Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Battle of the Little Bighorn was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Prelude to Battle

This article stated "small detachments of artillery, including Gatling guns" but Gatling guns are not artillery and since no indication of true artillery is referenced elsewhere I fixed it. If actual artillery (i.e. cannons or some other sort of weapon that fires large projectiles) was used in the battle, then the units should be cited and this section further adjusted. Vespid 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

the army of 1876 would have considered gatling guns as artillery, there was no tactical equivalent of a machine gun at the time. the two gun artillery section of gatling guns (of a 6 or 8 gun battery) was served by 20th Infantry soldiers, however, on condemned cavalry mounts. the terrain is completely unsuited for wheeled vehicles.

the article references "detachments" and "troops", but these terms are incorrect. not until 1882 would "troop" replace "company" in army terminology. since many of the first person histories relied on by historians were written long after the 1880s, the authors frequently referred to "troops", but "companies" would have been current terminology in 1876.

the use of the word "detachment" is also incorrect. the 2 or 3 company formations that the 7th Cav. split into would have been called "battalions" prior to 1882, "squadrons" after that date. battalion organization was an purely ad hoc arrangement, the formal organization below a cavalry regiment at this time consisted of the left and right wings (of six companies each) and the companies themselves. the only "detachment" would have been the soldiers ordered to reinforce the company escorting the mule train.

the testimony of surviving witnesses places Custer in personal command of a five company battalion at the time of the separation from Reno's battalion. this formation later apparently split into 2 and 3 company battalions, although whether Custer or Capt. Yates led the feint at Minneconjou Ford is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.239.69 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Utley in Frontier Regulars, lavishly documented from contemporary sourcs, places the official usage of "Troop" in 1883 and "Squadron" in 1889, but your point is the same and I have standardized the use of "company" and "battalion". "Detachment" by definition could notapply to Custer's battalion, since the main body cannot be detached from itself. Buckboard-- 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian casualties at the battle of the Little Big Horn

Comment by User:Bhist moved from here to to bottom of talk page for chronology. -- Yksin 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007: The remarks below about the significant number of warriors killed at LBH have still not been proven. I wrote this statement after Supt Darrell Cook showed me some of the new warrior markers in June 2006. I published his comments (see quote below, in bold, posted by David, the Custer West webmaster) on the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield website. I have reasons to doubt the number of 200 warriors killed and believe that number should be no more than 100. Reliable sources within the NPS which I'm not at liberty to say, and this is very important, have affirmed that the management of the battlefield has backed off in placing 200 more warrior markers on the field, so that proper research can take place. Again, the NPS has not concluded that 200 warriors were killed during the battle.

Also, I am concerned that someone has come into this page and deleted links that add to this page's story -- specifically, the list of soldiers and warriors who fought and died in the battle. The NPS and Friends continually update the list of warriors published on the Friends website -- no other website does that. For serious researchers this list is important and so this link should be as well.

With 268 dead soldiers and about 100 warriors killed, I believe the link to the story of the reburials of the Custer dead is important -- someone deleted that link. Most people do not realize how many reburials occurred over the years and interestingly; most serious students of this battle have no idea that the U.S. government almost did not move Custer's remains to West Point otherwise Custer might still be spread out over the hills of Montana. The articles about the reburials explain the long history of how those remains and of the many soldiers were buried.

For the record, I reposted the two links noted above.

Regards, Bob Reece President, Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield Bhist 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian casualties at the Little Big Horn were much higher than written in the Wikipedia article. New discoveries in Indian testimonies point at least 200 dead warriors. See the Friends of the Little Big Horn newspaper:

Cook also pointed to red pin flags in the ground. He said I’d be able to spot them throughout the area; they represent recent research for locations of fallen warriors. He warned me to be prepared for high numbers. I’ve always believed that number to be near 100. He said there were approximately 200 pin flags. If this turns out to be true (still more research is required by Chief Historian John Doerner), then it is evidence that the 7th Cavalry fought hard (just as the Indian accounts have always stated). Most importantly, it contradicts recent theories that this battle was one of massive soldier disintegration and command structure breakdown. There may be as many dead warriors upon this field as there were soldiers, a result that is relatively impossible if soldiers are running and throwing their weapons away at the same time. http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Members.htm

It's all right with Indian testimonies which always told us about a great and very hard battle (some Indians even said that the battle was not decided until the very end of the fight, for example Sitting Bull said that he had no idea of the outcome of the fight. The Sioux chief also said that Custer was always looking at the east, for support by Benteen and Reno (a support that never came - a military betrayal), and was fighting as hard as a human can do (Rain In the Face, Iron Hawk, Low Dog and many many others, see Gregory Michno's excellent book "Lakota Noon" (Mountain Press, 1997). See also : http://david2fg.tripod.com/uscuster.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.7.76 (talk) 20:45 to 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Big Man Reference

I feel the movie and book "Little Big Man" needs to be included on this page. I did some editing and moved some stuff around. At the end of the editing process, all the material that was orginially there remained, only in a different place. I meant no harm. What is the proper way to include Little Big Man, given how it helped to shape the popular imagination regarding Custer and his death? Migukin

[edit] A horny correction

The National Park Service has named the battlefield, The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. Bighorn = one word.

The battle took place along the Little Bighorn River with "Bighorn" in one word. The US Geological Survey site list the Battlefield site as "Bighorn" in one word, even though it is in "Big Horn" (two words) County, Montana. Eclecticology 23:44 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] yes but

The rivers, mountains, and county were originally named after a horn, not a sheep. The name had nothing to do with Bighorn sheep or big horns. The river it flows into was the Horn River initially. That was okay. Then the tributary Little Horn was named.

Still okay, but then the confusion started: in response to Little Horn, the Horn began to be called the Big Horn. Then (of course!?) the Little Horn had to be called the Little Big Horn. Well, everybody around there understood that. The mountains nearby that were the source of much of the water of the system were named the Big Horn Mountains. The county where the Big Horn and the Little Big Horn converge was named Big Horn county. But sometime after that.....

...some (probably)pointy-headed non-local person who only knew about the Battle, said "hey, that must be the sheep name, bighorn, written incorrectly by these ignorant westerners." (okay, I'm making up some of this scenario.) So the people who write books began to use Bighorn instead of Big Horn. So you will see old books and sources say Big Horn River, Big Horn Mountains, and Little Big Horn River. Meanwhile, new books and maps are usually using Bighorn for the rivers and some other features. Here is an illustration: at Bighorn National Forest is the US Forest service stuff on Bighorn National Forest, a more recent naming. But in their text they refer to the Big Horn Mountains, where the Bighorn National Forest is. [unsigned]

[edit] Edgar Rice Burroughs

In his tongue-in-cheek autobiography (see here, rightmost pane), Edgar Rice Burroughs claims to be the sole survivor of this battle. Impossible, to be sure, since he claimed to be a soldier, though at the time he would have only been a year old. Should this be included in the article or is it too trivial? The only reason I ask is that Burroughs is a well-known figure. TIA! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:47, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think that you will find there are a lot of instances of this sort of thing. The narrator in Little Big Man by Thomas Berger makes the same claim, for example. Jonathan O'Donnell 07:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I added a photo of the iron sculpture from the relative new exhibition covering the Native Americans role in the battle. Please don't make a thumb out of it, since it should be wide screen as in the original sculpture. --Hansjorn 13:08, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] correction

The number on the indian side is very exaggerated. If it was 5000 then the whole dakota nation would be present, and its proven that the majority was home. The true number is 1,200. I also corrected the numbers on the US side (Source : Centennial campaign by John S.Gray)

5000 was the entire Dakota (i.e. Sioux--which is a misnomer anyway) population? How do you come by this?--Buckboard 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
While 5000 is certainly too high, WADR the 1200 would be at the extreme low end of present estimates, and the Gray reference is now pretty dated. See Michno's Lakota Noon, or Bruce Liddic's recent book. Most current sources come in between 1700 and 2000. US estimates are best given by Nichols in Men with Custer, 2000; that would be about 750 men in the regiment, independent of civilians and scouts. The latter two categories would add another 30 MOL, for a total of 780. Best wishes, Seesdifferent 24.182.100.66 18:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

So how many US soldiers died? 264? 201? The article seems unclear. dino 20:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

262 on the battlefield; six more later; see Nichols ref. Best wishes, Seesdifferent 24.182.100.66 18:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It is not the intent, I am sure, of anyone, to present unbalanced amounts of info as judged by sheer weight, or to ascribe lesser or greater virtue to either side this battle. HST, it will never be symmetrical. So lets just try to get info in there and not see it as BLBH the sequel. Ha ha.

Given how emotional the matter was at the time and for a generation - or more - after, it is almost impossible to find neutral source material much less later analysis.

The article is not too bad all things considered. I am neither a 'Custer Buff" or a "West" Buff or "Indian" Groupie. My interest arose from encountering Grahams "Custer Myth" over 40 years ago. I love his dedication.

To me it revealed that something I had take for granted was in fact quite a mystery and the given wisdom was mostly twaddle.

That is the sort of thing I like to try and find the best approximation of the truth as I can about.

One thing really bothers me about this article is that a TV show by what is at best a very questionable source, the History Channel, is cited as a source.

Can't we do better?Mark Lincoln 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto these points. The History Channel is really, really weak in this otherwise well-sourced article. However - "John Lindsay" and "Trout of Rushing Water" are almost certainly vandalism, and we'll get to them soon. BTW, I also read Graham 40 plus years ago - still an invaluable source as a collection of first person accounts.Sensei48 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual corrections or vandalism?

Could someone check the edits by 152.163.100.203 for accuracy? Bushytails 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the revert as an answer to that. Bushytails 07:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I checked the contribution history of said user, and it seemed suspect. Kingturtle 07:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When I posted that, I'd just reverted him replacing a paragraph with "bitch ass" on another article... But the changes here seemed a bit more thought out than that, so didn't want to assume it was vandalism on a subject I know absolutely nothing about. Bushytails 17:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World's oldest man

I was wondering about this statement in the introduction: "The youngest of these soldiers Lt. Harry Jerome George is still alive." If he was a young man in 1876, he'd be a good 150 by now. Where did this statement come from?

