This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Theft of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Black Hills land claim to Taking of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kqwu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Black Hills Land Claim. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have made two edits to the page, drawing from others in the nearby graph, with the intent of restoring NPOV to the article. I feel that before these edits it slanted significantly towards an apologists' view: next to a half sentence saying the Lakota consider the land sacred, there was an explanation that some outsiders don't find that belief valid.
It's hard for me to fathom how to write this article honestly without plainly stating from the top that the land belonged to Native Americans; that the United States recognized their ownership in a treaty; and that the 1980 Supreme Court ruling confirmed the US did not honor the treaty.
Given that it's hard for me to so fathom, I'd like an editor with more Wikipedia experience or even just an outside point of view to review the prior content and my changes for balance. I'm only an occasional editor; I'll try to check back but if I've used the wrong template tags or process please do whatever's right for the content.
Thanks, flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip ( talk • contribs) 20:09, July 3, 2020 (UTC)
We have a problem here. On 11 June 2023,
User:Larataguera made the undiscussed move of this page from "Black Hills Land Claim" to "Theft of the Black Hills". This move should have been discussed, as all significant moves should. On 18 June 2023,
User:Snarcky1996 restored the article to its original name. On 20 June 2023, also without discussion,
User:Freoh moved the article back to the undiscussed version, also without discussion. This is not at all the appropriate process. I've been here a very long time, but I have studiously avoided learning bureaucratic back-end processes, so I'm not going to attempt to move the article back to the original "Black Hills Land Claim", because I would most likely bugger it up hopelessly - but it needs to be done - then editors can discuss the move, and come to a consensus.
Separately, the current opening wording is a misrepresentation of what took place. SCOTUS did not rule that the US government "stole" the land - this is an editorialized restatement of what the ruling was. We need to use neutral wording when presenting material in the encyclopedia.
I'm not interested in a fight here; I've no dog in the hunt. But the process for significant changes is discuss first, find a consensus, then move forward. Let's abide by the process. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.
20:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I moved it back. Get a consensus first. Alexius Horatius 02:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Disagree with Snarcky1996. I prefer Theft of the Black Hills for a few reasons.
"Black Hills land claim" is broader, because that phrase suggests "disputed or unresolved land claims", [1] and a lot of this article describes events before the dispute. This article is about the theft and responses to it. It is not about the responses themselves.
I agree with Larataguera; Wikipedia guidelines point to Theft of the Black Hills. — Freoh 17:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There isn't a consensus for the term "theft", but there also is a developing consensus that just describing it as a "land claim" is possibly a bit too euphemistic to the point of NPOV violation given the context of the 1981 Supreme Court case.
This particular RM is, hence, a "no consensus" close, however, I can see a possible consensus for "Seizure of the Black Hills" as a compromise title. A new RM to formalise this consensus can, and I believe, should be created without prejudice to this result. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Black Hills land claim → Theft of the Black Hills – This article describes the theft of the Black Hills in the 1870s, not just the current land claim (which is a response to that theft). The land claim presupposes the theft. The new title more completely describes the scope of the article. Finally, the Google Ngram shows that "Theft of the Black Hills" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and this is a compelling reason to move the article. Larataguera ( talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I have notified all of the listed WikiProjects of this move request. Larataguera ( talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
nefarious. (Also, Anastrophe, there are now more than four editors, so you may want to change your bolded text.) — Freoh 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Once wider (more than four editors!) discussion has taken placepredicated on an RFC, in order to bring in uninvolved/disinterested editors. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
confusing? The first sentence clears up any potential confusion. — Freoh 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is analogous to the
murder of George Floyd. (Is murder editorializing
?) Both describe an exceptional use of government force where the government's own courts later ruled the actions illegal, and in each case, the response is probably notable enough to warrant its own article. How would people feel about
splitting this article into two? We could have both the
theft of the Black Hills and the
Black Hills land dispute, just like we have both the
murder of George Floyd and the
George Floyd protests. —
Freoh
21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a land dispute, a lawsuit was filed, legal title was decided in court...is not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say "There was a theft, a lawsuit was filed, damages were awarded 110 years later..." The implementation is contested, leading to the present land dispute. Continuing to call the theft a "land dispute" is indeed similar to continuing to call Floyd's murder a "killing". Larataguera ( talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
