No. 1 I think the first should be used. It's lower quality, but it shows him looking like his is closer to the height of his career, rather than an elderly-looking man. The quality will be greatly improved if it is displayed at 250px, right now the image is at a resolution larger than the file's actual size.

The second image should, however, be added to the article. Jehorn (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Image No. 1 This image sghows Carson at his virile, active best. Image No. 2 shows him as a weak, sick man which completely belies his life and career. SeeSpot Run (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jehorn that it's at the height of his military career. SeeSpot Run, that image shows him in his military uniform. I thought that you didn't want to admit his military career was at all important.
I disagree that the second image shows him as weak, sick man. We discussed this here already. It was months before his death. I believe you're mistaken. Please don't mis-characterize the image as it clearly does not show him as a weak, sick man at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Image No. 2 This picture is of far better quality, and he does not look sick nor that particularly "old" to me at all. Additionally, if his military career is what he is best known for, it would be better to fix the infobox. It looks a bit odd the way it is now, with his military information inside another box. See Template:Infobox military person. Wikimandia (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Image No. 1 While not the same quality, a head shot is better than a full body picture, especially if its shrunk. AlbinoFerret 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Image No. 1 Better representation of what Carson would have looked like during his more productive years. Intothatdarkness 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Which infobox should be used?

Closed as consensus for {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox military person}} as a module SPACKlick (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which infobox should be used: {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox military person}}. If the former is used, should the other infobox be included in a section further into the article? If the former is used, should the latter be included in the other infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support {{Infobox military person}} at this stage. Nothing substantive has been put forward to suggest that this military person should not be thought of as such. A significant portion of his achievements relate to work with, for or in the military. {{Infobox person}} is sufficient unless a more accurate infobox allows additional details to provided to readers. Those readers will experience no difference, except for the addition of information about his military exploits; information they are likely to be interested in given the current balance of the article and the extent of the verifiable information available. If there genuinely are modern sources that describe his military exploits as "undistinguished" or "unimpressive" or (comparatively) some other synonym of equivalency then we should consider the way the article is weighted and the way the infobox is presented. But for now... St★lwart111 11:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The flagrant use of flags is the primary reason I dislike military person. I remove it in many, many sports and music article—my two main areas of interest—and it irks me when I see it used like that. Is it rank and commands held that it violates or union army? It appears to be an 1846 US flag, so that appears to be correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't answer Walter's query, but I will say; I have no objection to a modulated version of one inside the other. I don't think the military infobox should be separate and halfway through the article. In we can use both in one, great. If we can only use one then my preference would be for {{Infobox military person}}. St★lwart111 06:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Use {{Infobox person}} and include {{Infobox military person}} via the "module=" parameter. Carson was more than a soldier in the Union Army. His career as a soldier was undistinguished and is of interest today only to "military fans". WP is not a military magazine. The infobox used must reflect the enormity of Carson's life and not just his 8-year stint in the Army. SeeSpot Run (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing about previous discussions supports that (repeated) personal attack. You're already being threatened with blocks for disruption; suggest you strike it. St★lwart111 00:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Stalwart111. The image in the infobox is already a military image, yet we don't give it sufficient coverage in the infobox. I am not a military fan. Show me the vast military articles I have edited. I edit music and association football articles. The only time I go near military articles is when I revert the edits of editors who have been less than constructive on articles I watch. Carson was a military man, which also happens to be a song of one of my favourite bands in the 80s, but that's simply a tangential statement. @Huon: Which parameters form person would you miss if we stayed with military rather than imbed it? How are they vital to the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"residence", for example, seems both highly relevant and unsupported by {{Infobox military person}}. "occupation" would also fall away or be relegated to a footnote, and I don't think giving the indication that Carson was only (or even just overwhelmingly) a military man in the infobox is appropriate. Huon (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Since he was essentially nomadic, is residence selective? Agree with occupation though. Should it be comma separated and observe sentence case and capitalize only the first letter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that formatting seems reasonable to me. Regarding "residence", what domestic life he had seems to have largely taken place in Taos, with the town serving as kind of a "home base" to which he returned from his various voyages, at least through the 1830s, 1840s amd 1850s. That's good enough to list it as his residence, I'd say. Huon (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA issues

