Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 3

message: :::No, because the article is still under full protection, in no small part because you, as well as Custerwest, refused informal mediation which might have made it possible for us to deal with our disagreements and work our way towards consensus. You in particular seem more interested in using this talk page as a forum for poking at Custerwest in anyway you can, & holding stolidy to your opinion (which no other editor here seems to agree with) that the only source this article needs is AMH. But at least meantime we are getting a record on this talk page of the citation problems so they can be fixed, someday. --Yksin 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did/do what? I wrote "whatever" repatedly (you missed this?) - I don't really care anymore, I'm only commenting (I even un-watched this article for a while). I was called a "clown" and a "monkey" (everyone loves monkeys!), so now I'm mostly here for "poking at Custerwest", yes. I don't do any research or whatever anymore. I presented what I thought would be the three options for the best-possible solution to the problem, but all were just ignored (well, not completely - Cw hopped in in to erase everything), so okay then. --HanzoHattori 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Whatever" means "yes, I'll participate in mediation"?!!! Sorry, I certainly didn't read it that way. Nor did Phaedriel, who wrote immediately below your "whatever" comment the following: "To all involved editors who have agreed to the offer, thank you for your interest and congratulations on your will to find an agreement. I take note, however, that not every involved party has expressed their consent, for one reason or another. I'm especially disappointed at HanzoHattori's decision to completely disregard the proposal, ignoring it even tho he has taken the time to comment under this very header. I'll give this initiative one more day before suggesting the involved editors other venues for dispute resolution, which will unfortunately be far more stressing and time-consuming." If your "whatever" meant "yes," you sure had plenty of time to correct her. And so therefore we're on to the next step, which is RfCs. Custerwest's response sounded far more like a "yes" in that he thanks Phaedriel for her help... but in the same mouthful went on to make a personal attack, so that didn't read to me like a "yes I will participate in mediation" either; & doesn't seem to have by Phaedriel either. And of course your "three options for the best-possible solution" were of course couched under yet another personal attack on Custerwest. --Yksin 10:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More like "you can do without me". "Not very interested", not "no". My propositions were better, but meh. Also wow, I didn't know I have the powers to stop the internet with "whatever". --HanzoHattori 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But "you can do without me" or "Not very interested" also aren't the same as "yes" -- which is what was required from all of us for informal mediation to proceed. Furthermore, your "you can do without me" or "Not very interested" was accompanied by personal attack/incivility, just as Custerwest's "Phaedriel, thanks for your help" was accompanied by personal attack/incivility, leaving no one with any sense that either of you was agreeing to participate in mediation. Unfortunately, both of you seem to believe that one personal attack deserves another, which simply serves to prolong conflict, & has made this an unpleasant place for anyone to come to, which is very probably why we don't have more editors here clamoring to improve this very unsatisfactory article. And so, RfC time. --Yksin 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, above you stated I was called a "clown" and a "monkey" (everyone loves monkeys!), so now I'm mostly here for "poking at Custerwest", yes. I don't do any research or whatever anymore.  Yes, Custerwest should have apologized long ago for calling you those names -- "long ago" especially since it was over a month ago that he called you those names -- but on the other hand, are you going to get past it? You say you're here mostly for poking at Custerwest, and you don't do any research anymore... that's too bad, because you seem to do fine research elsewhere (you're a pretty active editor), & you did great research finding Gen. Hazen's corrections to Custer's book (the piece that states Clara Blinn was with the Arapahoes and was in correspondence with him at the time the Washita attack happened); and it's too bad too because article talk pages are supposed to be for the purpose of improving articles, not for poking at other editors.  You've helped to prolong an uncivil atmosphere here that's made it more difficult for those of us who still want to improve this article to actually do anything about it. I regret you couldn't have chosen to contribute positively instead, or if you couldn't do that, to just stay out of it altogether.  I'm afraid I don't feel very thankful to you for that. No more thankful than I am to Custerwest, for his uncivil contributions. --17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: informal mediation offer

