Talk:Quanah Parker

Trivia

The "trivia" states that Quanah Parker was born in the Wichita Mountain area of Oklahoma. While he spent the last 25 year of his life in Wichitas, most historians believe he was born in present day Dawson County, TX as stated in the "Handbook of Texas Online."

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/DD/hcd3.html 70.243.178.104 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

clarification needed on (contradiction in) translated Comanche name?

Help needed from those knowledgable on the subject. I'm just an ignorant, but interested, reader - noticing this discrepancy:

In this article, "Quanah Parker", it states, Cynthia Ann Parker... was given the Indian name Nadua ("Someone Found")...

and

In the closely related article, "Cynthia Ann Parker", it states: Cynthia Ann was named "Naduah" by the Comanches, which means "she carries herself with dignity and grace

Maralrapp 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Elimination of the unsourced claim Quanah was never a chief

No sources were ever cited for the claims Quanah was never recognized by his band as a chief, and 6 months have passed, so I eliminated that unsourced claim. If anyone has sources, please let me know, and we can debate this issue further. old windy bear 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Walls Victory?

Amazingly, the current article states that Parker's force won a victory at Abobe Walls, but before correcing that obvious error, perhaps we should ask for the original poster's definition. (The buffalo hunters retained possession of the facility with few losses, in contrast to the Indians, who were repulsed.) In the Wikipedia entry the battle results are listed as 16 Indians killed to 4 whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Adobe_Walls —Preceding unsigned comment added by BTillman (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with your comments. The paragraphs you refer to are contradicted by Fehrenbach and the Quanah Parker website. If there can't be any verification as you say, then it should be modified. Richiar (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. I removed the caption (as it does not introduce the entire section) and note that if it were to have occurred today, such an incident would hardly merit the name "battle of..." - probably because not much else had ever happened there, it gets elevated above its significance. Moreover, it was typical at the time for such incidents, in which white settlers prevailed, to be reported as "battle of..." or when defeated, as "massacre at...". István (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • To add further to the comments, the section probably would need considerable reworking, I only have access to the Fehrenbach source. It may be there is more information in other sources, for instance in the ones listed at bottom of article: I'll put in what I can, maybe others can add to it. Richiar (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

hello

hello every one Quanah Parker was the best Comanche chief to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.113.189 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Article conflict: Who introduced Parker to Peyote?

Quanah_Parker#Founder_of_the_Native_American_Church_Movement says:

Parker was given peyote by a Ute medicine man to cure the infections of his wounds.

Native_American_Church#The_Native_American_Church_Movement says:

Parker was given strong peyote tea by a Coahuiltecan Indian curandera who healed him and showed him the proper way to run peyote ceremonies.

The second version give OC Stewart's "The peyote religion: a history" as a reference, whereas the first is unreferenced, so I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the only issue in dispute? I'm reading through The Peyote Cult by Weston La Barre (the 1969 edition which adds a preface to the 1964 edition without really updating it). There's some very detailed information about founding of the NAC and I don't see a basis for calling Quanah Parker a founder of the NAC or the Native American Church Momement which isn't clearly defined. Parker may have been very involved with diffusion of peyotism but I'd think the Oto Church of the First Born incorporated in 1914 as First-Born Church of Christ, Jonathan Koshiway and a lot of other people apparently not including Parker would be most reasonable to characterize as founders of the Native American Church Movement. This seems to be the first peyote church to incorporate as a defense against legal problems and the incorporation of the NAC was based on influence of Koshiway, other members and James Mooney at one or more inter-tribal meetings.

As far as Parker being founder of NAC, if he died in 1911 as the Quanah Parker article states he couldn't have been a founder of the NAC as such. Gotta get back to the RW right now I'm thinking of rewriting the section of the NAC on the NAC page with the editing based on The Peyote Cult and properly cited. Any comments about this idea? Moss&Fern (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading over Weston La Barre's "The Peyote Cult," and he doesn't say much to the extent of who introduced Peyote to Quanah Parker. Rather a direct quote from the book states, "Quanah Parker, the great Comanche proselytizer of peyote, at first opposed to it, was cured of a stomach ailment in 1884 and became one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the herb." I don't see more than that, and have yet to find any sources claiming that he was gored by a bull or anything of the sort.

As for Quanah Parker being a founder of the Native American Church, I find his founding characteristics to be peripheral, but highly important to note. Not only did he adopt Peyotism in 1884 and begin proselytizing it extensively thereafter, but he encouraged Native Americans to embrace white society and learn their ways as to survive while retaining some of their "Indian-ness." He encouraged Native Americans to go to school and get a white man's education. In 1908 Quanah testified before the Oklahoma legislature and had the anti-peyote law repealed the same year. Thereafter, many former Carlisle students went on to lead Peyote groups and defend Peyotism in the landmark 1918 Carl M. Hayden Anti-Peyote Bill [HR 2614) case that sought to outlaw Peyote for the entire United States. They won, and then with James Mooney's prompting and the aid of other former Carlisle students the Native American Church was incorporated in 1918.

