Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre

US victory?

How come the infobox reads United States victory? The US soldiers weren NOT fighting against a foreign army. They were fighting against Lakota Indians, born on American soil. --AndeanThunder (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sioux considered themselves a sovereign nation, and were recognized as such by the U.S., although the U.S. considered the Indian tribes to be "domestic dependent nations" rather than independent nations. Thus, the U.S. could make treaties with the Sioux, send them ambassadors, or make war on them, just as with other nations. Not until the Indian Nationality Act, in 1924, did the U.S. cease to recognize the Indian tribes as nations and declare Indian people to be simply citizens of the U.S. Ultimately, that's the significance of Wounded Knee; the tragic end of the last effort by an Indian tribe to survive as an independent nation. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the infobox is that it treats this the same way as any other battle in a declared war. But it certainly wasn't a battle. I have to admit that I don't have a neutral point of view on the topic (I don't think one is possible, or even desirable), but it seems clear to me that what happened between the indian removal act and wounded knee was not a war and wounded knee was not a battle. Leaving it like this is both false and insulting. The US troops at wounded knee didn't 'win' anything, they slaughtered a bunch of people. Under My Lai Massacre, there's a much more reasonable sort of infobox. 146.115.123.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I just noticed that sometime back in March, somebody changed the "Result" in the infobox from "US victory / Great loss" to "US / Great loss," which makes no sense whatsoever.

As I said below, Wounded Knee was both a battle and a massacre; there were armed Miniconjou warriors who fought the U.S. 7th Cavalry troopers (arguably with justification), and in what was essentially a single action the 7th Cavalry crushed the warriors' resistance and indiscriminately slaughtered the warriors' families and children. (This is easily distinguishable from My Lai, where all of the US soldiers' victims were unarmed and unresisting). In my mind, to the extent that Wounded Knee was a battle, it was indisputably a US victory, albeit not one that many Americans (including myself) are proud of today. I am therefore in favor of changing the infobox back to "US victory." Thoughts? Pirate Dan (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am repulsed by the idea of seeing Wounded Knee as a victory (if anything it was a defeat for civilization), but thats not really an argument. I tend to agree with 146.115.123.180 that the infobox used at the my lai massacre is more tasteful and considerate. At the very least if we follow the argument of a short battle followed by an extended massacre we should use both infoboxes to show the US soldiers changing category from victors to perpetrators in a matter of minutes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I sympathize with your feeling of repulsion, I argue that the "Result" category should simply say who won, regardless of what criminal or horrific actions the winners perpetrated. By analogy, the infobox for Battle of Agincourt says "Decisive English victory," without reference to the fact that Henry V, in violation of all rules of chivalry, massacred hundreds of French prisoners. Or for a perhaps better example, the infobox in Massacre of Elphinstone's Army simply says "Afghan victory," even though the 12,000 civilians butchered by the Afghans vastly outnumbered the actual regulars in British uniform killed. When we say something is a victory, we're not necessarily saying that it was a good thing; we're just saying who prevailed at the end of the fight. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I realize that personal sentiment is not an argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, an anonymous editor followed WP:Be bold and changed the result to "Native force massacred." I'm almost OK with this, but to me "force" suggests military effectives only, and gives short shrift to the civilians killed. How about "Native band massacred" or "Sioux band massacred"? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with either of those.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find most self serving is the part of the info box that lists the participants as the 7th calvary and "Sioux warriors" when most of the casualties consisted of women and children and what "warriors" there were were in the process of being disarmed. In the Sand Creek Massacre box it lists some of the casualties as being "civilians" when again the vast majority of those killed were women and children and it was a friendly encampment. Medals of bravery were awarded rather than any punishment. These soldiers were little more than criminal, murdering, yelow cowards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonegunman (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a shameful moment in American history; but the view at the time was that it was a battle, and that America was victorious. So it's historically accurate to record it as such. Furthermore, I find that recording it as such highlights the immorality of the action by emphasizing the delusion that it was a just military action. If the article neutrally described a mere military action, you'd be correct to be outraged. But the article describes in quite some detail the unjust massacre. I don't think a reader, who reads even just a portion of the entry, can come away with confusion about this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.17.213 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Weapons and casualties

