Talk:Battle of the Rosebud

message: The article recalls that although Reno had counted only 10 dead, further research would count 28. I think since this makes mention of the up-to 56 wounded it should also mention the up-to 28 dead.
::This article is downright racist, especially the "first time tribes showed cohesion fighting together"passage. What kind of colonialist hogwash is this ???       -VictoryBlood 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concurr. This article is completely biased. It is narrated exclusively from the perspective of the Anglo-Americans. It does not represent the views of our people whatsoever. We lost many courageous souls in battle that day, and to have it be trivialized in such a manner is disgusting. There should be a revolution amongst the Wikipedia community. Why should we let these barbaric foreigners push us around any longer? They stole our lands, butchered our people, destroyed our religion, exploited our culture, desecrated our sacred places and exposed us to diseases to which we had no immunity. We cannot let them rewrite our history. It's about time those visitors from across the ocean showed us some respect. We must assert ourselves as the heirs to the glorious civilization of our ancestors. We must force them to recognize that we are the true guardians of the land, that as visitors, they may use it if they like, but their use must meet with our expressed approval. EightDeer 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "first time tribes showed cohesion fighting together" Native American fighting was based on brave individual and small group actions, contrasting to American large unit tactics arising from Civil War experience. It is hardly an insult. SGGH ping! 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Although there can be legitimate debate as to which side won this battle, that victory would merely be a Tactical victory.  In no way can this be considered a Strategic victory for either side.  Strategy is about winning, about winning the war, not the battles.  The Native Americans lost this war and lost it rather quickly.  They won many battles and piled up many tactical victories, but they lost the war.  Their loss was strategic.
At the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal won one of the greatest tactical victories in recorded history.  Yet the victory was hollow because Hannibal failed to achieve Strategic Victory by defeating ROME and not too many years later the Punic Wars resulted in a complete and utter defeat of Carthage--A strategic victory for the Romans.
The U.S. fought a great number of land, sea and air battles in Viet Nam.  Our side scored tactical victories in most all of them.  But in 1975 we lost the war.  We failed at Strategic Victory while our opponents--the North Vietnamese--achieved a great Strategic Victory.
There is a distinct and unassailable difference between Strategic and Tactical Victory.  Great Sioux War of 1876-77 was a strategic defeat for Native Americans, no matter how you want to re-interpret history. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactical versus Strategic Victory

message: Lets face it, much of this is from a book written over 50 years ago, hence distorted and bias, but apparently still a primary source.  Few of the "facts" have ever very been carefully examined and properly recorded.   The same history in relation to Custer and the Little Big Horn, has been rewritten so many times and examined so closely they can tell you how many gum wrappers were left behind since 1876.  This prime cause and prelude to the more famous, yet also poorly analyzed, disaster (or victory) at the Little Big Horn is in much need of a good unbiased overview and rewrite by some competent historian, who might leave his mark doing so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: needed is comparison to nazi massacre in warsaw and other places, showing USA could match Hitler for evil actions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.103.0 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New rewrite. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle of the Rosebud. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/battle-rosebud-cheyenne-lakota-stop-general-crook
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Rosebud. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090713165913/http://www-cgsc.army.mil:80/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp#The
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "By the standards of Indian warfare, the Battle of the Rosebud was a long and bloody engagement." - needs references to "Indian warfare standards". It also seems questionable to make general value judgements about Indian Warfare are we are speaking of persons belonging to different tribes and it is unclear how they effect warfare of one another. --Rebentisch (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards of warfare