Talk:Kit Carson/Archive 2

The reference for this is www.coloradohistory.org. Permission obtained. Richiar 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Further documentation: permission obtained a second time from Mary Ann McNair, Coordinator of Education, Colorado Historical Society, on this date, at 2pm, per phone conversation. ph: (303) 866-3682. If you need further clarification, call her. Richiar 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• See "A Truly Decent Chap"

Richiar (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

first off thank you for adding my great great great grand father to your list of famous people. it means a lto to me and my family. secondly, i am indeed related to the one and only kit carson. i am a blood decsendent. i carry his blood in my vains wcich i think is the coolest thing ever. umm thats about it thanks again.

Plain and simple, Kit Carson was an Indian killer. The public media and many history writers have glamorized his actions and campaigns to fit the American "Wild West" image. Ask any native American in the Taos area and vicinity and he is reviled and hated. In fact a favorite pastime of many locals is to spit on his grave. That's probaly why they built a fence around his grave and now charge admission to see it. 61.67.119.135 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As of Jan 1st 2007, this is article is just an opinion by the user names above. FALSE, I have the facts Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I do not have the time to fight him. Your problem, not mine Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Kit Carson's image does not accurately the misery he brought to the Navajo. A twisted falsehood that ignores the MISERY the Navajo brought to the citiznes of the Territory of New Mexico, including several other Indian tribes. Cazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Cazedessus WILL delete anything bad about him. No, only anything that is falseCazedessus (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

false, I only delete lies and distortions. And so what, some lunatic at Wiki simply deletes my corrections and the lies and distortions are reposted. Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

if this is true...grow up Caze.--Count Mall 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

--and if it is not true..what, grow down?Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a couple of negative incidents I've read of, and they are intact here. For example, the SF revenge killing at Fremont's orders (added a reference for this). --Deangup (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Let's be clear, I can read of "a couple of negative incidents" of anyone who ever lived. For instance, because General Patton slapped a soldier, Patton's entire career is dismissed?Cazedessus (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. If I had "taken over" the Wiki article on Kit Carson, it would not have the lies and destortions

that it now has. Since it DOES have many "lies and distortions", clearly, I have NOT 'taken it over."Cazedessus (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Working here in the Wiki catacombs reminds me of being interviewed by the Spanish Inquisition, or the Gestapo, or anyone who is in absurd denial of details that can be demonstrated to be facts.Every correction that I have posted about Kit has been deleted, with no explanation. I wonder why? Creepy. Cazedessus (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I don't consider personal rants that belong on the talk page to be "corrections", and will revert them despite excessively dramatic analogies. Furthermore, if you equate having edits on Wikipedia reverted with being dragged from your family, tortured and being put to death, you need to take a break from using it. Immediately. - Vianello (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this article suggests Carson's previous two wives. The first wive's name was Waa-nibe, and Arapaho Indian. the tow had one daughter named Adeline. Waa-nibe died after a while. Carson's second wife was named Making-out-Road, she was a Cheyenne Indian.They had no children, but she stayed with him for a short period of time, then left him. Can someone put this in for me? thanks! I found this in this website: 70.170.93.169 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Kit Carson, but the text of the article right now gives the same name (with a spelling variation) for his first two wives. It also says that each marriage produced a daughter named Adeline. Surely this is not correct??? Other than raising it here, I don't know how to highlight what seems a pretty glaring error in the article.72.83.247.43 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I requested permission from the corporate office in Salt Lake City to use that information.Haven't heard back from them yet. If I do, I'll add it. Richiar 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

KIT CARSON & HIS THREE WIVES, A Family History, by Marc Simmons (Univ. New Mexico, 2003, 195 p. including Index) is the answer here. Mr. Simmons is an expert on Spanish/Mexican/American Southwest and this book is at least 99% accurate. All the details are there, and more.Cazedessus 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HERE ARE THE FACTS: Kit Carson was "married" three times: to Waa-nibe/Singing Grass (Arapaho), one daughter: Adeline; to Making-out-Road (Cheyenne)[maybe "Making-our-Road"?]; and to Maria Josefa Jaramillo (b. 1828, d. 1868), 8 children: Carlos, Julian, Teresina, Christopher, Charles, Rebecca, Estella and Josephine. Cazedessus (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the family history as given as best I could with the references I could find. It should be, if not completely accurate, much more accurate than it was. The only thing I'm shaky on is the number of children Kit had Josefa Jaramillo. The original article suggested 15. Two of my sources say seven or eight. The more trustworthy of the two (I feel) lists eight, so that's what I went with. Aaronstj 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm making additions to the article here and there, to add in details that hopefully will add to the understanding of Carson. I will have more. All additions for now are coming from Blood and Thunder. Richiar 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Kit Carson and the Indians" by Tom Dunlay has more detailed facts about Kit Carson than found in the H. Sides book, which is nonetheless, excellent. Cazedessus (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries in "popular culture" should be noteworthy and relevant; an obscure song by a minor writer is not noteworthy and I have therefore deleted it. rewinn 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ten-four" Richiar 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I told Nareek this months ago, 10-4! Cazedessus 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of sections were added tonight. It would be nice to have sources and citations. The POV might be off in one or two added sections. Ronbo76 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some additions and re arranging: while generally keeping the same information, I have added material which seems fitting to understanding Carsons life, expanding what is known about him, and having the flow of the article blend in. All the material added is from "Blood and Thunder", pp. 10-16, and 29-31. I find Hampton's book quite thorough, and extensively documented. I hope others like the changes, but any comments are welcome. Richiar 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, There is more material that could be added that would seem to help illuminate Carson in a general article. If people prefer, I'll make proposals before making other changes. I think the material I added would require some alteration of the structure of the paragraph or two below what I added. Richiar 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish up a few details on Carsons trapper years that I didn't have a chance to complete yet, if no one objects, in the next day or two.

