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 is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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 the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
There was a recently added edit to the front summarized section of this article included " the massacre was part of the larger genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas." Originally, the cited source was an official PRC URL.
This additional statement in the summary section appears to lack an appropriate reliable source and questions about neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVJackson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the term "genocide" was used in the lead section but information & references to back that term up do not appear within the main body of the article text. I wouldn't say that a genocide did not happen, just that the concept & term along with references from reliable sources need to appear within the main body for the term to appear within the lead section. As MOS:LEAD says (bolding mine):
In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.
I also note that jengod has not provided an appropriate reliable citation or source for the assertion. Even with that, the assertion of genocide may be legally disputed. Are there any USG official acknowledging genocide?
The May 1922 report "Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report" probably is closest: "This report confirms that the United States directly targeted American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children in the pursuit of a policy of cultural assimilation that coincided with Indian territorial dispossession." However, the word genocide does not (yet) appear.
The determination of whether a historical event should or should not be considered a genocide can be a matter of scholarly and legal debate. KVJackson (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the bandwidth to relitigate American history on this page, but my take is that the whole thing easily meets the 1948 UN description of genocide:
killing members of the group ✔️
causing them serious bodily or mental harm ✔️
imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group ✔️
preventing births ✔️
forcibly transferring children out of the group ✔️
Extrajudicial colonizer massacres are terrible enough but when it is the United States Army pulling the trigger, you're automatically in capital-G Genocide territory. I don't have time right now to create a section of this article affirmatively proving Your Favorite All-American Pioneers and Very Brave Boys in Blue Were like Actual Real Live Genocidaires so that it can then be responsibly referenced in the lede but until the mindset of the U.S. moves out of its fugue state of denial I suppose this perspective can be considered a Non-Neutral Point of View.
I'm ranting like a loon when you all have been eminently civil but the whole question of "was it genocidal?" just makes me do the LeBron GIF face.
We're all just trying to do the right thing. Thank you for all your work here, and thank you for your patience with my high-pitched noises and gesturing.
Alright folks, let's discuss.
I'm going to say right now...in my opinion putting this article, in its lead section, on the same footing as the mostly recent spate of mass shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook, in with lone gunmen acting on personal grievances instead of putting it in with massacres or slaughters of civilians perpetrated by agents of the US Government? - goes against the very title of the article. And, as a personal aside...just because content is long-standing doesn't make it categorically correct.
And, information in a lead section isn't supposed to necessarily be cited, because per WP:LEAD it exists elsewhere in the article as a major point. That is referenced.
So. Let's discuss and come to an editorial consensus instead of editing & reverting & editing etc. - Shearonink (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is what reliable sources say. There are currently at minimum five sources already cited that use this exact language. It is not for us to express an opinion as editors on Wikipedia that differs with the clear consensus of the reliable sources.
I would also add that an event can be two things at once and that these terms are not mutually exclusive. The article title is correct as it is indeed a massacre, but it also is the largest mass shooting committed on American soil. Both of these things can be and are correct at the same time (according to reliable sources). Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off I'm not righting any great wrongs here. This section is what we are supposed to do...discuss editorial issues on the article talk page. I said what my opinion was. So? I keep on eye on this article because it does get attention sometimes from vandals or whatnot but I haven't really edited it that much. Righters of Great Wrongs usually are IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME when things don't go their way. I just want to discuss the changes to the lead and get off this present cycle of edit! revert! edit! revert!
A couple of things...the lead section of an article is supposed to summarize important facts that appears in the main text. The concept that a massacre perpetrated by an official part of the US government can also be called a mass shooting appears nowhere else in the article. *If* the editorial consensus is that this information is verifiable and reliable etc then that concept should be discussed in the main part of the article perhaps in the Remembrance section or in the Other subsection of Popular culture. If historians and scholarship and reliable sources since the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016 and the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 (which I suppose why the cited sources date from those years) regard this awful event as a mass shooting and ties it in with the American gun culture etc., etc. then maybe how people's attitude towards the Massacre have changed and also how they refer to it has changed then that changing attitude could be mentioned in the main part of the article. But right now it is not. So mentioning this terminology in the first sentence at all is incorrect.
5 sources are cited above and in the article as references for saying that the Massacre was a mass shooting. The Guardian source is a single letter to the editor from an individual. The LA Times states that people's definitions of what massacres are and what mass shootings are can differ, it is not cut and dried or laid out as an absolute. To my mind calling the Massacre a mass shooting diminishes it since it was committed by agents of a governmental entity, the US Army and therefore the Federal Government but I can see that other people's regards in this matter differ. It is sad isn't it that we keep tallies of "worst" events?...
The first sentence would possibly seem to more accurately reflect current attitudes & reliable sources if it states something along the lines of: The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was the killing [I think murder would probably be more accurate] of two hundred fifty to three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army and is regarded by many as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. But then a section on scholarship/historians/interviews about the massacre/deadliest mass shooting concepts etc. would also have to be in place in the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
