Talk:Lawrence Sullivan Ross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleLawrence Sullivan Ross is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 5, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 11, 2009Featured topic candidateNot promoted
September 23, 2023Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

I attend Texas A&M (where we have a large statue of "Sully" as he is called in front of the Academic Building) and there has been talk of him being a member of, and even a leader of, the KKK while in Texas. Can anyone substantiate this? JRDarby 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Judith Benner's biography of Sully, and it doesn't mention any KKK leanings. She quotes a lot from Ross's private letters, which means she should have had access to all the facts that are still recordable. Overall, the tone of the book is very favorable to Sully though. Karanacs 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked other books and found no mention that he was a member of the KKK. Karanacs 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only article on this that mentions the KKK is this one, but it's only vague in that "...some history professors and students engaged in multicultural organizations exposed...Sul Ross as affiliated with the Knights of the KKK..." I find that statement alone to be highly insufficient as a source. Likewise, a search within Baum's book (as cited by Slattery) finds no mention of Ross at all. Extraordinary claims need a valid citation and this doesn't hack it. Accordingly, I'm removing this line. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the cited article and there is no mention of any evidence gathering. Furthermore, the book cited above is a snippet. I'll try to get my hands on it, however without the complete book it's difficult to say what it does or does not say. I've edited the Legacy section to reflect the exact text of the cited article. AtomAndEames (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sealtexas.jpg[edit]

Image:Sealtexas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.

More to follow later. — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the persondata and combined some of the sections to make for a slightly nicer TOC. The weasel words are cited. Karanacs 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rescue of cynthia parker[edit]

I have read (sorry, can't find the ref) that contrary to "our" eurocentric view, many women were happier in indian communities then in white communities, at least for pre revolutionary New england. Perhaps this is 1960s mythology; perhaps not. In any event, the "rescue" sounds a little suspicious - based on those stereotypes of hte bad savages and the enlightened whiteman.65.220.64.105 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comments, I have also read and re-read the paragraphs pertaining to the rescue of Cynthia Ann Parker (not "Cynthia Parker," as the above unidentified writer names her). At no point in the article can I find where it states or implies that she was "happier" living with the Parkers after her rescue, so I don't know what he is contradicting. In fact, the article specifically states that Parker "was not happy to have been rescued by Ross," although this poorly written phrase inadvertently implies that she may have been happy if she had been rescued by someone else. But, that is what you get with an internet encyclopedia with no professional editor.
This previous writer refers to "our eurocentric (sic) view." American readers in the early part of this twenty-first century don't have a "Euro-centric view." In any case, the attitudes of female captives of North-Eastern tribes in "pre-Revolutionary New England" has absolutely nothing to do with the attitudes of female captives of the Comanche in the middle of the nineteenth century. Anyone who has read the many first person accounts given by rescued captives of the Comanche is familiar with their treatment of white captives. Further, it is well-documented that kidnapping victims of any culture learn to assimilate and identify with their captors, in spite of their poor treatment. This is often referred to as "Stockholm syndrome." Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that the captive is better off with the captor.
Like this writer's disjointed comments, what it is that, in his mind, makes the rescue of Cynthia Ann Parker "sound a little suspicious," is left unclear. Either Parker was rescued or she was not. The fact that she was rescued is a well-established piece of history. The Parker family and others had been searching for her ever since her capture by the Comanche twenty-five years before. The fact that her rescue was delayed by twenty-five years makes it no less a rescue. PGNormand (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Sully[edit]

In the section titled "Legacy," one paragraph is devoted to the statue of Ross on the Texas A&M campus. The first half of that paragraph is about the statue itself. However, the second half of the paragraph is a tangent relating to the recent "tradition" of students placing pennies at the foot of the statue to ensure good luck during final exams. (I place the word "tradition" in quotes, because it is so recent that it was not observed when I was a student in the late 1960s and early 1970s.) This tangent contains three sentences. The first of these simply states what this tradition is. The second sentence attributes the tradition to a campus legend, which states that Ross, during his presidency at the college, often tutored students, "and as payment would accept only a penny for their thoughts." This makes no sense for several reasons. First, the term "a penny for your thoughts," means that the person speaking will pay "a penny for your thoughts." It does not mean that the person speaking will take "a penny for your thoughts." Second, the payment that is referenced in the campus legend is payment for tutoring, not for anyone's thoughts. This reference in the article would make more sense if it stated that Ross accepted "only a penny for tutoring." Third, if this legend were true, then the tradition would have started as soon after the statue's erection, and it would have been started by students who remembered paying Ross a penny for tutoring. But we know that the tradition did not start until sometime in the mid-1970s at the earliest, and probably after that, by students who were born sixty-plus years after Ross died. The third sentence in this tangent states that "at exam time, his statue ... is often covered in pennies." This statement is untrue on the face of it. It is a greatly exaggerated figure of speech. Finally, the source of this tangent, listed in the endnote, is an article that appeared in the campus newspaper in 2004. The source quoted in the 2004 newspaper article is a member of the Class of 2006 who does not give a source for his/her statement, but says that the tradition started during the life of Ross. For that to have been true, the statue would have to been completed before Ross died. My recommendation is that this entire three-sentence tangent, which is not about Ross, but about about a statue of him, be removed from this article on "Lawrence Sullivan Ross." PGNormand (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sullivan Ross. 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:

