[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Sioux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moskosol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"media" section

[edit]

The "media" section that links to videos needs to be formatted. I don't know enough about that extensive formatting, but it's obvious something needs to be done. Billy Shears 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the three Sioux

[edit]

I made an addition that this site is ok !!!!! to the summary at the beginning, because the three branches of the Sioux are very important distinctions among the Sioux people (I am, for example: Oglala=Lakota =Teton=Sioux). The branches or divisions are at the same time geographic, linguistic, and social, and interchangeable as to usage meaning. It is proper to use any of the three division names (Dakota, Nakota, Lakota) and mean "Sioux", or to mean those divisions among the Sioux (confusing, I know, but it's the linguistic tradition--each tribe uses its own to mean itself and all, if that explains it any better). I have used Oceti Sakowan (you will also see it written Ocheti Shakowan to demonstrate pronunciation) but that is a Lakota term. The advantage of the term Sioux (I was taught it was from the Chippewa, if that is the same as Ottawa?) is that it is an all-encompassing term for the language group as a people--a sort of a neutral term, if you will--and many Sioux prefer it because it has a positive connotation, despite its origins. Other edits I have made have attempted to logically follow or explain. Buckboard 09:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me... This article refers to seven nations of the Sioux, of which the Teton or Lakota are one, which is further divided into seven bands. The Sioux and the Lakota articles both seem to define the Oceti Sakowin or "Seven Council Fires" differently, however. Is the Oceti Sakowin made up of the seven larger Sioux nations, or is it made up of the seven branches of the Teton nation? Also, did the Oceti Sakowin have a specific meeting place (before or after white contact)? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.193.50 (talk) 04:24, May 15, 2007

The Oceti Sakowin is made up of the seven larger Sioux branches, which are then divided again into seven smaller divisions. Like the part that mentions Mdewakanton, Wahpetowan (Wahpeton), Wahpekute, Sissetowan (Sisseton), the Ihantowan (Yankton), Ihanktowana (Yanktonai), and the Teton (Lakota) are the seven main branches. The Oglala, Hunkpapa, etc. make up the seven smaller divisions of the Teton. The other six main branches are also divided, or historically were, divided into seven as well. Seven was a sacred number. And I assume they had places where they would meet up, but that probably depended on a number of things, like the weather or food supplies. :P oncamera(t) 22:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux vs Lakota

[edit]

If Lakota is a sub-division of Sioux, must the lead paragraph say that the Sioux are also known as Lakota? If (as I suspect) Sioux and Lakota are sometimes errorneously used interchangeably, shouldnt we refrain from perpetuating that mistake? --Ezeu 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to say that the word Sioux is a term Europeans coined to refer to the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota. Most Dakota and Lakota people I know personally have referred to these as one nation.
I think it would be a good idea to change the name of this article, or at least make an acknowledgment in the lead paragraph, as you suggested. --Sockamina (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actual Lakota pronunciation of Oceti Sakowin?

[edit]

I usually make an effort to replace adhoc guides with IPA when I remove them, but the one given on this page for "Oceti Sakowin" ("Oh-SHAY-tee SHAW-ko-ween") was so meaningless that I didn't know where to begin. "oh", "ko" and "shay" seem to represent dipthongs, but the page on the Lakota language doesn't say anything about dipthongs. Can anyone with a knowledge of Lakota phonetics tell me, in IPA, how "Oceti Sakowin" is actually pronounced? --Krsont 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I can't do it in IPA, but in the standard orthography it is Očhéthi Šakówiŋ. Thiyopa (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh- CHAY- tee Sha-KO-ween is basically the right way to pronounce it. The only dipthong in Lakota is Hau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibelle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I am working on an entry for the Nodaway River which according to some accounts evolved from the name Nadouessioux. The explanation here of foreign tongues sounds believeable but it runs counter to almost everything out there. Please post some sort of attribution! Thank you.

Americasroof 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a decent book for yankton overview

[edit]

though a bit outdated its still a decent read as it was work with actually native author

the yankton sioux by herbert t. hoover


written in the late 80's with heavy native american church its still a decent over view of how it was and is life of my people . and its still easy to locate in most public libaries


wicsa wambdi

Is Sioux European?