That entry was a piece of vandalism. Thanks for reverting the article! Scott Mingus 16:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory Statement

"The U.S. cavalry detachment commanded by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer was killed to the last man, but overall, the majority of soldiers survived the fight." Taken alone, the preceding sentence appears to contradict itself. I take it to mean that members of the U.S. cavalry not under Custer's control survived the fight, but this isn't clear in my opinion. I think the sentence could be changed to clarify who died and who survived. Comments? [unsigned]

Without seeing this beforehand, I wrote in the actual percentages--52% of the regiment present were casualties, 42% of the regiment present killed. Catastrophic by any analysis in any era.--Buckboard 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40 to 200 dead

Someone had changed the body count of the Native American casualties from about 40 to about 200. I had never heard of this count and have always heard 40. I also noticed the person who had changed the number failed to write in the discussion area (here) why he/she had done so. I have changed the number back to 40 since I there is no reason to change it, I.m hoping I wont get some "do not vandalize" message as I think I had justification.

The National Park Service, administrators of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, has made this statement on their website (and a similar one in their brochures)— "An accurate count of the Sioux and Cheyenne dead was not possible, but at least 60 are known to have died." Hence, the 40 figure is too low, and the 200 is too high. Why doesn't the Wikipedia community accept the NPS's casualty figure? Scott Mingus 11:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The 40 is originally based on Lakota and Cheyenne accounts of dead ("lists of the dead") taken away and buried. But there were also a number left on the field and unrecoverable when the encampment broke up and fled on the approach of Terry.--Buckboard 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"a number left on the field and unrecoverable when the encampment broke up and fled on the approach of Terry"? I find this not very credible. The "wolves" anounced Terry's coming long in advance. How much time elapsed between the departure of the Indians and Terry's arrival? Half a day? More? There were many hours time to recover the slain. "Leave no man behind" is a concept more American than many Americans are aware of. Even under the most dangerous battle circumstances Indians often risked and sometimes lost their lives to prevent the body of a slain warrior from falling into enemy hands. This had religious and metaphysical reasons. You entered the next world just as you left the last one: in one piece or not quite so. The latter option was worse than death itself and in fact the reason why enemies were often mutilated after killing them. Killing an enemy and not mutilating him meant chasing them at your ancestors who already lived in the afterworld. Only mutilation neutralized the threat to your deceased loved-ones. For the mutilated warrior, in turn this meant eternal life as a physical wreck. Ample reason to recover any slain warrior, even when under fire - which was not the case here between the Battle and Terry's arrival. Lookoo, 21:11 CET, 17 May 2006
The dead left on the field were within the killing range of Reno and Benteen's combined force. btw, being Lakota myself, your interpretation was not universal. Buckboard-- 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a citation giving the BEST information available to the US Army as to Indian casualties given by Red Horse when interrogated by Col. W. H. Wood in Feb. 1877,Mark Lincoln 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split battle and site?

I just added some content on the National Monument and National Cemetery. This article may be getting a little big. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split the content between the battle and the current protected land? If so, I recommend moving the land content to the current redirect: Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, and resetting two other redirects (Custer Battlefield National Monument and Custer National Cemetery) to that article; also do an appropriate category sort, adding Category:United States military memorials and cemeteries. — Eoghanacht talk 19:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the articles should be split. They can be wikilinked but the management data and history of the preservation aspects of the battlefield have little to do with the battle itself so the NPS managed site deserves it's own article.--MONGO 04:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Done did it. — Eoghanacht talk 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I though(t) that there were only 2000 Indians at the Battle...many of my sources told me this.
Many sources, many estimates. As low as 1200 (based on an estimation of males per lodge) and as high as 3000. Just as estimates of the size of the encampment--three (or four) miles long, and as wide as the valley (half mile)--or less. The article, IMHO, should reflect ranges for anything dealing with the Lakota and Cheyenne.--Buckboard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible sentence

Can anyone tell me what is intended by, "This soldier and several modern students are believing and strongly proving Benteen's and Reno's betrayal at the Little Bighorn?" 208.20.251.27 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have an idea, but it needs editing. Perhaps:

"This soldier [name here] and several contemporary students believe there is strong evidence that Benteen and Reno betrayed Custer by failing to carry out their orders at the Little Bighorn."

Admittedly, this is my guess as to what the author was trying to say. Monte521 06:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

I have added some information on standard cavalry fighting doctrine from the 1870's. I have also added an analysis of Custer tactical mistakes. Monte521 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC) I have now removed a couple of sentences that were inaccurate or incomprehensible. [unsigned]

I did some extensive editing on Nov. 3, 2007 to this article and meant no disrespect to all of the contributions. I found some of the writing and statements to be biased and was frustrated by the numbers of combatants, victims, etc. I have read around 10 books on this battle, seen multiple documentaries and have visited the battle site several times. What I have learned is that if you ask 10 different people about this battle, you will get 10 different opinions. Nothing is absolutely known about Custer's portion of the battle. There is a rough idea, but opinions change from year to year and investigation to investigation. There is no one book that should be the basis for what is written here. Chriskent2002 10:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I personally like most of your changes - but I like as much as or more the fact that you present a clear, logical explanation for them. Sensei48 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary

I just watched an excellent TV documentary in Australia called Battlefield detectives. They scoured the battlefield for archaelogical evidence and were able to almost completely trace the course of the battle. Mainly by shell casing and bullet locations. Fascinating map they have created. Anyone know anyone connected with the show who could contribute the map to wp? Krait 12:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

Sorry I should have added that the documentary ststed the Native americans were armed with over 200 repeating Henry rifles (not Spencer and winchester). They claim the rifles were the decisive factor in the victory - 13 shots in 30 seconds as opposed to 4 in 30 seconds for 7 Cav rifles. So the main article is wrong when it says "some of the Indians were armed with repeating Spencer and Winchester rifles". 200 is quite significant and they actually found forensic evidence of the 200 weapons. I didn't take notes, but anyone who has a copy may care to update this article. Krait 12:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a 9 part docu-drama now on YouTube along with a 5 part archeology doc based on the research by two archeologists including Fox and . Highly recommend. SimonATL (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit for bias

I removed a line in the introduction blaming 'Custer's subordinates' for the disaster. Yes, there are people who blame Reno and/or Benteen (or anybody else), but there are JUST as many that blame Custer. No problem with mentioning such, but such selective bias does not belong in the Introduction. CFLeon 23:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your deleting the text. I tried to make it less POV (compare the original text) but even after my edit, such opinionated paragraph was did not fit, especially in the introduction section. Friendly Neighbour 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed bolding from Pvt Taylor's quote because by having it bold...and the only quote in the whole article bold, at that...it seems to me to provide obvious bias and violates NPOV. To include the quote is historically justifiable, but not to give it undue prominence. One Private's viewpoint, when he may or may not have seen or understood the bigger picture, including Custer's own planning failures, does not a condemnation make. I have also added information about Reno and Benteens suspicion that they had been abandoned by Custer as he had previously done to Major Elliot at Washita. For more on this, please also refer to the edits I've made to the Frederick Benteen entry, including its discussion page.

It's not just the word of a "disgruntled" pvt. (Has anybody ever heard of a "gruntled" comment?) Sklenar's To Hell With Honor (OK U Press, 2000) makes a good case Benteen & Reno were incompetent or cowardly, or both, & failed to support Custer. And he says "Nick" Wallace perjured himself at Reno's court of inquiry. Trekphiler 07:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Pvt. Taylor quote because it distorts the article with a pro-Custer bias. There are many quotes trashing Custer that could be included but should not because it skews the article with the opposite bias. Larry Sklenar’s sole work is filled with blatant hero-worship and hypothetical leaps that are not substantiated. Although it is hard to understand how Miles reached his conclusions after studying the battlefield a year after the battle, I left the quote in as it does not effect the description of the battle.Grahamboat 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The coolness by which Benteen handled himself in the entrenched defense (as attested by many witnesses) of what is now called Reno Hill - walking calmly while bullets kicked up the dust all around him and even losing a heel to one Indian (White Cow Bull?) bullet would seem to fly against the claim that he was a coward. Also, I think Benteen's well known hatred of and contempt for Custer made him in no particular hurry to come to his aid. SimonATL (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry

Mention is made of the Terry column without explaining who Terry was, nor what his column comprised. More detail needed there. -- Beardo 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This had long been a part of the prelude section, but somehow was stripped away in an edit a while back. I restored this section, which as you correctly point out, is much needed as background to set the stage for the battle itself, as well as Terry's relief efforts. Scott Mingus 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard and Dorman

I just completed short biographies of these two interpreters - Isaiah Dorman and Fred Gerard. Please feel free to add to these articles and add any pertinent information that you may have from your sources. Scott Mingus 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Names?

I'm writing some biographical pages on the main participants, and have noticed this list's rather inconsistant usage of middle names. Since the articles end up using these links, what's the consenses on middle names in article titles? Should they be used or dropped or just the initials used? For instance, should Dr. DeWolf's biography be as 'James Madison DeWolf', 'James M. DeWolf', 'James DeWolf', or 'Dr. James DeWolf'? CFLeon 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have written dozens of Civil War biographies, and I asked the same questions a couple of years ago. I found that the normal convention for most ACW bios was "First M. Last," although this at times needs adjusted when ambiguity exists. It's also not common to include the rank or occupation in the article title unless it adds clarity to a specific person, and then, it's common to do so in parentheses—John Pope (military officer) and Charles Griffin (general). Hence, I would suggest the title as simply James M. DeWolf. I look forward to reading your future contributions! Scott Mingus 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Dr. DeWolf may have been a poor example, since I had already used the full middle name. I'll try to edit the listing here to be consistant on the middle names, but it will have to wait for a few days. CFLeon 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Custer Survivors"?

