Talk:Crazy Horse

Translation of name?

[The following entry was made first but only reunited with the rest at 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC) via merger of history & content of Talk:Crazy Horse (disambiguation) to here. --Jerzy•t

I've heard that his name actually should be translated as "untammed" horse; is that true? Szopen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

So, you're saying he's 'Ranma'?? :) CFLeon (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

216.163.125.121 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)===Crazy Horse (person) → Crazy Horse === All other articles with "Crazy Horse" in the name are named after this figure, so his article should occupy the primary name. A disambig page is already in place. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

That is a bad reason for the move. But a few Google tests quickly establish the only really good reason there could be: references to him predominate among uses by a good margin.
--Jerzy•t 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am hurt that there is no mention of the Kangi Tanka (Big Crow) in this article, nor our families steps to protect "Crazy Horse"s name in U.S. Federal Courts. Nor any information about the sad division of the "Red Cloud's", and the "Crazy Horse's". an essentially artificial division.
We are his inheritors. We have done so much with no recognition. I guess I should try to supe this up.
Brandon Kangi Tanka (Big Crow) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandon Jay Denny (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Well 1st. Big Crow was not even Related to Crazy Horse.

• 2nd. Crazy Horse was MniHohwoju/Itazicola.(remember the MniHohwoju War Chieftan Touch the Clouds is/was His 1st Cousin)
• 3rd. He was by birth in the Hierarcy of the MniHohwoju, His Mother was the Daughter of the MnHohwoju Chief Black Buffalo.

Answer your question? [unsigned]

Edit Bibliography

[I] Was surprised that the Mari Sandoz biography was not listed. Add it and ordered the bibliography by date of publication, in order to preserve a historical interpretive context. If it becomes too large, I'd suggest ordering it by alpha author. --kradak 00:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this true or BS?

"Crazy Horse had hazel eyes and light curly hair (his nickname was "curly"). He also had relatively light skin and freckles."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MelungeonOrigin/message/85 --grazon 19:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ALL contemporary accounts, EVEN FROM OTHER INDIANS mention his very light color for an Indian, especially a Sioux. And his childhood name translates to "Curly" (although this might be a traditional family name, passed on). There was speculation back then that he was a half-breed or at least 1/4th white, although this is not backed by ANY information we have about his background. Put it down to the vagarity of Genetics and ask him if you meet him on the Riverworld. CFLeon 09:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Surrender?

I don't think Crazy Horse ever surrendered to anyone at anytime. He died in battle with high honor at the age of 27. Stabinator 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for this statement??? CFLeon 09:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I kindof assume this is a joke, but in any case, I'm sure the wording of surrender can be somewhat disputed. I've never seen or heard of any litterature that support this statement whatsoever. galar71 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Crazy horse was a well respected man who had high values. He knew that his men were starving and he also knew that most of them were sick. He didn't want to have to surrender but he knew it was best for his men. If his men were still healthy they would have been fighting for many more months. his men knew that they were going to fall if they were fighting while they were sick. They trusted him and they knew he would do the right thing. So, I believe that Crazy Horse surrendering was a smart and honorable notion.--keegan seeman, sioux native and researcher

I noticed that there aren't very many citations in the Surrender section of the article. Alas, I don't have much time to go through and add any, but I do have some sources that can help anyone so inclined: This article, from the Nebraska State Historical Society, discusses the discovery of the Crazy Horse Surrender Ledger at Ft Robinson, NE. The ledger itself has also been published by the NSHS, but is rather harder and more expensive to get your hands on (Amazon lists 4 copies available at $125 and up as of this writing). I hope this is helpful to someone. Jedikaiti (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth year 1234 [???]