In the "Origin of the land claim" section, the article states "In 1849 the Californian Gold Rush attracted prospectors to the Black Hills, who were often killed by the Lakota as result of encroaching on the sacred grounds." I can't view the cited page of the source, but this seems dubious. The California Gold Rush attracted prospectors to California; prospectors may have traveled through Lakota lands en route to California, but they would have little reason to enter the Black Hills themselves (being more difficult terrain for travel, and a significant detour from major routes to California). Plantdrew ( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yet the California gold rush, along with Oregon fever, attracted so many whites to the Oregon trail that the Indians through whose land they passed felt compelled to react. Unrest spread [...]. I'll fix the text. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
no consensus), where Theft of the Black Hills was proposed based on WP:COMMONNAME (while overlooking more common phrases). In addition to " taking" being more common here than "theft," it is a legally accepted and neutral term ( WP:NPOV) in this context. In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress [b] "effected a taking of tribal property" and that it "had taken the Black Hills without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (i.e., the Takings Clause). The Supreme Court did not use the terms "theft" or "stolen" and did not hold that the lands must be returned, but rather that the U.S. Government must pay just compensation (as normally required for eminent domain). [c] I objected to the title Theft of the Black Hills because it (1) is less common, (2) is a non-neutral term as applied to an unlawful government taking (as distinct from criminal theft), and (3) is not legally correct [d] terminology.
Notes
That term has legal meaning: It's a criminal offense. When the government takes something (with or without valid legal claim) relevant terms include a "taking" (5th Amendment) or "seizure" (4th Amendment). There is not ordinarily any crime for a government taking, even if it is held to be unlawful. Indeed, what the Supreme Court held was that this was a "taking" of property without just compensation. (As such, the Court held that the United States must pay just compensation for the taking, not that the taking was void to effect a transfer of ownership — as would be the case for stolen property.)I also listed some examples of notable cases where SCOTUS has held government takings illegal.
no consensus), you may be interested in this new proposal for the page's title. {{replyto| SilverLocust}} ( talk) 04:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Theft of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Black Hills land claim to Taking of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kqwu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Black Hills Land Claim. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have made two edits to the page, drawing from others in the nearby graph, with the intent of restoring NPOV to the article. I feel that before these edits it slanted significantly towards an apologists' view: next to a half sentence saying the Lakota consider the land sacred, there was an explanation that some outsiders don't find that belief valid.
It's hard for me to fathom how to write this article honestly without plainly stating from the top that the land belonged to Native Americans; that the United States recognized their ownership in a treaty; and that the 1980 Supreme Court ruling confirmed the US did not honor the treaty.
Given that it's hard for me to so fathom, I'd like an editor with more Wikipedia experience or even just an outside point of view to review the prior content and my changes for balance. I'm only an occasional editor; I'll try to check back but if I've used the wrong template tags or process please do whatever's right for the content.
Thanks, flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip ( talk • contribs) 20:09, July 3, 2020 (UTC)
We have a problem here. On 11 June 2023,
User:Larataguera made the undiscussed move of this page from "Black Hills Land Claim" to "Theft of the Black Hills". This move should have been discussed, as all significant moves should. On 18 June 2023,
User:Snarcky1996 restored the article to its original name. On 20 June 2023, also without discussion,
User:Freoh moved the article back to the undiscussed version, also without discussion. This is not at all the appropriate process. I've been here a very long time, but I have studiously avoided learning bureaucratic back-end processes, so I'm not going to attempt to move the article back to the original "Black Hills Land Claim", because I would most likely bugger it up hopelessly - but it needs to be done - then editors can discuss the move, and come to a consensus.
Separately, the current opening wording is a misrepresentation of what took place. SCOTUS did not rule that the US government "stole" the land - this is an editorialized restatement of what the ruling was. We need to use neutral wording when presenting material in the encyclopedia.
I'm not interested in a fight here; I've no dog in the hunt. But the process for significant changes is discuss first, find a consensus, then move forward. Let's abide by the process. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.
20:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I moved it back. Get a consensus first. Alexius Horatius 02:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Disagree with Snarcky1996. I prefer Theft of the Black Hills for a few reasons.
