This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dakota War of 1862 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
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.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
I don't believe the Dakota hostiles took ANY hostages. It says they took hundreds. Furthermore, in was in the State Minnesota. Not Minnesota, Dakota territory. Minnesota became a state in 1858. 73.37.129.152 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to 1 Jan 2022 comment above: I object to the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles." The Dakota did indeed take captives during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, and many of the captives (including my own mixed French Canadian/Dakota/Ojibwe family members) are well-documented in newspapers and books. My ancestor -- who fought for the United States and whose mother was Sisseton Dakota and father was French Canadian -- was present at Camp Release on the day the captives were released. But the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles" is objectionable. I've read: "Someone who is hostile is unfriendly and aggressive. They usually relate in a cold and hostile way to the world.” That does not describe the Dakota. The Dakota (then in the State of Minnesota) who went to battle against Euro-Americans (in their way, not in a European way) were warriors futilely defending their way of life after their lands had been stolen (even the reservation had been reduced) and promised annuities had not been paid. A warrior is “a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.” Warrior is a more accurate word to describe the Dakota who fought in the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Minnesota did indeed become a state in 1858, and the land from which the state was created was home to the Eastern Dakota. The Dakota (specifically, the Eastern Dakota) went to war against the United States in August 1862. It is why the war is named the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.65.98.5 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Dakotas were treated unfairly and taken advantage of, but we have gone way too far in rewriting history in support of the Dakota's view. 161.38.165.70 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by an editor in the Minnesota Project to review this article. It had multiple issues. The leade had a number of them. It claims the Mdewakanton were affected more than the other tribes by the treaties with the US Government which is a NPOV issue. It failed to identify that the US Government's response to the the hostilities was actually the response that the State of Minnesota mounted as a surrogate for the Federal Government. That failure was an issue of stating historic fact. The article stated that the hangings at Mankato were the single largest executions in US history without stating Lincoln granted the largest "mass commutation" prior. That is another NPOV issue. The leade closes by calling the massacre at the Lower Sioux Agency a battle. That is a falsehood that is stated as fact. That is problematic for an Encyclopedia. The article itself failed to address the war crimes committed by both sides. The war has a notoriety for violence upon civilians that is presented in a sanitized narrative. Overall there is a pov problem with promoting sanitized historic facts. The inclusion of the annual Mankato Pow-wow is inappropriate. The Pow-wow is done to honor the Mdewakanton executed as heroes and martyrs that some Americans see as baby killers, rapists, and murders. Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for the acrimony.
The article had multiple duplicate in-line links.
The article cited multiple sources for the same fact.
The article did not have a NPOV. It used the color "white" to describe one race with out using color for opposing side. Stating color is racist. The article also used the term "mixed-race" which some readers find racist.
The word "Dakota" is used in both the title and the text which is inaccurate and inappropriate and possibly insulting for the non-involved tribes. First, "Dakota" is the American spelling of the word Dacotah. Second, "Dakota" refers to all Dacotah people when only two of the six tribes identified as Dacotah were involved. Third, using "Dakota" paints all Dacotah people with the War Crimes committed by the Mdewaketon and their allies. The historic narrative states the Wahapton, Sissiton, Upper Yanktonai, and Yankton, were not involved. The warring parties were the State of Minnesota and the Mdewaketon not the U.S. and all Dakota people.
The article states the Sisseton and Whapeton were against the hostilities but fails to mention the some initially joined the Mdewakanton or that the the men that stole the eggs were Whapeton.
There was a failure to inform the "notoriety" of the War in both the historic narrative or in the current presentism written.
There was a failure to use the words "Massacre" or "Murder" to describe the killing of unarmed noncombatants. The article made no mention that 30% of those murdered were children under 10 years of age. The article failed to identify the other War Crimes committed by the Mdewaketon: rape, mutilation, and child endangerment.
Two men were charged with rape. The article says those allegations are challenged, but fails to inform the source is clearly not neutral. Rape was a taboo subject for polite conversation in 1862, but both Margaret Cardinal and Hattie Williams testified before the tribunal and identified their assailants. May Schwandt was 14 and is identified the victim of a gang rape in the MHS records in the 1890s. Mrs. Julia Wright was raped and did not identify her assailant. A child was produced, for which her husband abandoned her. The article did not mention there is no record of how many females chose silence or were rejected by their husbands/family's upon being released nor does it mention that some females suffered personality changes attributed to their captivity.
The article failed to identify the consequences of Lincoln's not doing anything politically or ethically.
The article failed to inform that the Minnesota Historical Society promoted continued animosities by displaying Little Crow's skull and scalp as barbarous War trophies.
The article presented the War Crimes as conventional warfare in the "Initial hostilities" section.
The article refers to Little Crow's men as soldiers instead of warriors when they had no military background.
The article was written with "censored" language conveying a "cleansed" history.
The article stated that the Dakota lost their rights to the Pipestone quarry in 1853 when the quarry was not on their land. It was on Yankton land and they were not included in any treaties in 1853.
The article failed to address Lincoln's consternation regarding the: trials, military commission, charges, and verdicts.
The article failed to specify which warriors were executed in error.
The article described trial length issues of military commission as though they applied to all the trials.
It failed to provide the War crime context of today that did not exist: accessory, aiding and abetting, and child endangerment. It failed to inform that 80 years before the Geneva Conventions were drafted Lincoln created his own to review the 303 cases and commute the 264 that he did.
It failed to inform that Lincoln separated the cases for rape, civilian massacres(war crimes) vs. military battles(killings).
The article also fails to inform that three of the executed were bi-racial and one was Caucasian.