I'm planning to put up a page on this topic, but is this the best title? I really can't think of a better one that gets the idea across, and while "Little Big Horn Survivors" or "Survivors of the Battle of the Little BigHorn" may be more accurate or less clumsy grammatically, they may be too wordy for an article title. What do you think, people? CFLeon 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "survivors of the Battle of the Little Bighorn" would technically encompass all the Indians who lived, as well as most of Reno and Benteen's columns, as the Reno fight was indeed a part of the battle. A better title might be Army survivors of Custer's last stand, and then you begin to drop into speculation, rumors, wild claims, publicity seekers, etc. I'm not sure any of them deserve an encylopedia article devoted to the topic. However CFLeon, you seem to have an impressive interest level in the topic and time to research the subject matter, so I have no strong opinion. Any other thoughts out there on this proposed article? Scott Mingus 11:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually would prefer putting the topic as a subsection on this page, but the main article is too cluttered as it is. I agree that probably no one particular individual is worth an entry (except perhaps Nathan Short and the Edgar Rice Burroughs story), but I think the phenomenon itself is and putting up an entry will cover the aspects you are mentioning. At the moment, I'm seriously considering putting it up as "Custer Survivor Claims" with a caveat about the true Battle survivors. As in so many other things in Life, all the viable choices have some flaw or another, but we make do. CFLeon 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Perspective

The perspective of this story is almost soley on the US forces. The native forces are just seen as a reactive force, an afterthought, while the US troops every move is meticulously documented. This is ironic, given the fact that the Native American forces won. This is a heavily biased piece of work. I'm adding an NPOV tag until this becomes less a tale from the perspectives of US Americans, and more of a balanced account of what happened. (Bjorn Tipling 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

  • Perhaps the article has been much changed since the NPOV tag was added (I haven't reviewed the history), but in its current state the article is not in violation of NPOV. The greater detail on the disposition and movement of the US cavalry units is a byproduct of the more extensive contemporary documentary record available for them, and the fact that, as the losers, the archaeological record of their skeletal remains and artifacts is also more extensive. The editors of this article appear to have used the Indian sources and accounts, and I see no indication that these sources and their perspective have been slighted. It is inappropriate to put an NPOV tag on an historical article merely because the extent of the historical record varies among the participants in the event; e.g., the article on the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest is not non-neutral because it relies on Roman sources. I think the tag needs to be pulled, but I've not done so, so as to give other editors a chance to see this discussion.MayerG 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I second the proposition to remove the NPOV tag. Especially that as far as I can check that, all available Native Americamm relations of the battle which where recorded have been used in the article. In fact, I have no idea what the NPOV could be? Do we underestimate the Lakota-Northern Cheyenne victory? Or maybe overestimate it to create a "cavalry martyrology"? Seriously speaking, I think both propositions afre false. Therefore, I'll remove the tag. If you disagree, feel free to reinstate it and let's discuss the issue here.Friendly Neighbour 06:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed, but do see a little of what Bjorn is getting at. I'll work on this a bit when I get time, but he is right that a little more detail on the Native American warbands' specific movements (which is available) might be illustrative. The map is a good start, and the article alludes to some of the specifics, but more can be added to help flesh out which band went where; similar to the movements of the individual Army columns. However, the article is not biased or NPOV; merely light on manuevers by the Indians. Scott Mingus 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bjorn, though I think the one-sidedness is fairly innocent, and can be rectified in places. eg: the sentence "Unfortunately (for Custer and his troops), this aggressive action was deeply flawed as a military tactic" can have the first clause removed without detriment to the writing, and avoiding accusation of NPOV

I have observed the same bias. I consider it innocent but evidence of inadequate research. Certainly someone must have read Miller's book?Mark Lincoln 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Little Bighorn is now viewed by some as a confrontation between relentless U.S. westward expansion and warriors defending their land and way of life." This sentence is garbage. Recommend it be deleted or given some sort of citation.--76.23.99.57 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I created the framework to add citations and footnotes, as well as to move sources from the Further reading section to a new References section to be consistent with GA criteria. I added a footnote to start the process, and will add more citations later (now heading off to nearby Gettysburg for the annual Civil War reenactors' parade and celebrations.) Scott Mingus 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I did a little more work this morning on references, and removed the unsourced tag. More to come! Scott Mingus 12:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French link

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong but: Can someone take a look at the list of 7th cav. officers? There's a reference to the OIC of M Company: Captain Thomas French, and this is linked to the wiki on a different Thomas French (small time christian figure). Feel free to delete/move this message after.

Tha, ~Jozias

Taken care of this matter; thanks for pointing it out. Scott Mingus 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination failed

This might be the article that has pained me most to fail. To be honest, this article strikes me as one of the most comprehensive, encyclopedic articles of military history I've seen on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, this article still fails on the criteria mentioned before: the lack of proper citations and proper credit to references. Hence, this article fails primarily on the criteria of verifiability. Basically, what the editors of this article should remember is that, especially with historical articles, the easy verification of facts is a must. Frequently, editors mistakenly think as though only opinions or analysis need citation, but facts need citation just as well. The problem that arises, especially with GA nominations, is that lack of proper citation leaves other categories of evaluation in limbo: for example, how would I be able to decide whether this article is truly NPOV without being able to consult the references it listed? If I were to see the movie Birth of a Nation, and it had only references to sources that, on the surface, seeing the citation, seemed legitimate, would I be able to tell that this movie was not a product of historical study, but instead an item of propaganda for white supremacists? Unless I had prior knowledge, I'd most likely skip down that primrose path that suggested the movie maintained a neutral, objective perspective.

Obviously, the lack of citations throughout the bulk of this article is troublesome. The citations given are no less problematic. For example, references 1 and 2 are wholly unacceptable. The first says "See Sarf for a breakdown of the composition of each of these columns." It is not up to the reader to sort out your reference information. This should be, for a book not available online most especially, noted by page. Furthermore, just saying, "see this reference" as does the second citation, also fails the second criterion for good article status. It is the responsibility of the editors, if they desire GA status, to make each and every fact easily verifiable to the reader. It isn't an easy task, but with a topic such as this, it is one that can be accomplished.

Basically, I apologize to the editors if they feel as though my analysis was condescending, but because this article has failed before on the same criterion, I wanted to make sure my thinking, as I presume the thinking of the previous evaluators, was adequately presented. With regret, I must fail this article until it meets the requirements of #2 of the good article criteria.

I encourage the editors of this article to address this problem and resubmit. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on POV/NPOV/PC

A question on POV/NPOV/PC: The article has a section heading on "Inquiries into the causes for the defeat". I suggest that we rename this to "Inquiries into the causes for the United States defeat", since it was only a "defeat" from one point of view. Whatever our views on "PC", in Wikipedia, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." WP:NPOV. I honestly don't know what is the best NPOV here, but whatever it is, we have to use it. -- 201.51.231.176 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a POV problem here. Saying "United States defeat" would be a redundancy because it's an undisputed fact that the U.S. lost the battle. Describing it as a defeat makes no assertion or judgement about the moral value of the battle; it's just a plain fact. The use of the word here is more of a context issue: the inquiries in question were conducted by the U.S., so it's only natural to speak of them in terms that reflect what they were studying. If we were talking about Indian accounts of the battle instead, then it would be correct to refer to it as a victory in that context. Drachemorder 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Does anyone claim seriously that the cavalry won the battle? If not, this can't be POV by definition. --Friendly Neighbour 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Golly. Who won? What a question! And even more important why the other guys lost! My, my. . . The campaign failed in that the Indians were not captured. Two major battles ensured that. Score to the Indians.

Why? That gets to be a much tougher call. The action at the Little Bighorn involved the Indians getting caught with their (very many) pants down. Custer saved their cookies by having his head up . . . well, you know where. The best that can be said is that he must not have understood what the scouts were trying to tell him. Let us face a cruel fact. Losing a large portion of one's command and the battle is not the sort of thing normally seen as good soldiering.

So, how can one NOT risk the NPOV of the article without being (justifiably) accused of being pro-Custer? All that can be done is to try and be as even tempered in revealing the magnitude of the errors made. Dividing a few hundred soldiers in the face of thousands of Indians pretty much speaks for itself.Mark Lincoln 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] greasy grass

Just a suggestion: might it be nice form to make a redirect from Battle of the Greasy Grass to here? That is its other name after all. I would do it, but I don't know how to make redirects. MBerrill 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is now done, MBerrill, but I question if we needed to do it. There are no links that refer to this Indian name. Anyway, the redirect is now in place. Scott Mingus 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Links aren't the be all and end all, also bear in mind that people may be searching on the term. Pyrope 11:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'Greasy Grass" refers to the ridge which Custer rode down. In the strictest terms, it would exclude the Reno fight.Mark Lincoln 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information technology?

I removed the last part of the following sentence: "The Little Bighorn is now viewed by some as a confrontation between relentless U.S. westward expansion and warriors defending their land, way of life and their achievments in area of information technology."

Information technology? What the heck? I'm assuming it's just a bad attempt at a joke. If it isn't, someone will need to expand on exactly what's meant. Drachemorder 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. It was the only edit of an IP number 213.1.250.135 on June 6 (yes, 15 days ago!). Obvious, though sneaky vandalism. --Friendly Neighbour 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Information technology? Why I am looking now upon Chief Red Horse's pictographs. That's information technology ;-).

I do IT work and boy am I sick of buzz words wrongly applied.Mark Lincoln 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

This listing has shown up:

John D. Lindsay: Scout for the 7th, wounded

I have never heard of this fellow, and he shows up in none of my sources. However, many Indians took American names- usually 'John Something' ('Mary' if female), especially in later years. Is this a case of that? Or just someone sneaking his own name in? CFLeon 08:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link

I've removed links to an external blogsite as violative of WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking, which without exception prohibits linking to external websites that include unlicensed copyrighted material. For details, see Talk:Battle of Washita River#External link violates Wikipedia policies. --Yksin 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Map, But

That is a nice map, except for a big mistake in small type. The route shown for Custer's force also

First it shows that Captain French was attached to Custer's battalion when in fact his Troop M was attached to Reno. He was four miles away when Custer was overrun and not with him.