The article mentions that the cavalry had four Hotchkiss guns on the ridge above the meeting place, but it doesn't specify which type of Hotchkiss gun. There were two, one a light artillery piece, and the other a revolving machine gun. Wikipedia has two separate articles on these guns, and both articles claim theirs was the weapon used at Wounded Knee. I think the confusion here needs clearing up, since the use and effect of the two different weapons would be very different. The high level of collateral damage to the US troopers, along with the large number of non-combatants killed, would seem to indicate that it was the machine gun which was used that day, rather than the cannon – unless the latter was loaded with a version of "grapeshot."

As to casualties, I wouldn't take the word of the burial party necessarily, since the article states that they didn't begin to clean up the site until several days had passed; in that time, things may have been changed. Was a guard posted at the site? Dee Brown's book cites a number of Indian eye-witnesses, and it's disturbing to see that none of those are used in the article itself. Those sources allege that after the Indians had piled up their weapons, the soldiers conducted a second search to make sure, and came up with mostly axes and knives, which they also took. A third search was then instituted, in the course of which Black Coyote revealed his weapon and his unwillingness to part with it. On the face of it then, it seems unlikely that Black Coyote, deaf or not, didn't understand what was going on. Brown's sources note he was considered a trouble-maker by his own people. A second consequence may be that it is equally unlikely that there were several Indians who, all through these three searches, had successfully concealed weapons under their blankets, and who then pulled them out and began firing, once Black Coyote's weapon had discharged. The source for this statement appears to be Lt. Garlington, but consider that he would have every reason, after the event, to portray the soldiers as merely reacting to a provocation, rather than (as appears to be the case) participating in a classic FUBAR event.

As to the medals, even though standards did change in the twentieth century, making the medal harder to get, the number awarded for this "battle" seems excessive. Perhaps a comparison with the number awarded at a Civil War battle might serve as a benchmark, say, Antietam? To me it seems like a case of the military "cleaning up" a FUBAR by (1) declaring a victory and (2) awarding a bunch of medals. That way, none of the injured participants will raise too much of a fuss about being victims of friendly fire. It would be interesting to know whether all of the MofH winners were wounded? Theonemacduff (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hotchkiss gun article shows the non-repeating 42mm cannon with one barrel and the Repeating Cannon with a Gatling-like bundle of three barrels. In the photo in this article, I can see only one barrel on each gun, so they must be the cannons, unless the fourth one, not shown in the photo, was a Repeating Cannon. Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Wounded Knee/massacre a loaded term?

The official term used by the US Army and the US Government in general is still the "Battle of Wounded Knee." While "massacre" is the term often used by Native Americans, and those who feel most passionate about this point of history, I don't believe we should use the term "massacre" as it's too often used to incite an emotional response. (e.g. the Waco massacre, the Boston Massacre, etc.) I propose we rename the page to the "Battle of Wounded Knee." Anton.hung (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why the U.S. government or Army's (or any government or army's) terminology should be privileged with the naming of articles. And while "massacre" may indeed provoke an emotional response, the question should be the accuracy, not the emotional impact, of the word.