A historian was cited for saying that "it is a myth that all the Dakota were involved" without providing any documentation of the existence of the "myth".
The article stated that Gen. Pope struggled to get Federal troops, but failed to inform that both Iowa and Wisconsin sent USV units. It also fails to inform that the troops the U.S provided were U.S. USV not U.S. Army.
The article failed to inform that the woman were transferred from the Lower Sioux Agency by wagon to the Fort Snelling encampment.
The article failed to inform of the militarization of the Minnesota frontier or the creation of the daily mounted patrols or that they continued until 1866. The war did not end with the surrender at Camp Release, it ended when the State ceased the daily patrols.
The section listing "Primary Sources" was dropped for being a MOS issue.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk)
Mcb133aco You didn't sign your post. Many of the issues you presented could have been "fixed" with a simple adjustment of text or addition of text, it didn't need to be rewritten in such a manner that creates a number of POV issues with your own perception of history. One example of your lack of NPOV is your claim that Little Crow and his men were warriors and not soldiers -- they are akicita in Dakota, which translates to soldier in the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyateonline dictionary and they were trained from young ages to be akicita. I would then question how many US soldiers were actually trained to be military? I've read journals of American soldiers in the military during the Sioux wars and it doesn't paint a picture of a trained military, especially compared to the Dakota men. Another thing is you seem to have an issue with the spelling "Dakota" when the tribes themselves use it? And that it's used almost everywhere else on Wikipedia. Or are you proposing to change the title of the page too even though the Minnesota History Society uses Dakota War of 1862? This is another way you are pushing your own personal POV rather than rely on the sources. And even if Mdewakanton Dakota were the ones who started the war with the Euro-settlers, all Dakota faced the consequences and were blamed by the MN/US government so it's a mute point to try and erase the other Dakota bands who suffered too. Simply add NPOV sentences with the sources for the information you feel is missing rather than rewrite the article. oncamera (talk page) 22:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncamera @Mcb133aco Maybe we could go through each point which Mcb133aco has raised, one point at a time (or grouped by topic)? Some of the points are straightforward to address; for others we may be able to incorporate some of the work that Mcb133aco has done in User space. Still other points are highly controversial, as Oncamera has pointed out, and may be issues that Wikipedia cannot solve, as the encyclopedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view. But maybe if we take each point in sequence (or group them by sub-topic), we can have a more meaningful discussion and keep improving the article, rather than jumping around or completely overwriting the page unilaterally? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the intention of my reply. Some of them simply won't work on Wikipedia and others can be resolved by just adjusting or adding text to the current article. oncamera (talk page) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to @Mcb133aco's list of concerns with the Dakota War article, my proposal is to see if we can group them together by topic and see if we can make sure we address them. Starting with the relatively uncontroversial formatting issues:
The article had multiple duplicate in-line links.
The article cited multiple sources for the same fact.
I agree that this article has too many multiple duplicate in-line links, so I will go through the article now to see if we can fix that.
Regarding the citation of multiple sources for the same fact: In general, I lean toward wanting to keep multiple sources, because accuracy, reliability, and neutrality is such a big problem when it comes to this topic. If we can show that multiple sources confirm the same fact, it gives us more confidence that it is true, not a mistake, and not just a single author's point of view. (Also, not everyone has access to all sources, and it's nice to be able to point to alternate sources to check.) That said, as I am going through the article, I will try to check to see if there are any points where the citation of multiple sources seems unnecessary or excessive. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my update after having reviewed the formatting issues specified above:
I've now removed many duplicate wikilinks, on a per Section basis. (For now, I've allowed wikilinks to repeat if they haven't appeared previously within the same Section of the article. Due to the size of this article, readers may be jumping around to specific sections and may have not read through from the top.)
Regarding citations, I found that a much bigger problem is that there still are a fair number of statements lacking in-line citations. Some of these may have been "orphaned" from their original citations during editing; this is why for this page in particular, I would recommend we try to include citations for every sentence. I do think the situation has improved a lot over the past year, but I've added "citation needed" tags throughout so it's clear where we need to focus. Given the current state of references and citations, I think that WikiProject Military History's assessment of this article as "C-class" is entirely fair. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a byte size preference that this article violates in part due to the redundancy of sources. Citing multiple sources with the same pov is a waste of Wikipedia memory space as well as expense to buy that space.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Per WP:TOOBIG the byte size should only include the prose size ala These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters and not the overall kb size that includes references. Using the Wikipedia:Prosesize tool, this page prose is well-under 100kb with Prose size (text only): 46 kB (7751 words) "readable prose size". Thus, this isn't a reason to not accurately source statements. oncamera (talk page) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not a Wikipedia authority I went to someone that is in the St. Paul Library system about this point before I posted the comment. As the sources are cited as references throughout the article, listing them as a topic is an unnecessary redundancy and not the preferred MOS.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Relocation to Fort Snelling encampment (Point 23)[edit]
Regarding @Mcb133aco's following concern (Point 23 in "Issues" list above):
The article failed to inform that the woman were transferred from the Lower Sioux Agency by wagon to the Fort Snelling encampment.
This is an excellent point. Explanation of how the women were transferred to Fort Snelling is indeed missing from the article entirely. I am now checking various sources to see how we can best add it (i.e., it's about more than just the means of transport.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added paragraph. See section on "Pike Island internment". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the following point flagged by @Mcb133aco (Point 22 in "Issues" list above):
The article stated that Gen. Pope struggled to get Federal troops, but failed to inform that both Iowa and Wisconsin sent USV units. It also fails to inform that the troops the U.S provided were U.S. USV not U.S. Army.