The top of the article & the box mention Crazy Horse was born in 1849, but deeper in the text it says much earlier. Also, futher on, it mentions that his reputation grew in the 1850s & 60s, which would make the later birth year unlikely.--Robbstrd 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo Controversy

The surviving Crazy Horse family says no way. In the early days of photography a photographer had to make a living. So mislabeling photos and calling them Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse enhanced the value when they tried to sell them back east. For reseachers: check out the photos of noted old west photographer D. F. Barry. He has photos of Rain In The Face, Sitting Bull, and John Grass wearing exactly the same headdress. Why? Barry was the owner of the headdress and asked his Indian subjects to wear it as a favor. You see most Indians didn't even own one, even many of the head men. But he knew the easterners would pay more for a picture of an Indian that wore a headdress. Because it made them LOOK like a chief...whether they were or not was unimportant to a photographer trying to scratch out a living in a new and expensive business. (You can access these photos online at the Library of Congress or the Denver Public Library) The Crazy Horse family has a detailed drawing by an artist in 1934 based from a description by Crazy Horse's younger half sister, Iron Cedar. Upon looking at the drawing for the first time, she broke into tears and said it was exactly how she remembered him. It has been stored in the family cedar chest for over seventy years. The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument has a copy of this drawing in their archives donated by the family.---moved here from main article, GunnerJr 14:14, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Why is this photo up if most sources say it's bogus? It should have a link to the picture instead so people who don't read well, won't take the picture and show it off as crazy horse. cary 24.18.104.26 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be taken down. Since the majority of sources claim it is not verifiable, and since both the section of the article dealing with it and a source in the further reading dispute its veracity, it should DEFINITELY NOT be a featured aspect of the page. It's a little ridiculous that it's still up, actually. 69.145.235.182 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the photograph down to the photo controversy section to cut down on confusion.24.18.104.26 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Take that picture down. That's not Curly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.133.33 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I will delete. Given his status as a thunder dreamer, the picture does not make sense (Bikepunk (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)).

I restored the picture and the section. I think that we are all certain that it isn't a picture of Crazy Horse, but the controversy over the authenticity of the picture is notable and well sourced, and for better or worse, a part of his legacy. At some point in their lives, most Americans have seen this picture and thought it was Crazy Horse, it only makes sense to debunk that nonsense in this article. At least try to push a better argument then WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "I don't like it". No scholorship supports posting the picture, and to give it several paragraphs does not make sense. And it is wrong to assume that most Americans know it is not true. The real argument is that it does not belong in any type of pedia. It needs to go. Bikepunk (talk)

I would agree that it didn't belong in Wikipedia if not for two important reasons - one, that most Americans think this is Crazy Horse, and two that the discussion about the photographs authenticity is sourced in multiple academic references. This isn't the first time that this photo has been added and removed. No matter how many times we remove it, its just going to be added back in. Luckily, we have numerous sources that debunk the photograph, and we have been able, over time, to construct a very good section about how the photograph is not likely to be true - so anybody who comes to this article will be educated. If we remove the picture, it will be added again, but without the accompanying discussion. I think the article makes it clear that the photograph is not Crazy Horse, and retaining it will educate people and prevent the article from being continuously altered to include a fake photograph. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bikepunk (talk)

Memorial Criticism

I added a sentence and a cite about the criticism concerning the CHM. I would perfer that the whole section was not in the article as it seems POV and promotional. If it needs to be in the article at all, it should not have a completly free ride.Edivorce 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be here, it's definitely a related topic, and the controversy overlaps the man. I'd also add that I think your addition is an excellent one. I do think that perhaps it should be moved down the page, however, to place it below the photograph section. I'll do this now, see what you think. Maury 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy regarding his death

I have added a short disclaimer to the Bourke/Little Big Man version of the CH death story, which suggests that CH somehow managed to stab himself twice during the struggle outside the guardhouse. This account (collected in 1881 by Bourke) is dismissed as an inaccurate account motivated primarily by LBM's own self-aggrandizement by the vast majority of scholars on the subject, and an offensive deflection of military culpability by Lakota familiar with the story. See Kingsley Bray 2006, Larry McMurtry 1999, Joseph Marshall III 2004, and especially James Gilbert, in Journal of the West (volume 32, Jan 1993, pp.5-21). I would also caution against using military historians like Bourke as single sources for entire sections. In this case, the existence of a "mark" on the guardhouse door verified by a single individual should not be put forward as evidence that substantiates a single-perspective account.--69.145.235.182 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have repaired this section to remove overly non-NPOV comments about John Gregory Bourke and Little Big Man (how is it possible to know he had "no compelling reason to lie?"), as well as a racist implication that because Bourke was the only WHITE to interview LBM about this occurrence, his testimony is somehow more credible. Furthermore, the "deathbed" testimony cited as corroboration of this story and which implies CH's death was his own fault is, to those familiar with the documents, patently fabricated by either Bordeaux, Lee or one of the other white soliders/scouts present.

