Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1

Opinion

Washita was not a battle but a massacre. The article is the point of view of the United States Government which used any excuse to break a treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahscorer (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle

The military engagement on Washita River, 27 November 1868, was a battle as combatants on both sides were killed. Major Elliott may have believed he was in a desperate battle but since all in his command were killed maybe it was a massacre. The warriors who killed them were proud of their victory in battle. Warriors of the period usually killed all of their opponents, combatant or not. It was the way they waged war. To say that the federal government used any excuse to break a treaty is rather naive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.40.134 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

General Custer

General Custer, a Civil War Medal of Honor recipient, did good. It was a victorious battle for the great United States. The 7th Cavalry was a strong unit that helped bring the attention of the dangers of the frontier to the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.214.66 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 November 2005

Washita is not considered as a massacre and the US troops did well. Not politically correctness here, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.201.179 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction

For information, General Custer wasn't a Medal of Honor recipient, but his brother Thomas Ward Custer was. Custer did indeed a very good job during the Civil War before being betrayed by Major Reno and Captain Benteen losing the famous battle of the Little Bighorn, where he was killed and scalped along with 256 of his soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.202.175 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Word substitution made as unsigned modification by 65.254.156.109 at 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The last evidence

Both Native American and Federal testimonies show that Washita was a great battle and that soldiers took good measures to prevent the killing of women and children. Several soldiers (reported by soldier Spotts of 19th Kansas) said that it was Custer's orders to protect civilians. (read Jerome Greene's book "Washita")

There's no controversy about this battle. It's only bad anti-US propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.202.175 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Custer's Cruelty

Custer was noted as being extremely depressed and saw his military career coming to an end. He craved the attention he had earned as a general in the Civil War, but the glory was fading away. He found a way to put himself back into the American spotlight as the most famous "Indian fighter". He surprise attacked Chief Black Kettle inside of Indian Territory, territory set aside for Native Americans. The Cheyenne chief even flew an American flag over his TP. Colonel Custer achieved his only military victory over Native American's that day and did not achieve any more victories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.208.204 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement above is full of lies

According to Historian Jerome Greene's "Washita 1868", Black Kettle's Indians were guilty of numerous massacres against civilians in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. Black Kettle never held any American flag near his teepee. Custer won two others victories against Sitting Bull in Yellowstone (Wyoming) in 1873. Jerome Greene stated that the Washita encounter was done by the soldiers with "measures to avoid the killing of women and children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.47.76 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV dispute: As a scientist, I find it difficult to believe a scholar would use Custer's own journal as evidence to incriminate Indians. This reference, mistaken as factual, is given undue attention and space compared to others. I recommend: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.51.130 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Historian Jerome Greene's analysis

Jerome Greene's latest book on the Washita denies the "massacre" charges and put Indian testimonies which agree that it was a fierce battle. Indian prisoners told interpreter Dick Curtis that as many as 11 WARCHIEFS were killed during the fight, which suggest large warriors casualties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.21.9.178 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Further Reading on the Washita and other frontier campaigns

"INDIAN FIGHTS AND FIGHTERS" by Cyrus Townsend Brady, LL.D.; with an introduction by James T King
1971 Bison Book Edition, BB538, University of Nebraska Press.Lincoln/London
ISBN 0-8032-5743-0 pbk.
Library of Congress Catolog Card Number 74-156373
Original first edition published by McClure, Phillips & Co. in 1904

The book contains accounts from participants in The Battle of the Washita: officers & enlisted men. It has first hand accounts of many major battles and campaigns between the US Army and Native American Indians. The accounts are graphic and interesting, with thoughts and details from those who were there. It also contains accounts of some battles as told by Native American Indians who were participants. The book also contains maps of battle sites, drawn by participants; including a map of the Little Bighorn Battle, drawn by Rain-In-The-Face(also his account of the battle).Ratzamatatza 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Major overhaul necessary

I think this article requires a major overhaul. As noted before, basing the depiction chiefly on Custer's own account must necessarily create a biased viewpoint. In my view the section "The cause: Black Kettle's war against Kansas" is grossly distortive: 1.)Black Kettle was no war chief, 2.) He was not present with any war party in Kansas, 3.) He didn't send any warriors on the warpath, 4.) He was the chief man of the "peace faction" among the Cheyennes, he even signed peace treaties which gave away 90% of Cheyenne land to avoid further bloodshed. As a consequence his standing among the Indians suffered greatly. That was the reason why his camp had to stay at the Washita river several miles downstream from the other camps. It is true that Black Kettle was unable to stop young men from his cmap to join war parties. Making "Black Kettle's war against Kansas" out of this is not worthy of Wikipedia's standards.

Likewise, the casualty figures are manifestly wrong. Greene's book has a good overview on this question. The Cheyennes named every victim by name. Custer just added body counts of different soldiers (each of them counting the same killed indians again and again) and upped them at will. Most likely 11 Cheyenne men, 2 Arapaho men, 9 Cheyenne women, 2 Sioux women and 5 children were killed, altogether under 30, not more than 130 as Custer claimed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lookoo (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

False

Black Kettle WAS a chief of tribe, his tribe WAS at war in 1868 according to Little Rock, second-in-command in the village, who testified on November 19, 1868, about the depredations commited by bands. Indian prisoners gave to Interpreter Dick Curtis the name of eleven warchiefs killed, not the overall number. More : http://custer.over-blog.com/categorie-10017999.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.37.103 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"The troops burst into the village, cutting down the Indians as they fled their lodges. The soldiers were also hit: one captain was killed by a bullet in the chest, and another was severely wounded in the abdomen. Maj. Elliot cut loose with 18 men of various companies to chase some Indianswho had escaped to the east, reportedly calling out, "Here goes for a brevet or a coffin". Elliot was cut off and his party killed. During the battle, the Cheyennes killed two of four white captives. It is uncertain whether Custer was able to rescue the other two. After soldiers killed Chiefs Black Kettle and Little Rock, Custer captured the camp, burned tipis and supplies, and shot 875 Indian ponies. As more Indians gathered from other camps downriver, Custer made a feint downstream, sending them back to protect their villages. Doubling back in the gathering darkness, Custer returned to his supply train and headed home, reaching Camp supply on 1 December. Custer captured 53 women and children during the mission and reported 103 Indians killed"

Gregory F. Michno, ENCYCLOPEDIA of Indian Wars 1850-1890, pages 226-227

Custerwest 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

False?

"Black Kettle WAS a chief of tribe", yes, he was one of 44 peace chiefs of the Cheyenne nation, one of four peace chiefs of his band. You should make yourself a little bit more aquainted with his policy and what impact this had on his standing within the tribe. Already in 1867 he was much ridiculed for his peace stance and commanded little authority in wider Cheyenne circles (Greene, page 45).

"his tribe WAS at war in 1868 according to Little Rock". Who exactly was at war? When a couple of young men from his band joined the dog soldiers against his express will, this doesn't mean Black kettle was at war with the whites.

"Indian prisoners gave to Interpreter Dick Curtis the name of eleven warchiefs killed, not the overall number." Instead of linking to your own blog I would like to have some meaningful source here. Which chiefs then? This is easily verifiable. You won't find 11 Cheyenne chiefs present at Black Kettle's band and even less so all killed in the battle.

Jerome Greene writes: "Custer's prisoners later reported that thirteen men, besides two sioux and an arapaho, had been killed at the Washita, but evidentl they gave no figure for noncombatant losses. George Bent revised the tribal testimony over several years and arrived at 13 men killed, 12 women and five children, thus 30 Indian casualties overall, finally revised to 29, "a number that does not appear unreasonable"(Greene p.136)

Concerning those white captives, isn't it strange that we learn so very little about them, their names and their fate? Where were they buried? What happened to the surviving ones if they were really present What were their names?

User:Lookoo 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul started

I have started the overhaul now since I can't see who would do it otherwise. The entire approach in presenting the issue seems substandard to me and rather an appendix to some Custer glorification. It is unacceptable to take the clearly propagandistic accounts of only one side as the facts material as has happened in this article. I will revamp the article to a more balanced depiction in several increments as time permits. I kindly request all those who disagree to dicuss ad not engage in undue edit wars. Thank you!

User:Lookoo 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

White captives

I won't accept a complete rewriting of the article without other evidences than George Bent, whose bias towards Native Americans is well known. Colonel Nelson Miles wrote a letter about the two white boys being freed. He wrote that the two boys were in poor condition, because they were probably starving during their custody. Miss Blinn and her child were discovered by the men of 19th Kansas near the location where Black Kettle had been killed, according to 7th cavalry members. An autopsy of both bodies was performed by Dr Lippincott, who said that Willie Blinn, two-years-old boy, had been smashed against a tree by the Cheyennes. General Custer stated about a white child being killed in the village and a white woman, captive, being killed too.

I wonder if the "more balanced" view will ne bot a complete rewriting of history in favor of Indians.

Indian prisoners told Dick Curtis that 13 warchiefs (including Little Rock and Black Kettle) were killed at the battle. Black Kettle himself said that his warriors were killing settlers. A "peaceful" chief isn't in a village full of warriors who are killing settlers.

It's not because Hollywood have decided to rewrite every historical fact in Indian favor that it's true. Black Kettle's involvment in the massacres was well-known.

Evidences - http://www.custerwest.org

Custerwest 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (134.21.9.164)

I beg to differ, it is well known that indian tribal behaviour was not always unitary. The younger warriors frequently took a lead of their own in what might be called military matters. They did not simply follow the lead of Village chiefs. it is quite within the bounds of probability that younger more aggressive men were dissatisfied with what was occurring and took it uppon themselves to go off and make war on their enemies, if you look at entries about leaders such as about Chief Joseph or Rain in the Face this is clearly what was happening, The Young warriors decided war policy not the chiefs. Read up about the dog soldiers. I have made some changes to bring this article more into line with other Wiki Articles on related areas.

If you want to suggest that this is all down to the fault of naughty Indians who refused to keep to agreements, or to suggest that this was simply a massacre, you really ought to go and search out and change a lot of articles on the Indian Wars. And not just this one otherwise you are being inconsistent, and making Wikipedia inconsistent too. Don't forget for example to change the entry where Custer says he has sympathies towards the Indians who resisted.

I also suggest that looking at why the indians may have acted as they did, is a lot more NPOV then simply looking at it from an American determination of their actions. - Anton Mon/25/Jun/2007 (using 210.185.7.90)

Modern US Army version

I actually don't really know if "the Indians lost perhaps 50 killed and as many wounded" covers the civilians or not. --HanzoHattori 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So I decided "up to 75" total (maybe an overstimate, but well). --HanzoHattori 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is editing this page?

I wonder who's the idiot who's editing the page and taking the footnotes off. Gosh, is it an encyclopedia or not? FOOTNOTES are history. Modern accounts of the battle doesn't put any 75 dead etc. What's wrong with you? Account of the battle put Cheyennes casualties to more than 100, or closer to 100 warriors killed (historian Jeffry Wert). The "modern US army version" is a simple website, it's not serious... Is anyone here doing some researchs?

http://www.custerwest.org Custerwest 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear little revisionist: CMH is a very serious US Army agency. Send your grievances to:[1] --HanzoHattori 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My God, it's the worse example of ignorance I've ever seen. People are STUDYING the battle with primary sources. Do you know what historian means ? Members of my website are historians and doctors in history. I've written a book myself. I was putting footnotes and original quotes and you deleted all with nonsense like "Comanche campaign". It's totally false. You have but a website, made by people who just gathered what they heard about the battle. It's not a serious work. It's not a work of historian. Where are your footnotes ? Your real work ? Your quotes ? You even didn't say anything about Black Kettle's white captives. Do you know what you're talking about ? Surely no. If Wikipedia editors are like you, the credibility of the whole encyclopedia drops. Custerwest 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you, tell this to Brig. Gen. John S. Brown. According to him, he and his institute "remain mindful of the Center’s responsibility to publish an accurate and objective account," so don't forget to call him "idiot" or "monkey", and to threaten to kick his "damn ass". --HanzoHattori 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the holy gospel of the US Center command. Especially the page where it's said that "Custer led his regiment toward the Little Bighorn, no one is certain what his real hopes and ambitions were; but it is clear that his goal, as ever, was personal glory. Unfortunately, he and most of his command were killed to gain that fame." Every Little Bighorn historian can say that for the story of the Little Bighorn, it's ZERO. Custerwest 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear "Custerwest":

1. You can not question the US Army's official history of the US Army. It's their job to document and research their own history. Not yours. They have access to all the archives and documents, because all of these is theirs. You can't whitewash their findings ("accurate and objective"), not to mention the sources like these:
2. The sources from the XIXth and early XXth century are POV and outdated. Everything by Custer is obviously POV too, and if dissmissed by his own army, untrue.
3. You can not cite blogs.
4. Especially your own.
5. What you can use are the other modern official sources.
6. You could also make a section about the past deciptions of the event, including outdated official sources, or even modern historians (real, not some blogs in French) if there's controversy in relation to the current government version. But this doesn't matter, because:
7. I'm not playing edit-warring. As soon as you are banned (and you're going to be), I am reverting, so don't bother.