I agree that the question of naming the article is difficult, because Wounded Knee was a battle and a massacre. A short, bloody fight between armed Sioux warriors and U.S. 7th Cavalry troopers occurred, which could rightly be called a battle; simultaneously with that, a protracted slaughter of unarmed Sioux noncombatants by the troopers began, and continued long after all Sioux resistance had ended, which could resonably be called a massacre. The two events are so closely linked that separate articles would be absurd. But from what I've seen "massacre" is somewhat more used, and I would vote for retaiing it.Pirate Dan (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for keeping massacre as the most common description in modern works.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree on it being the most common description. The Encyclopedia Britannica and many other works refer to it as the "Battle of Wounded Knee." It's also used in official government records as I've previously stated. I've always read it as "The Battle of" in textbooks as well. I do recognize, however, that on the Internet "The Massacre of" is more commonly used. I changed the "battle box" to reflect the name Battle, since it appears that while the article may focus more on the massacre, I would contend that the actual "battle" was still titled "Battle of Wounded Knee." To exclude that I think would be a disservice. Anton.hung (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny, that makes genocide OK for all you racist, Right? Try some empathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.210.188 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a horrible event for everyone, especially the Lakota. The point however isn't to demonize, but rather to objectively document. (WP:NPOV) Anton.hung (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, Why is this part of the WikiProject:North Dakota when it happened in South Dakota? Shouldn't it be part of the south Dakota projects? Vettrock (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This page used to be titled "Battle of Wounded Knee" as several years ago I posted updates. It appears to have been hijacked by solely a Native American perspective, which unforntunately is a distortion of historical events. Following is an excerpt from my masters thesis that addresses the labeling of this incident as a battle vice a massacre.

In the most recent Congressional hearings on Wounded Knee, Senator James Abourezk, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation in February 1976 “to award compensation to descendants of survivors of the Army’s massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek” calling for “$3,000 to be paid to descendants.” This was the third time such legislation had been proposed, and the third time it had been defeated. The hearings produced almost 600 pages of invaluable testimony from expert historians such as Robert M. Utley, Dee A. Brown, and Rex A. Smith. At one point the hearings went to great pains in defining “massacre” and “battle” in attempts to properly describe the events at Wounded Knee by introducing definitions from numerous dictionaries. One definition read “the indiscriminate, merciless killing of human beings. . . .” Dr. Utley, whose 1963 landmark work, The Last Days of the Sioux Nation, more than qualified him as an expert historian, provided testimony that perhaps went the furthest in putting Wounded Knee into a proper context.

"I am fully aware that contemporary evidence can be extracted from the vast body of original sources to support almost any interpretation one wishes to place on Wounded Knee or any other controversial historical event, for that matter. Sound history, however, is careful synthesis of all the evidence, in which corroboration of individual testimony is sought and the possible and the probable and the credible carefully weighed. Studied as a whole, rather than in isolated bits and pieces, the historical evidence, from both white and Indian sources, does not substantiate Wounded Knee as a massacre in terms of premeditation or lack of discrimination between combatants and noncombatants.

"Assuredly it was a terrible, lamentable tragedy. But it seems to me that we should be a mature enough people to view it not in terms of the easy, conventional stereotypes of good guys and bad guys but in terms, rather, of decent, ordinary people caught up in the passions and insanities of an armed conflict that none of them intended or anticipated.

v8m8i (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Pine Ridge, 1890 by William Fitch Kelley, an Eye Witness NEWSPAPER account

This book, published in 1971 was written for a Nebraska newspaper by a reporter, William Fitch Kelley, who would later become a Consul of the U.S. Government to Italy where he died during WWI.

His papers were found in the attic of his son and complied by his grandson, Alexander G. Kelley, now of San Diego, CA, with Pierre Bovis. Pictures taken at the battle are included in the only 2,000 printed book copy as well as a map found in his collection and several relics from the battle, still in Alex's collection66.27.79.60 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Bill Picture ???

