Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2

< Talk:Battle of Washita River
Latest comment: 16 years ago by HanzoHattori in topic October to November, 1868
Learn more about this page

Cw is back as anon ip edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&diff=141767010&oldid=141766174 --HanzoHattori 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

and now as Custerwest (guess his block expired)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&diff=141767501&oldid=141767342

Well... here we again --HanzoHattori 09:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply


Common ground? edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Let's be serious (we should find common ground, right?). The Trails of Tears (Cherokee, 1838) and the Comanche campaign are factual errors and no link to the Washita. We can maybe add something about Sand Creek, but not as a direct cause, but to explain why Black Kettle's people had have troubles with the army before. I added your link to the Army center command in the box, along with other estimations of warriors and warchiefs killed. I still believe that this lone source isn't enough, but because we must find common ground, here we go. You can also add something about the "total war" (destroying property in the winter), but don't say that it was the cause of the battle. Custerwest 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Troubles with army", yeah. What a troublemakers... I don't know if you noticed (you seem to have hard times to understand many things), but you are actually in minority here (and no one really cares who you proclaim to be, "doctor in history" or the king of Scotland), it's not really about how much you agree to be changed or added to "your article" (no such thing, and we agreed to start with the other version), original research is right out, and you was blocked specifically for the repeated disrupting of this article (came back for more?). If you don't understand, read again. --HanzoHattori 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it another declaration of war after I just put your source to find a common ground? Custerwest 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Finding common ground"? You reverted all we did when you was blocked for disrupting and you continue editing like if nothing happened, saying "let's be serious"? Wow. No, I'm not impressed. --HanzoHattori 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You deleted the foonotes (and not only mine, but all of them, including the ones made by murderbike and others) to replace them with your lone reference to the army center command. You destroyed the core of the article, reprinted again amazing lies (what's the link between an event happening to the Cherokee in 1838 and the Cheyennes un 1868??) and the now famous Comanche campaign (you could also put the Cheyenne village of the Washita under the Apache campaign...)... What did you expect? You are not seeking the truth or even contributing to the article at all. I just added your only source in the box as an attempt to stop your constant vandalism. Custerwest 10:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You deleted "murderbike and others" by reverting. "Amazing lies" are all by the governemnt, and all you need is to click the links. All you need to learn about "the now famous Comanche campaign" is to click the link. I wonder if you got the message. Probably not, but this is actually not my problem. --HanzoHattori 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, is studying the battle for the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (Greene's book was done because of this ongoing study). This is the official voice of the government, sorry for your lone source. The Washita is a part of the Southern Cheyenne campaign, 1868-1869. Nothing to do with the Comanches (even the battles of Summit Springs and Beechers Island were against the Cheyennes). I reported your latest slandering. Custerwest 10:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used the website of the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site extensively (see my previous answer, just as many others before). As I said several times already, you either completely don't understand what the people say to you, or you just play stupid. Personally, I don't care. No, you didn't "report my latest slandering". I hope your next block will work better. --HanzoHattori 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Custerwest, you cannot just keep reverting to previous versions without using this talk page, while talking about finding common ground. It would be great if ALL major changes were discussed here first. Murderbike 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to the old version, but with Custerwest's infobox/cites, because I can't check em right now, but the Solomon Massacre section, and Little Rock interview, and so much more, are not appropriate for this article. This version is much better, and has been agreed upon as a starting point by several editors. Custerwest, please work with us on this instead of just pushing your idea of what the article should be. Murderbike 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, there's a lot of content that does not belong in this article. --MichaelLinnear 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Totally disputed edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The neutrality tag really needs to be replaced, there is so much info in this version that is disputed by several users, User:Custerwest standing alone. Murderbike 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How many users have read the sources I put ? It's a dispute between me and my sources, and you and your opinion. The ONLY source put on this website that wasn't given by me is HHT's numbers of the Military command. Everything else is mine after extensive researchs - the footnotes exist because of that. Removing entire pieces of history is nonsense, and replacing them with incaccuracies is vandalism. Reported. Custerwest 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Vandalism" reports aside, it isn't just about your sources. I'm not so worried about your sources as I am at how you use them, and how you write with your blatant POV. There is so much info in this version that doesn't need to be there, or is blatant POV pushing it's distressing. But as you claimed to want to do, let's find "common ground". You stop pushing POV, and we can start using your sources, in a NEUTRAL manner. Murderbike 18:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

... And the neutral manner is? Deleting the entire story of the Solomon massacres? They existed, deleting them is POV. It's also totally POV to remove sources without having checked them, or to ignore every word, including the ones from the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site. Everything that's written on the the article come from known books about the battle, some being "the" books on the Washita. What's really POV is that some of the editors here are gathering against evidences, primary sources and historical comments, because of their own opinion. Your POV is worse than blatant. You prefer opinion than footnotes, James Welch (novelsist)'s book against National Park Service book etc. Where are your sources ? Your books? Custerwest 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is almost funny. The only thing quoted from Killing Custer was that Black Kettle was shot in the back. Which was backed up by another source. You claiming that are "the" books, is YOUR POV. The Solomon Massacre section, has no reason to be in this article about the BATTLE OF WASHITA RIVER. If you love that section so much, stick it in Solomon Massacre. It provides no reason for being in this article. I'm much more worried about the tone of the article than any of your sources, as I said before. You use your sources to paint a picture that fits into your POV, which is not what wikipedia is for, that is what www.custerwest.org is for. Murderbike 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's really not funny is that you still don't give any source to back your statement. Thanks very much for attacking ME, and everything you hate about whatever I do etc., but the thread is about the Battle of the Washita and the Solomon massacres are directly related to the Battle of the Washita - they are the core of why Washita happened. Custer even FOLLOWED a raiding party who came back from Kansas. If you are so "worried", give something to the contrary. I don't see anything in the tone of the article that is false (and it's easy to check it out as long as you have the books, or even one of them). Proove what you say. And, please, I don't want to be shy, but custerwest is not the subject of this discussion. So keep focused to the Battle of the Washita and what you can proove. I back every of my evidences with the footnotes. And you? Custerwest 19:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think any "causes" type intro should mention more than just something like the solomon massacre. Like maybe the history of why white people were moving into land that was previously occupied by others. Maybe that "raids" weren't just raids, but often retaliatory attacks against people who were for all means and purposes "invaders". I think that there is not only room, but we are required to be aware of the fact that there is more than one side to every story. There isn't just Custer's side, and there isn't just the Cheyenne side. We have to include all of these things. At this point, the article doesn't do that. It is heavily leaning towards the Custer/"invader" side of the story. And I hope that you will understand that (I hate to point it out again, but if you have't already, please read WP:NPOV) we have to come to consensus on this article. It is not your article, and it is not mine or any other editor's. Murderbike 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stepping into this again...Murderbike, it's really inappropriate to remove large sections of referenced text, especially when you don't add references yourself. If another admin hadn't stepped in and protected, I would have myself. When I said "take it to the talk page", that means that it needs to be discussed, and a consensus needs to be reached before continuing. This is official policy, folks, not just a guideline! Some discussion has started here, and that's good. Unfortunately, it's not going in the right direction. Talk substance, not accusation. Custerwest is coming up with sources, so the response, Murderbuke, if you disagree with them, is to come up with sources that support your contentions. Too often on wikipedia, people use rhetoric or incivility as weapons against each other, and ignore the fact that content discussions need to be centered first and foremost about sources. If there are conflicting sources, meaning sources that provide conflicting information, that's fine, include both and make it clear to the reader that different historians have different perspectives. It is possible, and preferred, actually, that the article present all sides of the story. Make this talk page about the actual points! Go point by point, subject by subject. Introduce the problem, introduce the reference, and discuss it. It doesn't matter if it makes the talk page long, it doesn't matter if it takes a week or more. We're not in a hurry, we're in the business of making a top-notch encyclopedia. Everybody needs to recognize that "accuracy" doesn't necessarily mean telling only one side of the story, but rather telling all sides, all perspectives on the story. This was a battle, for crying out loud, wouldn't you expect that there would be more than one perspective on why it was fought and what the implications were? You guys are all just as bad as the folks over at the Falklands War (ok, maybe you're not...they can't even agree on what the war is called!). EVERYONE (and yes, I'm shouting on purpose...even admins need to shout occasionally to get everyone's attention), step back from the article for a moment and rethink what we're all about. This article should tell all sides of the story, as long as all those sides are properly sourced. You have only succeeded as a writer when each of you can write about the opposition's perspective with equal eloquence as you can your own. Take that to heart, please! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Starting the process edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, now that everyone is unblocked, time to start the process. Would the first involved editor who reads this pick one disputed topic and reference, add it below, and give his view on it, and how he thinks it should be handled in the text (either endorse current text, or propose alternate text). We'll then discuss that point and that point only until it gets resolved, then we'll move on to another one. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've not been involved in the latest rounds of stuff, thank goodness -- instead I was packing for & heading off on my vacation, & am now doing my first check-in from that vacation. I just caught up on the news from this talk page & the various talk pages of concerned parties. I want to begin by thanking Akradecki & other admins who have stepped in to bring this situation under control. And now I'll pipe in with a reply about the "Solomon massacres", below HanzoHattori's comments (which I haven't read yet; we were editing at the same time, but I'll read it after I post). In hopes that the work done here can result in creation of a balanced, accurate, non-POV-pushing article. --Yksin 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Solomon massacres" edit

Hey folks, I found something absolutely funny: the much-talked "Solomon massacres" were invented by "Custerwest".[1]

Yes, the google search gave 2 results: a spam bot[2], and a forum posting, where Custerwest wrote the following:

Ever heard about Minnesota Massacre ? Saline and Solomon massacres ? The things that McKenzie's people found in Little Wolf's village in 1877 ?[3]

It's under the name of "custerstillstands", but I can see it's our Custerwest by how he writes his question marks. No, I didn't "ever hear about Solomon massacres". Wonder why? Oh, because no such thing.

Is this Original Research, POV, Notability, etc. (I think a couple more too) enough to kill this, Akradecki? I'm wasting it from beginning.

It's all Custerwest: he is promoting the now-fringe theories as facts, and not even diputable things. And he is very militant about it.

Other examples from the same thread (the only trace of the alleged "Solomon massacres" on the Internet):

Dee Brown books are utterly pro-indian, even if "Bury..." was a little more balanced. But does anyone read "The American West" ? This books is ridiculous. The story of the Little Bighorn and the anti-Frontier men sentences are everywhere. What a waste of money. (...) Yes, I agree, and that's the reason I give some credit to "Bury...". But have you read "The American West" ? Brown has quickly become a radical pro-indian lover. (...) He was worst in "American West" !! (...) No. He only hates US army and think that Black Kettle and the whole Sioux and Cheyenne nations were peaceful.

Yes, he loves the official sources and published books (and authors) very much, and of course is very neutral.

Answering for "Apparently any reference to Indians being human is offensive to some on this forum. They see them as rapists, murderers, savages, and worthy of only being killed or penned up." he wrote in the same thread:

Perhaps because in a lot of ways, they were like that and didn't even deny it.

Oh well. --HanzoHattori 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up: And since "Washita massacre" returns 1,840 hits[4] and "Solomon massacre" 1 hit[5], I propose:

  • gassing "Solomon massacres"
  • starting "Washita massacre" section

The new section will be specifially discussing the common perception of the battle as a slaughter (gendercide) and kidnapping of a large number of men, women, and children attempting to surrender, also causing a humanitarian catastrophe for thousands of other men, women, and children in order to cause the cultural genocide (the latter being acknowledged by the US military now).

Also, I think this can be in the Controversies section (see below), as this is not what is in the official account (except the acknowledged intent to "completely destroy the Indian culture", that is). --HanzoHattori 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rename section, but retain, expand, & source properly edit

HanzoHattori asserted above that Custerwest made this up because of the lack of hits when doing a Google search on "Solomon massacres." I tried a different Google search: I searched on the source Custerwest gave, "Chronicles of Oklahoma", and found a website actually giving those chronicles in full, including the volume Custerwest cited, including the exact text Custerwest quoted. But the citation is terribly incomplete (it was one I didn't get time to fix when I fixed all the rest a couple of nights ago. So my first suggestion is to add to the article's reference list the following bibliographic entry:

If the text Custerwest quoted there is retained, the in-text cite should be something like this: "Moore, 1897, p. 350." This will then refer readers to the full bibliography, where they will source fully listed there, & will even find a link to the website where they can read the source in full.

Items of concern:

  • No mention is made of the actual author of this account or his affiliation. They should be mentioned. Horace Moore was a colonel at the time of his address to the Kansas State Historical Society; at the time of the Battle of the Washita occurred (as Moore's account explains), he was a lieutenant colonel of the outfit he's talking about, the 19th Kansas Cavalry, which was mustered into being in early November 1868 in support of Gen. Sheridan's winter campaign against the Indians. A casual reader might thus might get the idea that the account presented was some sort of "official" & perhaps "neutral" truth, rather than coming from a particular individual who was involved in one side of the conflict, which might color his account of the conflict.
  • The passage quoted describes several attacks of Indians in several different locations and on several different dates. Of the various attacks described, only one occurred on the Solomon River, in which 15 people were killed, 2 wounded, and 5 women carried off. All the other raids happened elsewhere, most of them far from the Solomon River. Nowhere in the source are these attacks called "the Solomon massacres" & even the raid on the settlement on the Solomon River is not referred to as a "massacre." So yes, the descriptive title "the Solomon massacres" was "invented" by Custerwest. However, the events described do have at least this source asserting their occurrence, & were not "invented" by Custerwest. All the same, calling this section "the Solomon massacres" is in my opinion both inaccurate & (due to the use of the word "massacres") POV. This section, if retained, should be given a more neutral descriptive title, something like "August 1868 raids in Kansas, Colorado, and Texas."
  • In the source, the paragraph immediately prior to the one quoted describes who was considered responsible for these raids: "The Indians engaged in these forays were Cheyennes, Arapahoes, Kiowas, Comanches, northern Cheyennes, Brule and Ogallalla Sioux, and the Pawnees." As written, the section fails to note this -- it only mentions Cheyennes, Arapahoes, and Kaws. And because the article overall is about a battle involving primarily Cheyennes, as written the section gives the casual reader the false impression that it was Cheyennes alone who carried out the various raids described in the source. This needs to be corrected.
  • Although the passage is not directly about the Battle of the Washita River, in my opinion the events described should be retained, as background to how the battle came about. It is clearly Moore's opinion, substantiated later in his account by quotes of documents from Sherman, Sheridan, etc. that the losses sustained in the raids (deaths, kidnappings, rapes) were at least one major reason behind the Army's decision to mount a winter campaign that resulted in, among other things, the Battle of Washita River. But the section is inadequate as written by its failure to include contexts such as the number of tribes involved and the identity and affiliation of the source's author.
  • This source should be useful for other details in this article. Though not involved in the battle himself, Moore provides a brief account of Custer's involvement; discovery of the bodies of Major Elliot and his men; discovery of the bodies of Clara Blinn & her son, as well as details of their capture by Kiowas & Mrs. Blinn's letter, and other relevant details which help put the battle in context of the entire campaign that winter.

