Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The case of Wikipedia Idiots vs France (possib le solution)

The other easier way out of the impasse (in addition to the one just before, and the other slightly different variation further up):

The real problem here is Custerwest not agreeing with the original article (as well as practically all further edits, not only by me). So, how about:

  1. article goes back to the 1BC (Before Custerwest)
  2. Custerwest proposes his changes one-by-one on the talk page and we also discuss them also one-by-one (and then we vote to approve or reject, of course his vote included)
  3. proposed changes by the others would be discussed too!

Either this, or one of my previous propositions, or what Yksin does now. We'd have a discussion or vote on this, too.

(And in case if I'm not to be there - I'm for whatever solution which does NOT include having things like "The Solomon massacres" header and content, or "Result U.S. victory, 2 to 3 white captives freed", "official National Park Service count of casualties whose name is known: 13 warchiefs, 27 warriors, three women and six children killed", etc., in the current article for the indefinitive and presumably long-to-forever time). --HanzoHattori 09:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Heated discussion followed! Okay, do it your way (maybe you'll actually decide on something before 2010 - and who knows, maybe this even will get implemented). --HanzoHattori 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I laughed at the Custerwest's return to the censorship attempts (mostly [1], but also something other by another user). I guess it means "he said no" (and I thought it would be fair to him?). --HanzoHattori 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that when you replaced the text Custerwest had removed, that you also removed comments he had made. You also a couple of weeks ago reversed an edit that I had made, thereby changing comments of mine. So please be careful of throwing around words like "censorship" when you yourself have engaged in the same behavior.
Regarding "he said no" -- I assume you're referring to the informal mediation Phaedriel had offered? No, he didn't agree to it, and neither did you. For any kind of mediation to occur all concerned parties must agree to it. The only people who agreed to it were Murderbike and me. So obviously, it cannot occur.
Re: your suggestions under this header. Frankly, I have a difficult time taking your suggestions seriously, given the title you gave to your suggestions: "Wikipedia Idiots vs. France." Perhaps you think this title is humorous. To me, it looks like just another way for you to poke at Custerwest (who isn't, BTW, from France anyway), just a slightly more sophisticated way of making a personal attack than outright calling him nasty names. Nor do I consider it particularly conducive to civil dicussion to label other editors to be "Wikipedia Idiots" no matter how humorous you felt it was to use that term. If you can make your suggestions in a civil, respectful way, no matter how much disagreement you have with Custerwest or other editors here, than perhaps you might get a fair hearing for your suggestions.
In the meantime, it appears that your primary reasons for continuing your involvement with this article is to disrupt other editors' attempts at trying to resolve disagreements and work our way to some kind of consensus of how to work on this article. --Yksin 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Naah, I meant Custer on this. You know, I wrote about maybe making voting or something, so this was like casting a vote. Custerwest's blog called Custerwest is adressed .fr and in English and in French, so my assumption is it's from France without further playing an Internet Detective. He called me "idiot" so it's "idiots" (I don't really think one French...speaker represents France too, you know). As of reverting vandalism, I don't really care what else he does in the post where he removed what the other people wrote (he used to do this even when people were reporting him to the boards, so he would go and erase this). --HanzoHattori 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The accounts of the battle

"Another area of comparison between modern and historic accounts is the story of Major Elliot. Elliot, who died in the battle, commanded one of the four columns that attacked the village.[37]" The citation given for this statement, does not confirm at all. The page given doesn't mention Elliot at all. Presuming I'm not looking at a different edition that is. Murderbike 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's elswhere in Hoig. Custerwest has made numerous errors in the page numbers he gives even on those occasions when the fact he is sourcing is accurate. I have also checked p. 146 in Hoig (the page cited) and agree that there's nothing on the page to confirm the statements there (p. 146 is about the return of the 7th to 7th to Camp Supply with the Cheyenne hostages & says absolutely nothing about Elliott). Hoig p. 124 gives the info that Custer's plan was to divide the 7th Cavalry into four units to attack from different directions; Elliott was in command of the unit composed of companies G, H, and M which was to attack the village from the northeast. Eliott's death in the battle is confirmed on p. 155.
The claim this section of the article goes on to make that "Neither the modern nor historic account of the battle can precisely describe the circumstances of his [Elliott's]] death" is inaccurate. As early as December 3, 1868, Philip McCusker, U.S. interpreter for Comanches and Kiowas, had a detailed & highly accurate account of how Elliott & his men died (Hoig 1980, p. 155), which he got from Black Eagle, a Kiowa chief (Hardoff 2006, p. 350). Hoig writes, "Basically, the contemporary accounts of the fight [between Elliott & the Indians] given by Philip McCusker, Custer, and Keim -- all of whom relied upon Indian accounts -- agree pretty well" (p. 155). Later, in 1906, George Bent wrote up an account he got from She Wolf (aka Packer), who along with Little Rock and a visiting Kiowa named Trails the Enemy (Hardoff 2006, p. 356) had fought a rearguard action to protect fleeing women & children who were being chased by Elliott; this account also was in close accord with the earlier accounts (Hoig 1980, pp. 158-159). --Yksin 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was somewhere. Just wanted to make sure that AT LEAST the cite got fixed. Murderbike 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it? (guess not) --HanzoHattori 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: informal mediation offer

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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)

HHT'S endless crusade... but where are the historical research?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Hey Cw, who's that Historian Gregory Michno? I actually never heard about H. G. Michno, and so did Wikipedia. Also, I didn't quite understand, "You remember me Captain Benteen with Custer. Pathetic, fanatical, but eventually terrible loser." - why I should "remember you", Mr. Benteen? I don't think we ever met before few weeks ago. But no problem, "buddy", I'll remember now. --HanzoHattori 09:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, HanzoHattori, please cease from making personal attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL and abide by it. --Yksin 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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[2] 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)
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)

Clara Blinn

The graves of Clara Blinn and Willie Blinn at Fort Arbuckle are as follow:

Blinn, Clara Harrington, Nov 27, 1868, hostage killed at Battle of the Washita

Blinn, Willie, s/o Clara, Nov 27, 1868, hostage killed at Battle of the Washita

Unlike what some have said about the Blinns, evidently to make the Cheyennes look innocent, Clara and Willie were found near the location of Black Kettle's bodies by men from the 19th Kansas. The soldiers and officers who found the bodies made clear that it was on the Washita battlefield.

