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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
Article needs a section on origins, and pre-European history of the nation
Its starting point is the 1700's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.188.104 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I came looking for the origin of all things at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers and found nothing. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 October User L3X1 restored a part of the section "First contacts with Europeans" referring to Dakota-Nakota-Lakota groupings which seems to me rather obscure (I am not a native English speaker) and inconsistent with the rest of the article. I hope that someone expert may soon review the whole question.--Jeanambr (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I furtherly suggest that the whole original revision edited by user Bobbotronica on 14 September should be checked as seemingly unsourced or dubiously sourced.--Jeanambr (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the deletion because I felt it was backed up by our
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]
Merge discussion
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]
Right on. I saw all the proposals pop up on the WP:IPNA article alerts. Thank you for that! Yuchitown (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