[edit]

I've been led to believe that the term Sioux was a European term for the Dakota and etc. Is this true? Disinclination 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an English word, and it's not what these people call themselves. The received opinion is that it derives from a name used for the Sioux by their neighbors.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we can infer that the French got to give them this spelling, in any case. In addition, I've heard that not only is it not their word, but that it actually means (in one language or another) something akin to "enemy" — someone knowledgable ought to point out in the article whichever one is true. — Lenoxus 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself gives the etymology:
The name "Sioux" is an abbreviated form of Nadouessioux borrowed into French Canadian from Nadoüessioüak from the early Ottawa exonym: na•towe•ssiwak "Sioux". The Proto-Algonquian form *nātowēwa meaning "Northern Iroquoian" has reflexes in several daughter languages that refer to a small rattlesnake (massasauga, Sistrurus). This information was interpreted by some that the Ottawa borrowing was an insult. However, this proto-Algonquian term most likely is ultimately derived from a form *-ātowē meaning simply "speak foreign language", which was later extended in meaning in some Algonquian languages to refer to the massasauga. Thus, contrary to many accounts, the Ottawa word na•towe•ssiwak never equated the Sioux with snakes.
--Miskwito 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, how in the world did I miss that? Thanks...--Lenoxus 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing scalps

[edit]

Did the Sioux(and other tribes) actually take the scalps off the heads of all their victims or did they just do that to the europeans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.50.189 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 October 2006(UTC).

According the the article on Scalping, the practice existed long before Europeans arrived. --Ezeu 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding has always been that many, if not most, had a practice of counting coup in battle. This could be as simple as touching an enemy and escaping without harm. When the French and British were dancing around each other along what would later be the US-Canadian border area the French posted a bounty on any British but only required the scalp to prove the death. This idea was transferred to other tribes and replaced, to some extent, the prior practice of counting coup. I have NO cite for any of this, just talking from what I remember from school and such many years ago. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit Reduces Readability

[edit]

It looks like todays anon editor pasted a huge, mostly unformatted block from another source into the page. I also have NO idea why he added >.< to the start of the second paragraph. I have no pony in this race, being Cherokee myself, but I gotta say the page looks like crap. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 01:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't edit it. Just remove it. It's very likely copied from somewhere, but we don't know where. It's probably a copyvio.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. I am fairly new here. I have seen copyvio mentioned before, but am not sure of the accepted practice for making an edit based on it. Wikipedia, I have noticed, has many specific procedures that have developed for handling certin situations, and I am just too new to do this comfortably. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reason to think the new stuff is rubbish, then delete it (explaining why in the edit comment). If you think it is sensible content, but lifted from somewhere, then it has to be re-written into your own words. The ideas and info are not copyright, only the particular wording used. Unfortunately that can amount to a lot of work, so it may just have to be deleted entirely if no one is available to work it into the article. It can't stay if it is work belonging to someone who has not donated it to wiki/public domain. Sandpiper 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't worry about it, I took care of it myself. I think I also found the source it was lifted from. Welcome to Wikipedia!—Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

'Sioux' is a French word, and as such it is pronounced [sju]. The article gives the pronunciation [su], which I thought was a blunder due to English's 'u' being pronounced [ju]. User Miskwito reverted my edit, saying "that is not how it is pronounced". I checked my English/French dictionary, and indeed, it gives [sju] in French and [su] in English. Now, that is so far the most weird pronounciation I have ever encountered. I could have accepted [saiuks], [siauks], but [su]?!? Just like 'sous', 'sou' or 'soûl'? You English speakers are a strange lot. Could anyone shed some light as to how the word came to have such a bizarre pronunciation?

However it may be, I for one will stick to [sju] or else [dakota]...

