Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&diff=141767010&oldid=141766174 --HanzoHattori 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cw is back as anon ip 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, there's a lot of content that does not belong in this article. --MichaelLinnear 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common ground? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: 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)
replies: text: agreed. Murderbike 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Rock's interview (Custerwest)

message: Gas and substitute by our (proper) Background section (based on the mil and gov websites version only). 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)
thread_title: October to November, 1868 (Custerwest)

message: Swap with our Battle section, based on the modern official account. 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)
thread_title: The battle (Custerwest)

message: Swap with our Controversies. --HanzoHattori 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The accounts of the battle (mostly pre-Custerwest)

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

message: Swap with ours - 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Swap with the simple ours instead of his usual chaos. 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)
thread_title: Intro

message: Custerwest is raging all the time about my notice the Comanche Campaign is the main article in our Backround section, 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. It's obvious this is the main article, then. --HanzoHattori 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comanche Campaign thing

message: 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)
thread_title: My proposition how to deal with the whole situation

message: 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:.  I believe he should not edit this article at all.Biophys 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, and it's telling that he disappeared as soon as the page was protected. --MichaelLinnear 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry to see you go. --MichaelLinnear 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What's the problem?

message: 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)
thread_title: Following policies

message: 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)
thread_title:  More complete list of sources that can be read or searched online 

message: ::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)
thread_title: Reply to Custerwest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Solomon massacre"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Footnote 17

message: 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.
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)
thread_title: and what I meant by "edited to fit"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Request

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Casualties