Talk:Billy Bowlegs/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Billy Bowlegs. 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.

Archive 1

Slave Ownership

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In reading several accounts (primary and secondary) of the Native Americans in the Indian Territory in the late 1850s, there are numerous references to how many of the leading Indian landowners possessed numerous slaves to work their plantations, just as if they were in the South. Opothleyahola and others had hundreds of slaves. In my reference materials, there was a couple mentions of Billy Bowlegs and his daughters as being among these slaveowners. For a contemporary example (Harpers Weekly, 1858) of his slave ownership in Florida before he moved his clan to New Orleans, then on to Indian Territory, please see http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/Florida/docs/b/bowlegs.htm Scott Mingus 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Florida in the Civil War cat

Latest comment: 16 years ago32 comments3 people in discussion

I included him in this cat as the Civil War Task Force has discussed categorizing officers and leaders by 1) state they were from (Florida in this case) and / or 2) state of the troops they led (Oklahoma). Bowlegs was a Floridian by birth and for most of his life, and fought on the side of the Union army in hopes of returning to Florida as a reward for his service. You may want to restore the cat to be in line with the rest of the Civil War guidelines. Just a thought... Scott Mingus 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a rhyme or reason to the madness. ;) I'll put it back. - Banyan Tree 02:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even his great-great grandaughter says the civilwar hostory is an unclear part about Billy as he was suppossed to have died in 1859, shortly after moving west.[1]Swampfire (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I provided a link to a book online in google from 1872, You can actually read the book. It is titled "Dictionary of American Biography, Including Men of the Time" written in 1872 By Francis Samuel Drake, and published by J.R. Osgood and Company, the online book is a copy of and original in the New York Public Library [2] It states his death was March 11, 1859. Thus explaining the 3 year gap with no recod of him and placing him in the civil war. It didn't happen. His listing is on page 111Swampfire (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can also go to [3] which is the National Park services websites on the civil war. The have the biggest database which includes all known soldiers in the civil war. Billy Bowlegs is not among them.Swampfire (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted. User:Scott Mingus had added the civil war section based on the books in the references section, including one inline citation. As a basic principle, one cannot replace a section with a citation with one without. Speaking specifically to this situation, as there is apparently controversy, the article would be better off presenting the controversy, rather than deciding which version is "true". I'll ask Scott if he can come by. - Banyan Tree 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read some of those. They do not state which Billy Bowlegs it is. They cannot be used. Also the reference I cited as to his official death as reported in 1872 was March 11, 1859. A book written close to 10 years from his death is more likely to include the proper date. Than a website someone created in the last 10 years. Even in geneaology research the book from 1872 takes precedence of a website. Also Wiki dictates that the controversy be removed. Unless it absolutely proved. And there is no proof the Billy Bowlegs in the books is this one. And though you may not think so, there are very accurate records of people that served the union as well as the CSA soldiers. As a memeber of the SCV, I do research all the time on the American Civil War. And with that, heresay in books, does not make someone a veteran of the war. If there is no record of them serving, then they aren't treated as vets. Basically you can tell me 1000 times your GGG grandpa was a confederate soldier. You can even have it placed in books. But if there is no record of him serving. Then they didnt serve. You had to fill out cards when joining. Those cards are how records were kept along with death records. And if Billy had a card it would be on record with the NPS website. It isn't and I have tried every way possible to find and actual verifiable record of him serving.Swampfire (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be making two separate arguments to reach one conclusion. Let me break them apart as I see them and respond.

One, there are no records of anyone named Billy Bowlegs serving in the Civil War. As there is currently a cited quotation to a Captain William Cloud in the Army of the Frontier praising Captain Billy Bowlegs of the Seminole at the Battle of Cane Hill, this is demonstrably false. (Well, was a citation, since you removed it.) Are you arguing that the Official Records of the American Civil War has falsified records?

Two, there was, or is conflicting evidence of, another Billy Bowlegs who was not Union captain.

You appear to be conflating the two arguments, stating that if there was no Billy Bowlegs in the Union army then he must be the other Billy Bowlegs. Since you have not proved the first argument, I do not accept the judgment based on conflating it with the second argument, which seems to be me to be verging on original research. As one of the webpages you have pointed to states explicitly that the facts are ambiguous, I'm not sure how you take from that that only your version can be correct.