Also a parting word of advice: don't try to "kick damn asses" of the "idiot monkeys" in uniform, because they will either jail you or shoot you. Or both. --HanzoHattori 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE? For example, the number of Indian warriers who died may be not known for sure. So, why not indicate the number as 70 to 150 for example? Hanzo, anyone can "question the US Army's official history" in WP, based on appropriate sources. US Army is not an ultimate authority about historical events, just as Russian Army, etc. How about book by General Troshev? Biophys 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's kind of source which is critical to the Custer's own account of Custer. "Custerwest"'s sources (his own blog and the outdated sources from 1924 and 1938) are all whitewash to keep with Custer line (which was rejected by his own army later). This including the whitewashing causes (white expansion, Sand Creek) and aims of the war (what US Army now calls "complete destruction of Indian culture", and says even the soldiers and officers were uneasy about this at the time), and results of the battle (causing many more further deaths among the survivors, more than in combat), while at the same time demonising the other side. Compare:[2] and [3]

And yes, he cites the sources of at least 70-80 years ago to write the white men were "murdered" in "massacres", while the Indian men were "killed" after being "ordered to be killed". Capturing white women and children, and killing some of them, was bad, but capturing Indian women and children,and killing some of them, was alright. Outrageous Sand Creek massacre (Black Kettle and his people were survivors, and it was unprovoked and truly horrific - dead unborn children taken as tropheas by the militiamen, for example) is not even mentioned.

To go along the Troshev example: it's like the Russian Army suddenly criticised the exploits of Russian general Troshev in their official history, and some "Troshevsouth" came to dissmiss this as "not serious", citing instead what Troshev said of wrote about Troshev, and what pro-Troshev sources wrote about him (not 70+ years ago, but, say, 12 years in Krasnaya Zvezda articles). --HanzoHattori 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I looked at "Custerwest" web site. Looks indeed as POV and self-promotion in Wikipedia by custerwest. Certainly, we do not want any unreliable information here. If he is trying to dispute generally accepted things (which seems to be the case), he must provide reliable and up-todate sources, and do not curse and conduct edit wars, but try to find consensus at the talk page. Biophys 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a look too, and I must say love how he calls Washita "anti-terror campaign".[4] Just... wow. Maybe he's so angry it was qualified by the editors as part of Comanche Campaign and not "War on Terrorism". Actually, according to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy the Indian culture" (see: cultural genocide). --HanzoHattori 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy the Indian culture" What a joke. It was a military campaign against raiders operating in Kansas... Is extreme leftist ideology accepted on Wikipedia? HanzoHattori don't know a clue about the event, presented no factual evidences, consider primary sources as "outdated" (something to kill an historian from heartbreak)... Who's this clown? Where are the footnotes? Custerwest 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI post about edit war & incivility problems

See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

After the edit war, and due to extensive pov and or concerns I reverted the page to this revision. This is the version using the Army's sources. --MichaelLinnear 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody here ready for primary sources ?

Every primary source, or even quotes by historians such as Jerome Greene (National Park Service, 2004) have been deleted. Custer's Washita campaign against the Cheyennes has been put in the Comanche campaign. The casualties are false. The causes of the battle are false. Every footnote and primary sources has been deleted. It's a complete disaster.

'generally accepted things (which seems to be the case)'? Who knows here the encounter ? Who has read Jerome Greene's book? Who has read primary sources ? You have deleted original sources and replace them by a flawed article by US center command which isn't made of historians and isn't a relevant source...

And yes, he cites the sources of at least 70-80 years ago to write the white men were "murdered" in "massacres", while the Indian men were "killed" after being "ordered to be killed". Capturing white women and children, and killing some of them, was bad, but capturing Indian women and children,and killing some of them, was alright. Outrageous Sand Creek massacre (Black Kettle and his people were survivors, and it was unprovoked and truly horrific - dead unborn children taken as tropheas by the militiamen, for example) is not even mentioned. This kind of politically correct garbage shouldn't be allowed in a serious encyclopedia (unless Wikipedia isn't seen as a serious one). Causes of Washita come from the 1867 peace treaty and the Indian massacres of settlers that followed it. It's serious history. Facts, with precision, date, facts, quotes. HISTORY.

• ADARE, Sierra, Fort Laramie: Getaway to the Far West, dans le Wild West, décembre 1999
• AILLIOT, Patrick, La révolte des Sioux du Minnesota, dans le “Courrier de la Guerre d’Amérique”, revue interne du Club Confédéré et Fédéral de France (CCFF), avril 1997
• AMBROSE, Stephen E., Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, Garden City, Doubleday & Co, 1975
• ______, Undaunted Courage, Lewis And Clark and the opening of the West, New York, Touchstone Books, 1996
• ANDERSON, Ian, Sitting Bull and the Mounties, dans le Wild West, février 1998
• BARNARD, Sandy, Shovels and Speculation, Archeology hunts Custer, Billings, Ast Press, 1990
• BARNETT, Louise, Touched by Fire: The Life, Death, and Mythic Afterlife of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Henry Holt & Company, 1996
• BENNETT, William J., America, the last best hope, Nashville, Nelson Current, 2006
• BERGER Yves et DUBOIS, Daniel, Les Indiens des Plaines, Paris, Rocher/Nuage Rouge, rééd. 2000
• BERTHONG, Donald J., The Southern Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1979
• BIG MAN Jr., Allen, Curley, the sole survivor of Custer’s command, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
• BRILL, Charles J., Conquest of the Southern Plains, New York, Millwood, 1975
• BROWN, Dee, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, New York, Bantam Books, 1972
• ______, The American West, New York, Touchstone Books, 1994
• CARROLL, John M. (éd.) Custer in the Civil War: His Unfinished Memoirs, San Rafael, Presidio Press, 1977
• ______, Custer in Texas: An Interupted Narrative, New York, Sol Lewis and Liveright, 1975
• ______, They Rode with Custer: a Biographical Directory of the Men who rode with General Custer, Mattituck, John M. Carroll & Co, 1993
• CARROLL John M. et FROST, Lawrence A., Private Theodore Ewert’s Diary of the Black Hills Expedition of 1874, Piscataway, 1976
• CATTON, Bruce, The Civil War, New York, American Heritage/Wing Books, 1988
• CHIAVENTONE, Frederick J., A Road We Do Not Know, Albuquerque, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, rééd. 1998
• CONNELL, Evan, S., Son of the Morning Star, General Custer and the Little Bighorn, London, Pimlico Books, rééd. 1999
• CORNUT, David, Little Big Horn, autopsie d'une bataille légendaire, Parçay-sur-Vienne, Anovi, 2006

COX, Kurt Hamilton, Custer and his Commands, from West Point to Little Bighorn, London, Greenhill Books, 1999

• CUSTER, Général George A., My Life on the Plains or Personal Experiences with Indians, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 1962
• CUSTER, Elizabeth Bacon, Tenting on the Plains, or General Custer in Texas and Kansas, New York, Charles Webster & Co, rééd. 1960
• ______, Following the Guidon, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 1966
• CUTLER, Bruce, The Massacre at Sand Creek: Narratives Voices, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1995
• DARLING, Roger, Custer’s Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1989
• ______, A Sad and Terrible Blunder: Generals Terry and Custer at Little Bighorn, New Discoveries, Vienna, Potomac/Western Press, 1992
• DELANOE, Nelcya, L’Entaille Rouge : des terres indiennes à la démocratie américaine, 1776-1996, Paris, Albin Michel, rééd. 1996
• DELORIA Jr., Vine, Custer Died For your Sins, An Indian Manifesto, New York, Avon Books, 1969
• DEWAELHEYNS, Georges et PURNELLE, Véronique, La campagne et la bataille de Little Bighorn, dans “AMERICANA”, revue interne du Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Histoire de l’Amérique du Nord (GERHAN), été 1996
• DOERNER, John A., The Boys of ’76, Seventh cavalry Letters and Recollections of the 1876 Sioux Campaign, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
• EPPLE, Jess C., Custer’s Battle of the Washita and a history of the Plains Indians tribe, New York, Exposition Press, 1970
• EVERITT, David, 1871 War On Terror : unprecedented action to crack down the Ku Klux Klan, dans le “American History Magazine”, juin 2003
• FEADER, Gustav, Custer at Gettysburg, dans le “Civil War Magazine”, juin 1990
• FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), dossier 95-3820, 1954
• FOX, Richard A., Archeology History and Custer’s Last Battle, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
• FROST, Lawrence A., The Custer Album, a Pictorial Biography of General George A. Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1964
• ______, The Court Martial of General George Armstrong Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1968
• ______, Custer’s Seventh Cavalry and the Campaign of 1873, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1986.
• ______, With Custer in ’74: James Calhoun’s Diary of the Black Hills Expedition, Provo, Young University Press, 1979
• GRAY, John S., Centennial Campaign, the Sioux War of 1876, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1988
• ______, Custer’s Last Campaign: Mitch Bouyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
• GREENE, Jerome A., The Great Sioux War, dans le “True West Magazine”, mai/juin 2001
• ______, Washita 1868: The Army and the Southern Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004
• ______, Evidence and the Custer Enigma : A Reconstruction of Indian-Military History, Golden, Outbooks, 1986
• ______, Yellowstone Command : Colonel Nelson A. Miles and the Great Sioux War 1876-1877, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
• GRINNELL, George Bird, The Fighting Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1956
• GUAGE, Duane, Black Kettle : A “Noble Savage” ?, dans les Chronicles of Oklahoma, 1967
• HAMMER, Kenneth, Custer in ’76: Walter Camp’s Notes on the Custer Fight, Provo, Bingham Young University Press, 1976
• HARDORFF, Richard G., Lakota recollections of the Custer Fight: New Sources of Indian-Military History, Spokane, Clark, 1991
• ______, Cheyennes Memories of the Custer Fight, Spokane, Clark, 1995
• ______, Hoka Hey ! The Indian Casualties at the Custer Fight, Spokane, Arthur H. Clarke Company, 1993
• HARMON, Dick, SCOTT, Douglas D., FOX, Richard A., et CONNOR, Melissa A., Archeological Perspective on The Battle of Little Bighorn, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
• HART, Louis et McCUNE B.F., The Fatal Fetterman Fight, dans le Wild West, décembre 1997
• HASSRICK, Royal B., The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1972
• HATCH, Thomas, Custer and the Little Bighorn, Jefferson, McFarland Press, 1997
• HOIG, Stanley, The Sand Creek Massacre, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1961
• ______, The Battle of the Washita, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1976
• HOOK, Jason, The American Plains Indians, Wellingborough, Osprey Publishing, 1985
• HUTTON, Paul A. (éd.), The Custer reader, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1992
• ______, Phil Sheridan and His Army, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1985
• JACQUIN, Phillipe, Histoire des Indiens d’Amérique du Nord, Paris, Payot, 1976
• ______, La terre des Peaux-Rouges, Paris, Gallimard, 2000
• JENSEN, Richard E., ELI, Paul et CARTER, John E., Eyewitness at Wounded Knee, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
• JONES, Douglas C., The Treaty of Medicine Lodge, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1966
• KATZ, Mark D., Custer in Photographs, A photographic biography of the most intriguing Boy General, Garry Owen, Custer Battlefield Museum Publishing, 2000
• KRAFT, Louis, Custer and the Cheyennes: George Armstrong Custer’s Winter Campaign on the Southern Plains, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1995
• KUHLMAN, Charles, Did Custer Disobey Orders at the Battle of Little Bighorn?,Harrisburg, Stackpole Books, 1957
• LANEYRIE-DAGEN, Nadeije, Les grandes batailles, Paris, Larousse, 1997
• LANGELIER, John P., Custer: The Man, The Myth, The Movies, New York, Stackpole Books, 2000
• LALIRE, Gregory, Lakotas : Feared Fighters of the Plains, dans le Wild West, avril 2001
• LECKIE, Shirley A., Elizabeth Bacon Custer and the Making of a Myth, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
• LEHUNSEC, Mathieu, Moeurs et coutumes des Indiens d’Amérique, document non publié transmis grâce à l’amabilité de son auteur
• LITTLE BIGHORN BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL MONUMENT, Reno-Benteen entrenchment Trail, 2002
• MALCOLMSON, Scott L., One Droop of Blood, the American Misadventure of Race, New York, Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000
• MANGUM, Neil C., The Civil War Custer, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
• McPHERSON, James M., La guerre de Sécession, Paris, Robert Laffont, 1991
• MERINGTON, Marguerite (éd.), The Custer Story, The Life and Intimate Letters of General Custer and His Wife Elizabeth, New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1950
• MICHNO, Gregory F., The Real Villains of Sand Creek, dans le Wild West Magazine, 2004
• ______, Lakota Noon : The Indian Narrative of Custer’s defeat, Missoula, Mountain Press Company, 1997
• MILES, Général Nelson A., Personnal Recollection and Observation of General Nelson A. Miles, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, rééd. 1992
• MILLER, David H., Custer’s Fall: The Indian Side of the Story, New York, Duel/Sloan/Pierces, 1957
• MONAGHAN, Jay, Custer : The life of General George A. Custer, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1971
• NICHOLS, Ronald H., In Custer’s Shadow: The life of Major Marcus Reno, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1999
• NIGHTENGALE, Robert, Little Big Horn, Edina, FarWest Publishing, 1996
• PANZERI, Peter, Little Big Horn, 1876, Wellingborough, Osprey Publishing, 1995
• PATRIC, William C., Custer’s Black Hills Expedition, dans le American History Magazine, juin 2003
• PEARSON, Jeffrey W., Crazy Horse, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
• PETERSON, Nancy, Interpreter Phillip Wells : Wounded at Wounded Knee, dans le Wild West, août 2004
• PURNELLE, Véronique et CORNELIS, Michel, Prélude à la Little Bighorn, dans “AMERICANA”, revue interne du Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Histoire de l’Amérique du Nord (GERHAN), été 1996
• REECE, Robert, List of the warriors at the Little Bighorn, Friends of the Little Bighorn Association, 2004
• ROBINSON III, Charles, The Death of Tom Custer, dans le Wild West, juin 1996
• ROLLAND, Marc, George A. Custer et la Little Bighorn : Avatars d’un héritage mythique, dans le “ Cahier du G.R.E.A.M”, Université du Maine, automne 2001
• ROTH, David E., The Civil War 1861-1865, New York, Smithmark, 1998
• SAND CREEK MASSACRE HISTORICAL SITE, Conduct Oral History Research for Sand Creek Massacre Historical Site, 1999
• ______, Historical Research of the location of the Sand Creek Massacre, 1999
• SANDOZ, Mari, Cheyenne Autumn, New York, McGraws Hill, 1953
• ______, The Battle of the Little Bighorn, New York, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1966
• SCOTT, Douglas D. et WILLEY P. et CONNOR, Melissa A., They Died with Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 2001
• SCOTT, Douglas D., et FOX, Richard A., et CONNOR, Melissa A. et HARMON, Dick, Archeological Insights into the Custer Battle: An assessment of the 1984 Field Season, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1989
• SHOEMAKER, Arthur, Osage scouts helped George Armstrong Custer track down Cheyennes raiders at the Washita, dans le Wild West, juin 1992
• SKLENAR, Larry, To Hell With Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2003
• SMITH, Sherry L., Sagebrush Soldier, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2002
• STACKPOLE, Edward J., They met at Gettysburg, Mechanicsburg, Stackpole Books, rééd. 1986
• STEWART, Edgard I, Custer’s luck, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1955
• STOCKWEL, Henrietta, The Arrows that Wounded the West, dans le Wild West, décembre 1998
• SVALDI, David, Sand Creek and the Rethoric of Exermination, A Case Study of Indian-White Relations, Lanham, University of America, 1989
• UNGER, Arthur, The ABCs of Custer's Last Stand, El Segundo, Upton and Sons, 2004
• URWIN, Gregory J., Custer Victorious, The Civil War Battles of General George Armstrong Custer, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, rééd. 1990
• URWIN, Gregory J. et FANAGAN, Roberta (éd.), Custer and His Times, Book Three, University of Central Arkansas Press, 1987
• UTLEY, Robert. M, Custer, Cavalier in buckskin, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd.2001
• ______, (éd.), Life in Custer’s cavalry: Diaries and Letter of Albert and Jennie Barnitz 1867-1868, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1977
• ______, The Lance and the Shield: the Life and Times of Sitting Bull, New York, Henry Holt & Co, 1993
• VAN DE WATER, Frederick, Glory Hunter: The life of General Custer, Indianapolis, Bob-Merrills, 1934
• VEGGEBERG, Vernon T., Laws of War on the American Frontier: General orders 100 and the Cheyenne-White Conflict, Master Thesis, Colorado State University, 1999
• VESTAL, Stanley, New Sources of Indian History, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1934
• WARDE, Mary Jane, Final Report: Conduct of Oral History Research for Washita Historical Site, Oklahoma Historical Society/Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, 1999
• WASHITA BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, Act of 1996, 104th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H.R., 3099, March 14 1996
• ______, Voices : the journey to Washita, document interne transmis grâce à l’amabilité de la cheffe historienne Mary C. Davis, 2005
• WELLMAN, Paul I., The Indian Wars of the West, New York, Garden City, 1954
• WELCH, James, C’est un beau jour pour mourir, Paris, Albin Michel 1999
• WERT, Jeffry, Custer: The controversial life of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Touchstone Books, 1996
• ______, From Winchester to Cedar Creek, the Shenandoah Campaign of 1864, Carlisle, South Mountain Press, 1987
• WITTAKER, Frederick, The Complete Life of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Seldon and Co, rééd. 1962
• WITTENBERG, Eric J. (éd.), One of Custer’s Wolverines : The Civil War Letters of Bvt. Brig. General James H. Kidd, 6th Michigan cavalry, Alexandria, Time-Life Books, 1983
• WITTENBERG, Eric J. et HUSBY, Karla J. (éd.), Under Custer’s Command : The Civil War Diary of Private James H. Avery, 5th Michigan cavalry, Dulles, Brassey’s, 2000

