Jump to content

Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Numbers

I have a source stating "more than 200 were killed", but this article insists that more than 300 were killed. Can someone else look into this inconsistency between sources? Greenmountainboy 20:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

106 left Cherry Creek according Alice Ghost Horse who was traveling with my grandfather (Chief Spotted Elk) at the time. I have a statement by her. Please contact me for more information. (CalvinSpottedElk (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

It looks like someone went and added "These numbers are undereported blah blah". Someone needs to cite a resource, as I've not been able to find anything supporting. (gghouck)

Here is the actual number of fatalities as recorded by the burial detail...I added them to the article.

"In all, 84 men, 44 women, and 18 children died on the field, while at least seven of Lakota were mortally wounded."

Sarf, Wayne Michael "The Little Bighorn Campaign" Combined Books, INC. 1993 User:67.140.54.135 21 May 2007

"The World of the American Indian" by National Geographic also states that the number was 153.

I removed a passage from L. Frank Baum's editorial. The passage was indeed written by Baum, several days before the Wounded Knee Massacre, in response to news of the death of Sitting Bull. I've left a link where the full text of two editorials by Baum can be read: the first in response to the death of Sitting Bull, the second in response the the Wounded Knee Massacre. I'm not justifying Baum by any means, but a partial quote taken out of context makes the terrible things he wrote sound even worse. The editorials aren't that long, I think it better they be read in full. See: http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/baumedts.htm --Woggly 08:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may seem to be a technicality, but the change made on the introduction was occasioned by my surprise when I read about the Drexel Mission skirmish. It really can be considered to be a part of the Wounded Knee campaign but one always gets the impression that the Battle at Wounded Knee was the absolute end of any group of Native Americans fighting or being attacked by any group of soldiers (or even possibly settlers). Chief.Scribe 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't you think that this part could be moved down, though? The intro should, well, introduce - not go into technicalities about whether or not is was the last conflict. It was the last major conflict - leave it at that. Zafiroblue05 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides being a massacre, it is also called genocide. Remember that the history is written by the winners, and for that reason, only honest white people will recognize that this was a massacre and one more action of genocide.Tommart54 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) tommart54Tommart54 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers for killed, wounded and lost on the Sioux side are greater than the total number involved in the engagement. Where does the error lie? In any case, it needs a remedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterg (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

sources?

"Some accounts claim that Black Coyote was deaf or otherwise impaired." what accounts? can we get links?

  • Sounds to me like the author of that quote is drawing conclusions based solely on the "Into the West" miniseries. Quote should be removed, since no attribution will likely be found. --Dogbreathcanada 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Black Elk doesn't even mention Black Coyote and says it was Yellow Bird who struggled against the officer who took his rifle. p. 222. But the Black Coyote (or deaf guy) story is not only mentioned in Into the West. The source for that information, and most likely where the Into the West writers got it, is Iron Tail (Dewey Beard), a survivor, who repeated his story many times over the years. It was written down by his granddaughter Celine Not Help Him and has been quoted in numerous books and documentaries, including Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I checked and found Beard's story in The Dull Knifes of Pine Ridge (Putnam, 1995), p. 19-22. It is clear that more information about Beard's account is needed. It was apparently not written down until he related it to Celine. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Robert M. Utley's THE INDIAN FRONTIER he has the battle opening with a deaf man's gun going off, but doesn't name his as Black Coyote. pg. 247 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.189.104 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to this query, be assured most of the many accounts in e-space have that included, but none yet found with legitimate checkable documentation.

Be further assured that this is from the one-sided perspective of a soldier who was award one of the 20 Congressional Medals of Honor from the tragedy and thus must also be documented by other observers but Gen. Garlington, then 1LT Garlington, recounts:

"General Forsyth, kindly and pleasantly, yet firmly, demanded the surrender of their arms. While the negotiations were progressing, a young buck fired into the soldiers. The others threw aside their blankets which concealed their weapons, and poured a murderous fire into the troops, which had been posted between them and their village, following it up as rapidly as their repeating rifles could belch forth the lead. The fight raged on the flat about one hour before it was cleared entirely of Indians. Here Captain George D. Wallace, commanding Troop K, and twenty-one enlisted men, including one hospital steward, were killed; Lieutenant Ernest A. Garlington was shot through the right elbow; Lieutenant John C. Gresham received an abrasion on the nose from a passing bullet; Captain Charles A. Varnum had his pipe knocked from his mouth by a bullet; Captain John Van R. Hoff, Assistant Surgeon, received several bullets through his clothing, and twenty-one enlisted men were wounded. Father Craft, a

266

Catholic priest, who was present using his good offices to persuade the Indians to submit to the demands made of them by General Forsyth, received a vicious stab in the back which penetrated his lung. Scout Wells had his nose nearly cut off. Lieutenant John Kinzie, 2d Infantry, who was present as a spectator, was shot through the foot."


and was at least there. It can likely be presumed that the above is part of an accurate transcription found at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/R&H/R&H-7Cav.htm.

Another source is represented to have indicated, and this appears to have been obtained from 1LT James D. Mann's version, written prior to his death at Ft. Riley, Kansas on January 15, 1891 from the wounds of the Drexel Mission skirmish, supplemented by that of unknown others:

"...[Mann] watched as the Indians raised their weapons over their heads, as if making an offering to heaven. The Lakota then lowered their weapons to bear directly on Troop K, with Mann recalling, "the one with the bow and arrow aiming directly at me." "

taken from an article including Mann's version but then supplemented by


" Mann failed to mention -Black Coyote, a youth who was later recalled by his own people as a troublemaker. He stood waving his rifle, declaring that he had given money for it and no one was going to take it unless he was paid."

with the reference being: Utley, Robert D. The Last Days of the Sioux Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. p. 212.

Clearly this version has the youth, being unlikely to be deaf if Black Coyote could truly be heard to be so declaring his intransigence, and even if deaf, well aware of the situation.

The real issue is what is the truth as to Black Coyote which is not readily revealed by e-research. There is an Arapaho Chief Black Coyote who appears to be not the same participant, but who has a biographical e-sketch available and is tangentially involved in the whole general movement.

We need a Sioux/7th U.S. Cavalry scholar, or rather at least two, one from one camp and one from the other camp, and if lucky a third one who is truly independent of the canonical and built-in biases.65.190.174.246 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that the empahsis on the Hotchkiss gun is a bit much. It was physically impossible to maintain 50 rounds/minute with the Hotchkiss outside of test ranges--the ammo weighed too much and the time delay in moving ammo from the caisson to the gun would add in additional time. The battle at Wounded Knee was bad enough without trying to make it look like the bombing of a Vietnamese village the technologically superior Americans using their abilities against innocents who just happened to be commuing with nature, etc. Overall, this article is clearly biased from the start to finish, and avoids the use of first person accounts and other primary source information that endangers their cherished beliefs.

I second this. And "my people" are the Sioux. But that doesn't change the need to get it right, without playing to agendas, however nobly advanced. Buckboard 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia articles were in general not supposed to use primary sources. (I think this is unwise, but onward.) A chi-square accurate account of what happened at Wounded Knee is impossible even with primary sources (something you as an historian are aware is generally true). However, no matter what the technical capabilities of the Hotchkiss, the Indians did not have anything like that and your analogy of a Vietnamese village of noncombatants being wiped out by Americans with superior technology is apt. From all accounts that I have read from both sides, that is exactly what happened. I would love to see these articles made as accurate as possible, as Buckboard said. It was an extremely complicated situation. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hotchkiss gun refers to several light field pieces that were suitable for cavalry use, the ones used at wounded knee were multi-barreled and fired a 37mm round at a rate of 43 rounds per minute with a range of close to two miles... what happened at wounded knee was definitely NOT a battle, unless one considers the shooting of women, children and other unarmed persons battle. almost all u.s. army casualties were caused by the indiscriminate shooting of the soldiers themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.60.85 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The opening says...

"Approximately two hundred Sioux women and children were murdered during the one-sided conflict."

...but later in the article 153 Sioux corpses are found. Aside from being not NPOV, it appears to be wrong. BozoTheScary 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On the number of casualties, I found this letter on a website-referenced at the beginning of this article as reference [1]: "Letter: General Nelson A. Miles to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Washington, D. C. March 13, 1917 The Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs

Sir:

I am informed that there is a delegation in Washington now who came here from South Dakota and who are representatives of the remnant of what is known as the Big Foot Band of Northern Sioux Indians.

I was in command of that Department in 1889, 1890, and 1891, when what is known as the Messiah craze and threatened uprising of the Indians occurred. It was created by misrepresentations of white men then living in Nevada who sent secret messages to the different tribes in the great Northwest calling upon them to send representatives to meet Him near Walker Lake, Nevada.


This was done, and returning to their different tribes in the Northwest and West, and even in the Southwest, they repeated the false statement to the different tribes that the Messiah had returned to earth and would the next year move East, driving large herds of wild horses, buffalo, elk, deer and antelope, and was going to convert this into an Indian heaven -- in other words, the Happy Hunting Grounds.


This, together with the fact that the Indians had been in almost a starving condition in South Dakota, owing to the scarcity of rations and the nonfulfillment of treaties and sacred obligations under which the Government had been placed to the Indians, caused great dissatisfaction, dissension and almost hostility. Believing this superstition, they resolved to gather and go West to meet the Messiah, as they believed it was the fulfillment of their dreams and prayer and the prophecies as had been taught them by the missionaries.


Several thousand warriors assembled in the Bad Lands of South Dakota. During this time the tribe, under Big Foot, moved from their reservation to near the Red Cloud Agency in South Dakota under a flag of truce. They numbered over four hundred souls. They were intercepted by a command under Lt. Col. Whitside, who demanded their surrender, which they complied with, and moved that afternoon some two or three miles and camped where they were directed to do, near the camp of the troops.


During the night Colonel Forsyth joined the command with reinforcements of several troops of the 7th Cavalry. The next morning he deployed his troops around the camp, placed two pieces of artillery in position, and demanded the surrender of the arms from the warriors. This was complied with by the warriors going out from camp and placing the arms on the ground where they were directed. Chief Big Foot, an old man, sick at the time and unable to walk, was taken out of a wagon and laid on the ground.


While this was being done a detachment of soldiers was sent into the camp to search for any arms remaining there, and it was reported that their rudeness frightened the women and children. It is also reported that a remark was made by some one of the soldiers that "when we get the arms away from them we can do as we please with them, " indicating that they were to be destroyed. Some of the Indians could understand English. this and other things alarmed the Indians and scuffle occurred between one warrior who had rifle in his hand and two soldiers. The rifle was discharged and a massacre occurred, not only the warriors but the sick Chief Big Foot, and a large number of women and children who tried to escape by running and scattering over the parry were hunted down and killed. The official reports make the number killed 90 warriors and approximately 200 women and children.


The action of the Commanding Officer, in my judgment at the time, and I so reported, was most reprehensible. The disposition of his troops was such that in firing upon the warriors they fired directly towards their own lines and also into the camp of the women and children. and I have regarded the whole affair as most unjustifiable and worthy of the severest condemnation.

In my opinion, the least the Government can do is to make a suitable recompense to the survivors who are still living for the great injustice that was done them and the serious loss of their relatives and property -- and I earnestly recommend that this may be favorably considered by the Department and by Congress and a suitable appropriation be made.


I remain Very truly yours,

(SGD.) NELSON A. MILES Lt. General, U. S. Army"

Can someone confirm this letter? It seems that we should give a little more credence to there being more Indian casualties.--Rsmola 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Title/Proper name?

FYI - "Big Foot" is not a respectful name. His name was Spotted Elk. (Heȟáka Glešká {Cheyenne} or Hoh-pong-ge-le-skah {Lakota}) The Ft. Laramie Treaty was signed by his Lakota name. When you write Si Tanka, you are saying "Big Foot" in Lakota. As the grandson, I am trying to correct these kinds of errors. Thanks. (CalvinSpottedElk (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

We need good evidence for the article. There is no doubt that CalvinSpottedElk is correct in saying that Big Foot was also known as Spotted Elk. He is also correct that the name he used on the Fort Laramie Treaty was Hoh-pong-ge-le-skah, meaning Spotted Elk. But the question is not what name the man was using in 1868 when the Fort Laramie treaty was signed, but what name he was using in 1890 when he died in the massacre. The one item of evidence I can find about his name change was that "when Spotted Elk/Si Tanka (Big Foot) arrived at the Cheyenne River Agency, he had a sore foot and one moccasin was made larger for that foot, and he then became known as Big Foot." This is in Donovin Arleigh Sprague's Pine Ridge Reservation, Arcadia Publishing, 2004, p. 38. No source is cited, so it's not the best evidence, but it's the only print source I see. Is there any evidence that he continued to be known as Spotted Elk after this visit to the Cheyenne River Agency? Pirate Dan (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Sioux is a deragotary name. The proper name is Lakota. --Bluejaguar (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Wounded Knee Massacre a proper name - or should the article be moved to Wounded Knee massacre? // Habj 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see on the internet, everybody uses the name "Wounded Knee Massacre" or "The Massacre at Wounded Knee", so all with a capital M. I think this should be the correct writing, since this has become, what I believe is called in English, a proper name. In that respect, I think there are a lot of other massacres that should be written with a capital M, but are still written with a lower case m. (e.g. The Malmédy massacre) See: List of massacres... --MarioR 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


The Lakota people are one of three cultural divisions of the Siouan Nation, the other two divisions being Dakota and Nakota. Furthermore each of the three divisions are divided further into sub-divisions and then further into bands. Such as the Oglala, Sicangu,Hunkpapa, Mniconjou, Izipaco and many more. FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.23.217 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup/tone?

I removed the "tone"-template, since there was no explanation on the talk page and it is not clear to me what it refers to. The edit summare when it was added was "the lead in particular" [1] but I see nothing wrong with it. Some articles with much more biased tone than this are considered very good. // Habj 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That "extreme prejudice" line doesn't really require an explanation does it? Also I'm suspicious that author was so certain about the soldiers being only killed by friendly fire. God forbid anyone names a primary source on the wikipedia. I'm reverting the intro to the version prior to this edit: [2]. 69.227.95.111 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Victory? Women and children as strength?

It seems from the article that it is not U.S. intention to kill the people of the Lakota encampment. It's rather a mistake which triggered a "massacre", with most casualties "friendly fire". The goal of the mission, which is to transport the men to Omaha, failed too. It hardly seems a victory for the U.S. Rather, the result would be that the Lakota encampment is destroyed.

It also listed "230 women and children" as part of the strength. This seems ridiculous. The women and children don't fight - they are, in modern sense, civilians. They simply got killed in the cross-fire. Aran|heru|nar 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3 Lakota added during the fighting?

The main page summary said 400 Native Americans killed, when the initial group was 350. Then, the casualties were listed as 153 dead, 50 wounded, and 150 missing. 353 total. Should the total of missing be 147 so the numbers match up? CodeCarpenter 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized

I'm not that great with editing wiki, but it appears this page has been vandalized a bit. I.E. in the aftermath section someone randomly wrote IN YOUR FACE. Might be wise to lock it and only allow senior members to edit it. 71.222.164.111 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it appears that today was another day of vandalism.CodeCarpenter 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ascension robes

In the "Ghost dance" section, there is a mention of a "Seventh-day Adventist ascension gown." It is important to note that while the ascension robes were consecrated (separated for a special purpose), they were not in any way anointed, etc. This consecration (which was obviously of a different nature) is the only similarity between these robes and the clothing of the Native Americans during their Ghost dances. No one who wore an ascension robe thought that it made him/her impervious. More importantly, these robes were used about the time of the Great Disappointment by Millerites. The Seventh-day Adventist Church did not even exist until years later and was only one of the groups that emerged from the Millerite movement. Therefore, calling them "Seventh-day Adventist ascension gowns" is, at best, an overgeneralizing anachronism. I will change the article to make it accurate. --Cromwellt|talk 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (login problems)