The autopsy, performed by Dr. Lippincott and watched by several officers and the reporter Klein, made clear that Willie Blinn was starving, and that his body, "looked like a skeleton". The Indians had made him starving. Custerwest 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many differing accounts as to what happened to Clara and Willie Blinn. Any mention of the Blinn's should reflect that. Murderbike 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Greene's book & Hoig's book both go into a lot of detail about the different theories about the Blinns. There are some elements about which the various accounts agree -- such as on what day Clara & Willie Blinn were taken captive, that they were taken captive by Indians, & on what day they died (on Nov 27, 1868, the date of the battle). But which Indians they were taken captive by -- Cheyenne, Kiowa, or Arapaho -- & which they were killed by -- Cheyenne, Kiowa, or Arapaho -- or even if they were killed by Indians at all (re: Indian Agent Jesse Leavenworth's unlikely, non-eyewitness account claiming they were killed by Custer's troops during the attack) -- are all continuing matters of dispute. Custerwest's claims represent only one view of what happened to the Blinns. Per Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV, all significant views on the matter which have been published in reliable sources must be represented in the article. --Yksin 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The accusations of Custer's men killing the Blinns cannot be backed with any evidence. It's only an accusation by a man known for his falsehoods. The Indian Ring was known to be cheaters, and they were. Wynkoop said that Black Kettle was peaceful even if the chief himself had told him that he was guilty.
Only strong arguments can be put on this article, not the opinion of every member of the Indian Ring. An opinion doesn't create a fact. Can you proove that the Blinns were killed by the troops? I can proove that the Blinns were starving because of the Indians, that the young baby Willie had his face blown out, that their bodies were found on the way the Indians used to escape the battle. Reporter Keim also noted their scalping. Custerwest 08:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained before, the standard for including a view about any particular issue in an article per WP:NPOV, which is one of Wikipedia's three central content policies, is that the view is significant and has been published in reliable sources. There is no Wikipedia policy or standard saying that "only strong arguments" are permitted. What makes a "strong argument" anyway is a matter purely of opinion. My personal opinion is, yes, that Jesse Leavenworth's claim that Clara & Willie Blinn were killed by Custer's troops during the attack is nonsense: Jesse Leavenworth wasn't present at the battle, and he gave no evidence for his claim from anyone who was present at the battle. Nonetheless, his claim is a significant view which has been published in reliable sources (most of which poke holes in his claim) & hence needs to be represented in order to meet WP:NPOV requirements.
Now, you have continually complained about people working on this article who haven't even read a book on the battle -- & actually, while I've always found the incivility & contempt you display in your complaints to be unpleasant & counterproductive, I've always thought you've had a point about knowing something about a subject before delving into writing articles about that subject. That's always made a great deal of sense to me, & that's why I've acquired & have been reading books on the Washita, including several sources that you recommended.
But you are here as an editor on Wikipedia, so I've got a question for you: have you even read any of the policies that we, particularly me & Murderbike, have been suggesting to you? Have you ever read WP:CIVIL and do you understand what it means? More to the point here, have you ever read the three central policies that govern content on Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE? It doesn't seem that you have; or if you have, it doesn't seem that you comprehend them; or if you do, that you feel bound by them. But you know -- they're not optional. They're policy. So perhaps it might be time to not only read books related to the articles you are working on, but also read the policies that govern how content is supposed to be written on Wikipedia.
And yes, the policies on personal conduct on Wikipedia too, such as WP:CIVIL, because you've got some serious issues there too. --Yksin 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from talk page

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)

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 [3] [4], 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)

Hey, am I still stopping someone or something? --HanzoHattori 11:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

User-conduct RfCs

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)

New source: "Washita Memories" (released October 11, 2006)

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:

  1. Execution of an unarmed captured Mexican prisoner, who tried to protect a baby (pg. 210, 226 & 230)
  2. 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)

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)


That's correct!  ;-)

"He was a Mexican who had been captured by the Cheyennes when a child." (pg. 209)

"Somewhere nearby Myers's men captured a Mexican who was married to a Cheyenne woman. The man had tried to make his escape with his infant daughter..." (pg. 18)

"A sergeant took the little girl, then told the Mexican to run, then shot him in the back as he ran." (pg. 360) Felix c 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright guys. Are you ready yet to write the article? Write it then, already. It doesn't have to be definitive by all means, okay? It can be always expanded. --HanzoHattori 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Request for comment. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the RfC discussion was development of consensus on how to improve the article & a change in the article's protection level from full to semiprotection. This RfC was originally included via {{RFChist}} on the {{RFChist list}} (History and geography) on 01:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC), with the following summary: longstanding content dispute with related edit warring and contentiousness regarding facts about the Battle of the Washita and how they are to be presented; article has been fully protected since 1 July 2007, and editors have been unable to find consensus on talk page, or even to agree to abide by core polices such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. This artoc;e RfC was closed on 5 September 2007 per consensus. --Yksin 00:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This article RfC is being initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process.

Summary of dispute

The article Battle of Washita River has been at the center of major content disputes since at least 26 June 2007, with related edit-warring and contentiousness. Content dispute mostly sets Custerwest (talk · contribs) in opposition to other editors, in particular HanzoHattori (talk · contribs), Yksin (talk · contribs), and Murderbike (talk · contribs), with regard to facts about the Battle of the Washita and how they are to be presented. Other editors who have been involved. but to a lesser extent, include MichaelLinnear (talk · contribs), Biophys (talk · contribs), and, more recently, Felix c (talk · contribs), all of whom also appear to be in opposition to the viewpoint/methods presented by Custerwest.

The article has been full protected since 1 July 2007 in a state preferred by Custerwest and opposed by the majority of other editors. Those editors in opposition to Custerwest's POV/methods have been unsuccessful at arriving at consensus even among themselves about how to address their disagreement with Custerwest, with notable differences particularly between Yksin and Murderbike, on one hand, and HanzoHattori on the other. Talk page discussion has also continued to be characterized by frequent problems with incivility and personal attacks, particularly between Custerwest and HanzoHattori.

ANI, edit warring, and attempts for resolution

Besides edits on the article and talk page, events have included two AN/I reports on 25 July 2007 (WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest) and 30 June 2007 (WP:ANI#The continuing saga of Custerwest), a 3RR block of Custerwest (talk · contribs) on 30 June 2007, and a 3RR block of HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) on 1 July 2007. The article was placed on full protection on 1 July 2007 and, except for a brief period of unprotection on 8 July 2007, has been fully protected since. An offer by Phaedriel (talk · contribs) on 17 July 2007 for informal mediation (see Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Offer for Mediation} was not accepted by all parties, and so could not proceed. Efforts at seeking consensus on the article talk page both before and after the offer for informal mediation have been uniformly unsuccessful. As a next step in the Dispute resolution process, Yksin (talk · contribs) and Murderbike (talk · contribs) decided to initiate three Requests for Comment -- two user-conduct RfCs and this article RfC.

Both user-conduct RfCs were initiated and certified on 4 Aug 2007 by Yksin and Murderbike. It is hoped that other editors, both those involved with this article and outside observers, will weigh in at these RfCs as well as this one.

Summary of positions on content

  • Custerwest appears to be satisfied with the content and facts presented as they currently are written in the article in its protected state, and considers prior versions of the article preferred by other editors to be incorrect and nonfactual. Custerwest has added new sources and citations to the article that were previously not present, including histories and articles on Washita by modern historians and authors.
  • HanzhoHattori considers Custerwest's preferred version of the article to be biased and racist. He appears to distrust Custerwest's sources, and considers modern accounts of the Washita event from U.S. government and military sources to be most authoritative. See also #HanzoHattori comments re: sources for HanzoHattori's modification/correction of this position; moved from here to maintain integrity of initial RfC statement, which was not written by him.
  • Yksin and Murderbike agree with HanzoHattori that Custerwest's preferred version of the article is biased and violative of Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and original research, but in line with policies on reliable published sources also advocate a wider user of sources than preferred by HanzoHattori. They consider the sources preferred by both Custerwest and HanzoHattori to meet reliability criteria, but consider the actual use of sources by Custerwest in particular to be highly selective, inaccurate, and violative of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY.