Naturally, any sources which might contradict this source should be mentioned & sourced. Anything from this source should be attributed to Moore, e.g., "According to Moore," etc. --Yksin 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This should (eventually) go to our Background section - IN SHORT VERSION (I don't think more than, say, Sand Creek, which was few words: The Cheyennes were still smoldering over the massacre of 200 of Black Kettle's peaceful band, including women and children, by Col. John M. Chivington and his Colorado volunteers in the 1864 Sand Creek massacre). This is how battle articles are constructed. Of course, this should be first double-checked as of how it relates to the Southern Cheyenne according to what is officially known NOW. If it's not, then it's a fabricated or largely-fabricated cause for a propaganda reasons (like in the cause of Srebrenica, the Serbs largely fabricated the massacres of Serb civilians by Bosniaks to justify the genocide). --HanzoHattori 08:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

And if this comes from the military or the government then, it MUST be confirmed by the military or the government NOW. From the reason in the previous comment. (Read the Srebrenica link, really - UN Secretary general sez: "Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it… The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create a geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina" - and if this lie is "often repeated by international sources", then what to do with the account of this Sheridan officer "often repeated" by no one else but one Custerwest? Yep, I ask for the confirmation of "credible evidence" from the government, including the direct link with Black Kettle's band.) --HanzoHattori 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As of "Clara Blinn & her son, as well as details of their capture by Kiowas & Mrs. Blinn's letter", two things:

  • "The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case." (of course - and this was from the general who was "in correspondence")
  • Whatever either Kiowa or Arapaho have to do with the Southern Cheyenne who were killed in the battle? NOTHING. --HanzoHattori 08:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Yksin again. Actually after sleeping on it, I think HanzoHattori is right about this needing to be condensed and shortened into part of a section called Background. The Little Rock material in a shortened form can also be included in the background; it appears to describe some of the came events (raids on white settlements on the Saline River). Whether or not the claims in Moore's stuff is "officially" confirmed by the U.S. government NOW, & in what way, this is relevant to the article as Moore's opinion if nothing else. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not required to say only those things that are "officially" said by the U.S. government of whatever era: Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, there are modern U.S. government sources which affirm that such raids were taking place, e.g.:

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

It's again a matter of saying, "According to Moore, thus'n'such happened" (source cited); where any source considered reliable under WP:SOURCE contradicts, then say, "However, according to this other source, thus'n'such happened" (again, citing this source). Exluding either account because it doesn't fit your own notions of what happened violates WP:NPOV -- as we've said I don't know how many times now. --Yksin 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clara Blinn. Your source for the claim that the Kiowa weren't responsible for kidnapping Clara Blinn should have a complete bibliography entry added to the references as follows:

Then, because there are contradictions between sources, one writes, "According the Moore, Clara Blinn and her son were captured by the Kiowa" (add citation of exact page where this assertion was made), then "however, according to Hazen, the Kiowa were not responsible for this capture" (add citation of exact page). --Yksin 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, WHATEVER either Kiowa or Arapaho (it doesn't even matter!) have to do with the Cheyenne who were attacked? Is this something along the lines of "USA was attacked by the Saudi nationals so let's attack Iraq, they are all the Arabs"? Also: He says the Custer's attack had her killed when he was on the brink of freeing her. If wherever, her place is in the Aftermath, along with the comparably massive Indian post-battle losses (which were greater than in the incident itself). As for the quality and the weight of the sources, don't forget Hazen was a famous general who knew the case like no one else. It's like quoting a random police officer in the area, while the detective on the case says "no, no, NO". --HanzoHattori 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your claim that Hazen "knew the case like no one else" is a statement of your opinion. In terms of "the quality and the weight of the sources," my responsibility on Wikipedia isn't to judge which source has more authority than the other, because all of that is mere opinion, hence in Wikipedia it's mere original research & POV-opining. I weight sources here only by whether they satisfy WP:SOURCE, which Hazen does, which Moore does, which even Custer himself does. (Custer, that is -- not Custerwest or Custerwest's very POV website). Since all of them do satisfy WP:SOURCE, but they also disagree with one another, then... okay, here's to quote what Akradecki said above:
If there are conflicting sources, meaning sources that provide conflicting information, that's fine, include both and make it clear to the reader that different historians have different perspectives. It is possible, and preferred, actually, that the article present all sides of the story.
Now, how many times do we have to say it? All sides of the story all sides of the story all sides of the story all sides of the story -- not just the side you want to push, not just the side Custerwest wants to push -- all sides of the story. Or with your obstinancy in refusing to recognize this point just going to result in me & everyone else giving up on any possibility of consensus, & the article just lays here under full protection forever after in the present inadequate & Custerwest-weighted state it is, because you're more interested in your own POV-pushing than in following well-established Wikipedia policies for writing well-balanced, encyclopedic articles? --Yksin 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, it's not "censorship", it's factual accuracy vs propaganda/rumours. If it's not confirmed, it means it's discredited and rejected. --HanzoHattori 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's becoming every more obvious that you are no more interested in working with others or seeking real consensus than Custerwest is. In that case, seems like my time could more productively used elsewhere. Custerwest should be pleased, since in the current protected state the article is enshrined in his completely inadequate version. --Yksin 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Really, did you read what I wrote? If propaganda is discredited now, it should be not used. It's like (yes, Godwin's Law time) writing in the German invasion of Poland, that according to "some sources" (German of 1939) the invasion was just the retalation for the Polish cross-border raids, particulary Gliwitz incident - so what the German government now says it was an outright German provo. You'd call this "conflicting accounts"? Or do you think the current government version is "biased, POV-pushing" (like Custerwest does)? Because I say all the time and non-stop, let' just use JUST THE GOV AND MIL WEBSITES (who say are providing "neutral and accurate" account), and by this I mean the modern materials. I'm not saying, let's use Genocide on the Plains - I say let's use both this one and Custerwest.org (two extremes) in the new "Alternative views" section, per Srebrenica massacre, where only the CONFIRMED findings by the UN or the HRW are used, and not the rumours and "often repeated" Serbian propaganda (including vastly inflating Serbian deaths and manipulating the circumstances). This is the "side I want to push" a you put it - the modern offical "side". Without going into various unnecessary deatils - it's just an article, and should be kept short, not made into a book of some kind. Am I clear now? Or is actually something wrong with the US gvt now? --HanzoHattori 08:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've read what you wrote every single time you've repeated the exact same notion "all the time and non-stop" without anything other than your own opinion to back you up that the sources you prefer are any more reliable than modern-day historians who don't happen to be employed by the government or military. Just like Custerwest, your mind is made up, just like Custerwest you refuse to learn or abide by Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, & WP:SOURCE, just like Custerwest it's a waste of time to attempt to try to work with you to achieve balance in this article because neither of you are interested in it, but are only interested in pushing your own points of view. Thus the article is held hostage to your stubbornness, as much as it is to Custerwest's. --Yksin 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jesus. Yeah, it's so much better than to discuss every single alleged detail FOREVER, checking everything for what Custer misinterprets or outrights invents, spend entire workdays on this. Instead of just using what the army cadets (and civilians are encouraged) or the tourists visiting Washita learn, then add the Alternative views section, GET OVER THIS and move on to a many stub of otherwise articles neding real attention. Sure. Yeah.

You know what? This article was JUST FINE before Custerwest came along and claimed it's his now, because of so-precioussss footnotes, old-timey racism (yes, let's call spade a spade), and broking I think every possible Wikipedia rule on the one article with almost no consequences. The whole thing started with him calling me "idiot", because I corrected-back the casualties he changed (into unsourced, if I remember correctly). Then he went into a berserk crusade to make his idol Custer a white race-avenging hero who destroyed the "terror base" in the "anti-terror campaign" (his words from his blog), because some "Indian lover" (his words again, rom the forum - on Wikipedia he rather uses "politically correct radical leftist dumb ass idiot monkey bastard") changed them into the army's official (I think the army knows the best how many people they killed or lost and they say this is "neutral and accurate"), and then it all went downhill fast. True story.

Now, back to what I wrote a paragraph above: Let's stop researching and interpreting this incident (this is the job of Washita Battlefield) further beyond what the civilian government and the military found out to be hard facts people should know. If you know any reason to doubt their (stated) neutrality or accuracy, tell me, becuase I don't. I believe everything needed for an article is right there (and without reading between the lines or whatever). If Custerwest doesn't like this (oh boy, he does), he has his Custerwest.org. I'm offering a link to this fine blog from the article and then he can write whatever he wants completely unopposed (freedom of speech and all that). --HanzoHattori 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Little Rock's interview (Custerwest) edit

Gas it. I on't get into details because it's obvious (this is not article on Little Rock), and here it's longer then his Battle section. Also, it's not how you write a Wikipedia article on any battle (or massacre - see for example Srebrenica massacre). --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Condense & roll into "Background" section. This material is pertinent to the article, as it is about the raids that was one motivation for why the Army embarked on its winter campaign, which included the attack on Black Kettle's village. However, it needs to be condensed. It is also inaccurate to claim, as the article currently does, that "Little Rock related the massacre and admitted that almost all of Black Kettle's warriors were involved in the killings." Little Rock made no such admission. What he said was "Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information". This does not indicate that this small party consisted of "almost all of Black Kettle's warriors" as no indication in the source is made of how many warriors were in the small party of how many warriors in total were in Black Kettle's village. I.e., opinion/original research. I'll be back later, right now I've gotta run. --Yksin 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

agreed. Murderbike 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

October to November, 1868 (Custerwest) edit

Gas and substitute by our (proper) Background section (based on the mil and gov websites version only[6]). As with following proposals, I discussed it a lot before, but if needed a I can do again (or just do a copypasta). --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The battle (Custerwest) edit

Swap with our Battle section, based on the modern official account.[7] Custerwest's contains the things which didn't happen, such as the discredited story of "4 to 6 white captives" (discussed in detail before). I also noticed the version by Custerwest completely ommits civilian casalties (except the chief's wife). --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The accounts of the battle (mostly pre-Custerwest) edit

Swap with our Controversies.[8] --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath (ours) edit

Add.[9] This is how a battle article is usually composed: Background-Battle-Aftermath, then possibly some other things. --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Infobox edit

Swap with ours[10] - based only on the indiscussable things confirmed now, including what Custer said (which would be or not be true, and is not used in the today's estimates, but this is what he reported). Also, as always, only the government websites (AMH and Washita site). Also, I think it's more informative (for example, see Strength - "strenght" is not the unit, it's a figure), and as the rest is even written better and more clearly (his is a mess). --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Intro edit

Swap with the simple ours instead of his usual chaos.[11] If you wonder, the thing about Double Wolf was properly moved to our Battle section. It also notices it's also known as massacre, which it is (also known as). --HanzoHattori 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comanche Campaign thing edit

Custerwest is raging all the time about my notice the Comanche Campaign is the main article in our Backround section[12], throwing various epiteths of "idiot" etc. As I many times wrote (as everything, I can talk like to the wall - he ether can't understand, refuses to understand, or pretends to not understand), it's long-standing (since 2005), appearently based on AMH as well, and written by several editors and not me.[13] It's obvious this is the main article, then. --HanzoHattori 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

My proposition how to deal with the whole situation edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

What I propoe to do with Custerwest, is what Srebrenica editors did to the Srebrenica revisionists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views

a small section at the very bottom.

Instead, we (I was involved) used the official account (United Nations), and I propose to do the same (US Government).

And this can even include the link to the Custerwest's blog! --HanzoHattori 08:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

And on the other side of "Alternative views", we would present the opionions and analyses such this book (it's extensively sourced, and on the linked page it's only the first chapter).

In thi case, Custerwest would write on his own blog just whatever he wants, as it's his (alternative) views, and whoever wants would easily read it all unopposed. In the meantime, the rest of editors would concentrate on making the article better without warring constantly with the Custerwest's militant dissency. --HanzoHattori 09:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's the problem? edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I think all this RR warring occur because custerwest is doing a self-promotion in WP (and also promotion of his minority opinion on these events). He admitted this himself: this:[14]. I believe he should not edit this article at all.Biophys 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Actually, I think that promotion of someone's own ideas in WP is just fine (when supported by published sources), but only as long as this does not contradict other sources and opinions of other users. If such conflict arises, author should only justify his own research at the talk page and under no circumstances start edit warring. So, this is a conduct problem rather than a content dispute.Biophys 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Custerwest, please read WP:COI policy.Biophys 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Still, some points made by Custerwest are valid and may be represented as an alternative/minority opinion. But this should be done by another neutral user, such as Yksin. Biophys 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and it's telling that he disappeared as soon as the page was protected. --MichaelLinnear 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course, because he's not interested in consensus, & the article as it stands now reflects his very inaccurate & biased POV. Unfortunately, HanzoHattori appears to be no more willing to work with the people who do want real balance than CW is, no more interested in making this a balanced instead of POV-pushing article than CW is, as unwilling to learn what Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, & WP:SOURCE are about as CW is. It's very hard for me to be able to assume good faith from either one of them, & attempting to get them to understand policies is proving to be a big waste of time, like trying to teach a rock how to be water. So, unless this situation changes, I'm outta here. --Yksin 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to see you go. --MichaelLinnear 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Unlike Custerwest, Hanzo has no WP:COI problem here. Moreover, Hanzo strictly follows a good contemporary source. So, I do not really see any serious problems with his content.Biophys 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really like the way Yksin is dealing with this, and unfortunately I don't have enough time right now (on the road for the next week) to throw in more input, or do more research. Please don't leave Yksin! Murderbike 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Following policies edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am coming back to this article. It may take some time, because research is necessary; some sources are available at the municipal & university libraries where I live, but some of them aren't & have to be obtained through interlibrary loan or ordered. But in any case, as one editor interested in this article: I do not consent to it being written as it presently is, based on selective use of sources (cherrypicking) in order to push what appears to be an anti-Indian POV. Nor, on the other hand, do I consent to it being written according based on some kind of strange idea "lets have a special rule for this article in which we only use sources which HanzoHattori has approved", which amounts to simply another version of cherrypicking & POV-pushing. Both ways violate standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, & I will not consent to methods which lead this (or any other article I have an interest in) being written in violation of those policies. --Yksin 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sources searchable online edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

New source: Washita Memories This is a new source I've already found which I'll be able to look at in-depth at one of the libraries after I return home tomorrow night:

  • Hardorff, Richard G., compiler & editor (2006). Washita Memories: Eyewitness Views of Custer's Attack on Black Kettle's Village. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0806137592.