Also, I am proposing some additional material be added to the article, and a little rearranging, mostly adding more material to the article rather than taking anything away. I would suggest a heading something like "The Fremont Explorations and the Army of the West", where Carson worked as a guide for Fremont and Kearney. I was considering adding material on the Klamath Lake incident, the San Quentin incident, and the Battle of San Pasqual. Any comments or discussion? Richiar 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I finished up the additions to the trapper years; the last two paragraphs that were there before were removed, as it was either the same information in a different form, or it will be covered with (hopefully) new material to be added on Fremont and Kearney. Some of the links were taken out that were previously there, because they didn't seem to contribute to the substance of the article. Richiar 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. the material is from "Blood and Thunder" pp. 32-34

I added a header and some material on Carson's first two expeditions with Fremont. It will need a little cleaning up and a little more material added to clairfy it, which I'll be adding to rtly. Richiar 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the murder of the three Mexicans: I am considering a small footnote to clarify Fremonts 3rd expedition, which seems to have been politically motivated as a larger campaign by the US to obtain California by force. Also, for the sake of ending the Fremont section, it may be a good idea to consider Fremonts and Carsons involvement with Commodore Stockton as part of the military service section, which also has the additional complexity of how Kearney and the Army of the West becomes involved in the Battle of San Pasqual. Any comments or discussion? Richiar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be adding material on the prelude to the battle of San Pasqual, which leads into Carsons chance meeting of Kearney, which leads to the battle of San Pasqual. To do so, I took out the Military Service section: the information in there will be kept, but with the added material, I thought the section would require a re-write. (Also, the preceeding paragraph had some identical information). Richiar 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I expandecd the Military Service section by adding events that occurred from the time of Fremonts return to the Sacramento Valley, through the conquest of San Diego and Los Angeles, until Carson goes cross country carrying messages and by chance meets S. Kearney in the middle of New Mexico. Kearney then orders Carson to turn around and lead him back into California, where they end up in the Battle of San Pasqual, and are nearly wiped out, except that Carson gets through enemy lines and brings reinforcements. This sequence of events sets the stage for what happens next in Carsons life (he gets passed along from Fremont to Stockton to Kearney to Carleton-sound like a familiar pattern? (What do you mean?Cazedessus (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)). I changed "Military Service" to "Military Service with Kearney" because of the different phases of Carson's military service. I added a couple of footnotes to the San Quentin incident and the meeting of Kearney at Valverde because I thought the information helped clarify the story, and I didn't see any easier way of putting it in. Finally, the previous version of this article stated that the 3 Mexican men were executed at Point San Pable, rather than San Quentin. I don't know which version is more accurate. If anyone has any information here, please help out. Also I removed the first three sentences from the previous version but the information was still kept. Richiar 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I earnestly suggest that you read Tom Dunlay's book KIT CARSON AND THE INDIANS, as it has more details than found in Hampton Side's recent BLOOD AND THUNDER. Cazedessus (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This line appears, "Mr. Carson, your duty," to which Carson then complied. Dunlay Kit Carson and the Indians". Not sure what Dunlay applies to?