The RfCs are now closed, but there is still considerable concern about content removed and added in recent months. Am I misinterpreting that issue? I don't want SeeSpot Run to assume that he can push through another GA nomination if that's the case. If no one comments on this thread in the next week, I will personally nominate it for GA since I removed the last GA nomination, primarily because the RfCs were still open, but also because I had concerns based on comments made by other editors over the past month. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Carson's biography is well known and has been recorded in one tome after another. There are no mysteries. Please remember the text is not the place to quibble over minutia. I will not respond to unsourced arguments. SeeSpot Run (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are overblowing the KC article. In the past month, there has been no significant response to anything. People have dropped off the face of the earth. Except you, of course ... This article seems to be your personal bugaboo. I think you need to take a wiikibnreak, distance yourself from the article for a bit, then come back refreshed or with a new interest. Making threats, and "either ors", and demands is not collegiate. This is wrong and should be reported to the admins. You are saying "I won't play unless you play my way." SeeSpot Run (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced you have either my best interest or that of Wikipedia's at heart. Pardon me for not assuming good faith on your behalf. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Prove it. SeeSpot Run (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You've been pushing a specific WP:POV. You want something to which you've contributed to be recognized as "good". You ignore the comments of other editors who make valid arguments against yours simply because it's not your opinion. That's simply poor scholarship and arrogance, but those are Canadian terms.
I'm pushing nothing. I am supporting material by esteemed historians that is sourced. SeeSpot Run (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather than accept that other editors might understand the subject, you claim that because you read one or possibly two recently published books (you use the term "recent sources") you use them as a hammer to state that any sources that contradict them are not correct. You have removed them. The way I understand history, people may interpret the details differently. They may stand beside each other.
Carson's biography is well known and has been recorded numerous times. There are no reasonable contradictions. Yes, there are quibblers but they do not bring citations to support their arguments. SeeSpot Run (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
So in short, within the week I will be restoring some of the material you removed and attempt to harmonize it with the other material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother trying to "harmonize" anything. Just be sure to bring reliable sources to this excursion. Review the criteria. SeeSpot Run (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 100% satisfied with some of the sourcing, and if prose is a consideration for GA this certainly needs much more work. Intothatdarkness 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources are reliable. If you have better sources, please bring them here. The prose works for GA. WP does not ask us to be Pulitzer prize winning prosodists. If you want to improve it, please do so. SeeSpot Run (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I would assume that literate was at least preferred for GA. And I have been making prose improvements as time allows. As for sourcing, Sides is preferable to Roberts on the whole, and broader sources are still lacking (Utley for one). Intothatdarkness 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I likewise would not vote for this to be a Good Article. The sourcing is too much dependent on Roberts. There are many other equally good or better sources than should also be used to leaven the prose.
Like what? SeeSpot Run (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at just one section, "The First Battle of Adobe Walls", I disagree with the implied conclusion that this was a victory for the US army. The Texas State historical marker at the site says bluntly "The Indians won." Carson's skill in this battle was defensive, keeping his force together and retreating cautiously to avoid a defeat at the hand of an enemy superior in numbers. Carson's management of this battle is sometimes contrasted with that of Custer at the Little Big Horn. We know what happened to Custer, don't we? Smallchief (talk 19:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The material entered has been cited to recent and impeccable sources. You should take your argument up with the scholars and authorities that have written the source material. This page is not the place to argue about the veracity of the text. The material I have entered has been cited to recent and impeccable sources from historians and scholars. Find a source to support your argument. Then bring it here. SeeSpot Run (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, recent does not make it impeccable, it makes it recent. You should take your argument up with the scholars and authorities who have written the source material that you removed in favour of your preferences. The material you have censored should probably be restored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that "recent is impeccable". The sources I've used are the products of esteemed scholars and historians. The material censored was unsourced. Again, you are spending too much time at this article. Your interest appears to be derailing the article for purposes unknown. You have an attitude that is not collegiate, that is self-centered, arch, and damaging. You desperately need a break.SeeSpot Run (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply writing a book does not make an author either an "esteemed scholar" or historian. Your fixation on your own sources and determined efforts to demean those who disagree with you are not conducive to collaboration. Intothatdarkness 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The credentials of the "esteemed historians and scholars" is exactly what WP desires. SeeSpot Run (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why haven't you ever cited Robert Utley, who is one of the major scholars in this field of study? And that's just one example. Intothatdarkness 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I just made several changes to improve and correct the summary paragraphs. These changes illustrate why I don't believe this article is yet up to the standard of a Good Article. Smallchief (talk 13:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of your changes have been reverted. They are not cited and are not supported by the text. SeeSpot Run (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting your revert back in. It is clearly supported by the text -- although the text lacks a footnote which I will supply. Smallchief (talk 12:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Esteemed scholars and historians are prize-winning writers and usually college profs. SeeSpot Run (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see it's been nominated again and SeeSpot Run has not addressed the issues that {{ping|Smallchief} and other editors have raised. Time to fix the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagged content - suggesting this go through Peer Review before GA

