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 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. stateofSouth 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 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 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. FredTalk19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."
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. SpinningSpark23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark 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)[reply]
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. SpinningSpark14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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. SpinningSpark16:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