Thats the refernce from which the statement is taken. It might need to be modified to a proper format, but I wanted people to know to source of the information. I had an edit conflict while adding my explanation and will try again in a minute. Richiar 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Dunlay. I had put it in, because I thought the incident might be controversial and thought some might want to have a reference. Is this better? Richiar 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added material from H. Sides. I think I forgot to sign in. The previous version states that Carson crawled 2 mi barefoot through the desert. My impression from Sides was 30 miles: I don't know which version is accurate. Also, Sides leaves the impression that Kearney was 30 mi from San Diago, and at another place leaves the imperssion that it was 25 miles. I put 25 just to keep some consistency. Richiar 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The recent changes to headings and the added map seem to be nice additions to the article. Thanks. Richiar 02:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome. I like your recent additions and hope my minor changes help. WBardwin 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the image to enlarge? Richiar 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A little better: I was hoping the image could be expanded several times by clicking on it, but I traced it to the source (Lt. Emory's diary) on the link at the bottom of the article, and the source website itself won't allow the image to expand, it seems, which is too bad, because some of the Civil war battle maps can be expanded several times and one can really see the detail quite well in some instances. Richiar 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The material I added is from Sides pp. 241-259. The irony here is Carson trying to rescue Ann White and failing, while she has in her possession a fiction book about Carson rescuing a white female captured by Indians. Richiar 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added material that gave background information to the Navajo campaign. While it may seem like a lot, actually it is quite compressed, given the amount of information there is about this event. I kept the previous material as it was except for a couple minor changes. This completes what I have in terms of making major changes to the article. Anything else will be copyedits for me, or minor additions. Hope this helps people to know something about Carson's life. I certainly benefited from the research. Richiar 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a paragraph from H. Sides on Carson's view of the Native American issues to the Reputation section. I believe thats all the content I have to add to the article. I might do a copy edit here and there if I come across something that needs to be fixed. Richiar 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested a good article review. This article is 43 kbytes long. Although it is long, I think it reads nicely. It would probably be a good idea to not add more content to it. Richiar 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time for several reasons. The intro needs to be expanded from its one line to several paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:Lead. An infobox would be great to add, look at WP:Bio for the most appropriate infobox. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are a few footnotes and some Harvard referencing it looks like, but many sections are lacking inline citations. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability. Once you have addressed these issues, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should mention that Kit Carson was a member of the Free Mason's. His home in Taos was repaired and is owned and run by the Taos lodge (Bent Lodge #42). There is a plaque in the wall of Kit Carson's home in Taos from the lodge re-dedicating it. The museum there sells masonic gifts.

Dear Cazedusseus: I noticed you came back and left an edit today. I joined Wikipedia just at the time you left last year. I thought you had a lot of good things to say, but there was a lot of controversy and disagreement on some issues. The conflict is documented in the archives. As you can see, I worked long and hard on upgrading this article. Most of my additions came from Hampton Sides. I would say he is an established Carson authority, not a crank author. There are a number of other sources: I haven't read them all, and I am not trying to be partial to one author above another. Sides' book is exhausively referenced. I put a lot of his material into the article only because his book is so well written and referenced.

I haven't read Dunlay's book: it is one I would like to read. I would assume he is also an authority on Carson. From your edit, it looks like there is a conflict between Dunlay and Sides. I would suggest we come to a compromise statement which will include both points of view. But what you did was dismiss the statement from Sides, which is nearly a direct quote. If these two authors contradict each other, then it seems appropriate to come to a compromise statement. I will place a possible compromise statement here in the discussion for everyone to review in a few days.

Anyway, welcome back, and hopefully we can develop the article in a positive way.

Richiar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I modified the conflicting sentence on the Klamath Lake incident to make it more neutral, and added explanatory material in a footnote. Richiar (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I made an adjustment on the section of the May 9 prelude to the Klamath Lake incident inorder to give a more complete and accurate portrayal of the event. Richiar (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in regards to the changes made by "babelover": you can't come in and just make significant changes to the article like you did without good cause. There are reliable texts that note "Singing Wind" passing away after the birth of her second child, and it seems this is the main accepted view. The references have been given, which you removed. And you gave no references for what you said. I don't know if this is a joke, or just erroneous judgement of a newcomer, but please check Wiki policy, and discuss any major changes on the talk page before proceeding. Hopefully, this is a sincere effort to make a contribution, and if so, welcome to Wikipedia, and let us know if you need any assistance.Richiar (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm on holiday right now, and cannot confirm or deny that Waa-nibe "Singing Grass" (not Singing Wind) died after the birth of her second child since I didn't bring my books with me. But I will look it up when I return to my library.Cazedessus (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the article's history, it looks like a series of small "sneeky" changes have been made on Carson's age during significant events of his life. Someone with a book/biography should probably recheck. Don't have a book at hand at the moment. WBardwin (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing the edits made recently, a modification of Carson's age at the time of his fathers death was made from 7 to 9. I looked this up in H. Sides and Dunlays books. The date is Sept 1818. That calculates out to Carson being 8 at the time. H. Sides said "seven" even though he placed the year as 1818. It would seem then that Sides made an error in calculating Carson's true age. I made the appropriate correction. Richiar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph was not quite accurate as it was, so I made some corrections that are a more accurate portrayal as described by historians. Richiar (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of sentences added by 71.74.216.39 read as follows:

1) "Although Carson had ridden home before the march began, he was held responsible by the Navaho for breaking his word that those who surrendered would not be harmed."

