Talk:Comanche (horse)

message: The current Wikipedia article claims that Comanche was "buried with full military honors", citing this source: "Black Jack was ... one of [only] two horses that have been awarded such a tribute. (The other is "Comanche," the only surviving horse of Custer's command at the Battle of Little Big Horn, who is buried in Fort Riley, Kansas.)"
However, the current Wikipedia article also states that Comanche was not buried, but instead taxidermized, and that his remains can still be viewed to this day at the University of Kansas.
Indeed, it does appear that Comanche's remains are still on display at the KU Museum of Natural History, on the campus of the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas (source).  So, in what (if any) sense was Comanche "buried", and did he in fact receive any sort of military honors? (Did they bury an empty casket? What does a horse casket look like, anyway?) --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer, but I will point out that a taxidermy mount is pretty much just the hide stretched over a non-perishable frame, there WAS the rest of him, somewhere...  Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

text: This comment is wrong in most of its particulars. Comanche did not come from a government horse farm, Morgans actually were a very small part of the stud pool, and the entire remount system didn't come into use until almost 20 years after the Little Bighorn. Intothatdarkness 16:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The mount is over 100 years old, so it's probably a bit bleached out, but all the photos of the mount clearly show he had black points, so whatever else was going on, he wasn't a chestnut. And KU's website says he was a bay.   Montanabw(talk) 07:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial versus taxidermy 

message: The cited piece by Belcher (ref 5) claims Comanche is buried at Fort Riley. Three other references cited in the article (refs. 4, 6, and 7; and the article itself) contradict this, stating Comanche is preserved at the University of Kansas, and they bear every indication of being as reliable, if not more so, than the Belcher source. No assertion in the article depends on the veracity of Belcher-- the sentence to which the reference is appended does not mention Comanche's disposition, but rather his military honors, which are independently attested to by the Ballard reference (ref. 4). I had removed this erroneous and unnecessary reference, and it has been reinserted. If someone wants to defend the retention of Belcher, please make an argument here on the Talk page. Or, if they believe there is some uncertainty as to Comanche's whereabouts, so that Belcher might be correct, then a discussion of this uncertainty should be added to the article, citing the disagreement among sources. If no argument is forthcoming, I will delete the Belcher reference. MayerG (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxidermy mount clearly exists.  the source on the burial was http://www.midsouthhorsereview.com/news.php?id=5450, and there they verify the taxidermy AND the military honours (don't ask, that seems odd, but oh well...) I'll tweak the language.  Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belcher reference