Talk:Buffalo Hump

Suggestions

Need authors for references. Need to have a consistent style for references. I do not like links such as [1] in the body of the text; make them superscripts etc.--Filll 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll I am sorry, I did not see this until today. I will have the references properly formatted by noon tomorrow. This is now, I am happy to say, the most complete article on this warrior/diplomat on the net, at least that I know of. If anyone knows of another, please let me know, so I can examine it! Thanks for your assistance. old windy bear 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To what end? I just deleted a line made up out of the blue and attributed to a source, with the point of once again "proving" all soldiers women-kids-killing butchers, all Indians noble natives.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you address the subject in any more detail? Did he have a hump on his back? Was he a prodigious killer of settlers personally or was he credited wtih any and all deaths attributed to Commanches? Did he speak english?Randal Cullen (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Should a note about his real name be included? https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/buffalo-hump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.31.56 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Council House Fight

At present, the article states that the purpose of the 1840 raid was "to get revenge on the Texans who had killed thirty members of a delegation of Comanche Chiefs when these had been under a flag of truce for negotiations." I have two points of disagreement here. First, this is inaccurate from the standpoint that, if it was "revenge" they were seeking, then the raid would have been directed at the Texas military (or at least the citizenry of San Antonio) who were involved in the Council House Fight. But instead, the raid was directed at the citizens in the countryside and in the towns of Victoria and Linnville, none of whom had anything to do with the Council House Fight. It would be more accurate to say simply that the Penateka Comanche "declared war on the Texans after the Council House Fight."

My second point of disagreement has to do with the last half of the sentence where it goes into too much detail stating that the Comanche chiefs had been under a flag of truce. It leaves the reader with the impression that the chiefs were killed unfairly and for no reason. The truth is that it was the chiefs who first went berserk in the Council House, pulling knives and stabbing several in attendance as they tried to leave the building. The shooting on the part of the Texans was, at that point, in self-defense. You could go further to say that the chiefs went berserk because they had just been informed that they would be held hostage until the white captives were returned as promised, and you could point out that the Texans should not have tried to take them hostage when they were under a flag of truce, but I could respond that the truce had only been agreed to under the condition that the Comanche would bring in the white captives as a sign of good faith, which the Comanche did not do.

In the end, you have opened a huge discussion about who was at fault in the Council House Fight, when it could have all been avoided if the implications of fault had been left out the sentence in the first place. After all, the article is about Buffalo Hump, and not about the Council House Fight. PGNormand (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a debate about what exactly happened, I agree that it would be more properly addressed in the Council House Fight article. Still, I think the basic outline of what happened there needs to be mentioned in this article, for it to flow logically.

ManicParroT (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Role in negotiating peaceful surrender of the Penateka band

The section of the article starts:

It is notable that had the Texans ever negotiated a treaty with all the Comanche where the Comancheria had been recognized, it would have stood, and led to the return of the captives that were at the heart of the Council House disaster.

This is editorial commentary or, at best, supposition, not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.21.155 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is notable that had the Texans ever negotiated a treaty with all the Comanche where the Comancheria had been recognized, it would have stood, and led to the return of the captives that were at the heart of the Council House disaster.

This is directly contradicted by the Council House Fight article which states that the Comanche there could not have released the other captives, as they were being held by other bands not under the jurisdiction of the leaders at the Council House. This statement seems like unsourced opinion added by the author of this page. Shralk (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Added images

I did a search and found several images in the commons. I decided to go ahead and add them here. I didn't find and upload them, mind you. Still, I felt like it would add to the article in a pleasant way. Handsome man, he was. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 14:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not a painting of Buffalo Hump. That is a painting of a Blackfoot chief named "Buffalo Bull's Back Fat" ([2]). The photo that is often labelled "Buffalo Hump" is controversial and many scholars don't think that's Buffalo Hump for two reasons: 1) the photo is dated 1872 and it's not a photo of a 72-year-old man, and 2) Buffalo Hump died in 1870 (not a 72-year-old dead man). There are no confirmed images (either paintings or photos) of Buffalo Hump. --Taivo (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffalo Hump. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20050711082454/http://www.gbso.net:80/Skyhawk/comanche.htm to http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630175749/http://www.historychannel.com:80/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146 to http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Buffalo Hump. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509122616/http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm to http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)