Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1

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

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

message: General Custer, a Civil War Medal of Honor recipient, did good.  It was a victorious battle for the great United States.  The 7th Cavalry was a strong unit that helped bring the attention of the dangers of the frontier to the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.214.66 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 November 2005
Washita is not considered as a massacre and the US troops did well. Not politically correctness here, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.201.179 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Custer 

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

message: Both Native American and Federal testimonies show that Washita was a great battle and that soldiers took good measures to prevent the killing of women and children. Several soldiers (reported by soldier Spotts of 19th Kansas) said that it was Custer's orders to protect civilians. (read Jerome Greene's book "Washita")
There's no controversy about this battle. It's only bad anti-US propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.202.175 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last evidence

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

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

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

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

message: "INDIAN FIGHTS AND FIGHTERS" by Cyrus Townsend Brady, LL.D.; with an introduction by James T King 
1971 Bison Book Edition, BB538, University of Nebraska Press.Lincoln/London 
 pbk.
Library of Congress Catolog Card Number 74-156373
Original first edition published by McClure, Phillips & Co. in 1904
The book contains accounts from participants in The Battle of the Washita: officers & enlisted men. It has first hand accounts of many major battles and campaigns between the US Army and Native American Indians. The accounts are graphic and interesting, with thoughts and details from those who were there. It also contains accounts of some battles as told by Native American Indians who were participants. The book also contains maps of battle sites, drawn by participants; including a map of the Little Bighorn Battle, drawn by Rain-In-The-Face(also his account of the battle).Ratzamatatza 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading on the Washita and other frontier campaigns 

message: I think this article requires a major overhaul. As noted before, basing the depiction chiefly on Custer's own account must necessarily create a biased viewpoint. In my view the section "The cause: Black Kettle's war against Kansas" is grossly distortive: 1.)Black Kettle was no war chief, 2.) He was not present with any war party in Kansas, 3.) He didn't send any warriors on the warpath, 4.) He was the chief man of the "peace faction" among the Cheyennes, he even signed peace treaties which gave away 90% of Cheyenne land to avoid further bloodshed. As a consequence his standing among the Indians suffered greatly. That was the reason why his camp had to stay at the Washita river several miles downstream from the other camps. It is true that Black Kettle was unable to stop young men from his cmap to join war parties. Making "Black Kettle's war against Kansas" out of this is not worthy of Wikipedia's standards.
Likewise, the casualty figures are manifestly wrong. Greene's book has a good overview on this question. The Cheyennes named every victim by name. Custer just added body counts of different soldiers (each of them counting the same killed indians again and again) and upped them at will. Most likely 11 Cheyenne men, 2 Arapaho men, 9 Cheyenne women, 2 Sioux women and 5 children were killed, altogether under 30, not more than 130 as Custer claimed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lookoo (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul necessary 

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

message: "Black Kettle WAS a chief of tribe", yes, he was one of 44 peace chiefs of the Cheyenne nation, one of four peace chiefs of his band. You should make yourself a little bit more aquainted with his policy and what impact this had on his standing within the tribe. Already in 1867 he was much ridiculed for his peace stance and commanded little authority in wider Cheyenne circles (Greene, page 45).
"his tribe WAS at war in 1868 according to Little Rock". Who exactly was at war? When a couple of young men from his band joined the dog soldiers against his express will, this doesn't mean Black kettle was at war with the whites.
"Indian prisoners gave to Interpreter Dick Curtis the name of eleven warchiefs killed, not the overall number." Instead of linking to your own blog I would like to have some meaningful source here. Which chiefs then? This is easily verifiable. You won't find 11 Cheyenne chiefs present at Black Kettle's band and even less so all killed in the battle.
Jerome Greene writes: "Custer's prisoners later reported that thirteen men, besides two sioux and an arapaho, had been killed at the Washita, but evidentl they gave no figure for noncombatant losses. George Bent revised the tribal testimony over several years and arrived at 13 men killed, 12 women and five children, thus 30 Indian casualties overall, finally revised to 29, "a number that does not appear unreasonable"(Greene p.136)
Concerning those white captives, isn't it strange that we learn so very little about them, their names and their fate? Where were they buried? What happened to the surviving ones if they were really present What were their names? 
User:Lookoo 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False?

message: I have started the overhaul now since I can't see who would do it otherwise. The entire approach in presenting the issue seems substandard to me and rather an appendix to some Custer glorification. It is unacceptable to take the clearly propagandistic accounts of only one side as the facts material as has happened in this article. I will revamp the article to a more balanced depiction in several increments as time permits. I kindly request all those who disagree to dicuss ad not engage in undue edit wars. Thank you!
User:Lookoo 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul started

message: I won't accept a complete rewriting of the article without other evidences than George Bent, whose bias towards Native Americans is well known. Colonel Nelson Miles wrote a letter about the two white boys being freed. He wrote that the two boys were in poor condition, because they were probably starving during their custody. Miss Blinn and her child were discovered by the men of 19th Kansas near the location where Black Kettle had been killed, according to 7th cavalry members. An autopsy of both bodies was performed by Dr Lippincott, who said that Willie Blinn, two-years-old boy, had been smashed against a tree by the Cheyennes. General Custer stated about a white child being killed in the village and a white woman, captive, being killed too.
I wonder if the "more balanced" view will ne bot a complete rewriting of history in favor of Indians.
Indian prisoners told Dick Curtis that 13 warchiefs (including Little Rock and Black Kettle) were killed at the battle. Black Kettle himself said that his warriors were killing settlers. A "peaceful" chief isn't in a village full of warriors who are killing settlers.
It's not because Hollywood have decided to rewrite every historical fact in Indian favor that it's true. Black Kettle's involvment in the massacres was well-known.
Evidences - http://www.custerwest.org
Custerwest 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White captives