message: I should perhaps be really happy of the constant, fanatical interest of HanzoHattory towards me. But it remembers me the way fanatics are working when they fail to give an argument, or even understand the topic. I see a lot of "I think" in HHT's discussions, but nothing more than that. The whole discussion is becoming a joke.
HHT just forgot to put that Historian Gregory Michno was working on Black Kettle's crimes before Sand Creek, and that his researchs were used for the article on Free Republic - but Sand Creek hasn't anything to do with Washita, except to show that Black Kettle never worked for peace, neither in 1864 nor in 1868, and it's easy to proove it (the chief himself began each of his "peace councils" by telling the Whites why his warriors were still killing civilians). I've also worked with Washita battlefield historian Mary Davis when I was researching Washita, and wrote an historical book on the matter in 2006.
That's why I find HHT's fanatical crusade against me boring but perhaps a little amusing. And SO pathetic. Sorry, buddy, but for me, you're nothing, I am not interested in your life or deeds at all  . The Washita is the thread, not me, but thanks for your interest. You remember me Captain Benteen with Custer. Pathetic, fanatical, but eventually terrible loser.
Most of the so-called "evidences" given in support of the Cheyennes were given by the Indian Ring, a team of individuals who constantly said that the Indians were peaceful. Leavenworth and Wynkoop were among the first to claim that Black Kettle was peaceful (Wynkoop had just SENT to the Senate his interview with Little Rock, where Black Kettle's crimes were related) and Leavenworth even said that Satanta was peaceful. The whole thing was a joke. You so-called witnesses are political activists, pro-Indian lobbies and stealers of official goods (Wynkoop was taking some goods of the reservation for him, see Gregory Michno, "The Real Villains of Sand Creek"). They said the same lies in 1864, but with the Sand Creek Massacre, nobody cared if it was true. It wasn't. Black Kettle has never been peaceful: he had abducted two children who were still in his village at the time of Chivington's attack. It doesn't mean that the massacre was justified. It just shows that the Indian Ring, Wynkoop, Leavenworth and others, has already defended Black Kettle against all odds (and evidences) in 1864.
In 1868, one of the officers who had testified against Chivington in 1864 (while being under his command) was with Custer at Washita. He never said a word against Custer. The causes and the battle itself were totally normal. 
By the way, Custer was never called "Squaw killer" or even "Woman Killer". Its another of HHT's false statement without any evidence (as usual). If any of you had read a book on the Washita, he/she would know that Custer was called "Ramping Panther" for attacking an enemy by surprise.
Custerwest 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CW, I would like to take this moment to point you to WP:CIVIL, and request that you read it, understand it, and agree with it before you come back and start throwing insults around again. For your own sake, it could get you banned. I would personally rather you contribute productively than slinging insults, making false claims, and generally being UNCIVIL. Murderbike 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Murderbike, I appreciate your vigilant control (sarcasm) - HanzoHattori seems to have receive no such warning, altough he created topics only to attack me, and never to talk about the Washita... Custerwest 08:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HanzoHattori has received numerous such warnings from me, if not from Murderbike. He continues to ignore them, just as you have tended to ignore such warnings. In fact, your most recent personal attack on HanzoHattori, the one that Murderbike was cautioning you about, attacked HanzoHattori for comments that weren't even made by him, but rather by Felix c. Regardless, I told you awhile ago on your talk page that even when someone else makes personal attacks on you, that is no excuse for you yourself making personal attacks or being uncivil. I wish both you & HanzoHattori (& Felix c besides) would read WP:CIVIL -- even better, that any of you would make the slightest attempt to abide by it. But miracles seem to be in scarce supply at the moment. --Yksin 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First to note that User:Felix c is a different individual than User:HanzoHattori. Second to ask, yet again, for users -- notably HanzoHattori, Felix c, and Custerwest -- to please stop using this user page to make personal attacks on one another. --Yksin 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, HanzoHattori, please cease from making personal attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL and abide by it. --Yksin 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks? I just take his serious posts seriously. I even did a google search on the name of Historian Gregory Michno, and found that actually one article which is possibly not Custerwest's mentions him, so he might be not imaginary (this is positive). Also, why "HHT"? HHT this and HHT that, always HHT. I wouldn't even know it's all about me if not the context, and also more obvious "HanzoHattory". Geez, man, it' like this "Yskin" stuff. --HanzoHattori 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your sarcasm certainly makes it into a personal attack, at the very least a bait.  Gregory Michno: he's the guy whose article at Historynet.com Custerwest did a copyvio on, as discussed at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#October to November, 1868. He's more of a historical writer than a professional historian -- he's got a few POV issues as well, & yeah there's major inaccuracy in the passage Custerwest had copyvio/quoted from his Historynet.com article (see second page], where he claims that when Black Kettle and the other chiefs went to Fort Cobb about a week before the attack that they tried to negotiate with Hazen for Clara Blinn's release. Nope, actually Hazen's first certain knowledge that Blinn was in any of the Indian camps along the Washita was when "Dutch Bill" Griffenstein passed on to the him the letter that Clara Blinn had written, which he didn't get until after Black Kettle had left; nor did any of Hazen's accounts of the conversation with Black Kettle (which was witnessed by Capt. Alvord) make mention of the Blinns or any other purpoted white captives in Black Kettle's camp. And of course you were the first to find Hazen's corrections to Custer where he said that Clara and Willie Blinn were with the Arapahoes and not the Cheyennes or Kiowas. So yeah, Michno is cheesing out on the facts too.  But, he is out there. Go to Amazon.com and stick in his name -- you'll find a number of books by him, including Encyclopedia of Indian Wars. --Yksin 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHT'S endless crusade... but where are the historical research? 

message: I would like to ask editors to stop removing content from the talk page without consensus. Custerwest, removed content here and here; HanzoHattori, in replacing it here, simultaneously removed content that Custerwest had added.  Are we going to have an edit war on the talk page too?
I have replaced Custerwest's content, & have written responses to it & to some of the comments HanzoHattori made. I'm also decided to start issuing templated warnings about such edits & for personal attacks & incivility to your user pages.  Just as an FYI, these warnings can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and can be placed by any user (not just admins) who find evidence of the problems described in the templates. When abuses continue, the natural progression is to deliver stronger warnings, & if abuse continues after the final (level 4) warning, then reports to pages such as WP:AIV are in order. --Yksin 19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content from talk page 

message: I discovered at WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking that Wikipedia without exception prohibits external links to websites which contain unlicensed copyrighted materials. Custerwest's blog custerwest.org includes unlicensed copyrighted materials, which I had discovered some time ago with a particular article (see Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Custerwest's use of sources: two examples). On Custerwest's blog site, the article Black Kettle is actually a lengthy (unlicensed) excerpt of the same article by Gregory Michno at Historynet.org (see second page of article) involved in the copyvio a couple weeks ago in the article itself, that Phaedriel deleted.
Per the policy about restrictions on linking, Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. I've already removed links to the Custerwest blogsite from two articles   , but since Battle of Washita River is still fully protected, I can't remove it from there. I've asked an admin to remove the link.
This is in addition to the issue of conflict of interest (Custerwest promoting his blogsite) and the guideline WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided which recommends avoiding links to "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" as well as "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" (i.e., the blog site for many of us represents the same issues of NPOV and disputed accuracy as the article itself does at this point). --Yksin 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, am I still stopping someone or something? --HanzoHattori 11:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're asking. What's stopping us from deleting the inappropriate link to the Cuserwest blogsite is the full protection on the article and the fact that the admin I asked hasn't acted on my request.  Doesn't seem you were stopping anything here. --Yksin 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses! My Matrix-like powers are clearly waning. As I said already, the article should be locked on 1 BC (Before Custerwest) - am I not right? --HanzoHattori 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link violates Wikipedia policies 

message: I think everybody who's here very regularly already knows this, but for anyone new who might show up: there are two user-conduct Requests for Comment now in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori -- part of the Dispute resolution process. --Yksin 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User-conduct RfCs 