Custerwest 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest, for future information, please note that even if you use hard returns, a list like this will show up as one long difficult-to-read paragraph unless you put bullets (created in Wikipedia through use of asterisks) at the beginning of each line. I have modified your post just now by providing them (but made no other changes).

Note also that most of these sources aren't primary sources, but rather are secondary sources. It might be helpful in discussing types of sources to know the difference between the two. See WP:ATT#Primary and secondary sources for definitions. Note further the policies stating that Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge and Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. --Yksin 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the battle (with sources): white captives

Sources : Black Kettle’s Last Raid, by Hill P. Wilson, Transactions of Kansas State Historical Society, VIII, pages 110-117

Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, page 212

Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. page 18

articles from the Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868):

“A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town (HaysCity) on Thursday. They had a white child with them (…) Some think that (the child) was stolen by Kiowas or Comanches in Kansas or Texas and sold to the Cheyennes.”

In his report after the battle of the Washita, November 27, 1868, Custer stated to have freed “We also secured two white children, held captives by the Indians.”

As Stan Hoig said, we have evidences that these boys were treated at Fort Hays. Stan Hoig says in his “Battle of the Washita) (page 183): “Evidently, there were the two boys Custer had reported he had rescued from the Indians."

Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, issued a report on April 30, 1869:

“I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.” Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the battle (with sources) : Indian massacres of settlers

Source: “Report of an interview between E. W. Wynkoop, US Indian Agent, and Little Rock, a Cheyenne Chief Held at Fort Larned, Kansas, August 19, 1868, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cheyenne and Arapho Indians. Available in Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 49-51; George A. Custer, My Life on The Plains, University of Oklahoma Press, pages 153-156; Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 52-53

Fort Larned, August 19, 1868 Interview of Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village By Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop Witnesses: Lieutenant Samuel Robbins, civilian John Smith, scout James Morrisson.

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “Six nights ago, I spoke to you in regard to depredations committed on the Saline. I told you to go and find out by whom theses depredations were committed and to being me straight news. What news do you bring?”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “I took your advice and went there. I am now here to tell you all I know. This war party of Cheyennes which left the camp of these tribes above the forks of Walnut Creek about the 2d or 3d of August, went out against the Pawnees (…) The Cheyennes numbered about 200; nearly all the young men in the village went (…) A Cheyenne named Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a (…) proceeded to the first hourse; they afterwards returned to the camp with a woman captive. (…) The two Indians had outraged the woman before they brought her to the camp. (…) Big Head’s son knocked (an isolated white man) down with a club. (…) Soon after they killed a white man, and close by, a woman (…) They then went to another house in the same settlement, and there killed two men and took two little girls prisoners. (…) After they had proceeded some distance up thr Saline, the party divided, the majority going north toward thr settlements on the Solomon (…) Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information.”

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “Your told me your nations want peace; will you, in accordance with your treaty stipulations, deliver up the men whom you have named as being the leaders of the party who committed the outrages named?”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “(…) when I return to (Black Kettle’s) camp and assemble the chiefs and headmen, I think those two men will be delivered up to you.”

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “I consider the whole party guilty; but it being impossible to punish all of them, I hold the principle men, whom you mentioned, responsible for all. (…)”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “After your explanations, I think your demand for the men is right. I am willing to deliver them up, and will go back to the tribe and use my best endeavours to have them surrendered.”

(Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. Pages 19-21)

No warrior was ever delivered up. Little Rock was eventually killed during Custer's Battle of the Washita, while fighting with the warriors hidden in Black Kettle's village. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Casualties (with sources)

Indian prisoners told Interpreter Richard Curtis that 11 wachiefs and headmen had been killed, Black Kettle and Little Rock not counted. It means that 13 headmen and warchiefs were killed.

Names of the warchiefs and headmen killed: Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 140, page 242 (note for page 140)

Buffalo Tongue Tall White Man Tall Owl Poor Black Elk Big Horse White Beaver Bear Tail Running Water Wolf Ear The Man That Hears the Wolf Medicine Walker Black Kettle Little Rock

Civilian casualties are estimated around 20 (15 to George Bent, 17 to George Bird Grinnell). Custer estimated that 102 warriors had been killed. Later, while coming back on the battlefield, he estimated the casualties as "much higher". 7th cavalry officers thought that the casualties could be of 150 warriors killed. Lieutenant Cooke and Custer both marked places where 17 and 38 warriors had been killed. First report to Fort Cobb showed that at least 80 warriors had been killed. A report coming from Fort Cobb, written with statements by fleeing Indians, said that "all the men had been killed." Accounts of the battle tell us that a great killing of warriors occured. Red Bird, a Cheyenne squaw, saw warriors laying with their guns in their hands". Scout Ben Clark remembered that the Indian forces in the village numbered around 150 warriors.

It's obvious that more than 100, almost all the warriors, were killed. Probably 120 to 130 warriors were killed. There is nothing serious in counting 20 or 40 warriors killed. 150 warriors attacked at dawn cannot have escaped. The accounts of the battle showed that they fought or were shot down. Let's be serious. Cheyenne casualties, which were rewritten to make Black Kettle look like an old peaceful fellow, were high. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "politically correct garbage" (and also "politically incorrect" too)

In short.

1. Custer and his men were the soldiers of the American army. The same army now provides "neutral and accurate" account of these events, deigned for both soldiers and civilians (including encouraging teachers and students to use this as a source). As they are the US Army Center of Military History, they are military historians - and their mission is "recording the official history of the Army in both peace and war" since 1874. Wikipedia editors use the archival materials provided by the CMH, as it's all freeware (see: [5]).
2. As for the Sand Creek massacre just 4 years earlier (very related, because the same people involved on one side), the same again army concluded that the militia "surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities" - meaning Black Kettle's band, of course.
3. The same Wikipedia article states: "After this event, many more Cheyenne and Arapaho men joined the Dog Soldiers, and sought revenge on settlers throughout the Platte valley, killing as many as 200 civilians." - maybe this is what you mean by your "depredations"? Btw, I had to check this word - and, predictably enough, "A classic of Texas literature .... harshly condemns the Indians and makes no attempt to consider their point of view."[6]
4. POV issues like this: In the case of the total war such as this (burned ground tactics, actions "amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture", which is a direct quote) you don't have civilians on one side "murdered", and these on the other side "killed" in the one article. Same thing, for example, for changing comparably greater further deaths caused by the initial military attacks (obviously mostly among children and elderly) to merely "weakening" - unless you change the alleged "massacres" of whites into the acts of "weakening" or what not. And so on.
5. Comanche Campaign is the long-standing and appearently official name of the conflic, and I have even nothing to do with it (see: [7]). I wonder how you missed this? No, you can't go and change it for "Anti-terror campaign" or whatever.
6. The outdated and POV sources are outdated and POV (obviously). If you think the "politically incorrect garbage" ("terror camp destroyed", etc.) is better, sorry. I don't care a little bit for your blog, it's called the freedom of speech, but here it's no pasaran (haha, "extreme leftism"). --HanzoHattori 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hanzo. Now I understand better why WP:SOURCE policy asks us to use reliable secondary rather than primary sources. In events controversial like these, it is better to stick to US official military history (most recent edition). Biophys 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Custerwest, please tell when you are done with editing, so we could take a final look and discuss. Biophys 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• For an example how wrong and cofused the old sources are, here's the example by the very Secretary of War of this time:

General Custer reported that it was impracticable to comply with the request contained in the closing sentence "for the gratifying reason that every officer and man belonging to the expedition has performed his full part in rendering the movement against the hostile tribes a complete success."

General Sheridan's order, issued upon the receipt of Custer's despatch written immediately after the battle, understates the loss; two officers and twenty-five men were killed, and three officers and twelve men wounded. Two white boys were rescued from the savages. During the engagement a bloodthirsty squaw was seen to murder a bright lad of about ten years by disemboweling him with a knife. In Satanta's abandoned village the bodies of a young white woman and a child were found cruelly mutilated.

A subsequent visit to the battle-field, and investigation among the prisoners and other Indians who were in the fight, disclosed a much greater Indian loss than was first reported. They acknowledged that one hundred and forty warriors were killed, and the number wounded must have swelled the aggregate loss to nearly four hundred.

Even the (rumors of) alleged captives are completely different from the "4 to 6 white captives murdered by the Cheyennes" alleged by Cw's - according to John Schofield himself, only one in this camp (and two in the other one). He even says 27 soldiers were killed, while everyone agrees only 21 died. And so on.

• Now, the Washita Battlefield website[8] says:

Before dawn, the troopers attacked the 51 lodges, killing a number of men, women, and children. Custer reported about 100 killed, though Indian accounts claimed 11 warriors plus 19 women and children lost their lives. More than 50 Cheyennes were captured, mainly women and children. Custer's losses were light: 2 officers and 19 enlisted men killed. Most of the soldier casualties belonged to Major Joel Elliott's detachment, whose eastward foray was overrun by Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa warriors coming to Black Kettle's aid. Chief Black Kettle and his wife were killed in the attack.[9]

Yes, the Indians said 11 warriors died, not "13 chiefs and 100+ warriors" - it was what "Custer reported" (and Custerwest now promotes). This one was the second most official source nowadays (government's civilian branch this time). EOT from my side, becaue I don't think there's no further discussion needed (and there was never really, but well).

One some more Battlefield quotes (more on the chief of alleged "terror camp" himself):

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site protects and interprets the site of the Southern Cheyenne village of Peace Chief Black Kettle that was attacked by the 7th U.S. Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A. Custer just before dawn on November 27, 1868. The controversial strike was hailed at the time by the military and many civilians as a significant victory aimed at reducing Indian raids on frontier settlements. Washita remains controversial because many Indians and whites labeled Custer's attack a massacre. Black Kettle is still honored as a prominent leader who never ceased striving for peace even though it cost him his life.

and continues thus:

Peace Chief Black Kettle

Seeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government, Black Kettle had signed three treaties between 1861-1867. Attacked once before with heavy loss of life at Sand Creek, Black Kettle still sought peace and had just returned to the camp the evening of the 26th after making another peace attempt with the army.[10]

And no word of any white prisoners at all, again. Because it was just rumors, as evidenced by the two completely different versions in the Custer's report and Schofield's review at the time, and no mention now.