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) 05:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sullivan Ross. 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:

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) 10:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020 sweeps[edit]

Overall, this one is looking like it is in pretty good shape, and I've performed a bit of cleanup. However, I do have a few notes:

  • A 2012 book, Myth, Memory and Massacre: The Pease River Capture of Cynthia Ann Parker by Texas Tech University history professor emeritus Paul H. Carlson and Tom Crum details that only 15 Comanches were in the camp at the time of the massacre. Seven men, women, and children were killed and around seven or more escaped or were allowed to escape by US soldiers, who did not want to slaughter women and children. US soldiers came upon a woman who held a child over her head; the men did not shoot, but instead surrounded and stopped her. Ross admitted to a cousin of Cynthia Ann Parker that he played no hand in helping to rescue Cynthia Ann Parker and her daughter, shown in 1861. The civilian posse arrived at the battleground as the fighting finished. Although they initially congratulated Ross for winning the battle, some of them later complained that Ross had pushed ahead without them so he would not have to share the glory or the spoils of war - this is cited inline to Benner 1993 but some of this obviously comes from the 2012 source. What is from what needs sorted out and cited directly.
  • "Myth, Memory and Massacre: The Pease River Capture of Cynthia Ann Parker debunks most of the material in the apparently politically inspired 1886 book of James T. Deshields. The authors also document the primary sources who verify that Peta Nacona was not at the scene of the massacre and died around 1865, not December 1860." - it's obvious where this material is coming from, but it still ought to be cited. I'm also not sure that the bit about Deshields is even relevant to this article.

Marking this one as satisfactory with notes at WP:URFA/2020, the ongoing FA sweeps. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A, but I don't see why the duplicate citations to the Ross Family Papers were added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was done here, which isn’t helpful; the article was sourced to hard print publications, not primary sources and lesser quality online sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured status?[edit]

How was this article promoted to featured when a large majority of the citations are to a single work (Benner's 1983 biography), one that is clearly outdated and heavily slanted? Per a review by the Texas A&M University historian Robert Calvert, Benner's biography "denies" widely accepted views of Ross, is "uncritical" of him, displays "unqualified enthusiasm for Ross", and is of little interest to scholars. "Many historians of Texas will not find her thesis persuasive. Her staunch defense of Ross's every action will cause most readers to be wary of accepting her conclusions" (here's a URL to the review). Another review says "her admiration for Ross is too evident" and you'd wonder if "this hero" is "too good to be true". (see here) And yet 75% of this article is based on her conclusions! And it's a FEATURED article!! How is this acceptable? Dylanvt (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robert A. Calvert, JUDITH ANN BENNER. Sul Ross: Soldier, Statesman, Educator, (Centennial Series of the Association of Former Students, Texas A&M University, number 13.) College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 1983. Pp. xiv, 259. $19.50, The American Historical Review, Volume 89, Issue 4, October 1984, Page 1162, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/89.4.1162
  • Jim B. Pearson, JUDITH ANN BENNER. Sul Ross: Soldier, Statesman, Educator. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 1983. Pp. xiv, 259. $19.50, Journal of American History, Volume 70, Issue 3, December 1983, Pages 681–682, https://doi.org/10.2307/1903539
  • You're welcome to look at the history on how it became so + the criteria under which it was promoted. Buffs (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look, thank you. It was nominated and approved over 15 years ago, when standards for featured articles were evidently much lower. The article is definitely in need of a review to get it up to the current standards for a featured article; namely, non-reliance on a single source, more neutral sources, and neutral prose in the article itself. I will nominate this article for review in a couple weeks if it hasn't been significantly improved by then. Dylanvt (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can say Benner's biography was "outdated and heavily slanted", but that's WP:OR. Feel free to add to it with more perspectives and attribute them. You could also write about the controversy (if there is significant coverage). I look forward to reading it! Buffs (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not WP:OR, since multiple reliable sources say that. I quoted from and linked to them. Dylanvt (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle or Massacre + associated points[edit]