message: Yksin mentioned this book already on July 7. I have it now. Book can be searched online.
The following incidents during the Washita raid (perhaps considered to be "war crimes") are described in the book:
# Execution of an unarmed captured Mexican prisoner, who tried to protect a baby (pg. 210, 226 & 230)
# Pregnant Cheyenne woman killed, body cut open, unborn child ripped from her womb (pg. 15 & 326)
# 
On the other hand, officers of Custer's command really showed acts of chivalry during the attack. Benteen even hesitated to use his revolver in an act of self-defense, when being attacked by a 14 year old Cheyenne boy, firing a revolver:
"Benteen made an effort to capture the young warrior, who responded to these overtures of humanity by refusing to surrender, and fired several times at the Colonel when but a few yards distant. His escape was miraculous, one ball taking effect upon the Colonel's horse..." (pg. 245)
The following comment (pg. 29) about Historian Joseph B. Thoburn is also interesting, concerning our problem "Battle vs Massacre":
"Thoburn considers the destruction of Black Kettle's village too on-sided to be called a battle." (...)
"Thoburn reasons that had a superior force of Indians attacked a white settlement containing no more people than in Black Kettle's camp, with like results, the incident would doubtless have been heralded as 'a massacre'."
Felix c 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, great book, eh?  My understanding is that the Mexican man had married into the tribe, had possibly been taken captive as a child (though this is not certain). The child might have been his own. Didn't he hand it to a soldier, & then the soldier killed him. --Yksin 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, y'know, we'd love to -- but the article is still protected because of disputes and lack of consensus.  And, as I say in the article RfC I just started, I'm not prepared to attempt any further negotiation of how to fix this article outside the dispute resolution process represented by that RfC and the two user-conduct RfCs on you & Custerwest. If you want to see the article improve, perhaps you might care to participate. --Yksin 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New source: "Washita Memories" (released October 11, 2006)

message: ====Statement by Yksin====
I first came to this article by way of a complaint HanzoHattori made at a different article's talk page (see Talk:Native Americans in the United States#"Custerwest" disrupting Washita article). Since then I've learned a lot about the topic, but also an awful lot more than I'd ever hoped to about how editors who refuse to abide by Wikipedia polices can disrupt the effort to write a good, balanced encyclopedia article.
While I personally like HanzoHattori, and have always agreed with him about the bias inherent in the way Custerwest does his stuff, I've been plenty frustrated all the way through this with HanzhoHattori's casual attitude towards incivility and personal attacks, which has been every bit as disruptive to this article as Custerwest's actions -- not to mention HanzoHattori's insistence at making argument just for the sake of argument. What a lot of wasted time, that could have gone into improving the article instead.
And Custerwest... well, here's a guy who claims to be a published author who has "made researchs on with Chief Historian Mary Davis and others" on the Washita , and strongly advocates reading books and other sources on the topic before making edits on it; and yet he has been discovered to violate copyright -- on his blog, yes, but also in an article edit; to have falsified a quote in an apparent effort to promote his POV; to be extraordinarily sloppy in sourcing to the correct page of his sources, and to suddenly decide his favorite sources are "controversial" as soon as another editor gets a copy of the source and reads it for him or herself. (See his RfC for details of all of this.)  He has become notorious around here for his selective, cherrypicking use of sources to promote a particular POV. I have made numerous attempts in the past few weeks to explain WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, e.g.,
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#POV-pushing based on selective use of sources (Yksin)
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#More on WP:NOR with regard to authority of sources
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#What Greene's book really says 
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Reply to Custerwest
* Talk:Battle of Washita River#Clara Blinn
-- but Custerwest seems altogether uninterested in learning by or abiding by these or other Wikipedia standards and policies, including those about Conflict of interest and consensus -- and of course those having to do with civility and no personal attacks.
Personally, I would prefer for the article to be unprotected so that we can improve it.  I've got scads of sources now on the topic of the article, and I know other editors like Murderbike and Felix c have been also buying or borrowing from the library to learn more about the battle so that they can contribute positively. But right now the article is still protected, and disputes have not been resolved.
I'm not prepared at the moment to negotiate further about what is going to go into the article or how it's going to be written except through the dispute resolution  process represented by this article RfC and the two user-conduct RfCs. I don't see how collaborative work can really proceed in until editors who plan to continue working on the article commit to adhere to Wikipedia core policies about civility, no personal attacks, neutral point of view, no original research, and reliable published sources, accurately cited.
Meanwhile, I continue to research and work on potential changes to this article elsewhere. --Yksin 01:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by editors previously involved in dispute 

message: I first came to this article by way of a complaint HanzoHattori made at a different article's talk page (see Talk:Native Americans in the United States#"Custerwest" disrupting Washita article). Since then I've learned a lot about the topic, but also an awful lot more than I'd ever hoped to about how editors who refuse to abide by Wikipedia polices can disrupt the effort to write a good, balanced encyclopedia article.
While I personally like HanzoHattori, and have always agreed with him about the bias inherent in the way Custerwest does his stuff, I've been plenty frustrated all the way through this with HanzhoHattori's casual attitude towards incivility and personal attacks, which has been every bit as disruptive to this article as Custerwest's actions -- not to mention HanzoHattori's insistence at making argument just for the sake of argument. What a lot of wasted time, that could have gone into improving the article instead.
And Custerwest... well, here's a guy who claims to be a published author who has "made researchs on with Chief Historian Mary Davis and others" on the Washita , and strongly advocates reading books and other sources on the topic before making edits on it; and yet he has been discovered to violate copyright -- on his blog, yes, but also in an article edit; to have falsified a quote in an apparent effort to promote his POV; to be extraordinarily sloppy in sourcing to the correct page of his sources, and to suddenly decide his favorite sources are "controversial" as soon as another editor gets a copy of the source and reads it for him or herself. (See his RfC for details of all of this.)  He has become notorious around here for his selective, cherrypicking use of sources to promote a particular POV. I have made numerous attempts in the past few weeks to explain WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, e.g.,
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#POV-pushing based on selective use of sources (Yksin)
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#More on WP:NOR with regard to authority of sources
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#What Greene's book really says 
* Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Reply to Custerwest
* Talk:Battle of Washita River#Clara Blinn
-- but Custerwest seems altogether uninterested in learning by or abiding by these or other Wikipedia standards and policies, including those about Conflict of interest and consensus -- and of course those having to do with civility and no personal attacks.
Personally, I would prefer for the article to be unprotected so that we can improve it.  I've got scads of sources now on the topic of the article, and I know other editors like Murderbike and Felix c have been also buying or borrowing from the library to learn more about the battle so that they can contribute positively. But right now the article is still protected, and disputes have not been resolved.
I'm not prepared at the moment to negotiate further about what is going to go into the article or how it's going to be written except through the dispute resolution  process represented by this article RfC and the two user-conduct RfCs. I don't see how collaborative work can really proceed in until editors who plan to continue working on the article commit to adhere to Wikipedia core policies about civility, no personal attacks, neutral point of view, no original research, and reliable published sources, accurately cited.
Meanwhile, I continue to research and work on potential changes to this article elsewhere. --Yksin 01:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Yksin