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

message: I wonder who's the idiot who's editing the page and taking the footnotes off. Gosh, is it an encyclopedia or not? FOOTNOTES are history.
Modern accounts of the battle doesn't put any 75 dead etc. What's wrong with you? Account of the battle put Cheyennes casualties to more than 100, or closer to 100 warriors killed (historian Jeffry Wert). The "modern US army version" is a simple website, it's not serious...
Is anyone here doing some researchs?
http://www.custerwest.org
Custerwest 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE? For example, the number of Indian warriers who died may be not known for sure. So, why not indicate the number as 70 to 150 for example? Hanzo, anyone can "question the US Army's official history" in WP, based on appropriate sources. US Army is not an ultimate authority about historical events, just as Russian Army, etc. How about book by General Troshev? Biophys 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for answer. I looked at "Custerwest" web site. Looks indeed as POV and self-promotion in Wikipedia by custerwest. Certainly, we do not want any unreliable information here. If he is trying to dispute generally accepted things (which seems to be the case), he must provide reliable and up-todate sources, and do not curse and conduct edit wars, but try to find consensus at the talk page. Biophys 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look too, and I must say love how he calls Washita "anti-terror campaign". Just... wow. Maybe he's so angry it was qualified by the editors as part of Comanche Campaign and not "War on Terrorism". Actually, according to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy the Indian culture" (see: cultural genocide). --HanzoHattori 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is editing this page? 

message: See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI post about edit war & incivility problems 

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

message: Sources : 
Black Kettle’s Last Raid, by Hill P. Wilson, Transactions of Kansas State Historical Society, VIII, pages 110-117
 
Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, page 212
 
Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. page 18
  
articles from the Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868): 
  
“A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town (HaysCity) on Thursday. They had a white child with them (…) Some think that (the child) was stolen by Kiowas or Comanches in Kansas or Texas and sold to the Cheyennes.” 
  
  
In his report after the battle of the Washita, November 27, 1868, Custer stated to have freed “We also secured two white children, held captives by the Indians.” 
  
As Stan Hoig said, we have evidences that these boys were treated at Fort Hays. Stan Hoig says in his “Battle of the Washita) (page 183): “Evidently, there were the two boys Custer had reported he had rescued from the Indians." 
  
Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, issued a report on April 30, 1869: 
  
“I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.” Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of the battle (with sources): white captives

message: Source:  “Report of an interview between E. W. Wynkoop, US Indian Agent, and Little Rock, a Cheyenne Chief Held at Fort Larned, Kansas, August 19, 1868, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cheyenne and Arapho Indians. 
Available in Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 49-51; George A. Custer, My Life on The Plains, University of Oklahoma Press, pages 153-156; Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 52-53 
 
Fort Larned, August 19, 1868 
Interview of Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village 
By Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop 
Witnesses: Lieutenant Samuel Robbins, civilian John Smith, scout James Morrisson. 
  
Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: 
“Six nights ago, I spoke to you in regard to depredations committed on the Saline. I told you to go and find out by whom theses depredations were committed and to being me straight news. What news do you bring?” 
  
Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: 
“I took your advice and went there. I am now here to tell you all I know. This war party of Cheyennes which left the camp of these tribes above the forks of Walnut Creek about the 2d or 3d of August, went out against the Pawnees (…) The Cheyennes numbered about 200; nearly all the young men in the village went (…) A Cheyenne named Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a (…) proceeded to the first hourse; they afterwards returned to the camp with a woman captive. (…) 
The two Indians had outraged the woman before they brought her to the camp. (…) Big Head’s son knocked (an isolated white man) down with a club. (…) Soon after they killed a white man, and close by, a woman (…) They then went to another house in the same settlement, and there killed two men and took two little girls prisoners. (…) After they had proceeded some distance up thr Saline, the party divided, the majority going north toward thr settlements on the Solomon (…) Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information.” 
  
Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: 
“Your told me your nations want peace; will you, in accordance with your treaty stipulations, deliver up the men whom you have named as being the leaders of the party who committed the outrages named?” 
  
Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: 
“(…) when I return to (Black Kettle’s) camp and assemble the chiefs and headmen, I think those two men will be delivered up to you.” 
  
Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: 
“I consider the whole party guilty; but it being impossible to punish all of them, I hold the principle men, whom you mentioned, responsible for all. (…)” 
  
Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: 
“After your explanations, I think your demand for the men is right. I am willing to deliver them up, and will go back to the tribe and use my best endeavours to have them surrendered.”
(Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. Pages 19-21) 
 
No warrior was ever delivered up. Little Rock was eventually killed during Custer's Battle of the Washita, while fighting with the warriors hidden in Black Kettle's village. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of the battle (with sources) : Indian massacres of settlers 

message: Indian prisoners told Interpreter Richard Curtis that 11 wachiefs and headmen had been killed, Black Kettle and Little Rock not counted. It means that 13 headmen and warchiefs were killed.
Names of the warchiefs and headmen killed:
Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 140, page 242 (note for page 140)
Buffalo Tongue
Tall White Man
Tall Owl
Poor Black Elk
Big Horse
White Beaver
Bear Tail
Running Water
Wolf Ear
The Man That Hears the Wolf
Medicine Walker
Black Kettle
Little Rock
Civilian casualties are estimated around 20 (15 to George Bent, 17 to George Bird Grinnell).
Custer estimated that 102 warriors had been killed. Later, while coming back on the battlefield, he estimated the casualties as "much higher". 
7th cavalry officers thought that the casualties could be of 150 warriors killed.
Lieutenant Cooke and Custer both marked places where 17 and 38 warriors had been killed.
First report to Fort Cobb showed that at least 80 warriors had been killed.
A report coming from Fort Cobb, written with statements by fleeing Indians, said that "all the men had been killed."
Accounts of the battle tell us that a great killing of warriors occured. Red Bird, a Cheyenne squaw, saw warriors laying with their guns in their hands".
Scout Ben Clark remembered that the Indian forces in the village numbered around 150 warriors.
It's obvious that more than 100, almost all the warriors, were killed. Probably 120 to 130 warriors were killed.
There is nothing serious in counting 20 or 40 warriors killed. 150 warriors attacked at dawn cannot have escaped. The accounts of the battle showed that they fought or were shot down. Let's be serious. Cheyenne casualties, which were rewritten to make Black Kettle look like an old peaceful fellow, were high. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Casualties (with sources)