I had wondered about the picture with Buffalo Bill for a while so I did some original research yielding this: http://books.google.nl/books?id=uId0XfLwvEEC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=wounded+knee+picture+buffalo+bill&source=bl&ots=UEIXFv7zpI&sig=RYbTGURKn79vnZV1TSkjMUpMDjA&hl=nl&ei=wOjOSoLOCozW-Qbo7vSEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=wounded%20knee%20picture%20buffalo%20bill&f=false From that book The real Rosebud: the triumph of a Lakota woman by Marjorie Weinberg it would seem that the picture that is here in the article was actually taking around the shooting of a movie in or around 1914, the movie is discussed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004155/ . I got into this because I was wondering whether or not Buffalo Bill was in the army at the time of the massacre and whether or not he was involved somehow (that's the impression the picture gave me). Is there a need, based on this to add a clear capption to the picture or do something else to clarify this issue? Mlodewijk (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Improve the Language

There is a good deal of nonsense English in this article. Including in the introduction, "This set off a chain reaction that was preventable by the 7th Cavalry because compliance was met but sheer panic and mayhem allowed for all directions to fire into the Souix Camp indiscriminantly and return fire was made with loss of women, man and child and eventually themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.167 (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've started some work on the introduction. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The passage "Lakota ambassadeurs [sic] to Wovoka, Kicking Bear and Short Bull learned [from?] the sioux [sic; should be capitalized] that[,] while performing the Ghost Dance[,] they would [should?] wear special Ghost Dance shirts as seen by Black Elk in a vision. These shirts[,] said Kicking Bear, were bullet[-]proof" and the nearby text contain numerous obvious misspellings and easily-corrected grammatical errors.

Casualties

I have noticed that in the small box it says "84 men, 44 women, 18 children" in deaths. I also have noticed that it says "about 200 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed" in the text. These two numbers conflict because the total number of deaths added up from the numbers in the box is 146. Should this be corrected? Am I making an obvious mistake? Has this already been noticed? Pr. Ultracrepidarian (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 146 dead (84 men, 44 women, and 18 children) is the number that were buried in the mass grave by the U.S. cavalry troopers. More than that certainly died; at least the 7 who died of their injuries after being put in Pine Ridge Hospital, so the minimum number of dead is 153, according to Robert Utley's The Last Days of the Sioux Nation, p. 228.

Where the uncertainty comes in is that not all the dead were buried by the soldiers; many of the wounded who died later were recovered by Agency Indians, and other dead may never have been found at all. Utley estimates that number at no more than 20 to 30. Dee Brown's famous Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," p. 444 says that "one estimate palced the final total of dead at very nearly three hundred," which is probably where the 300 figure comes from. But beyond the 153 known dead, it's mostly guesswork. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent introduction re: Black Coyote

In the introductory paragraphs, the article states when talking about Black Coyote not giving up his rifle that "a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote could not hear the order to give up his rifle and was reluctant to do so." But later in the article, this appears to be something asserted, but not definitely proven to be true. Shouldn't the introductory paragraph simply restrain itself to the uncontroverted fact that Black Coyote didn't give up his rifle, causing a scuffle to ensue?Doug (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another interpretation

The "Another interpretation" section about the massacre is totally redundant and full of weasel words. Seemed POV,and had almost no sources. I removed it. If there is material that should be included it must be added to existing text and written in an encyclopedic fashion. The page seems silly if there's sections which might as well be named "Or this may have been the way it happened ..." without proper sources. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I have a suggestion regarding whether the page should be called "Battle" or "Massacre." Why not include both? Many people are taught that it was called "Battle," and official records still refer to it is as such. However, it cannot be denied that a Massacre took place. It was both a battle and a massacre, and therefore I believe the title should reflect both. Perhaps something like "The Battle and Massacre at Wounded Knee," or "Battle and Massacre of Wounded Knee." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.190.50 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is known as both, but not as "The Battle and Massacre at Wounded Knee," so that name would be inappropriate. MDuchek (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Political History

According to a new book by Heather Cox Richardson, the massacre was primarily due to politics back in Washington. Republican President Ben Harrison in order to secure the republican position brought four states to the union: North Dakota and South Dakota on November 2, 1889, Montana on November 8, and Washington on November 11. In order to bring South Dakota into the union, and get settlers into the state, he had to split up the Great Sioux Reservation in several smaller disconnected reservations. Furthermore, Harrison appointed several corrupt Indian Agents who deprived the the Sioux of food and winter clothes. This political corruption set the stage for the Ghost Dance, and their pandering to popular settler fear of the dancers and a hypothetical yet unlikely uprising, led him to send the army in to the area. 137.54.2.67 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

Medals of Honor

The opening of the article used to state this:

Despite the brevity and inequality of the fighting, the U.S. Army awarded more Medals of Honor for action at Wounded Knee than for any other engagement in the history of the US Army.