It seems straightforward enough to add but checking sources now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added two sentences on 25th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment. See "Army reinforcements" paragraph with Pope.
Not adding 27th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment for now. They arrived in Minnesota in October 1862 to assist with annuity payments to the Ojibwe. (Not directly relevant to this article.) See "Neighbors to the Rescue" from Minnesota History.
Volunteer infantry. The second paragraph of the "Army reinforcements" section says "6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiments" to make it clear it's USV.
Other elements of the 5th and 6th Iowa State Militia[citation needed]
You will find other wikis and web sites that list those units, but it looks like those web pages probably got the information from Wikipedia, so it's a self-reinforcing loop with no actual reliable source behind it. (I tagged it as "citation needed" back in June 2021. I have also looked through Iowa history books on the civil war period.) If someone ever manages to find sources, we can put them back. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article stated that the Dakota lost their rights to the Pipestone quarry in 1853 when the quarry was not on their land. It was on Yankton land and they were not included in any treaties in 1853.
The Pipestone Quarry reference has now been removed from the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: But the problem remains that that section of the article needs work, especially in light of the lack of sourcing. Will take a look at it again after working through the other points from the list. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MHS does not have this history in order. I have pointed out to them that when the treaties were written, the 1842 Nicollet map of the upper Mississippi basin was used. That map is an amazing piece of work. However, the boundary between the Yankton and Sissiton tribes is not clearly marked. Gov. Ramsey assumed the geographical feature of the Big Sioux River was the boundary when it was not. From sources in Germany, it appears that the Yankton land went as far east as the Jeffers Petroglyphs. The Government felt there was enough legitimacy to the Yankton claim that Minnesota was not able to be made a state until the Yankton signed their treaty one month before Minnesota statehood. The first paragraph is worded so as to cover all Yankton land claims giving the U.S. free and clear title to create the state. The Yankton would not sign without Section 8 which gave them a one mile square reservation at the Pipestone quarry. Any claim that the land was eastern Dacotah is fiction. The Yanktonai claimed the land from Granite Falls to the Missouri River, but there is no record that any effort was made to address what amounted to the theft of it.Mcb133aco (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article failed to inform that the Minnesota Historical Society promoted continued animosities by displaying Little Crow's skull and scalp as barbarous War trophies.
I have now added prose to the sub-section on "Escape and death of Little Crow" conveying this, quoting Dr. Asa Daniels who said it "reflects sadly on the humanity of Christian people", as well as his grandson indirectly (as "barbarous War trophies" is not exactly something we can assert in Wikipedia voice). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit fails to inform or address the point concerning a Minnesota War crime.Mcb133aco (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)[reply]
@Mcb133aco I have all your Lincoln, military commission, war crimes, and execution bulletpoints all grouped together (hugely important but also interrelated), so that will follow shortly (and will take a while to work through but it definitely needs some work within the article). Cielquiparle (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, nearly all the materials written about the War have been done writers with agendas and no military background. The historic narrative and the indigenous narrative have the War ending with the executions. That is a falsehood the current article perpetuates. The trials and executions were but a phase in Minnesota's war. Sibley wrote his wife that he felt he only had 16-20 of the men that should be tried.Mcb133aco (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Dakota and European historians all write about the continued battles in the Sioux Wars resulting from this conflict. All of the following are continued against the Dakota:
In the aftermath, battles continued between Minnesota regiments and combined Lakota and Dakota forces through 1864 as Col. Henry Sibley's troops pursued the Sioux. Sibley's army defeated the Lakota and Dakota in four major battles in 1863: the Battle of Big Mound on July 24, 1863, the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26, 1863; the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28, 1863; and the Battle of Whitestone Hill on September 3, 1863. The Sioux retreated further but faced a United States army again in 1864. General Alfred Sully led a force from near Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and decisively defeated the Sioux at the Battle of Killdeer Mountain on July 28, 1864, and at the Battle of the Badlands on August 9, 1864.
Unless there's something else you're trying to say (that isn't original research), Wikipedia isn't "perpetuating" missing information about the war and continued battles. oncamera (talk page) 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, it was confusing what this comment was about and now that I see separate articles are in progress, it would be good to not force it all into this page and work on those instead. oncamera (talk page) 19:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument re: "all Dakota" (Point 21)[edit]
I thought it would be easy to fix this – as it's a quote from historian Mary Wingerd's radio / podcast interview with This American Life:
A historian was cited for saying that "it is a myth that all the Dakota were involved" without providing any documentation of the existence of the “myth”.
I think I understand what @Mcb133aco is saying: This citation sounds a bit awkward, like a straw man argument, without more context. I did the logical thing which was to check if Wingerd provides more context in her book North Country: The Making of Minnesota, but haven't yet found anything quite right which we could cite. I'm inclined to leave this one for now and come back to it later. (It's true that she said it in the interview...and it is also true that there is confusion about who exactly is meant when we refer to it as the "Dakota War".) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As written "Historian Mary Wingerd says..." strikes me, too, as being an incredibly awkward sentence. This article is not about Mary Wingerd, and the myth being refuted isn't discussed anywhere else in the article. It comes off as a strawman, while it was probably not intended as such.
