This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There is absolutely no question that the land legally belonged to the Lakota when it was illegally seized by the federal government without compensation. GregJackP  Boomer! 21:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

My edit does not deny that it was legally owned by the Lakota at the time of seizure. My edit has nothing to with the 19th century. My edit is only referencing ownership in the modern era since the sentence refers the sit in the 1970s. The fact that the supreme court ruled that the Black Hills were illegally taken does not automatically suggest they are presently legally owned by them or in the 1970s for that matter. Stumink ( talk) 21:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It absolutely changes the context. Why is it important to remove the fact that at the time of the seizure, the land "legally belonged to the Lakota." You did that several times, but I am open to rewording the paragraph, so long as the fact that the land legally belonged to the Lakota at the time of the seizure is clear. GregJackP  Boomer! 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The last version you reverted had the supreme court mention at the bottom so it was perfectly obvious that the Lakota owned it at the time of seizure. My first edit had nothing to do with land ownership at the time of seizure. The sentence refers to them being legally owned by the Lakota at the time of sit ins. The reference to the seizure in the second part of that sentence says they "had been seized". The version prior to my first edit made no mention of them being legally owned at the time of seizure, therefore I never removed the fact they were owned by the Lakota at the time. Yes I agree this fact could be mentioned which why my last revision contained mention of suprem court ruling. Stumink ( talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Montana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT ( talk) on 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply