Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Statement that the Wounded Knee Massacre was "The largest domestic massacre in U.S. history."

KVJackson (talk) This statement is disputed and, if retained, should have a solid citation. There are other tragic conflicts and incidents in U.S. history (since 1776) defined as "massacres" which rival or exceed the numbers of dead and wounded at Wounded Knee on 29 Dec 1890, including the Fort Mims Massacre of 1813 and the Wyoming Valley Massacre of 1778. Can anyone find a reputable citation for this statement?

References for the Fort Mims Massacre casualties, between 250 to 400, include: http://www.fortmims.org/history/history03.html ; and Davis, Karl. ""Remember Fort Mims:" Reinterpreting the Origins of the Creek War." Journal of the Early Republic 22, no. 4 (2002): 611-36. doi:10.2307/3124760.

References for the Wyoming Valley Massacre casualties, between 301 to 376, (including a recognized payment of 227 scalps): https://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=1-A-219 ; and "The Iroquois in the American Revolution" by Barbara Graymont, Syracuse University Press, 1972, available at https://archive.org/details/iroquoisinameric00gray/page/170 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVJackson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Update 22 Jan 2020: After substantial research and review of this page's citations, I have not yet found any supporting references to the statement that the Wounded Knee Massacre was "the largest domestic massacre in U.S. history." Barring additional information, I propose eliminating that statement / note in another 14 days (5 Feb 2020). KVJackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Update 6 Feb 2020: Eliminated note/statement that the Wounded Knee Massacre was "The largest domestic massacre in U.S. history." The statement was not supported by available citations or references. Indeed, other tragedies, battles, and massacres are claimed to be the largest massacre in the history of the U.S. KVJackson (talk)

Outcome: US Victory

I've seen some people on social media complaining that the outcome of the incident is listed as 'US victory'. I agree that I'm not sure this language is appropriate, and I wonder if we could seek consensus on changing this to something more respectful of what happened. Do we need to list who 'won' something listed as a massacre? I understand that's conventional on pages dealing with battles, but this is not really a battle is it? Also surely we should be putting the belligerent as 'US army', rather than simply United States. Presumably Native Americans had rights as US citizens, so this was not a fight between one country and another but a massacre of a native population by a state army. I think we can do better than this and I would like to hear what others' opinions are. Jwslubbock (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the page was titled "Battle of Wounded Knee" or something like that until renamed. While current sensitivities may deem us to be unthinking, the cavalrymen at Wounded Knee were, from their perspective, engaged in a battle in which a superior force engaged an inferior force and won. Native Americans were then treated as members (citizens) of the tribes to which they belonged; they were not acknowledged to have the full rights of citizens of the U.S. until much later and had no rights as we now think of them. Was our policy toward the tribes justified? Probably not, but it's a mistake to judge 19th century men by 21st century standards. We certainly don't hold our discussions about page content on social media. We do it here.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm restoring the victory entry. Evaluating 19th century events through 21st century eyes is unwise.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide the necessary reliable sources which describe the encounter generally as you have done, and more importantly, the "outcome" with those specific words? Once I can see which sources you are utilizing, then we can determine if they convey that perspective with the proper weight to be displayed as a noncontroversial factoid in the Infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the casualty figures. We don't make moral judgments in discussing victory.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll look at the reliable source(s) you provide, when you provide them. Factoids in infoboxes must first be conveyed in the body of the article, and accompanied by reliable sources. ("Victory" appears nowhere in the current version of the article.) As for your "moral judgements" comment, I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning. You've added information to the article, and I'm asking for a reliable source, which you have twice declined to provide, against policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone who thinks this was a Native American victory or a draw?Drewder (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is long stale at this point, but just for the record, no, Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924, some sixty odd years after citizenship was extended to freed slaves. GMG^talk 13:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"was a domestic massacre of several hundred Lakota Indians"

It wasn't a "domestic" massacre. Just what is a foreign massacre and how would it differ from one which is "domestic". A massacre is a massacre.

It wasn't a "massacre". Massacre is defined by Marriam-Webster as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". This was hardly the case. There was nothing helpless about the Lakotas and they fired first. A 10-1 casualty count is a "Battle". Far more lopsided battles are typically still called "battles". That the Lakotas chose to start firing while among their women and children puts the death toll on their heads. Just like the Taliban firing on Americans from a school and then blaming Americans for the deaths of children.