On second thought, I think I'll remove the reference to the gowns entirely, given that the similarity is extremely distant and that there are other consecrated articles of clothing which are much more similar to the ghost shirts. All that reference does is give misinformation and break up the flow of the text for no good reason. --Cromwellt|talk 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I got that from Mooney, who in his lengthy comparison of the Ghost Dance ceremony with the beliefs of other religions includes what he calls the "Adventist" faith (p. 944) and talks about the "ascension robes"; also, from the famous letter from former agent Valentine McGillycuddy, who in denying that the Ghost Dance was a threat, specifically referred to "Seventh-Day Adventists". [3] I agree that belongs in the Ghost Dance article rather than here, but the ghost shirts played a prominent role in the mindset of both whites and Indians at the massacre, with old Yellow Bird reminding his people to have faith in the garments' ability to deflect bullets and the whites fearing that this belief would inspire the starving women, kids and old people to attack them. --Bluejay Young 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ghost dance mention

I might correct this myself as I get more information about the subject...according to some accounts, other "bulletproof" promises have been made. Also, the fact that whites would "disappear" / "fall through holes" or otherwise killed by some supernatural power is not something unique to the Lakota in my understanding. --gatoatigrado 07:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that prophecies foretelling the disappearance of the Anglos are known among many nations. Details about this really belong in the Ghost Dance article but I'll explain; I was basing the idea of Lakotah re-interpretation on the report of the Lakotah delegation of 1889, a group of seven men who journeyed to the west to hear Wovoka's message. According to Mooney, they came back with a report that he was the second coming of Christ and would not only resurrect dead Indians but would wipe out the white race from the earth, and representatives of several other Plains tribes agree that's what Wovoka said. However, quotes from Wovoka himself reveal nothing of the sort, certainly not in the famous letter that begins "When you get home you make dance..." He insisted that the Ghost Dance philosophy was no threat to the Anglos and that he was not the 2nd Coming. However, many Indians certainly felt that he was, and reports going back to Washington certainly portrayed the Ghost Dance in a bad light, and the government and the regiments certainly believed there was about to be a violent uprising (although how a relative handful of starving people could do anything against well-armed troops is beyond me). I will fix it. --Bluejay Young 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong and maybe wikipedia isn't looking for this, but aren't Lakotas not supposed to talk about what happens during the Ghost Dance? I know they aren't supposed to with the Sun Dance and Sweat Lodges, so I'm assuming this is the same. Maybe wikipedia just wants more information about why it was, but I would guess that they aren't going to get much more out of the people who actually know what goes on during it or why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britty6 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A Bit Onesided

This article is a bit onesided, told almost exclusively from the Lakota perspective. Very interesting that the landmark historical literature, Robert Utley's, The Last Days of The Sioux Nation, is not cited as a reference or recommended reading. V8m8i 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it isn't very onesided. My AP US History book says "The U.S. Seventh Cavalry, led in part by survivors of the battle of Little Bighorn, pursued them. The Three hundred undernourished Sioux, freezing and without horses, agreed to accompany the troops to Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Reservation. There, on December 29, 1890, while the peacseeking Big Foot, who had personally raised a white flag of surrender, lay dying pf pneumonia, they were surrounded by soliders armed with automatic guns. The U.S. troops expected the Sioux to surrender their few remanining weapons, but an accidental gunshot from one deaf brave who misunderstood the command caused panic on both sides.Within minutes, 200 Sioux had been cut down and dozens of soliders wounded, mostly by their own cross fire. For two hours soldiers continued to shoot at anything that moved- mostly women and childern straggling away. Many of the injured froze to deathin the snow; others were transported in open wagons and finally laid out on beds of hay under Christmas decorations at the Pine Ridge Episcopal Church. The massacre, which took place almost exactly four hundred years after Columbus "discovered" the New World for Christian civilization, seemed to mark the final conquest of the continent's indigenous." It was a massacre and it was committed by U.S. troops. If you doubt this information, I'll gladly give you the book's information and you can look it up yourself. But before you go do something as troublesome as that, ask yourself "If the winner's are the one's who write history, why would they include such a horrible story for people to read?" Wouldn't they want to look perfect and unflawed? Like they can do no wrong? As is human nature, the want for others to admire and respect.--Rainbowfruitloops (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a neutral point. "discovered the New World for Christian civilization"? The use of a "textbook" as your source, given the agenda that all texts, left- or right-oriented, have these days, is in no way inclusive. What you cite is straight out of a half dozen polemical web-sites, none of which even claims impartiality. Are you sure the troops didn't eat the babies?

The Court of Inquiry

The part of this article about the Court of Inquiry has the odor of original research to me. It says:

"The Court of Inquiry, however—while it did include several cases of personal testimony pointing toward misconduct—was flawed. It was not conducted as a formal court-martial, and without the legal boundaries of that format, several of the witnesses minimized their comments and statements to protect themselves or peers."

This doesn't make sense to me. A Court of Inquiry is a kind of trial to determine whether a court-martial is an appropriate course of action; its purpose is to determine the facts of the case based on sworn testimony, and then issue recommendations. Witnesses are instructed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I don't know what the writer could possibly mean when he says that "legal boundaries" of the court-martial would have required the witnesses to say something that it was not required they say in the Inquiry. It's just half-cocked to say a COI is "flawed" because it's not a court-martial; AFAIK the only difference is that in a court-martial the accused is facing specific charges.71.129.81.136 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting Numbers

The side box says that there were 350 members of the tribe present (under "strength") and then says that there were 353 people who died, were wounded, or fled. Even if every single person in the tribe was killed, wounded or fled (which may or may not be true), there are still 3 extra people after the battle. 129.170.89.49

I think you misread that. It says 153.JLAF 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the numbers don't add up. Under strength it list 120 Men and 230 Women and Children for a total of 350. Under Casualties and losses it says 178 Killed, 89 wounded, and 150 missing for a total of 417. That should be corrected as facts warrant. Ucscottb4u (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

In the section entitled Lakota Prelude, the paragraph slants change. In the first paragraph, the voice is slighting the US gov't's treatment of the Lakota; in the second, third and forth paragraphs, the Lakota are demonized, with the voice going so far as to blame the Lakota for the failures of the U.S. in the sentence, "If the Lakota had sold the Black Hills, this would have allowed whites to mine there legally, but the Lakota were not interested in doing so." Please, resolve the duality of these paragraphs for the good of the article. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it demonizing, but I take your point. "Not interested" was more like "hell no, you don't sell your mother." Someone was trying to find a neutral way of saying it, perhaps. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much of "fight" and "battle"

Things like "but as the Indians ran out of ammunition for their repeating rifles, the fight moved as the Indians sought to escape fire from the troops." Come on. More like murder. --HanzoHattori 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, at some point the actual (and accidental) fight turned into massacre. This should be absolutely shown in the article: another header and the wording too. --HanzoHattori 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't know why it says 'fight' or 'battle' at all any more, unless I neglected to take those words out of there or someone else put them back in after I removed them; however, I think that I neglected to remove them. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may remove the tag after this is fixed. --HanzoHattori 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sioux intended war against the whites?

I am puzzled by the repeated references, all backed by historian Robert Utley, that the Sioux Ghost Dance movement was warlike. I.e. "All other tribes adopted Wovoka's advice against violence except for the Sioux," "in the case of the Sioux, it represented . . . a doctrine precipitating war," and "the Sioux apostles had perverted Wovoka's doctrine into a militant crusade against the white man."

If in fact the Sioux Ghost Dancers intended war against the whites, why is there no report of premeditated violence against white soldiers or settlers ever being committed by the Ghost Dancers on their own initiative? Even in the Wounded Knee massacre itself, it appears from the article that fighting was unpremeditated by either side.