I don't doubt that Carson was held responsible by the Navajo for this. This is a point of view which should be included, but it has to be documented. There are those with the point of view that he shouldn't be implicated. Both points of view should be in the article, but because of the controversy involved, could you please back up this statement with a reference? I haven't come across any reference that states that.

Let's face it. A "point of view" is simply an "opinion." And everybody has "opinions", while not everybody has "the facts." The fact is that Kit Carson was NOT directly or even indirectly "involved" with the forced march of several thousand Navajo to Bosque Redondo. It is also a fact that many Navajo were permitted to take their horses and sheep. It is also a fact that many Navajo were riding in wagons or behind soldiers on horseback, so not all of them "marched" anywhere. see: "Long Walk of Very Slim Man" Desert (magazine), April, 1946.Cazedessus (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2) "As many as 3000 died...and many more..."

This is a controversial statement. It needs a reference. Here is a quote from Kit Carson and the Indians by Dunlay: "Frank McNitt, the tireless researcher of the Navajo wars, broke down the official figures on the Long Walk and decided that 11, 612 Navajos were sent to Bosque Redondo. Of these, 336 were officially reported to have died on the march...." p. 304

And Frank McNitt is correct. The "3000" is a lie, meant to smear Kit Carson.Cazedessus (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Locke does not indicate figures that high, he indicates more like several hundred at most. Richiar (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Kits family (ie, mother and stepfather) apprenticed him at the age of 14 to saddler David Workman, in nearby Franklin. He went to Franklin from the nearby country. He was raised in the country. Franklin was the head of the Sante Fe Trail, where Kit would have met mountain men in Saddler David Workman’s shop, and formed his plan to relocate at age 16 to the Southwest. Kit Carson and the Indians, T. Dunlay, p 36.

2. Boonslick is a subregion of a larger region where D. Boone inhabited, not a specific place. “Daniel Boone left Kentucky in 1799 and took up a Spanish land grant along the Missouri River. The Booneslick area took its name from salt licks, a resource that two of Boone’s sons began to exploit in 1805.” T. Dunlay p. 27.

So Carson was not raised in Booneslick.

3. “Permanent settlement of the [Booneslick region] began just a year before the arrival of the Carsons in 1811, the year the traveller Henry Marie Brackenridge noted a “flourishing settlement” of seventy five families living mostly on the banks of the Missouri in the space of 4 or 5 miles. They constituted the westernmost settlement in the territory of Missouri; many of them were from Kentucky, and like the Kentucky pioneers, they “forted up” in stations formed of groups of cabins arranged in an enclosure completed by a stockade. There were three significant ones (which implies there were more) in the immediate area---Cooper’s Fort, Fort Kinkead, and Fort Hampstead.” T. Dunlay, p. 27.

It is in one of these settlements that Kit Carson was “raised”.

Based on this information, it would be technically most correct to say that KC was “raised in a country settlement which was part of a system of over 75 families that clustered around the three forts of Cooper’s Fort, Fort Kindkead, and Fort Hampstead, on the Missouri River, near to the town of Franklin.”

If we can all agree that this is an ackward statement for the article, then perhaps the most concise and readable way to express this is to say, that KC was raised near Franklin. I will adjust the wording accordingly.Richiar (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunlay further documents the Carsons moving to the "Boones Lick" region in 1811, when Carson was 1 year old. p. 27. Richiar (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the term New Mexican meant to describe in this article? It sounds like a nationality or ethnicity. Does this refer to white settlers, Spanish colonialists or Mexican residents caught up in the confict? Diastar (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)diastar

I think your question is a good one: I believe it refers to post-Spanish colonial Mexican residents of the New Mexico territory. The term is widely used in the historical writings I've read, but I haven't been able to find out the origin of the term, or an authoritative validation of what I think it means.Richiar (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph ending "The Boone and Carson families became good friends, working, socializing, and intermarrying." is almost a word-for-word "lift" from "Blood and Thunder" by Hampron Sides. Paulburnett (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is a question about the number of Carson children, whether there were 14 or 15, and whether Kit was the 6th or 9th or 11th. Not being there at the time, I can't say which figure is accurate. Dunlay p. 26-27 says "In 1793 his first wife died, leaving him with 5 children and in 1796 he married Rebecca Robinson, who bore him ten more, including Christopher, the sixth". Sides says "The elder Carson had an enormous family-five children by his first wife and ten by Kit's mother, Rebecca Robinson. Of those fifteen children, Kit was the eleventh in line". I don't care if the article says fourteen and Kit was 9th, but there shouldn't there be a reference to support that?

