Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn

Avoid POV Statements

I have removed more blatant and unsupported POV statements from the article, as the edit history will show. I have not the time to go back and find out who is responsible, but it appears to be some editor not familiar with Wiki policies on sourcing, WP:OR, or POV statements. Since none of these removed statements are objectively verifiable, may I suggest that the editor(s) in question consider starting a blog to support their POV and refrain from editing such statements into an encyclopedia article that strives for objectivity.

Additionally, editors should review the history opf this article and consider the absolute painstaking efforts that have been made to keep it objective and balanced - and not attempt to make WP:OR and WP:POV alterations that advance a personal and controversial statement as a fact. Blogs are the proper medium for such writing. Sensei48 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As an example of what IMHO is a good edit, see Doktorshley's addition to the "Crazy Horse, White Bull" section. The original ext read:

Realizing that he had found the hammer that was going to probably strike through the village toward's Reno's anvil, Gall rode southwest, crossing back across the Little Bighorn River and warned the hundreds of warriors who had just returned from their repulse of Reno of this new threat from the Northeast.

Not a bad sentence at all, but one that presumes certitude where such cannot be established beyond doubt. Doktorsclhey amended it thus:

[Chief Gall|Gall]]. He had crossed the Little Bighorn and had ridden up to the ridgeline south east of what is today called Sharpshooters Ridge. From there, he had ridden stealthily to see Custer's forces concealed at that point down in Medicine Tail Coulee. Gall claimed to have ridden southwest, crossing back across the Little Bighorn River to warn the hundreds of warriors who had just returned from their repulse of Reno of this new threat from the Northeast.

DoktorS. has identified a verifiable fact - what Gall said, disputed at times by some other Lakota - and not presented an individual assertion as an incontrovertible fact. Sensei48 (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Dispute: Talk Page Record For Admin Review of Dispute On Sourcing For Point Of Fact

1) My initial comment on 58's page and 58's response:

Hi 58!

I appreciate the energy that your current edits display and your passion for accuracy on LBH - and your note on my Talk page. I do in fact read a LOT more than edit summaries and have put more time in on this article (as referee as well as editor/writer) than nearly any other editor.

Perhaps you misunderstood MY edit summary, and you apparently do not see why your edit of Custer's division of command is seriously misplaced in this article. This is a matter of rhetoric and chronology. The rhetorical problem is that by placing the division of GAC's command where you do, in the paragraph at the outset of the campaign, prior to June 17 Rosebud, the inescapable implication is that this division was made at that time by Terry or under his supervision.

Your clear expertise about the battle tells me that you know that this was not so - that the division of the 7th Cavalry into three battalions was a controversial command decision made by GAC immediately prior to the battle.

Certainly the division of the 7th into battalions (or detachments, as the article now states) needs to be elucidated, but not in that paragraph. Look again, please - every other unit described in that paragraph left their respective forts in the configurations there presented. Putting GAC's division of June 25th should not be in the same paragraph with Terry's columns leaving Ft. Lincoln on May 29.

We have a dozen or so other editors and admins working consistently on this article, and rather than go to the three revert situation, perhaps we could ask someone else to take a look at the placement and comment. Regards Sensei48 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensei, for a start the regiment at this time was not divided into battalions. Secondly, it is known when Custer divided his command, on Sunday afternoon, June 25, 1876. It is almost a given though that it was divided when it left the garrison although squadrons were also not used at the time. The command of US Cavalry regiment on the march was effectively divided into four (4) squadrons of three troops (companies in US parlance) as the Cavalry Manuals states. This was in fact a World-wide practice, and senior troop commanders in this case acted also as squadron commanders, or detachments from the regiment. You will note that the companies were not assigned sequentially as they would if deploying by squadrons, i.e. A, B, and C in 1st squadron, etc. Therefore it is probably safe to say that they did not march together either. Given this is an encyclopaedic work and not a detailed literary account, the necessity of showing exactly when the companies were "split up" by Custer would border on trivial since they probably continued in their order of march when the regiment was detached from Terry, and before hand also. In any case, the point at which they were detached bears no significance to the rest of the article. All the reader needs to know from the onset is which companies were commanded by whom for reference to the events related later in the article and as a place of reference should the reader need one.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2) My response to this put on 58's page - deleted but not answered by 58: Hello again 58 - Thanks for the prompt reply! You seem to be an experienced Wiki editor, so my observations here should be familiar ground. Above you state, "It is almost a given though that it was divided when it left the garrison..." - but it is not an established, verifiable, sourced fact. It is a supposition on your part, speculation if you will - and not at all a common one. Without sourcing, it becomes WP:OR even if true. Further - "You will note that the companies were not assigned sequentially as they would if deploying by squadrons, i.e. A, B, and C in 1st squadron, etc." - which underscores the "command decision" nature of the decision to detach the companies irregularly 6/25/76 and not 5/29/76 in order of march. Every history of the battle that I know of - hundreds - asserts from eyewitness testimony that GAC detached those companies at noon on the day of the battle. Further - "it is probably safe to say" - "would border on trivial since they probably continued in their order of march when the regiment was detached from Terry". As above - except that this is hardly a "trivial" point, since - if you look at some of the more inflammatory edits earlier to the article and check the controversies section at the bottom of the current - the battle tactic of division of command in the face of superior numbers remains a flashpoint of controversy to this day. I'm just pointing that out, BTW, without comment pro or con. Keeping the article free of POV suppositions has been a challenge over the years. Some well-meaning editors have tried to assert as factual speculations about troop movements and combat details from GAC's annihilated command that can never be factually established. Prior work on the article has tried to assure that observations are presented in balanced fashion - as with the division of command, which may or may not have been a fatal error. Finally - "All the reader needs to know from the onset" should be the established facts from which s/he can draw independent conclusions. Regards - Sensei48 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

#) 58 replaced the deleted paragraph with this: * I fact it seems that prior to the last campaign Custer was stationed in Elizabethtown, Kentucky with only the A company.

"Custer and the Seventh Cavalry were ordered to the Dakota Territory in March of 1873. Life in Elizabethtown had probably become monotonous for Custer and the Seventh. Immediately upon receiving orders, they hurriedly packed and left Elizabethtown over the L & N Railroad bound for Louisville, then Memphis. The regiment was to rendezvous in Memphis. From Memphis steamers were boarded for transport to Cairo. From there rail and horse carried the Seventh to the Dakota Territory. Once there the Seventh Cavalry was reunited and prepared for active operations."

The 1st cavalry division site http://www.first-team.us/journals/7th_rgmt/7thndx07.html shows that with the exception of E & M companies, the rest were scattered all over the South. They would have arrived for transportation to Dakota at different times, loaded at different times, and certainly not sequentially, unloaded in the same order as loaded, taken up same place in the regimental order of march and struck camp in the same order. This is how I would explain the non-sequential assignment of the companies to the three senior officers. Custer commanded the main force of the regiment while others commanded the advance guard (Reno) and the (rear guard, Benteen), with the main also including the pack train with one company for escort. Interestingly some sources describe the regiment having only 11 companies on this campaign, and they are right since the A company was the Regimental HQ and band company, although it is listed in the order of march as a line company in most sources. Undoubtedly they all fought just the same as ordinary troopers even if most were not.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

4) The interchange subsequent to the above

Hello 58! I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but whatever it is it is not sourcing or proof for your POV speculation about the division of command and its importance to this article. So following Wiki guidelines - it's time to bring some other editors in on this. Sensei48 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Its actually shows that as usual Wikipedia "editors" know very little about the subjects they edit. Did you look at the 1st Cavalry division site? Did you see the different posts the different companies were billeted at before the campaign? Do you appreciate the logistics of moving men and horses from the Southern states to Dakota Territory? Do you understand what order of march is? If not, see p.187 in The Roman Army, by Pat Southern [1] Do you understand what rank seniority is? This article is largely about the 7th cavalry, so why is it that the other units are given in the article in their breakdown, but the only unit that mattered was left as being present "in its entirety"? I knew what happened, and on first reading had trouble following who was where with what, and here the identity of each company mattered. Don't care how many other "editors" you bring to this article. Wikipedia guidelines are that in the first place the article content should be about the subject of the article, and should provide the detail that informs the reader. I added the reference from which I obtained the company assignment to various detachments although it was not the best reference because it also calls them "battalion" despite the squadrons in the regiment not being instituted until 1881. It was the Infantry that had battalions at the time. I did not say they were split up early in the campaign although they probably were as this was common practice during campaigning. You inferred it from my edit summary. Division of the command is obvious from the very contents of this article and every work that ever was written on the subject! The very concept of the operation against the Indian village by Custer is highly dependent on the understanding how companies were divided for it. The order of battle of the other troops is the one that is irrelevant to the battle since none took part in it.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello 58 - Inferences based on a list - http://www.first-team.us/journals/7th_rgmt/7thndx07.html - , an article about the Roman army's order or march [2], and redlinking of order of march indicate only that you are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of scholarship, either within or without Wikipedia. None of these is a source directly related to the 7th Cavalry division of command at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. I am tagging the article with appropriate cautions. Also, since my initial inference that you were familiar with Wiki guidelines and procedures may not be accurate, I believe you should consider checking WP:CIV - for starters, among several other policy pages.