Then someone added this:

there were 17 MoH awarded at Wounded Knee. There were 61 awarded at Gettysburg.

After looking into it I find that the anon edit is correct in saying that there were more awarded at Gettysburg than at Wounded Knee. However the source used to cite the original statement backs it up, but is clearly wrong. Maybe the source meant to say that it was the most awarded in any battle since then? I'm taking both statements out of the opening for now until there is some consensus. Thoughts? sdgjake (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gettysburg lasted three days. Maybe Wounded Knee was the highest total for Medal of Honor for one day's action?

What is the source confirming that more Medals of Honor were given for Gettysburg? Pirate Dan (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the pages for Medals of Honor during the Civil War. After counting more than 20 I quite. They are all sourced from an Army website. It sucks because you can't get a nice breakdown of how many Medals were awarded at each battle like we're looking for right now. You have to do it manually. That is unless I'm missing something. sdgjake (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if Gettysburg was two days, there's no way it could have a one-day total of less than 17, without the other day having more than 17. (i.e. if day 1 was 17, then day two would have 44 (61-17). So the two day issue is kind of a non-issue (no offense intended). My inclination is that the original source is incorrect, or incorrectly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.21 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gettysburg National Military Park lists 63 Medals of Honor awarded for action during the 3 day battle, http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/honor.htm. If I counted correctly there were 8 awarded for action on 1 July 1863, 23 awarded for action on 2 July, 30 awarded for action on 3 July, and 2 awarded for action on multiple days.

Incidentally there were 30 Medals of Honor awarded for action during the Sioux Campaign of 1890-'91, or as it is designated on the U.S. Army's battle streamer "Pine Ridge November 1890--January 1891." 14 Seventh Cavalry soldiers received the Nation’s highest award for their actions at Wounded Knee, 3 for their actions at Drexel Mission on the White Clay Creek on 30 Dec 1890, 1 for actions in both battles, and 2 for their conduct during the entire campaign. Additionally, 2 soldiers from the First Artillery and 1 from the Second Artillery--soldiers who manned the Hotchkiss steel mountain rifles at Wounded Knee--received the MOH. 6 troopers from the Sixth Cavalry received the MOH for skirmish action on 1 January 1891, and 1 soldier from the Ninth Cavalry received the MOH for the entire campaign. Of these 30 soldiers, 7 were officers. Of the 30 MOHs 18 can be attributed to action at Wounded Knee on 29 December 1890, but it was not the most Medals of Honor awarded for a single day of combat even during the Indian Campaign period. There were 24 Medals of Honor awarded at the Battle of Little Big Horn on 25 June 1876, 15 for the water carriers, 4 for sharpshooters, and 5 for individual actions. All were in the Seventh Cavalry and part of Maj. Reno's force at the Hilltop Fight. (Source is Friends of the Little Big Horn Battlefield, http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/custerslaststand.htm). HHowever, the most Medals of Honor awarded for a single day of action during the Indian War Campaigns is 31, which were awarded to the First and Eighth U.S. Cavalries who on 20 October, 1869 engaged Cochise and his Apache warriors in a stronghold in the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona Territory (http://www.cochisestronghold.com/cochisestronghold/history.html) where 18 Soldiers from Company G, 1st U.S. Cav., and 13 Soldiers from Company G, 8th U.S. Cav., earned the Medal of Honor, presented to them four months later.

Regardless, it is a moot point to compare numbers of MOH awarded during WWII vice the Indian campaigns or the Civil War, as the awarding authorities used different criteria during different eras, just as today one cannot compare the number of MOHs awarded during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to earlier military conflicts.

