Talk:Red Cloud's War

message: “One of the deadliest enemies the American military ever faced”  I feel very uncomfortable with this statement.  Highly debatable, to say the least.  I do not mean to diminish his accomplishments, but was he comparable to Japanese naval commanders in WWII?  The German commanders of both world wars.  The North Koreans and Chinese of the Korean War, or even of any number of Confederate Generals?  How many American military personnel died in Red Cloud’s War?  Surely less than in many naval disasters involving a single boat.
I think something along the lines of “One of the most effective and deadly Native American tribal war leaders ever to face the American military” would be less clouded and biased. prior comment by Eebmore 
:I think the community agrees; that line was deleted from the article rewinn 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadliest?

message: * Added by Special:Contributions/71.222.224.154 to the main page, moved here by CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: in the Fetterman massacre section it claims that Col. Carrington was scapegoated, wouldn't a better term be blamed?  Scapegoated seems like it violates NPOV. 4.239.249.127 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I made the change; also took the quotes off the section title since they had no function.   rewinn 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  scapegoated? 

message: I am unable to glean from the article when the Fetterman Massacre took place. This should be obvious within the first ¶ of that section. Rychach (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Fetterman Massacre? 

message: --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fetterman massacre" needs its own article 

message: I'm new to this, but I can't help but feel the majority of this article is intended to praise Red Cloud. Almost the entire aftermath section is about how great a guy Red Cloud was. And while the article states that the US changed policy from open war to less hostility, it's a result of a change in leadership and a desire not to waste effort protecting less desirable trails. It doesn't seem like US motives or views are at all taken into account as with other Indian Wars resulting in treaties, and instead just boasts in the introduction and infobox about the Indians' "complete victory" (despite saying right after that there was only a temporary preservation of their control of the Powder River country).
Shouldn't this be a little more balanced? Cobalt Agent (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The temporary nature of their control was not the result of red clouds war.  That fact is mentioned in the articles of the wars and treaties that followed.--71.239.120.235 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Since every person in Fetterman's command was killed exactly how do we know the details about the Indians taunting him by shaking their bare buttocks, Seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.89.193 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, from the testimony of Lakota participants in the battle, many of whom spoke to historians after the armed conflict had ended. Interestingly, most of them admiringly attributed the buttock-baring stratagem and in fact the whole entrapment scheme to Crazy Horse. Sensei48 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details about Indians taunting Fetterman 

message: Previous edits have given undue weight to a single and recent article propounding a theory of "Cheyenne Primacy" in the Plains wars on the late 19th century. Dr. Margot Liberty, author of the monograph, titled her piece "Cheyenne Primacy: The Tribes' Perspective As Opposed To That Of The United States Army; A Possible Alternative To "The Great Sioux War Of 1876". (boldface mine) Dr. Liberty's work deserves recognition and acknowledgment, but it has been interpolated into a number of Plains wars articles as the definitive and exclusive way to understand the conflicts - which is clearly far out of proportion to what even Dr. Liberty contended. Edits here reflect correct proportionality. Sensei48 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits, 71/1/10 

message: I know Dee Brown calls it the "Fetterman Massacre" (and that title comes up most commonly in Amazon due in no small part to the number of editions of Brown's work out there), but Frontier Army specialists (Paul Hutton, Robert Utley, and Paul Hedren, to name a few) usually call it the Fetterman Fight. Massacre implies a purely one-sided event, and the Battle of the Hundred in the Hand was not that. Thoughts?Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Title? 

message: I just finished the B-Class review for this article. It's very close, with only a few bits of information needing citations (the comments about the US casualties, Red Cloud's death, those marked by need cite tags, and so on). It may be worth noting that the Sioux and their allies burned all the Powder River posts as soon as they were evacuated, but I didn't mark the article down for completeness because of this. Intothatdarkness 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MilHist B Class Notes 

message: The otherwise well-written paragraph beginning
:"Historians have estimated that Red Cloud's warriors numbered up to 4,000 men.[18] That estimate seems exaggerated. The total number of Lakota in 1865 was about 13,860.[19] The Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho numbered about 3,000 adding up to a total of about 17,000 Indian men, women, and children. If one in four were adult males, the total number of warriors would be about 4,000, but thousands of people in all three of those tribes were not in the Powder River country with Red Cloud. Many who were stayed aloof from the war. Thus, it seems likely that Red Cloud had no more than 2,000 warriors and unlikely that he could put even that many men in the field at any given time."
appears on the surface to be WP:SYNTH, from the phrase I boldfaced, "That estimate seems exaggerated," through what looks like analysis on the part of the editor who wrote it.  
If this analysis is from a secondary source, an inline citation would be very helpful in establishing the fact.  
A reading of the text indicates to me that such an analysis may have been made by the author of reference 20. I do not have access to that source.  Could someone who does have access to it read the source to see whether or not the analysis in this paragraph exists there?
The alternative would be to delete the entire analysis as WP:SYNTH, which I don't wish to do if it can be avoided. loupgarous (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help! loupgarous (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of [[WP:SYNTH]] -  Does This Passage Need an Inline Citation? 

message: I've just noticed that there are three citations to a work by Colson (45-47), but no previous mention of this author. There IS a work by Olson (8, 9 and 36) - I guess the former are simply typos? Could someone with access to Mr Olson's book please check these former reference pages and correct the text if appropriate? Thanks.VapourGhost (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor editing needed in References section? 

message: These additions are good, but there do not need to be so many direct quotes in the Lead, and I think it is now too long, with too many details about historic context, relations among Indians. This section is supposed to be a summary of material from the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You pointed me to more sources, and I think it's worthwhile to add content about intertribal warfare preceding this period. It was not only the Crow who lost territory to the Lakota, and not only the Crow whom the US abandoned.Parkwells (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions related to Crow people

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Red Cloud's War. 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/20131029195448/http://www.bozemantrail.org/index.html to http://www.bozemantrail.org/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618235915/http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/58musket.htm to http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/58musket.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927070903/http://philkearny.vcn.com/fortphilkearny.htm to http://philkearny.vcn.com/fortphilkearny.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.philkearny.vcn.com/crazywomanbattle.htmlCrazy
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) 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A user had been making minor changes concerning casualties of wars, and I see they  this page.  The change was from ~200 to 200+, it might be worth checking.  Cxbrx (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Vandalism?