I attempted to reword this portion of the article, but it was reverted. I'd be curious to hear the rationale for keeping it as written, @OncameraJbt89 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's her quote and should be written that way on Wikipedia, being attributed to her. The article goes over that there were different bands of Dakota involved and yet, later, all Dakota were exiled from Minnesota and all lands sold. Fleeing Dakota were attacked by General Sully who were not involved in the war. I don't see a straw man argument here. oncamera (talk page) 03:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's important to state clearly that many Dakota were uninvolved, or even actively opposed. My point was simply that this isn't an article about Mary Wingerd, so making her the subject of the first sentence of that paragraph isn't warranted, and it disrupts the flow of the article that until that point had been about the peoples of the Minnesota River Valley in the 19th century. My proposed solution was as follows:
"A faction - estimated by historian Mary Wingerd at fewer than 1,000 mostly Mdewakanton men out of a population of more than 7,000 Dakota - went on the offensive. Up to 300 Sissetons and Wahpetons, out of the 4,000 who lived near the Upper Sioux Agency, may have joined the fighting in defiance of their tribal elders, who opposed participation in what they warned would be a suicidal offensive."
This makes a faction of the Dakota the subject of that paragraph, rather than Mary Wingerd, while still assigning her credit for the estimate she made. I don't see the need to engage at all with some myth (maybe widespread, maybe not) that all Dakota were involved beyond clearly stating the facts to the contrary, or to quote her verbatim.
If you want to throw in something to the effect of "Despite the tribe's divided opinion on the conflict, fleeing Dakota uninvolved in the fighting were attacked by U.S. troops under General Sully, who believed that all Dakota were guilty" and have a reference for it (I don't), that'd be a solid improvement IMO - but the way it is written currently comes off as a non-sequitur about current public opinion on the conflict rather than explaining the motivations of General Sully. Jbt89 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current way it's written does not make the article about her and there's not a need to make it confusingly written as you did in your edit. "Current public opinion" has always been a factor in how people have written about this war so if that's an issue, then there's plenty of issues with sources that were written at a time when whites greatly disliked Dakota people and it reflects in their writing of the "savages". oncamera (talk page) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's the subject of the first sentence of that paragraph. That does make that sentence / paragraph about her, and doing so is entirely inappropriate for an article about something that happened a century before she was even born. That is why multiple readers have independently concluded that this paragraph feels awkward / out of place.
Again, if the quote is referencing a myth that was popular at the time of the war and influenced its course, that needs to be stated. By "current public opinion" I had meant 21st-century, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the causes / beginning of the war. Jbt89 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's her quote so the sentence has to state that. Her quote is about Dakota people, she's not talking about herself. There's nothing wrong with it and your edits were not an improvement. oncamera (talk page) 04:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was nothing wrong with it, there wouldn't be three different people in this section alone saying the exact same things about what is wrong with it.
There is no need for the quote and no need for the in-text citation. Jbt89 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you both want to argue with her use of "myth" for whatever reason. There's plenty of quotes used in this article which are attributed to their author, don't see why she's being singled out when it's on topic. oncamera (talk page) 05:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have two issues with this.
(1) There is no clear reason for the article to engage with this myth at all. If the myth motivated some of the major actors in this war, that would be important to relate, but that's not what the Wingerd quote says as currently written. Unless there's some reason this myth is important (and right now none is stated), we should stick to relating facts.
(2) Starting a paragraph with "Historian Mary Wingerd says..." assigns her undue importance. This is not an article about Mary Wingerd. There are not (and should not be) paragraphs starting with "C. C. Andrews writes..." or "Gabriel Renville states..." and Wingerd should be treated the same way as those other sources.
At this point I think we're both talking past each other, though, so I'll sign off for the night and maybe we can see what @Cielquiparle or @Mcb133aco thinks. Jbt89 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opening quoted sentence literally gives context to the following sentences that goes over the figures of Dakota men involved. This argument is taking her quote out of context because you have an issue with "myth". In no way is it about the historian other than sharing information attributed to her. oncamera (talk page) 09:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead added more from the source which gives context to her statement. She disagrees with modern terminology calling it the Dakota war since it wasn't all Dakota. oncamera (talk page) 09:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that context, @Oncamera - it's much clearer now that Wingerd was making a remark about perceived misconceptions of the conflict in the 21st century, not the motivations of people in 1862.
IMO it still doesn't belong in the article at all, but different strokes for different folks. How about renaming the "Monuments and Memorials" section to "Historical Memory and Historiography" and moving the Wingerd quote (and maybe some of the stuff about 21st-century actions by the State of Minnesota) there? That solves the problem of readers getting confused by the sudden appearance of a 21st-century figure in a section of the article focused on August 1862 while still keeping the quote in the article. Jbt89 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article on the American Civil War has a "Memory and Historiography" section that serves a similar function. Jbt89 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think her quote in the present position gives context to the figures she presents on the estimates of how many Dakota men from different bands were possibly involved and that it's important to understand it was not a war declared by the entire Dakota nation. Governor Ramsey exiled -all- Dakota and even the Hochunk, who had nothing to do with the war at all, despite it being a small number of Dakota combatant, relatively speaking. I don't see anything confusing about it. oncamera (talk page) 20:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this gives context to Governor Ramsey's actions, it belongs in that section of the article, not the Acton Incident.
If the purpose is nothing more than stating that (which, again, I agree is an important point) only about 1,000 out of 7,000 Dakota and 30 out of 4,000 Sisseton joined in the fighting, we should just state that in a single declarative sentence or two, cite Wingerd, and delete the quote:
"A faction, estimated by historian Mary Wingerd at no more than 1,000 mostly Mdewakanton men out of more than 7,000 Dakota, went on the offensive. Up to 300 Sissetons and Wahpetons, of the 4,000 who lived near the Upper Sioux Agency, may have also joined the fighting over the objections of their tribal elders to what they warned would be a suicidal offensive [ref]."