Pseudo account 11:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers pronounce -iu- like [u]. See the Mortal Kombat character Liu Kang, pronounced [lu] Kang.--Manfariel (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have it in phonetic alphabet in the intro? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

the article contains good content, and the references section is strong, but the article needs inline references in order to progress toward a good article rating. i added fact citations throughout the article in areas where citing a reference would be helpful. ChicagoPimp 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just add a "needs references" tag at the top of the page instead of going through and adding so many? oncamera(t) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

format

[edit]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Could someone please add a map to this article? I'm thinking something similar to that seen at the top of the page of the Oji-Cree article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map inserted on this page is from a non-English language source (Canada is "Kanada", etc). The Lake Traverse Reservation has since been disestablished (ruled as such by the US Supreme Court 1975). Also, "traditional" locations of the Sioux and subtribes varied depending on the source and date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.201 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disco inferno

[edit]

Is there any connection to the Native American (NatCanadian?) band Seventh Fire? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol of the Sioux

[edit]

Does anyone know if the Sioux (by which I mean the Nakoda, Dakota, and Lakota), the Great Sioux Nation, have a single flag, crest, symbol, or insignia that represents them collectively that we could use as the lead image in this article? All I can find are flags for specific subgroups. Asarelah (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I know the Dakota (and it's probably the same with the other two) use a staff with seven eagle feathers on it as their "flag" during Wacipi or Pow Wows. It's called the "Eagle Feather Staff." Good luck finding an image, oncamera(t) 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No, there is nothing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibelle (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakota

[edit]

Do some people have a problem with the term "Nakota"? It was recently deleted from the lede of both this article and Lakota people. I have reverted the change because it was not explained and the rest of the article still refers to Nakota. I think the editor(s) who want this change should explain, preferably here, so we all understand the reasoning. SpinningSpark 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The word Nakota is a misnomer that has existed in the literature for over 150 years. Please, read the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary (2008, Lakota Language Consortium), where the origin and history of this minomer is explained in detail. In a nutshel, the speakers of the Yankton/Yanktonai dialects call themselves Dakhóta and not Nakhóta. Thus the New Lakota Dictionary gives these divisions: 1) Lakota (seven Teton tribes), Western Dakota (Yankton, Yanktonai) and Eastern Dakota (Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Wahpekute). Many fluent speakers of Yankton and Yanktonai participated in the research for the New Lakota Dictionary and they all confirmed this. This publication gives the most authoritative analysis and descriptioin of the divisions. The Yankton/Yanktonai are called Dakota also by DeMallie, see DeMallie, Raymond J. (2001b). Teton. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Vol. 13, Part 2, pp. 794-820). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Thiyopa 13 October 2008

Well, it might be a misnomer to some but apparently those Assiniboine on the Fort Belknap Agency, Montana use it, as does the National Association of Tribal Heritage Protection Officers on their profile page of the Little Rocky Mountains. What's a misnomer in some groups' eyes is apparently the preferred term in others. Wikipedia is not about exclusiveness, it is about inclusiveness. I didnt' look at the list overleaf to see if Fort Belknap's in it, maybe not. Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if it has existed in hte literature that means it's a common usage and therefore shoudl be included; I note it's in the name of one of the Canadian reserves/bands, so while it may be a misnomer to Sioux in the US (otehr tahn Ft Belknap) it's clearly not a misnomer to at least one group in Canada.....{{globalize}} would seem to apply....Skookum1 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is tru that the Assiniboine and Stoney people call themselves Nakhóta (or rather Nakhóda today), but those two tribes do not consider themselves to be Sioux. They use the term Sioux only to refer to the Lakota and Dakota tribes. The term Nakhóta (Nakota) is misnomer in regard to the Yankton-Yanktonai tribe. In most of literature the Yankton-Yanktonai are called Nakota but they have been refering to themselves with the term Dakhóta throughout the historical period. This misnomer was started by the early missionaries among the Eastern Dakotas and repeated by most authors since. This was finally clarified in a 1992 article by DeMallie and Parks and it is further explained in the New Lakota Dictionary by the Lakota Language Consortium (2008). If you go to the Standing Rock Reservation or the Crow Creek Reservation where the Yanktonai live you will hear people refer to themselves as Dakota. Same if you go to the Yankton reservation. Thiyopa 29 July 2009

PUT INFO ABOUT THE FIRST ENCOUNTER OF WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.99.21 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Horse-Capture??