AGAIN, ADVANCING THE POINT OF VIEW OF ONE SOURCE OUT OF DOZENS IS NOT NPOV!!!--168.103.21.77 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article stating that Crazy Horse killed himself when Little Big Man released his elbow, if historians don't seem to agree on that? X10 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting the Bourke reference as it only serves to muddy the waters, and as the article notes, is not generally considered credible. I'll make this deletion in the next few weeks if no one can come up with a good reason not to do so. --69.146.166.207 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the section dealing with the Bourke/LBM account to reflect what most scholars on the subject see as its questionable motives and singular nature.--72.175.96.48 (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a few reliable sources to that effect to bolster the article, please? CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The "last words" often attributed to Crazy Dick contain as the second to last sentence a terse implication of the guard.

Can somebody edit that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac281 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Done - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Other wives

The article mentions his "first wife," what of the others? I had read he had three wives during his life. -- WiccaIrish 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he had more than one wife, and I remember that information being in the article. Maybe someone removed it at some point? oncamera^(t) 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If information about his first and second wives cannot be provided, then the title of the section should be named more appropriately. WikiArchr (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)WikiArchr

Touch the Clouds

Were is the source to the section in which is said his nephew Touch the Clouds saved Crazy Horses live? I would love to know were that is from, because I woud want to have some more sources to that article. Thanks in advance,

J.B. (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Especially because the Lone Star article implies that Touch the Clouds was Crazy Horse's cousin, not his nephew. In fact, that one sentence about Touch the Clouds saving Crazy Horse's life is confusing and misplaced. It should probably just be taken out. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph controversy

Alleged photo of Crazy Horse in 1877

Most sources question whether Crazy Horse was ever photographed. Dr. McGillycuddy doubted any photograph of the war leader had been taken. In 1908, Walter Camp wrote to the agent for the Pine Ridge Reservation inquiring about a portrait. "I have never seen a photo of Crazy Horse," Agent Brennan replied, "nor am I able to find any one among our Sioux here who remembers having seen a picture of him. Crazy Horse had left the hostiles but a short time before he was killed and its more than likely he never had a picture taken of himself."

In 1956, a small tintype portrait purportedly of Crazy Horse was published by J. W. Vaughn in his book With Crook at the Rosebud. The photograph had belonged to the family of the scout, Baptiste "Little Bat" Garnier. Two decades later, the portrait was again published with further details about how the photograph was produced at Camp Robinson, though the editor of the book "remained unconvinced of the authenticity of the photograph."

Recently, the original tintype was on exhibit at the Custer Battlefield Museum in Garryowen, Montana, who have promoted the image as the only authentic portrait of Crazy Horse. Historians however continue to refute the identification.

Experts argue that the tintype was taken a decade or two after 1877. The evidence includes the individual's attire (such as the length of the hair pipe breastplate and the ascot tie). In addition, no other photograph with the same painted backdrop has been found. Several photographers passed through Camp Robinson and the Red Cloud Agency in 1877 — including James H. Hamilton, Charles Howard, David Rodocker and possibly Daniel S. Mitchell — but none of them used the backdrop that appears in the tintype. After the death of Crazy Horse, Private Charles Howard produced at least two images of the famed war leader's scaffold grave, located near Camp Sheridan, Nebraska.

The only confirmed image of Crazy Horse is a drawing a forensic artist made while listening to his description by his sister. This drawing belongs to Crazy Horse's family, and has been publicly shown only once, on the PBS program History Detectives. -68.28.41.225

Photograph Controversy UPDATE

In March of 2010, an actual photo of Crazy Horse was purchased on ebay, authenticated, and given as a gift to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The man in the photo is NOT the same person in the "alleged photo of Crazy Horse" shown here.

The photo has been examined by experts at Sothebys, Butterfields, the National Museum of the American Indian, several private appraisers, and a number of notable Lakotas at Pine Ridge. The image is believed to be Crazy Horse for the following reasons, among others: 1) The age and style of the photo indicates that it was taken by Alexander Gardner near Fort Laramie in 1872, when Crazy Horse is rumored to have been photographed at the urging of his friends. 2) The man in the photo closely matches all physical descriptions of Crazy Horse, 3) The man in the photo does not appear in any other known photos, and 4) The man in the photo bears a remarkable resemblance to the man in the sketch.