The change of Carson's second Indian wife's name from "Making Out Road" to "Making Our Road" was a good edit: it expresses the true meaning from the sources I've read. (M. Simmons, Kit Carson and His Three Wives, p. 36).

The sentence about the Boone and Carson families was put in my myself and was intended to be derived rather than lifted, but I found it difficult to modify Sides work sometimes because he is such an effective writer.Richiar (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at this change summary (and the article's prior/subsequent edit histories) should cover some of the changes User:Cazedessus wishes to institute in this article. Discussion between us has thus far, viewable at User talk:Cazedessus, has not proven fruitful in reaching a compromise. Thus, I would like to turn this over to the consensus of our fellow editors. For those who would rather not untangle the skeins of the talk page, my position is that the great majority of these inclusions as worded constitute POV and/or OR and/or unpublished synthesis of published materials. In the meantime, I resolve to make no further edits to this article until consensus is reached. If it cannot be, I will instead present this to WP:RfC, and so on up the dispute resolution chain if/as needed. I would like to thank everyone who offers their input on this, as well as User:Cazedessus for putting up with this convoluted and clearly frustrating process, as well as with some immature initial commentary on my part. - Vianello (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Presented to RfC. - Vianello (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this from the 3PO list as it is an RFC, not 3PO. NJGW (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, technically you'd be correct. Thank you. - Vianello (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His last words were "I just wish I had time for one more bowl of chilli". I cant remember the source, if someone could please find it i'd be greatful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a myth. I've yet to find any reliable sources that confirm this. - Vianello (Talk) 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A description of the last day of Kit Carson's life is in Dr. Tilton's letter at the back of J. S. C. Abbott's LIFE OF KIT CARSON, and his last words were "Adios, compadres" and positively NOT anything about chili. 70.180.32.227 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This section seems unreasonably long, as Carson had no part in it. It could be summarized, rather than each event and variation being told in detail. --Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Kit Carson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit which restores an individual's opinion of Kit Carson is inappropriate. Ed Quillen is not a historian or a scholar of any sort. He simply expresses cracker barrel "progressive" commentary. His opinions are not the opinion of The Denver Post, nor are they based on reliable sources. Fred Talk 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:RS or WP:V in this bit by Quillen. He was not writing for his own Colorado Central magazine, but he was writing in the Denver Post, so that newspaper must accept that they are the platform for his statement. Other authors have taken apart his assertion that the Navajos were put in a concentration camp, as it had a hospital and a school. I guess it is easier to take Quillen out than to add the requisite rebuttals. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quillen does not belong because his opinion, whatever it is, is not notable. His opinion is being used for unsupported assertions which are not relevant to Kit Carson in any event. Carson was not in a decision making role with respect to transportation to the proposed reservation nor in the selection or maintenance of it. I will do quite a bit of editing soon on this article, but my reference books have not arrived. I am working on a research project related to Carson's reputation. Ed Quillen's calumnies belong in article on him should he be considered notable enough. They are not related in a rational way to Kit Carson. Fred Talk 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The 14:05, 3 December 2010 Fred Bauder version is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the introduction and 5. Civil War and Indian activity sections to include biased content. Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee has a very different take on Carson's relationship with the Navajo and other Southwest tribes, and suggests that the indigenous groups had serious provocation for their raids on Fort Defiance and Fort Wingate. ^[1]Brown, Dee Alexander. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1970), 14ff.^[2] Bdk1521 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The introduction - the first thing people read - paints Carson a cruel individual. 71.199.179.157 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove the second paragraph from the introduction of this article. Besides violating POV guidelines, the information in that paragraph is specific to a single event and does not belong in that section of the article. The first paragraph alone will suffice as an introduction. FaclonsFan (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose we remove the entire sentence below:

Carleton ordered Carson to kill all the men of that tribe, and say that he (Carson) had been sent to "punish them for their treachery and crimes."

First, this sentence is repeated verbatim across several web pages, and thus the Wiki article either plagiarized it from elsewhere or is itself being plagiarized by other sites. Second, since no notable source seems available, citing these other non-notable sites creates a circular reference from this article and back again. Vdavisson (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Adios Compadres"!? What happened to his famous quote I'd always heard, "I just wish I had time for one more bowl of chili." I've always loved that quote. What's going on here!?64.203.10.167 (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that's an urban myth. There are a bunch of unreliable sites on the Internet that claim those were Carson's last words. I find no reliable sources that make the same claim. Yworo (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit to Kit Carson. I wasn't whitewashing. Read the actual treaty refereed to, it doesn't match what the article said. I check the sources footnoted, and I didn't find them to bear it out either. Jehorn (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• No original research permitted! SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit changed

The treaty forbade the Navajo to raid or make war on the New Mexicans, but allowed the New Mexicans to make war on the Navajo if they saw fit."

to

The treaty declared "a firm and lasting peace and amity ... between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.