The only evidence I can see for the Sioux's warlike intentions is the fact that they were armed. But would they not have been armed for purposes of hunting and self-defense anyway, much as the white settlers themselves usually were? Pirate Dan (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sioux ghost dance movement was not warlike as such, but the idea that the Sioux interpretation of Wovoka's message was 'darker' than originally intended is not just Utley's idea. It was Kicking Bear and his companions who reported having experienced a prophetic vision (on their way back from visiting Wovoka) which said, "I will cover the new earth with soil to a depth of five times the height of a man, and under this new soil will be buried the whites. ... I will take from the whites the secret of making gunpowder, and the powder they now have on hand will not burn ... but that powder which my children have will burn and kill when it is directed against the whites." Later on, he and his company reported a vision of Satan, asking God for human beings, and God said Satan could have the white people. Now, I got this out of Bob Blaisdell's Great Speeches by Native Americans (Dover Courier, 2000) and I imagine he got it from My Friend, The Indian by James McLaughlin (Houghton Mifflin, 1910) or one of the other books in which it has been reprinted.
In Mooney's The Ghost Dance Religion and Wounded Knee, he says that when Kicking Bear and his delegation got back to the Lakotah, they spoke of Wovoka as Jesus and claimed that he was about "to punish the whites" and "wipe them from the face of the earth" (p. 820). I don't find any of this in Wovoka's original letter (the one that begins "When you return home you must make a dance to continue five days...") and this is probably the source of the idea that the Lakotah had a more "warlike" take on the ghost dance. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Massacre

This article makes this event sound like it really wasnt a massacre of women and children. Does this bother anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.151.98 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article very clearly states that 44 Miniconjou women and 18 of their children were killed by the U.S. 7th Cavalry. In what sense does this make it "sound like it really wasnt a massacre of women and children?" Pirate Dan (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Massacre written in quotes may give the impression it might not have been a massacre at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a "good point". --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a Massacre

This is clearly a massacre. there were up to 200 indians killed but there were less than 100 warriors in this particular group of Sioux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.29.249 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Date: December 28 or December 29?

The info box said "28", but the article said "29". I changed to info box to agree with the article, but have no idea which is correct. If anyone knows, please make appropriate changes and write your reasons below. Interlingua 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Pine Ridge, 1890 by William Fitch Kelley, an Eye Witness NEWSPAPER account

This book, published in 1971 was written for a Nebraska newspaper by a reporter, William Fitch Kelley, who would later become a Consul of the U.S. Government to Italy where he died during WWI.

His papers were found in the attic of his son and complied by his grandson, Alexander G. Kelley, now of San Diego, CA, with Pierre Bovis. Pictures taken at the battle are included in the only 2,000 printed book copy as well as a map found in his collection and several relics from the battle, still in Alex's collection66.27.79.60 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Bill Picture ???

I had wondered about the picture with Buffalo Bill for a while so I did some original research yielding this: http://books.google.nl/books?id=uId0XfLwvEEC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=wounded+knee+picture+buffalo+bill&source=bl&ots=UEIXFv7zpI&sig=RYbTGURKn79vnZV1TSkjMUpMDjA&hl=nl&ei=wOjOSoLOCozW-Qbo7vSEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=wounded%20knee%20picture%20buffalo%20bill&f=false From that book The real Rosebud: the triumph of a Lakota woman by Marjorie Weinberg it would seem that the picture that is here in the article was actually taking around the shooting of a movie in or around 1914, the movie is discussed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004155/ . I got into this because I was wondering whether or not Buffalo Bill was in the army at the time of the massacre and whether or not he was involved somehow (that's the impression the picture gave me). Is there a need, based on this to add a clear capption to the picture or do something else to clarify this issue? Mlodewijk (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Improve the Language

There is a good deal of nonsense English in this article. Including in the introduction, "This set off a chain reaction that was preventable by the 7th Cavalry because compliance was met but sheer panic and mayhem allowed for all directions to fire into the Souix Camp indiscriminantly and return fire was made with loss of women, man and child and eventually themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.167 (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've started some work on the introduction. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The passage "Lakota ambassadeurs [sic] to Wovoka, Kicking Bear and Short Bull learned [from?] the sioux [sic; should be capitalized] that[,] while performing the Ghost Dance[,] they would [should?] wear special Ghost Dance shirts as seen by Black Elk in a vision. These shirts[,] said Kicking Bear, were bullet[-]proof" and the nearby text contain numerous obvious misspellings and easily-corrected grammatical errors.

Inconsistent introduction re: Black Coyote

In the introductory paragraphs, the article states when talking about Black Coyote not giving up his rifle that "a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote could not hear the order to give up his rifle and was reluctant to do so." But later in the article, this appears to be something asserted, but not definitely proven to be true. Shouldn't the introductory paragraph simply restrain itself to the uncontroverted fact that Black Coyote didn't give up his rifle, causing a scuffle to ensue?Doug (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another interpretation

The "Another interpretation" section about the massacre is totally redundant and full of weasel words. Seemed POV,and had almost no sources. I removed it. If there is material that should be included it must be added to existing text and written in an encyclopedic fashion. The page seems silly if there's sections which might as well be named "Or this may have been the way it happened ..." without proper sources. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Political History

According to a new book by Heather Cox Richardson, the massacre was primarily due to politics back in Washington. Republican President Ben Harrison in order to secure the republican position brought four states to the union: North Dakota and South Dakota on November 2, 1889, Montana on November 8, and Washington on November 11. In order to bring South Dakota into the union, and get settlers into the state, he had to split up the Great Sioux Reservation in several smaller disconnected reservations. Furthermore, Harrison appointed several corrupt Indian Agents who deprived the the Sioux of food and winter clothes. This political corruption set the stage for the Ghost Dance, and their pandering to popular settler fear of the dancers and a hypothetical yet unlikely uprising, led him to send the army in to the area. 137.54.2.67 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

A Suggestion

I have a suggestion regarding whether the page should be called "Battle" or "Massacre." Why not include both? Many people are taught that it was called "Battle," and official records still refer to it is as such. However, it cannot be denied that a Massacre took place. It was both a battle and a massacre, and therefore I believe the title should reflect both. Perhaps something like "The Battle and Massacre at Wounded Knee," or "Battle and Massacre of Wounded Knee." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.190.50 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is known as both, but not as "The Battle and Massacre at Wounded Knee," so that name would be inappropriate. MDuchek (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Medals of Honor

The opening of the article used to state this:

Despite the brevity and inequality of the fighting, the U.S. Army awarded more Medals of Honor for action at Wounded Knee than for any other engagement in the history of the US Army.[1]

Then someone added this:

there were 17 MoH awarded at Wounded Knee. There were 61 awarded at Gettysburg.

After looking into it I find that the anon edit is correct in saying that there were more awarded at Gettysburg than at Wounded Knee. However the source used to cite the original statement backs it up, but is clearly wrong. Maybe the source meant to say that it was the most awarded in any battle since then? I'm taking both statements out of the opening for now until there is some consensus. Thoughts? sdgjake (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gettysburg lasted three days. Maybe Wounded Knee was the highest total for Medal of Honor for one day's action?
What is the source confirming that more Medals of Honor were given for Gettysburg? Pirate Dan (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at the pages for Medals of Honor during the Civil War. After counting more than 20 I quite. They are all sourced from an Army website. It sucks because you can't get a nice breakdown of how many Medals were awarded at each battle like we're looking for right now. You have to do it manually. That is unless I'm missing something. sdgjake (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if Gettysburg was two days, there's no way it could have a one-day total of less than 17, without the other day having more than 17. (i.e. if day 1 was 17, then day two would have 44 (61-17). So the two day issue is kind of a non-issue (no offense intended). My inclination is that the original source is incorrect, or incorrectly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.21 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gettysburg National Military Park lists 63 Medals of Honor awarded for action during the 3 day battle, http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/honor.htm. If I counted correctly there were 8 awarded for action on 1 July 1863, 23 awarded for action on 2 July, 30 awarded for action on 3 July, and 2 awarded for action on multiple days.
Incidentally there were 30 Medals of Honor awarded for action during the Sioux Campaign of 1890-'91, or as it is designated on the U.S. Army's battle streamer "Pine Ridge November 1890--January 1891." 14 Seventh Cavalry soldiers received the Nation’s highest award for their actions at Wounded Knee, 3 for their actions at Drexel Mission on the White Clay Creek on 30 Dec 1890, 1 for actions in both battles, and 2 for their conduct during the entire campaign. Additionally, 2 soldiers from the First Artillery and 1 from the Second Artillery--soldiers who manned the Hotchkiss steel mountain rifles at Wounded Knee--received the MOH. 6 troopers from the Sixth Cavalry received the MOH for skirmish action on 1 January 1891, and 1 soldier from the Ninth Cavalry received the MOH for the entire campaign. Of these 30 soldiers, 7 were officers. Of the 30 MOHs 18 can be attributed to action at Wounded Knee on 29 December 1890, but it was not the most Medals of Honor awarded for a single day of combat even during the Indian Campaign period. There were 24 Medals of Honor awarded at the Battle of Little Big Horn on 25 June 1876, 15 for the water carriers, 4 for sharpshooters, and 5 for individual actions. All were in the Seventh Cavalry and part of Maj. Reno's force at the Hilltop Fight. (Source is Friends of the Little Big Horn Battlefield, http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/custerslaststand.htm). HHowever, the most Medals of Honor awarded for a single day of action during the Indian War Campaigns is 31, which were awarded to the First and Eighth U.S. Cavalries who on 20 October, 1869 engaged Cochise and his Apache warriors in a stronghold in the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona Territory (http://www.cochisestronghold.com/cochisestronghold/history.html) where 18 Soldiers from Company G, 1st U.S. Cav., and 13 Soldiers from Company G, 8th U.S. Cav., earned the Medal of Honor, presented to them four months later.
Regardless, it is a moot point to compare numbers of MOH awarded during WWII vice the Indian campaigns or the Civil War, as the awarding authorities used different criteria during different eras, just as today one cannot compare the number of MOHs awarded during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to earlier military conflicts.
Suffice it to say the military commander during the Sioux Campaign of 1890-'91, Maj. Gen. Nelson Miles, was arguably the military's staunchest critic of the Seventh Cavalry at Wounded Knee. He did all that he could to court martial the Regiment's commander, Col. James Forsyth, who was exonerated by the Secretary of War. However, General Miles recommended approval on all 30 MOHs that were submitted. Further the military conducted a purge of Medals of Honor in 1916 and 1917 in which they reviewed all MOHs awarded to that date and rescinded 911 MOHs. General Miles convened the committee that reviewed all the MOHs, and despite his misgivings about the Seventh Cavalry's performance at Wounded Knee, all 30 MOHs awarded during that campaign were reaffirmed. v8m8i (talk)