To say Quanah was a direct founder is a stretch, but to insist his influence amongst Native Americans and Peyotists wasn't a catalyst to the NAC's formation seems to be a fallacy. -Caleb Kuntz St.belac (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a Ute medicine man is the one who first gave him peyote. I am leaning towards he was wounded, (I thought in battle but I wasn't there and do not know nor have I had access to his medical records) and running from the Rangers into the safety of Mexico was given medicines by people there, not the Ute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.34.157 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

References

https://wrldrels.org/2016/10/08/native-american-church/ Johnpedwards (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

http://www.stainblue.com/quanahparker.html Johnpedwards (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh?

I have no idea who he married, how many children he had, and it is missing a BUNCH of important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.141 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a valid source

The American Indian/Chiefs website is not sourced, so is not a valid source compared to others. There has been much written about Quanah that is well-documented, so editors should go to the books.Parkwells (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quanah Parker of "Low Importance?"

I request that the rating of "low importance" for Quanah by Texas and American West wikigroups be reconsidered. Quanah deserves at least a "mid-importance" rating. Smallchief 15:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/566749934329361603/ Johnpedwards (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Pease River

There is a serious fault with the article when it claims that Quanah was almost certainly not at the battle of Pease river. The article gives as one of its sources the book "Empire of the Summer Moon". That book, however, draws the opposite conclusion, that Quanah was in fact there.

The glaring discrepancy between the article's claim, and the text of the source cited in support of the claim in the current version of the Quanah Parker page, must at a minimum be acknowledged.

Gwynne, in "Empire", writes "Quanah and Peanuts were at the camp because their mother said they were." There is much more to the argument given in favor of Quanah having been there, and the conclusion is given emphatically. Historygamer (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The main article also asserts, without citing any reference, that "... in an effort to further his political career, Sul Ross later fabricated a story wherein he claimed to have killed Peta Nocona at Pease River." But according to "Empire of the Summer Moon", Cynthia Parker was taken to where Nokona had been killed, and she "wept and wailed over his body." So Nokona was at the battle and was killed there. According to "Empire", also, Ross was not the only one to give an account of the death of Nokona, and no mention is made of the other accounts contradicting his claim to have been the one who killed him.

On what evidence, then, does the author of the main article assert that Ross "fabricated" his account? On what evidence, indeed, do we know that Ross's account was not contemporaneous? Historygamer (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwynne's well researched 2010 "Empire of the Summer Moon" certainly concludes the overwhelming evidence supports the assertion that Quanah Parker and Peanuts were at the Battle of Pease River and that Quanah's father Peta Nocona was killed there. See chapter 13, pages 194-196 in "Empire". Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Pease River Battle section a bit, taking out somewhat biased and un-cited language, and providing the alternative explanation and citations. There ya go! Waliy sherpa (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left your text in place, but removed references to Gwynne. Gwynne's book is not considered to be a reliable source by actual experts in Comanche history and culture. It is sensationalized nonsense in some cases and uncredited plagiarism in others. Whoever called it "well researched" above simply doesn't know anything about the actual topic. You can find further details here --Taivo (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I read your archived discussion on the quality of Gwynne's book. I can see that you're very passionate about this subject. However, it seems that you have picked one historian, Thomas Kavanagh, as the end all and be all of Comanche History. And he very well may have written the most about the subject and be the most learned. But his criticism of Gwynne's book does not alone make it unreliable and completely false. Furthermore, Gwynne does have a degree is history and writing, and as a journalist has helped the public for years determine what the reality of our day to day world is, whether for better or worse. I do not think he portrays the Comanche in a negative light, but even if he did, his book was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, which makes it a contender for inclusion in these articles. If you have issues with the specific facts that are being referenced and believe them to be false, then provide counter references and state as much. Wikipedia isn't about taking the one historian you agree with most and presenting their ideas whilst deleting everyone else's. History is an interpretation of evidences and documents, not hard solid facts. By deleting discussion and interpretation, you are sterilizing the very beauty of Wikipedia, i.e. the gathering and sharing of all human knowledge. I will point out then, for further readers, that you have systemically gone through articles deleting references to Gwynne's book. This is sterilizing. I can see as well, that you can debate this issue for hours and days and days. Thus, I will say no more, and hope that someone will be able to contend with you on this matter. Waliy sherpa (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize is a prize for literature, not historical research. Gwynn's book is also not referred to in any other scholarly work on the subject. Kavanagh is the foremost authority on Comanche history, not just "one historian". He is the number one historian of the Comanche and every other work on Comanche history references one or more of his works. Gwynn is a journalist, not a historian and his writing is primarily sensationalistic story-telling. The Pulitzer people may like his writing style, but they are not in a position to judge his scholarship. I offer you (or anyone else who thinks I'm being unfair to Gwynn) a simple challenge: find a positive assessment of Gwynn's work written by any actual scholar (anthropologist or historian) who specializes in the Comanche or South Plains and I will re-evaluate my views on the matter. --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quanah Parker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120201053101/http://www.preservationok.org:80/Quanah_Parker_Star_House.html to http://www.preservationok.org/Quanah_Parker_Star_House.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111005164853/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RO026.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RO026.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111103041618/http://digital.library.okstate.edu:80/encyclopedia/entries/P/PO020.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/P/PO020.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Description of birthplace

If one refers to the Template:Infobox person, the birthplace is to be described as it was known at the time of the event. The page entry for "birthplace" reads: "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth." The name Oklahoma first appears in a Choctaw treaty from 1866, well after Quanah's birth, and does not accurately reflect the name of the territory at that time. The term Indian Territory was in use during the 1840s-1850s, and was not split off with Oklahoma Territory until 1890. I, of course, encourage users to procure the above information for themselves, but would note that they can be found on the pages for Oklahoma, Indian Territory, and Oklahoma Territory, respectively.