[edit]

Also re George Horse-Capture on his bio (he's from Ft Belknap) there's no indication if he's Assiniboine/Nakota or White Clay/Blackfeet and I don't see him listed here..Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another site says Ft Belknap is "Gros Ventre and Assiniboine"...I'm all confused, Gros Ventre must be a type of Blackfeet?Skookum1 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference could be made to the film, "A Man Named Horse".

The Dakota people consider "Sioux" to be offensive

[edit]

The Dakota people consider "Sioux" to be offensive, because it is what the white man called them and not what they call themselves. And as the article details, it has connotations of "foreign" and "snake". Awhile time ago, Minnesota changed geographic names[1] that contained "Sioux" to "Dakota". WP:Common name says we use the common name and the English name, but gives an exception when the name is considered offensive, like "Mormon". And "Sioux". Would I have any support to move the article? -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the Dakota people are not the only people referred to by the name "sioux". Siuox is the name used for the group of Dakota(santee and yanktonai) and lakota and there is no other name to refer to this group that would be acceptable to all of the others as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be two seperate articles. One for the people who are properly called Sioux, and one for the people that are properly called Dakota. Dakota people should not redirect here. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Stoney and Assiniboine - not clear

[edit]

I'm still trying to figure out what the relationship of the Stoney and Assiniboine is the Sioux. This article doesn't help! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look here, where the Nakoda (Stoney) are also claiming to be "the descendants of the Great Sioux Nations".[2] I'm alsomost ready to tag this page as being US-centric and missing half the Sioux nation (the part living in Canada!!) --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the population does not reside in Canada and those that live there now were driven there after contact with the US Government; the largest population of Sioux people live in South Dakota (approx. 68,282 people if you do 8.8% of the population of South Dakota via Demographics of South Dakota). The First Nations are mentioned in "Reserves and First Nations" and "Modern reservations, reserves, and communities of the Sioux" sections. See articles like Siouan languages, Assiniboine language to understand the relations between the Stoney and Assiniboine; basically, instead of Dakota or Lakota, those two tribes speak Nakota, a slightly older form of the Siouan language. The Assiniboine (and Stoney) broke ties with the Dakota/Lakota, around the 16th century, but they were once part of the same tribe. That's how they're related. See this non-Wikipedia article for further information. oncamera(t) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're presuming that the 8.8% is all Sioux, and not anything else like Cheyenne or Crow or what-have-you; that number also includes any Alaskan Natives living there, which there may well be. Is there a Sioux/Siouxan census out there, i.e. also not one derived from the US government, which like the Canadian government has odd ways of deciding who isn't and isn't a particular group, be it native or anything else...Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went to each article for the Sioux reservations in South Dakota for enrolled members living on the reservations and the total added up to 86,410 people. That's even larger a number than based on the math of the Demographics of South Dakota. The tribes make their own laws and a 1/4 blood quantum is in place. oncamera(t) 04:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "half" comment is not to be taken literally. The more I've read on this, you more I see that the opinion of the article you recommended is the general consensus of historians and ethnographers. However, it is certainly not the opinion of the Assiniboine and Stoney themselves. I found two sources written by Canadian native leaders claiming descent from the Great Sioux Nation, and I found a WP article for an Alberta band that has put "Sioux" in their official name. Surely this warrants a mention at the least. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, your concern is that these tribes are making claims that aren't proper? Of course that happens to other tribes, (a lot with the Cherokee where non-federally recognized "tribes" put the word Cherokee into their name. Perhaps you could find a couple of books at your library that tells the general consensus and write that paragraph yourself! You're right, I think it's a bit alarming that those tribes' articles don't mention how they "revolted" against their Sioux ancestors and became their own group. It probably shouldn't be written in detail on this article's page but should be explained on their articles. oncamera(t) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're turning Kevlar67's point on its head; he's saying that they are proper, and then you drag in the "fake Cherokee" thing which purebred Cherokee, so-called, like to complain about, despite the fact that their ancestors' kin mixed freely with whites (and blacks, and other natives). Just because a "pure" Cherokee likes to complain that Cher and Burt Reynolds "aren't really Cherokee, they just say they are, doesn't mean that they're right, or that Cher and Burt are wrong...."Sioux" and "Great Sioux Nation" mean two different things also; the Stony and Assiniboine speak a Siouxan language, and may consider themselves Sioux; it's not for "real" Sioux to tell them that "you rebelled against our ancestors so you're not Sioux". That's some logic, I'm impressed; reminds me of too many other nations with inbuilt, self-defining bigotries of that kind....it's rather like telling the Americans, or the Irish, that they're not white anymore because they rebelled against the English....Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my own bad examples could have been better; because the Norwegian rebelled, or split off from the Danish and/or Swedish kingdoms, it's like saying they're not Scandinavian anymore....Skookum1 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early Americans were considered Americans, not British subjects after they rebelled. That's the point I was making with the revolt; it's not bigotry so chill with your "definitions". Don't go to the extreme to prove your point, I didn't say the Stony and Assiniboine weren't/aren't Indigenous, only they revolted hundreds of years ago and that should be mentioned as they might be viewed as a separate group. oncamera(t) 04:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]Note this in the Nakota article: Thus, they believed the Yankton-Yanktonai people called themselves Nakota instead of Dakota. Unfortunately, the inaccurate assumption of a Lakota-Dakota-Nakota division has been perpetuated in almost every publication since then",[8] gaining such influence that even some Lakota and Dakota people have been influenced by it. More has to be read to get that context fully, but I was struck by it considering the tone/idea here.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all these articles with tidbits of information, they should be WP:MERGE into this article, or have a section in this article so people who are confused with this subject can EASILY find more information. Either way, these articles are too scattered for their own good. oncamera(t) 04:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what can we do about it? My suggestion to include a blurb about the uncertain boundries of the "Sioux" was removed by you. Western ethnographers regard the Assiniboine and Nakoda (Stoney) of Alberta and Saskatchewan as related but seperate from the Sioux. However, the Assiniboine and Stoney refer to themselves as "Sioux" (cf. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation of Alberta), and claim decent from the Great Sioux Nation.[1][2] What would you like to replae it with? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.chiniki.com/about.html
  2. ^ http://www.sicc.sk.ca/heritage/sils/ourlanguages/hohenakota/history/name_game.html