message: In short. 
#Custer and his men were the soldiers of the American army. The same army now provides "neutral and accurate" account of these events, deigned for both soldiers and civilians (including encouraging teachers and students to use this as a source). As they are the US Army Center of Military History, they are military historians - and their mission is "recording the official history of the Army in both peace and war" since 1874. Wikipedia editors use the archival materials provided by the CMH, as it's all freeware (see: ).
#As for the Sand Creek massacre just 4 years earlier (very related, because the same people involved on one side), the same again army concluded that the militia "surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities" - meaning Black Kettle's band, of course.  
#The same Wikipedia article states: "After this event, many more Cheyenne and Arapaho men joined the Dog Soldiers, and sought revenge on settlers throughout the Platte valley, killing as many as 200 civilians."  - maybe this is what you mean by your "depredations"? Btw, I had to check this word - and, predictably enough, "A classic of Texas literature .... harshly condemns the Indians and makes no attempt to consider their point of view."
#POV issues like this: In the case of the total war such as this (burned ground tactics, actions "amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture", which is a direct quote) you don't have civilians on one side "murdered", and these on the other side "killed" in the one article. Same thing, for example, for changing comparably greater further deaths caused by the initial military attacks (obviously mostly among children and elderly) to merely "weakening" - unless you change the alleged "massacres" of whites into the acts of "weakening" or what not. And so on.
#Comanche Campaign is the long-standing and appearently official name of the conflic, and I have even nothing to do with it (see: ). I wonder how you missed this? No, you can't go and change it for "Anti-terror campaign" or whatever.
#The outdated and POV sources are outdated and POV (obviously). If you think the "politically incorrect garbage" ("terror camp destroyed", etc.) is better, sorry. I don't care a little bit for your blog, it's called the freedom of speech, but here it's no pasaran (haha, "extreme leftism"). --HanzoHattori 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hanzo. Now I understand better why WP:SOURCE policy asks us to use reliable secondary rather than primary sources. In events controversial like these, it is better to stick to US official military history (most recent edition). Biophys 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "politically correct garbage" (and also "politically incorrect" too) 

message: I've gone through the references that Custerwest provided and cleaned them up. It's actually helpful to having a reference list that is properly formatted with complete bibliographic info. Even better, turns out that a few of them are available online for fact-checking against. I was also able to find the complete article by historian Gregory Michno that appeared on Historynet, instead of the mere excerpt of the article that Custerwest had previously linked to on his (her?) blog-style website. Michno is a creditable historian who has written (I discovered) a number of books on western history in the era of the mid-19th century Indian wars, such as the Encyclopedia of Indian Wars: Western Battles and Skirmishes 1850-1890 which Custerwest had listed in his reference list, but unfortunately in an incomplete & poorly-formatted way. The reference for the Letter to the Secretary of the Interior is incomplete -- letter from whom, exactly? Please provide complete info, Custerwest.
Custerwest's website seems essentially to be a collection of passages excerpted from books and articles on subjects related to Custer, the Indian wars, etc.  But I would recommend when citing sources to cite from the original books/articles rather than that website, which is certainly far more in keeping with good scholarly practice.  HanzoHattori, in spite of Custerwest's deficiencies of communication -- such as his/her numerous personal attacks on you & apparent disinterest in seeking consensus or in working with others including you in a nonantagonistic way (I congratulate you for bringing your own antagonisms into control) -- I wouldn't dismiss those sources out-of-hand.  The reference list, at least, is helpful.  But then again, I wouldn't dismiss your sources out of hand either. Biophys' suggestion way above, I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE? seems wise.  Otherwise you've got an edit war between two POV-pushers.
There's absolutely no reason why info from the U.S. Army military history account could not be included in this article, with appropriate referencing, even if it is in disagreement with statements based on sources Custerwest used: it's merely a matter of saying "this source says this, & that source says that".  It's not either/or proposition. Historians and even primary sources will always be in disagreement about this issue or that issue. But our job on Wikipedia is not to make final judgments on which is the correct account.  Per a statement made by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, quoted in a note on WP:NOR: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) (emphasis added) So stop arguing based on the basis of "the version of history presented by so & so is more valid than the version presented by whosimwhatsis" & simply say, "this guy says this" (with appropriate sourcing) "& that guy says that" (with appropriate sourcing).
I will add that many of Custerwest's cites are incomplete & hard to check.  The first footnote currently reads "Miss Crockers, disputed".  She did, did she? Please cite your source.  Footnote 2: "Washita prisoners gave the name of each of those headmen to Interpreter Richard Curtis." And where exactly did you find this information? Please provide, so we can have a chance at doublechecking it.  I have respect for sourcing, but part of the job of a scholar or historian or even just a plain ol' simple Wikipedian is to learn to cite properly.  Given your self-proclaimed respect for proper historical research, you should be a little more vigorous in how you present it.
I hadn't intended to get so involved in this; I'm not an admin (despite both HanzoHattori's & Custerwest's apparent assumptions at various points to the contrary): I'm just plain ol' simple Wikipedian who saw an edit war with two people who were both not averse to personal attacks, and tried to put a stop to it through standard warnings against that kind of behavior on your talk pages that any user can make -- though again, HanzoHattori, congratulations on learning to rein yourself in, to cease from personal attacks, & to keep yourself from 3RR violations -- should you ever indeed have a WP:RFC set up for you, you can count on me to speak up on your behalf. It's because of your self-control that I decided to do more.  And gee, I'm even willing to learn a bit more about this battle to help clean up the POV problems, if there are still such problems when I return from a schedule vacation this coming week. --Yksin 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing 