Merge Proposals

Pine Ridge Campaign and Ghost Dance War

I'm no military expert, but there doesn't seem to be a distinction made between the Pine Ridge Campaign and the Ghost Dance War. They both seem to include the Battle of Wounded Knee and in fact appear to be the same war/campaign. It's also notable that they both talk almost exclusively about Wounded Knee. The Pine Ridge Campaign article only lists one battle, Wounded Knee; it also doesn't help that it's a stub. The Ghost Dance War article, while it has more substance in it than the Pine Ridge Campaign article, is very small and almost everything written on it is already in this Wounded Knee article. On this page though there's a campaign box as if to say is was part of a campaign/war, and the campaign box only links to the Pine Ridge Campaign and nothing else. "Ghost Dance War" by the way doesn't appear even once in this article. I recommend some kind of merger between these articles. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt Agent (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a merger would be fine. Like you said, all of the information on the two articles is almost verbatim from the Wounded Knee article. sdgjake (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I just took another look at the Ghost Dance War article, and under categories it lists the Pine Ridge Campaign. Hell, it's the only category. It's the exact same thing, that's been established I guess. So how should this merger be done? Cobalt Agent (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Since Pine Ridge Campaign is so brief, I'll go ahead and merge it into this article, since it seems you all arrived at a consensus. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
A merger looks worthwhile but with the proviso that the title of this article "Wounded Knee Massacre" ought to remain - as a redirect to the merged article. People may well search for WKM. I did. Everton Fish - Hydrofoil XI (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Both of these articles ought to be merged under the title in which the U.S. Government recognizes and refers to this period, The Sioux Campaign of 1890 - '91. I'd also like to see a more unbiased, or at least balanced--that is tell both sides--of this controversial period of American history. Both articles are told exclusively from the Lakota Sioux perspective, that is the article lacks any evidence that does not support the Native American perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8m8i (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The two articles should Not be merged. The article the Ghost Dance War needs to be expanded. The Wounded Knee Massacre resulted as a consequence of the Ghost Dance but it is a unique and tragic event that deserves it's own article. I've been to Wounded Knee, when I wanted to learn more about it I typed "Wounded Knee Massacre" into the search engine not "Ghost Dance War". 7mike5000 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh McGinnis

This article seems to be a classic example of a biography of a person notable for a single event; that event is his having been the last living US soldier who participated in the Wounded Knee Massacre. He is mentioned in this article under Eyewitness accounts and I think it would be sufficient to do a small expansion of his section of the 'accounts', maybe by adding his birth and death dates and mentioning that he was the last living eyewitness. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, I'm like Lewis Black and I have thoughts, "I think it would be sufficient" is what you think, and we're all entitled to our opinions. Why is it that all the opinions come out of the woodwork after someone else has made a significant effort at improving or creating content? In keeping with the attack the content not the editor happy happy joy joy policy, I can't help but notice that a majority of certain opinionated individuals "contributions" are on Talk pages and slapping tags on articles. The fact that Hugh McGinnis was an Irish immigrant, served in the 7th Cavalary, and was not only an eyewitness but a participant in the Wounded Knee Massacre and was wounded twice, does make him notable. What is more notable is that he was able to offer an unbiased eyewitness acount from the white side despite the fact that he was a participant. If more information could be found on him his artcicle should be expanded.

In keeping with the "I think it would be sufficient" policy articles like this should be deleted or merged;

  • Todd Beamer: he was on a hijacked plane and said "Lets Roll", almost 3,000 people died that day should they all get a separate article, or only the ones that said "Lets Roll".
  • World Famous Bushman; a homeless man who jumps out of the bushes and scares people
  • Hugh McKee participated in the United States expedition to Korea in 1871. Big deal
  • Konstantina Lukes, aka Konnie Lukes, is a former Mayor of Worcester, Massachusetts. Yeah and so.....
  • Hey Boy (TV Character): two paragraphs on a fictional Chinese character from a TV series from 50 years ago that most people have never heard of.
  • etc., etc.

7mike5000 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, look i found some more:

You get the point man? Before people make comments, slap tags on things, disparage other people or decide their opinion supercedes everybody elses, maybe a little forethought would help. All it does is it creates anonymosity and keeps makes people say screw it they can't be bothered. 7mike5000 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, 7mike5000. It would be useful to now get the opinions of a couple of people who are not so deeply attached to the article you've composed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical issues

I recently did a significant cleanup of a number of ungrammatical passages. I spent a good deal of time getting it right while trying hard to preserve the spirit of what had been written. Another user chose to blindly revert my edits and return to the ungrammatical version. I do not think this is productive behavior here. I would like to request that if this continues, a very experienced third party step in and ensure that the best version is kept. beerslayer (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your malfunction is between you and your therapist, you have the balls to disparage what I wrote when you didn't correct "a number of ungrammatical passages" and NEWSFLASH; the past tense of lead is "led".
  • There was a few minor typographical mistakes because I'm human, not "significant cleanup of a number of ungrammatical passages" and that's it, this is your version of good English:

"this ceremony has grown increasingly large every year " that's asinine it's "this ceremony has grown increasingly larger every year. So should get off your high horse, stop slaying bears and the English language, and knocking the efforts of others. These are your "contributions" since 2006 [[4]] one thing Hey Boy (TV Character)

7mike5000 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the spelling and grammar and make note of when the misspellings were accurate reflections of original quotes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The article really needed a grammar and spell check, and there's probably more errors I missed. We all make mistakes, and there's no call for personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Correcting spelling errors and typos, rewording a few things. Everything is open to improvement but when you do it in a way to make somebody else look like shit that's not nice. When somebody tries to make somebody else look like crap and they don't have a basic grasp of English than that's ludicrous. And it's enough to piss anybody off. I wrote most of Wounded Knee Massacre, I took the time and effort.