Suffice it to say the military commander during the Sioux Campaign of 1890-'91, Maj. Gen. Nelson Miles, was arguably the military's staunchest critic of the Seventh Cavalry at Wounded Knee. He did all that he could to court martial the Regiment's commander, Col. James Forsyth, who was exonerated by the Secretary of War. However, General Miles recommended approval on all 30 MOHs that were submitted. Further the military conducted a purge of Medals of Honor in 1916 and 1917 in which they reviewed all MOHs awarded to that date and rescinded 911 MOHs. General Miles convened the committee that reviewed all the MOHs, and despite his misgivings about the Seventh Cavalry's performance at Wounded Knee, all 30 MOHs awarded during that campaign were reaffirmed. v8m8i (talk)

Popular culture

Could the popular culture section simply be deleted? I don't see how knowing that a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle video game has a level called, ""Bury My Shell at Wounded Knee" enhances anyone's understanding of the massacre. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That particular reference, of course, is not pertinent. But the rest of the section seems just fine, including many very notable works that themselves (like Dee Brown's book) had an impact on culture. I think you'd be throwing the baby out with the ounce of bathwater getting rid of the whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.21 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the song "We were all wounded by Wounded Knee" "reached the number-one chart position across Europe" is hyperbolic at best and lacks any citations (although it certainly did reach #1 in Holland). I feel this is a valid point because the song's alleged 'smash hit' success across Europe is then used to provide a sharp contrast with its reception in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.24.184 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical issues

I recently did a significant cleanup of a number of ungrammatical passages. I spent a good deal of time getting it right while trying hard to preserve the spirit of what had been written. Another user chose to blindly revert my edits and return to the ungrammatical version. I do not think this is productive behavior here. I would like to request that if this continues, a very experienced third party step in and ensure that the best version is kept. beerslayer (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your malfunction is between you and your therapist, you have the balls to disparage what I wrote when you didn't correct "a number of ungrammatical passages" and NEWSFLASH; the past tense of lead is "led".

• Past Tenses question: What is the past tense of lead? The past tense of lead is led. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_past_tense_of_lead
• When you're hit over the head, the instrument could be a “lead” pipe. But when it's a verb, “lead” is the present and “led” is the past tense www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lead.html -
• If you spell the past tense of "lead" as "lead", it's wrong, whether you're American, Canadian, British, Australian http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t7879.htm
• The confusion with lead is its past-tense form; specifically, its spelling. The past tense of lead is led — spelled L-E-D. ... http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/podcasts/grammar_grater/archive/2009/03/26/

• There was a few minor typographical mistakes because I'm human, not "significant cleanup of a number of ungrammatical passages" and that's it, this is your version of good English:

"this ceremony has grown increasingly large every year " that's asinine it's "this ceremony has grown increasingly larger every year. So should get off your high horse, stop slaying bears and the English language, and knocking the efforts of others. These are your "contributions" since 2006 [[1]] one thing Hey Boy (TV Character)

• Here are some of mine: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=7mike5000&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects
• So don't be a dick and knock other people.

7mike5000 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the spelling and grammar and make note of when the misspellings were accurate reflections of original quotes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The article really needed a grammar and spell check, and there's probably more errors I missed. We all make mistakes, and there's no call for personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Correcting spelling errors and typos, rewording a few things. Everything is open to improvement but when you do it in a way to make somebody else look like shit that's not nice. When somebody tries to make somebody else look like crap and they don't have a basic grasp of English than that's ludicrous. And it's enough to piss anybody off. I wrote most of Wounded Knee Massacre, I took the time and effort.

7mike5000 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has disparaged any effort taken to add legitimate content to this page. But it needed cleanup. I stand behind every single grammatical change I made. Go back and check my original edit of 3-Aug-2010 with the version immediately preceding it from 2-Aug (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). I'm not the one with English difficulties here. I'd like a third party to step in here and carefully review what's taken place in this article. beerslayer (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news for you, feel free to make any and all edits you wish, with no interference from me, change the whole thing, maybe write it in Chinese, I am not getting myself aggravated.