In sum - here on this page, the works you cite do not constitute evidence for your POV statement. In the article, your citation of the Hatch book is to a section in that book that does not confirm your POV assertion. Your rejection of my suggestion of bringing in other editors for mediation suggests that we may need arbitration. regards Sensei48 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is copied from my Talk page User:Sensei48, which I have used as a discussion log since User58 has deleted my response to him at one critical point. Sensei48 (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish that editor, Hello 58 would not jump to conclusions on the "qualifications" or lack of same of the editors of this page. Take me for example, I have contributed some edits to this article and may others. I hold a BA in history, I am a student of modern as well as classical history, have studied a number of ancient historians and other authors in both Attic Greek as well as Latin, am a member of several historical associations, am a retired US military officer, (US Marine Corps Active and Reserve), have taken no less than 400 hundred hours of military mapping classes in both US Marine Corps and US Army Schools including Fort Sill where I was trained as an artillery officer which I continue to use in terrain analysis, have toured the LHB Battlefield a number of times over the years, taken tour groups through the Battlefield and am a member of the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield as well as several other historical organizations. I'm sure that some other editors are probably much better qualified than me to discuss the battle and some are probably only minimally qualified. This is why editors should both cooperate and collaborate as well. Even while growing in the veritable shadow of GAC's boyhood home in Monroe, MI and having studied this battle, Custer, the Civil War, Plains Indians and read probably a hundred books on the subject, I still consider myself open to new ideas or approaches to any study of the Battle. Let's use Wikipedia the way the Founder intended it to be used. Once again, cooperation as well as collaboration. On such a controversial topic as this battle, opinions will vary dramatically. I have my own personal opinions (POV) about this battle, but I have appreciated editor, Sensie48's strong recommendations that we rein in our opinions when we can't substantiate them with factual supportive evidence. As for terms like line of march, chain of command, order of battle, squadrons vs. battalions, main force, advance guard, rear guard and others, let's do our respective homework where appropriate and agree on our terminology. I've had to do some of this same stuff in articles I've contributed around the subject of Field Artillery and theField artillery team where I even designed and uploaded a graphic to help teach the general public some concepts not easily understood - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:785px-Arty_Call_for_Fire_1.jpg for example. Let's continue to discuss some of these contentious items and try to reach a general consensus. Thanks. SimonATL (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment in response to an alert at WT:MHCOORD#Battle of the Little Bighorn: To assist editors that may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia, one of our core principles is that we rely only on reliable secondary sources for article content. For an article such as this, these will be published, peer-reviewed historical works by reputable experts in the field. The ideal Wikipedia article is an originally-written distillation of unoriginal material, so in one sense we need no subject expertise as long as we have access to appropriate sources. Where expertise is helpful is in knowing where to find such sources and in identifying gaps in the subject coverage or assigning appropriate weight to historians' differing opinions; in other words, highlighting the nuances that a layman might be unaware of. Where sources differ, the article should reflect that. There are a number of ways to do this: in the text itself by attributing opinion where sources are roughly equal in ther weight (eg "According to historian X, .... However, historian Y takes the view that..."); using footnotes for a significant minority opinion; following the perponderant mainstream view in the article and dedicating a separate section, perhaps towards the end, to discussing the historical analysis (see Operation Epsom for an example of this); or any combination of the above. The only thing there's absolutely no room for is personal interpretation or synthesis - what Wikipedia calls original research. If it's not backed up by a source, it shouldn't be in the article. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response To User:EyeSerene By Contending Editor User:Sensei48 Thank you much for stepping in here, as I was about to seek some mediation from WP:MILHIST. I've tried assiduously to follow core principles here in editing this article over the last couple of years, compromising frequently on points of perspective with others who at times propound somewhat aggressively a particular POV - I think a fair amount of the discussion above supports that assertion (I hope it does!).

The problem here seems to me to be twofold. First, User:58.165.128.120[1] is asserting that his/her two references regarding "order of march" and division of command on May 29, 1976, one a non-narrative list from a 1st Cavalry website and the other a book about the Roman army, are applicable here and an adequate basis for his/her inferences; I maintain that they are not and constitute WP:OR anyway.

Second, User:58.165.128.120 does not seem to hold either Wikipedia policies like WP:RS in any higher regard than s/he does other editors. 58's latest response to me on his/her Talk Page -

::::Typically you are one of these people more interested in Wikipedia policy than its article contents. So, whenever you are pointed in the right direction you take it as a personal insult, and so you scream incivility. Been there, done that.

However, you had failed to answer any of the questions I asked. That also shows something.

My suggestion is that you waltz over to the Military history Project and ask them to explain to you what the order of march is (and write the article while they are at it), and how it is relevant to this article, which is after all about the 7rh cavalry regiment and how it was used in the operation. Order of march, and how it was divided, and commanded is central to understanding what happened. In that sense the book on the Roman Army is as relevant because at that stage in the 19th century the concept had not changed since the Roman times (believe it or not).

Basic tenets of scholarship is that you UNDERSTAND what you are talking about and can explain it simply to those who know nothing about it (sounds like an encyclopaedia!). It is not about providing copious references. One good reference will do for each statement, and I only made one.

Can you find a work that lists the order of march of the regiment after it left Terry? IF you can, it would be a real research breakthrough I think :) Chances are though (99%) that the order of march was that in Hatch and one that is the most commonly cited division of the companies among senior officers (as noted because there were no squadron divisions at this time).

At this stage you will note that I am talking about the article, and you are talking about Wikipedia policies. Don't you think you would do better as a bureaucrat (sorry, "administrator") rather than an editor? Then you can just get me out of your hair by blocking me for telling you what the article is about :)

As for "civility", I just don't mince words...You must be an American or something (despite using a Japanese avatar) expecting politicly correct delivery that is inoffensive and with a smile, using carefully chosen words? Let me see "Oh, sorry Sensei, my fault, what was I thinking. Of course I defer to your long time editing on the article, please delete everything. Lets get two dozen other editors and talk about if for a few months, and have a few straw polls, and quote lots of policy and procedures" Was that it? Was I just uncivil again?

I don't do "nice". Sorry. Ever heard of "be bold"?--58.165.128.120 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do now? User 58 does not seem amenable to developing a WP:RS for his/her assertion. Sensei48 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

58.165.128.120, I've left you a note regarding the tone of your posts. Re the content, you seem to be under a misapprehension as to how Wikipedia is edited. For future reference, the purpose of citations is not to back up personal theories, but to provide a source where readers can find those exact same assertions that have been made in the article. Care has to be taken that the use of different sources does not result in a novel conclusion. From WP:SYNTHESIS, "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." Thus, unless it's been used by a historian of the battle in the way you're using it and can be verified as such, the Roman Army reference is irrelevant. You also need to show that the website you've used is a reliable source, and that you're not drawing your own inferences from the material there.

I would encourage you to provide a reliable source that explicitly verifies your content suggestion. If one cannot be found, then I'm afraid we can't accept your edit this time. You are welcome to contribute in other ways, but please read the linked policies above before doing so. EyeSerene^talk 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, "don't talk about the article, talk about the editor" lol

Sensei, are you able to actually refute my edits? Do you have any sources that repudiate the composition and formation of the order of march of the 7th cavalry between their departure from Terry's command and their attack on the Indian village? All this policy crap is meaningless to the content of the article, and your tags add nothing to it either. I contributed information that was central to understanding the article by the reader. It is a fairly important event in US military history, so lots of people look at it. All you have done is refuse to look at the direct quote from historians based in Elizabethtown where Custer was based, and who researched what colour and how many horses his company received, and you do not like information provided by the 1st Cavalry Division historical site either (7th cavalry has been on and off a part of the division since WWI I think). You also question a published source, which I admitted is not the best, but tagging it does not mean its not a viable source, is it? Even such well researched documents as the roll of the regiment available here [2] say there were battalions in the regiment which is patently not right, and makes identification of who commanded which companies even more important. Do you actually have something to contribute to the issue aside from regurgitating Wikipedia policies?

At this time, only two battalions/squadrons of the 7th Cavalry the 1st & 4th are currently activated. The higher regimental HQ has not been activated since WW-2 and for a time, the unit was trasferred into INFANTRY! Now they're basically 2 recon units in battalalion size. Point is, there really ISN'T an actual 7th Cavalry Regimental HQ. See 7th Cavalry Regiment (United States)

We know for example that the use of "battalion" comes from the report by Benteen. However, Reno clearly states in his Official Report, July 5, 1876 taken from the ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, 1876 Pages 476 - 480, FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, HOUSE EXECUTIVE DOCUMENT No. 1 SERIAL VOLUME 1742

By this time Indians had been seen and it was certain that we could not suprise them, and it was determined to move at once to the attack. Previous to this, no division of the regiment had been made since the order had been issued on the Yellowstone annuling wing and battalion organizations, but Custer informed me that he would assign commands on the march.

I was ordered by Lieut. W. W. Cooke, adjutant, to assume command of Companies M, A, and G; Captain Benteen of Companies H, D, and K. Custer retained C, E, F, I, and L under his immediate command, and Company B, Captain McDougall, in rear of the pack- train.