The myth Wingerd references has nothing to do with the Acton Incident or the beginning of the war. The myth didn't even exist then because the war didn't exist then, so putting it in a section about the Acton Incident and its immediate aftermath is confusing to other readers whether you see it as such or not. All mention of it needs to be removed from this section. Put it in a historiography section, or don't, but it doesn't go here. Jbt89 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her quote is in the section called "War". Seems relevant to keep it there. oncamera (talk page) 20:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is in a subsection called "Incident at Acton and Aftermath" despite being about public opinion 150 years after the Incident at Acton (I grant that the entire war is part of the aftermath, but this pretty obviously refers to the immediate aftermath). It's not just me saying this quote doesn't belong, Mcb133aco (not tagging him since he made pretty clear he's through trying to fix this article) said the same thing on my talk page, as you saw.
I'd say we need another pair of eyes on it but we've already gotten that, and he said that the quote doesn't belong in the article. You're a more experienced editor than I am -- how are these things usually resolved, and could you set that process in motion? Jbt89 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the Sisseton and Whapeton were against the hostilities but fails to mention the some initially joined the Mdewakanton or that the the men that stole the eggs were Whapeton.
The actual story is slightly complicated, but has now been addressed at the top of the Section titled "War", with citations. This was a good flag, as that sub-section definitely needed to be fixed. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've split @Mcb133aco's Point 7 above into three separate sub-points. Here are Points 7 & 7a.
There was a failure to use the words "Massacre" or "Murder" to describe the killing of unarmed noncombatants. The article made no mention that 30% of those murdered were children under 10 years of age.
The third part, Point 7b, will be covered in the following section. More to follow. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the following point from @Mcb133aco's list:
The article refers to Little Crow's men as soldiers instead of warriors when they had no military background.
This already been addressed in the initial response from @Oncamera under "Issues of the Dakota War of 1862" article. Both sides had soldiers with little "military background" and there are many sources cited referring to Dakota soldiers. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 September two Chippewa Chiefs sent Lincoln a letter offering to fight the Sioux so Minnesotans could go fight the south. Had Lincoln accepted the offer all the other bands of Chippewa would have followed almost ensuring the annihilation of the Mdewakanton. Accepting their offer would have meant there would have been no trials, no executions, no Dakota 38. Lincoln saved hundreds of Mdewakanton women and children by not setting the Chippewa on the warpath for the U.S. This fact that is overlooked in the defamation that Lincoln is painted with in the presentism of today. The letter was released to the national press and published by the Chicago Times in Volume VIII No. 27 on 16 September 1862.
"His Excellency the Governor of Minnesota: Fond du Lac, St. Louis Reservation 2 September , 1862
We the undersigned Chiefs of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, do petition through you, to the President of the United States, the Great Father, as in hereinafter set forth: My Father we have heard and do hear every day and through the half breeds who are more enlightened than we are, that you are in trouble with your own people: and that they are very strong. We hear that one of your Red children has taken up the knife and tomahawk against you; that they have killed and murdered men, woman and children. That they have destroyed everything they could lay their hands on. They are blind and do not appreciate your great kindness. The Great Spirit looks down on that people with great vengeance. We raise the spirit of the Chippewa enemies to avenge the wrongs perpetrated on their white brethren.
My Father, you know he is our enemy, therefore we beg that you give us the chance to show that we are your friends and wish to serve you, to help you preserve the peace and tranquility among your children. We are willing to go and put down the evil spirit of my old enemy. Give us an opportunity to show you that we are loyal to the Great Father and his laws, and that we appreciate his kindness towards us. We think that our Great Father has enough to do down south for his solider: let him sen them down there, and send us to fight our red enemy. We are ready to go. We are willing to obey orders, and be lead by a white Captain, but on the battlefield we want our own Captains and fight in our own mode of fighting. Pay our expenses while we are gone. We also wish to raise our men our way, as we have been accustomed to raising men for a "war party." We also think that it would be just and right , if we should whip them that their annuities should be paid to those that would go fight.
My Father give us your consent, and we will get the Lake Superior Chippewas, with our half-breed children, to arise en masse to your help. Provide us with arms and ammunition, and we willing to go. My Father the, the door is open to me to help you, shut it not again in my face. We are willing to go. Our Fathers have driven them from this country, and if you had not come between us we would have chased them still further. Our young men are anxious to go show you that we are your friends. We know that we cannot do and drill like your soldiers, because we do not understand each other- our talk is different. We would offer you our services as well to fight your own people down there were it not for that, but send send us against our own color and we can fight. You will please answer and address Joseph Gurrol, Bayfield Wisconsin.