Calhoun is shown with the three troops advancing down the ridge, yet his troop "L" was dismounted and deployed in a skirmish line at the same time and beside Keough's "I" troop. The horses of both were stampeded and the units were afoot when overrun.

Yes, and I admire your attempts to edit this already-thorough but at points flawed article. But with all respect, have you walked the battlefield? For me, a student of the fight for 25 years before I was able to get there, what was most amazing was the scale of the distances between Custer's companies. Keogh was not quite "beside" Calhoun - a sizable gap of about a quarter to a third of a mile exists between where the bodies lay, and with the exception of "Custer Hill," most of the other companies seemed to have fragmented or dissolved under pressure of attack. The field indicates clearly that whether in one overwhelming attack or over a short but staggered time frame Custer's command was defeated in detail, the distances separating the companies enabling the same.Sensei48 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask where this spiffy but specious map came from?Mark Lincoln 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who wishes to defend the map which shows French with Custer rather than Reno? The facts of the matter are not in dispute.

If there is no resolution of the impossibility of French having survived the battle with Reno, while the map shows him dying with Custer, then any honest editor would remove that silly map.Mark Lincoln 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it should be removed. Looks like there are Polish and German versions of the map, too. Binksternet 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I commented-out the map for now, until a replacement can be found or the original can be edited and corrected. Has anyone gotten in touch with the editor who made the map? --Miskwito 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've also been wondering, esp. as the creator has created versions in two other languages (German & Polish) as well. The creator's name is Piotr Tysarczyk; username at Wikipedia Commons is Pitert. --Yksin 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria and Mary

The name Maria and Mary was used interchangeably for the same person by people writing at the time. That the affidavit was long ago discredited (there was LOTS of fabrication by pro-Custer and Pro-Reno/Benteen individuals) it really doesn't matter does it? Why is it mentioned at all?Mark Lincoln 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian casualties at the battle of the Little Big Horn, part 2

The comment below was moved here for chronological order from here by Yksin 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

8/17/07: I removed David’s posts under the heading, "Custer's resistance" regarding the National Park Service research “concluding” that 200+ warriors were killed during the battle. David’s only source is my writing of it on the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield website and he noted the wrong URL. David is completely wrong. I never wrote that the NPS concluded 200+ warriors were killed. I stated that the NPS planned to conduct more research before they could reach that conclusion. I wrote that in June 2006 and it’s posted at -- http://friendslittlebighorn.com/summer2006.htm -- under the heading, “New Warrior Markers.” Since then the NPS does not believe, I repeat, does not believe nor conclude that 200+ warriors were killed. As of the summer of 2007 all those red pin flags are long gone – the NPS removed them. Since David refers to my writing as the only source, I feel justified in removing his comments especially when he completely misinterpreted to his liking, and incorrectly, what I wrote. Regards, Bhist 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bhist, for making those corrections. FYI, I moved this comment to the bottom of the talk page for chronological reasons; I was afraid otherwise people who hadn't visited the talk page recently might miss it amongst other comments from a much earlier date -- which seemed especially important since people are likely to check here for why a paragraph of material was just removed -- rightly -- from the article. Just for future reference, it's best usually to keep comments within chronological order under a given topic, with the most recent comment bottom-most; if it's been a long time since a particular conversation's last comment, it might often be best to restart the conversation at the bottom of the talk page. The internal links I provided from one part of the talk page to the other should make it easy for people to see the earlier portion of the conversation. Best wishes. --Yksin 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to restart the conversation. Also a good idea to remove a distorted account of a tentative statement.Mark Lincoln 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now about that map? How was French in two places at once, and why did he never claim to have survived the Custer fight though your map says he did? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Lincoln (talk • contribs) 15:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Quote BHIST: "Little Big Horn battlefield Superintendant Darrel) Cook also pointed to red pin flags in the ground. He said I’d be able to spot them throughout the area; they represent recent research for locations of fallen warriors. He warned me to be prepared for high numbers. I’ve always believed that number to be near 100. He said there were approximately 200 pin flags. If this turns out to be true (still more research is required by Chief Historian John Doerner), then it could be evidence that the 7th Cavalry fought hard (just as the Indian accounts have always stated)." Thanks for your amnesia, mister Reece. As always, there are some researchs that don't please you - so you refuse to talk about them. Very, very smart. Custerwest 11:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with George Armstrong Custer and Battle of the Little Bighorn

(cross-posted to George Armstrong Custer)

The current text of these article violates a number of Wikipedia policies, notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, Attribution, and to write in an encyclopedic style. Essentially:

  1. Don't write your own personal interpretation or the inferences you personally draw from the facts; add the facts themselves and then the interpretations or inferences of others
  2. Provide sources for your edits and claims, and cite specific pages of works where possible, not just entire articles or books (this makes it much easier for other editors to verify the claims)
  3. Write neutrally. This doesn't mean we can't discuss Custer's flaws and mistakes; rather, it means we need to give equal time to the various interpretations that various historians have drawn about Custer. We can say "So-and-so argues that Custer made a number of serious tactical errors...", but not "Custer made a number of serious tactical errors...", for example.
  4. Use balanced, encyclopedic writing (i.e., not overly-descriptive or overly-narrative things like "a bullet splattered the brains of the Indian scout next to him across the side of his face")

The additional material that has been added recently by some editors, and that I reverted, further went against these policies (which is why I reverted it). If those editors adding new information, or revising old information, could provide sources for their edits, properly reference them, keep neutral and balanced, and write neutrally in an encyclopedic style, both articles could be greatly improved. I'm not sure how many of the editors working on these articles were aware of these Wikipedia policies, and I should have brought them up immediately instead of just reverting, but hopefully this comment of mine can help us move forward and improve these articles. --Miskwito 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. Another helpful thing is to include edit summaries to briefly explain your edit, which makes it a lot easier for other editors to understand your reasoning & also helps prevent misunderstandings. --Yksin 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LBH in Popular Culture: Amend Or Delete

This section is a disaster and should be completely revised or removed. It is idiosyncratic, POV, unsourced, and reflective of a post-1980 perception of mass media. For example, if an attempt such as this is in order, it ought to have an organizing principle, such as chronology or genre. For the former, the ubiquitous-by-1900 Annhauser-Busch lithograph was in tens of thousands of barrooms, restaurants, and homes and is the first "pop culture" manifestation. Son of the Morning Star was a best-selling book by Evan S. Connell years before it was a movie - and more and more. This is just an odd collection of fragments about the battle - not truly encyclopedic in any way or form.Sensei48 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's all unsourced is enough justification for removing it, at least temporarily. But given the significant impact the battle has had over the years on both White American and American Indian thought and culture, I think there definitely should be, at some point, a section like this (or perhaps two: one for contemporary reactions to the battle and one to modern pop-culture references to it). --Miskwito 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree, but to do so properly will take some time, thought, and work to organize and source it properly. I suppose no harm is done to let it stand for now - though it is a stark contrast to the general attempts at thoroughness and support evidenced by much of the rest of the article.Sensei48 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We had similar issues at Battle of Washita River -- here's what the section used to look like- -- called "Depictions in fiction," much shorter than the disaster the "Popular culture" section is in the LBH article, but still essentially the crufty kind of "popular culture trivia list" with no citations that we've come to know & love (not!) on Wikipedia. It was Miskwito who pointed out these problems when we were still in RfC; discussion led to some major changes to the section, basically to (1) change the section name to something broader (in the Washita's case it became "Modern reactions"); (2) expand the section to include other modern-day reflections on the event. There was also subsequent discussion -- [1] [2] [3]. Changes that have so far occurred have been to cite the actual source information for the films/TV shows referenced (there are standard bibliographic styles for citing movies & TV shows, just as there are for written materials) & then to find published sources which describe how the films/TV shows depicted the event -- i.e., from critics & commentators, not just based on editor's original research reactions to the depictions. Here's the result, thus far. There's more to be added, after research. (For example, the novel Little Big Man by Thomas Berger differs in significant respects from the film based on the novel -- both for the Washita & the Little Bighorn.)
It seems like a similar approach is needed here. (Note I say "similar" not "identical.") Basically, if a given popular culture reference can actually help elucidate something about the perception of the LBH battle in the popular mind, then it merits inclusion; but if its just a mention like "the Battle of the Little Bighorn was mentioned in thus'n'such a movie/book/TV show/etc.", we really don't need such a laundry list. And everything must be sourced, including the standard bib info for the movies/books/TV shows/etc. themselves. And statements about how the the battle was portrayed in whatever depiction needs to be based on descriptions (criticism/reviews/etc.) in reliable published sources, not just on editors' opinions (original research) of how the battle was depicted. --Yksin 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Good summary of the issue, Yksin. Thanks --Miskwito 03:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto from me. It seems that agreement on content and form (including how it might differ from the "Washita" article - I rather like the revised approach there) would be pretty easy to reach. Once "categories" could be decided, representative or significant examples could substitute for the arbitrary and inconsistent laundry list that you note is there currently. While I realize that "significant" might become a POV issue ("Little Big Man" compared for example to "They Died With Their Boots On" as notable and influential culturally, or the reported (and sourcable) incredible popularity in their day of the Annhauser-Busch picture or the Frederick Whittaker biography), it would be well worth the trouble.Sensei48 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Picture Caption

I corrected errors in the use of commas and one glaring factual problem with the caption of the battle picture that appears in the right hand margin of the section entitles "The Aftermath." The original caption identified Custer as fighting "Lakhota Sioux, Crow, and Northern, Cheyenne."

The Crow were the deadly and traditional enemies of the Lakota and Cheyenne. They were not in the LBH encampment; the only Crow warriors involved in the battle were Custer's scouts, released from service by him before the shooting began.