The only semi-related thing is:

Cheyenne prisoners from Washita at Fort Hays, Kansas, 1869 Fifty-three women and children were held as captives until the late spring of 1869. They were used as a bargaining chip to gain the release of white women held by other bands of Cheyenne.

Other bands. And yes, it was a hostage taking:

Realizing now that many more Indians were threatening from the east, Custer feigned an attack toward their downriver camps, then quickly retreated to Camp Supply with his hostages.

But I understand the times were different. OK, enough of this already. --HanzoHattori 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: The village had just 51 ledges (and thus the immediate family units - Cw himself left the number of 200 people), and Schofield absurdly calculates the new number of 140 dead and "nearly" 400 wounded "warriors". He says it's based on what the prisoners "acknowledged", while really they said 11.

Which speaks again about the quality of these outdated (yes) sources. --HanzoHattori 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing

I've gone through the references that Custerwest provided and cleaned them up. It's actually helpful to having a reference list that is properly formatted with complete bibliographic info. Even better, turns out that a few of them are available online for fact-checking against. I was also able to find the complete article by historian Gregory Michno that appeared on Historynet, instead of the mere excerpt of the article that Custerwest had previously linked to on his (her?) blog-style website. Michno is a creditable historian who has written (I discovered) a number of books on western history in the era of the mid-19th century Indian wars, such as the Encyclopedia of Indian Wars: Western Battles and Skirmishes 1850-1890 which Custerwest had listed in his reference list, but unfortunately in an incomplete & poorly-formatted way. The reference for the Letter to the Secretary of the Interior is incomplete -- letter from whom, exactly? Please provide complete info, Custerwest.

Custerwest's website seems essentially to be a collection of passages excerpted from books and articles on subjects related to Custer, the Indian wars, etc. But I would recommend when citing sources to cite from the original books/articles rather than that website, which is certainly far more in keeping with good scholarly practice. HanzoHattori, in spite of Custerwest's deficiencies of communication -- such as his/her numerous personal attacks on you & apparent disinterest in seeking consensus or in working with others including you in a nonantagonistic way (I congratulate you for bringing your own antagonisms into control) -- I wouldn't dismiss those sources out-of-hand. The reference list, at least, is helpful. But then again, I wouldn't dismiss your sources out of hand either. Biophys' suggestion way above, I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfyWP:SOURCE? seems wise. Otherwise you've got an edit war between two POV-pushers.

There's absolutely no reason why info from the U.S. Army military history account could not be included in this article, with appropriate referencing, even if it is in disagreement with statements based on sources Custerwest used: it's merely a matter of saying "this source says this, & that source says that". It's not either/or proposition. Historians and even primary sources will always be in disagreement about this issue or that issue. But our job on Wikipedia is not to make final judgments on which is the correct account. Per a statement made by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, quoted in a note on WP:NOR: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) (emphasis added) So stop arguing based on the basis of "the version of history presented by so & so is more valid than the version presented by whosimwhatsis" & simply say, "this guy says this" (with appropriate sourcing) "& that guy says that" (with appropriate sourcing).

I will add that many of Custerwest's cites are incomplete & hard to check. The first footnote currently reads "Miss Crockers, disputed". She did, did she? Please cite your source. Footnote 2: "Washita prisoners gave the name of each of those headmen to Interpreter Richard Curtis." And where exactly did you find this information? Please provide, so we can have a chance at doublechecking it. I have respect for sourcing, but part of the job of a scholar or historian or even just a plain ol' simple Wikipedian is to learn to cite properly. Given your self-proclaimed respect for proper historical research, you should be a little more vigorous in how you present it.

I hadn't intended to get so involved in this; I'm not an admin (despite both HanzoHattori's & Custerwest's apparent assumptions at various points to the contrary): I'm just plain ol' simple Wikipedian who saw an edit war with two people who were both not averse to personal attacks, and tried to put a stop to it through standard warnings against that kind of behavior on your talk pages that any user can make -- though again, HanzoHattori, congratulations on learning to rein yourself in, to cease from personal attacks, & to keep yourself from 3RR violations -- should you ever indeed have a WP:RFC set up for you, you can count on me to speak up on your behalf. It's because of your self-control that I decided to do more. And gee, I'm even willing to learn a bit more about this battle to help clean up the POV problems, if there are still such problems when I return from a schedule vacation this coming week. --Yksin 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is all clear (now)

First of all, this is article called "Battle of Washita River" and it's not about all these alleged "depredations" (I don't think "depredations" is used at all, it was used by the anti-Native writers in the XIXth century).

Today's official sources:

• American Military History says it was a part of the campaign devised by Gen. Sheriden to "completely" destroy the Indian culture in his area (cultural genocide - deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons).

They don't mention any white civilians in any context.

They say up to 50 warriors were killed and about the same number were wounded - but many more people died afterwards from the burned ground tactics.

Which is today a major war crime called "wanton destruction", not to mention part of definition of the genocide (deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life).

Which all, by today's standards, makes it a war crime in a genocidal campaign (my conclusion, but I don't think you ould disagree).

• Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (also by the government, but this time civilian: US Department of Interior) says the following things:

no mention of the any white civilians (beside these taken by the other bands) - Indian hostages[11] taken, instead

the Natives said 11 warriors and 19 civilians were killed (and that Custer said 103 warriors)

clearly says "Peace Chief Black Kettle" was a victim of the government (and so was his wife), while he was "[s]eeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government"[12]

actually says "It was part of the total war policy"[13] - I don't know if I can stress enough the today's official account is clear, the whole thing is a shame. It was cultural genocide, involving elements of genocide (aka the crime of extermination), hostage taking by the government, and of course the ethnic cleansing.

• An old, outdated, whole-lot-confused account by Secretary of War at this time (John Schofield) said:

3 alleged white hostages (boys, not women), including 1 killed (unnamed and "seen")

completely fantasy numbers of casualties on both sides (appearently official then, but higher even than Custer's then and thus Custerwest's now)

This one also provided by the MCH[14], so you can see how the Army account's knowledge, neutrality and accuracy improved over time.

• The simplified account of the whole affair, from The Library of Congress this time, says:

The Great Plains include the land from the Canadian border south to the New Mexico and Texas borders, and from the Missouri River west to the Rocky Mountains. The Indian tribes from this area -- the Plains Indians -- include the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa. The Army fought these tribes because they wanted to gain control over the Great Plains. For many years before and after the Civil War, the U.S. government tried to move Indians to an Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some Plains Indians agreed to move to reservations but others, like the Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did not. Instead, they continued to live and hunt on traditional lands outside the Indian Territory. After the Civil War, settlers wanted to move into this land, so they attacked. At dawn on November 27, 1868, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer attacked a sleeping Cheyenne village in the Washita Valley, surprising the Cheyenne's leader, Chief Black Kettle. Many Plains Indians were captured or killed during this battle. Chief Magpie, a teenager at the time who lived in Black Kettle's village, shot a soldier and took his horse, then rode off to safety. He lived to fight Custer again at the famous Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876. [15]

And so what Custerwest says is now (2007) just a fringe theory (and also a conspiracy one - blamed on "extreme left" and "crying humanitarians", to cite this page and his blog). The government is clear what happened - all branches, inlcuding Amy itself. I can only agree on the small section on the bottom in few words saying how the perception of the incident evolved over the time. Because, really, the year is 2007.

Also, these were the neutral versions (by the same governemnt which was responsible for this in the first place), plus of course the outdated then-version we now see as being false. Here's an example the pro-Native account:[16] (a book online) --HanzoHattori 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot one thing: As the troops were ordered "to kill or hang all warriors" (meaning of course the men - the women were called "squaw" by the white people), this was also an act of gendercide (The systematic killing of men, viricide, happens sometimes during war to reduce an enemy's potential pool of soldiers; this happened for example in the 1988 Anfal campaign against Kurdish men in Iraq and in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of Bosniak men and boys.). By the supposedly "civilised" forces. During "anti-terror campaign". I'd also add only captured male children were "not over eight years of age" - guess eight years makes one a "terrorist", to use the lingo on the Cw's blog. --HanzoHattori 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Native version (unnecessary really, but one thing there is quite haunting)

Oh, and here are the conclusions[17] of the pro-Native account (the book is quite long, and maybe I'll read it some time):

(skip Sand Creek)

5. that according to government correspondence, tribes--consisting of the Cheyenne (including Black Kettle's band), Arapaho, Kiowa and other--were ordered to go to the Fort Cobb area by the military to keep out of the impending war, designating that region, including up and down the Washita River, as a refuge or sanctuary for Indians wanting peace, and

6. that Black Kettle complied with the order, coming to the Fort Cobb area,

7. that his location, along with the other tribes was recorded and incorporated into correspondence to the high military command,

8. that his offer in behalf of his band to surrender was recorded and refused by the military, and

9. that Hazen had warned Custer that Black Kettle was on the Washita under his orders,

10. that most of the members of this village were subsequently killed in a strike against them by the military shortly after Black Kettle's offer to surrender,

11. that the remaining 8,000 tribal members were forced to flee from their winter camps, subjecting themselves to physical harm and death due to exposure and lack of provisions.

12. that the remaining various bands of Arapaho, Cheyenne and Kiowa attempted to surrender but were not allowed to do so and were pursued to the Wichita Mountains and attacked and killed there.

Actually, I don't think we should take sides - the official government version is enough.

But what I realized looking at the point 11, the Army's short notice that the aftermath "killed or weakened more than did the initial military attack" is now much more sinister. Not only because the scale of suffering is greater, but also because this was exactly what the Army account says was planned. And this is in the legal definition of genocide, so it wasn't only a mere "complete destruction of the culture". --HanzoHattori 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, guess I'll continue anyway. What emerges from this account, it was a planned cold-blood murder of the people who attempted to surender - a terror raid indeed.

Moreover, Black Kettle, on arriving at Antelope Hills, had visited General Hazen at Fort Cobb on November 20, 1868, saying that he wanted to surrender: "We all want peace, and I would be glad to move all my people down this way; I could then keep them all quietly near my camp." He also disclosed the location and size of his camp: "My camp is now on the Washita, 40 miles east of the Antelope Hills, and I have about 180 lodges." What was known specifically about Black Kettle's band of Cheyennes was extensive. The army knew the exact location of his camp, the size of his village, that Black Kettle desired to surrender, that he had offered to surrender at Fort Cobb, that he was waiting for permission to come to Fort Cobb to surrender from General Hazen, that if General Sheridan should encounter their tribe, that they were to request permission to surrender from him directly.

Battlefield Washita's account confirms this: "Seeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government, Black Kettle .... still sought peace and had just returned to the camp the evening of the 26th after making another peace attempt with the army." All the government accounts preety much agree it was meant as an attempt by Sheridan and his subordinate Custer to terrorize the population into a flee in a disastrous escape, and in the end a complete surrender en masse (these who survived, of course) - and largely succeeded. I think it actually classifies this incident into the the Category: State terrorism (in addition to Ethnic cleansing).

Also still from this book:

To order, as Sherman and Sheridan had done, an attack on a group of people attempting to surrender, should be clearly identifiable as being a crime against humanity. If there is any doubt, one may compare a similar order by Hitler during World War II, the Order of Hitler of October 1942, called the "Commando" Order. It stated in paragraph 3 that:

All enemy troops encountered by German troops during so-called commando operations in Europe or Africa, though they appear to be soldiers in uniform or demolition groups, armed or unarmed, are to be exterminated to the last man, either in combat or in pursuit...(and that) if such men appear to be about to surrender, no quarter should be given them on general principle.

The article concluded that "it is clear that such an Order was manifestly contrary to established principles of international law and humanity." (Dunten, 1951, p. 257)

Yes, it too dwells then into the definitions of the genocide (and into the media at this time too, comparing them to not less but Julius Streicher). Another quote:

The attack by Custer had far greater ramifications than the destruction of Black Kettle's village. Over 8,000 members of various tribes had been camped along the Washita, including women and children. By Custer charging these camps in the dead of winter, with snow knee-deep, many assuredly perished from exposure and starvation as they abandoned the protection of their villages.

However, to make the attack against the peacefully assembled tribes along the Washita look like an act of bravery by the military, not mass killing, Custer talked as though bewildered about the gathering forces of Indians that came against him. He stated that despite the Indians' overwhelming numerical advantage, they were successfully repulsed. The most probable reason that they were "repulsed" was that they were friendly Indians encumbered by their families, had come to the vicinity of Fort Cobb to signify their peaceful status and fled when Custer started his charge down the Washita.

According to Raphael Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress, genocide has two phases, "destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." (p. 79) One of the first methods of nationalizing an area is through colonization of that area. (p. 83) Thus settlers were the vanguard for the domination of the land base originally occupied by the Indian. Usurpation of sovereignty is another element associated with genocide. The sovereign status of the Indian nations was eliminated by the United States without the consent of the Indian nations.

Another feature of genocide according to Lemkin is the "destruction of the foundations of the economic existence of a national group." The elimination of the buffalo contributed significantly to the demise of the Native Americans' ability to sustain themselves, as it was both the source of shelter, clothing, utensils and food.

According to Lemkin, genocide also involves "the physical debilitation and even annihilation of national groups in occupied countries" carried out mainly by racial discrimination in feeding, endangering of health and mass killings. Thus, the withholding of rations, the attack on camps in the winter and the mass killing of Indians all contributed to meeting the definition of genocide.

