Talk:Sam Houston and Native American relations

Expand to other tribes, perhaps rename article to include them?

Alabama–Coushatta Tribe of Texas

See Alabama–Coushatta Tribe of Texas. Also Margaret Lea Houston - Extended family life

"Many friends and acquaintances came to visit the Houstons at Woodland, including members of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe who had allied with Houston during the Texas Revolution; he in return had assisted them in their being granted a reservation in east Texas."

<ref name=AStribe>{{cite web|title=History|url=http://www.alabama-coushatta.com/History/TribalHistory.aspx|website=Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas' Website|access-date=April 24, 2016}}</ref>

I am not finding a source for "Many friends and acquaintances came to visit the Houstons at Woodland" and the TribalHistory link gets a Page Not Found error message. But I found info at this link, so the wording that I added to the article is based upon this link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Alabama-Coushatta and the Runaway Scrape -"Although the Alabamas and Coushattas did not participate militarily in the war, they were generous in their efforts to feed and care for settlers who passed through their villages in the Runaway Scrape." While Republic of Texas president Mirabeau B. Lamar wanted to either remove hostile tribes from Texas, or conduct a campaign of complete Genocide to wipe the off the earth. Except the Alabama-Coushatta. "Lamar expressed friendship toward these two tribes, requested White settlers in the Trinity River area to respect their rights, and appointed an agent to assist them in their relations with their neighbors. Furthermore, in 1840—during Lamar's administration—the Republic of Texas Congress granted each of these two tribes two leagues of land." Some confusion existed between Lamar's intent and the resulting incidents, but the tribes abandoned the land, and white settlers moved in. They were granted their own reservation by the Texas legislature (1958-59).

"Gen. Sam Houston also planned to utilize the fighting ability of the Alabamas and Coushattas in the Texas Revolution. Early in 1836 Houston's army was retreating eastward across Texas, pursued by the Mexican army under Santa Anna. Many Texas settlers fled toward the Sabine River in this "Runaway Scrape." As the revolutionary army marched toward San Jacinto, Houston sent a delegation to ask the Alabamas and Coushattas for assistance. The tribes could provide about 250 warriors, and this group was the only noncommitted fighting force with any chance to arrive at San Jacinto in time to participate in the impending battle. The delegation dispatched by General Houston to negotiate for the services of the Alabamas and Coushattas arrived at Long King's Village several days before the battle of San Jacinto. The delegation brought a message from Houston and tried to persuade the Indians to join the army. While the discussions were proceeding, the battle of San Jacinto was fought, and the services of the Indians were no longer needed by the Texas army. Although the Alabamas and Coushattas did not participate militarily in the war, they were generous in their efforts to feed and care for settlers who passed through their villages in the Runaway Scrape."

References

I am not sure if this is chunk is new - but that's helpful, too. Sorry I missed the Alabama–Coushatta Tribe of Texas from earlier and I will look over this section as well. It's been a crazy week for me and my head has been pretty foggy. I appreciate the feedback.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't put in the part that they didn't do. I added this to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Other

Throughout the last years of his presidency, Houston had made numerous efforts for the Republic to find common ground with the various tribes, asserting their right to own land. Many tribes had come to respect him as their friend.

<ref>Haley (2004), pp. 300–400; Crane (1884), (Part II Indian Talks) pp. 334–348; {{cite web|title=Minutes of Council at the Falls of the Brazos, October 7, 1844|url=https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/indian/war/brazos-1844-1.html|publisher=Texas State Library Archives Commission|access-date=April 17, 2016}}; Seale (1992), pp. 144–146; {{cite web|title=Sam Houston House|url=http://focus.nps.gov/GetAsset?assetID=b02d7cb7-8309-4f43-818c-c849d1896bbb|website=National Register Digital Assets|publisher=National Park Service|access-date=March 26, 2016}}</ref>"

 Done Added to Republic of Texas (1836–1838; 1841–1844) section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I recall what I read when researching the above, Margaret Lea was not comfortable around the Native Americans, but she did the best she could to be hospitable, because it was so important to Sam. I think when it came to his relationships with Native Americans, he identified as being one of them, and the feeling was mutual. Individual tribes trusted Houston.