The third tribe in the LBH encampment that had significant representation among the village's defenders were the Cheyenne's long time allies, the Arapaho.Sensei48 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The page for the photo itself contains the same errors. I'll go fix 'em. --Yksin 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, saw you already fixed it. I must've been looking at the previous version of it in the edit history. --Yksin 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Non-NPOV Material: "Custer Died In Victory" and Final Paragraph of "Reno Inquiry": Enough Is Enough

I have removed a section and a paragraph that both lack adequate sourcing and NPOV, though for different reasons.

a) The section "Custer Died In Victory?" - transgresses the most basic Wikipedia dictate for inclusion in an article: non Neutral Point Of View (the title of the section itself betrays this) and no adequate sourcing, since the links in the section purporting to support that POV lead directly to a web blog written by the author of this Wiki section. That is not sourcing: see WP:SOAP and OR. Except for the reincarnation part, I would not oppose re-introduction of the ideas - that the LBH victory ultimately contributed to the defeat of the Plains peoples - properly supported and written dispassionately.

b) The final paragraph of the "Reno Court" section toward the end of this article veers away from the usually (if at points barely) dispassionate and objective nature of the rest of the writing on LBH. Here is the removed paragraph:

Finally, it has to be noted that Custer violated two key military principles. First, by abandoning his Gatling guns early in the campaign, he sacrificed the advantage of firepower. Second, by dividing his force of nearly 600 men in the face of vastly superior numbers, he risked annihilation of his unit in detail. Indeed, what is amazing is that Reno and Benteen's men survived until Terry got there to relieve them. These facts support the Indian claim that "He was a fool who rode to his death," a claim still unpopular in White and US Army circles.

Observe the use of passive voice in the opening - "it has to be noted" - by whom, and why? This is clearly an interpolation of the writer's POV and in no way factual; the passive masks the I note nature of the paragraph. The particular ideas about the division of command and Gatling guns I have addressed elsewhere but will simply point out here:

a) the divided command had worked for GAC at the Battle of Washita, which occurred in the same apparent circumstance: a large village attacked presumably unaware by an organized, disciplined, and coordinated military force. That LBH proved a disaster might well be a topic for bemused irony, but the initial strategy has had its defenders, as even the last sentence of the paragraph purports. The overwhelming numbers theory doesn't hold water, as any student of plains warfare can relate. Please see the Beecher Island Fight [[4]], the Wagon Box Fight [[5]], and Second Adobe Walls [[6]] and please note the ratio of Indians to whites, which in two of the three battles far exceeded what GAC was facing.

b) Gatling guns and their exceptionally heavy ammunition files had to be transported by caisson - a virtual impossibility in the terrain leading to and including the battle sites at LBH. Not only would they have slowed Custer down initially - his expressed reason for refusing them - but they would have of necessity been abandoned days before the battle. Note that the wounded of the Reno/Benteen force had to be dragged by travois and litter to the Far West steamboat - no wheeled vehicles were available to make or could have made the journey.

I personally don't give a fig about Custer, have no especial regard for the military, and find a capitalized generalized term like "White" to be oddly amusing. But I do care intensely that recorded history strive to be accurate, and deal (as I said elsewhere) with facts where they are available and a neutral presentation of a controversy where they are not. Were this paragraph NPOV, the "White" or "army" point of view would be represented and sourced, not simply (and unsupportedly) termed "unpopular."

Finally, the article concludes with much more dignity and style without this paragraph.Sensei48 07:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sensei48: I disagree with your treatment of the Gatling guns issue, which is why I reinserted it into the GAC section. These types of vehicles could have been transported, and were designed to be transported by teams of horses (cannon were transported overland in exactly this way during the Civil War). The refusal of an extra battalion would also prove fateful. Finally, I would note that Custer made another mistake, which was trying to have his troops hold a long, narrow over-extended position in the open. Had he taken up a formidable, British-square defense, he could have held off the Indians. Reno and Benteen's men, once combined, could not be dislodged by the Indians from their makeshift strongpoint. Custer can be criticized for putting his men in this position.~~Doktorschley. 14 December 2007.

Hi DoktorS: Yes I know, and this is one of those "forceful debates" that you referred to over on the GAC page. You've noted I'm sure that I didn't revert the inclusion of your point over there, though I would favor perhaps a slight change in wording. This goes to our discussion of how encyclopedia articles should be constructed. I think that the editor's job is to provide the reader with information with which to make judgments (such as about blunders) rather than making the judgments oneself.

We could have an excellent parlor discussion about this, with each running to his bookshelf to grab supporting evidence for his ideas. But here, let me respond in a friendly way to your points above.

First, I am not trying to defend GAC's strategy as much as back off from judging it by presenting it from alternative points of view.I believe that Custer also refused a field piece from Terry for the same reasons that he likely refused the Gatling guns - terrain. Virtually all of the Civil War battles where artillery was effective took place in areas where the guns could be transported and mounted - entirely different from the Montana terrain of the far west.

The problems here were mountains, gullies, and caissons. The terrain surrounding the valley of the Bighorn and its tributaries is extremely mountainous, especially the terrain over which the 7th Cavalry passed to get to the LBH field. The battlefield itself is rutted with gullies, gulches, and ravines that aren't at all visible from modern battlefield photos; you have to see a low altitude shot from the air or walk the field itself to appreciate just how impossible moving a wheeled vehicle like a gun carriage or caisson would have been. Did Custer know this in advance? No. But as an experienced cavalry leader, could he have surmised it from a cursory examination from the Far West's anchorage? Beyond a doubt. The terrain is so unsuited to wheeled vehicles - and so different from Eastern seaboard and southern topography of Civil War battlefields - that I can safely assert that had Custer taken the Gatling guns or the field piece there would have been no LBH battle because it would have taken GAC the full extra two days it took Terry and Gibbon to arrive, giving the Lakota/Cheyenne the ample time to escape that GAC clearly feared they would.

Now I won't put any of this in any article because it is Wiki OR. I may, though, want to include a sourced note about it.

I completely agree with your point about GAC's disposition of troops - but I think it proves one of my points more than it does yours. The location of bodies and all the other initial forensic examinations of the field suggest a scenario in which Custer was dropping companies off (Calhoun first and then Keogh) near the crest of Nye-Cartwright Ridge in a defensive or at least holding position even as he sent Algernon Smith and the Gray Horse troop down Medicine Tail Coulee in a feint toward the river while he took the remaining companies up toward Last Stand Hill. Based on that thought - that the major part of his battalion (Gray Horse excepted) didn't get very close to the river - supports a scenario in which an overwhelming number of warriors swarmed over the positions nearly simultaneously, preventing GAC from reintegrating the command to provide just such massed fire power as you suggest would have been effective.

Now plenty of deservedly bad things have been written about Custer, but no one seriously suggests he didn't understand cavalry tactics. He led in excess of 40 successful charges during the Civil War; high casualties resulted, but so did the "shock and awe" effect that he understood such a charge could create. However, he was equally adept at ordering dismounted fighting in good order, and the prime tactic that he was instructed in at West Point and which was the hallmark of Civil War actions was - massed fire power, exactly what was missing with his battalion at LBH. The shock of the Indian attack, the panic among at least some of his troops, the large distances between the wings of his battalion - these all suggest a plan based on prior experience that went awry from circumstances that he did not know of - but should have before proceeding.

That's enough for here and now. See you over on the GAC page. Sensei48 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensei48: All this division of Custer's command was against the military principles of the day, and suggests that something was quite awry that day. This disparate dropping off of companies could have resulted from a fractured command. Remember that both the Cheyenne participants, as well as White Bull and other of the Lakota participants recount the attempt by Custer's column to ford the river. This event did not result in significant gunfire, but according to Indian accounts, at least one soldier was unhorsed by the rifle fire, and that soldier was wearing a buckskin jacket. Several others dismounted to help him back onto his horse. If this were Custer, the incident would lead to the conclusion that Custer was seriously wounded and that command had broken down. The Smithsonian magazine did a study of this problem back around 1984 when I was a subscriber, and reached this very conclusion, especially as most of the officers died in a small circle around Custer.~~Doktorschley, 22 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sensei48: I would note that further along in the Indian Wars, other generals learned from Custer's mistakes here. During the Apache wars, the army deliberately brought field artillery, and Apache country in Arizona is somewhat worse than the terrain of the LBH, and I have spent some time in both places. Otherwise, I think it is fine to give the reader a lot of different scenarios to choose from (though I think that making a sound reconstruction that addresses the available evidence is also defensible. Britannica used this approach at the end of the 19th century, when those writing for it were bona fide scholars.). The important thing is that these perspectives are included, along with their references. I think at this point the article is approaching a certain level of refinement that is commendable, and at some point it will have to be fine-tuned and completed.~~Doktorschley. 22 December 2007.

Worthy points, as always, Herr Doktor. However - just as a point of discussion between you and me - regarding the buckskin-clad casualty at the river - as you likely know, several of the officers favored buckskin on campaign for its lightness compared to the rough cotton shirts and rougher woolen military blouses that were standard uniform. I seem to recall that both Tom Custer and James Calhoun were remarked by Reno battalion survivors to be wearing buckskin that day, as well as one or more of the scouts.

Now this could be significant in terms of the Indian report, which I read years ago in the Graham book. Custer favored fringed white buckskin trousers and blouse and began the day wearing those over his blue serge military shirt. It was an unusually hot day for June from all reports, leading one to wonder whether GAC would still have been wearing his blouse or overshirt by 3 pm (whereas an officer wearing a buckskin shirt would still have had it on).

Moreover, the forensic report on scene noted (as does the article) that of Custer's two wounds, both would have been fatal (one shot in the region of the heart and one to the forehead) and that the head wound did not bleed, suggesting a post-mortem insurance shot.

Of course, none of the above would refute (nor do I intend it to) the Indian accounts of loss of command and control - which supports that single overwhelming charge and subsequent buffalo run scenario.