Moreover, Lemkin stated that genocide was the "antithesis of the Rosseau-Portalis Doctrine, which may be regard as implicit in the Hague Regulations," pointing out that the doctrine held that "war is directed against sovereigns and armies, not against subjects and civilians. In its modern application in civilized society, the doctrine means that war is conducted against states and armed forces and not against populations." It was this concept that was verbally celebrated in an 1868 article in Harper's Weekly in its discussion of humanity in war. In practice, however, its celebration was not observed vis-a-vis the Native American.

In all, what emerges is much worse than I initially thought (before the whole controversy, and even just after I was called "idiot monkey"), because I thought it was just an engagement, which possibly involved a rather small massacre of non-combatants. Thanks for opening my eyes, Custerwest.--HanzoHattori 11:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary (and back to NPOV)

In 2007, Custerwest's is a fringe theory, and the historical revisionism in a worst meaning of this word. It's quite like (a paraphrase) presenting some controversional (by the point of human rights) incident from the military history of Germany 1939-45 not by what the German government stands for now, but what the German government stood for then (as the superb "primary sources").

The current official account is clear:

1. the incident was a "total war" attack on a large group of people actively attempting to surrender at the time
2. the attack was unprovoked and without warning, in the situation involving large number of civilians
3. men, women, and children were killed by the soldiers, including "Peace Chief Black Kettle" and his wife
4. number of the men killed was estimated 11-103 then, but now is believed to be "perhaps" 50 by the Army
5. 21 soldiers were also killed, and 13 wounded
6. there were no white captives rescued nor killed, but 53 Native "hostages" were taken to be swapped
7. the assault involved wanton (and total) destruction of the village and its livestock
8. the terror (then offically called "demoralizing") action resulted in the great suffering and many (more than attack) deaths among a large mass of est. 8,000 people
9. the former was planned since beginning as an offensive meaning to "completely destroy" their culture by the military means
10. even then many of the soldiers and officers involved knew it was "morally" wrong.

In citation mark the direct quotes All of this I discusussed and linked before.

There's no controversy going on - besides the fringe theories from individual persons such as Custervest. Does this matter? I don't think so - in other case, anyone can argue the Earth is flat, using a "primary sources" from before Copernicus. Outdated sources are outdated (I can't stop saying this), and so wrong are these completely POV (especially Custer on himself), not to mention various racist accounts at the time are conflicting with each other, even these official then. See also: historical revisionism - here, we see revisionism in both good (US gvt) and bad (Custerwest) sense. --HanzoHattori 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources ?

This kind of statement "there were no white captives rescued nor killed" is completely wrong. Custer indicated that white captives had been freed and one killed in his official report (see Senate). Black Kettle's own sister admitted that captives had been made (Mah-wis-sa. Clara Blinn's story is true to the core (see Greene, Utley, Frost, Brill etc.). The attack was done because of massacres of settlers, not the destruction of culture or who-knows-else. Again, you have no source, you haven't any clue of what you're talking about. Where are your quotes? Your sources? Your books ? Have you something factual at all? Custerwest 13:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen up. I don't need any of this - it's all the work of government, and they have all they need, and more. Custer was a mere soldier in his army, a little man among millions of others who served - and now his army and his governemnt say he was wrong. Maybe you didn't understand yet, but Custer's account was decided to be false, and so was the conflicting one of his chief, and any other differing with the moder one. As i told you more than once, if you have any problems with that, get this to the government (Army and Department of the Interior), not me, because I'm just repeating the official line, and not engaging in the WP:OR. That's all. --HanzoHattori 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And further, because you seemingly have troubles to comprehend: This is what the soldiers and civilians are thought. This is what the United States Department of the Interior presents to the tourists who come to this place. The U.S. Army insists their account is "neutral and accurate", and there's no reason to believe otherwise. The Wikipedia editors are actually encouraged to use the materials by the federal agencies of the U.S. Government (not least because it's free to use, while most of other material is copyrighted). And to answer your question of "Sources ?" (which should be "Sources?"), it's American Military History[18] by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the official websites of the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site[19] (a unit of the National Park Service, which "protects and interprets the site"). Yes, they are building the Cultural Heritage Center there, and guess what it will be about. In addition, the website of the Library of Congress.[20] Yes, it's a simplified version for kids. But this is the only line. They no longer scary the kids with the "savage Injuns" (and "deprivations" or whatever). --HanzoHattori 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the government. But if you want the NGO sources, try, for example, the Public Broadcasting Service.[21] And welcome to Wikipedia (and the XXI Century). --HanzoHattori 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And as you thought this this chapter was "extreme left dumb ass monkey humanitarian idiocy", I think you will get now spasm when I cite from the chapter about the Vietnam war:

What happened at My Lai could have occurred in any Army unit in Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 1970's. War crimes were born of a sense of frustration that also contributed to a host of morale and discipline problems, among enlisted men and officers alike. As American forces were withdrawn by a government eager to escape the war, the lack of a clear military objective contributed to a weakened sense of mission and a slackening of discipline. The short-timer syndrome, the reluctance to take risks in combat toward the end of a soldier's one-year tour, was compounded by the "last-casualty" syndrome. Knowing that all U.S. troops would soon leave Vietnam, no soldier wanted to be the last to die. Meanwhile, in the United States harsh criticism of the war, the military, and traditional military values had become widespread. Heightened individualism, growing permissiveness, and a weakening of traditional bonds of authority pervaded American society and affected the Army's rank and file. The Army grappled with problems of drug abuse, racial tensions, weakened discipline, and lapses of leadership. While outright refusals to fight were few in number, incidents of "fragging"— murderous attacks on officers and noncoms—occurred frequently enough to compel commands to institute a host of new security measures within their cantonments. All these problems were symptoms of larger social and political forces and underlined a growing disenchantment with the war among soldiers in the field.

But I call "neutrality and accuracy", instead of the John Wayne crap. --HanzoHattori 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Depredations

There were rapes, massacres, scalping, abduction of women and children (see Jerome Greene, "Summer depredations" in "Washita", 2004. Custerwest 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Kettle at Fort Cobb

"that Hazen had warned Custer that Black Kettle was on the Washita under his orders" False. Hazen asked Black Kettle if he was ready to give the depredators to the army. Black Kettle said no, and left the fort. Hazen was affraid because some chiefs told him of the coming war, with more Cheyennes coming in Indian Territory the following summer. (see Hoig) Custerwest 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

White captives at Washita

Sources : Black Kettle’s Last Raid, by Hill P. Wilson, Transactions of Kansas State Historical Society, VIII, pages 110-117

Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, page 212

Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. page 18

articles from the Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868):

“A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town (HaysCity) on Thursday. They had a white child with them (…) Some think that (the child) was stolen by Kiowas or Comanches in Kansas or Texas and sold to the Cheyennes.”

In his report after the battle of the Washita, November 27, 1868, Custer stated to have freed “We also secured two white children, held captives by the Indians.”

As Stan Hoig said, we have evidences that these boys were treated at Fort Hays. Stan Hoig says in his “Battle of the Washita) (page 183): “Evidently, there were the two boys Custer had reported he had rescued from the Indians."

Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, issued a report on April 30, 1869:

“I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.”—Preceding unsigned comment added by Custerwest (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Depredations"

I can't believe that in this day an age the term "depredations" is being used to refer to Indian actions, while "military campaign" is used for the military's actions. This is blatant POV pushing, and will be removed. Murderbike 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Custerwest calls this "anti-terror campaign" (against the "terror base") on his blog called Custerwest.[22] I actually laughed at the mention of "wigwams" in the latest martydom addition. Yeah, of course. "Wigwams."

But as this is not mentioned in any official source, I googled for this name ("Blinn") and found this, written by U.S. Army Brevet Major General who was stationed near Washita River:

Mrs. Blinn and child referred to in General Custer's article as having been found murdered in the Kiowa camp, were captured by the Arapahos with whom they lived until killed on the morning of the battle by an Arapaho in the Arapaho camp. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The whole story of this unfortunate woman and her child has been told to me a dozen times by as many different Indians, both before and after the battle, each corroborating the story of the others, and I was on the point of rescuing her and in correspondence with her, when the battle took place.[23]

In other words, Custer's massacre of Indians caused the other Indians to execute their hostages elsewhere, and then Custer used this incident to justify the attack which happened earlier. And these hostages would not only live but be soon freed if not Sheridan and Custer. Wow. I've got to add this one to the article when he finally goes away back to his blog. --HanzoHattori 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Custerwest, you actually wrote: "In October 1868, Cheyennes attacked a wagon train along the Arkansas River in eastern Colorado Territory and captured Clara Blinn, 19 years old, and her son Willie, two years old." on Wikipedia. This is cute. I also noticed you don't have any idea how to construct a Wikipedia article, which is now about something called "Little Rock's interview". But this involves Wynkoop... I heard this name yet. Oh, yes:

Major Wynkoop refused to comply with the orders to assist in the attack on Black Kettle's village. (...) In opposition to this view were such persons as Major Wynkoop, Rev. Whipple Peace Commissioner Tappan, and the members of the Indian Bureau--Murphy and Taylor. Members of the Indian Bureau tried to warn the public through newspapers that the various Indians tribes who had surrendered at Fort Cobb were likely to be attacked there. They noted that the decision to attack was up to Sheridan. Their warnings were largely ignored. When the facts surrounding the attack on Black Kettle's band at the Washita became known, Whipple called for an investigation, but to no avail. The Cherokee nation also called for an investigation, but to no avail. Wynkoop resigned his military commission, refusing to take part, as he said, in the murder of innocent people--a decision proposed as a duty under similar circumstances at the Nuremberg International Tribunal. (Dunten, 1951, p. 258) He vowed to bring the Washita attack to the attention of Washington, but in the end his efforts also failed to launch an investigation.[24]

Athearn also noted that Wynkoop had officially referred to Black Kettle as "the murdered Black Kettle." Sherman termed this statement out of place and condemned Wynkoop for having resigned and gone "two thousand miles away to lecture on the perfidy of our people and the innocence of the Indians," instead of remaining with the Cheyennes and Arapahos as their agent.[25]

Yeah. This Wynkoop. Maybe something to quote him directly?

I did not think it would be necessary to write you so soon again on behalf of the poor Indians. I beg you, as you pity God's poor killed creatures, to ask the Executive Committee of your Indian Commission, to employ some competent fearless person to investigate the recent events connected with our Indian war. I have not the proof, or I would appeal over my own signature, to the people of America, to stop this system of iniquity. You cannot cure by wrong; you cannot atone for robbery by murder.[26]

Guess this would make "Wynkoop's interview".

Or maybe not. (Wow, I'm becoming involved in this as much as I was in the Srebrenica article.) --HanzoHattori 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

In addition, I replaced with {{fact}} tags sources that were: improperly formatted, confusing, and unverifiable. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for help. The reference to a book by Jerome Greene needs to be clarified as well, at the very least giving the title of the book. Murderbike 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerome Greene's book

Hi Murderbike, the source is quoted in the references: Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004 (for the National Park Service and Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, Oklahoma) Custerwest 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The ref at the bottom of the article only says "Greene, 2004, p. 189.", no title, no first name, no publisher. All of that info needs to be in the ref, not just on the talk page. Murderbike 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Murderbike, that was me who put the cite that way, using the style of citation in an article which referes to the reference list at the bottom of the article. This is appropriate citation style, & standard also in scholarly articles off Wikipedia; you can find it explained at WP:CITE#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" and see it in action in, for example Greek mythology. Thus, the ref "Greene, 2004, p. 189" directs you to the Reference section where the author's last name & date of publication tell you which book it is. Again, this is a standard way to do academic citation, & is supported in Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be really helpful if you'd check out Wikipedia:Citation templates, and use the appropriate templates when making citations. It makes them a lot more clear, easy to read, and easier to verify. Murderbike 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, most of those citations were cleaned up by me last night. Citations templates are not required, & I am among the school of Wikipedians who downright despise them. --Yksin 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest

Please do not remove cited facts from this article as you did to the sentence referring to the fact that the village was sleeping when Custer attacked. Murderbike 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The village was awaken by warriors Double Wolf, who fired in the sky when Custer's columnns approached. Black Kettle himself was firing on the soldiers with his rifle. One cannot say the village was sleeping when the attack really occured.

my sources come from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, US governement. Jerome Greene's book comes directly from researchs made by the National Historic Site "Washita Battlefield National Historic Site,", in Oklahoma, in 2004. It's official. My sources are not sketchy and the book HTT is using is an overall book on the US army which cannot be garanted as a full investigation of the battle. The official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield Historic Sites are my sources, garanted by Stan Hoig and Historian Jerome Greene. Custerwest 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence. Hopefully it's satisfactory now. Murderbike 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Murderbike, yes, thank you very much. It's important, because it explains why Custer lost men while entering the village (an officer was shot down at the very beginning of the battle, shot by a warchief). Custerwest 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

"The official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield Historic Sites are my sources" - I laughed.

The official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield is as follows:[27] Fragments chosen to highlight the things especially important in regards to you:

Indians could no longer retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many chose to defend their freedom and lands rather than submit to reservation life. (...) Events leading to the Battle of the Washita began with the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864. On November 29, troops under the command of Col. J.M. Chivington attacked and destroyed the Cheyenne camp of Chief Black Kettle and Chief White Antelope on Sand Creek, 40 miles from Fort Lyon, Colorado Territory. Black Kettle's band flew an American flag and a white flag, and considered themselves at peace and under military protection. The terrible slaughter caused a massive public outcry. (...) Black Kettle and Arapaho Chief Big Mouth went to Fort Cobb in November 1868 to petition General William B. Hazen for peace and protection. A respected leader of the Southern Cheyenne, Black Kettle had signed the Little Arkansas Treaty in 1865 and the Medicine Lodge Treaty in 1867. Hazen told them that he could not allow them to bring their people to Fort Cobb for protection because only General Sheridan, his field commander, or Lt. Col. George Custer, had that authority. Disappointed, the chiefs headed back to their people at the winter encampments on the Washita River. Even as Black Kettle and Big Mouth parlayed with Gen. Hazen, the 7th Cavalry established a forward base of operations at Camp Supply, Indian Territory as part of Sheridan's winter campaign strategy. (...) Black Kettle, who had just returned from Fort Cobb a few days before, had resisted the entreaties of some of his people, including his wife, to move their camp downriver closer to larger encampments of Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Apaches wintered there. He refused to believe that Sheridan would order an attack without first offering an opportunity for peace. Before dawn, the troopers attacked the 51 lodges, killing a number of men, women, and children. Custer reported about 100 killed, though Indian accounts claimed 11 warriors plus 19 women and children lost their lives.

