Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Frank Finkel

I was watching the History Channel, and they have a special on Frank Finkel, the supposed only survivor of Custer's Last stand. I did not find anything about this in the article, and was wondering if it should be included.

http://www.historynet.com/survivor-frank-finkels-lasting-stand.htm Pdhharris (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)pdhharris

Thanks for bringing this up - but I wouldn't add this yet. History Channel is in no way a WP:RS, meaning a recognized and dependable source - it's pop culture entertainment, not scholarship. The article is a piece of light journalism, and the conclusions drawn are suspect, starting with the bald assertion that of the 70 claimants to be survivors, Finkel's story is the one that is true.

What the author does not mention or deal with is the fact that within the time frame of the battle and a decade or so after, exhaustive and painstaking research was done by distinguished officers from Reno's command, Edwin S. Godfrey and Winfield Scott Edgerly, both later generals. Neither gives any credibility to any discussion of survivors, and both spent the very long remainder of their lives trying to discover the truth about the battle.

W.A. Graham, author of the exhaustive The Custer Myth, does not even include the Rain-in-the-Face interview because the old warrior was notoriously self-contradictory and gave several deeply conflicting accounts of the battle to the press. (He also got so angry at Tom Custer after an arrest around 1872 that he allegedly swore that he would cut out TC's heart and eat it; in interviews subsequent to the battle, he alternately admitted and denied that he had said that - or that he had done that).

In order for this tale to be true, every detail upon which the inferences are based needs to be true. No reliable source asserts that 2 of GAC's troopers entered the village and began shooting; if they had, they would have been carried in by bolting horses, not their over-enthusiasm (ridiculous inference!). Finkel riding through 1800 warriors un-pursued, when both Harrington and possibly Cooke were chased over several miles and killed? Staying on his horse unconscious and carried over miles and miles? Surviving bullet wounds that killed tens of thousands of soldiers in the Civil War from sepsis, which applying tar or pitch to a wound would likely have exacerbated?

The story itself rings seriously untrue, and the article would never qualify for publication in any serious medium. If genuine scholars review this assertion and lend it some weight, then maybe a reference could be included. But History Channel? A channel with a top-rated program called Ancient Aliens? I think not.Sensei48 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching the show now for 30 minutes - at least five major errors so far. Just FYI - open the Talk archives here and read the discussions of Gall's account, which is highly suspect for reasons detailed there. Also, as Graham and many serious writers indicated, the Lakota accounts are so varied and contradictory in terms of time, troop movements, participation, and more that their usefulness is limited unless, as some recent books have done, you cherry-pick them to construct an internally consistent scenario.

Commercial. The teaser is that there are some Cheyenne accounts that surfaced in the 1970s or 80s that will allegedly shone some light. If they are from Thomas B. Marquis, they must be treated with great caution. Marquis spent decades among the Northern Cheyenne as a doctor and wrote two books about the battle from eyewitness accounts from Cheyenne who fought and whom he knew. Trouble is, Marquis never learned to speak the native tongue - his accounts are based on information he gleaned using Plains sign language, a kind of Esperanto of the day, and which he taught himself. It is at best an imprecise, generalized mean of communication, not a vehicle for precise and detailed description. Let's see. Sensei48 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The History Channel is entertainment not a WP:RS. The Finkel program was inference based on dubious claims and no reliable sources. It was entertainment, not scholarship. Since the claim is so outlandish and unlikely, it would require two additions to be included in this article:

a. Reliable scholarly sourcing as to its contentions from sources outside of the program itself, which as noted is commercial entertainment, and

b. since it is a controversial assertion, it would need an equally sourced argument against the veracity of the Finkel story, per WP:Controversy. There are articles in print specifically debunking this tale. Sensei48 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I did add a link to the Wiki article on Frank Finkel (since there is an article on him). I have seen this History Channel episode (and commiserate with others over the fact that they no longer engage in real history). The Finkel story brought me here to do further research on him and survivor stories, as well as other places like the Little Bighorn Association webpage (good site for debates about this and many other topics about LBH). I do not believe any of these survivor stories (they remind me too much of modern "Stolen Valor" stories we encounter, with someone feeling left out or envious of those who did serve so they have to create their own story to feel important). Just look at Brian Williams and his need to be part of the action, and I suspect Frank Finkel, sandwiched in age between earlier Civil War veterans and later Spanish-American War and WWI veterans felt he needed to be more important (PS his story is similar to another supposed survivor, Billy Heath, who at least shared the same name of someone who actually died at LBH and did not have to deal with the problematic issue of serving under an assumed name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorkall (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Survivor section, again

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I personally like having a section like this (but understand it could be made into a separate topic linked to this article). I think it is useful for those who read about survivor stories or see things like the History Channel episode on Frank Finkel (which based more on speculation than historical facts). I moved/consolidated some info on survivors from the "Casualties" section to "Survivor Claims" where I believe it fits better, including info/pic of the 7th Cavalry mount Comanche (a legitimate survivor). Thorkall (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Lone Teepee

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)

Reunions?

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)

Nationalities

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)

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)

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)