Summary of positions on how to proceed from here

As the article is under full protection, and seems unlikely to be unprotected until some kind of consensus and agreement to refrain from edit warring is made, most proposals on how to proceed have focused on using the article talk page as a means to discuss proposed article edits before they are made.

While a poll hasn't taken, most editors would probably prefer the article to be unprotected, and at least minor edits being permitted without having to discuss each edit beforehand on the talk page.

Statement of desired outcome by Yksin and Murderbike

Additionally, Yksin and Murderbike seek, as stated in the "Desired outcome" section of Custerwest's RfC and and HanzoHattori's RfC, the following outcome:

  1. for Battle of Washita River to be unprotected;
  2. a civil working environment at Battle of Washita River, its talk pages, and the user pages of involved editors, in which all editors are adhering to both content and personal conduct policies and true good-faith efforts to find and abide by consensus. Users simply have no business being Wikipedia editors otherwise.
  3. Because of longstanding difficulties in getting either Custerwest or HanzoHattori to abide by core policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, we would also like to have a written commitment at Talk:Battle of Washita River by each of them to read and adhere to these policies or; if not, to forgo working on the Battle of Washita River article, with a single-article ban per WP:BAN if necessary to enforce it.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

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 [5], 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.,

-- 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)

Statements by outside observers

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:

  1. I would like to see the community clearly communicate to Custerwest that we value intellectual integrity and a neutral point of view.
  2. I would like to see Custerwest to learn how to respect other editors, especially those whom he disagrees with.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)

Outside statement by Into the Fray

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: [6], [7] 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 ([8]) 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)

Outside statement by Miskwito

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)

Discussion

Please use subheaders for different subjects; please use edit summaries.'

HanzoHattori comments re: sources

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)

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)
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)
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)

Or maybe - "most authoritative", yes (and should be pointed out this is the official history now), but not the only one. --HanzoHattori 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Close RfC

There hasn't been anything new added directly under the RfC header for a couple of weeks, & we seem to be doing okay now with what we came up with out of straw polls etc. Any objection then to closing out this article RfC? (This has no effect on the user-conduct RfCs.) --Yksin 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Straw poll recommedation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Consensus on all items per discussion below. --

I recommend performing a straw poll to see where editors stand on the disputed content. Can someone put together a short summary of the dispute? I'll be happy to help with this process. – Dreadstar † 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At various Wikiprojects, there have been requests that people get involved, so I think that there are many new eyes on the page. The proposal by Yksin and Murderbike to go through each piece of content individually rather than mass reversion sounds very good (as does the reminders and requests that parties promise civility, NPA, NOR, and NPOV, or leave off editing the article). Assuming civility all around, I think we should focus on the content of the article - which bits of content, specifically, need to be addressed? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hoo boy, not quite sure where to begin. Murderbike did go through the article as it currently exists section by section making suggestions on changes, which I responded to in each almost every case (this is how we uncovered the copyright violation and falsified quote that Custerwest had added; HanzoHattori occasionally responded. Should we try that again? Here are links to the sections of the the talk page where these section by section discussions were made. All but the last are in Archive 2 of this talk page:
Shall I go back through these & summarize section by section my own proposal on each of these sections, & straw poll on each of them from there? And, BTW, thanks so much for being more eyes on this. We've really needed the assistance. --Yksin 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what to do at this point. I'm really glad there's some new eyes here. And after suggesting the section by section review, and getting stonewalled by everyone except Yksin, I can't imagine what else to do. Can new eyes weigh in on this option? Can we get consensus for this method without the approval (and snide attitudes) of Custerwest and HanzoHattori? Murderbike 23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, Dreadstar, the straw poll stuff you added below is reaaaaaaaaaaalllllly helpful. My mind is so much mush about trying to figure out a new process at this point, but I can certainly respond to each separate issue in the format you provided below. Thank you very much! --Yksin 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly do my best to weigh in. You two have some background knowledge of the battle by now, however, which I lack. That shouldn't be much of a problem, though, as regards things like POV language. --Miskwito 00:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be OK for me to just paste in my original comments/recommendations from those sections to this one? Murderbike 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So the question for each sub-straw-poll is, do we agree with the changes proposed in the discussion linked (such as The infobox)), or do we disagree and think that the current version is basically right? Is that right? Thanks (and nice idea, Dreadstar) Smmurphy(Talk) 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering that myself. I think it would be really helpful; otherwise it's kinda confusing for people to know they've got to go to follow a link to see what the proposal is. Helpful to have the whole thing in one place. So, in short, I say: go for it, maybe put it directly below each header above where it says <agree><disagree>. --Yksin 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The poll is meant to find out if the changes proposed in the links are acceptable, if they are acceptable to you, then vote "agree" in the poll. If you think the changes proposed in the linked sections are not something you would like to see implemented, then vote 'disagree' in the appropriate section. I didn't examine in detail each one of the proposals, so let me know if any of them needs to be clarified for a up or down vote (gods, I sound like a politician...yuck! ;) A very short, concise summary would be great for each section...I just didn't want to be the one to write them up...someone with more indepth knowledge of the dispute should take care of that... – Dreadstar † 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't decide if I'm supposed to endorse all the section by section changes since they were my suggestions originally. It seems to be redundant, but if it's needed I'll do it. Anyone? Murderbike 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Murderbike, you should definitely vote in the poll. – Dreadstar † 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • 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)
  • Just to get an idea where all the commenting editors stand on the ten identified issues in the article, I thought it might be good to conduct a straw poll non-binding survey.
  • Each disputed section has been split into separate voting sections, which should be used for voting only, with only a brief statement explaining your position.
  • Any discussions or replies to the votes and short comments made in the polling sections, should be made in the Straw poll comments secton below.

The infobox

The intro

"Solomon massacre"

  • 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)
  • Agree to roll account of raids on white settlements along Solomon/Saline rivers into general backgrounder section. Account should depend on multiple sources for NPOV rather than an extended quote from one source. Per Akradecki's comment above, yes, I am willing to work up a draft of revised text, though it might take a couple of days. I can add it to a subsidiary of this talk page and we can finalize a vote then, perhaps? --Yksin 00:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with removing term, if it's not used by anyone but CW (in which case it amounts to OR). Integrating discussion of raids on settlements into a background section sounds like a good idea; thanks for agreeing to work on a draft, Yksin! Also, the long quote is inappropriate and should be shortened or removed altogether. Besides being POV (in that opposing views aren't represented), sections should not be consisting mostly of one long quote --Miskwito 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Murderbike 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Felix c 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Little Rock's interview

October to November 1868

  • 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)
  • Agree with Akradecki's statement --Miskwito 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with modifications. The text has changed greatly as a result of the removal of the copyrighted material. The material about Clara Blinn doesn't really belong here at all anyway, so should be removed, as no one was aware of her presence at any of the Washita camps until over a week after the battle in December, when Custer returned with Sheridan to the battle site and her body was found. Any account of Clara Blinn should be in a post-battle section, or in another section about continuing controversies regarding the battle. That leaves the basic text about the war plan, which is more or less fine as it stands, except that it is mostly plagiarism of a public domain text and should be in quotation marks. Can also be expanded via a process of drafting in a sandbox, then calling for another vote. --Yksin 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. FWIW...text from PD sources can be included directly without quotation marks, as long as it's referenced to the PD source. As an example, a good many NASA-related articles and bios are cut-and-paste from NASA's fact sheet web pages and are so noted in the referneces section...see NASA AD-1 for instance. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah well, I'm okay with that for entire articles based on PD sources (like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles), but I have a real hard time with it when it's mixed in with originally written text. It's plagiarism. Particularly as it leads, as in this case, to quoted text being separated from its source. But I've already argued with HanzoHattori so much about this that I'm tired of it, & will give it up now. --Yksin 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Murderbike 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Felix c 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The battle