Now, I have no record of the order of review which was held by Terry before departure, but is that relevant in an encyclopaedic article? Is the reader really interested that the division of the regiment into the commands was made after the review, and had changed (possibly) from that fo the order of march before the departure of the regiment from the Terry column? In fact the order of march probably changed constantly before this departure because operationally the companies took turns to perform scouting duties for the column as a whole, so their place in the regimental column also changed al the time given the annulling of wing and battalion organisations. Clearly the regiment was not organised for parade since Company B was at the rear, and not second in line to Company A. Custer had not completely reorganised the order of march but simply detached some people from companies to give them requisite strength as can be seen from casualty rolls. This is all just a matter of reading the sources, and "joining the dots". It does not mean as much has to be said in an encyclopaedic article which is intended as a summary of the event, and not an extensive documentation of one, even if this is an FA article.

So what is it that you are having a problem with?

EyeSerene, we will never know how or why Custer made the decision to divide the regiment because he is dead. There is no report on the order of march or the order of review before the departure from Yellowstone. Consequently everything that happened after that is OR by Wikipedia definition and is likely to remain so despite more than a century of research. That is where some understanding comes in useful. If Sensei knew what an order of march is, he would not assert that the place of insertion in the article of the commands is wrong because thie order of march s dynamic and not constant. Therefore the only thing that matters for the article is the FINAL order of battle for the regiment.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, 58, for demonstrating clearly every point that I have been making, including those regarding your lack of knowledge of both the battle itself, of what constitutes evidence here on Wiki or anywhere else, and of an unconstructive, not to say unscholarly, approach and demeanor.

From 58's quotation of Reno's report: "it was determined to move at once to the attack. Previous to this, no division of the regiment had been made since the order had been issued on the Yellowstone annuling wing and battalion organizations, but Custer informed me that he would assign commands on the march."

That is exactly the point that I made at the outset of this discussion - the division was made immediately prior to the battle, which is why your attempt to place it at the outset on May 29 is false and misleading.

From 58 above: "Now, I have no record of the order of review which was held by Terry before departure" - which is exactly the point that requires specific sourcing and for which 58 provides only inference.

From 58 above: "This is all just a matter of reading the sources, and "joining the dots"." Reading a selected number of the multitude of sources available still leaves a large number of ways that the dots can be joined. Even if 58 doesn't care to follow Wiki policies on WP:OR - which is what the inferential "connect the dots" is - most LBH historians (including Utley, Connell, and Wert) make it clear that the non-sequential division of companies on the day of the battle reflected GAC's personal likes, dislikes, and agendas - the companies GAC kept with him were commanded by those closest to him (family and regimental friends)and those detached and assigned to Reno and Benteen were commanded by officers whose loyalty (to him) and abilities Custer either didn't know or didn't trust, which is exactly how he felt about Reno and Benteen themselves. Now, that IS sourceable - but the internal politics of the 7th Cavalry is still a source of debate, including whether or not it played a part in the outcome of the battle, and is in fact likely too specific for an encyclopedia article - until and unless an editor chooses to make it so, with sources.

From 58 above: " Therefore the only thing that matters for the article is the FINAL order of battle for the regiment." - which as 58's quotation of Reno makes clear happened on the day of the battle itself, making 58's statement that the regiment left Ft. Lincoln with certain companies of the 7th "under the command of" officers who were not assigned these companies until the day of the battle false. QED. Sensei48 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Makeup of the 7th

All of the above notwithstanding, I restored a short section on the makeup of the 7th deleted in the latest wave of making this article longer and more detailed (and imo obscuring what happened, not explaining it better--but that's another story for another day), as significant to understanding why and how the Army troops performed on June 25.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Who's this Thom Hatch guy? His Wiki page was full of tons of flowery bs that I removed. There was even a claim that he used to write for national publications, but nothing showed up in google scholar besides a few of his books,[3] and the most notable thing about him in a google news search is that at some point a Kansas paper claims he invented a card game with 60 cards. Looks to me like it fails wp:RS. NJGW (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week with no one standing up for this source, and it's the first one used in the article... I don't think it should stay under the circumstances. What can we use instead? NJGW (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman Army line of march relevant

Our friend DOES make a good point that overland movement of men and animals in 1876 had changed little since Roman times. Certain things stay the same. I've moved deliberately overland (up a ridge and down a ridge) through the forests of Central Norway as US Marine Corps artillery officer (forward observer) assigned to an infantry company in 1980. I can tell you that with the exception of our radios and more modern weapons we moved no differently than a Roman legion through the forests of Germany or a Civil War infantry company moving through the mountains of Tennessee - Slow snaking lines, no vehicles, just men carrying all then needed on their backs. Let's not be so dismissive of points off view that can be backed up by supporting evidence/docs. Thanks! SimonATL (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath moved up

I moved the second and third paragraphs of the section titled "The aftermath" (3.6) up to the intro part of the section "Custer's Fight" (3.2, and slightly into 3.2.1). I made slight alterations to the paragraphs, moved some stuff around. There are several good reasons for this move, the simplest one being that mostly what's known of Custer's fight comes from its immediate aftermath, so it makes sense to start there.
Other reasons have to do with readability. "The aftermath" included a good, brief narrative treatment of a verifiable (as best as can be hoped) sequence of events that is better suited to be a summary of "Custer's fight," before subsections break the issue down into further detail. You need a basic framework to build on before you can start enumerating the possibilities. The article, as it was, began delving into conflicting theories and weighing the various circumstances before first providing a description of what is known to have happened. There was analysis of the wounds on Custer's body before any straightforward declaration of Custer's death (except in the very brief summary at the beginning of the article), and other instances of putting the cart before the horse. It was sort of unreadable, and I hope you'll agree it's now slightly less so. Still some more to do.
Also, it's only logical to continue from the account of Reno and Benteen into their discovery of what happened to Custer, because it's from them that we first knew anything, and so it nicely wraps up the contemporaneous narrative begun for the reader in the immediately preceding section. For instance, it simply makes sense to first describe Custer's death in the context of how it was learned by his contemporaries in the US Army.
The transplanted section has an additional benefit in that it happens to summarize what Curley, Custer's Crow scout, said about the battle, which apparently is the source for the most widespread popular understanding of what might have happened. Starting early with some recognition of the most familiar point of view is highly desirable, I think.
I noticed also that some of the references appear to be highly unorthodox, e.g., just "Reno Court of Inquiry" or "see above" I don't think are exactly adherent to Wikipedia's guidelines on footnoting. Other places where it strongly seemed to me that there should be sources, didn't have them (see the stuff from "The aftermath"). In spite of this, I have retained everything. Every clause is still there, if possibly slightly altered for the sake of fitting. This is far from my area of specialty, so I hope someone else can clean up the references.
I ran into places where the article contradicts itself in minor ways, such as carefully pointing out in one section that there are multiple possibilities for a certain scenario, while relying on one of those possibilities for a statement of fact in another. This occurred on the descriptions of Custer's route between the "Custer's Fight" and "The aftermath" sections, and on the possible sources of gunfire heard by Reno and Benteen's men on the bluffs. Cleaned up a little.
Good writing throughout the article, with loads of good info, but it could use some application of structure. I'm not sure that everything is in its right place yet. —67.61.67.84 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive

This talk page is 158kb long...perhaps its time to archive it?Smallman12q (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to archive the inactive sections - but everything past about heading #42 has been active at some point within the last year or so. The last ten topics or so have been especially active, not to say contentious, and I for one think it would be good to keep them visible as a point of reference on this Talk page. Sensei48 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Decisive victory?

i changed the results from decisive victory to major victory, because while it was a large victory the native americans were eventually defeated after the battle.68.206.123.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Beside the point, the battle in its self was a decisive victory; the American force was decisively defeated tactically. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Edits 10/05/09

I've reverted a well-intended and good faith edit regarding the action toward the end of the battle around Last Stand Hill. It is a good general summary on one POV regarding the battle, but it is completely unsourced. Further, even were it sourced, it would stand in contradiction on key points in the previous edit, which though equally unsourced was arrived at by a consensus of editors. These two edits can co-exist if properly sourced and melded as a presentation of a controversy - how long did the battle last? Only SOME NA accounts have it lasting as briefly as a man's dinner - others say 20 minutes - others say an hour. The simple fact is that no one know exactly what happened to GAC's detachment - or there wouldn't be a cottage industry of books trying to explain what did happen. Speculation should be presented as such.

I'm also removing a sentence I notice has crept into the lead - the unsourced POV statement that LBH caused Americans to re-assess the fighting capabilities of NA. That is an unfounded assertion from a limited number of authors. 19th century Americans frequently hated and feared NA - and not because they thought that NA couldn't fight. There were just way too many battles and encounters on both sides of the Mississippi for all but the most benighted to think that. The shock was rather from the perceived invincibility of GAC, a myth he helped to propound and which he originated during the Civil War.Sensei48 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment on the question of when did Terry arrive and was Reno and Bentin betrayed.