SeeSpot Run, this is a courtesy notice. I believe you are trying to get this article in shape. I inserted multiple tags in the article, something I dislike doing. I do not believe this article is ready for GA or anything else at this point. It's under referenced in many sections. The entire section of First Battle of Adobe Walls needs to be reworked. The best advice I can give you is FIRST take this through Wikipedia:Peer review. List it there, and then post on WikiProject Military history that you'd like one of their members to do the peer review. Whatever advice you get from them on a peer review, take it. They're experts on shaping up articles, and this one has their project banner on this talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Much of the editing over the last few months has been done without edit summaries. Per H:ES Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The three wives

The quote you have about Making-Out-Road is not supported by a different source:

  • Simmons, Marc (2003). Kit Carson and His Three Wives: A Family History (Calvin P. Horn Lectures in Western History and Culture Series). University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 978-0826332967.

Just food for thought. I've tagged that quote in the article. You might want to do more research on his wives. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but like I said in an above thread, I really do think you'd be doing yourself a favor by running this article through Peer Review at MilitaryHistory Project before GA. Generally, there's no agenda there except to get it right. It would help wash out all these various things, and give you some valuable tips and experience at navigating your way through things in the future. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's my understanding that SeeSpot Run, and I in no way speak for the editor, believes that Carson's military career is such a minor element that bringing it to the Military History Project may not be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's irrelevant as to whether or not Military History Project can, or should, do the review. They do all kinds of peer reviews of biographies where the subject was only in the military part of his/her life. It's the peer review process that is valuable as a whole. And because they do these reviews as an ongoing basis, their reviewers are more experienced in helping an editor achieve the end result within Wikipedia's framework. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested Admin close the GA nomination

I have just requested an Admin close the GA nomination as unresolved. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Adobe Walls

This section needs more research, and more work, and a NPOV. Calling our native Americans "thieves and murderers" violates the Wikipedia NPOV dictate and is seriously offensive to that population. Also, nothing is in this section that gives the reasons why the Indians were attacking wagon trains - that primarily being because the settlers, military and hunters were exterminating the bison, their main food source. Books have been written about this First Battle of Adobe Walls. The Indians won. Kit Carson saved face by claiming victory, but the Indians won. The Texas Panhandle Frontier written by Frederick W. Rathjen and published by Texas Tech University Press says:...the first battle of Adobe Walls was hardly a victory for Kit Carson or the "brilliant affair" that Carleton credited it. Later, Carson "admitted that he was beaten on that day and was fortunate to escape with any of his men at all[4]. There are many sources, and much research on this battle. The source quote of The Texas State Library and Archives Commission writes: "The result of Adobe Walls was a crushing spiritual defeat for the Indians. It also prompted the U.S. military to take its final actions to crush the Indians once and for all. Within the year, the long war between whites and Indians in Texas would reach its conclusion." is not referring to the battle Kit Carson was involved in. It's the Second Battle of Adobe Walls that happened a decade later. Good luck with this, but this section needs a rewrite. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to referencing, there is a fairly recent book:
if you are interested in spending that much time researching this.— Maile (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the sentence: "The battle is considered by some to be Carson's finest moment, and is thought one of the factors that made the Kiowas and Comanches sue for peace in 1865." since it is misleading, and the "some" is Carleton who sent Carson into this. Historians, such as quoted above, disagree with Carleton. Even Carson himself disagreed with Carleton. Besides the obvious that a military retreat is not a "finest moment", the sentence also is misleading in that it indirectly discredits everything else Carson did in his life. The history of the Kiowas and Comanches in Texas was long and complicated, and it doesn't seem like watching their enemy being forced into a retreat would cause them to ask for peace. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Chosin Reservoir was not a victory either, nevertheless it was one of the "finest hours" of Marine Corp history. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Death

Carson was injured by a horse on Mosca pass and died eventually of that injury. I've seen a source, but don't remember exactly where. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The injury was in 1860 and he didn't die until 1868, so it may have been a contributing factor, but he was active for several years after the injury. Smallchief (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

known_for parameter

About the known_for parameter currently reads "Opening the American West to European settlement", I disagree with anon's warring over the term "European", as people of non-European background were not permitted to own land at the time, but the anon's point that it was for the interest of the American government does correspond with the doctrine of manifest destiny held at that time. Does it make sense to change the field to "Opening the American West for the interests of the American government" or something similar? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/06/25/kit-carsons-civil-war-the-navajo-round-up/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 07:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Garbled text needs restoration

Under the heading "Early life" the second sentence begins "His parents were Lindsayt wife, Lucy Bradley..." This is nonsensical and it appears that the text may have become garbled through the editing process. Can anyone straighten it out? Bricology (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kit_Carson/Archive_2&oldid=1247024700"