The accounts of the battle

Depiction in Fiction

  • 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)
    • Perhaps a straw poll, yes. I'd actually myself recommend finding sources for this. I've done some preliminary research on Little Big Man -- I rewatched the movie within the past year, & I found some references to its depiction of Washita in NewsBank. There is also the book on which the movie is based. But there's another aspect to it as well: these depictions are about modern reactions to the event, so perhaps the section should be renamed to reflect that, & expanded to include other modern-day reflections on the event, which continues to be an especially relevant historical event to Indians in general and Cheyennes particularly; as well, of course, to military history afficionados and Custer buffs. These cultural depictions are relevant to how we continue to attempt to understand past events. --Yksin 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Point taken. If the section could be expanded, and include some mention of how the current references of the battle reflect modern reactions to it (and are thus relevant), then I think I'd be fine with it. It's just in its current state of just a list of three references to the battle, with no elaboration, that I object to it --Miskwito 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename -I took the liberty of moving this section up into the poll. I like the idea of possibly renaming this section and using it not just to document the films but modern "interpretations" of the events. It needs to be carefully done, else it will end up a magnet for every film or TV show that mentions the name "Washita". "I see crufters...they're everywhere!" AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really care that much either way if there's a "in pop culture" style section, but they seem pretty standard, and I see the advantage that they push people to other articles. BUT, cruft is definitely gross, and cites are a darn good idea. Murderbike 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

References section

Modify the References section to include the references in the linked subpage.

Indians in November 1868

  • 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.

Straw poll comments

  • 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)

New sections

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)

Okay. Sorry about that. Nor do I have any further proposals to add right now. --Yksin 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I really like the direction of things...the straw poll is really helpful. So much so that I would be happy to unprotect (or at least semi-protect) it so that the work can begin, if that's fine with everyone. I don't know if I'm out-of-process in saying this, but the caveat that I'd add is that any significant changes not discussed here first would be reverted out-of-hand. If CW wants to come back and work with the group, fine, but I feel that given his history, he needs to be on probation of sort, which means that anything he wants to add should go through the above process. The semi-protection would be so that certain parties can't hide behind IP anonymity. Comments? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

oooooohhhhh this is music to my ears. Yes, I would love for this article to be unprotected -- or rather, semi-protect. I was just going to say that how helpful the straw poll is, but that at the same time it's difficult to stay completely within its bounds or the bounds of protection because... well. Y'know, before I came to this article at the end of July, I knew little about this battle other than what I had read in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee years ago, or had seen in the movie Little Big Man. But now, if for no other reason than sheer stubbornness about not letting people get away with NPOV/NOR, I have made a large investment both in time (the RfCs alone ate up an incredible lot of it) & financially (ordering books not available in my local libraries) in order to bring this article up to some kinda encyclopedic snuff. So, I've got a commitment to this article for the long haul, & semiprotection rather than unprotection will really help out a lot.
Of course, I will not make substantive changes without first checking with people on this talk page.
I would still like to ask that HanzoHattori and Custerwest each agree to abide by personal conduct and content policies before editing. And especially that they both refrain from reverting or otherwise edit warring and give us a chance to fix this article. --Yksin 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the edit warring has stopped, then yeah..unprotect...if not then I recommend that we keep the article protected until the straw poll is over. Once we have consensus (or lack of) on the changes, they can be implemented (or not). At that point, continued edit warring on those issues would clearly be wrong. Are those seven issues the cause of the warring? That was my impression, but if that's incorrect, let me know what the cause actually is...

Stopping the edit war and finding consensus is priority #1 and #2. Unless there's something really objectionable in the current article that needs to be removed post haste.... – Dreadstar † 03:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Being as the straw poll was proposed not long ago, and we are yet to see any dissent, I don't see any evidence that this page can be edited without certain editors disrupting the process. I think we should wait a bit and see if Custerwest has anything to say about the developing consensus, lest we move to fast on an already long lived conflict. Then again, if we're pretty sure the edit war has stalled, I'm all for moving on. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the edit warring was had primarily to do with (not necessarily in order of priority) (1) the Comanche Campaign box; (2) the causes that led to the battle of the Washita ("Solomon massacres" vs. a combination of Indian raids on Kansas white settlements in addition to other causes); (3) how responsible Black Kettle was for the raids (i.e., was he a peace chief, or not?); (4) whether there were white captives (including Clara & Willie Blinn) or not. There is a perception on the part of most editors here besides Custerwest that Custerwest is not only zealously pro-Custer, but also zealously anti-Black Kettle. Further polarization came about because there was so much incivility, starting with Custerwest calling other editors in general "stupid" and "idiots", then directing his comments in particular at HanzoHattori, then it going on from there. The incivility was such that in the end, I think the main parties to the edit warring were prepared to revert anything the other side did. Further, the way in which Custerwest initially came in & wholesale changed the article without ever once seeking consensus immediately got just about everyone else's backs up.
I was fortunately not around (traveling instead) for the July 1 edit war that resulted in HanzoHattori's 3RR block and the article's protection, but I was here the day before for Custerwest's 3RR block. But I saw it all in retrospect. I would say that Murderbike skirted the edges in the 1 July edit war, but never went over the line. The real edit warriors were Custerwest & HanzoHattori, & if they're kept under control, then there are no problems. Everyone else has been able to play nice.
The most important stuff to change "post haste" in my opinion is (1) any claim without a balancing counterclaim about white captives (including the Blinns) in Black Kettle's camp, as in all cases the preponderance of evidence is that there were not (though of course any significant reliably published claims that there were will need to be represented in the "final" article) -- this includes the Clara Blinn letter in its current placement; (2) wrong page citations; (3) the external link to Custerwest's blog, which, as discussed in Custerwest's RfC here, is a violation of WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking because his blog contains numerous copies of unlicensed copyrighted works.
Personally, in the end I would advocate for semiprotection, with both Custerwest and HanzoHattori being given a single-article ban (i.e., disallowed from editing this article at all) until if/when they make a written commitment to learn & abide by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. But of course that's not my decision alone. --Yksin 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed description. Unfortunately, I don't believe we currently have the power to ban either Custerwest or HanzoHattori from editing this article. The RfC will hopefully provide us some results, but I'm uncertain whether we will have sufficient support for a community ban. We may have to take this to ArbCom. Check out WP:BAN for more details. – Dreadstar † 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Though in general I'm excited for this article to get unprotected and fixed, I'm nervous about it. But I think that if they folks that have piped in the last couple days can commit to being around to help out Yksin and I, it can be done. But maybe it should wait for results of the User RfCs? Oh yeah, and I believe there are still copyvios in the article that need to be taken care of as soon as possible, see above. Murderbike 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any more copyvios, though there is plagiarism to a P.D. source that HanzoHattori & I went round & round on; plagiarism of P.D. sources appears to be widely tolerated on Wikipedia, & I'm not up to fighting that battle on top of this one. (I actually made a proposal at the Manual of Style talk page several days ago, & there seemed no consensus, so I gave it up.) Though that piece of P.D. plagiarism does need to have its source put back with it -- the cite got removed through sloppy editing during the edit wars. Other than that, the only copyvios I know of are on Custerwest's blog, which to us means mainly that we need to remove the link to his blog, per WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking. --Yksin 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I'd align more with Smmurphy on this. My suggestion would be waiting maybe two or three days at least, just so that interested parties can have a chance to weigh in, either in the straw poll, the article RfC, or one or both of the user RfCs. I'd feel much more comfortable with unprotecting if there were some sign from CusterWest and HanzoHattori that they would abide by Wikipedia policies, of course. I note CW hasn't edited in several days. Anyway, so that would be my suggestion: wait a few days to give everyone a chance to give their opinion (and, if we're lucky, to commit to playing by the rules). After that point, semi- or complete unprotection would probably be fine, and certainly we'll have a number of people watching the page at this point, so further disruptions can hopefully be dealt with quickly. For the few days we'd be waiting, in my suggested course of action, we could be working on Yksin's drafts for improving the article, anyway. --Miskwito 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'll be watching this page closely, but I don't want to have to battle edit-warring...at least until we achieve a solid level of consensus on the disputed issues - whether it be yea/nay or no consensus. – Dreadstar † 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable...besides, that'll give Yksin time to get those drafts done that he mentioned. I'll be making watching this page my priority as I stop in during the day. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! For folks new to this process, generally speaking, these straw polls take two or three days to make sure everyone's opinion has been voiced. Patience is a virtue!  ;) – Dreadstar † 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'm okay to wait a few days more. I will be working and otherwise occupied tomorrow (Monday) night, same on Wednesday but I'll try to work on a couple drafts Tuesday night -- not comprehensive, but enough to get by on. I've also got a new related article I'm working on, that should help with some of the issues here. I'll let people know when it's up. --Yksin 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh... and just to say to all of you -- thanks again. Y'all are proof that the process works. --Yksin 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