Also, you state "Wiki dictates that the controversy be removed. Unless it absolutely proved." Have you ever read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? I'll let you do that so you have a chance to rephrase.

Since you appear to want to bring off-wiki experience into this discussion, I should point out that the user whose content you have just removed is a published author in the field of the Civil War. I'll be reverting, but will give you time to respond. - Banyan Tree 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the person is a published author, has nothing to do with it. Also what I said was the books do not state which Billy Bowlegs. Third it could not be the Billy Bowlegs of the second seminole war, because he passed away in 1859 a record already cited, with description from 1872 stating exactly which Billy Bowlegs it is. Also leaving in false information has nothing to do with NPOV. The NPOV would be for the controversial unproven information to be removed. But apparently you think your personal POV should dictate things. Try finding me an actual documentation of exactly which Billy Bowlegs suppossedly served. Because I have provided documentation from 1872, that clearly states the Billy Bowlegs that terrorized Florida for 30 years passed away in 1859. So please provide the {verifiable} documentation, then you can revert away. And yes I mean find me which one. With just a quick search thru one place I use for geneaology research I turn up.

BILLY BOWLEGS - Gender: Male Birth: About 1810 Florida
Billy Bowlegs - Gender: Male Birth: About 1815 Florida
Billy Bowlegs - Gender: Male Birth: About 1832 Wewoka, Seminole Nation, Oklahoma
Billy Bowlegs - Gender: Male Birth: , , Florida
BILLY BOWLEGS - Gender: Male Birth: 1842 , Seminole, Florida, of which it could be any especially the one born at the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma in 1832. I have read the book in question, It never even refers to the fact that it is the Billy Bowlegs of the seminole wars in Florida so it does NOT {verify} anything. It merely talks about A Billy Bowlegs. So I state again find {verifiable} documentation and revert away. Swampfire (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ummm... try every other source on the page, including the ones you keep removing. I can't seem to access the text of the Google doc, but the infoplease citation has a question mark after 1859, which isn't incredibly supportive.

So the fact that you're removing info added by a published author is besides the point, but your SCA membership validates your edits. Be inconsistent much?

I'm pretty well convinced that there are some conflicting sources, but I'm also pretty well convinced that you are taking the most extreme interpretation of selected supporting records. I'm going to do some editing and text merging at some point when I have some time to do the work that you refuse to. You've already made one personal attack on me, and I have a low opinion of editors who come in and demand that their new version be treated as the status quo that other editors have to disprove. I'm going to give you a warning here: If you continue your reverts and/or personal comments, I will decide the disruption to the article is not longer worth humoring. At that point I will put on my admin hat and things will go poorly for you. Cheers, Banyan Tree 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So now you are trying to use admin rights as a threat? I have made NO attacks on you, If you are talking about me stating that, It seems you are letting a personal POV dictate a view for the page. That is not a personal attack. {BTW} the definition of apparently is = it seems. So if there is anything else point it out to me, because I made NO attack on you. The google books opens fine if you give it a minute. If not on the right hand side of the page you can download the pdf of the etire book, and if you can't get that far, give me an email address and I will send you a copy of the book, as I have already downloaded it. Also the infoplease was a back up to the book of which I also provided a page number it is not really needed. But the online book is very much a verifable source. The link I removed was not a verifiable source. It was merely a link to this Official Records of the American Civil War with the book and page number. Again I point out that book and number has no verifiable info that it is the Billy Bowlegs on this page. So it cannot be used. You talk about what you have a problem with, well I have a problem with people that think just because and article has sat like it was for so long that it is complete. Wikipedia is never complete, and removing an unverifiable MYTH is not a disruption. It is what is needed.Swampfire (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you even go to the website I provided here on the talkpage. To the National Park services website NOTE: it is the Governments website on the civil war. There is a section on their wher you can ask their historians questions I just sent them the question about Billy Bowlegs, It states that it will be atleast 3 days before I get a response. At that time this discussion will be settled. They have experts in all the fields I chose a civil war expert, if he does not know I will move onto the next.Swampfire (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You were edit warring to keep content plagiarized from http://ourgeorgiahistory.com/places/okefenokee.html? I'm reverting and will deal with the death date issue soon.- Banyan Tree