Turns out that this book is also searchable at Amazon.com -- see here -- which for all intents & purposes means you can check out & read most of it online. For those who are nervous about adding other sources beyond "official military or government sources" because of the kind of biased cherrypicking Custerwest has done with his sources, you may well want to take a look. The book is a wealth of primary source material from U.S. Army sources, white civilians, Indian witnesses, etc. with extensive notes to help put them in their context. Amongst other things, there is documentation of the inflated figures Custer reported for Indian casualties -- basically, a couple of days after the battle, he had each of his officers tell him how many Indian warriors they saw dead, & then added the figures they gave him together -- but since a lot of them saw the same exact dead warriors, it meant that a number of them were counted several times. There is also discussion of Clara Blinn & son who were, as HanzoHattori has said, not kidnapped by either Cheyenne or Kiowa, but by Arapaho, & their bodies found where the Arapaho camp had been a ways away from Black Kettle's camp two weeks after the battle. I will be writing this stuff up as I continue research; but at least maybe this can reassure people somewhat that using sources beyond the brief summaries provided in HanzoHattori's favorite sources does not in fact mean that a well-research, well-documented article will turn out the way Custerwest would like it to. It also helps that you can search at least this particular book online, so even those who can't get themselves over to a library (assuming your library even has it) can still doublecheck any citations online. --Yksin 05:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greene's book also searchable online

This is Jerome Green's book, also can be searched (& thus a lot of it can be read) at Amazon.com -- see here. There are some discrepancies here from Washita Memories about Clara Blinn, which will need to be addressed, but on my brief looksee just now the book is quite unequivocal that her remains were not found anywhere near Black Kettle's village (p.185); also about Custer's inflated casualty figures & also that Black Kettle was not personally responsible for the Kansas raids (p. 186) & goes on to discuss how Gen. Sheridan took evidence that appeared to have actually come later from a different camp to pin the blame for the Kansas raids on Black Kettle & his camp. Custerwest either ignored or willfully misread this information in this book in his attempts to prove that Black Kettle was guilty of or responsible for those raids. I invite other interested editors -- Murderbike, Hanzohattori, Biophys, anyone else -- to search this or the other book online & see for yourself what they say. --Yksin 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some controversies, but the overall article is accurate

There are some controversial points on the article, but the article is fairly accurate. Some good points on the Solomon Massacres. Jerome Greene's statements on white captives are controversial. 193.5.216.100 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, interesting. Another Swiss anonymous IP to go with the collection of others that have been used in support of the Custerwest POV throughout the history of this article & talk page. E.g.,
Except for one edit (134.21.9.183's edit of Bernardo Bertolucci), all edits to date made to date by the above anon IPs are Custer or Black Kettle-related (George Armstrong Custer, Black Kettle, Sand Creek Massacre, Battle of Washita River, related talk pages, user talk pages about these articles, etc.)
How do I know these are related to Custerwest? Because:
Note that 26 May 2007 is the date of the first edits by the Custerwest account. Custerwest (talk · contribs · count) - 26 May to 1 Jul 2007 (~285 edits to date).
  • 6 Jun 2007. Two successive unsigned edits on this talk page under the topic "White captives" made here and here by 134.21.9.164 (an IP of U. de Fribourg). The next two immediately following edits here and here, both made by Custerwest, were modifications of the same comment. Custerwest signed on the last edit.
  • 1 Jul 2007. edit by 83.78.3.67 of the article; Custerwest identified himself as the person who made this edit here, on HanzoHattori's talk page. 83.78.3.67 is an IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider.
And now we have the comment to which I'm now responding:
Unlike the other IPs listed above, only one from this IP -- its last edit -- fits the pattern of Custer/Black Kettle-related edits; the others are on all manner of topics, which perhaps speaks to the varied interests of Swiss government employees or other editors who use Swiss government computers.
Is this last edit a Custerwest edit? Well, I suppose there might be another person in Switzerland who agrees that Custerwest's POV as reflected in the current state of the article is completely accurate, but nonetheless feels that something written by one of Custerwest's favorite sources, Jerome Greene, is "controversial" given that it conflicts with Custerwest's POV. (Need it be mentioned that this selective criticism of Greene squares completely with Custerwest's selective, cherrypicking use of his sources? Well, I guess it's possible that another individual in Switzerland besides Custerwest might use sources that way too.) Likewise, I suppose that there might be other students at U. de Fribourg who are interested only in articles that happen also to be in Custerwest's area of interest (oh, except for the one also interested in Bernardo Bertolucci).
Note that I don't claim that the U. de Fribourg or Bluewin edits necessarily indicate dishonesty or sockpuppetry; after all, Custerwest admitted to doing one of those Bluewin edits, & seems to have decided anyway on May 26 that his interest in these articles was worth getting away from anon IPs (almost) altogether. Nothing wrong with anything there.
But if this last edit from a Swiss Federal Government IP is indeed Custerwest, it is pretty disingenuous not to say so. Are you trying to prove that you have "consensus" for your POV? --Yksin 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

More complete list of sources that can be read or searched online edit

For others who want to help write this article or fact check what's already there. Some of these are obviously more useful than others -- I've highlighted in bold those I'm finding most useful. I'd include Hoig too, except that the searches on them are only partial & inevitably cut out some of the stuff we're most interested in. There are other useful sources, of course -- that's why there are libraries. I'm making good use of mine. --Yksin 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changes requested via {{editprotected}} edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Cheyenne strength in Black Kettle's village edit

{{editprotected}}

In military strength infobox, change field strength2 (strength of Cheyenne village) from:

~250 warriors and civilians (150 warriors, 100 civilians) <ref>Greene, page 111</ref>. The children were moved by Black Kettle in an other village downstream prior to the battle. <ref>Greene, Washita, page 109 (Whirlwind's village, downstream)</ref>

to

150 warriors (estimated)<ref>Greene, 2004, p. 111.</ref>
150 warriors (est.)<ref>Greene, 2004, p. 111</ref>; total camp population 250 (est.)<ref>Greene 2004, p. 103.</ref> One Indian source says some children were moved downstream to Old Whirlwind's camp before the battle.<ref>Green 2004, p. 128.</ref>

Rationale: Per a source check, on p. 111, scout Ben Clark estimated the village's warrior strength at 150. No estimate was given for the civilian population. On p. 109, no mention whatsoever is made of children being moved to another village. Source check was made through online search of the book at Amazon.com since my copy of the book has not yet arrived.

Other fact checks proceed apace. Thank you. --Yksin 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update: Change to recommendation per new information given below. --Yksin 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is there consensus from other editors and is this an uncontroversial edit? -Mysekurity 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever: Seriously, Wikipedia is not my job. If you feel you're ready to research everything possible (wow!) and find the thruth the government is hiding from the public or something, then god speed. --HanzoHattori 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
A question: What if there was consensus for keeping the statements in the infobox as they are, even though they assert "facts" that are not backed up by the sources that were cited in support of them? In other words, does consensus trump WP:ATT? (Not that I think that anyone other than the editor who placed these two non-facts, at least one of which appears to be a complete fabrication, would vote in favor of keeping them.) --Yksin 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
What? Are you even talking to me now? You appearently now got a new hobby of fact-checking the current official version instead of just using it (I asked if you have any reason to not believe it, and I don't think I've got any real answer), so I don't interfere. --HanzoHattori 23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reply to HanzoHattori: Frankly, HanzoHattori, your prior comment made it sound like you were resigning your interest in this article. If you dispute the above modification to the edit, or the infobox itself, it's far more useful to do so openly on this talk page, instead of removing my edits as you just did. Which I have just replaced.
As for edit-checking "the current official version" goes, I've actually set that aside for the moment in favor of developing a full account of the battle & circumstances surrounding it per WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV, & WP:NOR. I think I'm made it quite clear by now that I have scads of problems with "the current official version" (i.e., the one dominated by CW's edits); but I also have problems with depending only on modern-day government & military sources when they, by their nature, are brief summaries only. I have no issues with Wikipedia not being your job; it's not mine either, & yet I enjoy doing thorough research, & this article certainly demands it. So that's what I'm doing now. --Yksin 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Addendum. Ah, maybe you were asking about the official version in terms of the "official government version"? In that case, no, I don't disbelieve the particular govt. sources or the military sources you favor -- but nor do I consider them complete. As I just said, by their nature they are very summarized info only. Nor does the U.S. government anyway participate in writing "official histories" that we are required to believe without question. Certainly I wouldn't take anything the current U.S. administration says at face value -- nor for that matter the prior one, or the any of those before that, regardless of which political party was in power. Nor does WP:SOURCE, which is official Wikipedia policy, require us to write articles based only on such sources.
BTW, I might as well mention right now also that although Custerwest seems to believe that Jerome Greene's book is somehow representative of the "official National Park Service" history of the Battle of the Washita. In fact it is not. It's true that Greene works for NPS, but the work was written in his own name, is copyrighted by the University of Oklahoma Press, & does not have any official NPS imprimatur, though naturally Greene thanks staff at Washita National Battlefield Historic Site (as well as numerous other people) in its acknowledgments.
An example of CW calling Greene's account "official": the infobox citation of Indian casualties, the part where it says "official National Park Service count of casualties whose name is known", citing Greene. Also note that in the cited pages, which comprises an appendix entitled "Known Village Fatallities at the Washita," nowhere does Greene identify any of the men killed as "warchiefs." His list is divided into three portions called "Men Killed," "Women Killed," and "Children Killed," and each list is just simple list of names with no other identifiers (except where it says something like "unidentified man" or "unidentified children." Prefacing the list, Greene gives his sources, noting that its a compilation & that "Some individuals listed below might have had two or more names, so a few entries might be duplicative" (p. 212). So besides mischaracterizing Greene's Appendix C as an "official National Park Service count", he also adds extra information that is not actually in the source: more original research. --Yksin 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why you do this at all. Wikipedia articles do not have to be "complete" beyond the stub status (it wasn't, and there are many). The whole problem is Cw alone, and this problem is a problem literally, and should be simply eliminated for several reasons including but not limited to: just mentioned original research, shameless self-promotion, notorious personal attacks, edit warring taken to the extreme (repeated even after warnings and block on the same article - and at the same time reporting others), etc. And this not to mention outright lies (right here) and racism (mostly elsewhere). The article is protected because of these edit wars by him - about 10 edits just after he was blocked for the very same reason, and so I have no idea how he got away with something like this, or why the article is protected. In my opinion he should be just ignored and blocked pernamently if needed, and not wasted any more time or nerves on.

(Also, I love how he copies everything his opponents do, even my "Have a nice day". But that's a digression.)

Look: you are spending A LOT of time on the unneeded details, while the entire years of the Afghan Civil War (1992-1996) (most of a major war) are missing completely. Think about it. No, I have no problem with you reading or even writing a lot on this subject, I just put this into a perspective. --HanzoHattori 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

True, it's not required for an article to be "complete" beyond stub length. But once CW entered in with a dedication to this article (beyond what he'd when he was only doing a few edits here & there under various Swiss anon IPs), the article immediately took a jump, because Wikipedia values sourced text, & he was providing it. Not just you, but also Murderbike got in trouble with admins for deleting sourced text that CW had added -- because it was sourced. Even though his manner of using sources introduces all kinds of bias. But the only way we can counter his POV-pushing is by going to sources & making the article more thorough & complete in its discussion of the battle. This is the only way the article will be restored to NPOV. And while this article may not be as crucial to you as that on the Afghan Civil War, it is important enough to you that you sought help with getting it back to balance: that's what got me here. So here I am. Please help me to do what I do very well -- because whether CW wants to call me an amateur or not, I am damned good at research, & I am also damned good at presenting all sides of any given debate in a neutral way. --Yksin 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Amateur? edit

While being the first amateur who checks his sources in with Amazon.com (very impressive....), Yskin is mistaken again.

1) Yskin (above): "Per a source check, on p. 111, scout Ben Clark estimated the village's warrior strength at 150. No estimate was given for the civilian population"

__ Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, page 103: "As many as 250 people occupied the camp."

2) Yskin: "no mention whatsoever is made of children being moved to another village."

__ Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, page 128: "Following Black Kettle's return from his meeting with Hazen, a number of people in the village, including the the chief's whife, urged that the camp move and, according to one source, some of the youngsters were removed to Old Whirlwind's camp downstream."

Yskin... Have a nice day (I've a lot of visitors from all around the world, sorry, I am not interested in your "work" (or lack of) 24h a day.Custerwest 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proper citation style means that if a fact that you are sourcing is given on page 103, you should cite page 103, not p. 111. In this case, both page numbers should be given, since you cite a fact from each -- number of warriors estimated on p. 111, complete camp population estimated on p. 103. A subtraction of one number from another to derive "civilian population" is original research, esp. without evidence that Cheyennes considered people who were not adult males to be "civilians", so saying "total camp population" would be more accurate a reflection of what the source says.
Likewise, if a fact you are sourcing is given on page 128, then that's the page number you should give us -- but the page number you gave in the citation in the article is page 109. And while the fact you just gave coming from page 128 does substantiate that one source says children were moved to Old Whirlwind's camp, there is nothing in that quotation to substantiate that "The children were moved by Black Kettle" as the infobox currently says.
So sorry if I took your word at which pages you got your facts from because you gave completely wrong page numbers. In future, perhaps you should consider giving the actual page number(s) where you got the information -- especially when you're so ready to throw around words like "amateur."
So sorry if I had no choice but to check through the book where it is fully searchable on Amazon.com because my local libraries don't have a copy & the copy I've ordered has not yet arrived.
Meanwhile I will change my recommendation for how to change the infobox per this new information. --Yksin 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sramator. --HanzoHattori 23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is that supposed to mean? --Yksin 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, Custerwest -- its spelled Yksin, not Yskin. And I'm female. --Yksin 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me that there is no agreement about this, and since the page was protected for edit warring, it isn't right for admins to make such changes. Please find consensus and then request unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only problem here is Custerwest, everyone else is perfectly capable of working together. --MichaelLinnear 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, Carl, thanks. We'll just keep on trying. Michael, good to see you here. Consensus will build. --Yksin 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that I've got a little more time to look at this, so far I can say that everything that Yksin has suggested looks to be right on. Murderbike 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What Greene's book really says edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I came home to find three of my ordered items had arrived: Hardorff's Washita Memories (2006), which is an extraordinarily valuable annotated compilation of primary sources on the Washita battle -- I've been using a library copy, but now here's my own; Michno's Encyclopedia of Indian Wars (2003), which has only a brief account of the battle but also has good brief accounts of a lot of the other stuff that went on that year that led up to Washita; & Greene's Washita (2004), which believe me makes it a heckuva lot easier to read than just doing searches of it on Amazon.com. Custerwest is right about it being an excellent source -- in my hands, perhaps just a little more excellent than he'd like, because Greene, who is very thorough with his researches & sourcing, pretty conclusively demonstrates that some of Custerwest's key claims don't hold up very well. Examples:

White captives in Black Kettle's camp

One of the later pretexts on which Custer and General Sheridan hung their defense of Washita concerned captive whites presumably found in Black Kettle's village. In his official report of the encounter, dated November 28, Custer states: "we ... secured two white children, held captive by the Indians. One white woman who was in their possession was murdered by her captors the moment we attacked. A white boy held captive, about 10 years old, when about to be rescued, was brutally murdered by a squaw, who ripped out his entrails with a knife." Sheridan repeated the essence of Custer's remarks in his dispatch to General Sherman of November 29.... But following Custer's return to Camp Supply, he and Sheridan must have conferred at length and likely concluded the statement could not even be reasonably justified. By then, however, the reports had gone forward, bound for public consumption. Custer's references to the recapture of two white children and to the murder of a white woman at the commencement of the attack remain a mystery, possibly the result of miscommunication either during or in the hurried aftermath of the fighting. Certainly, if two white children had been retrieved and presumably accompanied the column returning to Camp Supply, Custer must have seen them. The folly of his statement, therefore, must have been apparent by the time he reached that post. While no formal correction to the public record, so far as is known, was ever made, both Custer's and Sheridan's subsequent descriptions of the Washita action mention neither the rescue of the children nor the murdered white woman, suggesting that these events, in fact, never happened. (Greene 2004, p. 184)

Greene references in a note that some accounts by people other than Custer & Sheridan, such as an 1885 book by the newspaper reporter Keim & an 1890 book by Custer's wife (Greene 2004, p. 259 note 2). This fact will of course need also to be mentioned in the article to meet NPOV. As will other reliable sources whether they agree or disagree with Greene's analysis.

