Talk:Fetterman Fight

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)

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)

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.

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

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)


 * 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. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Intothatdarkness 00:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)
 * The majority of the ones I've seen draw from the List of Engagements as well as regimental returns. Intothatdarkness 13:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)