— Maile (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Margaret may have been afraid, but I know for sure that Nancy was very afraid of Native Americans from their pioneer days in Alabama. And, it was said that she was so afraid that it extended to her family members and enslaved people.

I understand. I think that because of his work with the Cherokee, he became known for his support and negotiation skills - so he helped others as well. I like the focus on the Cherokee because he was adopted into the tribe, lived as a Cherokee, and found refuge there. I think it's very different than helping to negotiate for a tribe.

That said, though, just because that's my train of thought, it doesn't mean that it's the right focus for this article. What do you think the article should be named?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know. "Sam Houston and Native American relations"? This man was a very complicated individual. Given the era, Texas was often awash in cultural clash bloodshed. I do know that the Alabama–Coushatta Tribe wanted nothing to do with the white man's war called the Civil War. But the Confederacy started drafting them into their military. Houston stepped in and got that practice stopped. I wonder what else is out there about Houston and his "Indian-at-heart-passing-as-a-white-man" history. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Maile66, I see that Carlstak has said he has an interest in Sam Houston, too. I am open to whatever the two of you might come up with for the scope of the article and its title.

I would really like to work on Tiana's info and if anyone wants to work on any other sections, that would be fun.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed Carlstak has joined us. Here's looking forward their joining the team. The more input, the better. I will go along with whatever the two of you agree on. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sam Houston and Native Americans would greatly expand the scope of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, for the welcome, friends. I must warn you that I am consumed with other WP matters, and I'm about to resume a work project that will leave me with little energy to spare, but I'll do my best to help. I am a multi-ethnic native of Texas, and I've seen a family Bible that records an ancestor coming from Missouri to Texas in 1832, so we have history there. I understand that we are related to the Parker family, which Quanah Parker's mother was born into. I think expanding the article scope to "Sam Houston and Native Americans" is a great idea—one of my great grandmothers was Cherokee. Carlstak (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That is really interesting! Thanks for sharing that.

I just noticed that Maile offered Sam Houston and Native American relations earlier. I think that's better.

Understood re: other obligations and WP projects.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Sam Houston and Native American relations" is better. Carlstak (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, great! Since it was Maile's suggestion, I am guessing we are all in agreement. I am nearing the end of the edits to the John Jolly article and will work on moving the article when I am done with that, unless someone beats me to the punch.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. I haven't delved into Haley for years, but maybe there's other interactions between Houston and the Native Americans that's buried in history somewhere. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done finished the move and group Cherokee specific happenings in their own section. Lots more to come in this article, though, that will also likely change the section headings and groups, but it's a start. Feel free to change if you see a better way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Also source

Also, on the Internet Archive, you might find this 600-700 page book full of useful tidbits:

• Crane, William Carey (1884). Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

Chapter V "Life Among thee Indians" pp.39-45

This is what Margaret had compiled from his personal papers after he died. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Very cool! I will look at it. John Jolly's article needed to be beefed up more to be a meaningful link from this article, so I'm off on a short side-track.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Checkin

@Maile66 and Carlstak: I am starting with the Crane source now, Maile.

I would say that I am between 80 to 90% done at the point, and haven't done a read-through for copy edits yet. It would be good to get your take if see big holes in the article or other issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What about his relations with tribes other than the Cherokee, specifically the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas? — Maile (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought I sent a reply last night but I must have closed the tab it was on. I won't be able to do much right away, but when I get a chance I'll take a look. I'd like to jump right in, but it sounds like you guys have a little more work to do, so probably best anyway. It's a great topic. Carlstak (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the feedback I needed. I will look for the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe.

I just did a query and it seems like I should also specifically look for more about Sam Houston and the Osage, Creek generally, Kickapoo, Apache, Comanche, Choctaw, and Seminole. Would that cover it?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed "They were pivotal in the capture of San Antonio in 1813"

@CaroleHenson: I see you got that wording from "Alabama-Coushatta Tribe History". www.alabama-coushatta.com. They specifically say it was April 1, 1813. Not being familiar with that exact skirmish, I went looking through Wikipedia. It's not the Battle of Medina that happened in August 1813, which is also the only thing of that year listed for Timeline of San Antonio. If we can't tie it in to a Wikipedia article, maybe we should leave that sentence out. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Maile66, From your comment, I am guessing that you did not see this edit on the talk page. This helps explain why the verbiage is different than what you provided.