It would be good also if we could mention that if there had been rescued white captives, there would probably be information about them in contemporary sources -- such as their names, when/how they were captured, how they were cared for after rescue, etc. -- because there would be a huge amount of interest in them by the American public. It was certainly the case of the two white women captives (Anna Belle Brewster Morgan and Sarah Catherine White) that Custer legitimately did rescue the following March at Sweetwater Creek from a Cheyenne band under Medicine Arrows (Greene 2004, pp. 180-181). Likewise it would be good if we could mention that the alleged murdered white woman would also have been the subject of much contemporary reportage, as was indeed the case with Clara Blinn & her son after their bodies were found several days after the battle (more on that below): I strongly doubt that Custer would have left such a woman's remains behind in the village when he & the 7th Cavalry pulled out. But we hear nothing about the disposal of this alleged murder victim's remains, or who she might have been. It would be good indeed if we could mention these things -- but of course we can't in the article unless we find a reliable published source which says it, because otherwise it amounts to prohibited original research.

But there is still one alleged white victim at the battle to account for -- the boy allegedly murdered by a Cheyenne woman. Here's what Greene writes:

The second part of Custer's comment -- that regarding the white boy who had been "brutally murdered by a squaw, who ripped out his entrails with a knife" -- enjoyed a longer run, possibly because several military participants either witnessed such an incident during the encounter or had learned of it conversationally shortly afterward. But even this seems not to have occurred as described. In 1904 Ben Clark, Custer's chief of scouts, in an interview spoke of witnessing the episode: "I saw a Cheyenne squaw ... kill her child with a butcher knife and then stabbed [sic] herself. Several of the soldiers thought she had murdered a white child. Some Cheyenne babies were almost as fair as white children, and one of the soldiers poked his carbine over the [river]bank and shot her through the head. In relating this incident in the history of the battle, Custer made the mistake of saying that this woman killed a white child." Clark later confirmed his statement in another interview, this with historian Walter M. Camp in 1910, thereby effectually dispelling this prevailing myth of the Washita. (Greene 2004, p. 185)

In a note, Greene refers to Custer's account of this incident in his book My Life on the Plains, so I looked it up, & there Custer continues to maintain that the boy was white. So that will have to be mentioned in keeping with WP:NPOV. However, also to be mentioned are other sources I've found (don't have the cites ready-to-hand, sorry; but I'll find 'em for the writing of it) which agree that the boy was Cheyenne, & that his mother killed himself & attempted to commit suicide by turning the knife on herself in despair at the attack.

The sum result of all of this is that the preponderance of evidence points towards there having been no white captives in Black Kettle's village, as Greene writes:

An evaluation of the available evidence thus indicates that there were no whites in Black Kettle's village at the time of the army assault. (Greene 2004, p. 186)

But again, we will have to mention that sources such as Keim's 1885 book, Elizabeth Custer's 1890 book, & Custer's own book continued to maintain there were white captives, & leave it up to readers to decide which accounts they find more reliable & believable.

Agreed. It looks like it should say something along the lines of "Custer and others claim this, while Clark/most accounts disagree." Murderbike 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clara & Willie Blinn

After his discussion of the Cheyenne boy killed by his mother, Greene goes on to say:

Besides these unsubstantiated references to whites in Black Kettle's village, some postaction accounts confusingly promoted the belief that Clara Blinn and her child were present there at the time of the engagement. Nearly all of these insinuate that the Blinns' remains were found in or near Black Kettle's village. Contemporary accounts, however, place the discovery of their bodies downstream from the scene of Custer's attack, removed even from the area of Elliot's action, with most reporting that they were found in the vicinity of the former Kiowa village. (Greene 2004, p. 185)

A note to this paragraph (Greene 2004, p. 260) gives as sources a newspaper story by Keim, Custer's book, & Sheridan's memoirs. I can add to that Custer's & Sheridan's reports of their visit to the Washita several days after the battle, which is when Clara & Willie Blinn's bodies were found: both reports are clear in saying that the bodies were found downstream (east) of Black Kettle's camp in a different village, which both Custer & Sheridan believed had been the encampment of Kiowas under Satanta. Almost all contemporary sources by people who were on the scene placed the location where the Blinns were found about four or five miles from Black Kettle's camp. Of course, those few which place it in or near Black Kettle's camp will also have to be mentioned due to WP:NPOV, with readers left to evaluate for themselves which sources are most reliable. But again, the preponderance of evidence points to the Blinn's not having been in Black Kettle's camp, as Greene among other modern historians says; the main question that remains is in regards to who exactly captured the Blinns, who exactly held them captive, & who exactly killed them. Custer & Sheridan believed it was Kiowas; other contemporary sources (including Clara Blinn herself) thought it was Cheyennes but of a different camp than Black Kettle's, as there were other Cheyennes camped downstream of his camp; Custer's chief of scouts Ben Clark said it was Arapahoes, as did Col. William Hazen (Brevet General), who was commander of Ft. Cobb & was involved in the effort to negotiate Clara & Willie Blinn's release from their captors, so was in a pretty good position to know. One soldier in the 7th Cavalry testified in Washington, DC that the Blinns were killed in Black Kettle's camp by none other than the 7th Cavalry. In any case, an NPOV account will provide well-sourced information from all the conflicting accounts, & again will let the reader evaluate for themselves.

Needless to say, the article as it currently stands has bypassed this by adopting sources in its discussion of Blinn that back up the account that, based on contemporary evidence, appears to be the most unlikely -- that the Blinns were in Black Kettle's camp. That POV of course will have to be represented; but only balanced out by the numerous evidences to the contrary.

Black Kettle's responsibility for raids in Kansas

Here's Greene again:

Nor is there evidence to support the notion that Black Kettle was personally to blame for the events that precipitated the attack. Whatever the role the young men of his village played in the eastern Kansas raids during the summer and early autumn of 1868, the incidents reflected instilled behavioral tenets of Cheyenne society that were beyond Black Kettle's -- much less anybody else's -- power to modify and thus prevent. That the chief moved his people south of the Arkansas to be beyond complicity in the Kansas events testifies strongly to his personal resolve to avoid conflict if at all possible and was consistent with his historical behavior. Unfortunately for Black Kettle and his people, the army hierarchy neither fathomed the sociocultural dynamics of Plains Indians societies nor chose to discriminate between guilty and innocent parties in its condemnation and prosecution for the Kansas raids. Because of this blanket indictment, Black Kettle and his followers consequently suffered for the sins of probably few of his people. As stated, in accordance with the Medicine Lodge Treaty, the Indians had a right to be along the Washita River, south of their prescribed reservation. That Custer ironically stumbled onto Black Kettle's village -- detached as it was from the downriver camps -- was pure chance, but in light of Sand Creek, it represented something of a cruel twist in the vicissitudes of fortune. (Greene 2004, p. 186)

Not that Greene's book is an official National Park Service account -- but if it was, hey, this would be the official National Park Service assessment on Black Kettle!

I think that Greene is very apt in saying that Custer "stumbled" onto Black Kettle's village. I have seen no reliable source at all that claims Custer was hunting after Black Kettle's camp in particular. Rather, he was, at Sheridan's orders, hunting any Indians believed to be hostile. His scouts came upon the trail of a group of Kiowa who had returned from raiding on the Utes, & who passed by or through Black Kettle's camp on their way home; that's how Custer came to arrive at Black Kettle's camp.

(At least one Kiowa stayed overnight in Black Kettle's camp, & the next day became part of a rearguard action, along with Little Rock & another Cheyenne called Packer, also called She Wolf, to protect women & children who were attempting to flee the battle. Little Rock died in this effort; Packer/She Wolf & the Kiowa both survived. The soldiers they were fleeing were none other than Major Elliott & his command; they followed the fleeing Indians so far that they ran into other Indians coming up from downstream villages to reinforce Black Kettle's people, & that was the engagement that led to the deaths of Elliott & all the soldiers with him. Letter from George Bent to Robert Peck based on Packer/She Wolf's account, December 1906, in Hardorff 2006, pp. 356-360.)

It's clear from a preponderance of evidence that at least some of the young men from Black Kettle's band took part in the Kansas raids (Saline & Solomon rivers) that led to Sherman's & Sheridan's "total war" policy which resulted in the winter campaign & Custer's 7th Cavalry attacking Black Kettle's camp. It is also clear from the preponderance of sources that other bands of Cheyenne -- particularly those of the Dog Soldiers -- along with warriors from other tribes (Arapaho, Kiowa, perhaps Comanche & Kiowa-Apache) contributed to the forces which went on those raids. It is also clear from the preponderance of resources that neither Black Kettle nor Little Rock, the second chief of his camp, gave sanction to those raids -- in fact, several military sources, including some of those actively pursuing the "total war" campaign, saw Black Kettle as personally desirous of peace, but unable to control the young men of his camp. Bvt. Gen. Hazen's account of the attitude of the young men who accompanied Black Kettle & Big Mouth of the Arapaho to Ft. Cobb on November 20 is revealing: "[T]he young men who accompanied these chiefs expressed pleasure that no peace was made, as they would get more mules [apparent reference to raids where they'd acquired mules], and that next spring the Sioux and other northern bands were coming down and would clean out this entire country" (from Hazen's report of the Ft. Cobb meeting, cited in Greene 2004, p. 108).

And all of this is something that the article needs to say, to be accurate & NPOV. Black Kettle was innocent of the raiding, but some of the young men in his camp were not.

Of course, the article also, to be NPOV, needs to make mention of the issues which led the war parties to feel justified in going on their raids. Not for us to justify it , but to report on what has been said by reliable sources about the grievances the warriors felt they had.

Back to Greene --

Indian casualties in the battle

Losses among the approximately 250 Cheyennes at the Washita are more difficult to ascertain. Custer reported 103 warriors killed and fifty-three women and children taken prisoner. The former figure, however, was based on what appears to be the pooled recollections of his subalterns, provided after the column stopped on the afternoon of November 28, 1868, following their withdrawal. Custer later revised the figure upward, claiming that "the Indians admit a loss of 140 killed, besides a heavy loss of wounded. This, with the Indian prisoners we have in our possession, makes the entire loss of the Indians in killed, wounded, and missing not far from 300." Custer's figures were inflated, and the specific sources of his information remain unknown. Evidently, no accurate field count of Indian casualties occurred. As might be expected, the best estimates must come from the people who suffered the losses, yet even these do not agree. Custer's prisoners later reported that thirteen men, besides two Sioux and an Arapaho, had been killed at the Washita, but evidently they gave no figure for noncombatant losses. Months later, Special Agent Vincent Colyer and Colonel Griefson learned from several of the Cheyennes, including Little Robe, Minimic (Bald Eagle), Gray Eyes, and Red Moon, that thirteen men, sixteen women, and nine children died at the Washita, a seemingly plausible figure in keeping with what the prisoners said. Similarly, Magpie and Little Beaver claimed that 12 warriors died in the fighting whose names they knew, though possibly two or three more were also killed, along with many women and children.

These accounts compare well with casualty figures researched by George Bent. In 1913 Bent provided the names of eleven Cheyenne men who died in the attack, adding to this twelve women (two of whom were Sioux) and six children for a total of twenty-nine people killed. Later he added two Arapaho men as fatalities and dropped one child, bringing his total to thirty killed. In an apparent final revision in 1916, he listed thirteen men killed. Assuming that his figure for noncombatant fatalities did not change, Bent's final list of killed at the Washita totals twenty-nine, a number that does not appear unreasonable. Given this likely figure, the number of wounded Cheyennes fleeing Black Kettle's camp probably at least doubled this total and likely stood somewhere around sixty.... (Greene 2004, p. 136)

Greene goes on to discuss the possible survival capacity of the wounded who fled, and also reports scout Ben Clark's estimate that the Cheyenne lost 75 warriors and as many women and children (Greene 2004, p. 136).

Although the article can't contain this opinion unless a reliable source states it, I personally think that the Indians had little motivation to give inaccurate figures about how many of their people died -- certainly less motivation than Custer had to exaggerate Indian losses, given the desire to proclaim a large victory. (A victory that went far towards achieving Sheridan's war aims even if they didn't kill as many as 103 warriors.) Also, the Cheyenne & Indians from neighboring villages had plenty of time, once the 7th Cavalry withdrew, to determine exactly who of their families & friends had died. When Custer returned several days later with Sheridan, the 7th Cavalry, & the Nineteenth Kansas Volunteers, they found plenty of evidence that surviving Cheyennes had returned to the devastated village to care for the remains of the dead. In 1930, one of the survivors, Magpie, described to Charles Brill, who wrote one of the early books on the battle of the Washita, how he went with other Indians after the battle to bury the dead. He was one of those who found the bodies of Black Kettle & his wife (in Hardorff 2006, p. 309). Magpie told Brill, "They also tell me Custer said he killed 103 braves; but he did not. Only fifteen or twenty of our men were killed. All the others killed were women and children" (in Hardorff 2006, p. 310). Magpie knew the names of twelve of the slain men; for some reason, Brill only recorded seven of them (Hardorff 2006, p. 310 note 16).

Whether any of us personally consider the figures given by Custer or other military source to be more accurate, or the numbers given by the various Indian sources (which are also detailed very thoroughly in Hardorff's book, particularly in the table in his Appendix G on p. 403), the fact from a Wikipedia standpoint is that the most WP:NPOV way to report the Indian casualties is to say "estimates of men killed range from 11 to 140; estimates of women and children killed range from 7 to 75" & then to go into detail in the article text about whose estimates said what, just as both Greene & Hardorff do.