OK, Custer. Will you now submit to the "official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield", or was it just a lie? --HanzoHattori 21:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cw, you don't even know how to write at all

I don't even mean all the false things and outdated sources. It was alll discussed before, it just can't get to you. You can understand this is now the official history of United States, and the conflicting accounts are not. But heck.

Look. What the heck is this?[28] It should be about "Battle of Washita River", with short Background and Aftermath sections. It's not an another the article on your blog about how the peaceful Indian village (which you called the "terror base") was the Carthage and had to be destroyed. See, for example, Battle of Berlin or Battle of Hue. This is how the "idiot monkeys" write their articles here.

Actually, it should be more about how, for example, the Peace Chief Black Kettle and his wife died (who had a name too), and how this teenager "shot down a soldier and escaped on his horse". It should be about the fate of the captured Native hostages, and about the fate of the rest of 8,000 Indians, of which many died, and about how this made the Arapahos execute these 2 white hostages who were close to be freed (it's Aftermath), and maybe also how Custer lied about them to justify his attack.

As for the Background, I used the US Army account because it's "accurate and neutral" - and free. You said it was "just a website" - wrong. You said they are "not serious" - wrong. And so on. But actually, it should be more immediate - about how Black Kettle directed his people there to surrender (see National Memorial website and the account of the people who negotiated this before Custer attacked), and how Sheridan devised his plan which I'll now call "controversional" because of NPOV (and because I wrote "crime" in the talk page a lot already). The extended background should go to the Comanche Campaign main article.

As for the into section, one can quote Battlefield again and write along the lines of: "The controversial strike was hailed at the time by the military and many civilians as a significant victory aimed at reducing Indian raids on frontier settlements. Washita remains controversial because many Indians and whites labeled Custer's attack a massacre. Black Kettle is still honored as a prominent leader who never ceased striving for peace even though it cost him his life."[29]

Actually, this official account:[30] is a great to write the whole article around.

And yes, your "depravations" are now called thus: "land-hungry settlers began penetrating the plains in increasing numbers, encroaching upon tribal hunting grounds. Indians could no longer retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many chose to defend their freedom and lands rather than submit to reservation life."[31] --HanzoHattori 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing based on selective use of sources

Having now read through a lot of the sources that are available online that have been provided by both Custerwest and HanzoHattori, it appears that overall the sources are good, but that both of you are using them selectively in order to push particular points of view.

HanzoHattori: there is absolutely no doubt that Cheyennes in Black Kettle's camp had taken whites hostage, or that Clara Blinn and her child were among them and died during the battle, probably killed by their captors. There is also absolutely no doubt based on accounts of the time as well as the accounts of creditable later historians historians (e.g., Hoig, 1980; Greene, 2004; Michno, 2003 and 2005) that some Cheyenne had taken part in murder and rape ("depredations") among white settlers in the region, & that these "depredations" (which word was actually used by Indian Agent Col. Wynkoop in his interview of Little Rock, but as HanzoHattori and Murderbike rightly point out is an innappropriately POV word for an encyclopedia article) were a factor in the decision by the U.S. Army to attack Black Kettle's camp. Even your own sources provide substantiation for some of this. (See below.) It is not proven, however, that Black Kettle approved of these depredations or that he had the power (if he ever had it) to put a stop to them, to control the young men of his camp, or to prevent young men from other camps from joining his own. (See below.)

Essentially, Custerwest is using sources selectively in an attempt to keep the article focused only on the Cheyenne depredations as "cause" of the battle, when the Cheyenne raiding on white settlers was only part of the picture. You are right, HanzoHattori, in pointing out sources showing that the battle and its results were part of a "total war policy" aimed at removing Indians from their land so white settlement could take it over. I have little doubt that many of Custerwest's sources also discuss that, but Custerwest cherry-picks which facts from those sources to present, because Custerwest is pushing a particular point of view, a particular version of history. (See below.)

Note: HanzoHattori interjected a comment here: I've moved it to HanzoHattori reply to Yksin so it won't interrupt the flow of what I wrote or confuse other readers about who wrote what by being plopped in the middle of what I wrote. --Yksin 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at HanzoHattori's sources

National Park Service. (1999-11). "The Story of the Battle of the Washita", Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, National Park Service. (emphases added)

The cultural collision between pioneers and Indians reached its peak on the Great Plains during the decades before and after the Civil War. U.S. Government policy sought to separate tribes and settlers from each other by establishing an Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some Plains tribes accepted life on reservations. Others, including the Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did not. They continued to hunt and live on traditional lands outside the Indian Territory. At first, this choice produced little conflict. But following the Civil War, land-hungry settlers began penetrating the plains in increasing numbers, encroaching upon tribal hunting grounds. Indians could no longer retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many chose to defend their freedom and lands rather than submit to reservation life....

On the Southern Plains, the work of the Commission culminated in the Medicine Lodge Treaty of October 1867. Under treaty terms the Arapahos, Cheyennes, Comanches, Kiowas, and Plains Apaches were assigned to reservations in the Indian Territory. There they were supposed to receive permanent homes, farms, agricultural implements, and annuities of food, blankets, and clothing. The treaty was doomed to failure. Many tribal officials refused to sign. Some who did sign had no authority to compel their people to comply with such an agreement. War parties, mostly young men violently opposed to reservation life, continued to raid white settlements in Kansas.
Major General Philip H. Sheridan, in command of the Department of the Missouri, adopted a policy that "punishment must follow crime." In retaliation for the Kansas raids, he planned to mount a winter campaign when Indian horses would be weak and unfit for all but the most limited service. The Indians' only protection in winter was the isolation afforded by brutal weather....
Black Kettle and Arapaho Chief Big Mouth went to Fort Cobb in November 1868 to petition General William B. Hazen for peace and protection....

Black Kettle, who had just returned from Fort Cobb a few days before, had resisted the entreaties of some of his people, including his wife, to move their camp downriver closer to larger encampments of Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Apaches wintered there. He refused to believe that Sheridan would order an attack without first offering an opportunity for peace.

Comment. This page presents a total view that substantiates both what Custerwest is pushing (young Indian men violently raided white settlements in Kansas; Sheridan adopted a policy of retaliation), but also substantiates HanzoHattori's POV (white policy was to force Indians onto reservations; some Indians didn't want to go; land hungry white settlers pushed onto Indian land & Indians tried unsuccessfully to defend themselves, Black Kettle sought peace & thought he & his camp were safe). But both of you, favoring to show only one side of the precursors to the battle, are cherrypicking your evidence.

***

National Park Service. (2006-08-10). "Frequently Asked Questions", Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, National Park Service. (emphases added)

[Question:] 5. Why did they kill the Indian ponies? [Answer:] It was part of the total war policy and ponies were the most significant form of wealth the Cheyenne, and most of the Plains Indians, had. Killing the ponies took away substantial wealth. It also kept the warriors from raiding into Kansas, but also kept them from hunting buffalo. The death of these horses forced many Cheyenne into the reservation.

Comment. "It kept them from raiding into Kansas" -- a shorthand version of "the Indians were raiding white settlements and committing 'depredations'". That's the part of the "total war policy" that involved protection of white settlers. This substantiates Custerwest's claims about what led to the Battle of Washita River.

But this source also substantiates HanzoHattori's claims: Killing the ponies kept the Cheyenne from hunting buffalo & forced them onto reservations, for lack of any other means of livelihood: killing the ponies (as well as the attack on the camp itself) was part of an overall policy to force the Indians to give up their former freedom so that whites could take over their lands, except for those that were set aside as reservations.

***

Garlington, E. A. (1896). "The Seventh Regiment of Cavalry." In Theophilus F. Rodenboguh and William L. Haskin, eds. The Army of the United States: Historical Sketches of Staff and Line with Portraits of Generals-in-Chief. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., pp. 251-257. Online version dated 2002-10-30 through the U.S. Army Center of Military History, retrieved on 2007-06-29. (emphases added)

The Major General Commanding [Sheridan] announces to this Command the defeat, by the Seventh Regiment of Cavalry, of a large force of Cheyenne Indians, under the celebrated Chief. Black Kettle, reinforced by the Arapahoes under Little Raven, and the Kiowas under Satanta, on the morning of the 27th instant, on the Washita River, near the Antelope Hills, Indian Territory, resulting in a loss to the savages of one hundred and three warriors killed, including Black Kettle, the capture of fifty-three squaws and children, eight hundred and seventy-five ponies, eleven hundred and twenty-three buffalo robes and skins, five hundred and thirty-five pounds of powder, one thousand and fifty pounds of lead, four thousand arrows, seven hundred pounds of tobacco, besides rifles, pistols, saddles, bows, lariats and immense quantities of dried meat and other winter provisions, the complete destruction of their village, and almost total annihilation of this Indian band.
The loss of the Seventh Cavalry was two officers killed, Major Joel H. Elliott and Captain Louis McL. Hamilton, and nineteen enlisted men; three officers wounded, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel T. W. Custer, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Albert Barnitz (badly) and Second Lieutenant T. J. March (slightly) and eleven enlisted men....

However, in the same source, Secretary of War John M. Schofield later wrote in a latter to Lt. Gen. Sherman:

General Sheridan's order, issued upon the receipt of Custer's despatch written immediately after the battle, understates the loss; two officers and twenty-five men were killed, and three officers and twelve men wounded. Two white boys were rescued from the savages. During the engagement a bloodthirsty squaw was seen to murder a bright lad of about ten years by disemboweling him with a knife. In Satanta's abandoned village the bodies of a young white woman and a child were found cruelly mutilated.
A subsequent visit to the battle-field, and investigation among the prisoners and other Indians who were in the fight, disclosed a much greater Indian loss than was first reported. They acknowledged that one hundred and forty warriors were killed, and the number wounded must have swelled the aggregate loss to nearly four hundred.

Comment. I.e., the numbers were adjusted of how many died & were wounded on both sides. This account also provides substantiation for Custerwest's claims about white captives in the camp & the murders of some of them during the battle.

HanzoHattori criticizes this account above calling it "An old, outdated, whole-lot-confused account by Secretary of War at this time (John Schofield)," but provides no evidence to prove its innacuracy, other than that other, later sources don't mention it. But of course the fact that particular sources don't mention this or that fact does not prove that something is nonfactual; it merely proves that that particular source didn't mention it. Brief accounts such as the one at the National Park Service are geared toward providing a summary to the public; that is not a fully documented history, & as is common with such sources, a great deal of information is compressed in general statements which hide the details. To know the real facts, you have to dig deeper -- as Custerwest is right to point out.

Note: HanzoHattori interjected a second comment here: I've moved it to HanzoHattori reply to Yksin 2 so it won't interrupt the flow of what I wrote or confuse other readers about who wrote what by being plopped in the middle of what I wrote. --Yksin 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But stay tuned: Custerwest is wrong about some stuff too.

Custerwest's use of sources: two examples

Custerwest's bias is clearly evident just by taking a look at his/her eponymous website Custerwest.org, which has a bias that is being imported here. That's not to say I dispute the actual sources Custerwest uses: by & large, the sources are good. But just as on the website, which is very selective in how excerpts sources in order to push a particular point-of-view, so is Custerwest cherrypicking here.

[1]

I'm going to use an example of what I found last night when I went through one of CW's sources to verify it. This was the interview of the chief Little Rock, a member of Black Kettle's band, by Indian Agent Colonel Edward Wynkoop. I found it in an online edition of Custer's book at Google Books, Custer, George Armstrong. (1874). My Life on the Plains: Or Personal Experiences With the Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company. Also available online from Kansas Collection Books, pp. 105-107.

As quoted by Custerwest	As quote appeared after I went through it
Source: Custerwest's last version before I started fixing cites etc. last night	Source: after I checked it against full interview in Custer's book. Text ommitted from Custerwest's version is italicized.
I took your advice and went there. I am now here to tell you all I know. This war party of Cheyennes which left the camp of these tribes above the forks of Walnut Creek about the 2d or 3d of August, went out against the Pawnees (…) The Cheyennes numbered about 200; nearly all the young men in the village went (…) A Cheyenne named Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a (…) proceeded to the first hourse; they afterwards returned to the camp with a woman captive. (…) The two Indians had outraged the woman before they brought her to the camp. (…) Big Head’s son knocked (an isolated white man) down with a club. (…) Soon after they killed a white man, and close by, a woman (…) They then went to another house in the same settlement, and there killed two men and took two little girls prisoners. (…) After they had proceeded some distance up thr Saline, the party divided, the majority going north toward thr settlements on the Solomon (…) Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information.	I took your advice and went there. I am now here to tell you all I know. This war party of Cheyennes which left the camp of these tribes above the forks of Walnut Creek about the 2d or 3d of August, went out against the Pawnees.... The Cheyennes numbered about 200; nearly all the young men in the village went.... When the party reached the Saline they turned down the stream, with the exception of twenty, who, being fearful of depredations being committed against the whites by the party going in the direction of the settlements, kept on north toward the Pawnees. The main party continued down the Saline until they came in sight of the settlement; they then camped there. A Cheyenne named Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a, a brother of White Antelope, who was killed at Sand Creek, and another named Red Nose, proceeded to the first house; they afterwards returned to the camp with a woman captive. The main party was surprised at this action, and forcibly took possession of her, and returned her to her house. The two Indians had outraged the woman before they brought her to the camp.... [Later, at another location,] they came upon a white man alone on the prairie. Big Head’s son rode at him and knocked him down with a club. The Indian who had committed the outrage upon the white woman...then fired upon the white man without effect, while the third Indian rode up and killed him. Soon after they killed a white man, and close by, a woman—all in the same settlement. At the time these people were killed, the party was divided in feeling, the majority being opposed to any outrages being committed; but finding it useless to contend against these outrages being committed without bringing on a strife among themselves, they gave way and all went in together. They then went to another house in the same settlement, and there killed two men and took two little girls prisoners; this on the same day. After committing this last outrage the party turned south toward the Saline, where they came upon a a body of mounted troops; the troops immediately charged the Indians, and the pursuit was continued a long time. The Indians having the two children, their horses becoming fatigued, dropped the children without hurting them.... After they had proceeded some distance up the Saline, the party divided, the majority going north toward the settlements on the Solomon.... Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information. I am fearful that before this time the party that started north had committed a great many depredations....

