Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn

message: 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)
thread_title: Makeup of the 7th

message: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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)
thread_title: Roman Army line of march relevant

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath moved up 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Decisive victory? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 10/05/09 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: They were collected and buried nearby. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of cavalry horse bones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced original research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 4/17/10 - Non-combatants 

message: 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 disabledFox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 297were targeted for capture to serve as hostages and human shields.  United Nations – Glossary http://www.un.org/ed/peacekeeping/sites/glossary.h.htm (2010)  Custer’s battalions intended to “ride into the camp and secure noncombatant hostages” Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 253 and “forc[e] the warriors to surrender”. Robinson, Charles M., A Good Year to Die. Random House Publishing (1995). P. 257 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.” Connell, Edwin S. Son of the Morning Star. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (1997). P. 278Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 312 
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.” Custer, George Armstrong, My Life on the Plains : Or, Personal Experiences with Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company (1874). P. 220  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=ACP4940(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.  Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 267Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 297 
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. Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 297 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].” Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 62/63Author Michael Blake pointed out: “Unofficially, General Sheridan deemphasized the taking of [woman and children] prisoners” Blake, Michael. Indian Yell: The Heart of an American Insurgency. Northland Publishing (2006). P. 73 and the regiment had “implied orders to kill everyone [during the attack].” Blake, Michael. Indian Yell: The Heart of an American Insurgency. Northland Publishing (2006). P.77 
The purpose of this “total war” strategy, Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P.62 envisioned by Sheridan was to make “all segments of Indian society experience the horrors of war as fully as the warriors.” Sklenar, Larry. To Hell with Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (2000) p. 32 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. Sklenar, Larry. To Hell with Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (2000) p. 32 Sklenar, Larry. To Hell with Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (2000) p. 77 
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.Sklenar, Larry. To Hell with Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (2000) p. 193 
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” Custer, George Armstrong, My Life on the Plains : Or, Personal Experiences with Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company (1874) p.220 upon which the success of the operation “pivoted”, according to archeologist and historian Richard Allan Fox, Jr. Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 317 
The “scatteration” Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 308 of the approximately 4,000 – 5,000 women and children Sklenar, Larry. To Hell with Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (2000) p. 163 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. Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P.306 
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."Custer, George Armstrong, My Life on the Plains : Or, Personal Experiences with Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company (1874) p.220 
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. Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 153 
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”,  Utley, Robert M. Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and Western Military Frontier University of Oklahoma Press (1988). P. 182 as described by historian Robert Utley, and depriving the Seventh Cavalry of a potent means of “neutralizing” Sioux and Cheyenne resistance. Bray, Kingsley M. Crazy Horse – A Lakota Life University of Oklahoma Press (2006). P. 222
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.”  Hutton, Paul Andrew (editor) The Custer Reader University of Oklahoma Press (2004) p. 302  
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.  Gray, John S. Custer’s Last Campaign University of Nebraska Press (1991) p. 360 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. Gray, John S. Custer’s Last Campaign University of Nebraska Press (1991) p. 360 
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." Bray, Kingsley M. Crazy Horse – A Lakota Life University of Oklahoma Press (2006). P. 224 Their perception – correctly – was that the “soldiers from the north [Custer’s battalion] were “going after the women and children.” Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 249 
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 DFox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 176/177 which provided “access to the [women and children] fugitives." Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 306 Indeed, Yates’s force “posed an immediate threat to fugitive Indian families…” gathering at the north end of the huge encampment. Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 299 
Custer persisted in his efforts to “seize women and children” even as hundreds of warriors were massing around Keogh’s wing on the bluffs. Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008). P. 267 Yates’s wing, descending to the Little Bighorn River at Ford D encountered “light resistance”, Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 297 undetected by the Indian forces ascending the bluffs east of the village.Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 298 
Custer was almost within “striking distance of the refugees” before being repulsed by Indian defenders and forced back to Custer Ridge.Bray, Kingsley M. Crazy Horse – A Lakota Life University of Oklahoma Press (2006). P. 222 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. Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P .need page # 
Regardless of what actually transpired, the hostage or human shield “option” was no longer available after Keogh’s wing collapsed Fox, Richard Allan, Jr., Archeology, History and Custer’s Last Battle. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press (1993) P. 305 and “any hope of victory” vanished. Donovan, James, A Terrible Glory. Little, Brown and Company (2008) P. 267 
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…”Graham, W.A. The Custer Myth The Telegraph Press (1953) p. 303 
: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)
thread_title:  Role of Noncombatants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adjustment to Lead, 6/2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 7/30/10  

message: 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:  Sensei48 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC's Ree Scouts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Charge of the Light Brigade? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: St. Clair's Defeat comes to mind. Mingusboodle (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles named after the losing side 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Son of the Morning Star, author  

message: 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)
thread_title:  GIF maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commanders and Leaders 

message: 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)
replies: text: A truer statement has never been uttered at this site. And welcome to Wikipedia! 36hourblock (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Decisive Native American victory? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy and Mystery 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Guns at the Little Bighorn" Gallear 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Survivor section, again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No decisive victory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Striking Custer 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, best to just let sleeping dogs lie on this one.  Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hokahey, today is a good day to die! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Converting Kindle location to page number 

message: 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 - ; Harris's field of published work is in theology, not history, and the Amazon bio so indicates ; 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, . 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)
thread_title:  Survivors Section Re-Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The role of Indian noncombatants in Custer's strategy – revisited 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lone Teepee 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reunions? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Nationalities

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leaders - Black Elk? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crappy Scrappy article that needs a complete overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo is not Mitch Bouyer