Corrections and comments

[edit]

The first description for the Lakota does not say anything about the group's location. I believe that information should be added.

The order for the three Sioux groups was never consistent through the article. I decided to create the consistency by putting them in order from easternmost to westernmost.

In the "Ethnic divisions" section, "Santee division (Dakota) (Isáŋyathi)" is now "Santee division (Eastern Dakota) (Isáŋyathi)". This is once again to create consistency within the section and the rest of the article.

Regarding the "Dakota, Nakota and Lakota historic distribution", I'm not sure how relevant the picture is since the Nakota are barely mentioned. The "Early history" section is way too short. It's probably worth to expand it by including information on the Assiniboine (Nakota), particularly explaining how they broke away from the main Sioux branch in earlier times. At that point, the picture will probably relevant to the discussion.

In the section "Wounded Knee Massacre" the sentence that starts with "By the time it was over" is vague. It is not clear what it is.

The "Republic of Lakota" section introduces a new spelling: Lakotah. Since the correct spelling for the Republic is Lakotah, you can find it at www.lakotafreedom.com, I changed Lakota to Lakotah. From what I understand from reading, it seems as if the people and the language are called Lakota whereas the land is called Lakotah.

ICE77 (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But What About The Sioux Themselves?!

[edit]

The article is almost entirely about the interaction of the Sioux with Europeans, other than the political section. What about the Sioux themselves? Really basic things like: (Rereading I am ashamed of the fact that I have written all these questions in the past tense. I would like to know about the past, present, and indeed future of the Sioux).

How many Sioux were there? What are their origins? What was their religion? What did they believe? What was their family structure? What did they eat? What did they make in the way of artifacts? Did they have technology? What where they afraid of, other than Europeans? What were their arts? Did they always, entirely, live in tents? Were they nomadic? Did they farm? Did they have writing? Did they have myths? How did they fight? What were their weapons? What did they wear?