Article expanded. I looked a bit more into Dictionary of American Biography, Including Men of the Time and there are no Google versions available online. However, those documents are searchable and return no results for "Bowlegs". Please state the page number of the reference you are providing, as well as the name of the entry used for Bowlegs. - Banyan Tree 10:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The google book is VERY much viewable online. I'm looking at it right now. It is very much a viewable page if you click the link i provided it carries you to the exact page. I told you I would send you the PDF of the entire book so you could look at it that way if for some reason your computer will not open the page. The bottom line is it is viewable and verifiable and the part on Billy Bowlegs is on page (111). Also nothing was PLAGARIZED a citation was placed with it to the page used. The main basis of PLAGARISM is when you take something and try to pass it off as your own work. Which was never done. Also you try to say that I am edit warring. Well if that case is true. It would also make you edit warring. Which is a case you are NOT suppossed to resolve because you are an involved party. Also I have changed the page to reflect a better view of both sides.Swampfire (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping prove my case that it was not this Billy Bowlegs. First you give me a new link from the everglades that states he died in 1859. Then you give this one which does not state which Billy Bowlegs it was Volume XXII But then you go one step further and PROVE without a doubt, that IT WAS NOT this Billy by giving this link Fort Gibson National Cemetery because if you read it. It clearly states that the Billy Bowlegs in this is Sonuk Mikko. This was believed to be Billy Bowlegs son. The same as this Billy Bowlegs to over the name from his father. So again Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. So now are you going to remove it or me. While making sure to keep the reference because it clearly states the Capatain Billy Bowlegs buried in the cemetary in question is actually Sonuk Mikko.Swampfire (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You should feel proud for helping solve the controversy. My suggestion would be to take the info and make a small article on his son. Heck I'll even let you start the article since it was you that found out it was actually Sonuk Mikko.Swampfire (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are still edit warring to add copyvio. Put "The Wildes Family massacre occurred on June 22, 1838 on the perimeter of the swamp." and "General John Floyd built a string of forts (one of which was called Fort Mudge) surrounding the swamp to prevent the escape of the Seminoles." into Google if you can't figure out what I'm talking about. I advise you to go to Wikipedia:Introduction and start from the beginning before returning here, because you have clearly missed some rather basic principles of editing. Note that I would have been delighted to have seen you add all the work that I ended up having to do, and would have been happy to help out, but your aggressive and clueless editing to push a point that you still haven't provided proper citations for has made this about as annoying and abrasive an experience as one could imagine. I'm tired of cleaning up your messes. Reverted. - Banyan Tree 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference in removing what you may be a discrepency in a copy vio, and reverting everything. I will be placing most of it back. Because technically part of what you did is vandalization. I advise you to go reaad it all again. Because you are not viewing this page from NPOV. I feel as though you are trying to impose your personal POV over the whole page. I had the page in a perfectly NPOV. But you try and come in and remove perfectly good citations. To leave the one you deemed questionable. Also if you go to this page [4] on the left hand side you can click the link to read the book, or click the link below it to down load it. page 111 it is easy to find.Swampfire (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also you keep trying to accuse me of copyvio. When almost the whole section you added back to the civil war section is a direct copyvio. It is word for word from the other sites. You can't try to say what i added was acopyvio and delete it and yet levae the other copyvio, just because it is what you think should be here.Swampfire (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, which obviously doen't apply to work you copy from other sites and paste into Wikipedia. - Banyan Tree 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok though, because the civil war stuff has been effectively proven that this is NOT the Billy Bowlegs of the Seminole wars. {Thank you again for that, BTW} So it will have to be removed. Because Wiki is about improving articles.Swampfire (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break for ease of editing