As you know, I favor the theory (articulated by Jeffery Wert, among others)that Custer was setting up for the pincers attack and waiting for reinforcement for Benteen (because by now he could have seen the size and extent of the village) when a "defensive rush" from the middle of the village (with Gall and the Hunkpapa at the center - a first rather than decisive counterattack) overwhelmed Calhoun, stampeded Keogh's horses, decimating both companies and sending survivors singly and in small groups fleeing toward Last Stand Hill - few actually making it (the buffalo run). The Gray Horse troop is simultaneously attempting to retreat from its attempt to ford the river at the middle of the village, sent fleeing up the ridge toward GAC by Lame White Man and the Cheyenne. GAC is trying to organize and deploy on the Hill, watching aghast the collapse of his left wing (Calhoun and Keogh) and seeing his center (Smith and the Grays) retreating in disorder - and utterly unaware (because he is not on the crest of the ridge) of the very significant force of Oglallas following Crazy Horse who are about to swarm over him from behind and over the ridge, having crossed the river to his north and shielded from sight by the ridge. A few panicked troopers and scouts from the ridge dash downhill toward the river, end up in the Deep Ravine, and are finished off by Lame White Man (killed in the process) and the Cheyenne [the Deep Ravine action having long been thought to be the tipping point mid-battle rather than what may have been the real last stand).

I like your point about the Apache wars (General Howard, mostly, though the ubiquitous Nelson Miles put in an appearance down there as well) and agree that the article is moving toward completion. Next week I'll propose a sourced addition or two - nothing as extensive as above (which after all is pretty much the traditional view of the action) but just a reference or two and possibly adding a phrase or two. I'm confident that we can find common ground for what to include here. Sensei48 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensei48 is quite correct about the terrain of this area. I get what GAC was trying to do, coming out of the hills might have been a surprise to the warriors since it appears as though horses may not have been ideal for the terrain either. Check out these satellite and terrain maps of the vicinity. The problem was his underestimation of the actual numbers involved eliminated any benefit to the cavalry. Anynobody 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensei48: I would also note that from Michno's piecing together the Indian accounts, both strategic and tactical surprise were lost very early in the day when the advance elements of Custer's unit fired on the Lakota boys sent out to round up the horses, killing one of them. This action eliminated any element of effective military surprise, even though the Indians, when receiving word from the boys, were indeed surprised, and rushed from the river to mount their horses naked, with wives, sisters, and mothers thrusting their weapons into their hands. What is really incredible is that none of Custer's actions suggest any awareness of this series of events, so that one is left to wonder whether an advance party of scouts were responsible for this incident. Certainly, however, Custer would have heard the shots. I hunt in pretty rugged country across the West, and the sound of a shot carries sometimes for miles. My father had a number of vintage firearms going back to the revolutionary war, and one of them was one of these 1873 Model .45-70 carbines. He used to shoot these weapons off on the 4th of July. The 1873 carbine was a thunderous weapon. Of course, the army revolvers of that day had a report that carried less far.~~Additon by Doktorschley.71.221.115.111 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Doktorschley. 23 December 2007.

[edit] Reverting An Anonymous Edit

I reverted a recent deletion on the "Organization and Deployment" section on the LBH article only because a)there is some essential information in it without which key elements of the "Reno's Attack" and subsequent sections are unclear, and b) there is neither explanation or justification on the talk page. While I agree that some of the organization details may be unnecessary, the paragraphs on deployment are critical to understanding what Reno's attack was all about. I would think that a careful editing of the section would be more appropriate than wholesale deletion. However, even if the section merits deletion, without explanation the action appears to be just vandalism.

I'd invite the editor who made the deletion to explain why s/he did so here on the Talk page.Sensei48 00:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting The Last Major Edit

User 68.96.239.69 made a major edit to "Prelude to Battle" that included some valuable new material and some good unraised points. However, I have reverted to the previous edit for the following reasons:

1) Violation of NPOV - most of the comments on Benteen are opinion and phrased as such. Also, the quotation of the letter by Benteen, provided by the editor to bolster a POV about Benteen's actions - would belong in a note if it belonged anywhere at all - and it does not. The article must stick to the known facts - where Benteen moved and when and not interpreting why or rendering judgment on the movements.

2)The third paragraph rewrite eliminates valuable information from the earlier edit, including Mitch Bouyer's comments. Ditto for later sections, even though they correct the military terminology.

3) There is an habitual misuse of commas in the writing and there are several technical errors in the citations.

A combination of the better elements of both revisions would serve the article well. Sensei48 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe 68's revisions to the "Custer Fight" section are excellent - but the "Many historians" section needs some notation support (which, 68, you know you can find in Graham). Sensei48 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the Marquis Paragraph

I can't track down the editor who inserted the paragraph referring to the Thomas B. Marquis book at the end of the controversies section, but I am pretty sure it doesn't belong in this article, at least at this point. I have read and enjoyed several of Marquis' books (including Save The Last Bullet For Yourself), but anyone reading him immediately perceives several problems. First, he was a doctor and not a scholar. Second, he was not objective - his work as their doctor pre-disposed him to the Cheyenne and their point of view. Third, he did not learn their language - he mastered the pan-Plains sign language, a kind of Esperanto or lingua franca of its day, but hardly a language capable of communicating the kinds of subtleties and fine points that Marquis claims to have gleaned from the Cheyenne in several of his books.

Moreover - the editor announces that Marquis' idea "was revived" (another misleading use of passive voice) in 2006 - by Margot Liberty from some notes for Friends of LBH. Liberty's purport is to present the Cheyenne way of thinking - fine. But the identification of the conflict as "The Great Sioux War" comes from the fact that the majority of the so-called "hostiles" who had left reservations were Lakota, and it is the Lakota who are specifically mentioned (as "Sioux") in the orders to Terry, Gibbon, and Crook.

The assertion that the Lakota lacked cohesion and governance compared to the Cheyenne is also highly debatable - not an NPOV fact at all. I want to look into this further, but the whole thing looks to me like a speculative attempt to re-write the extent and importance of Cheyenne participation in LBH.Sensei48 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


You can pin this one on me. I too feel it has the agenda stated by Sensei48 (but I am Oglala Lakota, and so would think so), but if true, Dr. Liberty's point is a good one. How the government described the war and its objectives are beside the point in this discussion--its point was how the tribes perceived it. I take more umbrage personally from the statement in Liberty that the Seven Council Fires of the Lakota is a "romantic" fanciful notion, but on the face of it the argument has merit: the Cheyenne were targets of attack out of proportion to their numbers, and one could indeed wonder "what did they do to make the whites so mad at them?" Remember that the section is about "controversies over the battle"--and Marquis's theory, whatever his background, serves as a valid starting point for a...controversial theory. Identifying it is far from making it so. Further, I don't get the somewhat uncivil ("misleading") jab about passive voice. If that's a sin, edit it, but please don't ascribe a motive unless you know it's so. Thanx.--Buckboard 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the apparent jab about pv - my mistake in assumption. There was an editor of this article some months ago who kept inserting genuinely objectionable POV statements (especially about the Lakota and other Native combatants) and tried to hide them as passives (as in "They were widely acknowledged to be...." or "The battle has come to be regarded as ...") and I thought that s/he might be at it again.

From a strictly rhetorical point of view, passive voice has its uses, especially and most effectively when the performer of an action is unknown ( as in "The First National Bank was robbed today"). It is, however, the last refuge when used intentionally by writers seeking to mask a personal observation behind the smokescreen of the apparent but fallacious objectivity of a statements, as above.

As to the material itself - I believe, Buckboard, that you have expressed more aptly than I the problems with the wording of this paragraph, especially as to its dismissive attitude (or its reference to Liberty's dismissal) of the cohesion and national identity of the Lakota - an astounding assertion, really, in the face of the nearly three hundred years of recorded history by Euro peoples with this formidable and highly cohesive nation. Other Native nations like the Crow and Pawnee might have had a word or two to say on this matter.

Though I agree that the Marquis/Liberty point might be integrated into the controversies section, I think it needs to be more proportional to its weight and phrased with some of the cautions voiced here about Marquis. After all, he took the fragments he had gleaned from sign language conversations and derived the theory of mass suicide of Custer's battalion, an assertion belied first by most of the Native testimony and secondarily contraindicated by much of the recent archeology.

Truly the Cheyenne suffered more greatly from assaults by military entities of the US (The Colorado Volunteers at Sand Creek were a militia) - but there is another side to this as well, that being the relatively more aggressive and at times indiscriminate war waged by the Cheyenne warrior societies against white settlers than the Lakota waged. (Some of this is explored with a good deal of vehemence on the Talk page for the Battle of the Washita article.) It was a pretty bad business all the way around. I would also suggest that the inclusion of the tribal perception is very important - but given the animosity and conflict between the Lakota and the US that existed from nearly first contact (from the brief exchange of fire with Lewis and Clark and the Grattan fight of 1847), it's hard to support a perspective that makes the Lakota a sort of fellow traveler to the Cheyenne, except perhaps as a minority point of view in the imagination of the latter. Sensei48 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Not enough of the Reno Court of Inquiry and the aftermath, and some errors

"It is believed Custer suspected that he would be outnumbered by the Indians, although he did not know by how much."

This statement is false. Custer knew that he would face 1000 to 1500 warriors and explicitely told his subordinates (according to Lieutenants Godfrey and Edgerly) that the enenmies would be 1'500-strong. The section on the Reno Court of Inquiry must be enlarged, especially with what Generals Merritt, Sheridan and Lieutenant Jesse Lee (RCOI chairman) said about the court and the cover-up. http://www.custerwest.org Custerwest (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Custerwest - I think you're right here, in terms of the proportion of the importance of the Inquiry to the controversies surrounding the battle. I think it's pretty much generally agreed that the Court of Inq. was a whitewash - an attempt by the army to the prevent further embarrassment that likely would have occurred had the investigation revealed a) the depth and extent of Reno's wildly erratic behavior during the charge on the south end of the village, and b) the extent of the animus held by Benteen for GAC. Remember that the court failed to condemn Reno especially using the weakest possible words - nothing in his behavior "requiring animadversion from this court" - in other words - "he didn't do anything so egregiously wrong that we can't weasel out of courtmatialing and cashiering him."

But proportion is the key here. I know from your website - an excellent, professional, and really enjoyable place to visit - that you are propounding a point of view on GAC and LBH that runs counter to what you see as "political correctness." I enjoy your efforts.

But in an encyclopedia, the most that any point of view can hope for is inclusion as one of several variable and possible perspectives.

This takes us back to your original point. The Court of Inquiry deserves greater attention here, and certainly the statements of Edgerly and Godfrey are extremely significant. The problem is that there are critics - then and now - who perceive the split of the command as a tactical error precisely because of the number of warriors involved. I'd refer to my sourced comments above about other fights in which soldiers were outnumbered by as much as 20 to 1 and survived or (Wagon Box Fight) emerged victorious because of contrasting approaches to fighting between Indians and whites.

Maybe we should "sandbox" a rewrite here that brings up the suggestion that GAC's annihilation resulted from "Reno"s cowardice" and "Benteen's failure, motivated by hate." If it can be sourced - and sadly, not from a POV like your blog, but say from Inquiry statements, letters of the time, and so on - then it should be represented in the article. Sensei48 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) PS - and don't you think we should identify your external link to Custerwest.org on the GAC page as more than "resources"? I mean, you really have a point of view there that you're pushing - an interesting and defensible one - but I think it should be identified as such. Sensei48 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Image: 7th Cavalry Regimental Insignia

My removal of this colorful illustration is ironic because I replaced it twice when it had been deleted - expressly because the editor had failed to give any indication of why it was being removed. I suspected (from the design, especially the memorialization of the 7th's role in the Indian wars with the image of a war-bonnetted warrior) that this coat of arms was not contemporary with the battle, and it is not. It was adopted by the regiment nearly 50 years later in 1920. For reference, see the official site of the 7th cavalry:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Cav/7CavalryRegiment.htm

Thus, the coat of arms adds nothing to a discussion of the battle that preceded it by half a century. Too bad, because it added some needed color to the article.Sensei48 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, you have to wonder whether or not the tribal flags belong in the Infobox. These did not exist as "flags" in 1876; their adoption as such is a 20th century phenomenon. This is especially problematic because the US flag displayed in the Infobox is in fact an 1876 flag.
The Native insigniae look good and I don't want to quibble, but if consistency and historical accuracy are goals of the article - they should be removed, or the US flag should likewise be contemporary.

Sensei48 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs a rewrite

The article may (or not) be NPOV, but it certainly omits an honest representation of history. The heavy weight given to the mechanics of the fighting are a distraction, and should not make up the bulk of the article. Not that the article lies or misrepresents history (good faith is emphatically assumed) ... simply: it may be factual, but it is not an honest telling.

A factual description: The US cavalry saw a large village that seemed to contain no armed men. Taking advantage of the military opportunity, Custer led an attack on the village, but was intercepted by Indians waiting in ambush, and his command was wiped out in a ferocious firefight.

An honest telling of these facts: Custer was intercepted and killed while leading a full-scale military assault on defenseless women and children.

One might also discuss the strategies of the combatants:

  • Question: why would a military force attack an ostensibly defenseless village that consisted of only women, children, and old people? Answer: to kill the women and children. It's less dangerous and more effective than fighting the armed men, because if you kill the women and children, then there will be no next generation of these people. (this cavalry attack was one implementation of the strategy, which was broadly applied against the Indian peoples)
  • Question: having noticed the approach of cavalry, why would the Indian tactic consist of having the armed men hide, then simply wait for the cavalry to attack an ostensibly defenseless village of women, children, and old people? Answer: they knew the tactics of their enemy, and used the enemy's tactics against him.

24.178.228.14 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer - and this is a post-script to my comments below - they did not hide. Warriors streamed from the village to meet Reno's initial charge. Simultaneously others rode out to meet GAC's battalion at the fords, joined later by warriors from the Reno combat. There was at no point an attempt to hide or create an ambush.Sensei48 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the fact that 24.178 would take the time and trouble to present an argument for rewrite here before just going ahead and voiding the page, and I believe that 24's comments should have a response presented in the same good faith that s/he ascribes to previous editors of this article.

I'm sure that if 24 examines the page history as well as the talk page here, it will be clear that the article to date has evolved as the result of spirited discussion and careful sourcing of nearly all of the material currently in the article. Ideas included here include those from somewhat pro-GAC points of view like Custerwest to proponents of the Indian testimony like Doktorschley.

The most serious of 24's points, and the one that the rest of the argument for rewrite hinges on, revolves around the concept of "an apparently defenceless village." This puzzles me. Virtually no available source - contemporary from the battle, testimony of survivors and participants white and Native, and scholars of all stripes to this day - have ever asserted that a) the village was defenseless, or b) that the village appeared defenseless.

Custer's tactics, orders, and quoted words all demonstrate incontrovertibly that he expected stiff resistance from armed warriors in the village. If 24 has any other source that suggests otherwise, s/he should cite and present it. But I need to say in good faith and attributing good faith - most of the editors who have worked on this article are exceptionally well-versed in the scholarship,history, and testimonies surrounding this battle. A source unknown to them to this point will be regarded with great caution and needs to be of unassailable objectivity to justify even a partial rewrite to imply that GAC expected anything less than a tough battle.Sensei48 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello Sensei48, your welcoming and conversational response was superior to my approach. Wikipedia was well-served by you. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was elsewhere engaged. But perhaps you missed my intended point. If your only substantive objection rests on my use of "defenceless", then take that word out, as the argument stands without it.

Restating myself more explicitly:

  • This article lacks context, to such a degree that it is not an honest telling of history. This battle was trivial to one side, and its fame rests on the fact that the winner was not expected to win. It was a minor and temporary setback in the implementation of a national policy, and its impact was on the ultimate winner was nil, save in support of a national myth (one that ill-serves that nation, IMHO). As for the people who implemented national policy by following orders (including GAC), I make no comment, as it is tangential to my point. However, there seems to be less visible controversy when the implementors are on the losing side of a war, as one of the consequences of war is the trivialization or demonization of the losers, while exalting the actions of the ultimate winners.
I think you express the relative - and I emphasize that word - unimportance of the battle well, but the anomaly exists that (by some estimates) only the battles of Waterloo and Gettysburg have had more books and other material published about them than has LBH. Taking your ideas into account, I'd think that this article might need more of a discussion of why that is so - from several points of view. There is a school that believes this to be the most significant of all white-Native battles because it was the last genuine Native victory.Sensei48 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Proper context is necessary for an honest telling of history. An article describing democracy as applicable only to white-skinned, property-owning males over 21 would never survive in Wikipedia. The US Constitution comes off somewhat better in an 18th century context. A description of that document in terms of its flaws and imperfections (to say the least!), without the 18th century context, is similarly inappropriate to Wikipedia's efforts towards an honest telling. Proper context is necessary for an honest telling of history.
Most assuredly - but this is an article on the battle itself. If we go to Battle of Waterloo, will we find and should we find a context devoted to counter-revolutionary imperialism, the end of feudal oligarchy, and the rise of capitalism? Surely these all constitute part of the context for that battle, but military history is itself a different context, and both Waterloo and LBH fall within the purview of Wiki projects in that latter area.Sensei48 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not intend to impugn "scholarship, history, and testimonials", nor the hard and concientous work, that went into the creation of this article (all of which look admirable to me, though the article itself seems bloated). I noticed no falsehoods. However, without proper context, the article has the (unintended) effect of supporting a POV, one that might rightly be referred to as part of a national myth. A great quote that applies here: "Lies are not the enemy of truth. The enemy of truth is myth."
No one who reads your thoughtful discussions will feel that his/her integrity is impugned, I think. And BTW, I left a note on a newly-crated "Usertalk" page for you. Sensei48 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the proper context for this article includes the objective of eliminating people who are in the way (either by their emigration or extermination or otherwise, and for whatever reason). Examples abound around the world, in the past and in the present. Heated arguments between protagonists almost always ensue, so I'll cite none of them here, and hope that you know where I'm going with this. Omitting context when that context does not portray a cherished ideal or entity in a positive light, or even when the context is not of interest, has the same effect as POV-pushing or mythmaking. That certainly applies to the article as it now stands.
Now I can't agree with your first sentence here, unless specifically it is in the context of balancing an explicitly-stated argument to the contrary. You may recall that the US government's stated intention in this war was the protection of US civilians, not all of whom were trespassing on the land illegally seized by the government in 1875 in contravention of the Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1867. Though I personally may incline toward the point you raise here, let me assure you that there are plenty of folks who've edited this article who favor a radically different interpretation. My point has always been that an encyclopedia article -and this is Wiki policy - should include both sides of a controversy where one exists, and I'm sure you realize that about half of your paragraph above would be attacked vehemently by mainstream/traditionalist historians.

To the point of context - is it possible that that belongs more properly under, say, the Black Hills War or Indian Wars? Divorced from the link to military history, your ideas for context might fit more naturally there. Sensei48 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

24.178.228.14 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a heck of a response, 24! This is actually the first note I'm typing - I think I can converse more effectively if I respond to some of your points where they appear above.


Hello Sensei48, thanks for your good and useful responses. And placing them in the itemized list above puts everything in proper context (pun intended, in good spirit). I'll respond below and hope that that also helps fluidity, as the points have been made, and we don't want to bloat them into unusefulness.

