Talk:Standing Rock Indian Reservation/Archive 1

Meaning of Dakota/Lakota
2nd paragraph, first sentence: "Dakota means friendship, and Lakota means allies."

Dakota and Lakota are the exact same word in two different dialects. This sentence implies that they have different meanings which simply is not true. Either is a close translation, but not quite right. Probably "Our friends" or "Our allies" is a better translation than either of the above. "Our people" or "one of us" wouldn't be far off. "Friendship" is a noun that describes a relationship, where "Dakota" is a word (in the Dakota dialect or the word "Lakota" in the Lakota dialect) that refers to the people, not the relationship of allies or friends. "Friendship", in Lakota would be "Kolakiciyapi".

See: Lakota Dictionary by Eugene Buechel or any of the many other Dakota and Lakota dictionaries available.

Michael Bush (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ownership
Who actually owns the reservation land? Do the Dakota and Lakota tribes hold the deeds or is it all Federal Land?--Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe. Indian Affairs | www.bia.gov/FAQs/

But as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (Dawes Act), most reservations were broken up, subdivided into individual 160-acre allotments for every registered member, then the surplus sold to local white farmers. Tribes, including Standing Rock, are in the process of buying back these properties. Reservations exist both as legal jurisdictions and as tribally-owned & -managed property.

And each Lakota/Dakota 'reservation' is now considered a separate, autonomous (but related) self-governing tribe. And Standing Rock's population is composed of different Lakota and Dakota bands. tpk (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

New Dakota Access Pipeline protests article
I've boldly started Dakota Access Pipeline protests from sections at Standing Rock Indian Reservation and Bakken pipeline. Those sections were growing independently. A standalone was needed.

Please help reduce the sections in those source articles to summaries and add a main. And please help sort out the new article.

If this standalone article already exists, please say. I could not find it.

If you think this was a bad idea, please let me know and I can just delete it as sole contributor.

Cheers,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I think this is a smart move. I haven't been back on this page for a bit and the coverage has expanded significantly. I think the only question is whether or not the "Further information: ReZpect Our Water" tag can and/or should stay along with the direct to this full article you started. I would vote for keeping it there, since it was an effort started by the Reservation, I think. Great job! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so, so much, Erika. I know I left the target article in quite a state. I'll leave it to others how to handle ReZpect Our Water. I did not visit that article until just now (I am having WMF access issues.) One thing that seems essential is to strip down the section about the protests in this article and Bakken pipeline (and possibly ReZpect Our Water), as there is no sense in having the main content about the protests at three different places. This will bring balance back to Bakken pipeline and Standing Rock Indian Reservation as well as deter others from adding good content to it when that content ought to be at the main article. Thoughts? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Sorry to hear you're having issues. That's the pits. I tried to remove the duplicate passages in the protest section and page, so hopefully I didn't delete anything accidentally. Not sure why they were in there repeating, as the entry already needs to be pruned and made more legible. I can't really spend a lot more time on this but hope someone will step in and make the entries better. Sorry but I'm maxxed out in terms of bandwidth right now. The cite cleanup I could do quickly but the writing part is harder... :-) Good luck with this! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "The pits"! I love it. I haven't heard that for ages. I've got to start saying that. :)


 * You've done wonderfully and have done your bit! I'm very grateful.


 * The reason there were duplicate parts is because I just too all the content from both articles and stuck them together. That is why you really saved the day.


 * So, now I've posted at the two source article talks and also Talk:ReZpect Our Water. Let's leave it to others to handle it from here. The people who worked those three articles are who we need to hear from. They can advise and make decisions as far as I'm concerned.


