This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Review this reference for possible use
Hello, I just read about this William Weatherford yesterday in a book about local history. He was one of the like insturmental persons in the Chicago Indian Council which was methinks the last such council. This one was said to be where the indians ceeded all their land west of Lake Michigan. I wouldn't have the technical knowledge of how to insert this bit of info into his bio here, so if someone else wants to i would appreciate it. Also please contact me and I could easilly find that book again around the 977 section at the Watertown, Wisconsin library. Thank-You!!! LES Lesbrown99 (talk)
The William Weatherford mentioned (above) in the second Treaty of Chicago (signed in 1833) was not the same William "Red Eagle" Weatherford who died in 1824 as inscribed on his headstone.
(Dthem 2000
So, what's the deal?84.23.155.84 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted large-scale, POV, unsourced additions sounding as if they came from some family history or early romance, about the "gallant" frontiersmen and "crack" Rangers units. Editors need to use sources and inline citations to support material.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted UNDUE WEIGHT of unsourced material about frontier conditions and the whole background to the Creek War, as well as more battles and heroic frontiersmen. This is supposed to be a bio of Weatherford, not a history of the Creek and Americans in the Southeast. Added a pointer to the main article on the Creek War.Parkwells (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Lamochattee was not Weatherford's war name, which was different.Parkwells (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Changed "an example of" to "one of many." The use of the word "example" connotes the brutal history of Native people being seen by colonists not as people, but as anthropological specimens (see Ishi, for one).
Someone has clearly inserted the word 'slaveholding' into the lede, but not in the corresponding mention in the article.
This is obviously meant as a political smear. It is non-encyc, and I feel that the category (possibly not even applicable here) should be restricted to people whose slave-owning history was notable in itself. Valetude (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)