It's weird it's like the same person claiming to be from differant parts of the world and using differant names but having the same character, the same deameaner, it's like so ........weird. So I am done on Wikipedia for the foreseable future, unless I can get a prescription for Valium, as the creater of the esteemed Hey Boy (TV Character) I bow to your preeminence and grammamtical expertise. Led the way, or is it, he lead the way or wait maybe.... Oh by the way this is what it looked like before I butchered it with my "English difficulties"[2] I made it look like this:[3], so you may wish to revert it to the previous version, I think my pronounced Englih difficulties effed it up. Oh it's also okay to call people "Dicks"on Wikipedia,so you may wish to check in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000. you can say like "7mike5000 is a Dick with English Difficulties" That would be funny. Okay ciao 7mike5000 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A little addendum for my friend beernuts. Your timing on making this comment isn't lost on me. (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). The "led" "lead" issue isn't lost on me either. Were you contacted by e-mail, from one of my other pals? Isn't cool how it's possible to alter edit histories? Okay bye bye ciao7mike5000 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposals

Pine Ridge Campaign and Ghost Dance War

I'm no military expert, but there doesn't seem to be a distinction made between the Pine Ridge Campaign and the Ghost Dance War. They both seem to include the Battle of Wounded Knee and in fact appear to be the same war/campaign. It's also notable that they both talk almost exclusively about Wounded Knee. The Pine Ridge Campaign article only lists one battle, Wounded Knee; it also doesn't help that it's a stub. The Ghost Dance War article, while it has more substance in it than the Pine Ridge Campaign article, is very small and almost everything written on it is already in this Wounded Knee article. On this page though there's a campaign box as if to say is was part of a campaign/war, and the campaign box only links to the Pine Ridge Campaign and nothing else. "Ghost Dance War" by the way doesn't appear even once in this article. I recommend some kind of merger between these articles. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt Agent (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a merger would be fine. Like you said, all of the information on the two articles is almost verbatim from the Wounded Knee article. sdgjake (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took another look at the Ghost Dance War article, and under categories it lists the Pine Ridge Campaign. Hell, it's the only category. It's the exact same thing, that's been established I guess. So how should this merger be done? Cobalt Agent (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Pine Ridge Campaign is so brief, I'll go ahead and merge it into this article, since it seems you all arrived at a consensus. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A merger looks worthwhile but with the proviso that the title of this article "Wounded Knee Massacre" ought to remain - as a redirect to the merged article. People may well search for WKM. I did. Everton Fish - Hydrofoil XI (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of these articles ought to be merged under the title in which the U.S. Government recognizes and refers to this period, The Sioux Campaign of 1890 - '91. I'd also like to see a more unbiased, or at least balanced--that is tell both sides--of this controversial period of American history. Both articles are told exclusively from the Lakota Sioux perspective, that is the article lacks any evidence that does not support the Native American perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8m8i (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The two articles should Not be merged. The article the Ghost Dance War needs to be expanded. The Wounded Knee Massacre resulted as a consequence of the Ghost Dance but it is a unique and tragic event that deserves it's own article. I've been to Wounded Knee, when I wanted to learn more about it I typed "Wounded Knee Massacre" into the search engine not "Ghost Dance War". 7mike5000 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh McGinnis

This article seems to be a classic example of a biography of a person notable for a single event; that event is his having been the last living US soldier who participated in the Wounded Knee Massacre. He is mentioned in this article under Eyewitness accounts and I think it would be sufficient to do a small expansion of his section of the 'accounts', maybe by adding his birth and death dates and mentioning that he was the last living eyewitness. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, I'm like Lewis Black and I have thoughts, "I think it would be sufficient" is what you think, and we're all entitled to our opinions. Why is it that all the opinions come out of the woodwork after someone else has made a significant effort at improving or creating content? In keeping with the attack the content not the editor happy happy joy joy policy, I can't help but notice that a majority of certain opinionated individuals "contributions" are on Talk pages and slapping tags on articles. The fact that Hugh McGinnis was an Irish immigrant, served in the 7th Cavalary, and was not only an eyewitness but a participant in the Wounded Knee Massacre and was wounded twice, does make him notable. What is more notable is that he was able to offer an unbiased eyewitness acount from the white side despite the fact that he was a participant. If more information could be found on him his artcicle should be expanded.