When it comes down to it, Greene & Hardorff would've both made very good Wikipedians in their report of sources. Of course, being historians & authors who wrote their own books, they are also entitled to form & state opinions based on their analysis of the sources. We, as Wikipedian's, do not have that liberty in writing articles. Per Wikipedia policy, we are not here to advocate for one figure over the other -- however much we'd like to -- but only to report on what reliable sources have said. Per WP:NOR, the only opinions we can state in an article are those that can be attributed to a reliable source.

Other stuff

A few issues that date way back in this history of this article, even before the edit warring begin -- based on wide reading in the sources over the past week or so (because I did have access to some sources even before I got these books in the mail today):

  • Major Elliot. It is inaccurate to say, as the article currently does (& has for a very long time), that "Neither the modern nor historic account of the battle can precisely describe the circumstances of his death." Actually, it is known in very great detail how Elliott & his command died, & it was known in very great detail fairly early on from Indian participants in this part of the battle. So this section needs fixing. Also, one of the controversies that continued to plague Custer & the 7th Cavalry through to the Battle of the Little Bighorn was whether Custer had failed Elliott by not searching thoroughly enough for him as soon as he learned he hadn't returned from his foray.
  • Custer's measures to prevent the killing of women & children. Yes, he did take measures. They were not, however, followed by all the soldiers, nor by several of the Osage scouts.
  • Was Washita a battle or a massacre? Two different POVs, & good arguments on both sides. We don't need -- & in fact should not, per WP:NPOV -- advocate for one side or the other, but we should report on what both sides say.
  • Nineteenth Kansas Cavalry is not even mentioned in the article presently. This was a volunteer cavalry that was supposed to have been with the 7th Cavalry on this campaign, but failed to reach Camp Supply (they basically got lost in bad weather conditions) before Custer set out. But the Nineteenth was part of the force that returned to the Washita a couple of weeks later with Custer & Sheridan, & played a role in the discovery of the dead bodies of Major Elliott & his men & also of Clara & Willie Blinn in whichever tribe's village five miles downstream from Black Kettle's village.
  • Second trip to the Washita to find Elliott's command is also not mentioned, & should be, as it has bearing on the conduct & results of the battle itself. It also relates to the question, which was very central to Custer's & Sheridan's concerns, of what other Indians besides Black Kettle's people had participated in the battle. Custer & Sheridan were convinced especially that the Kiowa under Satanta had taken part.

... & no doubt a few other things. But this stuff at least makes a start toward getting this article into better shape than it currently is. And gee, it's late here, & so I'm going to bed. --Yksin 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I still don't understand why you feel need to confuse the reader with the unfound rumours, outdated propaganda, and self-promotion/defense lies by the certain individuals. I'd understand this if this was a case like in many modern conflicts, where both sides say the very different things about various events - but here even the US government dropped this altogether once and for all. --HanzoHattori 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Short version. From the second of the five pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
Long version. Who says that certain rumors are unfounded, certain propaganda is outdated or even propaganda at all, or certain statements are self-promotion or defensive lies? These are all matters of personal opinion -- of particular points-of-view. And many of these POVs, regardless of when they were initiated, still have currency for a lot of people. Even U.S. govt. sources such as the U.S. Army & the National Park Service represent particular points of view -- views which are not shared by lots of other people, some of whom might claim that the government's POV is propaganda or unfounded rumor or whatever. (Which is certainly the case of much information that has been presented as "factual" by agencies of the U.S. government, as with any other human government, all the way through history.) When I signed onto Wikipedia, it wasn't to promote my point of view on any of these issues. It was to take part in writing articles that follow this principle, along with the others.
Of course, this & other principles of Wikipedia come out of a particular POV about what Wikipedia should be as an encyclopedia -- a POV which reflects also the principles Jimbo Wales & others founded Wikipedia on, & with which most Wikipedia editors agreed. Certainly I do.
I personally interpret this particular principle as coming in part out of a fundamental faith in the capacity of readers to sift through the claims & counterclaims of various sources to determine for themselves what constitutes unfounded rumor, obsolete opinion, propaganda, self-serving lies, or what constitutes the truth, or what constitutes just a big old "well, we don't really know for sure, in the end." This principle doesn't presume that any one person, organization, or agency is qualified all by itself to pronounce the one sole authoritative truth about anything at all. This principle assumes that knowledge is something that continually evolves, & that every human being has a fundamental sovereignty over their own choices about what to believe or disbelieve, & does not need to have it sifted or filtered for them in order to save them from being confused or to help them avoid thinking for themselves.
I have always, all my life, believed in this principle; if I didn't agree with it, I wouldn't be here.
In short, if presenting contrary perspectives about this event is confusing to some people, that's not because anyone has set out to confuse them. It's because to a lot of the questions of Washita River, there are no final authoritative answers to a lot of them. The best we can do is to make as unconfusing a presentation of contrary claims as we can, & trust the reader to come to their own verdict about what's true & what's not, even if we might not agree with the verdict that every reader comes up with. --Yksin 03:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah, & another thing is that past experience leads me to believe if factual info, including info about conflicting claims about Washita, is presented honestly & thoroughly in a neutral POV way, most readers will be smart enough enough to tell the B.S. & hokum from the truth, without me having to attempt to explain to them which is which. --Yksin 03:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was a lot to digest. Yksin, thanks for all the blockquotes, this is so much more effective for those of us who don't have time or money to order books to check out sources. So far, all of what you've added to this talk page looks great, and I'll try to go through the article, and all the online sources myself over the next day or two and try to contribute some more meaningful stuff. At the moment though, I would back every single suggested change you've made. Murderbike 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greene's book edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Yes Jerome Greene's book is good, but some points are very controversial, even not logical at all. For example, he doesn't want to trust anyone who talks about white captives altough we have testimonies about finding the Blinns near Black Kettle's body, Custer's report on a white captive freed and two white boys and Colonel Miles' report of a white boy freed. Stan Hoig's Battle of the Washita makes clear that the boy was evidently the one freed by Custer.

Greene also supports the "peaceful Black Kettle" theory without giving any evidence. After having related the summer massacres by Black Kettle's warriors, he said that Black Kettle wasn't reponsible at all. The chief hadn't only harbored the warriors, but he had also fed them, gave them weapons, refused to give them to the army, sold goods from settlements to Mexican sutlers, threatened Colonel Hazen of war above the Arkansas... There is no POV in accepting the fact that Black Kettle's behavior was anything but peaceful. There isn't a SINGLE evidence of his good will during the whole affair. He NEVER gave any warrior or even any excuse to the army. He just asked for protection when the army was eventually on the field.

What's really at stake here is that the so-called "neutral" point of view should include every opinion on the battle without question. If the Cheyennes said they were innocent, we have to say it, even if it isn't supported by any evidence.

Custer's search of Elliott was immediately done after the news of the major disappearance was known. It's supported by Sergeant Ryan and other testimonies by private. It's another empty controversy.

About Indian casualties, the "exaggeration" is another empty theory: we have the names of 13 chiefs, warchiefs and headmen killed at the battle, given by the Indian prisoners themselves. It means that there were large numbers of warriors in the village (150 according to scout Ben Clark), and that most of them (Captain Alvord said "all of them" after having asked the Kiowas) were killed. 150 warriors attacked at dawn by 800 soldiers cannot loose 10 of them... It's obvious. The 13 chiefs killed is a proof of the high Indian casualties.

The man who "testified" that the Blinns were killed by the soldiers was Indian Agent Jesse Leavenworth, who wasn't at the battle and who was protecting the Kiowas and the Cheyennes. It's not supported by anything but by his claims, and Leavenworth's record in lying in favor of the Indians is well known. It was a part of a campaign to make Black Kettle look peaceful.

Yskin: "needs to make mention of the issues which led the war parties to feel justified in going on their raids. Not for us to justify it , but to report on what has been said by reliable sources about the grievances the warriors felt they had."

Oh yes, I cannot wait to know what caused these poor fellows to rape Miss Shaw and to murder Miss Bassett's baby. As Little Rock stated to Ed Wynkoop, the first "grievance" was food (they were just coming back from raiding against the Kaw Indians), and then... the pleasure of killing civilians. As Little Rock clearly said, there wasn't any grievance and even Black Kettle didn't find the army stupid enough to invent grievances for the rapes and killings of his bands.

Custerwest 11:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Custerwest, this post is really confusing. It looks like you're arguing with yourself. Or is that there are cut and pasted comments from someone else here, without quotes? And you still don't seem to understand that wikipedia is not for putting forth a single truth, different POVs absolutely HAVE to be included, whether or not you think that one of them is ridiculous or not. YOU are not a reliable source. Murderbike 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just ignore him. --HanzoHattori 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Murderbike, I was answering to Yskin. I have put 99% of the footnotes on the Washita page, I think those are reliable sources. Where are yours? If the POV policy of Wikipedia is letting everyone posts his own opinion on an historical fact, it's anarchy. Evidences make facts, not opinion. Custerwest 09:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reply to Custerwest edit

You couldn't have been answering Yskin because there is no Yskin here. My username is Yksin, as I have previously told you. K before the S, not after it.
You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy about neutral point of view.
From WP:5P: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
WP:NPOV even more specifically states, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
This is a policy which you have persistently refused to follow. Rather than presenting each significant point of view represented in your sources accurately, you merely present, based on your own personal opinion, which ones you feel should be represented & leaving out any alternative views with which you do not agree. Your declarations on the talk page are similarly framed. I must admit, it's been quite fascinating to see how a source like Greene's book, which used to be one of your favorite sources, becomes suddenly problematic and "controversial" to you when people other than you read it.
WP:NPOV goes on to describe a couple of places where people can learn better how to write articles that follow its NPOV policy. Perhaps you should give them a try: For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
Now to your post:
Yes Jerome Greene's book is good, but some points are very controversial, even not logical at all. For example, he doesn't want to trust anyone who talks about white captives altough we have testimonies about finding the Blinns near Black Kettle's body, Custer's report on a white captive freed and two white boys and Colonel Miles' report of a white boy freed. Stan Hoig's Battle of the Washita makes clear that the boy was evidently the one freed by Custer.
Both Greene & Hoig discuss a number of different accounts from various witnesses (giving citations) about alleged white captives in Black Kettle's camp, including Clara Blinn & her son. Hoig's discussion is missing significant statements by Ft. Cobb commander Hazen & by Custer's chief of scouts Ben Clark that place Blinn in an Arapaho camp at the time of the attack on Black Kettle's camp; but otherwise both are very thorough in representing each different account. Which is exactly what we should be doing.
Each of them also makes an evaluation based on his own reading of these sources of what they believe the truth most likely to be, but even then neither of them says "I know with 100% absolute certainty that my opinion of what most likely happened is the truth." On Wikipedia, we are permitted to cite their opinions, also that of Hardorff in Washita Memories, or of any other source that is considered reliable according to Reliable sources|Wikipedia's criteria for what constitutes reliable sources.
But we are not permitted to claim our own opinions or our own evaluation of what most likely happened as reliable sources because that violates WP's policy on No original research: 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 that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you.
Once you got over the habit of citing your own blog (which does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source), you've had no problem in finding reliable published sources to advance opinions that you agree with. But you pick only sources that advance your own opinion, thereby violating WP:NPOV. You do not, & never have, represent[ed] fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
Greene also supports the "peaceful Black Kettle" theory without giving any evidence. After having related the summer massacres by Black Kettle's warriors, he said that Black Kettle wasn't reponsible at all. The chief hadn't only harbored the warriors, but he had also fed them, gave them weapons, refused to give them to the army, sold goods from settlements to Mexican sutlers, threatened Colonel Hazen of war above the Arkansas... There is no POV in accepting the fact that Black Kettle's behavior was anything but peaceful. There isn't a SINGLE evidence of his good will during the whole affair. He NEVER gave any warrior or even any excuse to the army. He just asked for protection when the army was eventually on the field.
Greene gives plenty of evidence for the "peaceful Black Kettle" theory. But he does not neglect to mention evidence from source that claimed Black Kettle wasn't peaceful. He also cites the statement by Gen. Sherman, who was in charge of the Military Division of the Missouri & thus both Sheridan's & Custer's superior (I know you know this; I'm writing this so other readers of the talk page also know the hierarchy) that "Black Kettle himself did not wish to be at war" but that "he had lost all control over his young warriors" (Greene 2004, p. 165), an opinion which seems to pretty much square with Greene's own opinion. In any case, the opinion that Black Kettle was peaceful is a widespread, significant view that has been published by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, & hence must be represented in the article, per Wikipedia policy about neutral POV. Obviously the opinion that Black Kettle wasn't peaceful is also a significant view that has been published by sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria as being reliable, hence it must also be represented in the article.
What's really at stake here is that the so-called "neutral" point of view should include every opinion on the battle without question. If the Cheyennes said they were innocent, we have to say it, even if it isn't supported by any evidence.
Yes, if the Cheyennes said they were innocent, we have to say it, as long as their claim has been published by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. But, to maintain neutral POV, we also have to include claims that state the opposite, so long as those claims are found in reliable published sources. That's why I have always advocated, since becoming involved with this article, that the information about the raids on the white settlements along the Solomon & Saline rivers, & Little Rock's account given to Col. Wynkoop, must be included in this article. (My opinion: it's pretty obvious that a number of Cheyennes, along with some members of other tribes like the Arapaho, were guilty of those raids & the crimes that occurred doing them; but which Cheyennes are accountable is a much more complex question.)
We can also question any claim, but only if we do so through use of a published reliable source.
But it is absolutely against Wikipedia policies for us -- any of us, regardless of what our personal opinions are -- to leave significant views out of an article based solely on our own personal evaluation of which evidence is "right" or which evidence is "wrong."
Custer's search of Elliott was immediately done after the news of the major disappearance was known. It's supported by Sergeant Ryan and other testimonies by private. It's another empty controversy.
Indeed, there are sources stating that Custer made a search. That Custer made searches is a significant view with reliable published sources to back it up: hence it must be included in any account of the issue in Wikipedia. However, there are also sources about some men of Custer's command being upset & angered that the 7th Cavalry withdrew from Black Kettle's village without determining what had happened to Elliott & his men, & their opinion -- justified or not -- that he had abandoned them. Their belief about this is another significant view backed by reliable published sources: it must be included.
About Indian casualties, the "exaggeration" is another empty theory: we have the names of 13 chiefs, warchiefs and headmen killed at the battle, given by the Indian prisoners themselves. It means that there were large numbers of warriors in the village (150 according to scout Ben Clark), and that most of them (Captain Alvord said "all of them" after having asked the Kiowas) were killed.
150 warriors attacked at dawn by 800 soldiers cannot loose 10 of them... It's obvious. The 13 chiefs killed is a proof of the high Indian casualties.
This is a excellent opportunity to point out another way in which your article-writing style has violated Wikipedia policies about no original research. Per that policy, found at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Thus, for example, in the infobox for number of Indian casualties, you wrote, official National Park Service count of casualties whose name is known: 13 warchiefs, 27 warriors, three women and six children killed & giving Greene, Washita, pages 211-214 as your source. This is the appendix in Greene's book called "Known Village Fatalities at the Washita" (actually, pp. 212-214; p. 211 is part of a different appendix.) First, Greene's Appendix C isn't an "official National Park Service count" -- it is, rather, Greene's compilation of known names based on at least five different primary sources, about which Greene also includes the disclaimer "Some individuals listed below might have had two or more names, so a few entries might be duplicative" (p. 212). More to the point of the WP:NOR policy against synthesizing published material: nowhere in the list given in Greene's appendix does he identify any of the killed men, including even Black Kettle or Little Rock, as any kind of chief or even as a warrior. He simply identifies them as "Men killed." Some of them might have been old blind incontinent men with walkers, for all the appendix tells about what kind of men they were or what roles they played in Cheyenne society.
My best theory of why you contend that 13 of them were warchiefs is that Hoig writes in his book about "13 warchiefs," basing this on based on the newspaper reporter Deb. Randolph Keim's interview of women prisoners with the help of interpreter Richard Curtis. But that's a different source. You took reliable source A, Hoig, and reliable source B, Greene, & joined them together in your infobox edit to come up with a synthesized position C.
Turns out that Keim's December 1868 story in his newspaper, upon which Hoig's statement is based, is published in Hardorff's book Washita Memories on pp. 298-299. Keim prefaces his list as follows:

The decisive character of the victory and the severe blow sustained by the Cheyennes may be judged from the number of "big" chiefs, war chiefs and headmen killed in the "Battle of the Washita." I learned from the squaws, by means of Mr. Curtis, the interpreter, that the following were killed...