God, lots of words. I'm not doing anything. k? --HanzoHattori 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would we be correct in understanding that you mean to say that you're going to forgo editing this article? Or at least, that you'll refrain from reverting or otherwise edit warring if the article is unprotected? --Yksin 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
what? I said I don't this one anymore. have fun. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archives a bit, it seems that Custerwest most often used point was that the Indians should not be unilaterally depicted as innocent pacifists. Given that, it seems to me that none of these edits should be especially problematic. I see that much of his material is going to be changed, even substantially, but the changes seem to be inline with "undue weight" or are largely to bring the info into closer correspondence with reliable source records not that the Indians will be cast as innocent. Unfortunately, Custerwest hasn't edited in a week, but I think we can probably move on a bit at this point. I propose changing to semi-protection for this page for the purpose of implementing the changes in the straw poll. Any other non-minor changes should be brought here, of course. Does this sound ok? Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct that " the Indians should not be unilaterally depicted as innocent pacifists" because they weren't -- though Custerwest miscast Black Kettle's village as being most responsible for the Solomon/Saline river raids. Young men of his village did participate in those raids, which must be stated; but what also must be stated is that the highest participation & leadership of those raids came from the Dog Soldier bands (which had separated in more or less a political rift from the leadership of the traditional chiefs like Black Kettle some time past), with additional participation from the military societies within other villages (including Black Kettle's). Per the commitment I made within the straw poll, I'm drafting a new background section which will include this & other information about what led to the winter campaign & the Washita, which I hope to submit for consensus/revision by the weekend. --Yksin 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds right to me, I was only trying to point out a bit of Custerwests position, so that it is clear that we aren't steamrolling it. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Poll awareness

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)
I've notified Custerwest of the poll [9]. I note that CW has not edited since August 1st. [10]. – Dreadstar † 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If he hasn't responded by tormorrow, I'll go to semi-protect status. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good; and we have a pretty clear consensus on each of the issues. – Dreadstar † 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Done! Thanks, Yksin! – Dreadstar † 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Poll done, sorry for being late Felix c 15:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No problemo, Felix c! Thanks for participating! – Dreadstar † 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I will close out the straw poll later today. Looks like we have our consensus. Good job, everyone. – Dreadstar † 08:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection has now been changed to semi! Great job, everyone! Oh, and I haven't had time to read the tcxt on the sandbox, but I love the table...excellent work. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian casualties at the Washita (proposed new material)

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)

Any responses on this? --Yksin 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've just looked this over and echo Miskwito above...it's excellent work. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez I'm behind. But this looks real good. Murderbike 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New edits after full protection lifted

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)

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)


Benteen vs. Son of Black Kettle

Hi, I'm suggesting to include under topic "The battle" after "....but it took longer to quell all remaining resistance." the following:

Frederick W. Benteen, Captain of H Company, leading a squadron of Major Elliott's command during the battle of the Washita[1] had his horse shot under him by a son of Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle. Galloping forward, Benteen was approached by the Cheyenne boy astride a pony. The youngster was believed to be about fourteen years old and was armed with a revolver. Benteen, drawing nearer to the boy, not regarding him as anything but a harmless lad, called out that his life would be spared if he threw away his weapon. Benteen made the peace sign, but in answer, the Cheyenne boy aimed his revolver at him and fired. Having missed his target, the boy fired again and the bullet cut through the sleeve of Benteen’s coat. A third time, the Cheyenne boy fired his gun while Benteen continued to make friendly overtures. The bullet hit Benteen’s horse, dropping it dead and pitching Benteen into the snow. The Indian boy raised his weapon a fourth time and Benteen now shot him with his revolver, killing him.[2]

Felix c 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know too much about the battle at this point, so this is a totally uninformed comment, but I'm wondering how this is a particularly notable event in the battle. Especially because the article as it stands doesn't actually talk to much about the battle itself, but rather the events leading up to it, its historical context, interpretations of it, and its notable effects. Not that it would be a bad thing to have more on the battle itself, but I think that if we do, it would probably be better to have it focused more on the general movements of people and troops and their interactions, rather than specifically about the experiences of individuals. But I'm not sure. Since this involves the death of one of Black Kettle's sons, I imagine it's more notable that most little stories that unfolded during the battle. But I still think it's a longer or more detailed than it needs to be, and doesn't read quite like an encyclopedia article. Is there any reason it couldn't something like this?
Frederick W. Benteen, Captain of H Company, leading a squadron of Major Elliott's command during the battle of the Washita[1] had his horse shot under him by a son of Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle. Benteen made the peace sign, but the Cheyenne boy fired his revolver at him. After several more shots, Benteen returned fire, killing the boy.[2]
Those are my thought anyway, but as I say I don't have much knowledge on the battle itself so I may be mistaken on what's important, and so on. --Miskwito 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Support addition with modification. I think as the article expands, and the Battle section with it -- which I think it must -- that the account of Benteen's encounter with this young man can be easily integrated. Since we all know that this article is undergoing lots of changes & expansions right now, I support adding a version of this passage to the article even now; the rest of the battle account will fill out around it in due course.
But I agree with Miskwito that it need not be quite so lengthy. Miskwito's version is pretty good. However, I don't think it will be necessary to use the qualifying terminology Cheyenne Chief to identify who Black Kettle is, because by this point in the article it should be pretty clear that Black Kettle is Cheyenne and that he's a chief. Also, according to George Bent, this young man was probably not actually Black Kettle's son, but rather his nephew (but perhaps adopted as his son), named Blue Horse, who, per Bent, "lived in Black Kettle's lodge, acting as herder for the chief" (Hyde 1968, p. 317). Though Benteen thought he looked to be about 14, Bent says he was 21 -- so rather than calling him a boy I'd use the term youth. Check the index in Hardorff's Washita Memories -- there's quite a few reference to Blue Horse throughout the book. Since he was been fairly conclusively identified by his survivors (see particularly Hardorff's book, p. 85 note 12), I think it's fair to identify him in the article, which I think ideally should combine both white and Indian accounts of the event.
Could people please weigh in on the stuff above, about the Indian casualties? --Yksin 21:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know quite a few 21 year olds that would be bummed to be referred to as "youth", maybe not qualifying the persons age isn't necessary? Murderbike 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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-Four[3] as well as headmen of some of the Cheyenne's military societies.[4] Among the chiefs killed were most of those who had advocated peace with white settlers and the U.S. government.[5] 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.[6] 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 1861[7] and vindicated the Dog Soldiers' own militant posture towards the whites.[6]