That does appear to be whitewashing since it doesn't discuss the thrust of the original statement: that the Navajo could not make raids but that the New Mexicans could attack the Navajo. Your edit is far from WP:NPOV and so I'd say it's "white"washing.

The fact that it's referenced and your material isn't is also problematic. I see that you've removed the referenced material again. This is unacceptable behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the text of the treaty or the sources that are referenced? According to this page the treaty said:

ART. I. A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.

ART 2. The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people.

ART 3. A mutual trade, as between people of the same nation, shall be carried on between these several parties; the Americans, Mexicans, and Pueblos being free to visit all portions of the Navajo country and the Navajos all portions of the American country without molestation, and full protection shall be mutually given.

ART. 4. There shall be mutual restoration of all prisoners, the several parties being pledged to redeem by purchase such as may not be exchanged each for each.

ART. 5. All property taken by either party from the other, since the 18th day of August, last, shall be restored.

That is not at all what the article says. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, but as it stands the article is demonstrably false. Jehorn (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And isn't quoting what the actual treaty said instead of a summary that misrepresents it WP:NPOV? Jehorn (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The treaty is a primary source ad as such, should not be used.

The sources that are being used are secondary sources: Locke, Raymond, The Book of the Navajo, Mankind Publishing Company, 2001. ISBN 0-87687-500-2. pp. 204–212 and and Sides, Hampton, Blood and Thunder, Doubleday, 2006. ISBN 0-385-50777-1. pp. 152–54. They have an understanding of what really happened, not just what the treaty stated. That's why we use secondary sources over interpretations of primary sources: to avoid issues like WP:NPOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Now, WP:BRD, which is an acceptable form of editing when conflict arises, states that you should be bold and edit, but then if you're reverted, you discuss. It also suggests that one should not continue to edit while discussing. You and I are both a WP:3RR and I suggest that if you want to continue to edit against the sources, expect a discussion with an admin. That's not a threat, but advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a long time since I looked at Wikipedia policy and its seems I didn't follow the proper procedure. But WP:PRIMARY doesn't say primary sources shouldn't be used. It says:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."

This is a textbook example of this. The question that sentence of the article was addressing is what were the provisions of the treaty. That's not really up for debate, and I think the quote I chose is a clear summary of what the treaty said. Now if the question is how was the treaty applied, or what the parties were intending to gain by it, than you are right. Secondary sources should be used. But as it stands, the statement is factually wrong. Secondary sources can't be used if they clearly wrong about what a document says. But they aren't.

It seems clear to me that you haven't actually looked at the sources. They in no wise back up the sentence in question, and the pages referenced in Blood and Thunder aren't actually text - they cover a title page.

And by the way, the quote of the treaty I used was properly referenced, it is included in The Book of the Navajo on p. 211. Jehorn (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not a textbook example of where a primary source should be used. If you want to use the primary source, feel free to, but do not remove the secondary sources.

And WP:NPA says not to discuss contributors. In this case, whether they have or have not read the sources. The pages referenced in Blood and Thunder are from a different edition than the one scanned bu Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't supposed to be a personal attack. You are saying I am removing referenced material, but I think the references were for the entire paragraph not just that sentence. The sentence is contradicted by a basic reading of the treaty

It seems apparent that we are not going to be able to resolve this, and I'd like to have other(s) look at it. What would be the best way to do this? WP:THIRDOPINION? WP:RFC? etc. Jehorn (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this section even necessary? There's six paragraphs on events in which Carson was not involved. It seems this should be greatly condensed or moved to another page. Jehorn (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Carson was involved in the events that led up to the signing of the treaty. Had it not been for Carson's involvement, the treaty would not have been signed. He is involved.

The best way to deal with this is to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion and then go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which is linked in the "General overview" section of WP:BRD, which I linked on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non expert)I scanned through The Book of the Navajo and couldn't find where it stated the treaty "allowed" New Mexico to attack the Navajo. Google's copy of Blood and Thunder doesn't even have the pages referenced, and don't discuss it in that page range. Where it is discussed (p. 326), I didn't see such a statement. The intent of the treaty for this line is irrelevant - what a treaty forbade and allowed is based on the text of the treaty itself. If the article is reworded to address intent, then clearly the Navajo were not forbidden, since the very next line states they continued to make war. Since the treaty itself does not require "[a]ny interpretation" (primary source), I'm not clear on why it's not allowed, but I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia standards. If it's agreed a secondary is required, then I don't see where one has been provided that explicitly makes this claim. Frankly I wouldn't trust any historian that went from "A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians," and "The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people," to "The treaty... allowed the New Mexicans to make war on the Navajo if they saw fit". But there may be other documents, etc., so if a secondary states it, I'd like to see the source with a specific page or a direct quote.Roguetech (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, do you have a quote from a secondary source that supports what the article? Do you still have a problem with me changing it? Jehorn (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've stated what I think you should do: state what the primary source states before the interpretation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another opinion. The Bear Springs Treaty of Nov 21 1846 says, "A firm and lasting peace and amity shall henceforth exist between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians" and "The people of New Mexico and the Pueblo Indians are included in the term American people." There is nothing whatsoever in that language to support the statement that New Mexicans had the right to attack the Navaho. Quite the opposite. Explicitly the opposite.