It wasn't "several hundred Lakotas killed". As the article states later, it was no more than 300 and as few as 150. That is not "several hundred". Per M-W: "more than two but fewer than many". The likely number of 250 was not "several hundred". Why not accept my edit of "up to 300"? I think that is in favor of leftist political thought since 250 seems a more accurate number and it could have been as few as 150 in published reports.

This is a very slanted article aimed at appeasing the prevailing winds of political correctness. All I'm asking for is factual statements.

Lurch1313 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the word “domestic” is now awkward, and can be eliminated.

Regarding the use of the word “massacre”: that has been debated since 1890. To maintain a neutral point of view, both “massacre” and “battle” are currently used on this page, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, modern historical factual references and as used by historians. KVJackson (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion or Exclusion of the alternative title "the Battle of Wounded Knee"

Mobile User 69.77.253.171 recently deleted the alternative title “also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee.”

Reviewing the history of this page, this alternative title has been used since at least 25 August 2004.

The Library of Congress notes that the alternative terminology “Massacre of Wounded Knee” rather than "Battle of Wounded Knee" first began usage in some U.S. Newspapers in 1912, more than 21 years after that tragic day. (see https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-wounded-knee-massacre).

The designation of “Battle of Wounded Knee” has long been, and is currently used in officially published U.S. Army Military History (see pg 344 of https://history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-21/CMH_Pub_30-21.pdf )

Additionally, the official documentation in 1966 designating the Wounded Knee Battlefield states: “The event has been entitled the “Wounded Knee Massacre" or "Battle of Wounded Knee", depending on the historical perspective of the writer." (see https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/66000719_text )

Question for Wikipedia editors: Should the alternative title “also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee” be deleted from this page?

Pending results of this page talk discussion, the alternative title deletion has been undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVJackson (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Include Battle - based on that used in official sources.ToeFungii (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes not an improvement

Describing the events factually as a "massacre" in the lede is well-sourced and ought to be uncontroversial, given that even the U.S. Congress apologized. Pipelinking our article on the Lakota people to gratuitously use the increasingly-deprecated and unnecessary term "Indians" is also undesirable. Removing the description of the disarming attempt as "botched" also ignores and contradicts the cited sources. For those and other reasons, I do not believe KV Jackson's edits are an improvement and I have reverted them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the term "massacre" to describe an event titled a massacre is redundant. Consistent with other entries on Wikipedia and encyclopedia, describing a “(Name the Massacre) Massacre” as a conflict or confrontation is more commonly used. Stating the “XX Massacre was a massacre" is autological, or circular. The lede title “Wounded Knee Massacre” should be sufficient, and the use of “violent confrontation, resulting in the killing and wounding” is more descriptive.

Which cited references use the word “botched”? My review of cited references do not use the specific word “botched.” That word was added by Mobile User 23.240.224.208 on 30 Jun 2019, without citation. The 7th Cavalry Regiment’s orders were to disarm and escort.

Reference the use of the word “Indians” in pipelinking to the Lakota people. Fair point. It should more properly read “people” as stated in your edit of 10 Jun 2020. Prior to that date, the word "Indian" was used.

KVJackson (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I offer these proposed changes for Wikipedia editorial review and comment:

1. Current (lede): The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a domestic massacre of several hundred Lakota people, by soldiers of the United States Army.

Change to: The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a violent clash between the United States Army with a band of Lakota people, resulting in the deaths and wounding of hundreds of Lakota, including many women and children.

Reason: Describing a massacre as a massacre is a circular logic. Also, consistency with historical record and referenced citations. The Congressional Record reference states “historians regard the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre as the last armed conflict between Indian warriors and the United States Cavalry …“

Reference 5 describes the incident as “the scene of the last major clash between Native Americans and U.S. troops in North America” and “ensuing struggle, short but bloody, resulted in 75 army casualties and the virtual massacre of Big Foot's band. “

2. Remove the word “botched” in describing the disarming of the Lakota camp.

Current: It occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota, following a botched attempt to disarm the Lakota camp

Change to: It occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota, following an attempt to disarm the Lakota camp.

Reason: The word botched is not used in the article’s references and citations.. Official reports and consistent with cited historians do not use the word “botched” in describing the incident. For example,

3. Change “When the Massacre ended”

As reads: By the time the massacre was over, more than 250 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead as high as 300.