message: ====Outside statment by Akradecki====
I have had minimal involvement in this issue, so my comments will also be narrowly focused. As an admin, I was originally asked to deal with a 3RR incident by Custerwest, which resulted in his being blocked. Beyond a mere 3RR incident, it also involved his presistent attempts to introduced POV language into the article. It is my personal view that a Wikipedia article needs to be neutral in respect to the telling of historical events. The introduction of incendiary, POV-language to describe events and thus assign blame for a historical event is inappropriate to what we do. This, however, seems to be Custerwest's intent, and so my first observation in regards to this case is that Custerwest a) clearly knows our policies about POV issues (they've been explained multiple times to him) and b) he intentionally holds the advocacy of his view of history above the needs and policies of this encyclopedia. Custerwest is active in running a Custer-related forum on the internet, and appears to this editor to be using this encyclopedia to promote his forum by repeatedly attempting to use that as a reference for this article. Beyond being an inappropriate reference, I am concerned about COI issues as well. Beyond these issues, Custerwest has repeated engaged in incivil speech, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with him as not having a clue about history or how historians work (FWIW, as a historian myself and a published author of a history-related book, I can attest that Custerwest's ranting about the proper behavior of historians is most improper for a historian, and his insulting of other editors on the encyclopedia only serves to make him look far from professional).
Secondly, in the midst of dealing with the Custerwest issue, repeated incivility by HanzoHattori, in the form of baiting and mocking Custerwest, became readily apparent. I found that such an attitude had quite a detirmental effect in trying to get the warring parties (pun intended) to sit down and smoke the proverbial peace pipe on the article's talk page. I believe I made the observation that, due to such incivil commentary, it seemed that the parties were trying to refight the battle rather than write impartially about it, and that this was getting as bad as the edit warring over on some of the Irish articles.
Outcome that I'd like to see from this RfC: 
#I would like to see the community clearly communicate to Custerwest that we value intellectual integrity and a neutral point of view.
#I would like to see Custerwest to learn how to respect other editors, especially those whom he disagrees with. 
#I would like to see Custerwest cease all useage of references that would give an impression of conflict-of-interest, specifically references to his web forum.
#I would like to see Custerwest learn to respect the presence of references that he might disagree with. Intellectual honesty demands that everyone realize that there's more than one side to any historical event, and that a neutral telling of that event will incompass the reporting of all citeable/sourceable points of view, as opposed to advocacy of the one point of view that Custerwest prefers. If he insists that his point of view is the only and correct one, that he is not welcome in a neutral environment like Wikipedia.
#I would like to see that HanzoHattori come to understand that his brand of cutting sarcasm may be effective in some areas of his life, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Futher, I'd very much like him to understand that his demeaning of other editors is highly disrespectful and is simply not welcome here. If he insists on continuing to talk to editors with whom he has a disagreement in such a manner, he thus is not welcome here. 
In conclusion I would also like to commend Yksin and Murderbike for not rising to incivlity in response to the provocation put in their paths. They have clearly demonstrated a desire for a truly neutral encyclopedia article, and I would strongly suggest that Custerwest, and to a lesser degree HanzoHattori, take a lesson from these two on how to calmly and professionally discuss matters, come to a reasonable compromise and move on with building the greatest encyclopedia in the history of humanity. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by outside observers 

message: I have had minimal involvement in this issue, so my comments will also be narrowly focused. As an admin, I was originally asked to deal with a 3RR incident by Custerwest, which resulted in his being blocked. Beyond a mere 3RR incident, it also involved his presistent attempts to introduced POV language into the article. It is my personal view that a Wikipedia article needs to be neutral in respect to the telling of historical events. The introduction of incendiary, POV-language to describe events and thus assign blame for a historical event is inappropriate to what we do. This, however, seems to be Custerwest's intent, and so my first observation in regards to this case is that Custerwest a) clearly knows our policies about POV issues (they've been explained multiple times to him) and b) he intentionally holds the advocacy of his view of history above the needs and policies of this encyclopedia. Custerwest is active in running a Custer-related forum on the internet, and appears to this editor to be using this encyclopedia to promote his forum by repeatedly attempting to use that as a reference for this article. Beyond being an inappropriate reference, I am concerned about COI issues as well. Beyond these issues, Custerwest has repeated engaged in incivil speech, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with him as not having a clue about history or how historians work (FWIW, as a historian myself and a published author of a history-related book, I can attest that Custerwest's ranting about the proper behavior of historians is most improper for a historian, and his insulting of other editors on the encyclopedia only serves to make him look far from professional).
Secondly, in the midst of dealing with the Custerwest issue, repeated incivility by HanzoHattori, in the form of baiting and mocking Custerwest, became readily apparent. I found that such an attitude had quite a detirmental effect in trying to get the warring parties (pun intended) to sit down and smoke the proverbial peace pipe on the article's talk page. I believe I made the observation that, due to such incivil commentary, it seemed that the parties were trying to refight the battle rather than write impartially about it, and that this was getting as bad as the edit warring over on some of the Irish articles.
Outcome that I'd like to see from this RfC: 
#I would like to see the community clearly communicate to Custerwest that we value intellectual integrity and a neutral point of view.
#I would like to see Custerwest to learn how to respect other editors, especially those whom he disagrees with. 
#I would like to see Custerwest cease all useage of references that would give an impression of conflict-of-interest, specifically references to his web forum.
#I would like to see Custerwest learn to respect the presence of references that he might disagree with. Intellectual honesty demands that everyone realize that there's more than one side to any historical event, and that a neutral telling of that event will incompass the reporting of all citeable/sourceable points of view, as opposed to advocacy of the one point of view that Custerwest prefers. If he insists that his point of view is the only and correct one, that he is not welcome in a neutral environment like Wikipedia.
#I would like to see that HanzoHattori come to understand that his brand of cutting sarcasm may be effective in some areas of his life, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Futher, I'd very much like him to understand that his demeaning of other editors is highly disrespectful and is simply not welcome here. If he insists on continuing to talk to editors with whom he has a disagreement in such a manner, he thus is not welcome here. 
In conclusion I would also like to commend Yksin and Murderbike for not rising to incivlity in response to the provocation put in their paths. They have clearly demonstrated a desire for a truly neutral encyclopedia article, and I would strongly suggest that Custerwest, and to a lesser degree HanzoHattori, take a lesson from these two on how to calmly and professionally discuss matters, come to a reasonable compromise and move on with building the greatest encyclopedia in the history of humanity. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside statment by Akradecki