7mike5000 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has disparaged any effort taken to add legitimate content to this page. But it needed cleanup. I stand behind every single grammatical change I made. Go back and check my original edit of 3-Aug-2010 with the version immediately preceding it from 2-Aug (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). I'm not the one with English difficulties here. I'd like a third party to step in here and carefully review what's taken place in this article. beerslayer (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Good news for you, feel free to make any and all edits you wish, with no interference from me, change the whole thing, maybe write it in Chinese, I am not getting myself aggravated.
It's weird it's like the same person claiming to be from differant parts of the world and using differant names but having the same character, the same deameaner, it's like so ........weird. So I am done on Wikipedia for the foreseable future, unless I can get a prescription for Valium, as the creater of the esteemed Hey Boy (TV Character) I bow to your preeminence and grammamtical expertise. Led the way, or is it, he lead the way or wait maybe.... Oh by the way this is what it looked like before I butchered it with my "English difficulties"[5] I made it look like this:[6], so you may wish to revert it to the previous version, I think my pronounced Englih difficulties effed it up. Oh it's also okay to call people "Dicks"on Wikipedia,so you may wish to check in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000. you can say like "7mike5000 is a Dick with English Difficulties" That would be funny. Okay ciao 7mike5000 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A little addendum for my friend beernuts. Your timing on making this comment isn't lost on me. (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). The "led" "lead" issue isn't lost on me either. Were you contacted by e-mail, from one of my other pals? Isn't cool how it's possible to alter edit histories? Okay bye bye ciao7mike5000 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV question and poor sentence structure

I removed the following sentence because I believe in has NPOV issues--it reads more like a polemic than an attempt to impartially relate the facts.

"The Lakota lost their way of life, self-sustenance, autonomy and freedom."

The sentence is also redundant: "way of life", "autonomy", & "freedom" mean the same thing in this context, especially the last two. "Way of life" and "self-sustenance" also mean the same thing; without the ability to feed one's self, one's way of life is automatically changed.

A better, imo, way to put it is as follows (which I edited into the text):

As the US government failed to keep its promises to feed, house, clothe and protect reservation lands from encroachment by settlers and gold miners....

PainMan (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'ved pulled this before:

because I thought it was self-promotional (WP:COI), but what do other editors think? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Battlebox

A battlebox gives more complete detail concerning a clash between two opposing sides without diminishing the fact that it was a massacre as opposed to a battle of equal forces. The battlebox give basically the same info as the previous box did just in different columns and a row for leaders. A similar argument was made for the use of a battlebox for the Sand Creek Massacre.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.133.186 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox on Massacres

Hi, Is there a list or info box that links this massacre and other massacres like say Jallianwala Bagh massacre, so that you can get a quick list of similar events where men, women and children have been innocently massacred? Thanks--SH 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Heading not visible

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

The article's heading The Massacre is in the index but not visible below in the article (at least not on my screen). Can anyone figure out why and fix that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's something to do with the boxed thing above where it should be. A test removal of that brought it back. I've tried moving it down but the 'telegram' box is just blanking the heading from displaying. I hope whoever sorts it says what they did here - I'm still learning these things... Peridon (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Putting in a {{clear}} seems to have sorted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Sitting Bull is the central focus of the army's action should be highlighted in the first paragraph. The fact that Black Coyote refused to give up his rifle is less important. Sitting Bull's arrest was the impetus for the action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.235.253 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Could the popular culture section simply be deleted? I don't see how knowing that a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle video game has a level called, ""Bury My Shell at Wounded Knee" enhances anyone's understanding of the massacre. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That particular reference, of course, is not pertinent. But the rest of the section seems just fine, including many very notable works that themselves (like Dee Brown's book) had an impact on culture. I think you'd be throwing the baby out with the ounce of bathwater getting rid of the whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.21 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the song "We were all wounded by Wounded Knee" "reached the number-one chart position across Europe" is hyperbolic at best and lacks any citations (although it certainly did reach #1 in Holland). I feel this is a valid point because the song's alleged 'smash hit' success across Europe is then used to provide a sharp contrast with its reception in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.24.184 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

I have noticed that in the small box it says "84 men, 44 women, 18 children" in deaths. I also have noticed that it says "about 200 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed" in the text. These two numbers conflict because the total number of deaths added up from the numbers in the box is 146. Should this be corrected? Am I making an obvious mistake? Has this already been noticed? Pr. Ultracrepidarian (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 146 dead (84 men, 44 women, and 18 children) is the number that were buried in the mass grave by the U.S. cavalry troopers. More than that certainly died; at least the 7 who died of their injuries after being put in Pine Ridge Hospital, so the minimum number of dead is 153, according to Robert Utley's The Last Days of the Sioux Nation, p. 228.
Where the uncertainty comes in is that not all the dead were buried by the soldiers; many of the wounded who died later were recovered by Agency Indians, and other dead may never have been found at all. Utley estimates that number at no more than 20 to 30. Dee Brown's famous Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," p. 444 says that "one estimate palced the final total of dead at very nearly three hundred," which is probably where the 300 figure comes from. But beyond the 153 known dead, it's mostly guesswork. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the traditional story I've always heard the number is always told as 290 and that they were mostly women, children and elderly men. If I ever find a written source for this I will post it. SheaSandy (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Wounded Knee/massacre a loaded term?

The official term used by the US Army and the US Government in general is still the "Battle of Wounded Knee." While "massacre" is the term often used by Native Americans, and those who feel most passionate about this point of history, I don't believe we should use the term "massacre" as it's too often used to incite an emotional response. (e.g. the Waco massacre, the Boston Massacre, etc.) I propose we rename the page to the "Battle of Wounded Knee." Anton.hung (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why the U.S. government or Army's (or any government or army's) terminology should be privileged with the naming of articles. And while "massacre" may indeed provoke an emotional response, the question should be the accuracy, not the emotional impact, of the word.
I agree that the question of naming the article is difficult, because Wounded Knee was a battle and a massacre. A short, bloody fight between armed Sioux warriors and U.S. 7th Cavalry troopers occurred, which could rightly be called a battle; simultaneously with that, a protracted slaughter of unarmed Sioux noncombatants by the troopers began, and continued long after all Sioux resistance had ended, which could resonably be called a massacre. The two events are so closely linked that separate articles would be absurd. But from what I've seen "massacre" is somewhat more used, and I would vote for retaiing it.Pirate Dan (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I would vote for keeping massacre as the most common description in modern works.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree on it being the most common description. The Encyclopedia Britannica and many other works refer to it as the "Battle of Wounded Knee." It's also used in official government records as I've previously stated. I've always read it as "The Battle of" in textbooks as well. I do recognize, however, that on the Internet "The Massacre of" is more commonly used. I changed the "battle box" to reflect the name Battle, since it appears that while the article may focus more on the massacre, I would contend that the actual "battle" was still titled "Battle of Wounded Knee." To exclude that I think would be a disservice. Anton.hung (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny, that makes genocide OK for all you racist, Right? Try some empathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.210.188 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a horrible event for everyone, especially the Lakota. The point however isn't to demonize, but rather to objectively document. (WP:NPOV) Anton.hung (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, Why is this part of the WikiProject:North Dakota when it happened in South Dakota? Shouldn't it be part of the south Dakota projects? Vettrock (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This page used to be titled "Battle of Wounded Knee" as several years ago I posted updates. It appears to have been hijacked by solely a Native American perspective, which unforntunately is a distortion of historical events. Following is an excerpt from my masters thesis that addresses the labeling of this incident as a battle vice a massacre.

In the most recent Congressional hearings on Wounded Knee, Senator James Abourezk, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation in February 1976 “to award compensation to descendants of survivors of the Army’s massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek” calling for “ to be paid to descendants.” This was the third time such legislation had been proposed, and the third time it had been defeated. The hearings produced almost 600 pages of invaluable testimony from expert historians such as Robert M. Utley, Dee A. Brown, and Rex A. Smith. At one point the hearings went to great pains in defining “massacre” and “battle” in attempts to properly describe the events at Wounded Knee by introducing definitions from numerous dictionaries. One definition read “the indiscriminate, merciless killing of human beings. . . .” Dr. Utley, whose 1963 landmark work, The Last Days of the Sioux Nation, more than qualified him as an expert historian, provided testimony that perhaps went the furthest in putting Wounded Knee into a proper context.
"I am fully aware that contemporary evidence can be extracted from the vast body of original sources to support almost any interpretation one wishes to place on Wounded Knee or any other controversial historical event, for that matter. Sound history, however, is careful synthesis of all the evidence, in which corroboration of individual testimony is sought and the possible and the probable and the credible carefully weighed. Studied as a whole, rather than in isolated bits and pieces, the historical evidence, from both white and Indian sources, does not substantiate Wounded Knee as a massacre in terms of premeditation or lack of discrimination between combatants and noncombatants.
"Assuredly it was a terrible, lamentable tragedy. But it seems to me that we should be a mature enough people to view it not in terms of the easy, conventional stereotypes of good guys and bad guys but in terms, rather, of decent, ordinary people caught up in the passions and insanities of an armed conflict that none of them intended or anticipated.

v8m8i (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

There is no such thing as a "detachment" this word is totally wrong, inaccurate and misleading

There still remains a MUCH LARGER problem with the accuracy of this article centering around the excusenik writers incorrect and inappropriate abuse of the totally incorrect and historically inaccurate term "detachment" to describe the mere (roughly) 50 man scouting "Troop" (analogous to 3-4 "Platoon/Lieutenant" composed "Company" in modern context) that the mere Major Whitside commanded out of the entire, total 500 man strong 7th Regimental "Squadron" that the full Colonel commanded, which arrived the next day. The Lakota civilians were lured into Forsyth's Death Camp by a much smaller band of devils.