message: First of all, this is article called "Battle of Washita River" and it's not about all these alleged "depredations" (I don't think "depredations" is used at all, it was used by the anti-Native writers in the XIXth century). 
Today's official sources:
*American Military History says it was a part of the campaign devised by Gen. Sheriden to "completely" destroy the Indian culture in his area (cultural genocide - deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons). 
:They don't mention any white civilians in any context.
:They say up to 50 warriors were killed and about the same number were wounded - but many more people died afterwards from the burned ground tactics.
:Which is today a major war crime called "wanton destruction", not to mention part of definition of the genocide (deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life).
:Which all, by today's standards, makes it a war crime in a genocidal campaign (my conclusion, but I don't think you ould disagree).
*Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (also by the government, but this time civilian: US Department of Interior) says the following things:
:no mention of the any white civilians (beside these taken by the other bands) - Indian hostages taken, instead
:the Natives said 11 warriors and 19 civilians were killed (and that Custer said 103 warriors)
:clearly says "Peace Chief Black Kettle" was a victim of the government (and so was his wife), while he was "[s]eeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government"
:actually says "It was part of the total war policy" - I don't know if I can stress enough the today's official account is clear, the whole thing is a shame. It was cultural genocide, involving elements of genocide (aka the crime of extermination), hostage taking by the government, and of course the ethnic cleansing.
*An old, outdated, whole-lot-confused account by Secretary of War at this time (John Schofield) said:
:3 alleged white hostages (boys, not women), including 1 killed (unnamed and "seen")
:completely fantasy numbers of casualties on both sides (appearently official then, but higher even than Custer's then and thus Custerwest's now)
This one also provided by the MCH, so you can see how the Army account's knowledge, neutrality and accuracy improved over time. 
*The simplified account of the whole affair,  from The Library of Congress this time, says:
The Great Plains include the land from the Canadian border south to the New Mexico and Texas borders, and from the Missouri River west to the Rocky Mountains. The Indian tribes from this area -- the Plains Indians -- include the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa. The Army fought these tribes because they wanted to gain control over the Great Plains. For many years before and after the Civil War, the U.S. government tried to move Indians to an Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some Plains Indians agreed to move to reservations but others, like the Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did not. Instead, they continued to live and hunt on traditional lands outside the Indian Territory. After the Civil War, settlers wanted to move into this land, so they attacked. At dawn on November 27, 1868, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer attacked a sleeping Cheyenne village in the Washita Valley, surprising the Cheyenne's leader, Chief Black Kettle. Many Plains Indians were captured or killed during this battle. Chief Magpie, a teenager at the time who lived in Black Kettle's village, shot a soldier and took his horse, then rode off to safety. He lived to fight Custer again at the famous Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876. 
And so what Custerwest says is now (2007) just a fringe theory (and also a conspiracy one - blamed on "extreme left" and "crying humanitarians", to cite this page and his blog). The government is clear what happened - all branches, inlcuding Amy itself. I can only agree on the small section on the bottom in few words saying how the perception of the incident evolved over the time. Because, really, the year is 2007. 
Also, these were the neutral versions (by the same governemnt which was responsible for this in the first place), plus of course the outdated then-version we now see as being false. Here's an example the pro-Native account: (a book online) --HanzoHattori 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen up. I don't need any of this - it's all the work of government, and they have all they need, and more. Custer was a mere soldier in his army, a little man among millions of others who served - and now his army and his governemnt say he was wrong. Maybe you didn't understand yet, but Custer's account was decided to be false, and so was the conflicting one of his chief, and any other differing with the moder one. As i told you more than once, if you have any problems with that, get this to the government (Army and Department of the Interior), not me, because I'm just repeating the official line, and not engaging in the WP:OR. That's all. --HanzoHattori 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And further, because you seemingly have troubles to comprehend: This is what the soldiers and civilians are thought. This is what the United States Department of the Interior presents to the tourists who come to this place. The U.S. Army insists their account is "neutral and accurate", and there's no reason to believe otherwise. The Wikipedia editors are actually encouraged to use the materials by the federal agencies of the U.S. Government (not least because it's free to use, while most of other material is copyrighted). And to answer your question of "Sources ?" (which should be "Sources?"), it's American Military History by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the official websites of the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (a unit of the National Park Service, which "protects and interprets the site"). Yes, they are building the Cultural Heritage Center there, and guess what it will be about. In addition, the website of the Library of Congress. Yes, it's a simplified version for kids. But this is the only line. They no longer scary the kids with the "savage Injuns" (and "deprivations" or whatever). --HanzoHattori 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the government. But if you want the NGO sources, try, for example, the Public Broadcasting Service. And welcome to Wikipedia (and the XXI Century). --HanzoHattori 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually, this is all clear (now)

message: Oh, and here are the conclusions of the pro-Native account (the book is quite long, and maybe I'll read it some time):
(skip Sand Creek)
5. that according to government correspondence, tribes--consisting of the Cheyenne (including Black Kettle's band), Arapaho, Kiowa and other--were ordered to go to the Fort Cobb area by the military to keep out of the impending war, designating that region, including up and down the Washita River, as a refuge or sanctuary for Indians wanting peace, and
6. that Black Kettle complied with the order, coming to the Fort Cobb area,
7. that his location, along with the other tribes was recorded and incorporated into correspondence to the high military command,
8. that his offer in behalf of his band to surrender was recorded and refused by the military, and
9. that Hazen had warned Custer that Black Kettle was on the Washita under his orders,
10. that most of the members of this village were subsequently killed in a strike against them by the military shortly after Black Kettle's offer to surrender,
11. that the remaining 8,000 tribal members were forced to flee from their winter camps, subjecting themselves to physical harm and death due to exposure and lack of provisions.
12. that the remaining various bands of Arapaho, Cheyenne and Kiowa attempted to surrender but were not allowed to do so and were pursued to the Wichita Mountains and attacked and killed there.
Actually, I don't think we should take sides - the official government version is enough. 
But what I realized looking at the point 11, the Army's short notice that the aftermath "killed or weakened more than did the initial military attack" is now much more sinister. Not only because the scale of suffering is greater, but also because this was exactly what the Army account says was planned. And this is in the legal definition of genocide, so it wasn't only a mere "complete destruction of the culture". --HanzoHattori 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Native version (unnecessary really, but one thing there is quite haunting)

message: In 2007, Custerwest's is a fringe theory, and the historical revisionism in a worst meaning of this word. It's quite like (a paraphrase) presenting some controversional (by the point of human rights) incident from the military history of Germany 1939-45 not by what the German government stands for now, but what the German government stood for then (as the superb "primary sources"). 
The current official account is clear: 
#the incident was a "total war" attack on a large group of people actively attempting to surrender at the time
#the attack was unprovoked and without warning, in the situation involving large number of civilians
#men, women, and children were killed by the soldiers, including "Peace Chief Black Kettle" and his wife
#number of the men killed was estimated 11-103 then, but now is believed to be "perhaps" 50 by the Army
#21 soldiers were also killed, and 13 wounded
#there were no white captives rescued nor killed, but 53 Native "hostages" were taken to be swapped
#the assault involved wanton (and total) destruction of the village and its livestock
#the terror (then offically called "demoralizing") action resulted in the great suffering and many (more than attack) deaths among a large mass of est. 8,000 people
#the former was planned since beginning as an offensive meaning to "completely destroy" their culture by the military means
#even then many of the soldiers and officers involved knew it was "morally" wrong. 
In citation mark the direct quotes All of this I discusussed and linked before. 
There's no controversy going on - besides the fringe theories from individual persons such as Custervest. Does this matter? I don't think so - in other case, anyone can argue the Earth is flat, using a "primary sources" from before Copernicus. Outdated sources are outdated (I can't stop saying this), and so wrong are these completely POV (especially Custer on himself), not to mention various racist accounts at the time are conflicting with each other, even these official then. See also: historical revisionism - here, we see revisionism in both good (US gvt) and bad (Custerwest) sense. --HanzoHattori 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary (and back to NPOV)