I made this edit regarding the Battle of Alazan Creek. How does that seem now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I see now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd laugh ... but ...

Apparently, the Handbook of Tennessee if written by volunteers, who don't have to verify anything. I don't believe you're using it as a source anywhere. But, I found this part of Houston's bio therein a bit of a fantasy:

"Humiliated, he resigned the governorship and fled the state in disguise to join his Cherokee friends, by then resettled in Indian Territory in today’s Oklahoma. There, near the border with Mexican Texas, Houston took an Indian bride, became a trader and Cherokee citizen, drank, and fantasized about freeing Texas and becoming a millionaire. Fronting for New York financiers engaged in Texas land speculation, Houston crossed the Sabine River and settled in Texas in late 1832. He established a law practice in Nacogdoches, dabbled in politics, and plotted rebellion against Mexico." Seriously, among other things, I don't think Texas millionaires existed in that century. Also, I think Houston was a Cherokee citizen before he was Governor of Tennessee. Talk about an unreliable source.— Maile (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 It's not written in an objective tone, that's for sure. It's kind of soapy (soap opera like). I think it's weird that his second wife was called a Native American, when she was 1/16th Cherokee and the rest European. I have seen other sources write the events pretty similar to this.

I have been thinking about GA for this and the article about slavery and am thinking it sounds good. I have had two diagnoses identified the treatment is making a huge difference in my life and thinking and memory -- so I plan on nominating them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

HOORAY! I'll be glad to help out with any reviews, if need be. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated both articles. Your help would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I put both on my watch list. Hope that works, while no reviewer has even started. I've also put your talk page on my watch list. One or the other should pop up when somebody starts a review. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Maile66, Excellent, thanks! I really appreciate that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment on sources

I saw this article as a GA nominee, and I think it is a good shape, but has quite a few Short citations (Sfn) errors. There are various instances where "Gregory 1996" is misspelled as "Greogry 1996". Another is "James 1930" and "Haley 2004", which doesn't point to any other citation (are the years correct?) "Seale 1992" doesn't has any citation cited, therefore doesn't point to any citation. Rest, the article is pretty solid. I would have fixed the errors myself, but some issues need clarification, that's why I mentioned them here. Suggesting you to import this script (User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js) to catch similar errors. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Took care of Haley 2004. That was my blooper. Also took care of the Seale and Gregory sources. I changed James 1930 to James 1988. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 Thanks so much! It seems like that takes care of all the issues. Is that right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I installed both of the above scripts on my common.js, and no other errors show. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything seems fine now. Best of luck moving ahead with GA (and possible FAC!) Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Crane source

Carlstak, Thanks so much for your recent edits to the article!

In the edit summary for this edit, you stated not sure how reliable Crane's 1884 book is as it is more hagiography than biography, with cringe-worthy statements like "His knowledge of Indian character became complete. His sway over the savage mind was powerful.)

In terms of addressing this:

• I will go over some of the places were Crane was used as a source and where possible, replace it with a more recent source.
• I will look for content that comes from Crane that seems biased and remove it.
• Do you think that remaining content - unique to Crane - should be removed (e.g., quote about his reaction to being found by his brothers, info about his relationships with the Cherokee)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carole, I wouldn't say that a biography written in 1884 is necessarily unusable, but excessively flowery language to praise the subject is a red flag, especially when it makes what any competent modern historian would regard as egregious racist statements. I would keep cites of Crane to a minimum, and read the text very closely, especially those parts pertaining to Houston's relationships with the Cherokee. I'll try to find time to go over the article this weekend; better to address these issues now than in the middle of a GA review. Carlstak (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Carlstak, Absolutely! I will keep that in mind. I am going to be busy until later today, but I am going to follow Haley (and perhaps Gregory and Williams) for the events mentioned by Crane - and reword the content based upon what is in that source (rather than searching for words / content from Crane, which seems to just be getting me 19th century sources). Thanks for your input, it's really helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Porter Academy/Marysville Academy