Naw-Gaw-Nub, Chief, Shin-Gwack, Chief
The Chippewa had forced the Dacotah out of the Dacotah homeland surrounding Mille Lacs Lake and were confident they could do remove their evil spirit from Minnesota.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Mcb133aco You didn't sign your post again. I can't find secondary sources that provide documentation or research on such letter --such as, if it was truly written by the supposed Ojibwe leaders or someone ghostwriting to perpetuate wars between tribes, etc. Is there any information besides the Primary Source per WP:PST? Also it's not defamation of Lincoln to teach about his actions towards Dakota people. oncamera (talk page) 03:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I own a copy of the paper, but I did post an error, it's No. 28 not 27. Another Chippewa issue with the article is it makes no mention that the Mille Lacs band sent 300 warriors to boost the defenses of Fort Ripley or that the State erected a monument to them at Fort Ridgely. A copy of issue No. 28 of the Chicago Times just sold on Ebay. Item 360661680224. Ebay has not taken the posting down yet so it can be read. Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Are there any secondary sources that analyze this letter per WP:PST? Also, it's original research to try to use such a letter's existence to claim "Lincoln was doing a good service to the Dakota people by not taking up the services of the Ojibwe" etc. I don't see how it really matters to the article as currently presented -- I'm sure there were dozens of editorials/letters written by non-Dakota which resulted in nothing actually happening and we shouldn't include such pieces unless there's good reason. oncamera (talk page) 23:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of any secondary sources that would be relevant. To my knowledge Wikipedia does not cite common sense for being original research. Citing what has been published in a major periodical is not original research it is a citation. What is commonly known is Lincoln did not act upon the published Chippewa request. The Chippewa requested to use their War Model which made woman and children legitimate combat targets. Whether intentional or not Lincoln's inaction saved hundreds of them which completely discredits the bigoted narrative he is painted with. Another known is that if Lincoln had accepted the Chippewa offer he had no effective means to control the outcome with the Civil War going on. Again what is known is he did not accept the offer which left Minnesota USV in the field instead of Chippewa. Another known is: Lincoln had the Chippewa offer in hand and could have accepted it at any time and never did. Mcb133aco (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all speculation unless there's a secondary source that states the claims about Lincoln. The only thing this newspaper source proves is that a letter was published but I don't know if it's actually written by Ojibwe (especially because it's written in English in the year 1862), if the chiefs are real, if they actually signed it, was the claims in the letter bluffing or actually something they could muster, etc etc. It's not even certain Lincoln was aware the letter existed, if he read it, etc. That's why if you want to write or include such things, there should be another source that has researched this letter and its impact. That's not what Wikipedia is about and it would be original research to make claims based off the newspaper as is. oncamera (talk page) 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A letter to Gov Ramsey for forwarding to the President could only be released to the press by the office of the President. As to speculation. It does not take a secondary source to know that Lincoln did not act upon the letter. Nor does it take a secondary source to know that the Chippewa did not go on the warpath. Nor does it take a secondary source to know the Chippewa used the same Model of War as the Dacotah. That under that model they did not take prisoners and women and children were legitimate targets. It also does not require a secondary source to know that there Dacotah would not have surrendered to the Chippewa. Your claims of original research fail. A secondary source would be helpful in explaining how there could have been trials and hangings under the Chippewa War model had they been sent on the warpath.Mcb133aco (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're speculating what could have or would have happened, doing your own interpreting of a primary source and trying to present it on Wikipedia. That's original research. Find secondary sources that speak to your claims about the letter. oncamera (talk page) 21:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image of Chief Naw-Gaw-Nub. Other spelling of the Chief's name: Na-Gon-Nub or Na-Gon-Ab. He and eight other Chippewa Chiefs had met Lincoln early in 1862. [2]Mcb133aco (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Chippewa offer is posted in the 14 September 1862 New York Times article "More Indian Atrocities" Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133qcoMcb133aco (talk)
New York Times header states published in St Paul on 13 September. Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Here the Mille Lacs Band letter is posted in The Weekly Pioneer and Democrat Sept 19, 1862 in St Paul , p. 3 [3]Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Here the Mille lacs band letter is referenced in the Mankato Semi-weekly Record Vol 4 - No. 22, p.2 [4]Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Here another Mille Lacs band Chief volunteered at St Cloud to fight the Sioux. He was welcomed to bring his warriors to Fort Ripley as a guest of the State until a decision was made on his offer. Goodhue Republican Vol. 6 No. 3, Sept 12, 1863, [5]Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Here other Chippewa Chiefs held a war council with Gov. Ramsey to fight the Sioux in front of the State Capitol September 26, 1862 [6]Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
The Ojibwe weren't actually involved in this war, tho. You can mention one line of a letter existing but seems pointless when they were not part of the fighting. Being historic enemies of the Dakota isn't related to the fighting that happened between the Dakota and Euro-Americans. oncamera (talk page) 19:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chippewa Chief Ne-Bah-Quah-Om (Big Dog)Various Chippewa Chiefs made at least three offers to go to war for the United States against the Sioux that were published in papers from New York to Minnesota. The Mille Lacs band response to the Uprising got them along with their affiliated Sand lake band designated the only "non-removable" tribe in the state. Your claim that the Chippewa are irrelevant reflects a bised pov. Lincoln was the only person with the authority to respond to the offers and he saved hundreds of lives by not accepting. The reason the Chippewa were not involved in the fighting was Lincoln.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
You're back to your original research and making unsourced claims about Lincoln. The source you provided via the The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume], September 26, 1862, Image 4 even says that Gov Ramsey told 50 men who were asking for their treaty annuities that Lincoln was too busy to be bothered with them. Find research that says Lincoln actually was involved in reading these letters or responding, etc. oncamera (talk page) 19:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct there is nothing stating Ramsey forwarded the war council offer to Lincoln or who replied to the band waiting at Fort Ripley. Seems Ramsey has some credit coming. As to your comment the Chippewa did not fight the Sioux, there is record that they did. There are two Chippewa Chiefs known to have attacked the Sioux; Chief Es-En-Ce of the Pembina band and Chief Me-Jaw-Key-Osh of the Red Lake band.[1]Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