message: This kind of statement "there were no white captives rescued nor killed" is completely wrong. Custer indicated that white captives had been freed and one killed in his official report (see Senate). Black Kettle's own sister admitted that captives had been made (Mah-wis-sa. Clara Blinn's story is true to the core (see Greene, Utley, Frost, Brill etc.). The attack was done because of massacres of settlers, not the destruction of culture or who-knows-else. Again, you have no source, you haven't any clue of what you're talking about. Where are your quotes? Your sources? Your books ? Have you something factual at all? Custerwest 13:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen up. I don't need any of this - it's all the work of government, and they have all they need, and more. Custer was a mere soldier in his army, a little man among millions of others who served - and now his army and his governemnt say he was wrong. Maybe you didn't understand yet, but Custer's account was decided to be false, and so was the conflicting one of his chief, and any other differing with the moder one. As i told you more than once, if you have any problems with that, get this to the government (Army and Department of the Interior), not me, because I'm just repeating the official line, and not engaging in the WP:OR. That's all. --HanzoHattori 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And further, because you seemingly have troubles to comprehend: This is what the soldiers and civilians are thought. This is what the United States Department of the Interior presents to the tourists who come to this place. The U.S. Army insists their account is "neutral and accurate", and there's no reason to believe otherwise. The Wikipedia editors are actually encouraged to use the materials by the federal agencies of the U.S. Government (not least because it's free to use, while most of other material is copyrighted). And to answer your question of "Sources ?" (which should be "Sources?"), it's American Military History by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the official websites of the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (a unit of the National Park Service, which "protects and interprets the site"). Yes, they are building the Cultural Heritage Center there, and guess what it will be about. In addition, the website of the Library of Congress. Yes, it's a simplified version for kids. But this is the only line. They no longer scary the kids with the "savage Injuns" (and "deprivations" or whatever). --HanzoHattori 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Sources : 
Black Kettle’s Last Raid, by Hill P. Wilson, Transactions of Kansas State Historical Society, VIII, pages 110-117
 
Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, page 212
 
Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. page 18
  
articles from the Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868): 
  
“A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town (HaysCity) on Thursday. They had a white child with them (…) Some think that (the child) was stolen by Kiowas or Comanches in Kansas or Texas and sold to the Cheyennes.” 
  
  
In his report after the battle of the Washita, November 27, 1868, Custer stated to have freed “We also secured two white children, held captives by the Indians.” 
  
As Stan Hoig said, we have evidences that these boys were treated at Fort Hays. Stan Hoig says in his “Battle of the Washita) (page 183): “Evidently, there were the two boys Custer had reported he had rescued from the Indians." 
  
Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, issued a report on April 30, 1869: 
  
“I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.”—Preceding unsigned comment added by Custerwest (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White captives at Washita

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

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

message: Hi Murderbike, the source is quoted in the references: Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004 (for the National Park Service and Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, Oklahoma) Custerwest 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The ref at the bottom of the article only says "Greene, 2004, p. 189.", no title, no first name, no publisher. All of that info needs to be in the ref, not just on the talk page. Murderbike 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Murderbike, that was me who put the cite that way, using the style of citation in an article which referes to the reference list at the bottom of the article.  This is appropriate citation style, & standard also in scholarly articles off Wikipedia; you can find it explained at WP:CITE#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" and see it in action in, for example Greek mythology. Thus, the ref "Greene, 2004, p. 189" directs you to the Reference section where the author's last name & date of publication tell you which book it is.  Again, this is a standard way to do academic citation, & is supported in Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The village was awaken by warriors Double Wolf, who fired in the sky when Custer's columnns approached. Black Kettle himself was firing on the soldiers with his rifle. One cannot say the village was sleeping when the attack really occured.
my sources come from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, US governement. Jerome Greene's book comes directly from researchs made by the National Historic Site "Washita Battlefield National Historic Site,", in Oklahoma, in 2004. It's official. My sources are not sketchy and the book HTT is using is an overall book on the US army which cannot be garanted as a full investigation of the battle. The official word of the US governement and Washita Battlefield Historic Sites are my sources, garanted by Stan Hoig and Historian Jerome Greene. Custerwest 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded that sentence. Hopefully it's satisfactory now. Murderbike 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources 

message: I don't even mean all the false things and outdated sources. It was alll discussed before, it just can't get to you. You can understand this is now the official history of United States, and the conflicting accounts are not. But heck.
Look. What the heck is this? It should be about "Battle of Washita River", with short Background and Aftermath sections. It's not an another the article on your blog about how the peaceful Indian village (which you called the "terror base") was the Carthage and had to be destroyed. See, for example, Battle of Berlin or Battle of Hue. This is how the "idiot monkeys" write their articles here.
Actually, it should be more about how, for example, the Peace Chief Black Kettle and his wife died (who had a name too), and how this teenager "shot down a soldier and escaped on his horse". It should be about the fate of the captured Native hostages, and about the fate of the rest of 8,000 Indians, of which many died, and about how this made the Arapahos execute these 2 white hostages who were close to be freed (it's Aftermath), and maybe also how Custer lied about them to justify his attack.
As for the Background, I used the US Army account because it's "accurate and neutral" - and free. You said it was "just a website" - wrong. You said they are "not serious" - wrong. And so on. But actually, it should be more immediate - about how Black Kettle directed his people there to surrender (see National Memorial website and the account of the people who negotiated this before Custer attacked), and how Sheridan devised his plan which I'll now call "controversional" because of NPOV (and because I wrote "crime" in the talk page a lot already). The extended background should go to the Comanche Campaign main article.
As for the into section, one can quote Battlefield again and write along the lines of: "The controversial strike was hailed at the time by the military and many civilians as a significant victory aimed at reducing Indian raids on frontier settlements. Washita remains controversial because many Indians and whites labeled Custer's attack a massacre. Black Kettle is still honored as a prominent leader who never ceased striving for peace even though it cost him his life." 
Actually, this official account: is a great to write the whole article around.
And yes, your "depravations" are now called thus: "land-hungry settlers began penetrating the plains in increasing numbers, encroaching upon tribal hunting grounds. Indians could no longer retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many chose to defend their freedom and lands rather than submit to reservation life." --HanzoHattori 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cw, you don't even know how to write at all 