I think one has to take in the topography of the area. I get the idae from reading some of the comments in your detractors. The LAND in that area determined how, when and where the various columns would have arrived. It would also determine how the indians left and how they could be persued. Litle Bigman???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.168.176 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo of cavalry horse bones

The article has a photo of a collection of horse bones on the battlefield. Anyone know what happened to these animal bones? Tragic romance (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They were collected and buried nearby. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced original research

There are currently two sections ("Number of Native American combatants" and "Battle controversies") full of unreferenced opinion constituting original research, some of it dating from June 2009. I'll delete this stuff in a week or two if it's not substantiated by references before then. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits 4/17/10 - Non-combatants

I have reverted about 80% of the edits to the new section about non-combatants made by editor Califa22651 and clearly need to explain why. The section was admirably sourced and excellently written, and a discussion of this nature was long overdue (though it should likely be placed earlier in the article). However, the vast majority of this section is not relevant to an encyclopedia article - it reads more like a scholarly article or a chapter from a book and is clearly of value in either of those contexts.

What is relevant to this article is only the material that pertains directly to LBH, and that is the material that I have left in as the new section. Much of what I reverted may well be relevant in the articles Battle of the Washita or Battle of North Fork, and I hope editor Califa22651 will consider adding it there, with the removal of POV and speculative statements. Sensei48 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Role of Noncombatants

This site has been subjected to major re-editing - mostly deletions - without comment; specifically the removal of facts providing historical background and context. If the editor can justify these deletions, please to so in the discussion section; or provide addition information that contributes to a fuller understanding of the antecendents that shaped these events.

Here is the essay I posted on June 1, 2010 before the deletions were made:

The Role of Indian Noncombatants in Custer’s Strategy

The Sioux and Northern Cheyenne encampment on the Little Big Horn River comprised a key component in Lt. Colonel George A. Custer’s field strategy at the Battle of the Little Big Horn: Indian noncombatants.

Women, children, the elderly or disabledwere targeted for capture to serve as hostages and human shields. Custer’s battalions intended to “ride into the camp and secure noncombatant hostages” and “forc[e] the warriors to surrender”. Author Edwin S. Connell observed that if Custer could occupy the village, before widespread resistance developed, the Sioux and Cheyenne warriors “would be obliged to surrender, because if the started to fight, they would be shooting their own families.”

If the military logic for tactical use of human shields is not self-evident, Custer provided them in his book My Life on the Plains, published just two years before the Battle of the Little Big Horn:

“Indians contemplating a battle, either offensive or defensive, are always anxious to have their women and children removed from all danger…For this reason I decided to locate our [military] camp as close as convenient to [Chief Black Kettle’s Cheyenne] village, knowing that the close proximity of their women and children, and their necessary exposure in case of conflict, would operate as a powerful argument in favor of peace, when the question of peace or war came to be discussed.” (emphasis added)

Troopers, initiating a firefight in the midst of hundreds – or thousands – of “corralled” noncombatants would necessarily expose to the risk of death or injury the “hostages” in the ensuing exchange of gunfire with the Indian defenders.

Custer demonstrated the value of a strategy that utilized “capture[d] women and children” to “neutralize” the Southern Cheyenne superiority in numbers at the Battle of the Washita in 1868. General Phil Sheridan, commander of the Department of the Missouri, issued orders for the Washita River expedition, including the following: “…to destroy [Indian] villages and ponies, to kill or hang all warriors, and to bring back all woman and children [survivors].” Author Michael Blake pointed out: “Unofficially, General Sheridan deemphasized the taking of [woman and children] prisoners” and the regiment had “implied orders to kill everyone [during the attack].”

The purpose of this “total war” strategy, envisioned by Sheridan was to make “all segments of Indian society experience the horrors of war as fully as the warriors.” The orders issued to Custer by General Sheridan in 1868 regarding the Washita River expedition were essentially the same “in tone and substance” as those issued by General Alfred Terry to Custer just days before the Seventh Cavalry arrived at the Little Bighorn River.

On June 25, 1876, Custer was faced with two potential developments if his command were discovered before they came within striking distance of the village. Sklenar posited these scenarios: “Facing a large military force, the Indians usually either broke their camp and scattered”, or alternately, “sent out fighting men to intercept and engage the foe…” before U.S. Army forces gained access to the village.

If the first scenario developed and noncombatants dispersed, Custer’s force would be deprived of the advantage of the “close proximity of …women and children” upon which the success of the operation “pivoted”, according to archeologist and historian Richard Allan Fox, Jr.

The “scatteration” of the approximately 4,000 – 5,000 women and children would necessitate a commensurate troop “dispersal” to capture the fugitives, “…increasing [unit] vulnerability”, a dangerous development, exposing the fragmented cavalry forces to destruction in detail by Indian defenders.

In the second scenario, Sioux and Cheyenne fighters would “intercept and engage” the regiment miles from the Indian encampment, denying Custer access to noncombatants, whose “…exposure in case of conflict” could not “operate” to achieve “peace."

In fact, on June 17, a portion of the same Sioux and Cheyenne forces that would face Custer at the Little Bighorn had done precisely that, derailing the advance of General Crook’s column at the Battle of the Rosebud.

This helps to explain the urgency with which Custer advanced toward the huge encampment on the afternoon of June 25; fearing “that the village would break up and flee in all directions”, as described by historian Robert Utley, and depriving the Seventh Cavalry of a potent means of “neutralizing” Sioux and Cheyenne resistance.

On Custer’s decision to advance up the bluffs and descend on the village from the east, Lieutenant Edward Godfrey of Company K surmised:

“[Custer] must …have counted on finding the squaws and children fleeing to the bluffs on the north, for in no other way do I account for his wide detour [east of the village]. He must have counted on Reno’s success, and fully expected the scatteration of the non-combatants with the pony herds. The probable attack upon the families and capture of the herds were in that event counted upon to strike consternation in the hearts of the warriors, and were elements for success upon which Custer counted.”

The Sioux and Cheyenne fighters were acutely aware of the danger posed by the military engagement of noncombatants and that “…even a semblance of an attack on the women and children” would draw the warriors like a “magnet” back to the village, according to historian John S. Gray. Such was their concern that merely a “feint” by Captain Yates’s E and F Companies at the mouth of Medicine Tail Coulee (Minneconjou Ford) caused hundreds of warriors to disengage from the Reno valley fight – foregoing the total destruction of Major Marcus Reno’s battalion - and return to deal with the threat to the village.

Indian combatants monitoring the trooper’s movements discerned that “Custer and [Captain] Koegh were keeping an eye on the flight of the non-coms and intended to intercept them." Their perception – correctly – was that the “soldiers from the north [Custer’s battalion] were “going after the women and children.”

Custer proceeded with a wing of his battalion (Yates’s Troops E and F) north and opposite the Cheyenne circle at a crossing referred to by Fox as Ford D which provided “access to the [women and children] fugitives." Indeed, Yates’s force “posed an immediate threat to fugitive Indian families…” gathering at the north end of the huge encampment.

Custer persisted in his efforts to “seize women and children” even as hundreds of warriors were massing around Keogh’s wing on the bluffs. Yates’s wing, descending to the Little Bighorn River at Ford D encountered “light resistance”, undetected by the Indian forces ascending the bluffs east of the village.

Custer was almost within “striking distance of the refugees” before being repulsed by Indian defenders and forced back to Custer Ridge. Or, as research by Fox suggests, deliberately marched with Yates’s wing back to Cemetery Ridge – not under duress by Indian defenders – to standby and await Captain Benteen’s battalion, before redeploying to the river to obtain hostages.

Regardless of what actually transpired, the hostage or human shield “option” was no longer available after Keogh’s wing collapsed and “any hope of victory” vanished.

Captain Robert G. Carter, writing to author W.A. Graham in 1925, discussed the vulnerability of U.S. Army troops to interception and destruction by Indian defenders, outside the context of the Indian villages:

“Who knows that the same Indians [who destroyed Custer’s battalion] might have done to [the column commanded by] Gibbon and Terry, had not Custer attacked …on the 25th, instead [attacking on] the 26th…and Sioux and Cheyenne forces “moving toward [Terry and Gibbon], do the very same thing [to their column] – overwhelm them by force of numbers…”

Hello C - The deletions were made by me, and every single one of them was accompanied by an edit summary listing the reason for the deletions. Also, if you look immediately above this new section that you created, you will find a succinct summary by me of the reasons for deletions and edits made to your earlier additions to the article.