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)

"Changes"

There were no changes, just the wikicleanup of numerical errors (no consistency with the rest of the article) and interlinks (total lack of), and of the article layout (which was totally unreadable). Stop being ridiculous (yes, you are). --HanzoHattori 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT THING which is essentional unless everyone meditate over it enough:

"</ref>"

</ref> </ref> </ref></ref></ref></ref> </ref> what is wrong with you people? --HanzoHattori 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, do you not recall writing up above: "God, lots of words. I'm not doing anything. k? --HanzoHattori 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)" and "what? I said I don't this one anymore. have fun. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)" Discuss here before you make changes, no matter how insignificant you think they are. Thank you. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I found and removed the extraneous </ref> HanzoHatori mentioned. HanzoHattori, you made over twenty different unexplained edits within a very short period of time, virtually none of them had an explanation in the edit summary per the Edit summary recommndations guideline. It's very difficult to track the changes you make, I had no idea which of your edits removed the unneeded reference marker. Additionally,you've completely mischaracterized your edits by saying 'there were no changes', yes there were - plenty of them; each one of these is a change, and I didn’t even finish looking [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Removal of fact tag
HanzoHattori, it must be apparent to you by now that both your edit warring and your method of editing are unacceptable and will not be the method for getting your changes into the article. Civil discussion on the talk page will. Instead of continuing this unacceptable behavior, I strongly urge you to participate in the RfC on you. Dreadstar † 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The irony is that many of your edits, HanzoHattori, would be just fine by other editors including me if you just used the talk page before you waded in & also used edit summaries to explain your edits. And of course refrained from being rude and uncivil in your talk page & edit summary comments, as you failed to do in both your comments above as well as in this edit summary (one of the very few you used last night). I don't understand what's so difficult about explaining changes & doing so in a civil fashion.
Just as described here, a lot of the disputes other editors have with your edits have as much to do (or sometimes more) with style of editing as it did with content per se. How hard is it, really, to write a brief edit summary, such as remove extraneous </ref> (as Dreadstar just now did)? Even if the edit seems "obvious" to you, that works a lot better than not doing edit summaries & then screaming because other editors -- who already have ample reason to distrust you -- see you making mass edits without explaining. Could you try explaining before or as you edit, instead of afterwards? Could you make even the slightest effort to work with people, instead of antagonizing them at every step?
As is is, I think that given the past history of disputes on this page, as documented in both the article RfC and in the user-conduct RfCs on HanzoHattori and Custerwest -- which both people have declined from participating in -- that anything either of these editors wants to do in this article, with the exception of adding wikilinks (interlinks) should go through the talk page first. --Yksin 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on requiring edit summaries

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was consensus to require edit summaries on article edits. Yksin 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to initiate a straw poll about whether we should require edits to this article to use (non-abusive) edit summaries. Lack of edit summaries has been an incredible problem all the way through the edit history of this article, with both Custerwest and HanzoHattori in particular habitually having made huge numbers of successive edits while providing very few edit summaries to explain their edits. This has made it difficult for other editors to evaluate their edits. Providing edit summaries also helps to prevent misunderstandings about what editors are doing. --Yksin 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One more day for straw poll. Assuming this passes, which looks like it's gonna, it would seem appropriate to include a prominent notice at the top of the talk page indicating that by consensus we've established this standard for edits to this article. --Yksin 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seeking consensus on HanzoHattori's edits

The following is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was consensus on all items discussed below -- i.e., some of HanzoHattori's proposed changes are supported, others supported with modification, others opposed. Yksin 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Towards finding consensus on the edits HanzoHattori made (most of which are currently reverted). Here's a diff of the suggested changes discussed here. I'm signing each of these individually, & hoping other editors will register their support or nonsupport for each item. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One more day for straw poll. --Yksin 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support - it's quite reasonable to add wikilinks, sure (as long as you're not wikilinking every other word). But I agree that, as mentioned above, the edit summary should reflect the changes made --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I love (non-redundant, relevant, disambiguated, and needed for red) wikilinks. And again, edit summaries are great. Murderbike 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to infobox -- Little Rock as commander

  • 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)
  • Do not support. I do not support adding Little Rock to the infobox as a "commander" on the Indian side. It always drove me mad when Custerwest referred to Little Rock as "second in command" at the Washita. Neither he nor Black Kettle were war chiefs / war commanders. They were civilian leaders / politicians. If the town of a US senator were attacked by a foreign force, would we call him commander? No. The attacked Indians were without an Indian commander. --User:Lookoo 21:31, 15 August 2007 (CET)
  • Oppose. I changed my vote per Lookoo's comment. I'd support also removing Black Kettle from the infobox here, though an explanatory note about lack of war chiefs/commanders in the village should probably be added. --Yksin 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • Comment. I just noticed that it wasn't actually HanzoHattori who added Little Rock as a commander -- that seems to be a detail that remained from Custerwest's prior edits. What HanzoHattori did was merely to wikilink it. My apologies for the confusion about who was responsible for that edit. --Yksin 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto to Yksin's comment and opposition. Murderbike 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to infobox -- Indian casualty estimates

Amendment

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)

Would the statement "See discussion below for further information and sources" be sufficient? --Yksin 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah! That looks great! Dreadstar † 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
  • Support if you have a source --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support if sourced, all I have at hand is Hoig, which doesn't mention who it was that fired the warning shot, so if you can do it, do it;) Murderbike 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here's the cite: <ref name="greene-129">Greene 2004, p. 129.</ref> Here's what Greene actually writes: "Another Cheyenne woman, who was about sixteen years old at the time, recalled that a man named Double Wolf was supposed to be watching at night but fell asleep. When the commotion started, he was expected to raise a white blanket flag but instead fired his weapon; Double Wolf was one of the first killed in the charge." The account of the Cheyenne woman, known as Mrs. Lone Wolf, is in Hardorff's book, but the Greene cite seems simpler. 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.--Yksin 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of Indian casualties table