In the list of names that follows, the only men identified as chiefs at all were Black Kettle (identified as "chief of the band") and Little Rock ("identified as second chief"). The others were given as names only. Nowhere does Keim claim that all names listed were those of "'big'" chiefs, war chiefs or headmen. We don't even know from his phraseology if the women had identified any of the killed men they named as war chiefs or headmen, or if this was just a conclusion Keim made based on who knows what evidence.
The man who "testified" that the Blinns were killed by the soldiers was Indian Agent Jesse Leavenworth, who wasn't at the battle and who was protecting the Kiowas and the Cheyennes. It's not supported by anything but by his claims, and Leavenworth's record in lying in favor of the Indians is well known. It was a part of a campaign to make Black Kettle look peaceful.
Please cite a reliable source about it being "part of a campaign to make Black Kettle peaceful." Else that's just your opinion -- which is okay on a talk page, but has no place in defining what should or should not go in this article. I don't personally believe that Leavenworth's claim is accurate, but my opinion has no bearing on whether it should appear in the article. What does have bearing is that his claim was a significant view about how the Blinns were killed that is represented in reliable published sources. And actually, yes, there were other sources which seemed to support his claim. But of course his wasn't the only signifiant view represented in reliable published sources about how Clara & Willie Blinn were killed or where their bodies were found, & all those alternative views need also to be represented. That includes your view that the Blinns were hostages in Black Kettle's camp & were killed there by the Cheyenne -- not because it's your view, but because it's another significant view that is represented in publishes sources that Wikipedia deems as reliable.
Yskin [actually, Yksin]: "needs to make mention of the issues which led the war parties to feel justified in going on their raids. Not for us to justify it , but to report on what has been said by reliable sources about the grievances the warriors felt they had."
Oh yes, I cannot wait to know what caused these poor fellows to rape Miss Shaw and to murder Miss Bassett's baby. As Little Rock stated to Ed Wynkoop, the first "grievance" was food (they were just coming back from raiding against the Kaw Indians), and then... the pleasure of killing civilians. As Little Rock clearly said, there wasn't any grievance and even Black Kettle didn't find the army stupid enough to invent grievances for the rapes and killings of his bands.
There are a number of issues discussed in Greene's book & in other sources which led a number of Cheyenne warriors, including some from Black Kettle's camp, to feel like they were justified in going on raids, including the delay in annuities caused by the lengthy wait for Congress to ratify the Treaty of Medicine Lodge that had been signed in October 1867 (monies to purchase the annuities for the Indians couldn't be released until after the treaty was finally ratified on July 25, 1868 and proclaimed on August 19, 1868; Greene 2004, p. 38) , which did lead to hardships such as starvation (Greene 2004, p. 48). And the Dog Soldiers (many of which had long since formed bands of their own) & young warriors of other villages influenced by them (including some in Black Kettle's camp) were set against the peace process to begin with, to the point that many newspaper correspondents who were present at the Medicine Lodge proceedings felt that Black Kettle had personally endangered himself among more anti-peace Cheyennes by his consistent efforts for peace (Greene 2004, p. 38). Rape & murder are never justified; even if done in the heat of rage, they are still crimes. But that doesn't change the fact that angry people in war feel justified in committing all kinds of atrocities -- Chivington & his command certainly seemed to think so at Sand Creek -- & it also doesn't change the fact that in some cases, their anger & hatred is often fed by real grievances. In any case, as usual, every significant view that is represented by reliable published sources about the Kansas raids & their causes must be included in the article in order to meet WP:NPOV policy.
Among other things Wikipedia is not, it is not a collection of essays intended to advance any particular point of view on any particular person, place, thing, or event. If you want to write essays based on your selective, non-NPOV use of sources, you already have a place to do that -- on your blog. But if you plan to continue devoting time to editing articles on Wikipedia, perhaps you should learn the policies. --Yksin 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Yksin, for this incredibly coherent response. Dittoed on all sides. Murderbike 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Infobox edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, at the very least, I think that the note about children being moved to a different village should be removed from the "strength" section, because noone I know considers children to be part of the strength of a fighting force. If this note can be considered valid, it should be moved to elsewhere in the article. In the "casualties" section, there are way too many estimates for an infobox. This should be a summary, something along the lines of "80-100 casualties" or something similar, with clarification of the discrepancy in numbers in the body of the article. As it reads now, it appears to be written in incredibly broken english, and is confusing. Murderbike 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I did, BTW, find a source in Hardorff's book Washita Memories -- a Cheyenne who was a child of maybe three or four at the time of the Washita fight whose parents sent him & his sisters to another camp because of fears that something bad was going to happen. But yes, this belongs in the text of the article, not in the infobox. Re: Indian casualties, I think the infobox should contain a summary of the range of military estimates (75 to 140 for warriors killed, I believe, with Custer's initial 103 as probably the one most commonly cited) & also the range of estimates given by Cheyennes, which are uniformly much lower. Then the text can go into details. There's a very useful table in one of the appendices of Hardorff's Washita Memories which can be adapted to summarize the estimates of the various sources. --Yksin 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The intro edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The second paragraph is not only written in very poor english, but is completely unneccessary for an intro. Readers can find out where the information is coming from by checking the "references" section. This paragraph should be removed. Murderbike 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

By this rate it will be finished on St. Never's. But hey, whatever. Actually, on a second thought I do unwatch this article now, I'm tired of this so much. --HanzoHattori 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and just to say there's an article on the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site and yeah, they used the text from the website (Cw moves to kill in 3...2...). --HanzoHattori 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I agree it's unnecessary for the intro. In particular, the stuff about "modern analysis for the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (Historian Jerome Greene for the National Park Service)" is inaccurate: it's true that Jerome Greene is a research historian for the National Park Service, but he did not write his book for the National Park Service. The book has no official NPS imprimatur on it, & was published & copyrighted by University of Oklahoma Press, which is unaffiliated with NPS. --Yksin 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Solomon massacre" edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry to use the scare quotes, but this section, while being pertinent to the article, needs to be either completely changed, or somehow worked into a section along the lines of "historical context/lead up to the battle/massacre". The term itself I think should be completely done away with, as thus far there has been no reliable source brought forth to show that it is an accepted labelling of the event. A new section, that would explain both the US Army reasons for the raid, and Cheyenne reasons for being where the were, and fighting would be much better. Murderbike 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Actually, we even discussed this once before; it was suggested to include the material on the Indian raids on white settlements along the Solomon & Saline rivers, & also Little Rock's testimony to Wynkoop, in a "background" section about what led Sherman & Sheridan to decide upon a "total war" policy involving a winter campaign, & eventually to Custer's attack on Black Kettle's camp. --Yksin 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Little Rock's interview edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section needs to be condensed. Using a verbatim interview (and a one-sided one at that) for an entire section is just ridiculous. Murderbike 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's an important source as an account by one of the chiefs, who is accounted in many reliable sources to have been a peace advocate, showing that some of the persons responsible for the Solomon/Saline raids were members of Black Kettle's camp. However, it isn't the only source about who comprised those war parties, nor should it be. Other sources, including Indian sources, indicate that the war parties included men from a number of different bands, & especially include members of the Dog Soldiers, who had formed their own band.
The full interview between Little Rock & Wynkoop could be better placed on WikiSource, which is intended as a repository of original source documents, & then could be linked from here. But even if not, I think I can find an online source already that includes this interview in full. I agree it shouldn't be included in full here; but I would object to the "short" version Custerwest originally placed, which greatly distorted Little Rock's account. (See Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Custerwest's use of sources: two examples.)
However it eventually appears, use of this source should be rolled into a general "Background" section along with the account of the Solomon/Saline raids. Where there are multiple sources showing a range of views on these events, those need to be represented.--Yksin 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

October to November, 1868 edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago38 comments3 people in discussion

At the very least, this sentence: "The Cheyennes were already detaining 4 to 6 hostages (two boys, a woman...) ." is mathematically confusing, and seems to be disputed by sources. The full letter from Clara Blinn also seems a little much to have here, being as it is disputed as to whether or not she was at this camp, or some other. And...

Use of the term "Indian", when "Cheyenne" should be used, and "...Hazen, unlike Major Wynkoop in 1864, knew he could not make a separate peace with them." should AT LEAST be changed to "thought he could not make peace..." Murderbike 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are even different accounts of which Indians captured Clara & Willie Blinn -- Arapahos, Kiowas, Cheyennes, & a combined force of Cheyenne-Arapahos have all been mentioned. The Kiowa charge comes from a witness believing that he saw Kiowa chief Satanta there. So for a brief sentence just discussing the capture, "Indians" would be more appropriate there.
I've got to reread that part of Hoig that CW cites about the belief that Black Kettle had a white child with him (in footnote 17). Seems to me that there was more in that passage than made it into that footnote. Don't have the book with me where I am so can't check it now, but I will when I get home.
Whoa! I just discovered that one paragraph here is a word-for-word copy of Michno's 2005 article for Wild West that also appeared on History.net. This is a copyright violation. The para that begins "The Indians believed they had good bargaining chips with which to deal for peace" and ends "Hazen directed them to go back to their villages and deal directly with General Sheridan" is word-for word halfway down this page of Michno's article. So obviously this needs to change; in fact, by WP:COPYVIO, this para should probably be removed now. At best, it needs to be put in quotation marks. We should ask an admin to deal with this since we can't edit the article ourselves.
The view represented in this un-quotation-marked quote still needs to be represented. However, I sure would be interested in knowing Michno's source for this. According to Hazen, he was negotiating release of Clara & Willie Blinn, but not through Black Kettle. Per info in Hardorff's Washita Memories, an employee of Fort Cobb post trader William Griffenstein called Cheyenne Jack had located Clara Blinn in the Arapaho camp of Yellow Bear (I think Greene also discusses this). There are indications he may have been sent by Griffenstein's Cheyenne wife, Cheyenne Jennie (who came originally from Black Kettle's camp), who was well known for her efforts in obtaining the releases of white captives from various Indian tribes who had captured them; she died sometime in November, and one source I looked at last night says that one reason Black Kettle came to talk with Hazen had to do with disposition of her property after her death.
Anyway, it was Cheyenne Jack who gave Clara Blinn the pencil & paper with which she wrote her letter -- he's the "this man" she refers to in the letter. Then Cheyenne Jack took the letter back to Griffenstein, who brought it to Hazen's attention, & Hazen authorized Griffenstein to negotiate for her & Willie's release. But that was on about Nov. 25 or so -- & the attack on Black Kettle's camp happened no Nov. 27, so there hadn't been time enough for negotiations to happen. Then, after the battle, the other camps downriver from Black Kettle's camp immediately started packing to get the heck out of there, for fear that more soldiers might come & attack them too, apparently. According to an undated Kansas City Star clipping that Hardorff found in a box of archived material on Richard Blinn, Willie was "in the way" of the Arapaho women packing up their lodge, so they killed him, & then they killed Clara Blinn when she refused to leave without his remains.
Of course, that's "a view" of what happened, but it's a significant view which needs to be included in any account of Clara & Willie Blinn's captivity & deaths.
All of the material here is part of the background to the battle, so should be rolled into a Background section. There can be level two subheaders if we need further division within that section. That's my thoughts, anyway. --Yksin 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Update. Here's the diff of when Custerwest added the copyright violation. --Yksin 00:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reported it here, so hopefully it will be removed quickly. Murderbike 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Footnote 17 edit

I wrote earlier I've got to reread that part of Hoig that CW cites about the belief that Black Kettle had a white child with him (in footnote 17). Seems to me that there was more in that passage than made it into that footnote. Don't have the book with me where I am so can't check it now, but I will when I get home.' And now I'm home again, & have my library copy of Hoig's book at my side, & have found that yep indeed, there was more to that passage than CW included. Text that isn't in one version is in italics in the other.

As quoted by Custerwest As quote appears in book
source given as Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868) as cited in Hoig, page 212 Kansas Daily Tribune of Aug. 14, 1868 citing Hays City Advance, cited in Hoig 1980, pp. 117-118 pp. 249-250
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. A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town on Thursday. They had a white child with them, which they claimed to be a half-breed, the offspring of an officer at Dodge and a squaw of the tribe. Some think there is no Indian blood in the child, but that it was stolen from Texas by Kiowas or Comanches and sold the the Cheyennes. Anyhow, if it belongs to any of our shoulder-strapped friends at Larned, they shouldn't be ashamed of it. Cheyenne stock is good stock.

Note the characteristic use of an ellipsis to keep out material that doesn't fit Custerwest's POV -- in this case, the Cheyenne claim that the child in question was the child of a Fort Dodge officer & a Cheyenne woman. Custerwest also addedin Kansas -- these words don't appear in the source. Custerwest also changed the sentence order, & didn't put an ellipsis in for some of the missing text. Put all of this all together -- this doesn't seem quite an honest use of a source to me. And the addition of the words "in Kansas" might well be geared towards the whole argument of attempting to prove that not only did Black Kettle supposedly have white captives in his camp, but that this child may have been a Kansas child, perhaps from the Solomon/Saline raids. I don't know what to say about Custerwest sourcing this quotation to p. 212. My copy of Hoig's book only goes to page 206 has it on pages 249-250. And yet -- it's the same edition as that "quoted" by Custerwest.