However, since you are asking for further explanation, let me list the reasons, again in summary form:

a) Relevance and Proportion - In an article that is already over-long and in need of serious re-editing, the weight of your information is out of proportion to what is notable about the battle. My initial deletions (as noted 4/17 above) - and the current ones - left in the article the relevant and supported facts that you were trying to introduce. The amplification of those essential facts does not belong in what is supposed to be a summary article.

b) Speculation - The repeated inclusion of "if", "would", "possible" and so on indicates the speculative nature of many of your observations, whether they are sourced or not - the sources themselves are often speculative as to motives and knowledge at any given point in the time frames of the battle. Again, an encyclopedia article is not the place for such speculations unless they are presented as part of a balanced view of a controversy. Both A and B here are covered in WP:Weight

c) Style - Rhetorical expressions and parenthetical remarks, especially those with value judgments like the elided "correctly" - are inappropriate to the style of language common to an encyclopedia. You yourself referred to your contribution as an "essay," which by its very nature makes it as written inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

I addressed these issues on the User Talk page I created for your username at User talk:Califa22651 on the 24th of April to invite further discussion. As I said on that page, I think your new section on the role of non-combatants adds valuable information to the article - but not as an essay that adds the kind of detail and tone appropriate to a blog or a magazine. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjustment to Lead, 6/2010

I'm not sure when the paragraph I deleted crept into the lead, but it has absolutely no place there whatsoever. Dr. Liberty's theory on Indian perception of LBH is just that - a theory, one of many, and of fairly recent vintage. It is treated in the article with appropriate and proportionate balance - but it is not a cornerstone of this article or of understanding LBH. Additionally, Liberty's theory is based on Thomas Marquis' work, which was derived from his years communicating with the Cheyenne in sign language. Marquis may (or may not) have correctly understood the Cheyenne perspective, but to suggest that that perspective extended itself to the Lakota as well is unwarranted: the extensive post-LBH interview sources indicate clearly that Lakota participants believed that they and not the Cheyenne were the targets of the military campaign. Further, the disposition of the three columns of Terry, Gibbon, and Crook and the orders to them make clear that for the U.S. Army, the primary objective was the return of very large numbers of Lakota to the reservation. As a summary of the whole article, the lead should not give undue weight to one speculative section therein. Sensei48 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Native American viewpoint

Why are the NAs often referred to as hostiles throughout this article? It wasn't they who were marching on towards Washington or trying to force white settlers into predetermined parcels of lands. I mean the the last time Native Americans really could be called hostiles in the Americas was during either King Philip's War in the 17th century or Pontiac's Rebellion almost a century later. This article unintentionally uses the legitimacy of conquest to create an inherent bias in the reporting of history. The aggressor, in this case the US government, is fighting a people in the name of "pacification", the NAs were not the hostiles, the US military was.

It is presumptive to assume that just because time passes makes the the initial wrong right. The English name for the country of Wales originates comes from the [Anglo-Saxon]] words Walh (singular) and Walha (plural), meaning "foreigner" or "stranger". But the Welsh were the original Celtic Britons! After just a couple of centuries, it was the Anglo Saxon invaders and their subsequent generations who now had ascendency . It was the indigenous population who were now the "outsiders".

In that context, this article is inherently conched in the interpretations of European Americans, the usage of the term "hostiles" is testimony to that. Furthermore, the fact that no whites survived the assault on the village has led to a mythos about the battle despite the vast amount of primary accounts by NAs (source material that has largely gone unstudied until the later part of the 20th century). Even then, Native American testimony, is never stand alone, it must be supported with other "white" sources such as archaeological surveys.

As an independent, I can clearly see that this article has serious POV issues. In another way, it's like addressing the 9/11 article in terms of a group of heroic Islamic martyrs making a concerted effort against the United States in retaliation to events in the Middle East. If that is POV, why is this article not POV, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.18.190 (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

a.First, there have been extensive discussions of POV/NPOV regarding this article in the archived discussion section here [4]. What appears in the article currently is consensus of editors, more or less.

b. Who was "hostile" and who was not is covered in the archive cited above, but the term "hostiles" referring to the Lakota-Cheyenne coalition does not permeate the article and is used sparingly and in quotation marks, generally. It was the Sheridan/Belknap/US Army term written into the orders received by Terry and Custer. Its accuracy in terms of its historicity makes a cautious use of it here appropriate.

c.This article strives to present the viewpoint of both sides in the conflict, as appropriate. Regarding the 9/11 Muslim POV as an analogue - I would certainly hope that the Wikipedia article does in fact present that POV as part of the article since it is highly relevant to understanding the event - as is the US Army perception of "hostiles" here.

Extensive work has gone into this article to present a balanced view of the event, which the comments above appear to undercut. The real mythos advanced here is that NA testimony has been discounted or ignored. Among serious students of the battle, NA testimony has always been taken into consideration and has been a major force in LBH scholarship since the 1920s at least. The reason that it has never been accepted as definitive in scholarly circles is because it is non-sequential, fragmentary, and internally massively self-contradictory. This again is discussed in the archive above. Sensei48 (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the POV in this article too, in regards to the term "hostiles" at least. I mean, if we're using the term "Native American" then why are we sticking to any outdated terms? This is 2010, not 1910. I think the use of the term "hostile" should ONLY be included when in direct quotes. oncamera^(t) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I thought it already was, which was the point of my comment above. In quotations and in the context of the Grant administrations terminology, I think it can remain. The opposite danger in trying to compensate for historical wrongs is illustrated by the use here at points of "Native American." In an earlier edit (since revised out, I believe) someone had changed most (but not all) of the references to "Indians" to NA. The problem - a small number of terms contemporary to the time of the battle - "Indian agent" and "Indian fighter" to name two - were rendered ridiculous, unrecognizable, confusing, and a-historical - Native American agents? Native American fighters? These terms have entirely different meanings than the edits intended. It was fairly easy to edit those terms out, and wherever possible I've substituted "Lakota" and "Cheyenne" for either generic term. Grant, Sheridan and the boys used the term "hostiles" - where they are quoted or alluded to, careful use of the word in quotes seems acceptable. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits 7/30/10

1. The controversies regarding the battle are real and legitimate, however much in need of further sourcing they are. The quotation marks that crept into this section head - as if to question the legitimacy of these ongoing arguments - is sophomoric and inappropriate.

2. The long section just added today that was reverted does not meet Wiki standards for writing. It is additionally unsourced and misplaced.

3. I have restored the previous shortened version of the Marquis theory. This is one highly dubious theory to start with (Marquis himself communicated with the Cheyenne only in sign language, never learning the spoken language despite living among them for decades), and it was resurrected in 2006 by a single scholar. Dr. Liberty herself offered it as speculation, as a possibility. Its importance to the understanding of LBH is grossly disproportionate to the importance that the reverted edit gives it. Ant expanded discussion of it belongs in articles about the Cheyenne or The Great Sioux War, not here. Sensei48 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GAC's Ree Scouts

It's hard to pin down all the names becase there were 25 of them, but the names in the article seem to be legitimate. An incmplete list can be found here: [5] Sensei48 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Battles named after the losing side

It's occurred to me that the name "Custer's Last Stand" is a rare example of a battle named after the side that lost it, which is of course one reason why it's not exactly PC to use that name anymore, but it's still quite widely known, perhaps even now still more so than the accepted name which is the article's title. Are there many other famous battles or even wars commonly named after the losers? Most seem to be more neutrally named after the location where they were fought or the year(s) they happened, for obvious reasons. I wonder if this unusual fact is worth noting somewhere in the article, perhaps with some explanation of why and how it came to be called that in the first place, and when they decided to switch to the more neutral name. Lurlock (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Charge of the Light Brigade? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The official name (at the location, etc.) is Battle of the Little Bighorn, and it's been that way for decades. "Custer's Last Stand" has long been a mere colloquialism. The only "Custer's Last Stand" in Montana happens to be a Root Beer stand in Three Forks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

St. Clair's Defeat comes to mind. Mingusboodle (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Son of the Morning Star, author

The author of "The Son of the Morning Star" is Evan S. Connell. It is incorrectly cited as Edwin S. Connell in the section "The Role of Noncombatants...." and in the footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.71.126 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That entire section was the work of a single editor, who annotated it extremely carelessly, not using Wiki formatting at all. You will note that at every other point in the article where Connell is cited (and in the biblio), his name is correct. Sensei48 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GIF maps

Need to be re-uploaded in a different format (JPG or PNG), so thumbnail display won't be corrupted. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Finkel

I was watching the History Channel, and they have a special on Frank Finkel, the supposed only survivor of Custer's Last stand. I did not find anything about this in the article, and was wondering if it should be included.

http://www.historynet.com/survivor-frank-finkels-lasting-stand.htm Pdhharris (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)pdhharris

Thanks for bringing this up - but I wouldn't add this yet. History Channel is in no way a WP:RS, meaning a recognized and dependable source - it's pop culture entertainment, not scholarship. The article is a piece of light journalism, and the conclusions drawn are suspect, starting with the bald assertion that of the 70 claimants to be survivors, Finkel's story is the one that is true.

What the author does not mention or deal with is the fact that within the time frame of the battle and a decade or so after, exhaustive and painstaking research was done by distinguished officers from Reno's command, Edwin S. Godfrey and Winfield Scott Edgerly, both later generals. Neither gives any credibility to any discussion of survivors, and both spent the very long remainder of their lives trying to discover the truth about the battle.

W.A. Graham, author of the exhaustive The Custer Myth, does not even include the Rain-in-the-Face interview because the old warrior was notoriously self-contradictory and gave several deeply conflicting accounts of the battle to the press. (He also got so angry at Tom Custer after an arrest around 1872 that he allegedly swore that he would cut out TC's heart and eat it; in interviews subsequent to the battle, he alternately admitted and denied that he had said that - or that he had done that).

In order for this tale to be true, every detail upon which the inferences are based needs to be true. No reliable source asserts that 2 of GAC's troopers entered the village and began shooting; if they had, they would have been carried in by bolting horses, not their over-enthusiasm (ridiculous inference!). Finkel riding through 1800 warriors un-pursued, when both Harrington and possibly Cooke were chased over several miles and killed? Staying on his horse unconscious and carried over miles and miles? Surviving bullet wounds that killed tens of thousands of soldiers in the Civil War from sepsis, which applying tar or pitch to a wound would likely have exacerbated?