To view the image, CLICK HERE. 68.28.41.225

Both of these sections on alleged photographs are highly speculative and need to be treated as such. Butterfield's and Sotheby's are not WP:RS, and at this remove in time from the life of Crazy Horse the best that can be said is "maybe" and not an "actual" and "authenticated" photo. The ink drawing of CH currently heading the article should be treated with equal caution. History Detectives is a pop-culture, lightweight, non-scholarly and highly POV bit of entertainment fluff that trades in unscholarly suppositions, inferences, and speculative conclusions of "likelihood." It fails as WP:RS as well, and that drawing indicates why - an ink drawing concocted from oral accounts by a missionary nearly 60 years after CH's death? In no way could such a speculative effort be construed as WP:RS. Sensei48 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a seperate article/section detailing "Images of Crazy Horse" that cover the multiple supposed photographs (I count three, one not covered by the article), the ink drawing, and maybe even the statue and there relationship to "Crazy Horse." I uploaded the drawing of Crazy Horse (which has been "approved" by his family as accurate, if that means anything), but don't doubt there could be a better place for it. The drawing was taken from the pop-culture History Detectives merely as an image source, but it is documented elsewhere by more reliable sources as a speculative representation of Crazy Horse based on family description.--Tim Thomason 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi TT - I for one like the idea of the "representations" as a second article. As your upload notes and those on these other images indicate, there are pros and cons for authenticity for each of these candidates, probably enough for a separate article. The memorial already has a its own somewhat underdeveloped article and could possibly be merged into a larger "representations" article. I appreciate your note about the existence of the pen and ink drawing and the authenticity of its 1934 origin; my disparagement of History Detectives (and the like - equally lightweight and often inaccurate presentations on The History Channel - this week's rerun offering on LBH actually stated that Sitting Bull died in 1889) is that a number of these programs have been offered in LBH articles as WP:RS, which they are not. No offense intended. Sensei48 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a larger representations article! oncamera^(t) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo, Round 3

There are multiple problems with identifying either the 1934 sketch in this article or the recent Sotheby's-sold picture as "authenticated." Editor 68.28.41.225 offers in the section above about the tintype that "the image is believed to be Crazy Horse for the following reasons". Game over right there - "believed to be" is the best that can be said about this image at this point. That is not the equivalent of "authentic" or "authenticated." The use of the passive voice "is believed to be" - is also a dead giveaway - by whom?

In fact, it is all but impossible at this point ever to "authenticate" a picture of someone for whom no absolutely, rock-solid contemporary image exists. The reasons editor 68 cites are worth mention in the article, as is the existence of this "new" picture itself. But there has been no peer review of the image, the reasoning, the circumstances and provenance of the picture - no academic examination and journal review of the process. What you have so far is a for-profit auction house with a financial motive asserting its validity, and a silly and academically worthless TV show doing its normal circumstantial and inferential hack job on the question. If you tried to cite either of these in a college research paper, you'd fail.

It's nice that many of the Oglalas today think that it might be real - but they would have no more way of knowing than anyone else. That would be like supposing that someone knew what Jesus looked like because he/she was Jewish - commonality of background with a person for whom no known picture exists also does not constitute evidence.

As discussed above as well, the 1934 ink drawing cannot be called "authentic." It is a fanciful re-creation that may look like CH - or may not. Again, its creation almost 70 years after CH's death renders its accuracy suspect.

The whole question needs to be treated with more care and respect than shown here so far. The most reliable sources available as of now - cited earlier in this section - suggest that Crazy Horse was never photographed. There needs to be evidence far more solid that that presented so far to overturn that supposition. Sensei48 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely with your comments. And there are too many peacock and weasel words in the recent edits. oncamera^(t) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I agree with everything you said, and the edit war on the page isn't helping. I don't have a problem discussing the photographic controversies (as I argued above) and the latest photograph probably deserves a treatment as well. But under no circumstances should we declare any photograph or rendering to be authentic without expert authentication and even then I would argue we should err on the side of being skeptical. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 03:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my earlier bluntness, folks - I guess it was the absolutist tone of the edit that set me off. Having said that, I agree with both Oncamera and CosmicPenguin that some mention of this purported photo is in order, carefully phrased and linked to whatever site other than eBay or Sotheby's that can give it whatever support there is - and with the caveats already mentioned in the article in this section. Sensei48 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo Scam 2010

Time to put this one to bed for good. The purported internet source for verification of the recent candidate for a picture of CH is - [1]

The opening sentence on their home page is -

"This VERY COOL site shows countless ways to list all American States."

