Talk:Battle of Whitestone Hill

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Whitestone Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160910155127/http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/9/8 to http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/9/8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Whitestone Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214135621/http://www.civilwar.com/batthome1.htm to http://civilwar.com/batthome1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of article is not neutral

I've challenged the neutrality of the first two paragraphs of the background section of this article. Several non-neutral words are in this section. The Sioux killed "innocent" people and the U.S. "only" executed 38 Sioux for their crimes (it was the largest mass execution in U.S. history) as examples. The section likewise puts too little emphasis on the most important cause of the rebellion: the failure of the U.S. government to provide annuities to the Sioux in a timely manner. Those annuities were required by treaty under which the Sioux had surrendered their hunting grounds (their livelihoods) to the U.S.

Secondly, this article is about a battle that followed the Dakota War of 1862, and these two paragraphs describing the Dakota War are much too detailed. An editor has insisted that his formulation of the background prevail over the much briefer and more-neutral background I had earlier drafted.

Opinions? Smallchief (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. The background section is excessive at roughly half the article – larger than the section on the battle itself. I prefer your briefer and more neutral version. Mojoworker (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with caveats, especially that the background on the 1862 uprising is too extensive and too detailed. As for neutrality, I concur that some words seem non-neutral, and if not supported by modern historical reference citations, should be eliminated. Yes, even though 303 Dakota were sentenced to death by military court-martial, the word "only" in describing 38 executions should be removed. While the word "innocent" is not used in the current citation from the Minnesota Historical Society, the use of "innocent" when describing the killing of hundreds of women and children does not seem an egregious violation of neutrality. Indeed, the words "massacre of innocent white settlers" were used in official reports sent by telegram to President Lincoln in Washington, DC. (See https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/may-2014-lincoln.cfm ). KVJackson (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)