The Ojibwe did not fight in the Dakota-US war. It's not called the Dakota-Ojibwe-US war. This article isn't about Dakota-Ojibwe battles throughout history. oncamera (talk page) 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to include anything concerning the Chippewa actions presents an unbalanced narrative. The exclusion presents a biased narrative of the State of Minnesota and Lincoln that amounts to racism. Of particular importance is that while the eastern Sioux were being removed, bands of Chippewa were being made "non-removable" for defending the State. This article needs a complete rewrite. Your insistence upon calling the war "The Dakota war" is reprehensible for painting the majority of the Dacotah with the War Crimes of the Mdewakanton. Mcb133aco (talk)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Your accusations of racism and "unbalanced narrative" is absurd. The sources you linked are primarily sources and you're creating your own narrative and original research based off of them as I previously explained to you. The sources even say Lincoln wasn't aware of the letter as stated by Alexander Ramsey, so your original research claims to make Lincoln look like a "hero" of Dakota people by not using Ojibwe men isn't even correct. Anyway, WP:Original Research is against Wikipedia policy. As for your statement that calling the war the "Dakota War" is incorrect, I can tell you as a Dakota person of the Spirit Lake Tribe, that all of our bands were effected by this war and resulting bounties put on us, it wasn't just the Mdewakanton bands. We were all exiled from Minnesota as result and forced onto reservations outside of Minnesota for the most part. Thus, making this about the so-called "war crimes" of the Mdewakanton bands is very narrow sighted. Article has sourced info saying, "According to Wingerd, up to 300 Sissetons and Wahpetons may have joined in the fighting", so it wasn't just Mdewakanton involved in the actual fighting. oncamera (talk page) 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Chippewa Indian Tribe Photo Descriptions, Catalogue of Photographs of North American Indians, Access Genealogy, 2022, image 1001 and image 1073 [1]
The mass execution at Mankato is notable in and of itself, and thus deserves to be split into its own article. The scale of the executions makes them arguably the most well-known aspect of this conflict. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is important enough to warrant it's own article. A section can be maintained in this article linked to a Trials/Mankato Executions main. The timeline has no bearing as to the topic being a stand alone subject. When it comes to timeline, this article is completely deficient in that regard as it is.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
Hi, I am working on a page for Draft:Bdóte and ended up with a long summary re: the Dakota 38+2 and the Wokiksuye Ride. I was looking to either include the bulk of that info on this page or create a page about the trials, hangings, and aftermath. Was there ever any action on this proposal? If not, I will go ahead and draft that page.
As far as notability, the hangings remain the largest mass execution (and hanging) in the US, so far as I'm aware. It's also majorly culturally relevent in Minnesota and among Dakota communities. So I'm confident there's no argument and happy to move forward with this page draft. Pingnova (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft article of Bdote is not sourced and contains not much specific to the meaning of Bdote that isn't found on other articles already. This article is already long enough. oncamera (talk page) 02:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have much new to add here, but +1 for making the execution its own article. It's clearly notable, and this article (1862 Dakota War) is getting way too long for its own good.
Same reasons the principal battles of the war have their own articles, really. Jbt89 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone can go ahead and get it started then. This article needs to be split anyway. I would just copy-paste what's here onto the new page, summarize on here after that's finished. oncamera (talk page) 21:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like it would be taken out of context and should stay merged here for better timeline placement as part of the aftermath section. It also downplays the death of many settlers as less important if the hanging of 38 is pushed as more notable. Doesn't seem neutral. And not sure if there's enough text to really justify being a separate article. oncamera (talk page) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged to this discussion, as I have previously commented on this matter at other Minnesota articles. It is simply inconceivable to me that the largest mass execution in US History would not have its own article, particularly considering the cultural and historical relevance. I agree with Mr. Guye, Mcb133aco, and Pingnova on the need, relevance, and execution. See WP:SS for how to separately write and then incorporate the hangings in all the places that content is needed and unnecessarily now repeated in article after article (which is why I have commented on this before). Perhaps Susanlesch will work on this in all her spare time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia Agree, certainly sounds good. I'm still slowly working on my draft proposal for the Bdóte page but feel free to appropriate any of that content, since ideally I will pare down the specifics of the Wokiksuye ride if they are retained elsewhere. The concentration camps following the war were also at Ft. Snelling on the riverbank and Pike Island, both major central points in Bdóte. I'm drafting an article for that as well. Susanlesch, feel free to chat me up! Pingnova (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncamera I'm curious how they can be forks when no articles exist on them. Some information is in subheadings on various pages but rather than repeat information ad nauseum, separate pages are created. I'm not done writing them in any case, so if you think some information is missing or the article is biased, you are correct, because it's a draft. I haven't covered the entire subject and I'm working on thorough sourcing by adding information from one source at a time, unless there's something I already know has decent sourcing and don't want to forget to include, such as the restaurant listed in Bdóte. The sections on this page are way too long, which several people have attested to here in talk, so this article could benefit from splitting several of the subjects out. Pingnova (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share Oncamera's concerns about the unsourced Draft:Bdóte. We have a policy on the 'pedia about the problems with writing a POV page and then searching for sources to support it, vs writing an article based on WP:RS sources. That draft looks like the former, which is not in accordance with policy. I have just removed the interpretation of White Buffalo Calf Woman by a European painter, for instance. Please consider pinging the Indigenous Wikiproject about these things.
While I think the Dakota 38+ are certainly notable, I agree that context matters, and I'd want way more input from editors with a strong background in contemporary Indigenous articles, issues, and community than I'm currently seeing in this discussion.