The story itself rings seriously untrue, and the article would never qualify for publication in any serious medium. If genuine scholars review this assertion and lend it some weight, then maybe a reference could be included. But History Channel? A channel with a top-rated program called Ancient Aliens? I think not.Sensei48 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching the show now for 30 minutes - at least five major errors so far. Just FYI - open the Talk archives here and read the discussions of Gall's account, which is highly suspect for reasons detailed there. Also, as Graham and many serious writers indicated, the Lakota accounts are so varied and contradictory in terms of time, troop movements, participation, and more that their usefulness is limited unless, as some recent books have done, you cherry-pick them to construct an internally consistent scenario.

Commercial. The teaser is that there are some Cheyenne accounts that surfaced in the 1970s or 80s that will allegedly shone some light. If they are from Thomas B. Marquis, they must be treated with great caution. Marquis spent decades among the Northern Cheyenne as a doctor and wrote two books about the battle from eyewitness accounts from Cheyenne who fought and whom he knew. Trouble is, Marquis never learned to speak the native tongue - his accounts are based on information he gleaned using Plains sign language, a kind of Esperanto of the day, and which he taught himself. It is at best an imprecise, generalized mean of communication, not a vehicle for precise and detailed description. Let's see. Sensei48 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The History Channel is entertainment not a WP:RS. The Finkel program was inference based on dubious claims and no reliable sources. It was entertainment, not scholarship. Since the claim is so outlandish and unlikely, it would require two additions to be included in this article:

a. Reliable scholarly sourcing as to its contentions from sources outside of the program itself, which as noted is commercial entertainment, and

b. since it is a controversial assertion, it would need an equally sourced argument against the veracity of the Finkel story, per WP:Controversy. There are articles in print specifically debunking this tale. Sensei48 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I did add a link to the Wiki article on Frank Finkel (since there is an article on him). I have seen this History Channel episode (and commiserate with others over the fact that they no longer engage in real history). The Finkel story brought me here to do further research on him and survivor stories, as well as other places like the Little Bighorn Association webpage (good site for debates about this and many other topics about LBH). I do not believe any of these survivor stories (they remind me too much of modern "Stolen Valor" stories we encounter, with someone feeling left out or envious of those who did serve so they have to create their own story to feel important). Just look at Brian Williams and his need to be part of the action, and I suspect Frank Finkel, sandwiched in age between earlier Civil War veterans and later Spanish-American War and WWI veterans felt he needed to be more important (PS his story is similar to another supposed survivor, Billy Heath, who at least shared the same name of someone who actually died at LBH and did not have to deal with the problematic issue of serving under an assumed name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorkall (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Native American Victory?

I would dispute that. It was the Indians that ended up retreating after failing to defeat Reno and Benteen. I would call it a tactical Indian victory but strategic U.S. Army victory in the Sioux War of 1876-1877. Jewels845 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the opposition suffered 40% causalities, no I don't think I agree, God knows the Tribes had few enough victories without resorting to revisionist history.Tirronan (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a bit more than semantic. The combined tribes annihilated 1/3 of the 7th Cavalry and DID defeat Reno and Benteen, again inflicting terrible casualties. They just did not annihilate the troopers as they did GAC's battalion - but defeat them? Most certainly. The Reno-Benteen force was pinned down, thirsty, hungry, and afraid to move for 2 days for fear of being wiped out.

The overwhelming Lakota-Cheyenne victory at LBH had negative long-term strategic consequences for them, but you just cannot call an engagement in which one side loses 265 dead and scores wounded out of a force of under 700 - a near 50% casualty rate - and in which they kill as few as 35 of the enemy a victory for them in any way, shape, or manner. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

considering that history views it as unmitigated disaster for the 7th Cav, yeah tactical victory for the tribes doesn't begin to cover it. The tribes lost the campaign but not this battle.Tirronan (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother Wikipedia is a useless pile of crap. It is a United states victory even if the modern politically correct don't think so. People assume the battle is only the 25th but fail to realize it was the whole action including the Indian retreat.Jewels845 (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe, besides being unnecessarily negative and failing to assume Good Faith, you're confusing the word "battle" with "campaign". This is was single, discrete battle, not an ongoing action. In the sense of this single engagement, it was a decisive victory on the side of the Sioux and their allies. They were attacked, they resisted the attack (which alone would have been a victory), and then went on to substantially decimate the opposing force in counterattack. What happened later in the overall history of conflict between the two parties is irrelevant. This was a decisive, textbook victory. If you disagree, I'd suggest you find RS that support your view and represent more than a fringe view of the battle, and then present them here and let others evaluate it for themselves. No one here is the sole decider on what is and isn't "truth". We don't deal in subjective truth, we deal in verifiability. Ranting about wiki is not the way to get your suggestion considered.204.65.34.158 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

Where is Myles Keogh? Apparently, he had overall command of Companies L, C and I so he should be in that box. Also, Sitting Bull didn't actively participate in the battle so I think he should be removed. Apparently, Yates commanded Companies E and F so someone should add Keogh and Yates and remove Calhoun. Jewels845 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi J845 - I always wondered about that as well, since the Keogh and Calhoun "wings" of the GAC battalion indeed seemed separate. Fell free to add him; that's what Wikipedia is for. I'd leave SB in as a "leader," though - in a kind of strategic sense rather than tactical, to borrow phrasing from your comment above. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Decisive Native American victory?

I think that statement is overlooking a lot of the participants who were in the battle. What about all the Crow and Arikara scouts who fought with the cavalry? It certainly wasn't a victory for them. Wouldn't something like "Decisive victory for Crazy Horse's and Sitting Bull's forces" be a bit more accurate. RG (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother trying to edit this article. Its controlled by people with no life.Kind Regards Jewels845 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A truer statement has never been uttered at this site. And welcome to Wikipedia! 36hourblock (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it a victory for the Native American way of life, weren't the native scouts mercenaries? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

While I understand and appreciate the original comment, I think it's a matter of semantics. Given the history of the accumulation of native americans from various tribes/bands at the encampment, it would be equally incorrect to say "Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull's forces". There were others represented on that side. The scouts were Native American, but that doesn't make them part of a Native American force. It is the whole that is being described, not the origin of the part. Perhaps a compromise would be to say is was a decisive victory for the Native American forces. The scouts were Native American, but they did not constitute a Native American force, and were part of the United States forces.204.65.34.158 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and Mystery

It was said Wild Bill Hickok was one of General Armstrong Custer's top military scouts and probably his most favorite in Kansas, while spying on Sioux raids and settlements. Wild Bill Hickok was in the 5th Cavalry at the time he was serving with General Custer in earlier years. Mystery surrounds his controversy saying if he was given an offer and agreed to ride with General Custer's company in the 7th Cavalry, he would be probably become more famous in a twin controversy, and closely related to the figures of Davy Crockett or Jim Bowie, tying the identical knot between Battle of Little Bighorn and the Battle of the Alamo.--74.34.83.89 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 26, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Battle of the Little Bighorn occurred on June 25–26, 1876, near the Little Bighorn River in eastern Montana Territory, and was the most famous action of the Great Sioux War of 1876. It was an overwhelming victory for the Native American coalition over the U.S. Army 7th Cavalry.Artist: C. M. Russell; Restoration: Adam Cuerden

It "was the most famous action of the Great Sioux War of 1876..." and "It was an overwhelming victory for the Native American coalition over the U.S. Army 7th Cavalry." Please provide citations from appropriate sources, as required. Otherwise, very nice. 67.59.92.60 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't add citations to the POTD blurbs. Those facts were taken straight from the introduction to this article. —howcheng {chat} 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Guns at the Little Bighorn" Gallear

Thought this article - still online - might be of interest, but not sure where to put it in article.

Gallear reports this on the evidence for Henry rifles: "...the .44 rim-fire round fired from the Henry rifle is the most numerous Indian gun fired with almost as many individual guns identified as the Cavalry Springfield Model 1873 carbine.

http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm 67.59.92.60 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent find. I'm sure there is a place, possibly under controversy discussing the allegation of jamming weapons and other archaeology. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, as per your recommendations. Gallear's is still a great stand alone article, well worth reading (from the Custer Association of Great Britain). 36hourblock (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Check an edit? and Names of warriors

Could someone knowledgable check this edit? Shenme (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. On the 26th, the Reno-Benteen group were dug in under intermittent attack from the Lakota and Cheyenne, unaware of what had happened to Custer. In late afternoon, the native encampment began to break up and move out of the valley - we know now because of the approach of the Terry-Gibbon column, which had linked up contrary to the original plan at the confluence of the Big Horn and Yellowstone Rivers. Gibbon and Terry were supposed to converge at the confluence of the Big Horn and Little Bighorn, near the encampment, on the 26th for an attack planned for all three columns. Custer had pushed his men and had arrived a day early on the 25th and instead of waiting attacked immediately with the results we all know. Ironically, GAC was a day early on the 25th and Gibbon-Terry a day late on the 27th - which means GAC's fate may well have been sealed anyway.

I'm more concerned with the unsourced addition of the names of warriors to the native participants. I removed a bunch of spurious ones a year ago, and I think this needs to be revisited and all need to be sourced. Kicking Bear is a good edit and a well-known figure but others need sources.Sensei48 (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also on addition of warriors - a format question: why are the tribes in bold? It really sticks out on the page. If US Army units are not in bold, it seems the Native American groups should not be.Parkwells (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Survivor section, again

I have reverted a new section about the alleged survivors by new editor Eathaneharris after being contacted by Sensei48 on my talk page [6] regarding his concerns, which I largely share. I have notified the new editor on his talk page [7] to discuss my reversion here, and invite informal comments from all interested. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jusdafax in every particular, including the skill in editing in sourcing. I value JDF's opinion (and another editor who has worked on this article), which is why I invited him. Now some concerns:

• Length - the edit is 10kb in an article that was already 108kb. The Wiki recs for articles suggest that articles longer than 60kb should be considered for breaking off into separate articles.
• Now I know that user Ethane tried to do just that and was rebuffed out of hand and told by the new article supervisor to add it to the existing article. That was an offhanded and IMHO ill-considered judgment, given the length of the article already and the somewhat tangential nature of the edit, since even the Finkel story has never been taken seriously by the genuine giants of LBH scholarship, for many reasons.
• That raises the additional issue of the nature of some of the sourcing. The History Channel is not RS - it is pop entertainment, not scholarship. I saw the Finkel show and it was full of inference and a deal of exaggeration. Some of the self-published survivor accounts, simply alluded to here, also aren't RS.
• I see two possibilities here. 1) A greatly reduced section on this topic could be added; we had this issue a year or two ago with a section twice as long as this survivor edit on "the role of noncombatants." It was, like this one, well-written and sourced but not completely germane to a discussion of LBH except for what remains. 2) With a little further editing, maybe, JDF and I could re-visit the creation of the entire edit as a separate article. Heck - Wikipedia has a 200K article on monsters in "Dungeons and Dragons." I would think it could afford a well-presented 10K on this topic. Looking fwd to responses. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

While the "survivor myths" material is sourced, I'm concerned about giving the topic too much space. I think it would be better to have a very short summary of it as an example of a popular phenomenon, of the type that probably springs up after other major historic events that grip public imagination. Then create a separate article for people who want the details. Also, the lengthy section of quotes from detractors is overkill, although some are very funny. The summary and article both need to be really clear that this is myth; and that mainstream academic historians do not support these accounts. Look at the publishers. Wikipedia does not need to add more support to authors trying to create new "legends". People love their myths, which is why conspiracy theories are so popular, but we are supposed to be dealing in facts and RS.Parkwells (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of proportion: no doubt there is also a full-length survey article to be drawn from all the books, performances, and re-enactments of Custer's Last Stand, but for this article, they are briefly noted. Every popular phenomenon does not deserve full coverage.Parkwells (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No reply on the editor's talk page and no new edits. We could be looking at a WP:SPA. Jusdafax 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. I suggest making no further moves until and unless we hear from the editor. The edit was interesting but tangential. Thanks to JDF and Parkwells for looking in and sharing your reactions. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally like having a section like this (but understand it could be made into a separate topic linked to this article). I think it is useful for those who read about survivor stories or see things like the History Channel episode on Frank Finkel (which based more on speculation than historical facts). I moved/consolidated some info on survivors from the "Casualties" section to "Survivor Claims" where I believe it fits better, including info/pic of the 7th Cavalry mount Comanche (a legitimate survivor). Thorkall (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No decisive victory

According to Wikipedia, a decisive victory 'refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage. Until a decisive victory is achieved, conflict over the competing objectives will continue.' I think it's pretty clear that given this definition, the Native Americans victory wasn't a decisive one. The battle was part of the Great Sioux War of 1876, which - as the article on Wikipedia states - was a United States victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.240.177 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You do have a point, and I see "decisive" is gone from the infobox. The short-term goal by the Native American warriors was obviously to defend their women, children, and elders from being killed by the soldiers. In this they undeniably succeeded. It was also their last victory. I think we should retain the infobox wording as it now is without further changes. Jusdafax 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking Custer

From the section labeled "Custer's fight": "Cheyenne oral tradition credits Buffalo Calf Road Woman with striking the blow that knocked Custer off his horse before he died." Does this mean she hit him with a club or some other object, or does it mean she shot him amd, if so, with what -- a rifle, an arrow? I think this needs to be reworded.Risssa (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understood the story, she was supposed to have struck him with a coup stick and knocked him from his horse. What this needs in addition to minor clarification is a source. As in the article, Custer's body was found propped against a dead horse in the formation near the top of the hill known as "the last stand." He had been shot twice and like the rest of the fifty or so dead at that spot seems to have been fighting in a defensive posture while on foot. This was the case with most of the dead in GAC's detachment, as opposed to Reno's where many of the men were killed while they were on horseback, either charging or fleeing.Sensei48 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A far better source is needed. Try this one: http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/six/goodday.htm: "Two Cheyenne woman were said to have found Custer's body.

The women...pushed the point of a sewing awl into each of his ears, into his head. This was done to improve his hearing, as it seemed he had not heard what our chiefs in the South had said when he smoked the pipe with them. They told him then that if ever afterward he should break that peace promise and should fight the Cheyennes, the Everywhere Spirit surely would cause him to be killed....I often have wondered if, when I was riding among the dead where he was lying, my pony may have kicked dirt upon his body." And I also located This source, which isn't as solid of an RS, but clearly indicates that he was shot in the classic fashion, by an Oglala fighter. (there's yet another theory that he killed himself). Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the famous Kate Bighead account, and it exists in rather more reliable RS than this PBS summary of a program - Evan Connell uses it to close his book, for instance, and all the other heavyweights of Custer scholarship allude to it. The problem with it is that by most other NA accounts, the warriors had no idea who attacked them, in terms of a commander, and the Lakota were unanimous in their accounts that they did not learn until much later. Bighead was Cheyenne, and she had known Custer by sight and through conversation after the Washita, so the story may well be true. It does not address the Buffalo Calf Road Woman oral tale, though - in her article there is a cited source, a newspaper account from 2005. I believe that source could be added here along with careful phrasing - respecting the Cheyenne oral tradition but not over-crediting it. GAC and the group on Last Stand Hill were fighting dismounted, as were the other "wings" of the detachment, according to most of the Lakota sources - except for remnants from Calhoun's and Keogh's wings who may have remounted and joined the group on LS Hill where their bodies were found - that would be the "buffalo run" part of the Lakota accounts. Sensei48 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, PBS was just the quick one found online ;) (Have the Connell book, different place than internet connection, I'm lazy... LOL). I'm always a fan of the best RS, minimal discussion of romanticization unless crucial to explain away a pervasive myth (possibly needed here) and balance per WP:UNDUE. This article in particular has to keep working on excellent sourcing. No problem in my view if you want to make tweaks accordingly. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties

American civilians are listed in the section about non-combatant deaths, but not the wives and children of Chief Gall, widely regarded as the first victims of the day, shot in the initial US cavalry raid. Can we add these? I cannot find their names so maybe I could add them as "Two wives plus a daughter of Chief Gall." Andrew Riddles (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariddles (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, if phrased properly and using a reliable source in a note. Sensei48 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hokahey, today is a good day to die!

Did Crazy Horse actually say this at the start of this battle? I've seen some indications that maybe he did, but perhaps this is disputed? I'm trying to target the disambiguation page A good day to die, which currently links to Crazy Horse and Black Elk Speaks, but if it was said in the run up to the battle, I would say it should link here. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, or else it was a general battle cry. Crazy Horse had no intention of dying, and had a firm personal belief that he would never be killed by the white man's bullets (which was true, he was later stabbed to death by an Indian who collaborated with the whites). Black Elk Speaks is a work of somewhat dubious reliability, as there is a critique that the author played a bit fast and loose with Black Elk's narrative. The precise quote in the book (found a pdf online) is "Then another great cry went up out in the dust: "Crazy Horse is coming! Crazy Horse is coming!" Off toward the west and north they were yelling " Hokahey!" like a big wind roaring, and making the tremolo; and you could hear eagle bone whistles screaming." Says nothing about Crazy Horse saying it himself. Absent a more RS, I'd say it's yet more romantic nonsense. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it s fairly well documented as a battle cry used by the Lakota and other Plains peoples, in which case it is likely that Crazy Horse said it at some point. I don't think it means that one has an intention of dying but that one is not afraid of it - which Crazy Horse clearly wasn't. Some low quality sources say that "Hoka Hey" means "it is a good day to die" which is clearly false.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The two spellings sound pretty similar to English ears, and the Sioux had no independent writing system, so it's sort of irrelevant. My point being that many peoples have assorted war cries, so is it of any particular importance other than that hearing the war cries was how Black Elk heard other warriors coming to assist the people he was with? (Thinking of rebel yell) and, presumably, that particular cry was probably in the Lakota language. For one thing, I;'d like to see a RS even stating how accurate the English translation is; after all "Tatanka Iyotake" (one way of spelling Sitting Bull's real name) doesn't really properly translate Sitting Bull, but has a far more nuanced meaning (something along the lines of how he was like the greatest bull buffalo of a herd, who would "set" himself up in a place where he could look over the entire herd and protect it) that takes time to explain. I see no realneed to add much about this to the article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't making a point about the spelling but noting that "hokahey" however it is spellt is not a word or phrase in the Lakota language but an exclamation like "hooray". I.e the sources that say that ""hoka hey" 'means it is a good day to die are wrong, "Hoka Hey" and "its a good day to die" would have been different statements. Now yes, I would also like to know what Lakota phrase "it is a good day to die" is a translation of, but that seems unlikely to be something we can find out - even if we had someone who spoke Lakota it is unlikely that what they actually said is just the backtranslation of the English "it is a good day to die". I also agree we don't need to include any of this in this article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, best to just let sleeping dogs lie on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Converting Kindle location to page number

This is the first I've seen a Kindle loc in footnotes at Wiki. Donovan's A Terrible Glory.

Is there a simple way to convert to page numbers (and vice versa)? This website offers a convoluted means: http://www.bookmonk.com/labs/numbers.php

Thanx. 36hourblock (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but one that probably won't be answered very well here. Perhaps try a wider venue such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Survivors Section Re-Edit

An extensive section on "survivors" appeared recently; it had been offered as a proposed new article on two occasions by User: Ethaneharris but had not been accepted, with the recommendation that the material be added to this LBH article. Editor Ethaneharris has done so, and I believe that the work is commendable in its ambition, its adherence to Wiki citation protocols, and its efforts to supply sourcing for the information included.

I have trimmed the section and made other changes for a variety of reasons. First, the information here is properly a subsection of the already-existing "Battle Controversies,' not an entirely new section. Second, several parts of the edit are POV, inferential, or WP:OR, and I have removed these.

Third and most significantly, there are important problems with the sourcing. Graham and Brininstool are heavyweights, but Goldin is at best controversial. Moreover, Kuhlman, Nunnally, and Harris are not professional experts in the field and are self-published. I have substantiated Kuhlman's credentials in a source in the article, also here - [8]; Harris's field of published work is in theology, not history, and the Amazon bio so indicates [9]; his LBH book here is self-published, which almost always disqualifies it as RS. Nunnally was primarily an artist who was an amateur LBH enthusiast, [10]. I have changed the description in the section and tagged for reliability.

Whatever else The History Channel is, serious research and RS it is not. The Finkel program was typical: inferential, questionable, advancing a POV, and complete with re-enactments. It does not rise to the level of serious scholarship; the references left in the section untagged do.

Large early portions of the edit, including the Russell picture file, appear (with better sourcing) early in the article. Calamity Jane is notable for other reasons than an LBH claim. The other pictures do not add significantly to the article and tend to over-emphasize the importance of both their subjects and this section. Benteen might be added appropriately above, but there is no clear relevant connection between Benteen and survivor claims.Sensei48 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The role of Indian noncombatants in Custer's strategy – revisited

I have several problems with this section:

• The Godfrey statement ends in “surmised”. Wikipedia should not be a place for hypothesizes. IMHO both the statement and the quote should be deleted.
• Custer proceeded…, Custer persisted…, Custer was…are speculative statements presuming Custer made a trip to “Ford D” based on conjecture presented in Richard Allan Fox Jr.‘s book Archaeology, History, and Custer’s Last Battle. Fox admits in the beginning of the chapter they “are not incorporated in conventional wisdom about the Custer battle”. At a minimum they should start with “according to __” . Since they don’t relate to the section heading I think it best if they are removed.
• Captain Robert G. Carter statement and quote are pure conjecture and do not belong here.

I was going to make these edits but knowing how hot this topic is I thought it best to start here. Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the multiple controversies on this page over the years, I think that starting here is a good idea. My thoughts: I agree with Grahamboat's assessments, though I would point out that I had already reverted about 80% of the section as originally posted for reasons I tried to make clear in the sections on this topic above. The Carter statement IMO can be safely removed on the basis or relevance and speculation. Material from Fox and Donovan, however, is sourced, whatever the faults of those sources may be. I think that appending the "according to" would help, as well as inserting strong language earlier indicating that any statement as to Custer's movements re the ford are speculative at best since conflicting evidence, including disagreements in the various Lakota accounts, have left the question open for almost 140 years. The precise movements of Custer's "wings" have never been incontrovertibly established. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt to clean some of this up. Not real happy with results, but it’s a start. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good job. I tweaked it a bit for style purposes. Now - the preceding paragraph appears to be reading Yates' mind and also presents a theory as fact. The scattering of the bodies of the men of Yates' presumed "wing" has been a chief source of evidence for the "buffalo run" theory of the complete dissolution of command and control at LBH (as opposed to the position of Keogh's men, whose bodies were found in relative order with multiple shell casings suggesting organized resistance and/pr a skirmish line) - so I may take a swing at rephrasing that paragraph to establish its theoretical nature. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sensei - do you think Custer’s theoretical maneuvers belong in the Custer’s fight SECTION as opposed to the Military assumptions SECTION? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article: what the term "greasy grass" means. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lone Teepee

Talk:Lone Teepee#Proposed merge with Battle of the Little Big Horn proposed merging the Lone Teepee article into this one. The Lone Teepee only had a limited amount of information and consensus seem to be it should not a standalone article since its only significance was in regards to the Battle of the LBH (basically as a point of reference when discussing positions of units, separation of Custer and Reno). So I went ahead and merged the article (primarily so it would be here and the info would not be lost but it needs improvement, although I did find a few references in regards to it and added them). I set up a section for it, but I am not sure it is the best place for it. I have no problems with others making any modifications they feel are necessary, consolidate it into some other portion of the article, or if others think it is not significant enough be in this article or never should have been an article at all. Thorkall (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Little Bighorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226201104/http://home1.gte.net/espaxson/custer.htm to http://home1.gte.net/espaxson/custer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Little Bighorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121092726/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wild_west/3035376.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wild_west/3035376.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908225428/http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm to http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Little Bighorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130626183913/http://jetson.unl.edu/cocoon/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.044 to http://jetson.unl.edu/cocoon/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.044
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425135359/http://www.derudio.co.uk/PAGE%20two.htm to http://www.derudio.co.uk/PAGE%20two.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427062829/http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~pickensarchive/custer.html to http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~pickensarchive/custer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Reunions?

There was a big reunion in 1910, hosted by President Taft. There was also a 50th anniversary reunion in 1926, when Custer's widow Libbie was still alive, but not prepared to visit the battlefield. She listened to the proceedings on the radio instead. Any details or audio/video-clips of these or any other commemorative events? Valetude (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nationalities

Starting on 21:34, 22 August 2020 and ending on 22:04, 22 August 2020, editor 77.101.187.179 made a series of edits that added the current "Nationality" breakdown under "Belligerents" in the top right table. Is any of this really necessary for the article? SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems some of those fighting on the side of the United States were actually European immigrants and not actually Americans, so why is it out of place? oncamera 23:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that the United States is a nation of immigrants, should we put "nationality" breakdowns under the "Belligerents" table of every battle the United States has ever been involved in? SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Leaders - Black Elk?

Black Elk was a notable participant in (though not really notable for his participation in) the day's events, but he was a 12-year-old boy, and not a leader. I think it's worth mentioning his presence and his first-hand account, but calling him a leader seems a real stretch. Dcs002 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Crappy Scrappy article that needs a complete overhaul

It's like reading a repetitive stream of conciousness where what has already been said is partially repeated again in another section only with a slightly different tone or focus. The article is comprehensive but it's a rambling mess where sections - particularly about what happened in the battle - contradict each other (I am presuming the editors of these paragraphs have a particular viewpoint they want to make) in stead of being written as rebuttals to previous statements. Or a sub section explains something but then there is a sub sub section to contradict the previous section - like the firearms sections. The repetition needs to be removed, things only have to be said once, and the current flip flop between contradictions needed to be change din favour of making it clear that are degrees of latitude in what might or might not happened ie the archaeological research is unimpeachable but how the interpretation can be, it should be written in the order of myth/story, might have, might not, then actual physical evidence that refutes what has been said. That's a completely back to front way doing things. A good editor who is knowledgeable of this topic needs to take the substance of this article and edit it. All the parts of there, they're just not working together at the moment. 146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Photo is not Mitch Bouyer

The photograph misidentified for nearly 100 years as Mitch Bouyer is actually A-ca-po-re, a Ute medicine man, musician, and jester. It was taken by Charles A. Nast c.1895-1899 at his Denver studio in a series of Ute and Jicarilla Apache portraits which reside in the Western History Department of the Denver Public Library. The original glass photonegative is housed in the Denver Public Library Special Collections - call number X-31214 - image file ZZR710031214. The misidentification of the photo appears to have first appeared in E. A. Brininstool's 1925 book Troopers with Custer; the provenance is given as Mitch Bouyer's daughter. 1902 postcard in the collection of the British Museum. 2005 account of discovering the deception by Mike Cowdrey. Of course, this calls into question the identification of the skull fragment found in the Deep Ravine area. On the upside, there's still a 1 in 210 chance that Bouyer's marker is in the right place. Frank Prchal (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)