Note that Whitside’s smaller Federal white war-communist scouting "detachment” that had intercepted the willingly-cooperative native hostages had been clearly outnumbered, and had had no problems escorting them to the new encampment before Forsyth’s full 7th (450 additional, more) "Regimental Squadron" of white supremacist executioners arrived.

Any look through the Wikipedia itself at the military terms in use after the Civil War would clearly expose the fact that the Lakota had willingly allowed the much smaller force (Major Whitside's "Troop") to lead them to the slaughter that the treacherous psychopath Forsyth then executed upon his peacefully encamped charges while cowering behind his entire "Regiment".

This "massacre" was, indeed, more like a holocaust...

Urlborg (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This action was both a battle and perhaps a massacre. "Massacre" is defined as a mass killing of unresisting victims. Obviously, since the Sioux fired the first shot, and the soldiers experienced casualties that almost reach the "heavy" status (10% or more), this was not just a massacre. A massacre might have ensued later, after most of the rifle-shooting Sioux had been killed. The Indians hid rifles in their clothes, and then produced them and fired upon the soldiers first, more than likely (erroneously) thinking that they were going to be bulletproof. In the middle of a battle, one doesn't take a moment to determine if the opponents have weapons hidden or what their sex is, unless he likes taking unnecessary chances to be killed. Nobody likes to see women and babies killed in a fight, but none of us were there. Frankly, I would label this whole article as "suspect for prejudice", especially given some of the remarks in this talk section. American Horse's comments were taken out of context from his original statement; if one bothers to read it, it is plain to see. Obviously, we have a lot of foreign, anti-Americans coming in to do some of the editting of this article. One should read other articles in wikipedia.org related to the event to get a fuller context of this battle. Some of the Indians and some of the whites were both out for blood, and had been for 14+ years, since the Battle of Little Big Horn. I do not see the "prejudiced" aspect of this article as being capable of solution, as none of the eyewitnesses and none of the later commentators appear to be capable of rising above it. One would have to recount accurately the entire course of firing during this incident to label it as a massacre; it may have been so, but it seems the participants were keen on steering it either way, and later writers seem to join them without hesitation.Daniel Sparkman (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There was significant fighting with numerous casualties on both sides, so it's quite appropriate to refer to a 'battle'. I'm also pretty sure "Battle of Wounded Knee" is a more commonly used and recognized name. R3venans (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with R3venans' comment. I have removed biased revisions by Uyvsdi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.48.172 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the Medal of Honor list recipients

In the Medal of Honor controversy section the list needs some work.
  • George Loyd: Shows receiving the Medal of Honor for actions in the American Civil War with no mention of the "Battle of Wounded Knee".
  • James Ward (Medal of Honor, 1890): The lead states "for his actions at the Wounded Knee Massacre". While there is no doubt the title is correct since the battle was a massacre I am certain that the Medal was not awarded for actions under that name.
  • William Wilson (Medal of Honor) has the distinction of being among only 19 recipients of two Medal of Honors. A problem is that in the article neither of the two list the Battle of Wounded Knee.
  • Hermann Ziegner: Uses a more appropriate "Battle of Wounded Knee, more commonly known as the Wounded Knee Massacre" but states "...he was one of 18 men to receive the Medal of Honor..."
  • Mosheim Feaster: States, "He was one of twenty-four men awarded the Medal of Honor..."
  • John Clancy: Redirects to a disambiguation page and I can't tell if the correct person is even listed.
  • Harry L. Hawthorne: Uses a more appropriate "He distinguished himself at was then called the Battle of Wounded Knee, but now commonly called the Wounded Knee Massacre". as does;
  • Frederick E. Toy: This article states "He was one of twenty-three soldiers received the Medal of Honor...".
  • Paul H. Weinert: States; "He was one of twenty men received the Medal of Honor...".
What we have here is a failure to list the "correct actual" number across multiple articles. Is the correct number 18, 20, 23, or 24? There are only 20 listed in this article. Otr500 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wounded Knee Battlefield

The location of the event is a national historic landmark -and is officially labeled by the park service as the "wounded knee battlefield". When referring to the location as such, it would be NPOV and inappropriate to refer to it as a "Massacre Memorial".

On a similar vein, a chief dieing in the fight died in the battle - not in the massacre. Those who died in the fight should not be considered "massacre" victims. Conversely, those who died but were not in the fight would be termed massacre victims. To label all the dead as either "massacre" or "battle" deaths is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.48.172 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a late reply but I totally agree. Wikipedia needs to avoid letting bias, one way or the other, creep in. As I show in the following section a person did not receive the Medal of Honor for the Wounded Knee Massacre and we do not need to present it as such. Otr500 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Subsection on Battle/Massacre Controversy

As evidenced by the ongoing debate here, there is significant controvery over the terminology of the event. As such I have added a subsection under popular culture to note this in the article.

Four men? 25 women? Fuck off. More like 124 women and 35 children 65 defensive men. Smdh. Kewaryan (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Official investigation

"That women and children were casualties was unfortunate but unavoidable, and most must have been [killed] from Indian bullets...The Indians at Wounded Knee brought their own destruction as surely as any people ever did. Their attack on the troops was as treacherous as any in the history of Indian warfare, and that they were under a strange religious hallucination is only an explanation not an excuse."

...excerpts from an official investigation of Wounded Knee initiated at the behest of Congress, written by General E. D. Scott

Is this quote true? МетаСкептик12 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we stop using the battle box?

The article notes that:

  1. A lot of the US soldiers killed were victims of friendly fire;
  2. "half the Indian men were killed or wounded before they had a chance to get off any shots";
  3. The US soldiers almost immediately opened fire on a group of unarmed civilians;
  4. "Some of the soldiers fanned out and finished off the wounded. Others leaped onto their horses and pursued the Indians (men, women, and children), in some cases for miles across the prairies".

In this context, and given that most modern sources (with the exception of the US armed forces who, frankly, are not neutral on this) describe it as a massacre rather than a battle - something the article adequately represents - it seems inadequate and inappropriate to be using the "military conflict" infobox and framing it there in terms of a conflict between two military forces, or a "US victory". The biggest element of the conflict was attacks against civilians, both in terms of what it is remembered for and the majority of the casualties. Could we use the "civilian attacks" infobox instead, in the same way that Jallianwala Bagh massacre or Kent State shootings does? Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Weapons and casualties

The article mentions that the cavalry had four Hotchkiss guns on the ridge above the meeting place, but it doesn't specify which type of Hotchkiss gun. There were two, one a light artillery piece, and the other a revolving machine gun. Wikipedia has two separate articles on these guns, and both articles claim theirs was the weapon used at Wounded Knee. I think the confusion here needs clearing up, since the use and effect of the two different weapons would be very different. The high level of collateral damage to the US troopers, along with the large number of non-combatants killed, would seem to indicate that it was the machine gun which was used that day, rather than the cannon – unless the latter was loaded with a version of "grapeshot."