Just a quick search of what that school might be:

• {:{cite news |last1=Stewart |first1=Matthew |title=‘Evolving’ Porter Academy Museum opens to public |url=https://www.thedailytimes.com/news/evolving-porter-academy-museum-opens-to-public/article_1db13cfb-61ee-5877-b2f3-0120cd8b0eb4.html%7Clocation=Maryville, Tennessee |access-date=14 August 2021 |work=The Daily Times |issue=Sep 20, 2014}}

"Its students included Sam Houston, later governor of Texas, the Rev. Isaac Anderson, founder of Maryville College."

• {:{cite news |title=Porter name predates the public schools |url=https://www.thedailytimes.com/z_hub_styles/mdt_special/porter-name-predates-the-public-schools/article_06db05f2-052f-520a-8c77-1517c63da89c.html |access-date=14 August 2021 |work=The Daily Times |date=May 9, 2018 |location=Maryville, TN |language=en}}

— Maile (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Maile66, Great. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Houston Mayes

Have we mentioned this man's name somewhere already? Don't know if you want to squeeze in Samuel Houston Mayes, but I found it interesting this man was Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Indian Territory, and named after our Sam Houston. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Maile66, that would be good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

About the lede

As you can see, I've consolidated paragraphs in the lede to conform with style for GAs and FAs. I think the last is a little long, and possibly should be split, but I didn't want to remove any of the information. I personally have nothing against longer ledes, but a reviewer might make an issue of it. I'll leave it to Carole to decide if she wants to trim any of it (I don't really think it's necessary). Carlstak (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I reread the lede and I don't see anything either that I would like to cut. I am happy to wait for the GA review and see if there are any specific suggestions for the lede.

Thanks for thinking about it, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Houston's second term as President of Texas

The Republic of Texas (1836–1838; 1841–1844) section has a short description of the administration of Mirabeau Lamar, who served as president of Texas from December 10, 1838 to December 13, 1841. The second term of Houston as president (1841–1844) isn't covered at all. This needs to be fixed. Carlstak (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, right off hand, from Margaret Lea Houston's page:

Events leading up to the 1842 Battle of Salado Creek caused Houston to believe that Mexico was planning a full-scale invasion to re-take Texas. In response, he moved the Republic's capital farther east to Washington-on-the-Brazos,"The Capitals of Texas". Texas Almanac. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved March 26, 2016.

• Crane, William Carey (1884). Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co. - Chapters XIV to XVII (pp. 139-174) are about his second term as President.

This book also appears to be in its entirely available at Wikisource:Life and select literary remains of Sam Houston of Texas — Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time to write the needed material at the moment. I'm sure Carole can handle it, or you could compose something, Maile66. I don't think the article needs another cite of Crane; he's a dubious source, in my opinion. Carlstak (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Crane is not a dubious source. He was president of Baylor University, and hired by Margaret Lea after Houston died, with complete unfettered access, to all of Houston's records, to write the book. My word, if he is not a reliable source on Houston, no one on the planet is. It's all there in minute detail. Haley, as well as many of Houston's biographers, used Crane as one of their reliable sources. You want to know what Houston did as President of the Republic of Texas ... well, these are the records of those administrations. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I very much disagree. Being part (one-eighth) Cherokee myself, and part Choctaw too, I think Crane's work is disgustingly patronizing of Native Americans (or "Indians", as my relatives prefer to call themselves). And please don't tell me he was a product of his times. William Bartram, for example, wrote about his travels among the southeastern native peoples more than a century earlier, and described them and their ways of life in respectful, appreciative, non-patronizing, and non-paternalistic terms. Much of Crane's florid writing wildly exaggerates the attributes of his subject, Houston, and with words such as these he wrote of the Indians as if they exercised no agency of their own. Please excuse my language, but he makes me want to retch.

