Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

A Wikipedian removed Battle of the Little Bighorn from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: 18 November 2006

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Indian casualties at the battle of the Little Big Horn 2 Little Big Man Reference 3 A horny correction 3.1 yes but 4 Edgar Rice Burroughs 5 Photo 6 correction 7 Question 8 NPOV 9 Factual corrections or vandalism? 10 World's oldest man 11 Contradictory Statement 12 40 to 200 dead 13 Split battle and site? 14 Incomprehensible sentence 15 New additions 16 Documentary 17 Edit for bias 18 Terry 19 Gerard and Dorman 20 Middle Names? 21 "Custer Survivors"? 22 Battle Perspective 23 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 24 Reasons for GA Delisting 25 French link

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

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

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

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

[edit] Little Big Man Reference

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

[edit] A horny correction

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

[edit] yes but

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

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

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

[edit] Edgar Rice Burroughs

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

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

[edit] Photo

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

[edit] correction

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

5000 was the entire Dakota (i.e. Sioux--which is a misnomer anyway) population? How do you come by this?--Buckboard 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Question

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

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

[edit] NPOV

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

[edit] Factual corrections or vandalism?

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

I'll take the revert as an answer to that. Bushytails 07:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked the contribution history of said user, and it seemed suspect. Kingturtle 07:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I posted that, I'd just reverted him replacing a paragraph with "bitch ass" on another article... But the changes here seemed a bit more thought out than that, so didn't want to assume it was vandalism on a subject I know absolutely nothing about. Bushytails 17:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World's oldest man

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

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

[edit] Contradictory Statement

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

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

[edit] 40 to 200 dead

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

The National Park Service, administrators of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, has made this statement on their website (and a similar one in their brochures)— "An accurate count of the Sioux and Cheyenne dead was not possible, but at least 60 are known to have died." Hence, the 40 figure is too low, and the 200 is too high. Why doesn't the Wikipedia community accept the NPS's casualty figure? Scott Mingus 11:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The 40 is originally based on Lakota and Cheyenne accounts of dead ("lists of the dead") taken away and buried. But there were also a number left on the field and unrecoverable when the encampment broke up and fled on the approach of Terry.--Buckboard 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"a number left on the field and unrecoverable when the encampment broke up and fled on the approach of Terry"? I find this not very credible. The "wolves" anounced Terry's coming long in advance. How much time elapsed between the departure of the Indians and Terry's arrival? Half a day? More? There were many hours time to recover the slain. "Leave no man behind" is a concept more American than many Americans are aware of. Even under the most dangerous battle circumstances Indians often risked and sometimes lost their lives to prevent the body of a slain warrior from falling into enemy hands. This had religious and metaphysical reasons. You entered the next world just as you left the last one: in one piece or not quite so. The latter option was worse than death itself and in fact the reason why enemies were often mutilated after killing them. Killing an enemy and not mutilating him meant chasing them at your ancestors who already lived in the afterworld. Only mutilation neutralized the threat to your deceased loved-ones. For the mutilated warrior, in turn this meant eternal life as a physical wreck. Ample reason to recover any slain warrior, even when under fire - which was not the case here between the Battle and Terry's arrival. Lookoo, 21:11 CET, 17 May 2006

[edit] Split battle and site?

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

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

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

I though(t) that there were only 2000 Indians at the Battle...many of my sources told me this.

Many sources, many estimates. As low as 1200 (based on an estimation of males per lodge) and as high as 3000. Just as estimates of the size of the encampment--three (or four) miles long, and as wide as the valley (half mile)--or less. The article, IMHO, should reflect ranges for anything dealing with the Lakota and Cheyenne.--Buckboard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible sentence

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

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

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

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

[edit] New additions

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

[edit] Documentary

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

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

[edit] Edit for bias

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

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

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

[edit] Terry

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

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

[edit] Gerard and Dorman

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

[edit] Middle Names?

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

I have written dozens of Civil War biographies, and I asked the same questions a couple of years ago. I found that the normal convention for most ACW bios was "First M. Last," although this at times needs adjusted when ambiguity exists. It's also not common to include the rank or occupation in the article title unless it adds clarity to a specific person, and then, it's common to do so in parentheses—John Pope (military officer) and Charles Griffin (general). Hence, I would suggest the title as simply James M. DeWolf. I look forward to reading your future contributions! Scott Mingus 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Dr. DeWolf may have been a poor example, since I had already used the full middle name. I'll try to edit the listing here to be consistant on the middle names, but it will have to wait for a few days. CFLeon 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Custer Survivors"?

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

Keep in mind that "survivors of the Battle of the Little Bighorn" would technically encompass all the Indians who lived, as well as most of Reno and Benteen's columns, as the Reno fight was indeed a part of the battle. A better title might be Army survivors of Custer's last stand, and then you begin to drop into speculation, rumors, wild claims, publicity seekers, etc. I'm not sure any of them deserve an encylopedia article devoted to the topic. However CFLeon, you seem to have an impressive interest level in the topic and time to research the subject matter, so I have no strong opinion. Any other thoughts out there on this proposed article? Scott Mingus 11:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually would prefer putting the topic as a subsection on this page, but the main article is too cluttered as it is. I agree that probably no one particular individual is worth an entry (except perhaps Nathan Short and the Edgar Rice Burroughs story), but I think the phenomenon itself is and putting up an entry will cover the aspects you are mentioning. At the moment, I'm seriously considering putting it up as "Custer Survivor Claims" with a caveat about the true Battle survivors. As in so many other things in Life, all the viable choices have some flaw or another, but we make do. CFLeon 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Perspective

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

• Perhaps the article has been much changed since the NPOV tag was added (I haven't reviewed the history), but in its current state the article is not in violation of NPOV. The greater detail on the disposition and movement of the US cavalry units is a byproduct of the more extensive contemporary documentary record available for them, and the fact that, as the losers, the archaeological record of their skeletal remains and artifacts is also more extensive. The editors of this article appear to have used the Indian sources and accounts, and I see no indication that these sources and their perspective have been slighted. It is inappropriate to put an NPOV tag on an historical article merely because the extent of the historical record varies among the participants in the event; e.g., the article on the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest is not non-neutral because it relies on Roman sources. I think the tag needs to be pulled, but I've not done so, so as to give other editors a chance to see this discussion.MayerG 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the proposition to remove the NPOV tag. Especially that as far as I can check that, all available Native Americamm relations of the battle which where recorded have been used in the article. In fact, I have no idea what the NPOV could be? Do we underestimate the Lakota-Northern Cheyenne victory? Or maybe overestimate it to create a "cavalry martyrology"? Seriously speaking, I think both propositions afre false. Therefore, I'll remove the tag. If you disagree, feel free to reinstate it and let's discuss the issue here.Friendly Neighbour 06:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed, but do see a little of what Bjorn is getting at. I'll work on this a bit when I get time, but he is right that a little more detail on the Native American warbands' specific movements (which is available) might be illustrative. The map is a good start, and the article alludes to some of the specifics, but more can be added to help flesh out which band went where; similar to the movements of the individual Army columns. However, the article is not biased or NPOV; merely light on manuevers by the Indians. Scott Mingus 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

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

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

LuciferMorgan 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I created the framework to add citations and footnotes, as well as to move sources from the Further reading section to a new References section to be consistent with GA criteria. I added a footnote to start the process, and will add more citations later (now heading off to nearby Gettysburg for the annual Civil War reenactors' parade and celebrations.) Scott Mingus 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French link

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

Tha, ~Jozias

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