As to casualties, I wouldn't take the word of the burial party necessarily, since the article states that they didn't begin to clean up the site until several days had passed; in that time, things may have been changed. Was a guard posted at the site? Dee Brown's book cites a number of Indian eye-witnesses, and it's disturbing to see that none of those are used in the article itself. Those sources allege that after the Indians had piled up their weapons, the soldiers conducted a second search to make sure, and came up with mostly axes and knives, which they also took. A third search was then instituted, in the course of which Black Coyote revealed his weapon and his unwillingness to part with it. On the face of it then, it seems unlikely that Black Coyote, deaf or not, didn't understand what was going on. Brown's sources note he was considered a trouble-maker by his own people. A second consequence may be that it is equally unlikely that there were several Indians who, all through these three searches, had successfully concealed weapons under their blankets, and who then pulled them out and began firing, once Black Coyote's weapon had discharged. The source for this statement appears to be Lt. Garlington, but consider that he would have every reason, after the event, to portray the soldiers as merely reacting to a provocation, rather than (as appears to be the case) participating in a classic FUBAR event.

As to the medals, even though standards did change in the twentieth century, making the medal harder to get, the number awarded for this "battle" seems excessive. Perhaps a comparison with the number awarded at a Civil War battle might serve as a benchmark, say, Antietam? To me it seems like a case of the military "cleaning up" a FUBAR by (1) declaring a victory and (2) awarding a bunch of medals. That way, none of the injured participants will raise too much of a fuss about being victims of friendly fire. It would be interesting to know whether all of the MofH winners were wounded? Theonemacduff (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hotchkiss gun article shows the non-repeating 42mm cannon with one barrel and the Repeating Cannon with a Gatling-like bundle of three barrels. In the photo in this article, I can see only one barrel on each gun, so they must be the cannons, unless the fourth one, not shown in the photo, was a Repeating Cannon. Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I made the edit on the page a year ago, but just to clarify here for reference, I confirmed through another source (though not 100% spelled-out) that they used four M1875 mountain guns, 1.65in, which were at the time also just shorthanded to "Hotchkiss guns." I don't know what kind of shells were used. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

US victory?

How come the infobox reads United States victory? The US soldiers weren NOT fighting against a foreign army. They were fighting against Lakota Indians, born on American soil. --AndeanThunder (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sioux considered themselves a sovereign nation, and were recognized as such by the U.S., although the U.S. considered the Indian tribes to be "domestic dependent nations" rather than independent nations. Thus, the U.S. could make treaties with the Sioux, send them ambassadors, or make war on them, just as with other nations. Not until the Indian Nationality Act, in 1924, did the U.S. cease to recognize the Indian tribes as nations and declare Indian people to be simply citizens of the U.S. Ultimately, that's the significance of Wounded Knee; the tragic end of the last effort by an Indian tribe to survive as an independent nation. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
My problem with the infobox is that it treats this the same way as any other battle in a declared war. But it certainly wasn't a battle. I have to admit that I don't have a neutral point of view on the topic (I don't think one is possible, or even desirable), but it seems clear to me that what happened between the indian removal act and wounded knee was not a war and wounded knee was not a battle. Leaving it like this is both false and insulting. The US troops at wounded knee didn't 'win' anything, they slaughtered a bunch of people. Under My Lai Massacre, there's a much more reasonable sort of infobox. 146.115.123.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
I just noticed that sometime back in March, somebody changed the "Result" in the infobox from "US victory / Great loss" to "US / Great loss," which makes no sense whatsoever.
As I said below, Wounded Knee was both a battle and a massacre; there were armed Miniconjou warriors who fought the U.S. 7th Cavalry troopers (arguably with justification), and in what was essentially a single action the 7th Cavalry crushed the warriors' resistance and indiscriminately slaughtered the warriors' families and children. (This is easily distinguishable from My Lai, where all of the US soldiers' victims were unarmed and unresisting). In my mind, to the extent that Wounded Knee was a battle, it was indisputably a US victory, albeit not one that many Americans (including myself) are proud of today. I am therefore in favor of changing the infobox back to "US victory." Thoughts? Pirate Dan (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am repulsed by the idea of seeing Wounded Knee as a victory (if anything it was a defeat for civilization), but thats not really an argument. I tend to agree with 146.115.123.180 that the infobox used at the my lai massacre is more tasteful and considerate. At the very least if we follow the argument of a short battle followed by an extended massacre we should use both infoboxes to show the US soldiers changing category from victors to perpetrators in a matter of minutes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I sympathize with your feeling of repulsion, I argue that the "Result" category should simply say who won, regardless of what criminal or horrific actions the winners perpetrated. By analogy, the infobox for Battle of Agincourt says "Decisive English victory," without reference to the fact that Henry V, in violation of all rules of chivalry, massacred hundreds of French prisoners. Or for a perhaps better example, the infobox in Massacre of Elphinstone's Army simply says "Afghan victory," even though the 12,000 civilians butchered by the Afghans vastly outnumbered the actual regulars in British uniform killed. When we say something is a victory, we're not necessarily saying that it was a good thing; we're just saying who prevailed at the end of the fight. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I realize that personal sentiment is not an argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, an anonymous editor followed WP:Be bold and changed the result to "Native force massacred." I'm almost OK with this, but to me "force" suggests military effectives only, and gives short shrift to the civilians killed. How about "Native band massacred" or "Sioux band massacred"? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with either of those.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find most self serving is the part of the info box that lists the participants as the 7th calvary and "Sioux warriors" when most of the casualties consisted of women and children and what "warriors" there were were in the process of being disarmed. In the Sand Creek Massacre box it lists some of the casualties as being "civilians" when again the vast majority of those killed were women and children and it was a friendly encampment. Medals of bravery were awarded rather than any punishment. These soldiers were little more than criminal, murdering, yelow cowards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonegunman (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a shameful moment in American history; but the view at the time was that it was a battle, and that America was victorious. So it's historically accurate to record it as such. Furthermore, I find that recording it as such highlights the immorality of the action by emphasizing the delusion that it was a just military action. If the article neutrally described a mere military action, you'd be correct to be outraged. But the article describes in quite some detail the unjust massacre. I don't think a reader, who reads even just a portion of the entry, can come away with confusion about this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.17.213 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is NO confusion on the subject. A group of armed cavalry soldiers attacking women and children? No doubt their husbands, father's and brothers were fighting back. But a U.S. victory? Shameful. 1blackandwhite (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Spotted Elk / Big Foot caption

Never mind. Bigfoot IS Spotted Elk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.65.73 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vandalism? Skyrim guard edited into image on main page

Yeah, I think this is the reference to the arrow meme. It's completely out of place here, and quite tasteless, nevermind being completely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.229.73 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Charged Language

Can we avoid charged language? Please remove from the InfoBox, perpetrators and helpless victims. Please stick to combatants whichever side you wanted to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.240.66 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


STOP REMOVING THE REAL HISTORY WIKIPEDIA PUT BACK THE ACCURATE HISTORY NOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.241.96.191 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Eye witness reports

Can someone locate a source citation for the following text proposed by an IP:

Written Statement by Grant Z Arment, eye witness: "In January 1891 was the battle of wounded knee, near aPine Ridge, South Dakota.I had been hauling supplies for the government (ARMENT WAS A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR for the Indian agency) from Rapid City to the mouth of Rapid Creek, 40 miles, and was returning with my load when the battle occurred. Colonel Forsythe, Captain Wallace, and an Indian medicine medicine man were talking while the soldiers were searching the teepees for concealed arms. The medicine man had told indians that no white mans bullet could kill them and when he gave the signal they were to draw their guns (concealed under their blankets) and begin firing. Suddenly, the medicine man reached down, picked a handful of dirt and threw it in the air. The indians sprang into action. Capt. Wallace was killed by a blow from a war club. The infuriated soldiers began their work of extermination. The only Indian remaining alive was a baby found 2 days afterward, who was adopted by Colonel Forsythe under the name Lost Bird.The remaining Sioyx went into Pine Ridge and surrendered. There were five hundred Cheyennes who did not go on the warpath....The snow was 2-4 feet deep , thermometer 32-45 below (zero)..." Signed, Grant Z Arment, dictated to Roa And Horace Arment in 1926, Ontario Oregon, with photo.

Xenophrenic (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I Googled 1) Grant Z Arment and 2) Roa And Horace Arment after the "statement" showed up in the article yesterday. No hits.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea where this account is supposed to come from, but it disagrees with cited sources (i.e. no indian left alive, etc.) and tells a somewhat questionable account of the battle. Without citation, this should not be added.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.republicoflakotah.com/steps-to-sovereignty/158-year-stuggle-for-justice/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wounded_Knee_Massacre/Archive_1&oldid=944146321"