Also, Baylor was co-founded by Robert Emmett Bledsoe Baylor, who "[i]n the 1850's... was an influential leader in the xenophobic and white nativist Texas Know Nothing Party and was named the Texas Know Nothing Party's "Grand President." During the Civil War, Baylor supported the Confederacy and the grounds of Baylor University, then in Independence, were used as a training and staging ground for the Confederate Army." His WP article continues "In his role as a judge, he once punished an abolitionist harboring an escaped slave. Another man was punished for not returning a borrowed slave promptly. In 1854, Judge Baylor sentenced a slave to hang for arson. In 1856, he ordered the execution of yet another slave. In 1857, he levied a heavy fine on a white person who bought some bacon from a slave. And in 1862, as the Civil War raged, he ordered the execution of a slave for "intent to rape a white female". Baylor was not an admirable figure, to say the least.

I just read one of the sources for that WP article, which uses a good bit of info from an editorial in the Waco Tribune-Herald, which has this to say: "Today these conflicting actions strike many of us as un-Christian. But Judge Baylor was not alone in his thinking. Eleven of Baylor’s first 15 trustees were slave holders. All of the university’s first buildings (in the community of Independence, 112 miles south of Waco, site of Baylor University’s first 41 years) were built by slave labor.

At the start of the Civil War, 151 male students, along with many faculty members, enlisted in the Confederate Army. Males who didn’t enlist were given military training on campus, which became a staging facility for transitioning soldiers. During the war, Baylor’s president, William Carey Crane, declared: "I would make no terms with the Yankees. We have no right to free our slaves. God has placed them in their present condition for the African race and it is our duty to contend for it to the bitter end." So there's your fine source, and his fine, upstanding university. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: That editorial was written by A. Christian van Gorder, who teaches world religions at Baylor. People and institutions can improve themselves, and become something better, but I don't think Crane ever renounced his racism. I believe he remained a racist to "the bitter end". Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I will work on something about his second term as president of the Republic of Texas.

In my opinion, I think it's best to use a modern historian or author where possible. It's not unusual to find racism and overly-flowery text in 19th century sources - so I will be looking for late 20th century or early 21st century sources for this content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go, Carole. As I said, I don't think Crane is necessarily unusable as a source, but he should be used sparingly with his more matter-of-fact content, rather than paraphrasing his flights of overblown subjective language as if it were straight-up factual information. Not all 19th century historians wrote in his grotesque style, and there's no good reason we should treat racist writing as actual history. Carlstak (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is trying to use "racist writing", but generally it's best to use solid modern sources where events have been worked out by historians. I like to look at contemporaneous sources because they sometimes have interesting information or details.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know by now, I've added material on Houston's second term as governor of the Republic. It could certainly use more content—one short paragraph is inadequate to cover his terms as a U.S. Senator, and won't pass muster for a GA article; at least it wouldn't if I were reviewing it.;-) Section definitely needs more content, and there is plenty of source material to draw from. I'll work on it as time allows. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean only as it pertains to Native Americans? — Maile (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As an example, Marquis James' biography of Houston has this passage:

"Senator Houston cited a factor not mentioned elsewhere in the debates. What provision would be made for the forty thousand Indians inhabitating [sic] the domain in question? He made a plea for them, although with "little hope that any appeal I can make for the Indians will do any good." Nor was this the last time that The Raven detained an impatient Senate with his eloquence to ask justice for "a race of people whom I am not ashamed to say have called me brother."

His conclusion was brief. The symbolic eagle above the chair of the presiding officer was draped in black for Webster and Clay. Must this badge of woe also represent "a fearful omen of future calamities which await our nation in event this bill should become a law? . . . I adjure you, harmonize and preserve this nation. . . . Give us peace!" Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree with you. I am not necessarily familiar with Houston's legislative details, but I think you are correct that his record as it applies to Native American issues needs to be included. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers

I am using the printed page numbers from the book, versus the higher number that shows up in search results. For instance, I returned "8" back to the page number for the hell and damnation info here. So, that means if there's something in the introductory pages (before page 1), I use the page numbers there, like vii.