 * Ultimately, I'd like to see the target article be the headquarters for all of this, with teeny sections in the other three -- and possibly even see ReZpect Our Water be a section within it the protest article. Best wishes and thanks again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks so much, so sweet of you! I sort of think each page has a separate purpose, and shouldn't necessarily be consolidated maybe? I think that if ReZpect Our Water continues as an entity -- and maybe even if it's just a record of what the kids doing the protest run across the country -- that it is okay for it to be its own entry. It was how I heard about what is going on here. Actually I think the Reservation one should be cut down a lot more, because the page should be mostly about the Reservation. It would be a great project for their schools to learn how to edit Wikipedia, to edit that page. The protest page is as you said, needing to be better organized.... Ping me if I can be of any further help. Best to you -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi BrillLyle. That makes good sense! I agree. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I've put quite a bit of work into the Rezspect article and would not like to see it chopped up. As I see it, the movement took off and a name change to "my" article would have made a lot more sense than starting yet another article and, as a matter of fact, was an idea that I had planned to introduce on the talk page.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, my apologies to BrillLyle who spent lots of time copyediting the protest article, and to you, Gandydancer for not discussing things first. Like I said to BrillLyle, I have been having connection troubles, and so did not inspect the Rezspect article. Had I done so, I would have seen it as the rightful headquarter for the protest content. I've explained further at Talk:ReZpect Our Water. Anyhow, content at the reservation and pipleline articles about the protests would inevitably needed to be removed from there and added to a protest article. I am still stunned to see three large bodies of protest content co-exist in three different articles like that. Every day ticking by like that meant future work combining. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna and I agree that we need to sort things out. As it was I had been watching all three articles and dreaded the job of doing a lot of editing of the work of others, for example the long section on the taped interview that was done last August needs to be cut way back, IMO.  At any rate, it is good to have you here as I know you are one of the best editors we've got.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Gandydancer. Thanks for the kind words. I feel the same way about your. I really feel bad about the whole thing. Well, I do mess up once in a while. Maybe one doozey a year. :) Anyhow, it's getting sorted and will probably be for the best in the end. Like I said at the protest article, the collateral damages is the edited to that article. The sources were never touched by me. And at the protest article talk, there is word of huge inaccuracies at the article sourced from pipeline and reservation. So, it will be good to see those source sections get stripped down to an accurate summary. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

May I request we centralize discussion? I have formalized Gandy's proposal for a rename/resorting of the content at: Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline protests. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anna, I also have connection problems--today is especially bad... But this is all for the best...  Corbie, thanks and I will look at your proposal.  It is good to work with all of you.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

name origin
questions the current article does not answer in any way (or only in a very limited way, hidden deep inside): Without explaining the origins of the name and its creation the article and its initial paragraph are incomplete for my understanding. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does the name "Standing Rock" come from? Settlers? Government? A special act?
 * Does the name refer to a certain artificial item or natural structure? Is there imagery around?
 * How was the reservation established? What legal act, what persons or groups had those legal or factual powers at that time? What were the regional rulership conditions at those times? (the US was epxanding...)

Litter left by protestors
I added this to the article:

In February 2017, when protestors departed, they left behind enough litter to fill an estimated 250 garbage trucks.

Someone erased it.

This content is notable because the protestors' entire claimed reason for the protest was that they wanted to protect the environment of the area in question.

Forbes and an NBC affiliate are reliable sources.

71.182.243.118 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I just added these other three sources - two affiliates of ABC, and the national Fox News:

71.182.241.222 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure how reliable this source is, but here's an article that claims it was Morton County that dumped the trash: http://thedailyhaze.com/morton-county-dumping-trash-standing-rock/ ABF99 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)  And here is Snopes' version of what happened: http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/10/standing-rock-trash/.  ABF99 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a similar thread at Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline protests. I suggest we centralize the discussion there. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Standing Rock Indian Reservation. 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/20120525001229/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWsittingB.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWsittingB.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160909050159/http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Backgrounder%20DAPL%20SRST%20FINAL.pdf to http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Backgrounder%20DAPL%20SRST%20FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807104201/http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Memo%20ISO%20Mtn%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction_3.pdf to http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Memo%20ISO%20Mtn%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction_3.pdf

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) 03:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yanktonai context
IP added: Yanktonai Dakota (the french could not pronounce ihunktonwanna).

Leaving this on the talk page because it could be relevant to something. originalmess how u doin that busta rhyme? 07:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
I dispute the neutrality of this article. It's clearly biased from a Native American point of view.

Example: on issues of treaty violations, there were treaty violations on both sides.

Example: the portion that deals with The Battle of the Little Bighorn does not reference the war crimes committed by Native Americans during and following the battle.

Also, the entire history of the wars is too much detail for the informational details of this particular reservation.

This article is a manifesto, not an article, and needs attention. 2001:48F8:3034:948:FD7C:2ADD:44E7:D5A1 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)