Notice how Custerwest's quotation of Little Rock's statement was mostly "accurate" (other than minor typos & slightly inaccurate quotation re: Big Head's son knocking the isolated white man with a club) in terms of reporting actual words as reported in Wynkoop's account of Little Rock's statement. But notice also how Custerwest selectively edited out the numerous indications in Little Rock's statement that a significant portion of the band were in disagreement with the kidnapping, rape, and killing committed by a minority of the group -- particular individuals whose names were given. Custerwest's edit also omitted the detail that Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a was brother to a man who had been killed at Sand Creek, which might have indicate revenge as part of Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a's motivation; also omitted that the rest of the band, shocked at the woman's kidnap and rape, immediately took her from the two kidnappers & returned her to her home. Or that the two children kidnapped later, at a different location, were in the course of a battle with pursuing soldiers release unharmed. Overall, Custerwest's selective editing leaves a false impression that all these events occurred in a very brief period of time, all in one place, & with the willing participation of the complete group of 200 young men (which was actually no more than 180, given that 20 had previously left the group).

We also don't learn if Little Rock succeeded in his effort to bring the two men he & Wynkoop agreed were most responsible for the crimes detailed here to justice. I can't find it followed up on in Custer's book, but may have just missed it. Perhaps other sources have that info. In any case, it would be appropriate to note the result, if any, of Little Rock's effort; & to note that we don't know what happened, if no source provides that information.

In any case, this is just one illustration of what appears to be Custerwest's approach to history: cherrypick it to advance a particular point of view.

[2]

Earlier in the history of this article, Custerwest's cite to the 2005 article by historian Gregory Michno was to a mere excerpt (possibly in violation of the author's copyright) at Custerwest.org. Here's the diff when I changed the reference to link to the full article at Historynet.com.

Notice first how Custerwest's website exerpt changes the article's title, and also makes no indication that it is only an exerpt -- not a complete article. Custerwest gives the article's title as "BLACK KETTLE: NOT A PEACEFUL LEADER" by Historian Gregory F. Michno, History Net. At Historynet.com, and presumably as it appeared originally in Wild West magazine in December 2005, Michno's title for the piece was "Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle" with immediately below the summary in italics, Although usually portrayed as a man of peace, Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle may have been an ineffective leader at best -- By Gregory Michno.

The thrust of Michno's article is that Black Kettle, though he did pretty consistently seek peace, was in Michno's view an ineffective leader who lost the confidence & trust of much of his tribe, at times sold his tribe's interests "down the river" for trade goods, often against the tribes' wishes; & was unable to control the more hardline young men of his tribe, particularly those who were responsible for the raids and "depredations." Nor could Black Kettle keep violent young men from coming to his camp or bringing white hostages with them; despite this, on a couple of occasions he attempted to trade hostages for peace. Two quotes from Michno's full article (that you won't find in Custerwest's version):

Black Kettle was not effective in helping his people. His poor decision-making and inability to control his warriors were disastrous for the tribe....

Nine months later, Black Kettle was at it again. On the Little Arkansas River in October 1865, he and three other chiefs signed a treaty that gave away their homeland between the Arkansas and Platte rivers. Once more, the Dog Soldiers were enraged. At Fort Zarah in October 1866, Black Kettle, Little Robe and a few other chiefs told the authorities that they had changed their minds; they could not approve any treaty that forced the tribe to leave the Smoky Hill country. Apparently the vocal warrior societies had finally convinced the peace chiefs that they meant business. Regardless of the setback, Wynkoop and other officials, knowing that Black Kettle still could be the primary lever to catch the ear of the militant Indians, wined and dined him and promised $14,000 worth of gifts if he would attend another council in November. The hapless old man was being used by both sides, and he caved in again. Black Kettle and a few southern chiefs once more made their marks on the amended treaty. They signed away the cherished land of the Dog Soldiers and for it they received their pieces of silver.

Because of Black Kettle's irresponsible actions, the inevitable fighting and killing occurred between whites, who thought they had access to the territory, and Indians, who insisted they had not given the land away. Fighting increased in 1867, and once again there was need for a new treaty. Despite the ridicule heaped on Black Kettle and the lack of influence he had outside his own band, he attended the Treaty of Medicine Lodge in October 1867. This time, however, there were many tribes and thousands of Indians present. Black Kettle by now had become a pariah, ostracized and able to do little more than accuse other tribes of causing all the difficulties with the whites. His following had shrunk to 25 lodges. Soldier societies threatened him. Tall Bull ordered him to explain exactly why the Cheyennes should agree to the new treaty, and if he failed to do that, they would kill all his horses. At the council, Black Kettle finally learned to keep quiet and make no agreements on his own....

Thus ended the life of Black Kettle. His traditional portrayal as an honest, strong-willed man, an effective leader and a visionary do not all stand up to the evidence. That he tried to be a man of peace and a friend to the whites, at least in the last decade of his life, appears to be correct. Much of this depiction, however, comes from Major Wynkoop, who had endeavored to negotiate with an enemy in time of war, and whose very career henceforth depended on his portrayal of Black Kettle and his band as peaceful. Black Kettle's integrity and judgment are questionable, for he lied to the whites, disregarded his people's wishes and was not averse to accepting gifts for his cooperation. He could not control his warriors, which was a problem almost every chief had. He opened his village to warriors who had killed and captured whites. He acceded to his warriors' depredations or he was helpless to stop them; in either case it reflects badly on him. Black Kettle was used by other, more strong-willed Indians, forced to either talk peace when they wanted it, or to keep quiet when they didn't. Black Kettle may have saved a few lives in the short run by trying to keep some of his men off the warpath, but selling out his territory and his people in treaties that they did not want only led to a greater number of deaths on both sides. In this respect his ineffectiveness as a leader had the most negative and far-reaching impact.

Nowhere in his article does Michno say that Black Kettle was "not a peaceful leader", as Custerwest's revision of his article's title suggests; Michno's thrust was that Black Kettle was an ineffective, even an incompetent leader. There's a big difference there -- even if "warlike" & "terribly incompetent" led to much the same result for his people.

But Michno's nuanced discussion does not fit Custerwest's agenda -- so just edit out the bits that don't fit, & present what's left as though it were a full-fledged article that just happens to fit your point-of-view. This is merely an attempt to legitimize a skewed version of history by presenting an illusion of having an academic scholar's support.

Read the full article to get the complete story of Michno's view of Black Kettle as a leader; don't count on Custerwest's selective exerpting.

It should be apparent just by this that Custerwest is promoting an agenda; his edits to this article point in that direction as well.

Restoring balance to this article

For those who seek to improve this article & restore its balance from what is, at the moment of this writing, a very unbalanced, POV view dominated by Custerwest's POV-pushing, I would recommend:

• Yes, indeed, HanzoHattori, make use of the sources that you've been providing. They're good sources too. Just don't resort to cherry-picking & POV-pushing yourself.
• Make use of the sources that Custerwest has offered -- just make sure that you look at them thoroughly, beyond the cherry-picking Custerwest has been doing. I strongly doubt that Hoig, Greene, Michno are as imbalanced as Custerwest's selective sourcing from them would indicate. Certainly Custerwest's website is not an appropriate source -- but some of the sources Custerwest selectively excerpts might be worth looking into more deeply, because some of them might be more balanced than the website would indicate too.
• Read WP:NPOV and learn what POV-pushing is. And don't to it.

I will do my part to restore balance to this article as I can, but as I'm coming on a one-week vacation my ability to help out will be limited for the next few days. That's it for now. --Yksin 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. So much. Murderbike 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to having restored the article I heavily (too heavily probably) based on the AMH[32], let you guys do whatever you want with this then, and then start editing this one maybe. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, thanks for finding that. That was a suggestion I forgot to add: the go back to the article as it was before Custerwest began his/her fullscale rewrite a couple of days ago, because there are additional reliable sources probably to be found there. I'll see if I can't at least add proper bibliographic references to this source before I head out on vacation; it will be useful for other editors I hope as well as me. --Yksin 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite amused that in the version I linked Custerwest's own blog is in the external links, called "A factual study of the battle (testimonies, analysis)". I mean, without this maybe :) --HanzoHattori 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori reply to Yksin

Interjected comment by HanzoHattori moved here.

Excuse me? "there is absolutely no doubt that Cheyennes in Black Kettle's camp had taken whites hostage, or that Clara Blinn and her child were among them and died during the battle, probably killed by their captors"

As I already wrote once, this what was written by U.S. Army Brevet Major General William Babcock Hazen who was stationed near Washita River, and who was the one engaged into the Blinn case (not Custer):

Mrs. Blinn and child referred to in General Custer's article as having been found murdered in the Kiowa camp, were captured by the Arapahos with whom they lived until killed on the morning of the battle by an Arapaho in the Arapaho camp. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The whole story of this unfortunate woman and her child has been told to me a dozen times by as many different Indians, both before and after the battle, each corroborating the story of the others, and I was on the point of rescuing her and in correspondence with her, when the battle took place.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p295.html (Oklahoma State University) - He writes "The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case." not once, but twice. Isn't this enough? This high ranking officer is completely clear - it was the falsification by Custer, and it was Custer who effectively killed her (by killing the other Indians).

<POV>Actually just an example how Custer was killer AND liar.</POV> --HanzoHattori 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've misstated facts, or am wrong about where Clara Blinn & her child died or who kidnapped & killed them, then by all means find reliable sources & add that well-sourced information to the article. But any full account of what happened to them should also include an account of what sources of the time, including Custer, included whomsoever else, believed about them at the time. --Yksin 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The source (first-hand) is General Hazen, who wrote:

• Custer is incorrect in his "article" (book)
• the Blinns "were captured by the Arapahos with whom they lived until killed on the morning of the battle by an Arapaho in the Arapaho camp" (Arapaho, m'kay)
• "The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case." (x2 to be clear)
• Dozen "corroborating" witnesses
• Hazen was the one on the case, including corresponding with her
• He was "on the point of rescuing her ... when the battle took place" (and thus they were indirectly killed by Custer)

I believe the whole rumour was started precisely by Custer, and seemingly continues to this day. --HanzoHattori 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori reply to Yksin 2

Second interjected comment by HanzoHattori moved here.

Actually, the one thing is - the American Military History says 21 soldiers were killed, not 27, and "perphaps 50" Indians, not 140 (and not 103). And don't mention any white civilians.

Second is, Schofield's account on the white civilians don't mention any white women at all. Or a little children, for that matter. It says three boys, one "seen" killed "by bloodthirsty squaw". So no, it does not "provides substantiation for Custerwest's claims about white captives". Absolutely. (He says "2 to 3 white captives freed and maybe a white woman" and "4 to 6 white captives killed by the Cheyennes", while Schofield says 2 freed and 1 "seen killed")

Enough to call it both "outdated" and "confused"? I think it is (in addition to "racist", but I understand the times were different). --HanzoHattori 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough to call it "numbers were adjusted as people later learned more." There's a very simple way to handle it: to include the numbers as given in the original older sources, with citation; then to write, "however, later sources give different figures, as follows" and to provide sources for those figures as well. As I pointed out yesterday, we are not here to say "this source is better than that one": that's original research, & violates WP:NOR. --Yksin 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe enough to say "a lot of different rumours about the white hostages in area, but only two known by name, yet still killed in the other camp by the other Indians after the attack on Black Kettle's village". --HanzoHattori 22:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

And more yet, now about the existing the article. The source (or is it?) about "U.S. victory, 2 to 3 white captives freed (and maybe a white woman) [1]" (it should be like this anyway - look at any battle article, you don't have thing like this):

^ Miss Crockers, disputed. See Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, page 213. For the white boys freed, see Hoig, page 212, quoting General Miles' report about one of the boy: “I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.” (Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, April 30, 1869)

Which means one boy which Miles "in his opinion" is this or that because he guesses. I have no idea how this translated to "2 to 3 white captives freed" plus "disputed" woman, and as I previously said the current government accounts don't mention any (while they yes, give numbers of the Indian civilians affected in this or other way).

Next is "4 to 6 white captives killed by the Cheyennes" sourced by:

Clara Harrington Blinn, Willie Blinn, a young boy (disputed) and other captives. Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, page 212; Michno, Encyclopedia of Indian wars, page 226

Uh-oh. Maybe I'm bad at mathematics (I am), but it's 2 named (about which an another general came to great lenghts to point out they killed by Arapahos elsewhere for sure) and "a young boy (disputed) and other captives" which is a rumour of 3 (one "disouted boy" + at least 2 "other captives") to one million I guess. And which is all, really, just another rumour, and I didn't see any indication of even one killed at the Black Kettle's camp neither in AMH nor in the WB websites.