Is there a reason to use the physical page count, vs. printed page numbers?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I am going to be gone most of the day, but "I'll be back".–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia has any dictates about the page numbering system. But, I generally use the page number as it appears in the book page itself, as opposed to how the Host (Google books, Project Muse, etc.) numbers it on their online display of same. I'm thinking how it numbers on the host system might vary from Host to Host, depending on their equipment. Some of the hosting sites don't use page numbers at all, just one continuous scroll. If that makes sense. — Maile (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall the printed page numbers from the book not corresponding to the page number shown in the search result, but Archive.org recently made technical changes to the UI that I don't like, so that may explain it. I always, or always intend to, use the actual number shown on the printed page, except in this case I was in a hurry and didn't bother to look at the actual printed page rather than the page number given for the text shown in the search results. Their new interface seems buggy. I hope I haven't done this in other citations unawares.;-) Carlstak (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio at Archive.org = |url=https://archive.org/stream/onairencyclop00dunn#page/n9/mode/2up is an example. What is actually Page 1 in the book, shows up at the bottom scroll as "(22 of 848)". The reason in this case, is because the scan reads "Page 1 of ..." on what is the actual book cover. The following blank pages are counted as page numbers also. I don't notice this phenomenon on a lot of Archive.org books, but sometimes it does. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is that I never noticed this behavior with the old search function interface. It's possible that I somehow missed it, but I'm blaming it on the changed UI because I don't like it anyway. Engineers just can't leave things that already work well alone, and they're always looking for things to change for the "better".;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that there can be three different page numbers: what is on the printed page, the page number in the url (like https://archive.org/details/lifeselectlitera00cran/page/18/mode/2up), and what comes up in the search results. They aren't always three different numbers, but I have seen cases where there are three different numbers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

All the more reason to use the page number as it appears in the book page. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I will say that the url often didn't correspond to the print page number even with the old interface, but it never bothered me. As you know, using the print page number eliminates all confusion, and I simply made an error through haste. Carlstak (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Just so that we're all on the same page. (oh, a pun!)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Image of Houston by Mathew Brady

1861 Sam Houston by Mathew Brady

The William Henry Huddle colored painting of this same image is on Sam Houston and slavery

Is this pattern on Houston's blanket of Native American origin? — Maile (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure about this specific portrait, but in this journal article, it says that Houston used to wear a Navajo blanket over his shoulders when he was in the Senate. Into the Fray: Sam Houston's Utah War on page 207.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back, Carole. I found this :

"An oral tradition has persisted among some Latter-day Saints about Sam Houston’s meeting with George A. Smith and John M. Bernhisel. Although some facts seem exaggerated, the basic story possesses a note of truth. According to one version of the story, Smith and Houston became fast friends:

The two old men then laid down on the floor with a pillow under their heads and laid on the back of chairs and went on talking . . . After General Houston and President Smith had been talking a little while President Smith became cold . . . whereupon General Houston got a parcel which he had and took a Navajo Blanket out of the parcel and put it over his shoulders and again went on talking . . . General Houston was always a great friend to the West and remained a friend to the Mormon people up to the time of his death."

Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's lovely! Thanks.

Glad to be back!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you okay?

Hi Carole, are you okay? We haven't heard from you in a while, and I see your last edit was made on August 18. You mentioned some physical problems you were having previously. Carlstak (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I have been busy with medical appointments and treatments out of town. Thanks for asking. Things should settle down in two weeks or so. I am getting much better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you, Carole. I was getting worried.:-) Carlstak (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been sitting on the edge, also, wondering where you are. Part of me figured you were busy in RL, and I did see an edit of yours around the end of August. Whatever your situation is, I wish you good health and a long life. In regards to GAC, between the two of you, I can imagine this article easily passing that review. FAC might be a bit more lengthy and nitpicky, but possibly only if a participant over there has some insight - or curiosity - about the subject matter. For all the honors bestowed on Houston during and after his life, he must have been one of the most complicated persons in that time period. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am doing well and looking forward to getting back to writing. I think this article is much better and I will take a quick spin though the article and previous issues in this talk session... and then work on the SH and slavery article.

