User talk:Jbt89

This is Jbt89's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Dakota War

Your mention caught me by surprise as I have ceased editing that article for what you have run into. I am a member of the Military History Project which makes the War a topic for me. A review of the various sources shows very few Military Historians have written on the war. It has been left to those with no background in the subject. Then there are contributors that have no understanding of formatting military history and lack a grasp of the content. A member of the Minnesota History Project asked me to review the War article. My opinion was and remains it needs a complete rewrite. I did that and had it reverted immediately for being "too much". If you go to my history you can find that in my New Sandbox User:Mcb133aco/New_sandbox (there is a notable difference in number of refs). While your at it check my sandbox2.User:Mcb133aco/sandbox2 you will find a staggering amount of Chippewa/Ojibwa history that is relevant. Contrary to what is posted, it is not original research by me. It all was published in newspapers and posted to the internet. Some of it you will have read on the War talk page. As to the author you have a question about. They very clearly did not have a neutral POV or a military background. With the pov issue I would not cite them unless I had to. You are welcome to post questions to my talk page. Thank you again for the mention.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) Mcb133aco (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mcb133aco: Per Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bona fide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should edit. Given that many editors, including experts, post pseudonymously, vetting users as experts (identity, credentials or experience) is not practical, even though it is technically feasible to verify a user's identity if disclosed. oncamera _{(talk page)} 12:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was referring to Wingerd there ("I would not cite them"), not a Wikipedia editor. Jbt89 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply - I'll check your stuff out. I agree that the article has lots of issues, including problems with the structure and point-of-view problems. Jbt89 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traverse des Sioux Treaty

German settlers recorded Yankton land extended east into Minnesota to the Jeffers Petroglyphs

I see you have been contributing to this article as well. Since you were so good as to mention me I will give some missing history. There is no record that Ramsey ever visited the frontier before drawing up the treaty boundaries. He used Nicollet's 1840s map of the Upper Mississippi basin while sitting in his St. Paul office. You can Google excellent images of this map. Nicollet identified where each tribe was. However, if you look the map is unclear for tribal borders south of the Minnesota river and Ramsey guessed wrong. The Big Sioux was not the eastern border of Yankton land nor the western limits of the Sisseton. The Yankton claimed as far east as the Jeffers Petroglyphs which easily included the Pipestone Quarry. The Big Sioux could easily be forded and was not a geographic obstruction for the Yankton. A Google will produce a map in Germany that clearly indicates this information. Chief Waanata 1 of the Yanktonai had his main village at Lake Traverse. You can find multiple references where he claims from Granite Falls to the Missouri river. There is no mention of the Yanktonai donating their land to the Sisseton. That transfer came courtesy of Ramsey's ignorance of tribal boundaries and the ambiguity of Nicollet's map which resulted in The Traverse des Sioux Treaty. The Yankton made their claims known and the Government realized there were merits to their claims. So much so, that the Government felt it did not free and clear title to the land for the Statehood of Minnesota. The Yankton treaty of 1858 was drafted with those issues Opening paragraph #1. Read it for yourself you don't require an academic to do it for you. [1] It is pure legalese to cover any and all Yankton claims. One month after the Yankton signed Minnesota gained Statehood. If you dig a little you will find that the Yanktonai were unhappy with the Yankton for selling some of their land too.^[1] The Yanktonai land claim was roughly 11 million acres before their kinfolk started selling it for them.Mcb133aco (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, I'll check it out when I have a little more time. Meaning to get back to the Dakota War stuff too. Thanks. Jbt89 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will add, Yankton Chief Struck-by-the-Ree would not sign that treaty unless they got a Reservation at the Pipestone Quarry. They did. It was roughly a square mile in size. The current narrative for the Dakota war claims the Dakota lost their Minnesota Reservations without mentioning the Yankton did not give up the Quarry. Needs to be mentioned that neither the Yankton nor the Yanktonai leaders were invited or present for the Traverse des Sioux Treaty signing despite the inclusion of their lands. It should also be noted that in 1863 when Congress annulled this and the other eastern Dakota treaties the Yankton treaty to "fix" the Traverse des Sioux was not included. The Yankton Reservation at Pipestone remained unmolested.Mcb133aco (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose you have any citations for the map, or the Yankton objecting generally? From the wording of the Yankton Treaty it's pretty easy to read between the lines and see that, but the Yankton treaty article really needs some references. Jbt89 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will put on the to do list. I belong to a history group where this was discussed when the State gave the Upper Agency to the Reservation at Morton. One of the members did a good bit of research on it and we meet in a few days. Mcb133aco (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perf. Found a couple (including the map), but a few more would make that one into a decent if brief article. Jbt89 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakota people article has a ref placing the Yankton at Mankato. I have not read it yet.Mcb133aco (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Minnesota Pioneer. Feb. 13, 1851, p.1 [2] Mcb133aco (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MANAGING THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR: An Administrative History Of Pipestone National MonumentPipestone Administrative History, CHAPTER II: CLEARING FEDERAL TITLE 1858-1928, Hal K. Rothman and Daniel J. Holder, National Park Service Midwest Region (MWR-1-0015-002), Hal K. Rothman and Associates Publishing, 2809 Barrel Cactus Rd, Henderson, NV, Sep. 10, 1992 MANAGING THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR: An Administrative History Of Pipestone National MonumentPipestone Administrative History, CHAPTER II: CLEARING FEDERAL TITLE 1858-1928

Indian Difficulties, The Weekly Pioneer and Democrat, July 1, 1858, p.6 [3] (the incident at Medary, DT was 30 odd miles northwest of Pipestone)

Indian depredations, The Weekly Pioneer and Democrat, June 24, 1858, p.5

[4]

Another and a War Message, Saint Paul Weekly Minnesotian, June 26, 1858, p.2

[5]

The Dakota War of 1862, Columns of Vengeance, Paul N. Beck, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, p.47

Mcb133aco (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Dakota War of 1862, Columns of Vengeance, Paul N. Beck, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, p.47

February 2024

Your edit to Barber County, Kansas has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also did a cut-and-pasted at Pratt County, Kansas. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases from a book written in 1883, which long ago entered the public domain. Jbt89 (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you copied it word-for-word, which makes your edit a quotation. Please see WP:QUOTE:

"For copyright-free and public domain material, use of quotation marks is not required by copyright but they must be used to avoid plagiarism and to provide clear attribution of the quoted material to the original author(s)." Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kk, I'll rewrite them later. In the future, though, please don't go around accusing people of copyright violations when the material in question is in the public domain. Jbt89 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various topics

1) In general, the wikipedia Visual Editor messes up infoboxes, and shouldn't be used to edit them until after the Visual Editor is fixed. I have reported this issue. Until it is fixed, you should manually edit the text of the article.

2) Thanks for talking photos of communities. Please keep in mind that if the conditions aren't reasonable for a photograph, then you probabyly shouldn't take a photo or wait until another day when you can take a more reasonable photo. Per this photo, the sun should be either behind you or above you, but not in front of you. If you get back to Sawyer, please take a better photo to replace this photo.

Thanks in advance.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm probably not going to be back there for quite some time, but I'll see if I have any better photos from my trip. Thanks. Jbt89 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Treaty with the Sioux, 1858 has been accepted

Treaty with the Sioux, 1858, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Dakota War of 1862, Columns of Vengeance, Paul N. Beck, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, p.47

[1]