message: Having now read through a lot of the sources that are available online that have been provided by both Custerwest and HanzoHattori, it appears that overall the sources are good, but that both of you are using them selectively in order to push particular points of view.
HanzoHattori: there is absolutely no doubt that Cheyennes in Black Kettle's camp had taken whites hostage, or that Clara Blinn and her child were among them and died during the battle, probably killed by their captors. There is also absolutely no doubt based on accounts of the time as well as the accounts of creditable later historians historians (e.g., Hoig, 1980; Greene, 2004; Michno, 2003 and 2005) that some Cheyenne had taken part in murder and rape ("depredations") among white settlers in the region, & that these "depredations" (which word was actually used by Indian Agent Col. Wynkoop in his interview of Little Rock, but as HanzoHattori and Murderbike rightly point out is an innappropriately POV word for an encyclopedia article) were a factor in the decision by the U.S. Army to attack Black Kettle's camp.  Even your own sources provide substantiation for some of this. (See below.)  It is not proven, however, that Black Kettle approved of these depredations or that he had the power (if he ever had it) to put a stop to them, to control the young men of his camp, or to prevent young men from other camps from joining his own.  (See below.)
Essentially, Custerwest is using sources selectively in an attempt to keep the article focused only on the Cheyenne depredations as "cause" of the battle, when the Cheyenne raiding on white settlers was only part of the picture. You are right, HanzoHattori, in pointing out sources showing that the battle and its results were part of a "total war policy" aimed at removing Indians from their land so white settlement could take it over. I have little doubt that many of Custerwest's sources also discuss that, but Custerwest cherry-picks which facts from those sources to present, because Custerwest is pushing a particular point of view, a particular version of history. (See below.)
Note: HanzoHattori interjected a comment here: I've moved it to HanzoHattori reply to Yksin so it won't interrupt the flow of what I wrote or confuse other readers about who wrote what by being plopped in the middle of what I wrote.  --Yksin 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thank you. So much. Murderbike 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd like to having restored the article I heavily (too heavily probably) based on the AMH, let you guys do whatever you want with this then, and then start editing this one maybe. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, thanks for finding that.  That was a suggestion I forgot to add: the go back to the article as it was before Custerwest began his/her fullscale rewrite a couple of days ago, because there are additional reliable sources probably to be found there. I'll see if I can't at least add proper bibliographic references to this source before I head out on vacation; it will be useful for other editors I hope as well as me. --Yksin 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite amused that in the version I linked Custerwest's own blog is in the external links, called "A factual study of the battle (testimonies, analysis)". I mean, without this maybe :) --HanzoHattori 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already wrote once, this what was written by U.S. Army Brevet Major General William Babcock Hazen who was stationed near Washita River, and who was the one engaged into the Blinn case (not Custer):
Mrs. Blinn and child referred to in General Custer's article as having been found murdered in the Kiowa camp, were captured by the Arapahos with whom they lived until killed on the morning of the battle by an Arapaho in the Arapaho camp. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The whole story of this unfortunate woman and her child has been told to me a dozen times by as many different Indians, both before and after the battle, each corroborating the story of the others, and I was on the point of rescuing her and in correspondence with her, when the battle took place.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p295.html (Oklahoma State University) - He writes "The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case." not once, but twice. Isn't this enough? This high ranking officer is completely clear - it was the falsification by Custer, and it was Custer who effectively killed her (by killing the other Indians). 
<POV>Actually just an example how Custer was killer AND liar.</POV> --HanzoHattori 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: National Park Service. (1999-11). "The Story of the Battle of the Washita", Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, National Park Service. (emphases added)
The cultural collision between pioneers and Indians reached its peak on the Great Plains during the decades before and after the Civil War. U.S. Government policy sought to separate tribes and settlers from each other by establishing an Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some Plains tribes accepted life on reservations. Others, including the Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did not. They continued to hunt and live on traditional lands outside the Indian Territory. At first, this choice produced little conflict. But following the Civil War, land-hungry settlers began penetrating the plains in increasing numbers, encroaching upon tribal hunting grounds. Indians could no longer retreat beyond the reach of whites, and many chose to defend their freedom and lands rather than submit to reservation life....
On the Southern Plains, the work of the Commission culminated in the Medicine Lodge Treaty of October 1867. Under treaty terms the Arapahos, Cheyennes, Comanches, Kiowas, and Plains Apaches were assigned to reservations in the Indian Territory. There they were supposed to receive permanent homes, farms, agricultural implements, and annuities of food, blankets, and clothing. The treaty was doomed to failure. Many tribal officials refused to sign. Some who did sign had no authority to compel their people to comply with such an agreement. War parties, mostly young men violently opposed to reservation life, continued to raid white settlements in Kansas.
Major General Philip H. Sheridan, in command of the Department of the Missouri, adopted a policy that "punishment must follow crime." In retaliation for the Kansas raids, he planned to mount a winter campaign when Indian horses would be weak and unfit for all but the most limited service. The Indians' only protection in winter was the isolation afforded by brutal weather....
Black Kettle and Arapaho Chief Big Mouth went to Fort Cobb in November 1868 to petition General William B. Hazen for peace and protection....
Black Kettle, who had just returned from Fort Cobb a few days before, had resisted the entreaties of some of his people, including his wife, to move their camp downriver closer to larger encampments of Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Apaches wintered there. He refused to believe that Sheridan would order an attack without first offering an opportunity for peace.
Comment. This page presents a total view that substantiates both what Custerwest is pushing (young Indian men violently raided white settlements in Kansas; Sheridan adopted a policy of retaliation), but also substantiates HanzoHattori's POV (white policy was to force Indians onto reservations; some Indians didn't want to go; land hungry white settlers pushed onto Indian land & Indians tried unsuccessfully to defend themselves, Black Kettle sought peace & thought he & his camp were safe).  But both of you, favoring to show only one side of the precursors to the battle, are cherrypicking your evidence.
***
National Park Service. (2006-08-10). "Frequently Asked Questions", Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, National Park Service. (emphases added)
[Question:] 5. Why did they kill the Indian ponies? [Answer:] It was part of the total war policy and ponies were the most significant form of wealth the Cheyenne, and most of the Plains Indians, had.  Killing the ponies took away substantial wealth. It also kept the warriors from raiding into Kansas, but also kept them from hunting buffalo. The death of these horses forced many Cheyenne into the reservation.
Comment. "It kept them from raiding into Kansas" -- a shorthand version of "the Indians were raiding white settlements and committing 'depredations'". That's the part of the "total war policy" that involved protection of white settlers.  This substantiates Custerwest's claims about what led to the Battle of Washita River.
But this source also substantiates HanzoHattori's claims: Killing the ponies kept the Cheyenne from hunting buffalo & forced them onto reservations, for lack of any other means of livelihood: killing the ponies (as well as the attack on the camp itself) was part of an overall policy to force the Indians to give up their former freedom so that whites could take over their lands, except for those that were set aside as reservations.
***
 Garlington, E. A. (1896). "The Seventh Regiment of Cavalry." In Theophilus F. Rodenboguh and William L. Haskin, eds. The Army of the United States: Historical Sketches of Staff and Line with Portraits of Generals-in-Chief. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., pp. 251-257.  Online version dated 2002-10-30 through the U.S. Army Center of Military History, retrieved on 2007-06-29. (emphases added)
The Major General Commanding [Sheridan] announces to this Command the defeat, by the Seventh Regiment of Cavalry, of a large force of Cheyenne Indians, under the celebrated Chief. Black Kettle, reinforced by the Arapahoes under Little Raven, and the Kiowas under Satanta, on the morning of the 27th instant, on the Washita River, near the Antelope Hills, Indian Territory, resulting in a loss to the savages of one hundred and three warriors killed, including Black Kettle, the capture of fifty-three squaws and children, eight hundred and seventy-five ponies, eleven hundred and twenty-three buffalo robes and skins, five hundred and thirty-five pounds of powder, one thousand and fifty pounds of lead, four thousand arrows, seven hundred pounds of tobacco, besides rifles, pistols, saddles, bows, lariats and immense quantities of dried meat and other winter provisions, the complete destruction of their village, and almost total annihilation of this Indian band.
The loss of the Seventh Cavalry was two officers killed, Major Joel H. Elliott and Captain Louis McL. Hamilton, and nineteen enlisted men; three officers wounded, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel T. W. Custer, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Albert Barnitz (badly) and Second Lieutenant T. J. March (slightly) and eleven enlisted men....
However, in the same source, Secretary of War John M. Schofield later wrote in a latter to Lt. Gen. Sherman:
General Sheridan's order, issued upon the receipt of Custer's despatch written immediately after the battle, understates the loss; two officers and twenty-five men were killed, and three officers and twelve men wounded. Two white boys were rescued from the savages. During the engagement a bloodthirsty squaw was seen to murder a bright lad of about ten years by disemboweling him with a knife. In Satanta's abandoned village the bodies of a young white woman and a child were found cruelly mutilated.
A subsequent visit to the battle-field, and investigation among the prisoners and other Indians who were in the fight, disclosed a much greater Indian loss than was first reported. They acknowledged that one hundred and forty warriors were killed, and the number wounded must have swelled the aggregate loss to nearly four hundred.
Comment. I.e., the numbers were adjusted of how many died & were wounded on both sides. This account also provides substantiation for Custerwest's claims about white captives in the camp & the murders of some of them during the battle.
HanzoHattori criticizes this account above calling it "An old, outdated, whole-lot-confused account by Secretary of War at this time (John Schofield)," but provides no evidence to prove its innacuracy, other than that other, later sources don't mention it. But of course the fact that particular sources don't mention this or that fact does not prove that something is nonfactual; it merely proves that that particular source didn't mention it.  Brief accounts such as the one at the National Park Service are geared toward providing a summary to the public; that is not a fully documented history, & as is common with such sources, a great deal of information is compressed in general statements which hide the details.  To know the real facts, you have to dig deeper -- as Custerwest is right to point out.
Note: HanzoHattori interjected a second comment here: I've moved it to HanzoHattori reply to Yksin 2 so it won't interrupt the flow of what I wrote or confuse other readers about who wrote what by being plopped in the middle of what I wrote. --Yksin 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking at HanzoHattori's sources