  • 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)
  • Conditional support - that makes sense. However, I have a further suggestion: Might not "Estimates of Indian casualties..." be more accurate? --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - good point, Miskwito. I agree & support this additional change. --Yksin 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Miskwito. Murderbike 21:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Change to layout of Indian casualties table within article

  • 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)
  • Weak oppose. Something about the layout with the text running along the left of the table looks "off" to me, or something. It's too busy, or distracting, or something. I can't describe it better than that, though. And in any case I'm not sure if having the table centered with no text to the left or right is more helpful. It splits up the running text of the section, rather than acting as a sort of addition to the text off to the side. HH's proposed layout of the table would have readers needing to scroll down a considerable distance before they could continue reading the section --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I like it with text wrapped for sure. Otherwise it's kind of in the way. What would it look like shrunken a tad? Smaller text? Narrower columns? Murderbike 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Change "October to November, 1965" section to "Sheridan's offensive" section, & move

  • 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)
  • Support - "October to November, 1865" is a rather clumsy title; "Sheridan's offensive" is more concise and gives the reader a better idea of what the section deals with --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Murderbike 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to movie info in "Modern reactions" section

  • 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 {{fact}} 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)
  • Oppose. First of all, cites are definitely needed, especially given the level of controversy this article has already attracted. Secondly, having three one-sentence paragraphs doesn't look good, format-wise, and the three could easily be combined into one. --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of language about "Little Big Man"

  • Conditional support. I support the additional language saying that the battle was depicted in the film as a massacre "as told in the narration by the titular hero." Just saw the movie again, & this is accurate. --Yksin 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Just "conditionalized" my support per Miskwito's comment below. I'll hunt up those sources. --Yksin 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - if a source can be found (a movie review or the like) which states that the film depicts it as a massacre, then I'd support its addition. I certainly trust Yksin, but given the level of controversy over this article, I wouldn't be comfortable with adding an uncited claim like that, regardless of who was claiming it or how minor it was --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know of such sources, and can provide them. --Yksin 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't the dialog of the move be cited without needing an outside source? Murderbike 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply. Not really. The way the film is done indicates that the entire story is being narrated by Jack Crabbe (sp?), the "titular hero" whose name among the Cheyenne is Little Big Man, to an interviewer near the end of Crabbe's life. So there'll be the voice of Dustin Hoffman (as Jack Crabbe) interjecting comments here & there, but most of the movie is done through dramatization. So there's no dialog in which he says "it was a massacre," but the movie dramatizes the action as he presumably described it. The movie was made during the Vietnam War, & I've come across two or three sources that mention directorial choices that portrayed the Washita attack as being very much like the My Lai massacre. Which I think is exactly the kind of stuff we're looking for in this section: in this case, modern reaction to the Washita attack was to use its depiction as commentary on a war that was then going on. Classic movie, BTW -- a must-see. It's based on a novel by Thomas Berger, which I've never read, but I bought it last weekend. --Yksin 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. Murderbike 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

October to November, 1868

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)

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)

Oh yeah, and I don't know if I have a diff version of Hoig or not, but cite number 35 lists totally diff page numbers than what I'm seeing for that info. Is it different? Murderbike 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Per Wikipedia:Public domain, "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." Dreadstar † 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Battle expansion

I was thinking of expanding a tiny bit on why/how it took so long to "quell the remaining the resistance". Something like 'Many Indians positioned themselves "behind trees and in ravines" to trade fire with the invading troops, who were now fighting on foot. Custer described a group of seventeen who were shooting at the soldiers from a gulley. The Army troops had trouble with charging them, so sharpshooters had to kill them one by one."<ref>Hoig, p. 129-30</ref> As well, concerning the {{fact}} tag that's on the paragraph about the stolen coats, Hoig just says that "a force of Indians" did it, without specifying if they were from downriver villages, or somewhere else. Murderbike 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not copy the text of "The battle" section to the Talk:Battle of Washita River/Sandbox & work on it there? Then, as soon as you're satisfied with all the additions you've made, alert us here for consensus to put the amended text in the article.
The stolen coats stuff is in greater detail in some other sources. I think Hardorff discusses it, but I can't look right now. It had something to do with Lt. Bell, the guy in charge of the supply wagons, & yes, it was Indians from the downriver camps. If you put the Battle section in the Sandbox, I can see about adding some detail from that tonight. I'm kinda crunched for time at the moment. --Yksin 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
@Yksin: Please remember you can search Hardorff completely online (the index of the print book is very small).
Page 300: "... the coats and baggage failing into the hands of the Indians. In sharp contrast to prevailing prohibition conditions, nearly all of the overcoats contained bottles partly filled with whiskey, according to tribal history related by Chief Heap of Birds."
Page 95: "... latter, but as a necessary movement to relieve the wants of the command, particularly that portion whose haversacks and overcoats had fallen into the hands of the Indians early that morning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix c (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've overused my search privileges at Amazon so now I'm limited in how I can search there. ;) Fortunately I have the book, but I don't always have it w/ me. Thanks for finding this! I think there might also be stuff in his intro where he gives an overview account of what happened in the battle. --Yksin 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern reactions section - proposed new material

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Support. I'd suggest adding a lead paragraph for the section, maybe, though. I'm not sure exactly what would be a good way to open it, though --Miskwito 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

Custer's reaction in Son of the Morning Star refers to another matter than Elliott's death. It was Benteen's letter against him in a newspaper from St Louis. Thomas Bergers's novel is full of mistakes on the Washita, especially Custer's dress, hair (he had a beard and short hair) and the depiction of the battle. Custerwest 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Military commanders on the Indian side

Warchiefs in the village according to George Bent (married to Black Kettle's sister):

Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 140, page 242 (note for page 140)

Buffalo Tongue (WARCHIEF)

Tall White Man (WACHIEF)

Tall Owl (WARCHIEF)

Poor Black Elk (WARCHIEF)

Big Horse (WARCHIEF)

White Beaver (WARCHIEF)

Bear Tail (WARCHIEF)

Running Water (WARCHIEF)

Wolf Ear (WARCHIEF)

The Man That Hears the Wolf (WARCHIEF)

Medicine Walker (WARCHIEF)

Black Kettle (CHIEF OF TRIBE)

Little Rock (CHIEF OF TRIBE - known to the Whites as the second-in-command. It's often stated Black Kettle's band OR Little Rock's band)

Who said that no known military commanders were available? All were warchiefs except Black Kettle and Little Rock, who were chiefs of tribe. All were armed people who led other armed people and Black Kettle, like Little Rock, opened fire against the troops. The "no known military commanders" is a wrong statement (or a big mistake) or a bad quote, or intellectual dishonesty. Custerwest 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on 16 July 2007 in Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Reply to Custerwest:
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. [Note: Synthesizing positions if a from of original research prohibited by Wikipedia policy, as was explained when I originally wrote this.]
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.
Hoig's book doesn't actually include a list that shows all these names with the word "WARCHIEF" in big block letters, or even in lower-case letters, next to them.
It is true though that for WP:NPOV Hoig's claim, & Keim's by extension, will need to be included in the article. As will information from George Bent, Hoig (in his Peace Chiefs of the Cheyenne), & other sources such as Grinnell which make clear that chiefs of the Council of Forty-Four such a Black Kettle & Little Rock were not war leaders -- that Cheyenne traditional governmental structure specifically prohibited them from acting as war leaders. These same sources likewise state that warriors including headmen of military societies were not "chiefs" but rather were respected warriors. (A fact which created some problems during the Hancock expedition in 1867, because General Hancock wanted to consider Roman Nose a "chief" when everyone else, including Roman Nose himself, considered him to be just a great warrior.) The one exception to this division of responsibility between traditional council chiefs & military society leadership/warriors was among the Dog Soldiers, which was a military society that split off into its own band in the late 1830s & had adopted its own system of governance that was at odds with traditional Cheyenne structures. But Black Kettle's band wasn't a Dog Soldier band. --Yksin 20:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Exact text from Stan Hoig's book on the Washita. As an FYI, here is exactly what Hoig writes on p. 142:

Fifty-three Cheyenne women, young girls, children, and papooses were taken prisoner. Some of them had been wounded, all by gunshot. When interviewed by interpreter Dick Curtis at Camp Supply later, the captive women listed as being among those killed Black Kettle, principal chief; Little Rock, second chief; and eleven other headmen and war chiefs, plus two Sioux and an Arapaho who were in the camp.

On the note to p. 242, the source for this information is given as Keim's account in the New York erald for December 24, 1868. Hoig writes:

These Indians [besides Black Elk and Little Rock] were listed as Buffalo Tongue, Tall White Man, Tall Owl, Poor Black Elk, Big Horse, White Beaver, Bear Tail, Running Water, Wolf Ear, The Man That Hears the Wolf, and Medicine Walker -- Cheyennes; Heap Timber and Tall Hat -- Sioux; and Lame Man -- Arapaho. George Bent lists eleven men killed: Black Kettle, Little Rock, Bear Tongue, Tall Bear, Blind Bear, White Bear, Cranky Man, Blue Horse, Red Teeth, Little Heart, and Red Bird. He said that two Arapahoes were killed (Hyde, Life of George Bent, p. 232).

Thus, while Hoig appears to take at face value Keim's claim that the men besides Black Elk & Little Rock were "headmen and war chiefs", he does not individually identify them as such in his note; nor does he take note of the fact that Keim's original claim is ambiguous as to whether all the men named by the women were "'big' chiefs, war chiefs or headmen." Jerome Greene, for his part, merely reports that the women captives reported 13 Cheyenne men pluse two Sioux and an Arapaho killed, with no figure for noncombatants (p. 136), with no "chief" language at all -- his source is Sheridan's 3 Dec. 1868 report (Greene 2004, p. 136 & p. 249, note 52). Hardorff (2006, p. 402) identifies Tall White Man as being the same person that George Bent identified as White Bear, aka Pilan, who was actually a Mexican who had married into the tribe & who was found hiding with a baby by Myer's men and was shot in the back after he handed the baby to them (Hardorff 2006, 00. 209-211). Hardorff identifies Big Horse as being the same as the youth George Bent identified as Blue Horse, who Lt. Benteen, who killed Blue Horse, thought was no more than 14. Bent says he was 21... but... a war chief? --Yksin 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Runs the Enemy was leading men at age 15 at the Little Bighorn. White Bull was 26. A warrior was enough mature to fight under Indian customs at age 12. So yes, those are warchiefs. The Mexican one was identified as a peaceful father by George Bent, who also didn't see any warrior in a Cheyenne village in all his book. Bent constantly minimized Cheyenne involvement and created countless "peaceful tribes myths". I remember that Clara Blinn, Black kettle's hostage, was fearing that some Mexicans would buy her and her son as the Indians told her.Custerwest 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Runs the Enemy was a leader at the Little Bighorn -- though I've learned from experience that it's better for people to read the sources themselves than to trust your account of what they say. Having a copy of George Bent's book in hand, for example, I can state with authority that your claim that he "didn't see any warrior in a Cheyenne village in all his book" is an outright falsehood. Nor does the fact of a person being capable of fighting at age 12 make him a "war chief." You'll have to do better than that to prove that Blue Horse was one. --Yksin 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Custerwest, is it possible that your English isn't good enough to know the difference between a warrior and a warchief? Or between being old enough to be a warrior, and actually being a political figure? Or that there was a (VERY WELL CITED) difference between Chiefs and military commanders? Otherwise, it's very confusing as to why you keep arguing these points, when the sources all contradict you. Murderbike 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, personal attack, so much of some ignorant Americans who barely speak English... Sorry for quoting Runs the Enemy, I forgot that you don't know a clue about Little Bighorn and just began to become interested in the Washita (altough you've become arrogant before reading a line on the battle). Murderbike, warchiefs were commanders of bands, whose age was from 20 to 36 (altough some of them were older, such as Rain In the Face). I suggest you to begin reading something on the tribes. Otherwise, your posts will continue to be useless. BTW, the Indian who shot Captain Hamilton, and killed by the troops right after his killing, was a warchief too. Sorry for your intellectual dishonesty... Custerwest 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't a personal attack. It was an honest question. Your posts have constantly contradicted themselves, as well as contradicting historical information. You still don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not for making judgment calls about what happened, it is for putting forth ALL of the theories, not just what YOU think happened. Have you read any of the information discussing the difference between a chief and a war chief according to the Council of the Fourty-Four? Oh, and thank you for making me aware of this battle. Murderbike 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Book

"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)

first thing from the row

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) * Support if you have a source --Miskwito 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) * Support if sourced, all I have at hand is Hoig, which doesn't mention who it was that fired the warning shot, so if you can do it, do it;) Murderbike 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC) * Comment. Here's the cite: [8] Here's what Greene actually writes: "Another Cheyenne woman, who was about sixteen years old at the time, recalled that a man named Double Wolf was supposed to be watching at night but fell asleep. When the commotion started, he was expected to raise a white blanket flag but instead fired his weapon; Double Wolf was one of the first killed in the charge." The account of the Cheyenne woman, known as Mrs. Lone Wolf, is in Hardorff's book, but the Greene cite seems simpler. 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.--Yksin 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT

You people have NO IDEA of the importantce. This should be IN THE BATTLE. Just like I DID IT. Not IN THE INTRO. This is NOT IMPORTANT, and Double Wolf is DOUBLE UNIMPORTANT. Jesus, left you guys to do the article.

Not an isolated thing. --HanzoHattori 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, THE HUGE TABLE MAKES THE TEXT ON THE LEFT UNREADABLE. Even on my 21 with normal-sized fonts.

Make it either a thumbnail or IN THE CENTER ALONE - just like I did it TOO (WHY this was changed? no idea! I did the same for the Soviet partisans (changed png to the jpg too), but this stayed. wtf.

Jesus. Ręce opadają.

This comment was sponsored by Jesus. lurkin mode 'gain --HanzoHattori 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
  1. ^ a b Washita Memories, R. G. Hardorff, 2006, p. 174.
  2. ^ a b Washita Memories, R. G. Hardorff, 2006, p. 84 & p. 245.
  3. ^ The 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.
  4. ^ Greene 2004, p. 23.
  5. ^ Greene 2004, p. 24.
  6. ^ a b Greene 2004, p. 26.
  7. ^ Greene 2004, p. 27.
  8. ^ Greene 2004, p. 129.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Washita_River/Archive_3&oldid=1136554975"