@Aquabluetesla: If you are contending that Benner is not a reliable source (as are others), it is incumbent upon you to explain why and discuss how to include/exclude such material, not just remove it from WP. To do so is inherently disruptive. One person's critique is not sufficient. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benner's claim about Cynthia Ann Parker, Narua or Naduah (Na'ura), on page 57 of their 1983 book, Sul Ross, Soldier, Statesman, Educator, "When Parker mentioned his kidnapped niece had been named Cynthia Ann Parker, the woman slapped her chest and said 'Me Cincee Ann.'" is likely imagined and manufactured history. When it was tagged "better source needed" you proceeded to remove the tag and replaced it with a source that was not a "better source" or reliable in any way whatsoever. You have used several sources that don't depict the same event to be used as a source for the likely imagined claim, which is WP:SYNTH and may be "disruptive editing". You have also proceeded to make edits that have added improperly sourced references, the same reference twice, and incorrect grammar; "and" to "but". The first of your improperly cited google books search, The Texas Rangers by Mike Cox (2008) states "Parker hastened to Camp Cooper, but the woman did not recognize him and Parker did not recognize her. Accounts vary, but in one context or another, Parker spoke the words 'Cynthia Ann' 'Me Cincee Ann,' the woman blurted out, hitting her chest. When the military interpreter promised he would send her two sons if found, the woman agreed to go with her uncle to Fort Worth." The second improperly cited google book search, A Buffalo in the House by Richard Dean Rosen (2008) states "The colonel knew that his late brother and his wife had called their daughter Cynthia Ann. When he asked the squaw her name through an interpreter, she replied, 'Me Cincee Ann.'" This one you cited twice, although it is the same quote with another version of the same book that has the quote on a different page number. The last improperly cited google book search, Somewhere in the West: Texas Women Who Left a Legacy by Linda Kirkpatrick (2002) states, "Col. Isaac Parker, uncle of Cynthia Ann, was summoned. The young woman was interviewed with no success. Finally, Parker said to the other men with him that if this was his niece then her name is Cynthia Ann and at that moment the young woman rose and said, "Me, Cincee Ann." If you would like to have this demeaning misquote in the article (or any), then please actually find a "better source" as it is "needed" to justify the quotes inclusion. It seems that the quote is given under different circumstances each time, the authors are parroting the quote written by Benner, and that this event was a post-1982 innovation. Please review WP:RS, WP:CS, & WP:AGF. Aquabluetesla (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "When Parker mentioned his kidnapped niece had been named Cynthia Ann Parker, the woman slapped her chest and said 'Me Cincee Ann.'" is untrue and manufactured history. Then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate as such. Multiple published authors in reliable sources state otherwise. Merely saying "THIS IS FALSE!" is not sufficient justification to remove it.
  2. If a source is "improperly formatted" is irrelevant in this context. The question is whether these are reliable sources. They come from reliable publishers and reliable authors and you have presented no evidence to contradict that.
  3. You have also added sources without reading what is written in them is both incorrect and an assumption without any foundation. In fact, you quote all the sources and they all show the same quoted phrase. Yes, one was a different printing of the same book (which was kinda my point). I also gave you the option to pick a different source more to your liking and your reaction was to blank it. This too is inappropriate.
  4. If you would like to have this demeaning misquote in the article... I see nothing "demeaning" about quoting historical facts. You seem to think all of these sources relay the situation differently, but the same basic facts happened.
  5. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that Benner is indeed an unreliable source and you have failed to do so. I have repeatedly outlined ways to do this (see above). I'm also not against simply including multiple perspectives. "Contemporaneous accounts of the incident say <point out what's in the books>. However, more recent research into the incident <point out discrepancies or contentions>"
  6. A "better source" is not required on Wikipedia (that's an arbitrary request based solely on your recollection). A reliable source is required. Likewise, you assume that all of these people used Benner as a source for the quote, but have provided no evidence to support such an assertion nor have you shown that it is incorrect.
  7. the authors are parroting the quote written by Benner assumes facts not in evidence.
Please demonstrate these points and gain consensus before you continue such further edits. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Sullivan_Ross&oldid=1184411780"