Do you have a citation stating that Sonuk Mikko is Billy Bowleg's son, or at least one stating that they are not different names for the same person? - Banyan Tree 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have that backwards, First you have to start of with having a citation that Sonuk Mikko is the Billy Bowlegs of Seminole war. Because Sonuk Mikko, and Holato Mikko are jut as different as William Smith and Johnathan Smith and yet they both could be known as "Smitty Smith". The burden is on proving Sonuk is Holato.Swampfire (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can give you several good examples of this. When doing family research My great-great-great-grandpa was moses barber and he had a brother named Issac jr., their father was Isaac barber sr. Well I found records in the area where I am of Moses his brother issac and their father Isaac. then I did almost a year of research into them making tons of notes and spending plenty of money on the research. Come to find out after almost a year there was another set with the exact same names from the same area and same time period. And i had spent a year researching the wrong ones. In fact it was older relatives that placed me on the wrong path. For atleast a generation my family thought it was our Isaac Jr. that was murdered and started a "Hatfield-McCoy" style feud. Between the Barbers and Mizells in the swamp. But turns out it wasn't our Isaac Jr. Evevn though all our family records pointed to it. Swampfire (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have no problem including the civil war stuff if it is actually proven as him. But first off let me say. I have did a lot of research into the Billy Bowlegs of the Okefenokee Swamp. Mainly because I am from the Okefenokee and still live here. I also am Native American (Algonquin and Creek) that i know of but I have been told Seminole too I just havent found it in my lineage yet. Which led me into researching Billy Bowlegs and his history in the Okefenokee (which should be in this article) And all accounts I had ever seen had him dying in 1859. It was not until I came to his page on here that I had even seen the whole lil thing on the civil war. Also I have never seen a record of him as Sonuk, only as versions starting with H.Swampfire (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. The majority of credible sources on this page state that the Billy Bowlegs of the Seminole Wars and Billy Bowlegs of the Army of the Frontier are the same person. As Wikipedia's objective is "verifiability, not truth", there would have to be rock solid sourcing and reasoning to state otherwise. One can certainly state that there are two different names, who may be two different people, based on the source I found, but using primary sources to disprove credible secondary sources falls into the realm of original research, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia.

I should note, as the user who started both Billy Bowlegs and Billy Bowlegs III, that I've wondered for a long time who "Billy Bowlegs II" might be. I gave your theory about a 10% chance of being true based off of your initial edit, and am now about 50-50 on the theory that there has been a conflation of two different people. But my opinion doesn't matter in the slightest to the article. Provide your sources and we'll go on from there. If you can't come up with anything further, I can take another stab at integrating the latest findings into the wording of the article.

Also "terrorized" is not neutral language. See Terrorism#Pejorative use. - Banyan Tree 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats where you are wrong. If you had never found Sonuk Mikko you could of argued that point. But in doing research death record trumps. Also those same sources you are trying to indicate are reporting on Holato Mikko not Sonuk Mikko. Infact they even state the same info. Also show me the majority of credible resources with documentation such as the one you found from the actual cemetary. That state Billy from the seminole war is the same one in the civil war. I provided the link to the 1872 book and even offered to send you the PDF I even told you how to get the PDF. I have provided plenty of valid citations on his death. You even found one i hadn't found that also stated 1859 also the webiste you spoke of all say (ca 1864) which means it is unverifiedSwampfire (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact you bring up verifiabity means the world, because all this relied on the fcat that the one assumed to be in the grave was Holato Mikko because all the gravemarker says is Billy Bowlegs. But the fact that the cemetary say Sonuk Mikko is in the grave shifts the verifiability.Swampfire (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I FOUND IT It states they are not the same person, and tells the story of how he took over the name. Right there on page 46 on the right hand side ove the photo.[5] It states Halbutta Micco (Alligator) or "Billy Bowlegs" the last hereditary Seminole chief to leave Florida. When he died shortly before the Civil War the Indian Agent reported: "Bowlegs is dead, but others survive who are inclined to create difficulties" It seems that another Seminole So-Nuk-Mek-Ko, adopted his name joining Opothleyohola and later becoming a Captain in the Union's Indian Home Guard(Smithsonian Institute)Swampfire (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. Nice work. Can you make the relevant edits and split the page? I'm badly behind all the real world work I should I have been doing the past two days, rather than arguing on-wiki. - Banyan Tree 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, what i'll do is create a page for Sonuk Mikko and transfer civil war stuff there, but leave this in the talkpage so people know what we went thru to get to this. and put a disambig at the top to billy bowlegs from the civil war. I plan on incorporating the okefenokee back in. If you see something wrong with the okefenokee part I would appreciate the help in fixing it instead of removing it. Because I cite refernces and some people say something isnt' original enough. I make it more original with cite included and they say they cite doesnt cover it and it is to much like original research.Swampfire (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys for having missed this interesting exchange. I have been off of Wikipedia for months while doing the finishing edits to a new manuscript I wrote about the Louisiana Tigers at Gettysburg. I appreciate the hard work and resolution to this! And now back to my hiatus... Scott Mingus (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

zahc zbDasnjygijGdfgiaeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.139.13 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Billy Bowlegs. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 15:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)