Talk:Fetterman Fight

Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Old West / Wyoming Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Assessments

Start class? Low importance? That seems off for what would appear to me, the writer, a well-researched, well-written, authoritative article about a battle that is of some importance in the American Old West. A reassessment is needed. Smallchief 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 21:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've looked carefully at this article, and am pleased to rate it at a 'B.' It really does not need a lot of work from here to have it ready for a GA review. Jus da fax 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect interpretation

In 'Aftermath' the current entry reads "...Mutilating the bodies of their dead foes was an Indian custom, ensuring, according to their religion, that their enemies were unable to enjoy the physical pleasures of an afterlife." This may be true of some Indians (although I have seen no evidence to support it), but this is not the case in this instance. These Indians did not normally mutilate the bodies of their foes. They did so in the case as an apparent reference to the Sand Creek Massacre at the hands of Col. Chivington. This can be found in the authoritative Native American history "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee".

Citation:

Brown, Dee (1970). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, ch. 6. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-11979-6.

George Bent

According to his autobiographical writings, he was present, but as a youth, was not a leader. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fetterman Fight. 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://www.webcitation.org/5iQJeDGWT?url=http://www.philkearny.vcn.com/fettermanfight.htm to http://www.philkearny.vcn.com/fettermanfight.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll

Article currently States the death toll under Fetterman was 81, but the memorial at the site lists 83 individuals. What’s with the discrepancy? Paragon Deku (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michno's "Encyclopedia of the Indian Wars" gives the figure as 81, but doesn't break it down beyond that. I'm not sure what source the memorial uses. ETA I just checked the photo of the monument on Commons, and it lists a total of 79 military personnel killed (3 officers and 76 enlisted men). If you add in the two civilians it brings the total to 81. So I don't know where 83 is coming from. Intothat darkness 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The monument states that four civilians were killed, not two. Definitely an odd discrepancy. Obviously this isn’t a matter of the article necessarily being wrong (I’m not going around citing public monuments), but it could be worth looking into. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware (and all RS I've looked at states) there were only two civilians killed. This has been the accepted number for many, many years. I'd say the movement is in error. Intothat darkness 00:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s even stranger is that the senate documents that contain a copy of Henry Carrington’s telegram on the battle show that he stated that there were 94 dead, immediately followed up by tallying “forty-nine” bodies brought in and “thirty-five” more located, which would be 84. [1] Where are RS’s getting their death rolls from? Is there another primary source on the death toll? Paragon Deku (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the ones I've seen draw from the List of Engagements as well as regimental returns. Intothat darkness 13:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]