In keeping with the "I think it would be sufficient" policy articles like this should be deleted or merged;

• Todd Beamer: he was on a hijacked plane and said "Lets Roll", almost 3,000 people died that day should they all get a separate article, or only the ones that said "Lets Roll".
• World Famous Bushman; a homeless man who jumps out of the bushes and scares people
• Hugh McKee participated in the United States expedition to Korea in 1871. Big deal
• Konstantina Lukes, aka Konnie Lukes, is a former Mayor of Worcester, Massachusetts. Yeah and so.....
• Hey Boy (TV Character): two paragraphs on a fictional Chinese character from a TV series from 50 years ago that most people have never heard of.
• etc., etc.

7mike5000 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, look i found some more:

• Sitaram Yadav: (born 5 January 1946) is a member of the 14th Lok Sabha of India. He represents the Sitamarhi constituency of Bihar and is a member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) political party. Wow that's ah. like wow.

You get the point man? Before people make comments, slap tags on things, disparage other people or decide their opinion supercedes everybody elses, maybe a little forethought would help. All it does is it creates anonymosity and keeps makes people say screw it they can't be bothered. 7mike5000 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, 7mike5000. It would be useful to now get the opinions of a couple of people who are not so deeply attached to the article you've composed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV question and poor sentence structure

I removed the following sentence because I believe in has NPOV issues--it reads more like a polemic than an attempt to impartially relate the facts.

"The Lakota lost their way of life, self-sustenance, autonomy and freedom."

The sentence is also redundant: "way of life", "autonomy", & "freedom" mean the same thing in this context, especially the last two. "Way of life" and "self-sustenance" also mean the same thing; without the ability to feed one's self, one's way of life is automatically changed.

A better, imo, way to put it is as follows (which I edited into the text):

As the US government failed to keep its promises to feed, house, clothe and protect reservation lands from encroachment by settlers and gold miners....

PainMan (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Spotted Elk / Big Foot caption

Never mind. Bigfoot IS Spotted Elk.

External links

I'ved pulled this before:

• TED.com talk on the long-term effects of the Wounded Knee massacre

because I thought it was self-promotional (WP:COI), but what do other editors think? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Battlebox

A battlebox gives more complete detail concerning a clash between two opposing sides without diminishing the fact that it was a massacre as opposed to a battle of equal forces. The battlebox give basically the same info as the previous box did just in different columns and a row for leaders. A similar argument was made for the use of a battlebox for the Sand Creek Massacre.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.133.186 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox on Massacres

Hi, Is there a list or info box that links this massacre and other massacres like say Jallianwala Bagh massacre, so that you can get a quick list of similar events where men, women and children have been innocently massacred? Thanks--SH 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Heading not visible

The article's heading The Massacre is in the index but not visible below in the article (at least not on my screen). Can anyone figure out why and fix that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's something to do with the boxed thing above where it should be. A test removal of that brought it back. I've tried moving it down but the 'telegram' box is just blanking the heading from displaying. I hope whoever sorts it says what they did here - I'm still learning these things... Peridon (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting in a {{clear}} seems to have sorted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Sitting Bull is the central focus of the army's action should be highlighted in the first paragraph. The fact that Black Coyote refused to give up his rifle is less important. Sitting Bull's arrest was the impetus for the action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.235.253 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We suck

I am ashamed to be an American. We need to do more to make up for the horrible injustice we brought upon the Native Americans.74.100.47.237 (talk)