FAC is new for me. I am not sure what specifically makes an FAC article better than a GA.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Easily answered by looking at the criteria. GA is the easiest process to pass, far easier than DYK, but any drive-by new editors can do one of those if they so choose. Both of those reviews are usually done by a lone reviewer. Good article criteria only has 6 points that are covered in a review. By comparison, DYK has the most complicated and nitpicking two pages of criteria WP:DYKR and WP:DYKSG. WP:FAC is the zenith of reviews, and requires multiple reviewers to pass. Don't be intimidated by that, as most reviewers are benign. The FAC people are the experts in that way, the ultimate prep for appearance in the arguably most eye-catching slot on the main page. You might get some slap-dash drive-by comments from newbies, but not to worry about that. — Maile (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot that FAC's are worked by a number of reviewers. That helps clarify things.

I have performed lots (and have been subject to) DYK and GA reviews and for me, GAs take me a lot more time and are much more detailed. I like DYK's because it attracts attention that helps spruce the articles up. And, GA's really make articles shine brighter in my opinion. FAC is a whole different level, and have intimidated me. This might be the time to get over that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sam Houston and Native American relations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

---

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) at 22:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, If you can give me a day or so, I would be happy to go through some of your comments from the Talk:Sam Houston and slavery/GA1 like: commas, duplicate links, reference date format, ensure that there is a short description, add alt text to images, capitalization, etc.—and modify this article accordingly before your review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, ping me/leave a message on my talk page whenever we are ready. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I finished some editing and clean-up of the article. I hope that it makes it much easier to review. It was good to come back fresh, because the article really needed some copy editing. No hurry.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): } It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

General

• Suggesting to take a look at this review, and resolve any similar outstanding concerns in this article as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I did use that review for all the edits that I made... as mentioned above. Is there something in particular that you think I missed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, you did a fine job! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The script says: "No duplicated links were detected". Thats great!

Yay!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Detailed

• We start the article directly from "Samuel Houston first lived among the Cherokee as a teenager.". An introductory sentence would better serve that purpose. Also, specify in which year did he left his house.

I took a stab here. What do you think? If it is faster-easier to make copy edits directly, I am cool with that... or leave comments here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• a U.S. congressman from Tennessee, — remove 'U.S.'

I was trying to distinguish US congressman from state congressman. Is there a better way to do that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think if someone is a "congressman from Tennessee", he definitely is in the U.S. Congress. If he is a state representative, that would be congressman in Tennessee. But this is something which may confuse few readers. I'll leave it upto you. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I like the "from" and "in" distinction - makes sense to me - plus the first instance with United States. I also changed one instance of "United States government" to "federal government" here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• and lived, talked, and dressed like other members of the tribe — is there a better way of saying so?

How is this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Houston asserting the right of Native Americans to own land. — should be 'asserted'

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• a United States senator — can remove 'United States'

 Done - good point, it's in the section heading.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• 1,280-acre — suggesting to use {{convert}} for km^2

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The 5-paragraphed lead is pretty long.

I trimmed 400 bytes from the lede here and made it 3 vs. 5 paragraphs. How is that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the current lead section looks fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• ten miles, 619-acre — suggesting to use {{convert}}

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• According to Haley, — We have not yet been introduced to this distinguished gentleman.

He is the author that is cited for that content. Is that a problem? If so, we have a couple of changes to the Sam Houston and slavery article. I hope that doesn't come off snarky, just wondering if you had not noticed that he was the cited author. A solution, though, if you want to be clearer is to say something like: "According to biographer James L. Haley,"... What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no issue in citing his opinion, the reader just needs to be informed who he is and why his opinion matters. I see that James L. Haley is an author specialized in Texas history. Maybe just mentioning and linking his full name would be sufficient. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done changed it to "According to Texas historian James L. Haley,"–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• (southwest) — fine without parenthesis as well

 Done I tend to put content in parenthesis if it 1) did not come from the source and 2) is very easily discerned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• John Jolly (various instances) — Remove the first name

 Done –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• "one of the largest...finest homes in the South." — add {{nbsp}} before the ellipsis, and a space after it.