Moreover, one of the referenes cited, Hampton Sides, says nothing to support the view that New Mexicans had the right to attack the Navajo. If the other source cited, "The Book of the Navaho", says otherwise, it is not supported by (1) a primary source and (2) a well-regarded secondary source. This misleading sentence should be changed back to "The treaty declared 'a firm and lasting peace and amity ... between the American people and the Navajo tribe of Indians.'" Smallchief (talk 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another option: stop trying to remove the fact that the Navajo were systematically destroyed by the actions of this man and you can add all the other sort of whitewashing you want. Someone will come along and remove that anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Having just looked briefly at the "Book of the Navajo," it does not say that the treaty gave the New Mexicans the right to make war on the Navajo. In other words, neither of the references cited support that view. Smallchief (talk 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You said earlier that the book was a cover page, but now you state that you've "looked briefly at" it. I too looked at it briefly. Which edition? Which pages? Where did you find this book? Sorry that I'm doubting you, but you have an agenda to make it seem as though the Navajo were treated fairly when it's clear that they were not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Go to Google Books, look for "Book of the Navajo" published 2001. Read the cited pages 204-212. You will find on one of those pages a statement by General Kearney in September 1846 that calls for attacks on the Navajo in reponse to their raids. However, the treaty came later than that statement in Nov 1846 and was intended to end the attacks and raids by both New Mexicans and Navajos. That the treaty was a failure is pretty clear as it did neither. But the language of the treaty did not give the New Mexicans, explicity or implicitly, the right to raid the Navajos.

If you would like to elaborate on this point, I suggest you add a sentence atating that the treaty had little or no impact on the the emnity between New Mexicans and Navajos and that raids on each other continued. The cited references both support that view. Smallchief (talk 02:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the timeline of events, I learn that Kit Carson wasn't even present on the "First Navajo Campaign." He was in California at the time of the campaign and the signing of the treaty. This whole section of the Carson article should be deleted or placed elsewhere where it may be relevant. Smallchief (talk 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Walter, please stop accusing people of whitewashing and trying to push an agenda. These are just factual questions of what the treaty said and what its effect was. Jehorn (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I have removed most of the text on the first Navajo campaign to Navajo Wars and Bear Spring Treaty. Jehorn (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Good call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "in popular culture" section based on what reliable third-party sources had to say. However, the sources I dug up in my rather cursory search only covered early popular culture, mainly 19th century. If someone knows of sources about later depictions of Kit Carson, that would help. Huon (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My reading of these sources is that they agree that Kit was 11th in birth order. There does not appear to be any controversy about it, as was put in a note. From an earlier version: <<There is controversy about how many children were in the Carson family, and what Kit Carson's birth order was: "In 1793 his first wife died, leaving him with 5 children and in 1796 he married Rebecca Robinson, who bore him ten more, including Christopher, the sixth". T. Dunlay Kit Carson and the Indians, pp. 26–27.>> Note: So, if Kit is 6th in the second family, after the first family having five children, he is 11th overall. Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