message: Akradecki's comments are articulate and well reasoned.  They cover so much of what I would say that I'm just going to piggy-back on them here.  I have followed the RfC on HanzoHattori for some time.  He came first to my attention through edit summaries such as these:  ,  and when I saw he was up for comment, I have followed it.  It seems to me that when editors make such comments and are routinely flippant, uncivil and immature () when others are trying hard to have a serious discussion, those editors do great damage to any weight that their opinions should be given in reaching consensus.  I've also reviewed a good deal of Custerwest's edits and I find his comments boorish, his inability to work collaboratively unfortunate and think that, on the whole, his behavior has much the same effect on my impression of his place in establishing consensus.  As far as this article goes in particular, it certainly needs rewrite from its current rendition.  I think that it is unfortunate that things have gotten to this point, but laud Yskin Yksin for his her efforts to bring about an amicable resolution.  I would like for HanzoHattori and Custerwest to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative, that no one owns anything and that if they do not find a way to work amicably not just with one another, but with Wikipedia at large, they may find themselves blocked.  Into The Fray T/C 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside statement by Into the Fray

message: As Into the Fray has said, I think Akradecki hit the nail right on the head with his comments, and I doubt I could much improve on them. I've written my basic response with regard to CusterWest on his user RFC already (here), and to that I would just add exactly what Akradecki has written. As regards HanzoHattori, I urge you to abide by Wikipedia policies on civility, despite your personal dislike of CusterWest and your opposition to his viewpoints. It's inappropriate to respond to personal attacks with further personal attacks--it doesn't matter if he started it (Murderbike and Yksin seem to me to be stellar examples of how to respond to personal attacks with substantive contributions aimed at bettering the encyclopedia). I truly hope CusterWest and HanzoHattori can come to an agreement to abide by Wikipedia's policies. If not, I'm not sure why they'd be editing Wikipedia anyway, since it clearly speaks of a lack of respect for the goals of the project and for the other editors. --Miskwito 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside statement by Miskwito

message: Moved here from #Summary of positions on content, as this text wasn't originally part of the RfC written by Yksin.
Actually, no. I used them (and only these online) as a quick solution, you guys did too much work since to be ignored now. 
Also, while continuing doing the original research (lol), don't discredit the AIM-linked website just because of this connection - it's better written and sourced than I think anything Custerwest ever did, and for example this is where I've first read about the Mexican man etc. Take a second look on this, I think it's worth it. --HanzoHattori 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I appreciate what you say about us doing too much work for the other sources to be ignored. The problem with the AIM-linked source (the one at the "dickshovel" site) to me is that I'm none too sure it could be considered a "reliable source" under WP:VERIFY, as it's more-or-less self-published, without any of the editorial oversight that Wikipedia says is needed to be considered a "reliable published source." Though that source can be used to generate other sources -- the newspaper accounts, for example. --Yksin 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so this is stopping you from reading it? Oh boy, I wonder how checking Custerwest.org or littlegreenfootballs.com didn't kill me then. Maybe too small doses. --HanzoHattori 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it didn't stop me from reading it, as I wouldn't know about the newspaper accounts James Horsley included in his account at dickshovel.com otherwise. And be careful, you're verging on incivility again. --Yksin 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as an "official history" of the Washita event.  It may be an official army history, but it's not "official history" that citizens of the U.S. or any other nation are required to salute and not question.  That said, it is certainly a reliable source under WP:VERIFY and I advocate its use in this article, along with the other reliable sources. --Yksin 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HanzoHattori comments re: sources

message: *There are ten sections under dispute. If anyone sees a better way to organize this, please let me know. Hopefully I haven't oversimplified it. – Dreadstar † 23:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: *Agree. I'd also like to incorporate suggestions I make below in #Additional comments on The infobox by Yksin. --Yksin 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The Infobox|The infobox]]

message: *Agree with the proposal to remove the second paragraph entirely. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The intro|The intro]]

message: *Conditional agree - I agree totally that the term be removed, as it seems clear that this was made up by CW and is not supported by any references (the closest I could find was the Solomon Islands Chainsaw or Malaita Massacre). Both Y. and MB proposed new text for this section describing events that led up to the battle. Some draft text would be nice to look at in respect to this straw poll (not that I want to pile more work on these two, but....). AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#"Solomon massacre"|"Solomon massacre"]]

message: *Agree with placing the text of the interview in Wikisource, and using summaries of it (but not CW's distorted version) as a part of the section on events leading to the battle. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Little Rock's interview|Little Rock's interview]]

message: *Agree with the following: MB's first proposed changes, except for the use of Cheyenne. As Y. points out, various parties have been accused of the capture, and this fact too should be included (Y's sentence, tidied up and sourced would be fine). Clara's letter should be pulled, but it would be fine to quote from it to support a specific point. The copyvio is no long an issue as Phaedriel has already taken care of it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#October to November, 1868|October to November 1868]]

message: *Agree with removal of unsupported details of how the two were killed. However, I find both the NY Herald and NY Times quotes intriguing...I would have not problem with their being woven into the text, especially since the Times indicates that there was at least a bit of concern that they'd been the victims of "friendly fire". AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The battle|The battle]]

message: *Support removing CW's errant reference numbers, and if Yksin would be kind enough, his paragraph that discusses the actual references and Elliots actions could be the basis for acceptable text. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River#The accounts of the battle|The accounts of the battle]]

message: *Delete (with caveat, see below) - I don't see the need for this section. There's three instances of the battle's depiction in "fiction" (really in "pop culture" in general), none of them are referenced, and none of them provide any additional information about the battle itself. I just can't see why the section helps the article at all, so I'd suggest simply getting rid of it. Should there be another section to the straw poll on this, then? --Miskwito 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depiction in Fiction

message: Modify the References section to include the references in the linked subpage. 
* Agreed. -Yksin 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/References|References section]]