Therefore, it stands to reason that Quanah's birthplace should be described as such: "Elk Valley, Wichita Mountains, Indian Territory." In past edits, this has also read "Indian Territory/Comancheria." It is more difficult to trace the origins of the term Comancheria, and it may thereby be left out, unless, as one may argue, it can be applied in the same way that the term "Byzantine Empire," an academic coinage, is used in the place of "Roman Empire" or "East Roman Empire." At least in that case the name "Byzantium" predates the Roman Constantinople, whereas "Oklahoma" emphatically did not exist as a geopolitical term prior to its use by Choctaw Chief Allen Wright in 1866.\ Sethzel (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

First. Stop reverting until a consensus is reached here. Per WP:BRD, if your original edit is reverted, you DO NOT revert until you have built a consensus on this page. I'll accept "Indian Territory", but not Comancheria, which was never a formal unit. It was shorthand for "range of the Comanche tribe", but was ill-defined at best. The Comanche never used that term. The Spanish never used that term. The American government never used that term. It was an invention by historians and anthropologists. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I happily concede the Comancheria point, satisfied that the Indian Territory omission has been rightfully amended.

Sethzel (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How about just listing all three descriptions? That provides the most information (quickly and concisely) to the reader, which is the goal of Wikipedia. The lands *were* de facto controlled by the Comanche and that should be acknowledged. To ignore Indigenous governance is to support erasure of Native history. Yuchitown (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

No, that's not the point of the infobox. "Comancheria" is a white man's invention and wasn't even a concept of the Comanche. The different bands of Comanche had no centralized governance and no concept of "territory". "Comancheria" is a fanciful term invented by white historians long after the fact. I can tell that you don't really have a background in Comanche history. There was no "indigenous governance" of a place called "Comancheria". Comanche "governance" was on the band level only--there was no centralized "governance" until they were gathered together on the Fort Sill reservation in the 1870s, long after any usefulness of a term like "Comancheria" was gone. --Taivo (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Star House

I have photos of Star House, as well as the home of my mom's mom's Uncle Frank Rush, Indian Agent for Oklahoma Territory before statehood. He was then the Superintendent of the Wichita Falls Wildlife Refuge and personally brought 17 head of Bison back from the NY Zoological society in 1907, working under Dr Hornaday and Theodore Roosevelt. He was greatly respected by Natives even before, but bringing back the great bison spirit to the plains made him legend to native Americans. Chief Quanah Parker was Frank's best friend. Frank knew him well. The Craterville Park near Cache was Uncle Frank Rush's. The descendants did well with the amusement park and bought more. Today known as Six Flags btw.

So yeah, I have pertinent relative photos scanned from mom's photo albums and ready to send. Unfortunately I don't speak wiki and don't know how, am unable to learn due to my work as a C#.NET Software Designer and Developer. (i.e. No time for a new language at this time.)

But have pertinent photos.

Please advise.

Johnpedwards (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Johnpedwards. If you are the copyright holder, and want to freely license the photos for use by anyone anywhere, then upload the photos to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. Their upload wizard is easy to use and does not require programming skills. Just answer every question honestly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, cool. My mom's photo album so yes fully owned but not copyrighted family photos. Give me a few days I'm swamped with beta testing and bug fixes at the moment. Thank for the speedy reply. Johnpedwards (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Internment

In 1957 Quanah Parker and his mother, Cynthia Ann's bodies were moved from Ft. Sill to Chiefs Knoll near Lawton Ok. The re internment was done with full military honors. The person responsible for the ceremony and re internment was my father Command Sargent Major Donald Ray Wilkerson. The post commander picked him because of his heritage. My father was a full blood Creek, born on a reservation in north west Oklahoma. He never forgot the honor of being responsible for the tribute he was able to give Quanah and his mother. I was 10 at the time and will never forget how moving the ceremony was.Michael Wilkerson (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

White English-speaking American settlers on the Western Frontier are "Anglos"

White English-speaking Americans are almost universally referred to as "Anglos" by Indigenous speakers whether of English, Irish, Scots, German, Scandinavian, etc. origin. It is the term that should be used in all articles about Native North Americans. The Native People of this continent don't note any difference between the atrocities committed by the English or the Scots or the Irish. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Quanah Parker District, BSA

Perhaps this should be added under Memorials and honors (?): Quanah Parker is the namesake of the Quanah Parker District, Golden Spread Council, Boy Scouts of America.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)