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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
I restored the deletion because I felt it was backed up by our Nakota article and by what I have read about the Dakota people. I believe the reason those texts are under the First contacts with Europeans section because the events happen between the 1600s and the war in 1862. A new subsection could be probably be created to house the last 2 paragraphs of the section. While Bobbotronica's additions is unsourced it matches with what I have read in exterior sources and other Wikipedia articles. I am looking into finding sources for the section at the moment. If I can't find any I'm fine with the article being reverted to pre-14 September. Thanks, L3X1(distænt write)14:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to check existing sourced scattered around in our articles and then check for external sourcing. It may take me the weekend, as the material is interesting. L3X1(distænt write)17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad L3X1 is willing to search into the matter, I would only like to point one issue out to him. Apart from many inaccuracies scattered around in Bobbotronica's edits and from a general obscurity, surely her/his statements are not backed up by the article Nakota, of which I was the original editor. On the contrary, they are just a relaunch of the traditional erroneous usage of the term "Nakota" for some part or other of the Dakota people, and they are probably founded on the reports by James R. Walker, who was in fact an army medical officer serving at the Pine Ridge Reservation in the early twentieth century, and who, far from being the sole (or a main) recorder of the Dakota history, was just one of the many amateur anthropologists that busied themselves at the time with Indian life problems.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Daily life" section is historical, not contemporary
While the history of the Dakota people is an important part of this article, the article is not exclusively about the history. The 'Daily Life' section exclusively discusses the historical lifestyle of the Dakota people. As such, the length of this section is disproportionately long. Regardless, the section should either be renamed to indicate it refers to historical daily life, or it should be expanded to add contemporary daily life. Deccantrap (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no discussion created for proposed merges of various Dakota First Nations from Canada into this article, but I just want to strongly opposed merge. Those are all distinct First Nations with their own governments and merit their own articles. Yuchitown (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I concur, I fully oppose it too. Because there was no discussion, I just removed the tags. I assume it's someone who doesn't understand these are sovereign nations and require their own pages. oncamera (talk page)22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]