This is called "sources"? For what? It's wild-guessed on uncomfirmed rumours, and in the only case of named the well-known US general came out to say "no, it's not true" and he presented the very, but VERY different story. I think there are reasons to think the number of whites in this camp was actually 0. The only strong case is very strongly disputed by the high-ranking officer. The rest is rumours and a live boy who was said to being "judged" "in his opinion", while we know no real story at all.

I say, put out all the white civs out of this box now. Also, the "13 headmen and warchiefs, + 100 warriors," should be changed into something along the lines of "up to 50 warriors killed according to the U.S. Army; 103 according to Custer and 11 according to the Indians". --HanzoHattori 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This unless there are in fact any (checkable) names, so I can see it was people who actually existed. I find this very strange so much is know about Blinns (who weren't there), while others don't even have a solid number (guess it was hard for the soldiers to count on one hand or something?). --HanzoHattori 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding arrogance, but weak sources

This kind of statement "I strongly doubt that Hoig, Greene, Michno are as imbalanced as Custerwest's selective sourcing from them would indicate." is incredible. READ THE ARTICLES, some are online ! Has anyone here read something on the battle ? I mean, beside website checked out three minutes before coming to Wiki and making amazingly arrogant comment on researchs you don't know a clue about? What's obvious is that none of you have read Michno, Hoig or Greene. It's just talks without any proof except HHT ongoing researchs on the WEb, picking every website up and quoting it as "the definitive source". Has any of you read primary sources? Has any of you, especially Yrin and HHT (Murder... is doing a very good job), read something on the battle? It's amazing that historical researchs are attacked with websites, self-opinions etc. Is that an encyclopedia or a political meeting? Custerwest 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, I suggest calming your tone down. It is your OPINION, that those books are better sources than OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT accounts. If they conflict with each other, than both sides have to be given space, we cannot say that one is more right than another. That is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and is not allowed on wikipedia. Do you think that it is possible that some historians could have interpretations of the events that conflict with your favorite historians? And implying that a source is unreliable because it is a website, is ludicrous, and POV. See WP:SOURCE. Murderbike 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So what that I haven't read them yet. It's not like this is the only article I work on, & as I've said a couple of times already that I intend to read them as I have time. I will certainly need to, given that I've already learned via the two examples I've already shown above that I would far rather trust Michno, Hoig, and Greene's own accounts of what they say, than your account of what any of them say. Note also that my username is "Yksin" not "Yrin" & that I have never claimed any website as "the definitive source." I don't believe that any such thing as a single definitive source exists. --Yksin 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a political meeting. We are the Extreme Left Jerk Party. Welcome, comrade. --HanzoHattori 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest, you removed my link to Killing Custer, supposedly because the main author, Welch, is also a novelist, and the book is an essay, not a study. Yet A)Co-Author Paul Stekler is a documentary filmmaker, and B)Library Journal referred to the book as a "compelling history" (emphasis mine). The pair also made the much respected documentary for PBS on Little Big Horn. How can you claim that Welch is an unacceptable source, while citing Custer himself, the ultimate in biased non-historians? Murderbike 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Dude, seriously, I suggest calming your tone down. It is your OPINION, that those books are better sources than OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT " I suggest you to begin read the National Park Service's summary of the battle. The US army center command, the only source HHT gave us, is a general book on the Indian wars. It's not a study of the Washita and don't even pretend to be one. There's no quotes, no accounts, no anlysis of the battle. It's not a book made by an historian heavily interested in the battle. Your source is weak, and I find totally incredible to discuss famous books and sources of the battle and to have a tag of "neutrality" from people reading sources on the Web. There is a job called historian, evidences called "historical primary sources" - and it's what counts. For all of you, it's the first time you're reading on the Washita, but it's not for me, and I've written dozens of pages for a book on the Washita, being in touch with a chief historian of the official Battlefield. I think the comments here, judging the sources without any knowledge of the battle, attacking historians and reliable sources because of some of your own opinions, is simply stunning. It's incredible to see "a less one-sided" sentence... About what? Do you have any idea of what happened there? Is that an historical article, or a politically correct slogan in which everyone can says whatever he wants? Custerwest 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much the sources themselves, as you seem to be stuck on. It's how you are USING them. And that you are completely unwilling to cede that there is more than one way to look at a situation. The neutrality tag is not just there in reference to your sources, it is very much there because of the language of the article, what is put in, what is left out, that makes the article very slanted as regards to POV. Nobody is attacking your historians, only offering differing OPINIONS, as you did when you first started editting this article. Murderbike 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Welch's source is not some novel. I've got it sitting in front of me, and the sources for this incident are "Peter John Powell, People of the Sacred Mountain vol. 1, and My Life on the Plains by Custer himself. Murderbike 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Murderbike, Welch's book isn't a novel, but its author is a novelist and we can see that in the book (a great many factual errors, see Michno, "Lakota Noon", which is smashing the entire book in the footnotes). If you want to quote a book on Black Kettle's death, quote Custer's official report or a quote by a surviving Indian in George Bent's or George B. Grinnell's. Custerwest 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions must be PROVED. It's called historical study. The "tag" put on the article is only because some people disagree with what's written about Native Americans but don't prove any of their claims. The Solomon massacres and the white captives are indisputable facts that are told, and retold, in numerous historical books since 1868. I really don't care if some people here have troubles to look at the reality, or to condemn Native Americans, but facts are facts if proven. I don't see anything solid in the attacks against my work. I put an extracts of Little Rock's testimony because it was too long, but the overall testimony is a long story of the massacres caused by the Cheyennes. They were the causes of the Washita attack. A Master Degree thesis of 1995 was done on the Washita and concluded that the attack was logical because of these massacres of settlers (see Greene). Sand Creek, reservations or Indian way of life have nothing to do with the battle. Custerwest 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ach! Your opinions are getting really old. Somebody's Master thesis concluding that there was one monolithic cause is not relevant. And your opinion that those things are not causes of the battle are irrellevant. They are YOUR OPINIONS, and belong on custerwest.org, not in wikipedia. Murderbike 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Little Rock

"HHT: We also don't learn if Little Rock succeeded in his effort to bring the two men he & Wynkoop agreed were most responsible for the crimes detailed here to justice. I can't find it followed up on in Custer's book, but may have just missed it. Perhaps other sources have that info. In any case, it would be appropriate to note the result, if any, of Little Rock's effort; & to note that we don't know what happened, if no source provides that information."

Yes, we know that no one was delivered up and that's the reason Colonel Hazen didn't received Black Kettle well. It's written in books like Hoig, Greene etc. Have you read them? Have you read one of them? Any book ? Any page? Just one line ? One word? Custerwest 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Clara Blinn

HHT: He was "on the point of rescuing her ... when the battle took place" (and thus they were indirectly killed by Custer

Here we go. An other outstanding lie, with no source. Clara Blinn was scalped, as well as her son. They were discovered by the 19th Kansas some yards near Black Kettle's body location. They were both murdered by the Cheyennes.Custerwest 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AHM source

"HHT: Actually, I'd like to having restored the article I heavily (too heavily probably) based on the AMH"

It's by far the weakest, most unreliable source we can find - but who care, uh? I don't see anybody here who knows a little about the battle and I don't see a lot of folks doing their job by editing a correct article based on reliable sources, historical material. Incredible. Can we made an article by adults, with footnotes and historical sources, or must we accept like gospel every website we can find? Do you know the word HISTORIAN? Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, which sponsored Greene's book? Incredible. And it's an encyclopedia, edited by people who don't read the sources but who comment them. Amazing. What a joke.Custerwest 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you think I was able to provide a more complete quotation of Little Rock's statement than the extremely POV-pushing cherrypicking selectively edited version of the quotation that you had supplied? By going to an original source, of course. Which is what I will continue to do with the other sources you've provided, as well as those provided by other editors, or that I find on my own. So sorry that I don't do it instantaneously, as you seem to expect. Especially given that I also work on other articles, & spend a considerable time looking for & consulting reliable sources for them as well. --Yksin 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Little Rock's whole testimony is a three-pages accounts of the massacres caused by the Cheyennes. I cut some parts to not make the article look too heavy (Wikipedia policy to have short and readable articles). There is nothing wrong in what I posted and, except HHT, real historians and specialists of the battle know that no one was delivered up to the US army after Little Rock's comments. Black Kettle's warriors were involved in Clara Blinn's abductions some weeks after the meeting.

I salute that you spend considerable time, but it's on the Web, it's not an historical research, sorry. I won't let you judge my historical work, made with contacts with Mary Davis, chief historian of the Washita, because you "feel" that it's not true. It'll be hard, for sure, to know an historical event without making real historical researchs. Good luck... Custerwest 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. If it shows up on the web, even it its a full & complete scan of a book -- the original edition, no less! -- that you yourself have cited as a reliable source (Custer's book My Life on the Plains), then it's not "real historical researchs [sic]." Ha. --Yksin 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Custer's book is a book on his own adventures. Little Rock's testimony was reprinted in Greene, Hoig etc. These books are much better. As some of you said, Custer can be trusted alone (he was involved in the event). It's the reason I quoted Paul Hutton, Old West historian, about the overall encounter. I can quote Robert Utley too. Make no mistake, I salute the fact that you're looking for informations on the Web about the battle. Thanks for that. But if you want to attack my sources or me, you have to get copies of each one of my sources and telling me where I did wrong. Otherwise, it's called dishonesty and slandering, punished by every law. Custerwest 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We here at the communist commune disregard the internet law (besides the Godwin's Law), you capitalist opressor and also hitler. --HanzoHattori 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Troll. Custerwest 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"murdered" vs. "killed"

Custerwest, the term "murdered" is extremely POV, and unacceptable in this article. We can't say that all the Cheyenne were "murdered" by Custer, and we have to maintain a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Being new to wikipedia, I'm guessing you don't know that there is a lot of history to use of these terms, and the consensus is that "murdered" is POV. Don't revert it again. Murderbike 23:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the term "murdered" could be used if it can be directly attributed to a source considered reliable under WP:SOURCE; same for "executed." Otherwise, both words would violate WP:NPOV. A lot of the reason for this is also covered under Wikipedia:No original research, which among other things says, Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (emphasis in original) and Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

So, characterizing something as a "murder" or "execution" when sources say "killing" is thus a matter of the editor's opinion, unless the editor can provide a reliable source to back that up -- & even then, usually you'd probably have to qualify by saying "So & so characterized this as a murder (or excecution)" if other reliable sources characterize it otherwise. --Yksin 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

More on WP:NOR with regard to authority of sources

This follows on from the "murder" thread.

WP:NOR is also the policy at the root of the debate here about which sources are good & which ones aren't. It's not up to any given editors own personal thinking or opinion that determines whether any given source is suitable for attribution on Wikipedia: that is governed by WP:SOURCE, and by extension to the content guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And also back to WP:NOR at WP:PSTS (primary, secondary, and tertiary sources).

Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. That kinda socks it to any claims about any one source being the source too. The "official history of the U.S." as if that even really exists is, by WP standards, not any more or less authoritative as a source than anything else -- unless you can provide a reliable source for your claim that most historians agree with you that that's the most authoritative source. Likewise, Greene, Hoig, & Michno can't be claimed to be the best authorities unless you can back that up with a reliable source that indicates most historians agree with you on that. If you can't prove it, then you're going to have to accept the fact that's already apparent to some of us that reliable sources will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, & where they disagree, both sides need to be presented, with appropriate sourcing. To fail to do that violates both WP:NOR as original research, & WP:NPOV as POV-pushing. --Yksin 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clara Blinn & her son

Hey, Murderbike, they were not killed, they were executed. I put the word executed. Do you know how they were killed? Clara was shot in the neck and scalped. Her two-years-old son Willie was shmashed against a tree (his little face was totally broken. He was taken by the feet and smashed against the tree). It's an execution, and the worst kind of an execution. Richard Blinn, the father, received a lock of his son because the body was too broken to be shown to him... Watch: http://custer.over-blog.com/categorie-10018053.html Custerwest 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported for violation of WP:3RR. I won't discuss it here anymore. Murderbike 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to read a book about Washita, for God's sake. You didn't even know how they were executed by the Cheyennes... Gosh, it's an enormous waste of time to try to create an historical page on this battle. Almost all the editors have never read anything on the encounter. How could we discuss ? Custerwest 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&oldid=141580703

Old version is here[33] if you want to use it.--HanzoHattori 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Custer is not new to the Wikipedia:

• http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBataille_de_Washita_River&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bataille_de_Washita_River&action=history

He was either just pretending, or the French Wikipedia is something very different (and in part a Custer's fanpage by "Custer"). But at the same time, he was in fact a little less POV anyway. Strange.

But, I don't just about it. Notice how it's listed (Google translation): "82 weapons with fire, 4000 arrows, 30 lances, 210 axes, 573 covers in skin of bison, 271 saddles, 700 pounds of tobacco" - all destroyed on the site.

At the same time, in relation to the number of alleged white civilians "killed" or "rescued", they don't know the exact number in both cases. Why? Because it was all just several rumours. Or Custer (G.A., original gangsta) was retarded and instead counted arrows, and civilians estimated ("um, er, it's like.... 4-6 killed... rescued, maybe a woman... no, it's a boy... 2,3... ah, screw it, 573 buffalo pleds and 271 saddles").

In any case, the French Wikipedia Custer wrote "hostages released" without any number game (and no mention of killed). --HanzoHattori 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also fixed map and some details.[34] You can take it over if you want. --HanzoHattori 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)