Talk:Yakima War

POV tag

See inline comments re POV tag. This article was created as a military-history article and shows its bias in the language used, as noted; other bits could also be noted in the same light. Native American context/language sensitivity needed before POV tag removed.

The only inline comment I see is about the phrase "on land in the path of white settlement." That doesn't seem particularly POV to me. It doesn't either attack or defend white settlement, it just indicates a major factor that brought about conflict (that and Isaac Stevens' racism, incompetence, and complete lack of fair dealing, which should be added to the article). It doesn't seem any more POV than saying that the peoples of the Danubian plain lived on the path of the Magyar invaders into Europe. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more subtle than that, and a look at some of the other Indian Wars and various tribal pages would help; as it is there doesn't happen to be much written on the Yakima and their allies in Wikipedia yet. The native account of this war isn't here much, which is why the POV tag; the 19th Century "found" the Yakama...living in the path of white settlement is more politically-charged than might first be apparent (I added the quotes on "found" to highlight the difference in perspective). From their perspective, the Yakama "found" the white man (and some Chinese and others) poking around in their traditional lands in the wake of the Oregon Treaty etc. I haven't sourced them, but I know from experience elsewhere that their account of the war and its causes will have a different overall take, and there'll probably be also specific battles described in some detail; e.g. in the case of Chief Tonasket, who yet needs an article, the History of the Okanagan People by J. Teit contains their account of related conflicts during the Spokane War (see Nicola (chief).

I'm curious about the gold finds in Yakama territory in the early 1850s - where were they? How many miners? I'm into gold rush history in BC and the rushes in Washington Territory, especially Colville, are linked to the Fraser Canyon and other BC gold rushes. As far as I know there was only a trickle of settlers and prospectors north of the Columbia until after all the various Cayuse, Yakima and Spokane Wars; there was no real flood until 1858, when news of gold on the Fraser hit California and many of those already in the Oregon Territory, or who had ridden overland via there directly from California; parties of hundreds at once then travelled the Columbia-Okanagan route to BC; but I'm unaware of large-scale gold activity south of the line (the 49th Parallel in BC parlance) before the Fraser rush - not that I know the history of the Washington Territory well at all.Skookum1 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really much gold there (or anywhere in Washington, as far as I know) just enough to get some people prospecting for it (and sometimes finding coal or other ores in the process).

Yes, this needs far more work, but if you want to reword what you find POV, why not just reword it instead of complaining? I don't particularly see anyone actively defending this near-stub. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps would be helpful

I'll see what I can dig up.Skookum1 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

made some changes; haven't fully dePOVized and needs research/revision

basically worked at changing the language/attitude of the opening, not working from sources directly but from what I know of the period; I have some here but don't have much time to do a lot as I'm moving soon and also have my hands full all over wikipedia, esp in regional history/geography, but it's a time thing; but I happened to see the page tonight and knew that old opening line about "being in teh path of white settlement" didn't sit with me well, so I added some bits and pointing towards more, ie. background on Cayuse War, for one thing, and maybe a Native American source or editor/contributor might be useful/helpful here, too. Many "Indian War" articles in their original form start out from, as it were, the cavalry side of things and wind up getting "Indian-ized" in the course of de-POVing; sometimes a tightrope and here I don't know Washington history well; my exposure to this war is the role it plays to the background of various tellings of the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and the founding of BC and the other gold rushes along the border/accessible from where most of these wars went down. What drew me tonight was the Battle of Seattle (1856) article, if I've got that title right. BTW all of these wars to do with the, ahem, dissolution of the Oregon Country's former social order into wartime chaos should still IMO be part of the Oregon Country category; this would go right up to the incorporation of BC in 1858, which was the resolution of the British territorial claim north of 49, just as thesewars and the formation of the American territories were part of it south of the line; the timeline for the Oregon Country cat doesn't quite end in 1846, is what I'm getting at, though it does vary by event and topic; the colonies of Vancouver Island and Mainland BC I put in the cat, but nothing of them after that and only articles relating to places claimed by the US, ie thatwere in the Oregon Country from the American perspective, like Fort Victoria and Fort Kamloops....OK, that's 'nuff. Made some changes, kinda pointed towards where this article might go; I'll try and read something on the war to see if the rest below where my changes are is still POV-flavoured; this and its "sister" wars need a section on what used to be the Indian Wars page, wherever that redirects now (to something with a better name, finally).Skookum1 08:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakima War v. Puget Sound War