"Black Hills land claim" is broader, because that phrase suggests "disputed or unresolved land claims", [1] and a lot of this article describes events before the dispute. This article is about the theft and responses to it. It is not about the responses themselves.
I agree with Larataguera; Wikipedia guidelines point to Theft of the Black Hills. — Freoh 17:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There isn't a consensus for the term "theft", but there also is a developing consensus that just describing it as a "land claim" is possibly a bit too euphemistic to the point of NPOV violation given the context of the 1981 Supreme Court case.
This particular RM is, hence, a "no consensus" close, however, I can see a possible consensus for "Seizure of the Black Hills" as a compromise title. A new RM to formalise this consensus can, and I believe, should be created without prejudice to this result. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Black Hills land claim → Theft of the Black Hills – This article describes the theft of the Black Hills in the 1870s, not just the current land claim (which is a response to that theft). The land claim presupposes the theft. The new title more completely describes the scope of the article. Finally, the Google Ngram shows that "Theft of the Black Hills" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and this is a compelling reason to move the article. Larataguera ( talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I have notified all of the listed WikiProjects of this move request. Larataguera ( talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
nefarious. (Also, Anastrophe, there are now more than four editors, so you may want to change your bolded text.) — Freoh 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Once wider (more than four editors!) discussion has taken placepredicated on an RFC, in order to bring in uninvolved/disinterested editors. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
confusing? The first sentence clears up any potential confusion. — Freoh 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is analogous to the
murder of George Floyd. (Is murder editorializing
?) Both describe an exceptional use of government force where the government's own courts later ruled the actions illegal, and in each case, the response is probably notable enough to warrant its own article. How would people feel about
splitting this article into two? We could have both the
theft of the Black Hills and the
Black Hills land dispute, just like we have both the
murder of George Floyd and the
George Floyd protests. —
Freoh
21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a land dispute, a lawsuit was filed, legal title was decided in court...is not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say "There was a theft, a lawsuit was filed, damages were awarded 110 years later..." The implementation is contested, leading to the present land dispute. Continuing to call the theft a "land dispute" is indeed similar to continuing to call Floyd's murder a "killing". Larataguera ( talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
In the "Origin of the land claim" section, the article states "In 1849 the Californian Gold Rush attracted prospectors to the Black Hills, who were often killed by the Lakota as result of encroaching on the sacred grounds." I can't view the cited page of the source, but this seems dubious. The California Gold Rush attracted prospectors to California; prospectors may have traveled through Lakota lands en route to California, but they would have little reason to enter the Black Hills themselves (being more difficult terrain for travel, and a significant detour from major routes to California). Plantdrew ( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yet the California gold rush, along with Oregon fever, attracted so many whites to the Oregon trail that the Indians through whose land they passed felt compelled to react. Unrest spread [...]. I'll fix the text. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
no consensus), where Theft of the Black Hills was proposed based on WP:COMMONNAME (while overlooking more common phrases). In addition to " taking" being more common here than "theft," it is a legally accepted and neutral term ( WP:NPOV) in this context. In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress [b] "effected a taking of tribal property" and that it "had taken the Black Hills without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (i.e., the Takings Clause). The Supreme Court did not use the terms "theft" or "stolen" and did not hold that the lands must be returned, but rather that the U.S. Government must pay just compensation (as normally required for eminent domain). [c] I objected to the title Theft of the Black Hills because it (1) is less common, (2) is a non-neutral term as applied to an unlawful government taking (as distinct from criminal theft), and (3) is not legally correct [d] terminology.
Notes
That term has legal meaning: It's a criminal offense. When the government takes something (with or without valid legal claim) relevant terms include a "taking" (5th Amendment) or "seizure" (4th Amendment). There is not ordinarily any crime for a government taking, even if it is held to be unlawful. Indeed, what the Supreme Court held was that this was a "taking" of property without just compensation. (As such, the Court held that the United States must pay just compensation for the taking, not that the taking was void to effect a transfer of ownership — as would be the case for stolen property.)I also listed some examples of notable cases where SCOTUS has held government takings illegal.
no consensus), you may be interested in this new proposal for the page's title. {{replyto| SilverLocust}} ( talk) 04:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)