message: *Proposal to add the linked draft into the article. Adds facts such as the Seventh Cavalry's preparation and movements towards the Washita; the battle itself; post-battle events including the visit to the battlefield 10 days after the battle by Custer & Sheridan with the 7th Cavalry & the 19th Kansas Volunteers, where they found the bodies of Elliott and his men, as well as of Clara & Willie Blinn; controversies). May need to be re-titled; currently titled "Indians" not "Cheyennes" because the section also discusses the disposition of other Indian encampments along the Washita as well as the meeting with Gen. Hazen involved not just Black Elk but another Cheyenne & two Arapaho chiefs.
* Agree. --Yksin 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Battle of Washita River/Indians in November 1868|Indians in November 1868]]

message: *Extended comments go here.
===Additional comments on The infobox by Yksin===
First, disputes about the infobox mostly have to do with Indian casualty figures. I maintained in my original response to Murderbike's discussion of the infobox that the infobox should show the range of military estimates, as well as the range of Indian estimates of the Indian casualties, that further details could be given in the text of the article, and that there was a table in Hardorff's book Washita Memories which would be a good basis for such detail. Using Hardorff's table as a basis, I've been working in one of my sandboxes on this, including finding/adding the sources Hardorff's table refers to, some of which turn out to be available online too.  See work-in-progress here. This table, & some of the text surrounding it (about how estimates were come up with) should be, I believe, added to the text under a general "controversies" section.
Second, related to but not quite part of the infobox is a template about the Comanche Campaign that was repeatedly deleted by Custerwest, and is not in the article in its present state. I believe the campaign box needs to be added back. A full discussion of this campaign box and its relevance to this article can be found in Custerwest's RfC  Under item 1 here. --Yksin 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll comments

message: First, disputes about the infobox mostly have to do with Indian casualty figures. I maintained in my original response to Murderbike's discussion of the infobox that the infobox should show the range of military estimates, as well as the range of Indian estimates of the Indian casualties, that further details could be given in the text of the article, and that there was a table in Hardorff's book Washita Memories which would be a good basis for such detail. Using Hardorff's table as a basis, I've been working in one of my sandboxes on this, including finding/adding the sources Hardorff's table refers to, some of which turn out to be available online too.  See work-in-progress here. This table, & some of the text surrounding it (about how estimates were come up with) should be, I believe, added to the text under a general "controversies" section.
Second, related to but not quite part of the infobox is a template about the Comanche Campaign that was repeatedly deleted by Custerwest, and is not in the article in its present state. I believe the campaign box needs to be added back. A full discussion of this campaign box and its relevance to this article can be found in Custerwest's RfC  Under item 1 here. --Yksin 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comments on The infobox by Yksin

message: Let me know before adding new sections.  I don't want this thing stretching out too far and too long, and I don't want to confuse any of the participants - if we keep adding sections, and they might miss one.   – Dreadstar † 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Sorry about that. Nor do I have any further proposals to add right now. --Yksin 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections

message: :Is Custerwest aware of the straw poll?  I'm going to notify him on his talk page.  Are there any other dispute/article related contributors that haven't voted or commented on this page yet?  – Dreadstar † 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified Custerwest of the poll .  I note that CW has not edited since August 1st. .  – Dreadstar † 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he hasn't responded by tormorrow, I'll go to semi-protect status. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good; and we have a pretty clear consensus on each of the issues.  – Dreadstar † 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably User:Felix c should also be noted of the straw poll. He was notified of the RfCs (as was Custerwest). --Yksin 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  Thanks, Yksin! – Dreadstar † 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this sounds absolutely great. I thank all of you for helping us get movement on this. --Yksin 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poll done, sorry for being late Felix c 15:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo, Felix c!  Thanks for participating!  – Dreadstar † 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll awareness

message: I mentioned in the straw poll that I'd been working on a table, based on one in Hardorff's book, on the various estimates given in different sources for the number of Indian casualties at the Washita. Well, now it's finished.  Furthermore, I've also finished the text surrounding it.  I've added it to the same sandbox (which is now simply called Talk:Battle of Washita River/Sandbox) as the piece on Indians in November 1868. This piece is called Indian casualties at the Washita. I think it should probably be one of the items under a general "Controversies" section, which should also include discussions of other Washita-related controversies such as the question of white captives, was Washita a "battle" or a "massacre", etc.
Anyway, there appeared to be consensus in the straw poll for the table in "The infobox" part of the straw poll, but not for the text since of course it hadn't really been written then. So it seems to be appropriate to seek it here.  Dreadstar, does this need to be done as a new straw poll?  I'm not real sure....
Work on drafting a new "Background" section continues. --Yksin 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any responses on this? --Yksin 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look through, it, and I think it's excellent. Very well cited, and appears to be quite neutral, giving many different viewpoints fair time. The table is an especially good way of summarizing everything. The only problem I can see is that the table kind of interferes with the text a bit--it's so large and wide. But I'm not sure that there's any way to avoid that, and it's only a minor problem for me. So I support adding this stuff to a new "Controversies" section. Good work! --Miskwito 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Miskwito. I just fiddles with the column widths to narrow the table a bit, & I think it helps. I experimented previously with changing the font size to 90% normal throughout the table, but I think that just makes it a little too hard to read; so I think this is about the best can be done for now.  Barring any major objections by bedtime tonight, I'll add this section to the article then. --Yksin 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked this over and echo Miskwito above...it's excellent work. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian casualties at the Washita (proposed new material) 

message: Okay, I've gone through and done as best I could to implement most of the changes for which there was consensus through the straw poll.  Sometimes it was a little confusing about if a change had been consensed or not... I just tried to use my best judgment, & hope that other editors will review the changes I made & be sure that everything is okay.  Here's the diff for all the changes I've made; please see the edit summaries for each change as well, as I did my best to explain what I was doing as I went along.  I also in several cases added "invisible" notes about sections that are currently undergoing work.
The "Accounts of the battle" still needs work to get the citations in line, & to be sure we're citing reliable sources rather than the article at the "dickshovel" site, which doesn't appear to meet reliability guidelines (self-published source).  I.e., the newspaper accounts referenced there should probably reference the newspapers themselves, or other reliable sources which cite them, instead of the James Horsely piece.  No time to do it at the moment. I did remove much of the Elliott material as it was (which was incorrect in stating that no one knows really how Elliott died) & moved a greatly abbreviated version of it, as well as the "greatcoat" material, to the "Battle" section.  I will work on a longer account on Elliott for placement as a draft in the sandbox. The greatcoat stuff isn't controversial, but it needs citations, which I'll find & place.
Comments, suggestions welcome.  Please do comment on the material now in the sandbox on Indian casualties (in the discussion directly above this one). Thanks.  And wow, it is nice to be actually editing this article again. --Yksin 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far! Sorry I don't have time to contribute more, real life is really getting in the way. Murderbike 22:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits after full protection lifted 