There seems to be some confusion between the Yakima War and the Puget Sound War, notably (to me) in to which the Battle of Seattle (1856) should be assigned. Were these two separate conflicts, or merely an arbitrary division of an ongoing conflict or series of conflicts? How did the contemporaries experience it, and what do historians say? rewinn 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My somewhat lengthy response over at Talk:Puget Sound War. And yes, this article still seems in need of work. If I find the time, I'll try to help. Pfly 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Seattle is only somewhat related to either conflict. The Battle of Seattle was a Duwamish assault from Capitol Hill and Queen Anne Hill, inspired by their exclusion from Isaac's treaty offers; unlike all other major tribes, the Duwamish had been made no offer of a reservation at all, which they took to mean that the US had designs on their utter annihilation. The Duwamish therefore retaliated - although wholly unsuccessfully. Reports of Yakima or Nisqually involvement are wholly unsubstantiated, and likely the result of simple paranoia and lack of information infrastructure. --184.77.222.27 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Example of POV flavour

Still haven't taken on the rest of the article after my additions, as I need to study the war before I can rewrite any of this; but I do know phrasing such as:

General Newman S. Clarke commanded the Department of the Pacific and sent a force under Col. George Wright to deal with the recent Indian attacks.

has a strong POV flavour; "Indian attacks".....similarly what prompted by earlier edits was that the fight was over the Indians being "in the path of settlement". Many US Cavalry/Indian War-articles are like this but many have been corrected; NPOVized. Just wanted to note this one phrase as it's subtle, but it's also a good example of the reason I've left the POV tag on here for the moment. I've begun transcribing Hauka and Akrigg passages on the Yakima War btw; maybe ready later tonight or tomorrow.Skookum1 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from McGowan's War by D.J. Hauka

Just finished the first passage I'll transcribe, from Hauka's book cited on the Fraser Canyon War page. It is here. The passages from the Akriggs are much more detailed and lengthy so not sure when I'll sit down and do them; probably not today. Hauka's footnote citations may be useful and I may add them, I haven't looked at them yet; some of his footnotes are sources, other further comments on events/people mentioned.Skookum1 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Account of Yakima War by John Hopper

also on my sandbox page in transcription; I may add the Cayuse War passage that precedes it later. Hopper doesn't provide detailed cites although he has full creds/refs in the back; his style is generally colloquial/storytelling - cinematic even; his are dramatic battle accounts and give good military detail. Here's the new material. The last page needs first-over spellcheck/fix after transcripto-typing but I'm done for the night; if anyone who sees this cares to fix it or any other typos please do; note that capitalization and weird word spacing and usages are verbatim from Hopper. The profiles or Isaac Stevens and David McLoughlin are worthwhile; there is a passage elsewhere in teh same chapter about Douglas' policy and his relations with Stevens but I'll have to find it separately as it was in general terms, not next to this bit on the Yakima War. Seems like there's a number of articles this material might be useful as cite/reference for; if you happen to think of any feel free to circulate the link; the resources page is, though my sandbox, meant to be a resource for everyone.Skookum1 08:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

removed POV tag

I think the article is much improved since it was tagged and I cannot find any of the issues mentioned on this talk page that are still applicable to the article.--BirgitteSB 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've mellowed ;-) Skookum1 (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is still one of the most biased pieces on history I've ever read.

POV 1. They were in our way, massacring settlers, and refusing to sell us their land. So, we went to war.

POV 2. They invaded our country, stoled our land, murdered our people, and we fought a hopelessly to stop them.

Racially motivated mass genocide of an entire people should never be described as a "conflict" by someone trying to represent a neutral point of view in 2009. That's like saying Hitler's persecution of the Jews was a conflict because the Jews were in the way of Nazi expansion. When an Indian raid kills 17 people it was called a "massacre" yet there is not even a vague attempt to quantify the number of Indians killed although it was certainly in the thousands. I realize 150 years ago and in biased nationalist history books it was called the Cascades Massacre, but that language is purposefully designed to create bias in favor of the Indian genocide committed by the United States Army.

Any example of less overt bias, yet still a one sided version can be found on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Kamiakin. In fact, this article adds very little that isn't already in the Chief_kamiakin article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.75.223 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Terrible

(and also totally unsourced) Sorry, not sure any other way to put it. It's essentially one, big meandering conspiracy theory that does no justice to this important historical episode. I'm redoing it. It's gonna take a few days, though. BlueSalix (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yakima War. 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/20140517151921/http://washingtonhistoryonline.org/leschi/prelude/bolon-murder.htm to http://washingtonhistoryonline.org/leschi/prelude/bolon-murder.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: 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) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)