As for the Cheyenne claim that the child was a "a half-breed, the offspring of an officer at Dodge and a squaw of the tribe" -- why, it turns out that there was a child who closely fit that description in Black Kettle's camp. In a December 14, 1868 letter from scout J.S. Morrison to Col. Edward W. Wynkoop written on the occasion of the arrival of the Cheyenne women captives at Fort Dodge, he wrote, "The prisoners have got in today; they consist of fifty-three women and children. One boy is an Arapaho; the rest are all Cheyennes. Mrs. Crocker is among them; she is badly wounded; she says her child is killed" (cited in Hardorff 2006, p. 283). In a footnote, Hardorff explains: "Mrs. Crocker was a full-blood Cheyenne named Ne-sou-hoe. She was the wife of a Lieutenant cwho served with the Second Colorado Volunteers. Ne-sou-hoe and her young daughter Jennie Lund Crocker, were visiting relatives in Black Kettle's Washita village when Custer attacked. Jennie was killed during the fighting. Charles J. Kappler, Indian Treaties, 1778-1883 (New York: Interland, 1972), 889." (Hardorff 2006, p. 283 note 3.)

This is one of the children apparently killed by U.S. soldiers in the attack.

Notice that this also answers the "disputed" claim about a "Mrs. Crockers" in the Custerwest-supplied footnote 1 to the present version of the article; other sources were confused about who she was. --Yksin 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note to above. I discovered just now that I made a weird error last night, in that I had two different books by Stan Hoig at home (the other being The Peace Chiefs of the Cheyennes), in which the quote also appeared. In the Hoig book at issue -- The Battle of the Washita -- the quote appears on pp. 249-250. I have hence corrected above by striking out my errors & underlining my emendations. Note also that there is a slight difference between the quote as presented in Hoig's Peace Chiefs book & the Washita book -- in the first, the officer alleged to be the child's father is identified as being a Fort Dodge officer; whereas in the earlier book (The Battle of the Washita was originally published in 1976 in hardback) the words "Fort Dodge" are omitted. This might possibly be because in the earlier book, Hoig's source was the Kansas City paper citing the Hays City paper; in the Peace Chiefs book he directly cited the Hays City paper (of August 14, 1868). Anyway, sorry for the slight mixup. --Yksin 04:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I lurked back. Notice Ne-sou-hoe had a small child with the officer from the 2nd Colorado Volunteers. Now, the 1st and the 3rd Colorado Volunteers ("cowards and dogs", as Kit Carson called them) did the Sand Creek slaughter of this tribe four years earlier. Maybe these warriors retrieved her and her child from Crocker, after she was kidnapped during the massacre? Maybe he was in fact from the First or the Third? Wikipedia on the Third, for example: "More a militia than a military unit, the "Bloodless Third" was comprised of "100-daysers," that is, volunteers who had signed on for only 100 days for the sole purpose of killing Indians." I'd like to know more on this. --HanzoHattori 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you'd like to know more, do research. In the meantime, this is all just speculation. I did discover there's a copy of the book Hardorff got this info from (Charles J. Kappler, Indian Treaties, 1778-1883) in a couple of my local libraries, which I plan to seek out, so if there's any additional info in there about this I'll be sure to let you know. --Yksin 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
HanzoHattori: I looked at the treaty book in the library -- it's one thick book, one of the standard references on treaties between the U.S. govt. & Indian tribes. The information on Mrs. Crocker given in the book appeared in the Oct. 14, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and the Arapaho (sometimes called the Treaty of the Little Arkansas), in which provisions were made for certain persons related to Cheyennes or Arapahos by blood were to be given patents for 640 acres of land in fee simple. One of those persons who was to land this way was "Jenny Lind Crocker, daughter of Ne-sou-hoe, or Are-you-there, wife of Lieutenant Crocker" (Kappler, Charles J. (1972).Indian Treaties, 1778-1883. New York: Interland. Page 889.) Kappler's book doesn't identify what unit Lt. Crocker served in, & I haven't found where Hardorff got that info. But, I did learn over the course of the day that the 2nd Colorado Volunteers was a unit during the Civil War commanded by Col. Jesse Leavenworth, who later went on to become the Indian Agent for the Kiowas, Comanches, & Plains Apaches. If Lt. Crocker was in that unit, he wasn't involved in the Sand Creek Massacre. --Yksin 04:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yeah. Jesse Leavenworth, West Point graduate and son of the famed Col. Henry Leavenworth, was commissioned colonel of the 2nd Colorado infantry in 1862. During this appointment, he served as commanding officer of Fort Larned in 1863. In the following year, he was appointed Indian Agent to the Comanches and Kiowas; and in 1867, he moved the agency headquarters to Fort Zarah. However, he was away from the agency much of the time negotiating the release of whites held captive by his charges. He resigned as Indian Agent in 1868 in protest of the 1868-1869 Sheridan-Custer campaign which culminated in the destruction of Black Kettle's Cheyene village on the Washita River.

Btw, another Frenchman sez: Do you remember me I guess. You treated me as a racist because my brother built website about the general Custer. I'm not expecting an answer from you, I just wanted to send you informations about the battle of the Washita, the true one I mean. (...) Black Kettle has 8 hostages in his camp, including three women and two children. Some are known, Miss Crocker, Miss Blinn, his son Willy, two years old... Why are they always the French? Is Custer legend some cultural succesfull cultural export to this country which I thought hates the English and don't like the American much? --HanzoHattori 07:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also: On November 26 1868, at a night party,the sister of Black Kettle reacted and told his brother to move away from the responsibles of the Solomon and Saline River massacres. - "Solomon (...) massacres" must be a transation of some French term then. It's also followed by a further discussion with the Frenchguy, which I find quite amusing, because it mirrors a lot our 'discussion' with Cw (even if the other one is somewhat less extreme in his beliefs). Edit: Oh wait, turned out it's the brother of our Custerwest. Amusing-quote-o-the-day: You're the one who cited Hoig, not me. Now that I've demolished your citation of him, you say he's outdated? Why did you bring him up in the first place if you didn't think he was reliable? - both have the same tactics regarding the sources, and yeah, he said it's outdated if it's 30 years old :) --HanzoHattori 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio & misquoted footnote text removed; plagiarism discussion edit

The above-noted copyright violation & the misquoted text from the (former) footnote 17 have now been removed from the article by an admin. Thank you! --Yksin 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell if globalsecurity.org copyrights their material or not, but this phrase (also form the October 1868 section) "While a winter campaign presented serious logistical problems, it offered opportunities for decisive results. If the Indians’ shelter, food, and livestock could be destroyed or captured, not only the warriors but their women and children were at the mercy of the Army and the elements, and there was little left but surrender." is ripped right out of the article here, with no atribution or quotes. Murderbike 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow good catch. Yes, there's a copyright notice on the bottom of the Globalsecurity website. A short quotation is normally okay, but now when it's unsourced. --Yksin 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
diff here -- added by HanzoHattori 16:40, 27 June 2007 . His edit summary claims it as "US military account as definitive AND freeware material" which he sourced to http://www.army.mil/CMH/books/AMH-V1/ch14.htm. That's a good public source, noncopyrighted (maybe Globalsecurity got if from there too), but it needs not only to be sourced but also to be placed in quotation marks. -- Addendum just to clarify: when he put this passage in, HH did source it -- but he didn't put it in quotation marks. The fact that it's not even sourced now, however, is due to sloppy editing during the edit wars. There may be other remnants of HH's edits from this source that are now unsourced/unquotation-marked. Personally, I would rather the article not consist solely of long quotations. --Yksin 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nah, quotation marks are only needed in the copyrighted stuff, and quoting persons and documents. Work of the United States Government is the public domain. I actually did not change much to avoid any original research and NPOV from my side (after I declared I use only the official version from the military and civilian branch sources). This in the very exact opposition to Cw, who notoriously falsified and misinterpreted various sources, and thought Wikipedia is the extention of his blog (his so precioussss footnotes being then worse than worthless, because each has to be checked for his own lies - why bother, at all?). Btw, this verison of the article (my final, that is) was just fine - only the 100%-known facts (in addition to the controversies, in the Controversies section), without getting into rather unimportant details and (false) rumours. --HanzoHattori 10:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Quotation marks are always necessary when it's not your own writing. Otherwise it's plagiarism. This is the case whether it's in the public domain or not. --Yksin 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You can't plagiarise public domain if your original research is simply not allowed. It's ALL about citing sources, only in this case it's citing without limits. (But the attribution, because everything has to be sourced.) Plagiarising it would be if one claimed it's his own research - but then would be deleted because of it only. What do you think would be otherwise the DIFFERENCE between the public domain and not? :) (oh, and plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement)--HanzoHattori 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
A claim of original authorship is implied by the lack of quotation marks. Attributing the source is always good & necessary; without quotation marks, it is assumed that the facts discussed in a passage are based on the source, but that the authorship of the exact text was written by the person who placed the text. Per WP:CITE#When you quote someone, You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates. Granted that Wikipedia isn't academic, but in the world of academia -- from junior high to high school to college & grad school -- quoting any source without clearly identifying through use of quotation marks or indentation of block quotes which text was quoted from the source is generally considered plagiarism, & results in F (failing) grades. --Yksin 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You didn't answer my question: What do you think would be otherwise the DIFFERENCE between the public domain and not? No, seriously. Also, I actually tried to change as little as possible (other than edits to fit it in the article), to use the words they used in exactly this context, so no one would say I misinterpreted anything (and yet Custerwest went into the usual Tourette syndrome fit anyway). --HanzoHattori 11:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
(1) The question of "what would be the difference between the public domain or not" is irrelevant to the question of plagiarism. Whether a quote comes from the p.d. or from a copyrighted source, leaving quotation marks out is an implied claim of authorship. (2) Leaving out quotation marks on quoted text adds to the danger that the quoted text will be removed from any attribution it did get -- as indeed happened -- because subsequent editors believe the implied claim of authorship. (3) The fact that a public domain source is a public domain source doesn't give it any authority greater or lesser than any other reliable source. even if they're by the military or another government entity. And again, you seem either to not fully understand Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV or simply don't care to know about it. You write about "only the 100%-known facts (in addition to the controversies, in the Controversies section), without getting into rather unimportant details and (false) rumours." WP:NPOV, on the other hand, states, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." As a Wikipedia editor, I intend to abide by that Wikipedia policy, not your druthers. --Yksin 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
No no no, you still did't answer my question. What is THE DIFFERENCE? <- this is the question. (and I already said: I can't "claim autorship", because I can't do this on Wiki at all, I sourced everything,[15], and I said as clearly as possible what I am doing and why - but no, wait, just answer the quetion) Also, notice how the globalsecurity.org ("best of the web") used the public domain source in question (are they [ominous music].... plagiarists? [dam dam dammmm...]). --HanzoHattori 08:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, they are. Funny thing about globalsecurity.org too: it's not Wikipedia, & is not bound by WP:CITE#When you quote someone, as we are. You originally asked "What do you think would be otherwise the DIFFERENCE between the public domain and not?" The different between public domain & copyrighted text is that with public domain you don't have to ask the copyright owner's permission to quote the text because there is no copyright owner for PD text. But there is no different between PD & copyrighted text when it comes to plagiarism. Custerwest quoted Michno's text without using quotation marks and you quoted the AMH history without using quotation marks: in both cases that was plagiarism. But in Custerwest's case, it was also a copyright violation. --Yksin 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to see this actually written on Wikipedia, regarding just the case of the public domain. Because what I see is only: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. as a rule, and also things like "This article contains material from the Federal Standard 1037C, which, as a work of the United States Government, is in the public domain." --HanzoHattori 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was no rhetoric. I gave you the rule, and the usage. All is needed is to say: "This article contains material from ... work of the United States Government." --HanzoHattori 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Guess you understood now. --HanzoHattori 09:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also still, do you think the Serbian nationalist claims are treated "unfairly" vs UN on the Wikipedia (even if these claims are "repeated much" elsewhere), or (unevitable Godwin's Law) the neo-Nazi minority is being discrimated against the non-neo-Nazi majority? Say, a Stalinist will come and say we are "unfair" to Stalin, and for a proof will present some Soviet official documents, Pravda articles, and book by Stalin (well, "authored" by Stalin), or some pro-Stalin moder publications (including his: "I am the French expert on Stalin, I wrote a book on Stalin, and I have a blog on Stalin, and my name is Stalineast - if you you goddamn idiot extreme-right jerk clown stupid monkey teenagers won't surrender to me, I'll kick your damn asses! also, I put some falsified footnotes on Stalin, so this is now my article") - what now, rewrite everything to be "fair" to Stalin, so "the reader will decide" if Stalin was a monster or not, or was the whole Great Terror or the Great Hunger "imperialist" propaganda? (now I'm even afraid to check the Stalin article, because maybe it's the case - and actually some Russian nationalists are trying this, but don't archive much - even as the Russian government is lieing now about the incident shamelessly, after a bried period of admitting the truth - you'd also see the talk page) --HanzoHattori 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might notice that this page is Talk:Battle of Washita River. I'm not involving myself in disputes about Serbian nationalism. Furthermore, your endless carping about Custerwest is as tiresome and useless as Custerwest's endless carping about you. I could carp endlessly forever about each of you; but since my reason for being here is to work on improving the Battle of Washita River article, that's what I'm working on instead. Please stop trying to get me involved in your personal animosities toward Custerwest or any other user. --Yksin 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, but so the Serb nationalists and their international supporters are not allowed to do what the Custerwests (pop. 1) are allowed to do elsewhere (with the articles instead focusing on the UN findings, and not "The Emperor's New Clothes"). Is this some kind of discrimination against them, or is there a double standards rule somewhare according to which the UN does hold the right to ultimate thruth, but the US Gvt does not even regarding their own history in which it criticises ITSELF? (I wonder if you ever heard the saying of "more Catholic than the Pope" - when the army presents a critical approach its own history, it means they're objective, and they say they indeed are.) --HanzoHattori 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again, this is the article talk page for the article Battle of Washita River, intended for working on the improvement of that specific article. It is not the talk page for disputes involving Serb nationalists and their international supporters, it is not a general message board, it is not a forum for nontopical discussion or complaints & further personal attacks on other users with whom you disagree. Please stop. --Yksin 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, so there ARE two very different sets of rules for different articles on the Wikipedia, and you refuse to discuss this anymore? I'm talking about Wikipedia (and your interpretation of it, in relation to this article), not "Serbian nationalism" (or the Russian - Katyn, German - The Holocaust, whatever really, like supporters of the Khmer Rouge not being able to whitewash the atrocities, lots of articles). I'm talking about the treatment of the outdated, discredited and/or fringe views. Not all POVs, theories, etc., are represented equally, which is a good thing actually (do you think it's wrong?). Are everyone of them wrong, or do you set you own standards now on this page? --HanzoHattori 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah, so there are indeed two sets for various articles and you refuse. O-kay. --HanzoHattori 09:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The portion that reads Sheridan devised a plan whereby three columns would converge on the Indian wintering grounds just east of the Texas Panhandle: one from Fort Lyon in Colorado, one from Fort Bascom in New Mexico, and one from Fort Supply in the Indian Territory later to be called Oklahoma. The 7th Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A. Custer (...) found the Indians on the Washita River. right after the portion you found also comes directly from http://www.army.mil/CMH/books/AMH-V1/ch14.htm on p. 330, from the same edit by HanzoHattori, again sourced as he originally added but not in quotation marks, again with the sourcing disappeared due to sloppy later editing.
So in essence that entire paragraph except for the last sentence is, as it currently stands, is an unsourced quotation of the Army military history that HH favors. The last sentence "Sheridan's orders to George Custer were to kill the warriors and to bring back with him the women and children" sourced to Hoig p. 82 is an accurate account of what the source says, & is not a direct quote. --Yksin 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
A smaller one, but in the "accounts of the battle" section, the following phrase "the nature of the attack began to be debated in the press, in the December 9 Leavenworth Evening Bulletin, a story mentioned that" comes straight from here, which is definitely copyrighted. Murderbike 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS, I don't doubt that this one could VERY easily be reworded into compliance. Murderbike 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another good catch. At one point earlier in the edit history of this article, almost the entirety of the James Horsley piece at dickshovel.com (what an attractive URL) was in this article. This might be a remainder of that; there were also four edits between Evilclown93 first putting on full protection & him renewing full protection about a week later that all came from that source. Which I don't think is a regarded by WP as reliable source anyway, since it seems to be self-published. --Yksin 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
diff here -- this came from those recent edits during the gap between full protections, from User:Felix c on 20:10, 8 July 2007. -- Yksin 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

and what I meant by "edited to fit" edit

In this certain paragraph:

