Talk:Sioux Wars

Place
This article fits into a hierarchy of articles about Indian Wars. The top article is American Indian Wars which covers, in a summary fashion, all conflicts between Native Americans and Europeans in North America. The second layer is (Indian Wars), currently a redirect to American Indian Wars, but slated to cover, in a summary fashion, the Indian Wars of the Old West. This article covers, in a summary fashion, all conflicts of the Sioux, but not in such detail as they are covered in articles such as Red Cloud's War. Fred Talk 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Typos and possible errors
The "Colorado War" section seems to have either been poorly edited or possibly vandalized, but I don't feel qualified to fix it since I was reading the article to learn more about the Plains Wars in the first place. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The errors in this article are many. What, for example, is the Wiki-named "Comanche Campaign" doing here? It's actually disturbing that such stuff is allowed to stand.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Crazy Horse killed in action?
It is not right, to list Crazy Horse under "killed in action".

When he was killed, he has already surrendered. If you wish to have it so, then Sitting Bull and Little Crow have also to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.254.105 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Question
Is the Arikara War actually part of the Sioux Wars? Mitchumch (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography section
Works not used in article content are to be listed in "Further reading" section. This is Wikipedia policy. Please see Further reading in the "Relation to reference sections" section.


 * "Further reading is not a list of general references. General references are sources actually used by editors to build the article content, but that are not presented as inline citations. By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend."

For the layout of the sections of an article, please see Manual of Style/Layout. The "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections (in that order) comes after the "References" section. Mitchumch (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I know what WP:LAYOUT says, and ok the order is wrong, but that is not the substantive issue. The issue is that you are trying to relegate to further reading sources that were plainly used in the original construction of the article.  That is not a useful thing to do, and changing section heading titles is contrary to WP:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR. SpinningSpark 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it okay to move the "Bibliography" section after "References" section? The policy I cited states "General references", not "Bibliography" is used for that type of reference without inline citations.
 * As for the two policies you used, could you provide a quote of what you're referring to. It's not immediately clear to me what you're looking at.  Mitchumch (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the section order. That was never part of my objection to your edit.  As for policy:
 * "Editors may use any citation method they choose",
 * "Editors may use any section title that they choose",
 * Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change",
 * and I could also refer you to MOS:STYLEVAR on the MOS main page.
 * As I see it, the only change that it would be acceptable to make under the guidelines without first seeking consensus would be to return the section title to that originally chosen by the article creator. I have not trawled through the talk page history to find out, but I would bet that the change from "Resources" to "Bibliography" was made unilaterally by another obsessive attempting to enforce a standardisation on something for which we do not have an agreed standard.  But let me say it again, my essential objection is not wikilawyering over the minutiae of policy.  Rather, it is that the sources you put in "Further reading" were sources used to build the article. SpinningSpark 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sioux Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202033031/http://www.dakotablues.nl/ to http://www.dakotablues.nl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713165913/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Canada
I just reverted an attempt to add Canada to the list of combatants. Canada is not discussed in the article at all. So first of all a citation is needed for that. The citation needs to not only verify that Canada was in conflict with the Sioux, but that that conflict formed part of the same conflict in the United States. Secondly, there needs to be some addition to the body of the article before it can legitimately be mentioned in the lead or infobox. SpinningSpark 16:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The same user added Canada to the Great Sioux War of 1876. Intothatdarkness 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)