Talk:George Armstrong Custer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Slight change to intro section[edit]

I have changed the intro section slightly to hilight the fact (which I learned from this article) that GAC actually got his horsemen around Lee before anybody else did (not surprising), and his was actually the division that received Lee's flag of truce, under which he offered to surrender. This is extra interesting to me, given that GAC's was also the first division to capture a Confederate battle flag (again, according to this article). I wanted to use these two points in a nice rhetorical contrast in the intro to hilite GAC's interesting contributions to the Civil War. Apparently, User:Sensei48 disagrees, having reverted my edit twice. I have undone his reversion again, having asked this user to discuss my proposed change to the article here on the talk page, as is (I believe) the accepted method for WP:BRD (as opposed to discussion of articles in the unwieldy "forum" of edit summaries.) Eaglizard (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe I have been mistaken. I thought I had gotten that info from this article directly, but now I think perhaps I was reading a source and meant to finish this edit later (with the above-mentioned fact about the battle flag), and add a reference. I have removed my edit, but will replace it if I can find the source I was reading. Eaglizard (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eaglelizard - I was going to reply at more length but don't have time to do so at the moment. I would say, though, that your points here and on my Talk page are well-taken. This is a fairly minor edit in either case, a matter of wording really. I do think that whichever edit stands, an appropriate source would be a good idea. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Famed Civil War artist-correspondent Alfred Waud was with Custer's units at various times throughout the war. Waud's original drawings are housed at the Library of Congress, donated in 1918 as part of the J. Pierpont Morgan Collection. His sketch, "Custer receiving the flag of truce--Appomatox [sic]--1865", is among them. [1] --HistoryETC (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


At West Point[edit]

This article says that Custer went to West Point in 1858 and graduated a year early in 1861 due to the outbreak of the Civil War. According to and Stephen Ambrose's Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, ISBN-10: 0385479662, ISBN-13: 978-0385479660 (94,99) Custer was appointed there in 1857 and graduated at the bottom of his class after the standard four years. (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

    • Actually I've done some more research on this - apparently Custer's class did graduate early, but at the time West Point was a five year school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The above comments are correct. Custer started West Point in 1857, and was supposed to graduate in 1862. At that time, West Point was a five year course, but the outbreak of the Civil War caused them to shorten it to four years. Thus, Custer graduated in 1861. So why does the article still say he started in 1858? (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Tagging[edit]

The tag [why] was added by USER:Hop on Bananas on the following sentence with no explanation:

She was not initially impressed with him,[16] and her father, Judge Daniel Bacon, disapproved of Custer as a match because he was the son of a blacksmith.[why?]

Perhaps he can explain what additional clarification is needed since "because he was the son of a blacksmith" seems to answer the question. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know if:

  1. Being the son of a blacksmith was a common reason to not marry someone in the time/place/context:
  2. Whether or not it was, what the reason for it was.

I was asking about the answer itself, not the question. Sorry. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking such questions is valid for the talk page; however, the answer in the article is appropriate and in context, and further clarification is not needed there unless there is confusion. There is none. Now, to answer your question here, it is a very simple issue of class and social standing. The daughter of a judge (politically and socially connected) was not a suitable match for the son of a common laborer. ScrpIronIV 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, but would the average reader be able to figure it out? Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Without a doubt; even for non-native english speakers. ScrpIronIV 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess so, so okay. Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

While the point may be valid, as an addition to the article as phrased and as justified here it is not. It is an inference and requires a citation or it remains the supposition of a single editor. Clarification is not the issue; sourcing is. If the point is valid, it should be easy to source. "The daughter of a judge (politically and socially connected) was not a suitable match for the son of a common laborer" verges on OR.Sensei48 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The claim is cited in the article; my answer was to the talk page question and whether the "WHY" tag was required. It verges on nothing. Class is a part of life in nearly every culture. ScrpIronIV 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's okay if assume the reader will know why. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

January 2016 Edits[edit]

The overall text of this article has had long-term stability until recently, and that text was the result of a long and often contentious process by a large number of editors. Wiki protocols suggest that changes of a significant scale should be vetted here on Talk with more justification that no edit summary on some and a simple assertions of "improvements" on others, whereas in any number of cases those edits have included mistakes in punctuation and formatting. Bold improvements are always welcome, but changes to the text should be discussed and justified as a matter of common Wiki procedure. Sensei48 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: you may want to read this thread on his rank(s). This is more specific than what you cited. I wouldn't mention the exact timing of rank changes unless it becomes important for some reason. He held brevet ranks in both the regular army and the volunteers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed material
Civil War ranks

Custer held the following ranks:

First Lieutenant, 2nd Cavalry: June 24, 1861
Second Lieutenant, 5th Cavalry: July 17, 1862
Captain Staff: June 5, 1862
Captain, 5th Cavalry: May 8, 1864

Brigadier General, U.S. Volunteers: June 29, 1863
Major General, U.S. Volunteers: April 15, 1865

Brevet Major, July 3, 1863: For the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Brevet Lieutenant Colonel, May 11, 1864: For the Battle of Yellow Tavern - Combat at Meadow
Brevet Colonel, September 19, 1864: For the Battle of Winchester, Virginia
Brevet Major General, U.S. Volunteers, October 19, 1864: For the Battle of Winchester and Fisher's Hill, Virginia
Brevet Brigadier General, U.S. Army, March 13, 1856: For the Battle of Five Forks, Virginia
Brevet Major General, U.S. Army, March 13, 1865: For the campaign ending in the surrender of the Insurgent Army of Northern Virginia

All Custer's brevet promotions were for gallant and meritorious services.

I removed the above as uncited. It isn't prose and it isn't normal to make a list of a military officer's promotion/demotion record in an article either. Further, it contradicts sourced material in the article. You seem to have him going from a 1st Lt. to a 2nd Lt. (unexplained demotion) Hint: What you have written is incorrect. July 17, 1862 he was reverted to a 1st Lt. (not 2nd as you have written). No chrono order is used (why are you listing them in this order? - makes no sense to me). I appreciate that for some reason, you would like to work out his record but I think this is better left off - no explanation is given to the reader about the differences between the Volunteers and regular army nor should there be as it is confusing (we already have the brevet concept in play which can confuse as well). I think we should stick to what he did for a topical article and not detail nuanced title changes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the source for my changes which helped improve and correct the article as needed. Corrected 2nd Lt then 1st Lt., just a mistake of being reversed. Corrected other errors that were already in place in the article like in the info box, his lieutenant colonel rank comes before brevet major general rank not after. Seems his brevet major general rank is permanent not temporary and its on his grave.[1] YahwehSaves (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Who claimed to have killed Custer[edit]

Having just read the book Indian Heroes and Chieftains by Charles Eastman, I can say that the inclusion of Rain-in-the-Face as one who claimed responsibility for Custer's death is false. This book includes a personal interview with Rain-in-the-Face by the author. In his personal account of the battle, he flat out says it was not he that killed Custer nor he that mutilated Custer's corpse. Therefore, if the citation is the source for that rumor, that source did not have all the information. I'm not a Wikipedia editor but you can get this book for cheap on Amazon Kindle or online and read it for yourself. Rain-in-the-Face did not claim responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Armstrong Custer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]