While a winter campaign presented serious logistical problems, it offered opportunities for decisive results. If the Indians’ shelter, food, and livestock could be destroyed or captured, not only the warriors but their women and children were at the mercy of the Army and the elements, and there was little left but surrender. These tactics, amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture, raised certain moral questions for many officers and men that were never satisfactorily resolved. Sheridan devised a plan whereby three columns would converge on the Indian wintering grounds just east of the Texas Panhandle: one from Fort Lyon in Colorado, one from Fort Bascom in New Mexico, and one from Fort Supply in the Indian Territory later to be called Oklahoma. The 7th Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A. Custer found the Indians on the Washita River.[16]

The Army's history book in question says:

While a winter campaign presented serious logistical problems, it offered opportunities for decisive results. If the Indians’ shelter, food, and livestock could be destroyed or captured, not only the warriors but their women and children were at the mercy of the Army and the elements, and there was little left but surrender. These tactics, amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture, raised certain moral questions for many officers and men that were never satisfactorily resolved. Sheridan devised a plan whereby 3 columns would converge on the Indian wintering grounds just east of the Texas Panhandle: 1 from Fort Lyon in Colorado, 1 from Fort Bascom in New Mexico, and 1 from Camp Supply in the Indian Territory later to be called Oklahoma. The 7th Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A. Custer fought the major engagement of the campaign. Custer found the Indians on the Washita River and struck Black Kettle’s Cheyenne village with eleven companies and from four directions at dawn on November 29, 1868, as the regimental band played "Gerry Owen," still the 7th Cavalry’s regimental song.

While GlobalSecurity quotes them in part and without ANY kind of atrribution (public domain, you know), just changing "These tactics, amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture" into "the technique of total wa" a for whatever reason:

While a winter campaign presented serious logistical problems, it offered opportunities for decisive results. If the Indians' shelter, food, and livestock could be destroyed or captured, not only the warriors but their women and children were at the mercy of the Army and the elements, and there was little left but surrender. Here was the technique of total war, a practice that raised certain moral questions for many officers and men that were never satisfactorily resolved.

Anyway: I intentionally edited only details, and changed as few of the core text as possible, to change nothing in the "accurate and neutral" account by the gvt sources, including the wording used.

Which brings another thing: for example, the Battlefield classidied the Custer's captives as a "hostages" taken - I think this is important, and this is why I reverted it back when someone changed into "prisoners of war" or something like this (also, a POW is a captured combatant, but this just a secondary point, prisoners vs POWs).

Oh, and the insane thing with the orchestra playing during the battle is important (I missed it it then). Now I can see what was this motive of Apocalypse Now based on. --HanzoHattori 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'd also like you guys to ERASE EVERYTHING to the stub (just intro) before you agree what goes in and what not (somewhere next year or something, I guess), because now it's locked-on on the Cw's lies. Cast a quick vote or what-not and do this ASAP. --HanzoHattori 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not prepared to do this without some admin advice or oversight -- since a whole lot of the edit war that admins came down on people about was in regards to deleting sourced text. We have asked them to take a look at what's going on with the talk page, but no response yet, not even to do anything about the plagiarized text/copyvio I discovered last night. Maybe it would be possible though to start constructing a second "draft" article behind the scenes, or something. I need some advice. --Yksin 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I don't see any problem with going through this section by section fixing it. We don't have some kind of deadline to meet. It would work a lot quicker if we could get others involved in the discussion, and an admin (particularly the original blocker) could pipe in. Murderbike 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Perhaps we could work here section by section, placed drafts here for discussion, then once some kind of consensus is built for it, it can be marked for an admin to replace the stuff already there, if the article is still blocked by then. --Yksin 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
"No deadline"? Anyone who wants to read about Washita comes here, and see a whole lot of untrue rumours and lies (plus confusing "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."), making this aricle worthless. Concerned now? --HanzoHattori 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm concerned. That's why I've been spending so much time trying to work on this. Murderbike 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Offer for Mediation edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

The disagreement that has been surrounding this article lately has been recently brought upon my attention, as well as a request to try and help building consensus upon the suggested changes and NPOV issues. While I understand sometimes trying to reach agreements is a difficult task, I'm hopeful and confident that every editor involved can make an effort in this direction. I'm also aware that filing a request for a formal Mediation is a big step, and I'm not sure everyone's interested in taking it yet.

For this reason, I'd like to offer myself to carry an informal attempt at Mediation and search for a solution at this very talk page, if all editors currently involved agree. To illustrate what I mean, you may see a recent precedent at Talk:Cherokee, where a similar initiative resulted in a successful compromise. Please feel free to comment on this possibility here; if you agree on this proposition, we can aim for a solution in a shorter time frame than that of other Dispute Resolution processes. Best regards, Phaedriel - 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds great! Thanks for piping in Phaedriel! Murderbike 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I would very much like this. --Yksin 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
HanzoHattori is quoting dickshovel, the noisy website of the extremist American Indian Movement, as a source. Will we have Bin Ladin's opinion on the Washita too?
Phaedriel, thanks for your help. While I agree that two of my quotes had not their right footnotes (I spent most of my time preventing Hanzo Hattori's vandalism), the overall article is totally correct and it's easy to check it out. Most of the editors here are really tiresome and are not adding anything, especially HanzoHattori. Yskin is a much better editor and I would like to find a consensus with her - she's actually the only one who read a book on the battle. I suggest the ban of HanzoHattori for constant vandalism and attacks upon me. Yskin and me could find a consensus, an historical one. The others a really useless, for they haven't read anything on the matter.
The number of edits with James Hursley's material comes from an American Indian Movement website whose title, "Genocide in the Great Plains", is worse than POV. It can't be quoted as serious source. Delete this sentences, really POV. The accounts in the press are reliable if confirmed by testimonies of witnesses. The "sadistic manner" etc. is POV. Putting only Wynkoop (Black Kettle's famous friend) in describing a battle he wasn't involved in is POV.
Yskin, about Jesse Leavenworth's behavior, he protected Satanta's men when they were killing civilians in Texas (1869). He's also a part of the Indian Ring, whose purpose was to make deals with Indians regardless of the consequences. Most of the time, money meant peace, and peace meant to make people believe that the Indians were peaceful. See Historynet.com, Gregory Michno, "The Real Villains of Sand Creek." Custerwest 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
HanzoHattori did not quote dickshovel. That was User:Felix c -- see diff. That occurred after the first full protection on the article by Evilclown93 (who has undergone a name change to Maxim) expired after a week, before Maxim put it back on because we were no closer to consensus here. I agree that James Hursley's material doesn't belong here -- not because Hursley has a point-of-view (so does Hoig, so does Greene, so does Michno, so does everybody else), but because the website on which it appears is not a reliable source per policy on self-published sources, the same policy which makes your Custerwest blog inappropriate for citation here.
Also, mediation whether informal or formal requires, I believe, the willing participation of all concerned parties. That would include, at the very least, you, me, Murderbike, & HanzoHattori. If any one person says "no" or "not if so & so is also a participant," then it doesn't happen. Mediation is intended to seek compromise that all concerned parties can live with. So the question is, do you want to participate in it or not? (Statements like "most of the editors here are really tiresome" doesn't present much hope for it.) The question for HanzoHattori is the same: do you want to participate in it, or not? --Yksin 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
BTW, Custerwest: for the third time -- my username is Yksin. The K is before the S, not after it, as you persistently misspell it. It's a Finnish word. --Yksin 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, the name is bin Laden. If you ("Custerwest") are really named Bin Ladin, then yes - unfortunately. As for me I already said "whatever". Which means "whatever". As of which I only throw around my "smart ass clown monkey" comments. Also, he will now move on the Sand Creek? or will it be Chivingtoneast? (oh, appearently "Bin Ladin is used by the French-language mass media" - explains a lot) --HanzoHattori 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
To all involved editors who have agreed to the offer, thank you for your interest and congratulations on your will to find an agreement. I take note, however, that not every involved party has expressed their consent, for one reason or another. I'm especially disappointed at HanzoHattori's decision to completely disregard the proposal, ignoring it even tho he has taken the time to comment under this very header. I'll give this initiative one more day before suggesting the involved editors other venues for dispute resolution, which will unfortunately be far more stressing and time-consuming. Best regards, Phaedriel - 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Phaedriel. If mediation doesn't happen, I will be glad for any and all suggestions about what me might do towards resolving disputes.
I would want to publicly register my disappointment with the continuous and seemingly endless carping by HanzoHattori about Custerwest, and Custerwest about HanzoHattori, and to ask both of you to please stop it. Even now, even under this header, you both are engaging in personal attacks on each other. E.g., Custerwest: "Most of the editors here are really tiresome and are not adding anything, especially HanzoHattori." HanzoHatttori: "If you ("Custerwest") are really named Bin Ladin..." and other comments too numerous to put all the diffs down right here. Please stop it. This talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements of the article, not for making personal attacks or enacting passive aggression or active aggression upon each other. It's really really tiresome, as well as disruptive to Wikipedia. --Yksin 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah, in his rhetorical question he just compared the AIM to "Bin Ladin" (appearently meaning Osama bin Laden, but I don't know for sure), in a very classy move which did NOT include calling them monkeys or something really racist (positive points for this!). From this perspective, you're right, he was simply "discussing improvements". In the same post he also said "I suggest the ban of HanzoHattori ", which was also discussing improvements, I guess. Oh-yeah. --HanzoHattori 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reread what I said, please. You are both engaging in personal attacks on each other. This is very clearly not me claiming that "he was only discussing improvements." You are both engaging in personal attacks on each other, which besides violating Wikipedia policies about civil behavior and No personal attacks, is also highly disruptive to Wikipedia in general and attempts to improve this article in particular -- especially in terms of trying to resolve disputes so that maybe one day this article can be unprotected & work on it can proceed. Please stop. --Yksin 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Scroll down for my propositions as of "trying to resolve disputes". Look around for the other stuff. Also, he 1) started first 2) never stopped. (Guess I'm too little of Jesus for this.) --HanzoHattori 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Casualties edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Letter of J. S. Morrison, one of the Sheridan-Custer scouts, written to E. W. Wynkoop, Indian Agent:

(...) "They all agree in stating that the official reports of the fight were very much exagerated that there was not over twenty Bucks killed, the rest, about forty, were women and children. The prisoners have got in today. They consisted of 53 women and children."

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wynkoop/webdocs/12141868.htm

Felix c 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for signing. Morrison wasn't himself at the Washita battle, but his letter refers to what was told to him by two scouts who were there. This represents one of several accounts that gave Indian casualties as being far lower than Custer reported, & which -- because those lower figures represent a significant view covered in reliable published sources -- must be represented in this article for it to meet Wikipedia's policies about neutral point of view. Presently the article is very very far from meeting NPOV, & we're having one heckuva hard time getting it corrected. --Yksin 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
On the same page in Hoig (201): Ben Clark writes in 1899, "seventy-five warriors and fully as many women and children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murderbike (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The battle edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This sentence: "4 to 6 white captives, including Clara Blinn and her son, were killed (Clara was shot in the neck, Willie smashed against a tree [24]) by the fleeing Cheyennes.[25]" is not backed up by the citation. On the cited page, it reads "Surgeon Lippincott's report lists Mrs. Blinn's wound as being "one bullet hole above left eyebrow, head scalped, and skull extensively fractured." Of the child he said, "The child's head and face presented evidences of violence" (Office of the Adjutant General, File F, 421). This is contradicted in some degree by Keim's report of December 11, 1868, which says nothing of either body being scalped: "The body was brought into camp and examined. Two bullet holes penetrating the brain found; also the back of the skull was fearfully crushed as if by a hatchet. The body of the child presented the appearance of starvation, being reduced to a perfect skeleton. There were no marks on the body except a bruise on the cheek" (New York Herald, January 4, 1869)."

There is nothing about a tree at all. And the last paragraph on the previous page reads "Comanche-Kiowa agent A.G. Boone wrote on January 12, 1869, from Fort Cobb: "...I have investigated all the facts, as I have several friends (officers) in the fight, and feared she had been accidentally killed by our own troops; but she was in a party some ten or twelve miles from the main fight, and from the fact of her being scalped shows it was done by the infernal savages" (New York Times, March 21, 1869.

Clearly, there is no consensus as to how Blinn and son were killed, and the citation given does nothing to support the statement. Murderbike 23:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this really hard as now to assume all so-precioussss footnotes (and edits) by Cw as unreliable by a high probablity of outright falsification, delete altogether because of this, and start anew? Instead of endlessly spending time on disqualifing them one-by-one. It's a simple cause-effect: repeated falsifications making this certain material worthless (there's plenty of other avaible, as you are aware of), and saving your time. Or is it "unfair" to treat this as "one huge lie", and instead go by treating this as "a series of lies (manipulations and falsifications) which all must be proven seperately, because there may possibly be some non-lies out there"?
Actually, what I'd like by now, would be: 1) have the article stubbed really short on the unquestionable facts (and back protected) 2) entrust it to you (as it appearently became your new hobby, and while I don't necessary agree with you on everything, this would be a compromise) 3) if "anyone" have a problem with this solution, do a vote by the interested parties. --HanzoHattori 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Washita_River/Archive_2&oldid=1144568941"