It's discomfiting to see people dismissing concerns of people who are actually from the culture being written about. Oncamera has raised important points, I urge you to take them under advisement. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 23:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about an article on the Dakota 38 + 2. Yes, there is cultural and historical relevance however this article would need to be written carefully and respectfully. Already in this article, a photograph of prayer flags was included. They are not the prayers of the individual who included the picture and they are not the prayers of the photographer. This is considered highly inappropriate and disrespectful from an LDN perspective. I agree with oncamera about their points as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to bring this to the Indigenous Wikiproject as CorbieVreccan suggests. Dismissing the voices of community members is very unsettling. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Xtools, this article is at 8,000 words. So it's longish, but not necessarily so long that a split is required. If more information needs to be added, (and I'm not sure it does), a split for the massacre could make sense (provided the split includes sufficient context, etc per Oncamera). The massacre is the type of event that frequently has its own article (and would meet GNG independently), but I like to minimise separate articles for maintenance reasons. There could be a redirect from the massacre to the appropriate section if there isn't already.
To simplify the discussion, I suggest leaving comments about Draft:Bdóte out of this thread unless it's clearly relevant. Larataguera (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue wih the use of soldier/soldiers to refer here to Sioux combatants is that this usage is inconsistently applied, and serves only to confuse particularly when at times one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces.
While there is a conversation to be had about the use of the word 'warrior,' it is, as most of the text of this article makes clear, a customary term used to distinguish between the combatants of pre-industrial communities organising themselves communally (hitherto described as 'tribal') as opposed to the organised units of fighting men, subject to military discipline and political control that typically we find on the European/settler side of these conflicts and usually describes as 'soldiers' (a term arrising from the concept of paid military service). The term 'warrior' implies no disrepspect.
It would improve the article greatly if this distinction could be accepted and employed consistently while the various debates associated with the topic could be saved for another forum.
JF42 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to use the actual Dakota term "akicita" instead of worrying how to translate it. There actually isn't a distinction if an Akicita were fighting for the tribe, for the US government or working as a scout, they were an akicitia, a soldier. Akicita back when this war happened were highly trained from a young age as soldiers and they were parts of akicita societies that policed the villages, commanded community hunting parties and led men into war. It modern times, it's used for Dakota/Lakota military vets too.
The most neutral thing would be to refer to both sides as soldiers instead of "warrior" which has other implied meanings attached to being "tribal" people. Akicita would be the actual term to use if you want to honor the differences between the Euro-American and Dakota soldiers. Dakota/Lakota people have never used "warrior" in the translation of akicita in their family names, it's always soldier such as Long Soldier, Standing Soldier, Good Soldier, Scarlet Soldier, Soldier Boy, Little Soldier, Soldier Woman etc. oncamera (talk page) 21:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say, one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces, then that's just poor writing. If we're writing an article about French soldiers fighting English soldiers, we manage the distinction and no one complains. No reason we can't do it here too. Larataguera (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the accepted distinction that exists between 'soldier' and 'warrior' as I defined in the previous post. In most of the article that distinction is recognised in use of the word 'warrior.' This is a question of consistency and ease of comprehension for the general leader. The current inconsistency is indeed a question of poor writing.
Mention of the term akicita is, I think a distraction, being more appropriate in an article on Lakota/Dakota society. It is, as you indicate, a reference to men with recognised roles within a given community or belonging to what were sometimes referred to in English as 'Soldier Societies,' as opposed to the general fighting strength. It makes perfect sense therefore that the names of men with akicita in their family names should be translated as "X Soldier." Referring to Dakota veterans of the US services as 'akicita' is also logical since they were soldiers or servicemen as defined above, fighting for the US government or indeed 'for their country' as they might have seen it. By the same token, that would be true of those employed as scouts for the U.S. Army in the C19th for whom, the term akicita would also be appropriate. If there were akicita whose identity was relevant to the events then that might be illustrative and useful but in reference to the general fighting strength of the Lakota/Dakota involved in the 1862 war, I believe that a more consistent use of the term 'warrior' in the article makes sense. JF42 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a biased against Dakota people if only English terms are allowed on this article about them fighting for their homelands, and even then, unequal usage of soldier vs warrior. As Larataguera states, it's not confusing when two European nations are at war, it shouldn't be confusing for Europeans vs Indigenous. Keep the article neutral as much as possible. oncamera (talk page) 00:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no assertion as to whether given words of any language should be allowed nor not.
The discussion is about English terms already in the article and their being used consistently to promote clarity in the narrative. Your introduction into the discussion of a Dakota term which, in as I have explained above, is only tangentially relevant and is neither helpful nor likely to help achieve greater clarity.
There was a difference between military organisation on a European basis and that of the indigenous culture of the Dakota. The use, respectively, of 'soldier' and 'warrior' to reflect that difference, as already exists in the greater part of the article at present, is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing derogatory or 'unequal' by identifying that distinction with those terms. Far less is it a quesrion of bias, which will be clear to anyone reading with a modicum of care what I have written hitherto.
As presently written it's hard to keep track of the movements of the various Dakota bands in early September 1862 in particular. Were the same Dakota warriors at the Battle of Acton and Birch Coulee, or was it a different band? How about the unrest in Iowa and North Dakota? Presumably there are multiple groups acting semi-autonomously here, but that needs to be stated explicitly one way or the other.
I realize the addition of references to the Battles of Acton, Forest City, and Hutchinson probably worsened this confusion, but it was strange to have them in the infobox and mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. Jbt89 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the time period, it was nearly impossible to determine who was involved that's why Lincoln pardoned so many. It's also why Sully was non-discriminating in his attacks, including in what the Dakota call a massacre during the Battle of Whitestone Hill. oncamera (talk page) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dakota who fought at Acton were under the Bands of Little Crow. The four bands at Birch Coulee were under Big Eagle, Mankato, and a few others. Ironmarshal1805 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://chequamegonhistory.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/naagaanab.jpg){kind=link}