 Done –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• These experiences helped shape his character and gave him skills that aided him while serving in the military and as a leader — we'll need attribution as to who believes this.

Added the authors full name, but happy to adjust depending upon your response to the "According to Haley" bullet above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See my reponse above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Andrew Jackson (various instances) — remove the first name

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• unbecoming of an officer in the United States Army. — I'd remove 'United States'

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• a U.S. congressman — same as above

 Done - agreed, not needed for the 2nd+ instances

• Captain John Rogers — Captain should be piped out of the link

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• They aimed to live like successful white people. — according to whom?

 Done, again - used full name will modify to include author, biographer, etc. if you think that is helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is helpful. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• how the United States government operated — remove US

There is nothing so far in this section to identify that he was working with the federal vs. state government. Do you think it will be clear that national / United States government is what is being referred to?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case, better keep it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• likely because of his drinking and volatile behavior. — can remove this. It is just a speculation.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• neither of whom had issue — ?

 Done. Changed "issue" to "children".–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• "might indeed look to this, as a land of happiness and contentment. But until suitable Agents are sent to them, then can only regard this as the land of promises; where fraud will supplant faith, and injustice triumph over humanity". — we'll need a citation immediately after this quote.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• that the United States government was — remove US

 Done Good point, order from the president over a national issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• December 2, 1832 — comma after 1932

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Mention that Houston became the president of the Republic of Texas.

 Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Many tribes thus came to respect him as their friend. — Citation overkill

 Done Yep. I broke out two sources from the five, with their own sentences, leaving 3 sources as a group here. How is that for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Forbes and Cameron — comma after 'Forbes'

Better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• (That this included Buffalo Hump, after the events at the Council House, showed the faith the Comanche had in Houston.) — better as a end footnote?

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• In February 1846, the Texas legislature elected Houston as one two inaugural U.S. senators from the state. — apparently, it appears as if a word is missing here.

 Done - fixed to "one of two"–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it. An article in much, much better condition! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

• File:Sam Houston, the Cherokee citizen.jpg — If the author is Unknown, how can we say that "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer"?

Where to you think this needs to be mentioned? I think I misunderstood what you wanted done on the Sam Houston and slavery article - and you fixed it, but I didn't catch what you did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I misunderstood and struck out my first take on this. The work is from 1830, which is 191 years ago. If the artist was 20 years old when the work was made, he or she was born about 1810, which was 211 years ago. 70 years from 2021 is 1951, if 20 at the time the work was made, they would have to lived 141 years for there to be an issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And that is practically impossible. Fine with it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Suggesting to scale up few maps to improve their readability. Use the |upright= parameter

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• File:Half-length portrait of Sam Houston, Senator from Texas (cropped).jpg — Mention on the image page the author's death date.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• An image is lacking ALT text.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• If possible, can we replace these two sources by more reliable ones?

• https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=73125

• How about substituting this one Wright, Muriel H. (Muriel Hazel); Shirk, George H.; Franks, Kenny Arthur (1976). "Mark of Heritage". The Gateway to Oklahoma History. Retrieved 4 January 2022.

• https://txarchives.org/utcah/finding_aids/00695.xml

That is it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh - Above, I've suggested a substitute for the hmdb source. But I'm puzzled why you don't consider the other one reliable. It's the Briscoe Center at the University of Texas at Austin. They literally are the archives for the actual documents. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with substituting replacement for the first one. As for the second one, no issues, I am all-in-all fine with that one also. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, then I'll just let CaroleHenson have a look and make a substitute of that one, if she agrees that's what she wants. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, for the source Maile66. I updated the source in two places. Do you know if it covers the content for the two places it's used? If you are not sure, that's ok. I can look at it tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like a really good source for the content, with Kreneck. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for another thorough review, Kavyansh.Singh. I really appreciate it.

I tackled what I was clear about, but there are some items above where I have questions for you. Nothing is major for me, I just thought it would be helpful to get your input and/or direction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied above. Thanks for you work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, I finished making edits based upon your reply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Gave the article another read, and it is looking good. Passing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much again, Kavyansh.Singh!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a pleasure reading and learning about Sam Houston! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (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.