  • Yes, Indian Wars seems more appropriate for the issue of context (only because of its broad generality, not for its better treatment of its stated topic), rather than picking an instance of that topic (such as this article). But one tends to start from wherever one happens to be. So I'll respond to your latest points, and hope that that be considered useful, which is my intent.
  • I do not disagree with orienting this article within a military context, as it now is. But military-related articles have non-military context (militaries exist as implementors of those non-military contexts, and not without them), and that context provides the reason (not referring to tactics or strategy) for which the battle was fought, and describes the objectives and mindset and considerations of those involved. The consideration of context impacts the way the story is told, and the way it is understood, and the way it is cited, and the way the participants are described (as heroes, villains, collateral damage, or otherwise).
  • Aside from the level of documentation, battles in wars between the professionalized armies of mutally antagonistic entities (such as Waterloo and Gettysburg) are not comparable to LBH, militarily or otherwise. The French and the Confederate peoples did not face annihilation in defeat. I do not describe what might have happened at LBH had the US won, but I challenge anyone to allege "irrelevance" in the description of LBH-comparable battles, in which the soldiers tried to kill everyone and destroy everything (the issue is certainly irrelevant at Waterloo and Gettysburg). So, what was the military objective at LBH (without regard as to whether anyone thinks that such things ought to be military objectives)?
  • As you note, concepts (imperialism, oligarchy, capitalism, etc) are properly relevant to context, and are of less interest to purely military historians. However, less abstract motives also apply, and usually to both sides of a conflict, though they are rarely stated except for one side to demean the other. If a critical eye has the luxury of after-the-fact analysis (and that applies here), then including such primary motives is required for an honest telling of history.
  • Regarding my mention of eliminating people who are in the way as context, and noting that it might only be appropriate in balancing "an explicitly stated argument to the contrary", that has the cart before the horse, I think. That "explicitly stated argument" does not occur, so its refutation cannot occur. Stated objectives are not necessarily actual objectives. No one says "I want what you have and I don't like your kind of people, never mind right or wrong" (except perhaps Andrew Jackson after the Cherokees won in the US Supreme Court, but certainly not in those words). More common is to say something with more noble connotations, such as "Manifest Destiny" or "defending US citizens", which accomplishes the same purpose without mentioning the baser motives. I repeat: if a critical eye has the luxury of after-the-fact analysis (and that applies here), then including such primary motives is required for an honest telling of history.
  • As for article editors who favor a radically different interpretation, so be it. It is not required that we all think alike (though it would be nice if everyone else would be reasonable and see things my way). Wiki's "both sides of a controversy" policy is commendable, though it has a few fuzzy areas that are vulnerable to manipulation. As for potential vehement attacks by mainstream/traditionalist historians, neither vehemence nor the status of the attacker is pertinent to the merits of an argument, though both can be used as bludgeons against a perceived enemy, usually ensuring that argument merit no longer matters, which returns us to the context of wars and battles.

Regards,

24.178.228.14 (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again 24 -
I just lost an entire section response and sadly don't have the time to rewrite it all. Time is really short for me these days...
Your points above deserve extended response, finely crafted as they are. For the moment, though, I'd like to address only one from your second bullet point above. Taking the liberty of quoting you:
battles in wars between the professionalized armies of mutally antagonistic entities (such as Waterloo and Gettysburg) are not comparable to LBH, militarily or otherwise. The French and the Confederate peoples did not face annihilation in defeat. I do not describe what might have happened at LBH had the US won, but I challenge anyone to allege "irrelevance" in the description of LBH-comparable battles, in which the soldiers tried to kill everyone and destroy everything (the issue is certainly irrelevant at Waterloo and Gettysburg)
I think at this point your argument strays from the controversially defensible to unsourcable POV - here's why.
Though as you note the subjugation and removal of native peoples constituted an unpleasant but incontrovertible fact of government policy, the suggestion that this spilled over into genocidal policy on the part of either the Department of the Interior or the US Army is a baseless canard, one that has gained a certain amount of traction among historians to whom facts don't matter.
The strategy of military actions against villages (which are more properly regarded as akin to medieval walled cities or the armed encampments of ancient armies that often included families, as every adult male in an Indian village was an armed and usually skilled soldier) was to capturethe non-combatants with the goal of forcing the surrender of warriors not killed in the actual fighting.
Neither Custer's orders from above nor to his battalions below either at LBH or at the Battle of Washita(the formulation of a Wiki article about which is fraught with as much controversy as this one, esp. on the Talk page)stated , suggested, or implied any mass annihilation. The very few instances of that in Plains warfare ( the Sand Creek Massacre springs to mind) occurred when civilians and vigilante-type militias made and executed their own illegal actions.
The only clear-cut case of a US Army massacre was at Wounded Knee in 1890- an action severely criticized even at the time by the Plains command of the US Army, up to department commander Gen. Nelson Miles.
Because LBH was a military action against a military force, it is properly regarded as a military action. The context that is important -a factual relation of the sequence of events leading to the battle - is recounted in the "Prelude" section.
And a final thought. The very reason for the gathering of Lakota at LBH was military by its very nature - and not necessarily defensive military. So large a gathering could not be sustained (because of food supplies and the impossibility of hunting to support a village of perhaps 3000)for long, and the bands had been emboldened by their victory a week before at the Battle of the Rosebud. Note that in that battle, the Lakota attacked the cavalry - took them by surprise. This was the same gathering of peoples who moved from Rosebud to LBH.
In short - I believe that you are on safe ground when bringing up context about removal, but not so when positing a position about the nature of the battle. Sensei48 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't help noticing this discussion, and it seems like there has been a basic (understandable) confusion of what this article's context should be by 24.178.228.14 who said The heavy weight given to the mechanics of the fighting are a distraction, and should not make up the bulk of the article. The mechanics of the actual battle are exactly what the article is intended to cover, discussion about why it happened or the motivations of each side should be made at the Indian wars article.
To illustrate what I mean take Operation Overlord, it is a large article devoted to the battle for Normandy. Why there was fighting that day, the motives of each side, etc. are a whole other issue and as such are dealt with in World War II. Bringing this example back to LBH, whether the 7th was there to actively destroy a defenseless village or armed encampment, it was part of a larger conflict which is too detailed to discuss in this article. Anynobody 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{editprotected}}

The image under the 1st section needs to be replaced by Image:US Cav 35.svg as the current image is an inferior copyrighted GIF, while this is a free SVG. The GIF should also be deleted after removal. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done SkierRMH (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination on Hold

The article is very thotough and contains most of what it needs to be a GA, but a few more things need to be addressed first.


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written: Not Yet
    1. The article is heavy on lists and bullet point sections. I would recommend that most of them, such as the "Organization and Deployment" section, "Civilians Killed", "Popular Culture", etc. be converted into paragraphs to make the article more smooth. Those larger lists should either be organized into tables or removed from the article entirely.
    2. The header should be expanded more to give further details at the beginning of the article.
    3. Some of the sections like "Indian Village" are far too short and need to be expanded or merged, while others like "Custer's fight" are too long and need to be broken up somehow.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Not Yet, a large section at the top of the article is completely without inline citations. About halfway through the narrative the citations are good, but then they it goes back to being unsourced where the lists begin. Cite every detail you can on the article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass no problem here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass
  5. It is stable. Not Yet the lists are what make the article unstable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. Pass
  7. Overall: The article is almost there, but some major changed in form and citation need to be done before it can pass its review. -Ed! (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

As I have just noticed this discussion page is quite active and civil, I feel compelled to post my justification for removing the flags for the various Native American groups that took part in the battle. (My justification was mentioned in the edit summary, but deserves mention here as well.) In relation to the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the flags are relatively recent creations. They are anachronistic in the context of this article's subject. As such, in keeping with WP:FLAG, I determined that the flags should be removed. If there is any disagreement, please feel free to object. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have further noticed that these flags (and those of other present-day Native American nations and reservations) have been used in many other articles on historical battles, where their presence is also anachronistic. Correcting mis-use of flags has been a small project of mine recently. I don't mind removing the flags from those other articles as well, but would like to hear some discussion before doing so. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion thread started here. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


I had made a similar point above under the header of removing the 7th Cav Regimental Insignia. I didn't remove the NA flags at that time because I was unsure of Wiki policy on that. Your note here and link clears that up - and flags seem to be your area of expertise as well. So thanks!Sensei48 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone reinserted two of the tribal flags with no justification for their authenticity. I am removing them.Sensei48 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto 3/27. Sensei48 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's important to note that the US flag is not anachronistic as it depicts 37 stars. If archaeological/historical evidence were to reveal the tribes using flags (I assume they'd be different than the new ones being added ) we'd be obliged to include them. Anynobody 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That was the point I tried to make on a Talk page I created for 150. - the IP addy of the most recent NA flag uploader. I myself changed the 7th Cavalry Regimental Flag that had been in the article and dated from 1920 to the accurate guidon now depicted (with some hefty help from editors who really knew how to upload pics better than I). I note that these modern tribal flags appear in other articles about 19th century conflicts as well. My revert did not include the US flag, which I also insured was a 36 star 1876 replica. As you note, any flag not contemporary to the battle would be an anachronism. I hope that the NA flag uploaders will drop by here and read your note. Sensei48 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

After over one month on hold and none of the previous GA issues addressed, we have to move the reviews along. I'm reviewing the article again, but it has the same issues as before.


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Fail Some sections are too short, others are too long.
    1. The article is heavy on lists and bullet point sections. I would recommend that most of them, such as the "Organization and Deployment" section, "Civilians Killed", "Popular Culture", etc. be converted into paragraphs to make the article more smooth. Those larger lists should either be organized into tables or removed from the article entirely.
    2. The header should be expanded more to give further details at the beginning of the article.
    3. Some of the sections like "Indian Village" are far too short and need to be expanded or merged, while others like "Custer's fight" are too long and need to be broken up somehow.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Fail There are large sections of the article which are completely unreferenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass
  5. It is stable:
    Fail The issues above make the article unstable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass
  7. Overall:
    Fail needs some improvements before being renominated. -Ed! (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture variety

I noticed that this article lacks depictions of the battle in Native American art. I feel it would be a good idea to add some. I also noted that some of the pictures could be placed better (to correlate with text)--75.48.36.125 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

Good idea,I think. White Bull had a particularly famous and well-executed picture of the battle. Sensei48 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

The article contains this phrase:

taking into account the fact that every cartridge arrived at the end of a 1000-mile supply line

Can someone in the know clarify this? As a lay person, I have no idea what this means. --P3d0 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to make the purpose of that phrase more explicit. I also noticed that section is extremely long. Maybe some one can look at it to see if it can be broken into subsections. NJGW (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite clear now. Thank you! --P3d0 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)