message: On my way to working on a draft of the Background section, I've added significantly to a couple of related articles -- Sand Creek massacre & Dog Soldiers -- as well as creating a new article on the Council of Forty-Four, which was the principal institution of traditional tribal governance before all the conflict with the whites & within the tribe itself screwed it all up.  Greene's book Washita convinced me that one of the fundamental issues behind the events of 1868 that culminated in Sheridan's winter campaign was the polarization between the militarism of the Dog Soldiers on one hand, and the peacenikness of the peace chiefs like Black Kettle on the other. Plus, the Dog Soldiers became so influential that the moral authority of traditional council chiefs was eroded. Time & again sources say Black Kettle (& the few remaining other peace chiefs) couldn't keep their young men under control: they kept on haring off to join the Dog Soldier band in its raiding.  So, that's what that's about.  Having done that work, & a first "background" para on Sand Creek as well, I think I've got a handle on how to follow through with the rest of the Background stuff without going on too long.
Here's the initial background para as currently written:
::The Sand Creek Massacre resulted in a heavy loss of life and material possessions by the Cheyenne and Arapaho bands camped at Sand Creek on November 29, 1864. It also devastated the Cheyenne's traditional government, due to the deaths at Sand Creek of eight of 44 members of the Council of Forty-FourThe council chiefs killed at Sand Creek included White Antelope, One Eye, Yellow Wolf, Big Man, Bear Man, War Bonnet, Spotted Crow, and Bear Robe. Greene 2004, p. 23. as well as headmen of some of the Cheyenne's military societies.Greene 2004, p. 23. Among the chiefs killed were most of those who had advocated peace with white settlers and the U.S. government.Greene 2004, p. 24. The effect was to exacerbate the social and political rift between the traditional council chiefs and their followers on the one hand and the militaristic Dog Soldiers on the other. Beginning in the 1830s, the Dog Soldiers had evolved from the Cheyenne military society of the same name into a separate band of Cheyenne and Lakota warriors that took as its territory the headwaters country of the Republican and Smoky Hill rivers in southern Nebraska, northern Kansas, and the northeast of Colorado Territory. By the 1860s, as conflict between Indians and encroaching whites intensified, the influence wielded by the Dog Soldiers, together with that of the military societies within other Cheyenne bands, had become a significant counter to the influence of the traditional Council of Forty-Four chiefs, who were more likely to favor peace with the whites.Greene 2004, p. 26. To the Dog Soldiers, the Sand Creek Massacre illustrated the folly of the peace chiefs' policy of accommodating the whites through the signing of treaties such as the first Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851 and  the Treaty of Fort Wise in 1861Greene 2004, p. 27. and vindicated the Dog Soldiers' own militant posture towards the whites.
To be followed up by: brief brief brief summary account of Little Arkansas treaty; Hancock's 1867 expedition which culminated in his burning of a combined Sioux/Cheyenne village at Pawnee Fork, leading to increased warmaking by the tribes; Medicine Lodge Treaty signed in October 1867 but not ratified until July 1868 and not announced until August; delays in distribution of annuities because no budget until Congress ratified the treaty; skirmishing between Dog Soldiers/military society members & Kaw Indians completely freaks white settlers out; consequent delay in arms and ammunition for buffalo hunting; Solomon/Saline raids by Dog Soldiers & young men of other bands including Black Kettle's.
Then prob. what should be a new section on Sheridan's decision for a winter campaign, brief mention of Battle of Beecher Island; getting Custer's one-year relief from duty (as a result of a court martial for conduct during the Hancock expedition the prior year) curtailed; preparing the Seventh Cavalry, as well as getting authorization for the Nineteenth Kansas volunteers & hiring Osage scouts.
And then these guys will be on their way to the Washita. --Yksin 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related articles & initial work on rewriting "Background" section 

message: * Support. I support interlinks being done (this is Wikipedia after all), so long as they don't create a lot of redlinks. I notice HanzoHattori removed a lot of interlinks that he had earlier added after discovering they created redlinks.  Previewing changes before saving them might help.  I'm okay with the occasional redlink if it seems an article should be written on that topic (such as on Edward Wynkoop, Black Elk's wife Medicine Woman Later, and Fort Dodge -- which is one I think I was the one to have added). I don't think that adding interlinks needs to be approved first on the talk page even by HanzoHattori, but that edits in which interlinks are created need to include an edit summary something to the effect of "adding interlinks" or "adding wikilinks". --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding interlinks (what I often call wikilinking)

message: * Support. I'm okay with adding Little Rock to the infobox as a "commander" on the Indian side too. While neither he nor Black Kettle were war leaders, hence were not military commanders, they were both chiefs in the Council of Forty-Four. A footnote to that effect might say so. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional comment. Of course this means also that a source supporting the statement that they were not war commanders will also need to be included. Hoig's book on Cheyenne peace chiefs (which I have checked out from the library) should readily supply one; other sources too I think. An important aspect of the role of chiefs of the Council of Forty-Four was in promoting peace, & once someone was named to be a council chief, he had to give up his membership in any military societies he belonged to. The Dog Soldiers once they became a separate band were a different story: they had their own leaders who were seen as chiefs by whites, and even signed treaties; but they also stood outside the traditional system of chiefs represented by the Council of Forty-Four. --Yksin 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to infobox -- Little Rock as commander

message: Now looking over the infobox compared with the Indian casualties table, I can see how much I really screwed up in putting figures in the infobox!  I suggest the casualties text in the infobox be amended to read as follows, in each case using the word "range" to make it more clear that the estimates come from a range of sources rather than just one source in each case:
:::Range of military and civilian scout estimates:
:::* 16 to 140+ men killed
:::*  "some" to 75 women and children killed
:::Range of Cheyenne estimates:
:::* 11 to 18 men killed
:::* 17 to "many" women and children killed
:::Total killed:
:::*Estimates range from 13 to 150
:::See discussion below for further information.
The "discussion below" links to the detailed discussion with the Indian casualties table, from which the range of figures is derives. --Yksin 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the statement "See discussion below for further information and sources" be sufficient? --Yksin 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah! That looks great!  Dreadstar † 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendment

message: * Support. I support adding the detail about Double Wolf waking the camp by shooting his gun, with a reliable source provided. (I do have such a source which verifies this detail, and can add the citation.) --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition about Double Wolf

message: * Support. I support changing various to contemporary in the table's title -- "Indian casualties in the Battle of the Washita according to contemporary sources". That's a bit more specific; all of the estimates provided in that table come from people who were direct eyewitnesses, or who had talked with people who were. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Indian casualties table

message: * Oppose. I do not support changing the layout of the table within the article. I think it looks better right-aligned, with text flowing around it to its left. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to layout of Indian casualties table within article

message: * Support. I support moving the text currently under "October to November, 1868" to a section called "Sheridan's offensive" just before the battle section. However, the level of the headers need to be changed (to second level headers for both "Sheridan's offensive" and "Indians in November 1968." --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change "October to November, 1965" section to "Sheridan's offensive" section, & move

message: * Oppose. I do not support making a separate paragraph for each film mentioned, or HanzoHattori's assertion that cites for them are not required. At the very least, each film mentioned needs to have a cite that provides basic production information.  Until that's done, the  tags need to remain. Any other changes made to this section need to be in accord with the consensus so far established in the straw poll above, at #Depiction in Fiction, and through additional discussion on this talk page, since consensus in the strawpoll wasn't completely established. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to movie info in "Modern reactions" section

message: Is this sentence: "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." being left in, despite being ripped word for word from another source? Just curious if this was somehow falling in with the whole PD/don't quote thing. Murderbike 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had discovered that this was a wholesale quote of public domain text, & I had a long & fruitless & sometimes WP:POINTless discussion (somewhere in the midst of the Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2) with HanzoHattori about plagiarism & needing to put quoted sources even if they're from P.D. sources into quotation marks.  HanzoHattori insisted one can plagiarize freely from P.D. sources. There appear to be a number of other people on Wikipedia who believe the same.  I got tired of it & gave up the fight.  I did, however, replace the cite establishing where the text came from, which had been removed by sloppy editing in the June 10-July 1 edit wars.  But I encourage you to freely modify the text as much as you like, while still keeping the facts supported by the source in place, because public domain or not, plagiarism is plagiarism. --Yksin 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen two or three different editions of Hoig that seem nonetheless to have been set from the same plates, because the page numbers didn't change at all.  So this may just te anotehr example of Custerwest's notoriously sloppy citing.  I say, just go ahead & correct the page numbers. --Yksin 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but unfortunately a lot of people on Wikipedia don't appear to believe that "proper attribution" includes placing quotation marks around the quoted source, so that one doesn't know where the quotation begins and ends. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed guideline: Plagiarism for details. I started that discussion after discovering how scattershot Wikipedia policies about plagiarism are, To my dismay, I learned during this discussion that numerous editors think that plagiarism of P.D. sources is just fine -- i.e., they say, provide a source, but it's not necessary to use quotation marks. I disagree, but I was in the midst of all the stuff here at the same time, & had no energy to pursue the plagiarism thing, so I gave up. --Yksin 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October to November, 1868 

message: Per discussion in the straw poll above about the movies & TV show, I pulled together the research I'd already done for an expanded section.  It's now in the Sandbox at Modern reactions. Please take a look & register your support or opposition to placing this in the article. Thanks. --Yksin 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that movie. Did it include the Washita battle? There's no summary of it at IMDb so I can't tell. --Yksin 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned that Washita does indeed show up in this movie, but need to learn more before I could add anything about it.  Will do research when I can; that might not be for a couple weeks. Thanks for the pointer, Felix c. --Yksin 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Son of the Morning Star depicts Washita nearly the same, as Little Big Man does: Mounted troopers are tilting teepees with ropes, then shooting running woman in the back. The killing of the ponies is not shown, the bugler's charge signal is wrong, and the scene with Custer's horsewhipping comment to Benteen is not accurate. Benteen also does not look historically correct, he has long blonde hair, compare to photo of 1865. Benteen's question to Custer "We desert Major Elliott?" and Custer's reaction may be accurate. Felix c 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to find some stuff through Newsbank (subscription U.S. nationwide newspaper archive) about this miniseries that mentions how it depicted the Washita, so I will try to write something up. --Yksin 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested, I can send you as a gift the DVD (NTSC Region Code 0, will play in all US DVD players), as I have two DVDs of this movie. Felix c 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that'd be great. I'll send you an email.  Meanwhile I've added the text so far written; section can always be expanded as more info is gathered. --Yksin 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, & me neither. I'd like to say how these depictions of the attack are less about what actually happened there than as illustrations for some kind of propaganda point the producers/directors were trying to make, but that would be original research. This section has more to it too, I think -- there's Little Big Man the novel of course, which has had a lot written about it, & from glancing through the chapter its obvious that Thomas Berger did a lot of research before writing it. There's also other modern reactions that don't have anything to do with fictional depictions. --Yksin 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern reactions section - proposed new material 

message: "SUCH SIGNAL SUCCESS? CONFRONTATION ALONG THE WASHITA" compiled and Edited By Kevin E. Galvin
(...) "The second essay is the debate that took place in 1948 in Chicago between the late Elmo Scott Watson and late Don Russell. These two newspapermen who had turned Western history researchers argued over whether the Washita should be described as a battle or a massacre?"
http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/British%20Custeriana%20Series%20Vol%203.htm
Felix c 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: unlurk
Addition about Double Wolf
    * Support. I support adding the detail about Double Wolf waking the camp by shooting his gun, with a reliable source provided. (I do have such a source which verifies this detail, and can add the citation.) --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was it suggested that the mention of Double Wolf should be in the lead? Yksin specifically said "I don't think though that the detail about Double Wolf belongs in the article's lead para, but it should definitely be early on in the Battle section". And if you'd like to make suggestions about the article, that's great, but to keep utterly ignoring Wikipedia policies of not making personal attacks, staying calm, and remaining civil is unnecessary and unhelpful. --Miskwito 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HanzoHattori is correct that he had taken it out of the lead paragraph; I merely forgot to take it out again.  I've just done so.  Consensus from the group was that the table stay laid out as it is.  If you would like reconsideration on that, then please suggest it in a civil manner.  Ditto what Miskwito just said about HanzoHattori's continued habitual incivility. --Yksin 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first thing from the row