Talk:William Walker (filibuster)

Criticism

Much of the information in this article is contradicted by a biography of Walker written in 1976 by Noel Garson entitled "The Sad Swashbuckler". In general the article seems to give short shrift to the accomplishments of Walker and shows little interest or awareness of his general romantic and altruistic nature. When I attempted some extensive edits to correct what appear to be factual errors, e.g. Walker fought two major battles, not one, as this article suggests, before entering Granada in 1855, he arrived in San Francisco in June of 1850, not 1849 as the article suggests, my edits were not added. What's up with that? As it stands this article appears to have major flaws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregtodd1 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you cite your additions? 173.164.86.190 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Albert Jennings Fountain

"A reporter from the Sacramento Union, Albert Jennings Fountain, went to Nicaragua to cover Walker's adventures there. When he sent back reports that Walker was attempting to set up a slave-holding republic in Nicaragua, Walker sentenced him to death by a firing squad. He eventually escaped disguised as a woman." Lol. This was funny, but I checked out Albert Jennings Fountain briefly and saw nothing about him working at the Sacramento Union. Fake? I added a citation needed tag at least, and think it deserves closer attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.250.221 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

NOT AN EDIIT WAR?

I removed this because you state this is an "edit war" when its not lol. -24.60.161.63

More than once, an anonymous user at 24.60.161.63 has removed certain claims about Walker's filibustering (specifically, his desire to see white, english speakers running central america, and claims about beliefs held by both Walker and John Berrien Lindsley). I have no idea if these claims are correct or not, and would appreciate somebody who has access to proper source material citing it here so that we know whether or not to leave this claims in place.

In the meantime, I am going to reinstate them, both because they sound consistent with what I have read of Walker, and because the restoration will allow me to draw attention to this request. Uucp 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

24.60.161.63 tried to remove the discussion above from the talk page, and made his arbitrary edits again. Uucp 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Support for the passages questioned by 24.60.161.63 can be found, for instance, in this review of one of the books mentioned by this article as a reference: [1]. -- Eb.hoop 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed. the general incoherence, poor grammar and punctuation by 24.60.161.63, all argue against him. I will continue to revert his changes unless he can provide evidence that he is correct. If needed, I will identify him as a recidivist vandal. Uucp 12:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You know you dont need to make fun of my english! i could easily report you for what you just said that is not the wikipedia way state your facts and dont make fun of other people. Thank you.-- 24.60.161.63

I just recently entered this discussion - on response to a report on "Costa Rica Independence Day" - My only problem is the word 'filibuster.' - it carries a very different connotation than most people ascribe to Walker. He attacked several countries by his own volition, as a privateer. If he was not a terrorist, he was certainly committing inernational piracy at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the unsourced claim that Walker was a terrorist. Simply referencing a dictionary definition of terrorist and making your own determination that Walker fits the definition is nothing but Original Research. If you want to claim that he is a terrorist, find a Reliable Source that says so. As far as the use of the word "filibuster", this is the most common term applied, both during the time period and by historians writing about the time period. I did leave out the term "adventurer". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a CIA propaganda tool.

Photo of Walker's tombstone

Apart from the fact that a tombstone doesn't really tell much about the person that is buried unter it - what's that young grinning guy doing there behind the fence? This is an encyclopedia, not a personal photo album. If Mr. Scott Raine has achieved enough to receive his own article here, he'll be pictured (preferably without a tombstone), until then, I say: out with him. --Bernardoni (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a CIA propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.166.67 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about, schizo-boy? CIA? lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

what?

marvelous story. i really enjoyed reading it. except for the fact that william walker was killed as ruler of nicaragua by an inquisition of other latin american countries. besides that small detail... dude, you're an amazing liar. you should be an author. maybe start a religion or something. but stay off wikipedia, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.245.71 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements, nonreliable sources, original research

The present first reference, "William Walker, 1824-1860, genealogy GenForum" does not remotely qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and should be removed and replaced by a reliable source. I will leave it for the present so that what is stated there can be looked at by anyone wishing to find books or journal articles to suppoert the statements. Many statements in the article lack an inline reference, so I have tagged them as needing citations., They might be suppoprted by some reference appearing elsewhere in the article. Any statements claiming that some fictional character was "based on " the real William Walker need a reliable source, and should be removed if such a source cannot be found. "William Walker" is a very common name now and was in the 19th century. Edison (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC) ---On that note, who the hell is Scroggs? That source is listed as the MAIN citation for the article, but all we ever get is the last name and some page numbers...not exactly what I'd call credible. 128.239.184.179 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Found Scroggs; it's this book. William O. Scroggs, Filibusters and Financiers: The Story of William Walker and His Associates (1916). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.40.113 (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

Hello, this description reads: ...Born in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 8th, in the year 1832, he received a European education and studied medicine, which profession... In case someone might be interested to read. Lotje (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"William Walker (soldier" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect William Walker (soldier has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § William Walker (soldier until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Walker said to have discovered ruins of a city in Death Valley 1850

"Numerous evidence of Pre-Historic Nuclear War exists: Columns of Smoke Rose as if from a Mighty Furnace" by Brad Steiger details how Walker found a ruined city in Death Valley that was "vitrified" as if struck by intense (nuclear bomb blast?) heat.

see https://wutangcorp.com/forum/showthread.php?48126-Reflections-on-Worlds-Before-Our-Own

Where Walker recorded this find is not stated.

But I thought it was worth at least putting out there for other investigators to look into if interested.

68.150.205.46 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)