message: For those who seek to improve this article & restore its balance from what is, at the moment of this writing, a very unbalanced, POV view dominated by Custerwest's POV-pushing, I would recommend:
* Yes, indeed, HanzoHattori, make use of the sources that you've been providing. They're good sources too. Just don't resort to cherry-picking & POV-pushing yourself.
* Make use of the sources that Custerwest has offered -- just make sure that you look at them thoroughly, beyond the cherry-picking Custerwest has been doing.  I strongly doubt that Hoig, Greene, Michno are as imbalanced as Custerwest's selective sourcing from them would indicate.  Certainly Custerwest's website is not an appropriate source -- but some of the sources Custerwest selectively excerpts might be worth looking into more deeply, because some of them might be more balanced than the website would indicate too.
* Read WP:NPOV and learn what POV-pushing is. And don't to it.
I will do my part to restore balance to this article as I can, but as I'm coming on a one-week vacation my ability to help out will be limited for the next few days.  That's it for now. --Yksin 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thank you. So much. Murderbike 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd like to having restored the article I heavily (too heavily probably) based on the AMH, let you guys do whatever you want with this then, and then start editing this one maybe. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, thanks for finding that.  That was a suggestion I forgot to add: the go back to the article as it was before Custerwest began his/her fullscale rewrite a couple of days ago, because there are additional reliable sources probably to be found there. I'll see if I can't at least add proper bibliographic references to this source before I head out on vacation; it will be useful for other editors I hope as well as me. --Yksin 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite amused that in the version I linked Custerwest's own blog is in the external links, called "A factual study of the battle (testimonies, analysis)". I mean, without this maybe :) --HanzoHattori 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring balance to this article 

