Talk:George Armstrong Custer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / People B‑class
WikiProject iconGeorge Armstrong Custer has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People (Military leaders). If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Custer's ranks[edit]

Custer's last brevet rank is missing from the article. In 1868, he was appointed again as brevet major general, making his official rank until his death Brevet Major General, Lieutenant Colonel. I have added this to the Dates of rank table, as well as a citation for the table pointing to a National Parks Service webpage that lists each of his army commissions, including photographs of their certificates. I know his last brevet is referenced in some Custer biographies, and I will dig into the history of it more later with the books on-hand so that I can add further information to the article. Additionally, some of the dates of rank listed on the NPS webpage do not match what is mentioned in the article. These dates should be cross-checked with more sources. Twcus (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Twcus: You can restore the content but don't remove the links to Google Books and don't add URLs on the section header. Instead you should put links to sources in section body. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're misreading the certificate. The appointment was from 13 March 1865, so that would be the effective date of the brevet. His actual service rank until his death was Lt Col. Intothatdarkness 23:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ranks Table has the same date, March 13, 1865, listed for Brevet Brigadier General as for Brevet Major General. Is this a typographical error or did Custer receive two promotions on the same day? I suppose the latter is possible, but I'd hazard the former is more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heitman (Historical Register and Dictionary Vol. 1) lists both promotions as taking place on 13 March 1865 (the BG one for Five Forks and MG for the Appomattox campaign). This date also appears in the 1868 Army Register, although it only shows the date of his highest rank promotion. There are other brevet promotions, but they're all noted as volunteers. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tragic Military Hero" Claim[edit]

There's been some recent discussions over this point in the article so I thought I would open a talk section about it. The article reads "After his death, Custer achieved lasting fame. Despite some initial criticism, the public eventually saw him as a tragic military hero." As I see it, "the public saw" already addresses that this may not be the current perception of Custer, and Connell's quote complements and substantiates this. I didn't have any issues with the "exemplary gentleman" line but what exactly that means is a bit vague. The criticisms of Custer are already thoroughly addressed.

Is there any need for further refinement here? Zortwort (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's probably not an issue critical to the article, but I believe that the first sentence of the section is still in need of refinement. The "the public eventually saw him as a tragic military hero" is too broad, and the tide of popular depictions and written considerations of GAC in the last 60 years at least - the time frame of my own close study of the battle - has turned decidedly against GAC as a cavalier, etc. It would be hard to suggest that the idolization of his memory immediately following LBH continues in any major way today. Maybe ""the public of the time eventually saw him" or "through the mid-20th century" would eliminate the implication that there is any of the unquestioning hero worship of his memory as there was in the decades following LBH.Sensei48 (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Custer's ancestry has no sourcing. It just links to the 1850 Census which had nothing to do with ancestry.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Marquis[edit]

There should be an explanation of who Thomas Marquis was. He appears to be a historian or biographer of some sort, but there are no details or description of him in the article. He is mentioned randomly as conducting interviews without context. (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch! Have linked the subject Thomas Bailey Marquis. His first mention is inside a quote so we can't adjust wordings. The link was a simple solution which moves the reader forward if they are curious. BusterD (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no 2600:1700:6641:A240:E045:CEED:B59:C972 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Cash song[edit]

This is one view of Custer:

I can tell you buster
I ain't got much time for Custer

It should likely be mentioned here.

In general, I'd say the whole article is far too sympathetic to Custer. Pashley (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That song was written by Peter La Farge. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Far too sympathetic?" If you have a problem with the quality or tone of the article, you are welcome to suggest or make changes, but, to me, it simply sounds like you're upset that the facts of the article challenge some preconceived image you have of Custer in your head. (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]