An editors says, <<Compare that statement with the following: "The elder Carson had an enormous family—five children by his first wife and ten by Kit's mother, Rebecca Robinson. Of those fifteen children, Kit was the eleventh in line." H. Sides Blood and Thunder, p. 8. This article has used Hampton Sides version, as there is no decisive reasoning to resolve the conflict, and his was the original version used for this article. There remains some controversy about which version is correct.>> Again, as Kit is said to be 11th, he was the 6th child born to the second wife.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In the introduction it is said Carson was illiterate and could not sign his name, but underneath his picture is his signature, apparently from 1866. Are there sources that verify he indeed was illiterate? --Maarten1963 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected that and provided a reliable source that supports what I wrote. Huon (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Maarten1963 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Carson was illiterate and there are countless sources to verify this. In the last years of his life, he learned to write his name and read a little. 208.125.213.94 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should poorly referenced material (what's Kit Carson mean?) go before historic information? Please fix the reference and don't place such trivial information before actual historic information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I take part of this back. The material is now sourced to "http://www.historynet.com". It still should not go at the front and have multiple short sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the text needs desperate revision. Carson was an Army officer for a mere eight years. His career as such was undistinguished and too much ink has been spilt on recording his every movement with the Army. This can be trimmed. Additionally, all the streets, schools, parks, shopping malls, etc can be trimmed as well. This sorts of lists are a waste of space and interrupt the flow of a well written article. They belong in a standalone article about their content. Any thoughts? SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So he was an army officer. That qualifies the use of that infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• The "military business" here has been given "too much weight" and needs to be properly handled. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A career in the military certainly justifies the infobox. Surely some means of reorganisation would be nice... I have access to some of the cited secondary sources, perhaps they are a start. The references are a bit lazy and bloated so I guess I'll start there. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As written "The miitary business has bee given too much weight here. Carson was more than a military man, and the focus ness to shifted to these other roles or at least given "propoer weight" in consideration of the military business. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I cleaned *some* of the references but I'm noticing some flagrant issues. For two books, one by Lewis and the other Dunlay, there are two editions cited through out the article. I have access to the more recent 1990 edition of Lewis' work, so I think I can figure that out. The problem I'm seeing is that I have the older 2000 version of Dunlay's tome, and not the other more recently cited 2005 version. Does anyone have the latter edition? If so it would be grand to have some verification on the cited pages to ensure they are all one edition and not from both. A more pressing issue however is a list of citations merely saying 'Volpe', who I assume is one 'Vernon Volpe' who apparently made several works about or related to Kit Carson. Yet I don't know which, any ideas? I'll check through the Lewis citations later today. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volpe is coted to an encyclopedia. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I detest engaging in edit wars and prefer finding acceptable compromises for interested editors. Here's a proposal for updating content for most of article, thoughts?

Trapper years - Ok, so this is pretty informative. The issue I have is that it kind of rambles, like the paragraph about the Rendezvous system. There is an article about them, so I feel the useful content of this paragraph should be moved over, with an article link placed within this section.

Guide with Fremont - Only a bit of tinkering is required for the sub-sections. The Berreyesa killings need to be in the Mexican-American War section for chronological purposes.

The Bereseya killings can be trimmed. It was not a significant moment. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexican-American War (I don't think "service" is necessary) - Some of the introduction can use some trimming, nothing drastic.

Battle of San Pasqual - There are four paragraphs with Carson mentioned in only three sentences. I really think this can be cut down to two paragraphs, maintaining key details of the overall operations and Carson's experience.

This section can be sent to a stand-alone Battle of San Pasquel article. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian activity - The opening paragraph should for (again) chronological reasons be in the Mexican-American War.

Fame - So this was a bit tricky at first. The paragraph starting with "Carson's public image as a hero had been..." along with "Later, when a friend offered Averill's book as..." should be moved to "In popular culture" with perhaps a specific section for the Averill book.

Peace treaty efforts - Because of how short it is, I don't see why it needs to be separate from the rest of the section.

Battle of Valverde - Some tweaking could happen to freshen up the section.

~~This section can have a stand-alone article. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Campaign - Ok so I think a lot of this content is important, but much of it isn't directly related to Carson. I think the best thing to do is to reduce this section to focus heavily on Carson's actions and thoughts, rather than painting a generalised picture of events. Any details removed not found on relevant articles should be moved. Think of it this way, on a biography of someone the largest section shouldn't be rife with details (directly) unrelated to the subject.

I made an attempt at cleaning up the Early life and Fur trapping sections. I'd say they are both a bit more focused, though I don't want to go any further without *some* input from others. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The most important years of Carson's life were the trapper years. This is when he acquired his fame. His military career was brief and undistinguished. He was tired and tried to resign only to have his resignation refused. The section needs to be trimmed. It gives undue prominence to this part of his life. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with Carson's military career? Carson was instrumental as a scout for Lt. Fremont in the conquest of California; he saved his army unit from being massacred in the Battle of San Pascual; he rode coast to coast with military dispatches from California about the war (incidentally bringing the news of the California gold strike to the eastern United States); he led a battalion in the largest civil war battle in New Mexico; he led the army in one of largest Indian battles on the southern Great Plains; he led the army on the decisive campaign against the Navajo Indians; and he was a brevet brigadier general despite the fact that he couldn't read or write. Smallchief (talk 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these. Perhaps you are unaware that Carson was not in the military at this time. He wasn't "military" until 1861 when the Civil War broke out. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to trimming the military section. If anyone feels that other aspects of his life are more important, write about those and bring them out of this shadow. Other wise it is like trying to even a table by trimming the legs. All you get is a shorter table, or in this case, article. Carptrash (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement about Carson traveling to Washington in 1868 does not belong under the heading "Reputation", because it says nothing about his reputation. I'm not sure where else in the article it should go, but it shouldn't be where it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA Nomination