Perhaps I am missing other articles perhaps named things like "Sioux clothing"

Bearing in mind the emphasis on their interaction with Europeans, I wonder to what extent were they influenced, or created in a sense, by their interaction with Europeans? I mean by that, that perhaps they were a smaller first American nation that used horses or other European imports to become who they became. I doubt this possibility but bearing in mind the paucity of information regarding the Sioux other than in their interaction with Europeans the unsaid insinuation is that the Sioux were a European invasion created entity. The article on the mighty Sioux is almost not about the Sioux at all. The article might be renamed, "The interactions of the Sioux with Europeans." Are there Sioux Wikipedians? Did they, you, have a history, ethnology, culture? Of course the Sioux do. Perhaps the problem is that the Sioux did not, do not, write books. Is there any chance that Wikipedia might relent upon its rules regarding sources when dealing with a culture that does not have a written (sourced) tradition? This "must be sourced" rule of Wikipedia might be argued to be continuing the destruction of the Sioux, a non-sourced culture, in what is now the main global repository for information. Sioux young people might come to Wikipedia and be able to find nothing about themselves.

I want to know about the Sioux themselves not about the wars they were forced to fight with Europeans. I hope some informed people write about the Sioux. --Timtak (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm enrolled with a Dakota tribe. And I know there's a lot that needs to be added to this article, including what roles Women had in the traditional society. Some of the things you are concerned about are actually included in Lakota people. I don't really have the time right now to work on the article to reference books (I originally started to do this, completing the Political section), but I suggest using Google Books to start looking for books that have the information to re-write this article to actually be about the Sioux people, and not the parts where they interacted with European settlers. Are you willing to work on the article? Because, a good idea isn't enough on Wikipedia: you have to do the work! oncamera(t) 00:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new section with boooks that we can use to expand the articles..as i agree its lacking.Moxy (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hassrick, Royal B (1977), The Sioux: life and customs of a warrior society, University of Oklahoma Press, ISBN 0806106077 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • Gibbon, Guy E (2003), The Sioux: the Dakota and Lakota nations, Blackwell, ISBN 1557865663 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • McLaughlin, Marie L (2006), Myths and Legends of the Sioux, BiblioBazaar, LLC, ISBN 489496826 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • Hyde, George E (1993), A Sioux chronicle, University of Oklahoma Press, ISBN 0806124830 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • Standing Bear, Luther (2006), My People the Sioux, University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 0803293321 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
There's a start. I'm going to suggest Mandan as an example of the sort of information to include, and an orderly timeline. Of course, the Sioux are larger, have a different history and culture, but the idea of what could be written is here. oncamera(t) 02:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped Image of Sitting Bull

[edit]

Perhaps the author of this article or another user could be compelled to use a non-cropped image of Sitting Bull. The image shown (which is the one that is so ubiquitous in countless textbooks) is intentionally cropped so as to conceal the crucifix that Sitting Bull is wearing around his neck. He was a devout Catholic and we should honor this historical fact rather than perpetuating an unscrupulous agenda.

This image can be found here.

--J smith898 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see the cropped version you are talking about. I also see this one, which does show a crucifix and in fact seems to be the same image as yours except that the one you link to is restored: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sitting_Bull_1885_uncropped.jpg
If you agree then I think we've determined that your image has no copyright problem and you can upload the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard
and go ahead and make the change. Let me know if something is confusing. There will be some questions about licenses but if this is the same image then you can use the data from the page I have posted above. Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes that you have a oopy of that image at a good resolution. If not, you can either work on the above image if you want to/know how, or request restoration of the above image at the Commons site. There's a list where various volunteers pick images to work on. Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the image you think is better was already in use on the page devoted to Sitting Bull himself. Nobody seems to be disputing your assessment of the crop, so I went ahead and made the change to use the uncropped image here as well. If someone thinks this change should not have been made, please say so in this section and I will see it. The file name for the old image is Sitting Bull - edit2 cropped.jpg|200px; if help is needed to put it back I will gladly assist. Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives Project has a huge number of images on this topic

[edit]