Anyone want to nominate this for a WP:RS? The point of their little scam is to link to:

[2]

Ebay as a reliable source? Novel concept. For its authentication, Ebay links back to - top50states.com.

'Nuff said. There are plenty of sources out there, both Lakota and not, that assert that CH would never allow his picture to be taken. It's going to take a heap of genuine scholarly opinion to overcome that. If the Smithsonian ever says that this picture is "likely" CH and provides a rationale, then you might introduce it as "possibly authentic." Sensei48 (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another possible likeness

I can't say as I know more about this image than what my Dad wrote in his column, but if anyone is interested, I can ask my Dad about his sources, especially that Crazy Horse's family considered it an "excellent likeness" Jedikaiti (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's an excellent and balanced article, definitely a potential WP:RS. It might well be worth introducing the portrait and information from the article as another possible depiction, noting that the article itself asserts a) the unlikelihood of a genuine photograph existing for reasons stated, and b) the fact that Standing Soldier's picture comes with all the normal caveats about distance in time from the subject and so on. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister or daughter?

The sketch of Crazy Horse at the top of the article says it was agreed by his daughter in the 1930's to be a good likeness. However further down in the article it is noted that his only child had died decades earlier. And further down from there, that it was his sister who had agreed with the likeness. Seems that the sketch incorrectly is incorrectly notation is incorrect. I do not know how to fix that. Thank you. Gingervlad (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As the article states, Crazy Horse only had one child, a daughter that died as a young child. Source: The Journey of Crazy Horse by Joseph M. Marshall II. Kimberadams (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obvious confusion/mistakes

Friends who write all this:

Doing research, I am working on an article and preparing for my next field job with Native relatives up North (in Brazil), I read your page about His-horse-is-spirited (aka “Crazy Horse”). Although I am grateful that you do what you are doing, since it gives us (marginalized by dominant culture) a chance to have access to information we did not have before, I am also a bit confused. Look (below) at the three excerpts (placed in chronological order) from your text on “Crazy Horse”. More careful proof reading certainly would be a good thing before publishing. Greetings from arDaga Widor Man-who-speaks-many-languages Bahia, Brazil

A sketch of Crazy Horse by a Mormon missionary in 1934 after interviewing Crazy Horse's daughter Julia, who thought it was accurate.[1] Black Shawl gave birth to Crazy Horse's only child, a daughter named They Are Afraid Of Her, who died in 1873. The image of Crazy Horse at the top of this page was made in 1934 by a forensic artist from a description given by Crazy Horse's sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.211.4.218 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the thread just above ("Sister or daughter?"), the same point is made. I believe that you and Gingervlad are correct. I have corrected "daughter" to "sister" in the image caption. Thanks to both of you for spotting this. JamesMLane t c 23:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Sourcing Problems

I've already removed several non-RS inclusions from entertainments from the History Channel, but there is a major problem remaining. no less than 8 cites are to a DVD entitled The Authorized Biography of Crazy Horse and His Family, and the title is a dead giveaway that this film fails at every level as RS - unless of course you want to believe that contrary to every other academic and traditional source CH was a Minneconjou and not an Oglala, or that the Lakota "were on this earth with the dinosaurs," both of which are asserted in this video. In addition, the video is not "authorized" in any way other than the producers' imaginations -there has been a split in the Lakota groups about who has the right to CH as intellectual property, and the Lakota in this video (one of whom maintains that he is CH's great grandson when we know for a fact that CH had no survivng children) lost the suit. I will be removing all references to this spurious nonsense (and the often questionable edits growing out of it) and replacing them with CN tags ASAP. Sensei48 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy

I would like to suggest that the subsection "Genealogy" be removed, for 2 reasons. 1) Much of the information is already covered in preceding paragraphs, and 2) it largely reads like it was lifted directly from the book mentioned in the 1st sentence. I would suggest that the content be merged with the "family" section, if anyone willing has the mentioned book available to verify and cite. Jedikaiti (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)