Change to: When the shooting ended, more than 250 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead as high as 300.

Reason: Language use consistent with citations and references. For example, reference 8 currently states “When the shooting finally stopped…”

KVJackson (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Wounded Knee aftermath5.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Wounded Knee aftermath5.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 29, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-12-29. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre was a massacre of Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army that took place near Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, on December 29, 1890. In what was supposed to be a peaceful transport operation, troops of the 7th Cavalry engaged in battle with a contingent of Miniconjou and Hunkpapa Lakota, resulting in the deaths of more than 250 Lakota men, women and children, and 25 troopers. This photograph, taken three weeks after the massacre, shows Lakota corpses wrapped in blankets; the frozen bodies were subsequently collected and buried in a mass grave on a nearby hill.

Photograph credit: Trager & Kuhn; restored by Lise Broer

Recently featured:

• Thomas Ewing
• Adoration of the Shepherds
• Arg-e Bam

Editor Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC), announced that the POTD for 29 Dec will include a photo of the Wounded Knee aftermath, while correcting the date of the image from 3 days after the 29 Dec 1890 battle to 3 weeks after the battle.

I suggest verification of the corrected date of the image.

According to official records and newspaper reports, the US Army's burial detail conducted its operations on 3 Jan 1891, securing the site from looters and preparing the mass grave and retrieving bodies. Published reports state that 16 photographs were taken that day.

While acknowledging that the image is currently publicly available from the Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2007678212/ currently is captioned "[Big Foot's camp three weeks after the Wounded Knee Massacre (Dec. 29, 1890)]", but the LOC file also states "This record contains unverified, old data from caption card."

Why would four bodies remain on open ground, as depicted, two weeks after the burial detail operations on 3 Jan 1891? The caption card's 17 Jan 1891 date may reflect the date the photograph was published after film (or plate) transport and processing.

KVJackson (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Dance Significance

I added some additional information on why the Ghost Dance movent rapidly spread. Also, further explained why the Religious movement had larger implications than just a revival, and how it affected the coming massacre at Wounded Knee

SCoy4542 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) SCoy4542

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SCoy4542.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Corporal William Wilson

Corporal William Wilson was a not at the Wounded Knee Massacre and was part of the 9th not 7th US Cavalry. He was awarded the medal of honor for actions that occurred on the 30th not the 29th https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069761710&view=1up&seq=290 https://archive.org/details/blackvalorbuffal00schu/page/123/mode/2up 2601:405:4600:2F64:59F1:CB1:5E49:6250 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents?!

Why are the Lakota in the chart referred as as Belligerents? How bout victims of a massacre? 2600:1008:B108:14C1:1489:5631:E122:DDA9 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The usage of the term "belligerents" in the box is standard language. The use of the term "belligerent" in this case refers to those who are fighting. The usage of the term "belligerent" is also used, for example, on the Wikipedia pages for the Cherry Valley Massacre, the Fort Mimms Massacre, and the Battle of Wyoming (also known as the Wyoming Massacre). The term is not intended to minimize the fact there were many victims. KVJackson (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please Correct

This is no longer referred to as the “Battle of Wounded Knee.” This was a massacre, plainly and simply.

Indigenous authorities on this historical event do not refer to it as being a “battle,” which implies an equal distribution of power on either side. This was clearly not the case. 170.199.220.219 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific. The old name is mentioned since it can be found in older sources. Fettlemap (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Massacre or battle" section should probably explain in a bit more detail the conflict over the name for the event, because it seems important to the history and aftermath of the event in a way that is not covered by simply stating what it was initially called and that "some American Indian groups have objected" and refer to it as a massacre. The present perfect tense in "have objected" is also a bit confusing, because survivors of the massacre rather publicly resisted the "battle" narrative not long after its taking place. I think it's important for the readers' understanding of the aftermath of the incident that this paragraph make clear that "massacre" vs. "battle" issue is not a recent semantic argument, but that at the time it constituted the direct resistance of the survivors against the dominant narrative, and it also reflected an active movement amongst the Lakota Sioux to demand compensation for the losses they suffered (the reference is an abstract that mentions a renewed effort in the 1920s, I cannot presently find any freely-available sources which discuss the first one). --Lemonster1128 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References