I have made some attempt to categorize some of them, but there are many more and I am only very slightly familiar with this people. Please come take a look if you would be interested in either helping with that or in using some of them in this or a related article. By definition National Archives images have no copyright and can be freely used on Wikipedia. You can see a list of the image batches at Categorization page, or just do a search for Souix or another term at commons.wikimedia.org! Thanks :) Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DAPL Protest Section (moved to chronological order on TP)

[edit]

What can be done to clean-up the protest section? It doesn't look very encyclopedic. As it is now, it's size is very large compared to other clearly important Sioux events. Agassiz830 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried my best to make it encylopedic :)
However, I suppose it has grown out of the scope of this article. I will replace most of it with a "for full ... see Dakota Access Pipeline protests"
Mannydantyla (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wahpekute, Yanktonai do not have pages and redirect here

[edit]

Therefore I removed the links to the redirect pages. Possibly a better solution would be to remove the redirects and create some sort of a page, but I don't know how to do the first part and can't do the second. So I am noting the situation for anyone who may want to address it. Elinruby (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

history

[edit]

I am not an expert in Sioux (or Lakota) history, but this article skips from the relationship with European traders to the war of 1862, were not any events in between? In the 1862 there is a reference to the federal payment, surely that would imply that they were already inside a reservation, when were they taken there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.185.49 (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sioux/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks really good, someone should check over history/anthro and NPOV; separate articles for Yankton, Santee etc possibly proper to do (all language articles for Yankton etc resolve to "Sioux language" at present, and should have separated articles if possible. --Skookum1 (12 May 06)

Last edited at 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

DAPL Protest Section

[edit]

What can be done to clean-up the protest section? It doesn't look very encyclopedic. As it is now, it's size is very large compared to other clearly important Sioux events. Agassiz830 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried my best to make it encylopedic :)
However, I suppose it has grown out of the scope of this article. I will replace most of it with a "for full ... see Dakota Access Pipeline protests"
Mannydantyla (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huge gaps

[edit]

I have to agree with a previous comment, namely that this article skips over substantial periods of time, leaving out crucial elements of the Sioux history. For example, where is there a discussion of the Sioux wars fought against the Pawnee or Omaha people? (The Pawnee are mentioned, but only in passing.) And there is nothing approaching an adequate approach (or any approach) to the conflict with the Chippewa which drove the Sioux out of land contested between the two tribes. A typical reader would think that nothing--absolutely nothing--happened between the late seventeenth century and 1862. The article, as such, is deeply flawed and ought to be infused with new content to fill the gaps.

Isoruku (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wanted section

[edit]

Spirituality, beliefs.--Manfariel (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sioux. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

[edit]

Isn't WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES against using images of certain people to essentially represent an entire group of people? Theo (edits) 07:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Roles

[edit]

I wanted to inform all that I am working on an update to this page that will talk about the roles of the men and women within the tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboVolcano4 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoboVolcano4: Are you talking the historical gender roles? It's easy to make it seem like the people no longer exist, or only exist in the past, if you also don't include modern day "gender roles", if such a thing exists. That's my advice: include present-day representation. And there's also winkte and heyoka if you want to write about roles in society, not just related to gender. oncamera 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Great Sioux Nation

[edit]

I'm redirecting Great Sioux Nation to the Sioux#Etymology section as that's where the definition for GSN exists. The rest of that article is already in this article in the Sioux#Ethnic and modern geographical divisions and Sioux#Black Hills Land claims. The Canada section of the GSN article pertains to the Assiniboine and shouldn't be in this article, since they are not considered part of the "Great Sioux Nation" or the Oceti Sakowin/Sioux tribes.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indians

[edit]

This article uses the outdated term "Indian" 113 times. Many should be changed to the modern international "indigenous" or "indigenous peoples". Proper names such as Indian Peace Commission are appropriate. Since this massive task cannot be done without other editing considerations, I am simply posting the recommendation here. Humpster (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous is capitalized per WP:Indigenous. Also, many times it's used in a quote or the official name of a reservation, legal document etc so that shouldn't be changed per WP:Indigenous. Just looking at the first 50 uses, the vast majority are official names, quotes, etc and it wouldn't be appropriate to change those if that's the name of the linked article such as Indian agency police.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sioux&oldid=1259537501"