message: Interjected comment by HanzoHattori moved here.
Excuse me? "there is absolutely no doubt that Cheyennes in Black Kettle's camp had taken whites hostage, or that Clara Blinn and her child were among them and died during the battle, probably killed by their captors"
:::As I already wrote once, this what was written by U.S. Army Brevet Major General William Babcock Hazen who was stationed near Washita River, and who was the one engaged into the Blinn case (not Custer):
Mrs. Blinn and child referred to in General Custer's article as having been found murdered in the Kiowa camp, were captured by the Arapahos with whom they lived until killed on the morning of the battle by an Arapaho in the Arapaho camp. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The whole story of this unfortunate woman and her child has been told to me a dozen times by as many different Indians, both before and after the battle, each corroborating the story of the others, and I was on the point of rescuing her and in correspondence with her, when the battle took place.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p295.html (Oklahoma State University) - He writes "The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case. The Kiowas never having been in any way responsible in this case." not once, but twice. Isn't this enough? This high ranking officer is completely clear - it was the falsification by Custer, and it was Custer who effectively killed her (by killing the other Indians). 
<POV>Actually just an example how Custer was killer AND liar.</POV> --HanzoHattori 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I've misstated facts, or am wrong about where Clara Blinn & her child died or who kidnapped & killed them, then by all means find reliable sources & add that well-sourced information to the article. But any full account of what happened to them should also include an account of what sources of the time, including Custer, included whomsoever else, believed about them at the time. --Yksin 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HanzoHattori reply to Yksin

message: Second interjected comment by HanzoHattori moved here.
Actually, the one thing is - the American Military History says 21 soldiers were killed, not 27, and "perphaps 50" Indians, not 140 (and not 103). And don't mention any white civilians.
Second is, Schofield's account on the white civilians don't mention any white women at all. Or a little children, for that matter. It says three boys, one "seen" killed "by bloodthirsty squaw". So no, it does not "provides substantiation for Custerwest's claims about white captives". Absolutely. (He says "2 to 3 white captives freed and maybe a white woman" and "4 to 6 white captives killed by the Cheyennes", while Schofield says 2 freed and 1 "seen killed")
Enough to call it both "outdated" and "confused"? I think it is (in addition to "racist", but I understand the times were different). --HanzoHattori 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough to call it "numbers were adjusted as people later learned more."  There's a very simple way to handle it: to include the numbers as given in the original older sources, with citation; then to write, "however, later sources give different figures, as follows" and to provide sources for those figures as well.  As I pointed out yesterday, we are not here to say "this source is better than that one": that's original research, & violates WP:NOR. --Yksin 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HanzoHattori reply to Yksin 2

message: This kind of statement "I strongly doubt that Hoig, Greene, Michno are as imbalanced as Custerwest's selective sourcing from them would indicate." is incredible. READ THE ARTICLES, some are online ! Has anyone here read something on the battle ? I mean, beside website checked out three minutes before coming to Wiki and making amazingly arrogant comment on researchs you don't know a clue about? What's obvious is that none of you have read Michno, Hoig or Greene. It's just talks without any proof except HHT ongoing researchs on the WEb, picking every website up and quoting it as "the definitive source". Has any of you read primary sources? Has any of you, especially Yrin and HHT (Murder... is doing a very good job), read something on the battle? It's amazing that historical researchs are attacked with websites, self-opinions etc. Is that an encyclopedia or a political meeting? Custerwest 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, seriously, I suggest calming your tone down. It is your OPINION, that those books are better sources than OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT accounts. If they conflict with each other, than both sides have to be given space, we cannot say that one is more right than another. That is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and is not allowed on wikipedia. Do you think that it is possible that some historians could have interpretations of the events that conflict with your favorite historians? And implying that a source is unreliable because it is a website, is ludicrous, and POV. See WP:SOURCE. Murderbike 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what that I haven't read them yet. It's not like this is the only article I work on, & as I've said a couple of times already that I intend to read them as I have time. I will certainly need to, given that I've already learned via the two examples I've already shown above that I would far rather trust Michno, Hoig, and Greene's own accounts of what they say, than your account of what any of them say.  Note also that my username is "Yksin" not "Yrin" & that I have never claimed any website as "the definitive source." I don't believe that any such thing as a single definitive source exists. --Yksin 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: "HHT: We also don't learn if Little Rock succeeded in his effort to bring the two men he & Wynkoop agreed were most responsible for the crimes detailed here to justice. I can't find it followed up on in Custer's book, but may have just missed it. Perhaps other sources have that info. In any case, it would be appropriate to note the result, if any, of Little Rock's effort; & to note that we don't know what happened, if no source provides that information." 
Yes, we know that no one was delivered up and that's the reason Colonel Hazen didn't received Black Kettle well. It's written in books like Hoig, Greene etc. Have you read them? Have you read one of them? Any book ? Any page? Just one line ? One word? Custerwest 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Rock 

message: HHT: He was "on the point of rescuing her ... when the battle took place" (and thus they were indirectly killed by Custer
Here we go. An other outstanding lie, with no source. Clara Blinn was scalped, as well as her son. They were discovered by the 19th Kansas some yards near Black Kettle's body location. They were both murdered by the Cheyennes.Custerwest 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clara Blinn

message: This follows on from the "murder" thread.
WP:NOR is also the policy at the root of the debate here about which sources are good & which ones aren't. It's not up to any given editors own personal thinking or opinion that determines whether any given source is suitable for attribution on Wikipedia: that is governed by WP:SOURCE, and by extension to the content guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And also back to WP:NOR at WP:PSTS (primary, secondary, and tertiary sources).
Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. That kinda socks it to any claims about any one source being the source too.  The "official history of the U.S." as if that even really exists is, by WP standards, not any more or less authoritative as a source than anything else -- unless you can provide a reliable source for your claim that most historians agree with you that that's the most authoritative source.  Likewise, Greene, Hoig, & Michno can't be claimed to be the best authorities unless you can back that up with a reliable source that indicates most historians agree with you on that. If you can't prove it, then you're going to have to accept the fact that's already apparent to some of us that reliable sources will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, & where they disagree, both sides need to be presented, with appropriate sourcing.  To fail to do that violates both WP:NOR as original research, & WP:NPOV as POV-pushing. --Yksin 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on [[WP:NOR]] with regard to authority of sources 

message: Hey, Murderbike, they were not killed, they were executed. I put the word executed. Do you know how they were killed? Clara was shot in the neck and scalped. Her two-years-old son Willie was shmashed against a tree (his little face was totally broken. He was taken by the feet and smashed against the tree). It's an execution, and the worst kind of an execution. Richard Blinn, the father, received a lock of his son because the body was too broken to be shown to him... Watch: http://custer.over-blog.com/categorie-10018053.html Custerwest 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been reported for violation of WP:3RR. I won't discuss it here anymore. Murderbike 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clara Blinn & her son 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&oldid=141580703
Old version is here if you want to use it.--HanzoHattori 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK