Talk:Republic of Lakotah proposal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality and Style issues

Portions of this entry like the opening paragraph, read like a manifesto not a wikipedia informational page. There is a lack of neutrality at times, and it really needs some cleaning up.````

Borders

I've seen nothing yet from Republic of Lakota, Lakota Nation, or Russell Means specifically describing the territory of Lakota. That was supposed to be announced on 29 December but that doesn't seem to have gone online; the map currently provided, Image:Lakotanation.jpg, is as far as I know entirely unsourced so I'm removing it from the article pending a source. Territorial claims tempt flamewars. --Stlemur (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of Lakota has put maps up here; the above map is substantially correct. We do need a version we have clear rights to use, though. --Stlemur (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of the blue dots (capitals?) on that map would seem to be Pine Ridge, South Dakota; any ideas what the one in western SD might be? --Stlemur (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is Rapid City, SD and as I understand it Rapid City has a large Lakota indian population outside of the reservations.--AJHfiddler (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Native American name controversy

With regard to the terminology debate, the publicity materials for Republic of Lakota/Lakota Freedom universally use "Indian", which is Russell Means' preferred term for the indigenous peoples of North America. I have retained this usage but if this is not correct with WP:MOS please let me know. --Stlemur (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he prefers to use that term is part of their political philosophy. So just mention that rather than changing it to WP:MOS.

Carol Moore 04:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

activists

this article needs to clearly state somewhere that this movement does not represent the Lakota people and their elected leaders, unless of course there is evidence which can be cited to the contrary. otherwise this entire article gives undo weight by not acknowledging this just like the article cold fusion would be unacceptable if it did not state the widespread doubt about cold fusion. otherwise, nice job SJMNY (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The activists stated that there was a several years period of collaboration with tribal councils and chiefs in the leadup to present events. That is what the article needs to state, along with a disclaimer that it isn't known to what extent the people were represented. This, notably, is what the article already does state. Clearly stating that it does not represent the Lakota people would be unacceptable just as the article cold fusion would be unacceptable if it stated categorically that cold fusion was impossible. 71.231.176.86 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Unrecognized State"

The term "unrecognized state" suggests that the fictional entity "Lakota Republic" is real, which it is not - recognized or no. The activists wish it were, but wishes and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee. It is no more real than if I "notified" the Sate Department that parts of Washington and Oregon were now a sovereign nation. It's good for a laugh, but little else.72.11.124.226 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree. i think "unrecognized state" would be more appropriate for a place that operates as an indpendent nation but is not recognized by most as such. Until such time as a significant number of people have renounced U.S. citizenship and begun treating themselves as living in this "nation" it is more than "unrecognized", it is "fictional" or at best "proposed." SJMNY (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are ridiculous. If Kosovo can be a country than so can Lakota. Besides, I bet a ton of people don't recognize the US as a country. Does that mean that that's true?

"i agree. i think "unrecognized state" would be more appropriate for a place that operates as an indpendent nation but is not recognized by most as such."

Yeah that is exactly what Lakota is. You just proved that Lakota IS a unrecognized state. 24.126.115.119 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "nrecognized nation" would probably make more sense than "unrecognized state". The problem with referring to them as any sort of State is that it suggests that they want to be admitted to the USA as an independent state rather than being a separate nation. 81.155.188.152 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way does "a place that operates as an indpendent nation but is not recognized by most as such" describe this mythical country? It has no independent government with any territorial control whatsoever, just a handful of people who assert the place should exist. Last I checked, the states implicated here still have full control over these areas without any resistance from even a significant minority, or for that matter even an organized resistance of any size. 24.255.175.182 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

isn't their whole claim based on that the U.S. recognized them in 1853, and they want to renew that dialog on those terms? making them not "not recognized" but "not recognized recently." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.18 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?

I think this article is interesting enough, long enough, and well-cited enough -- separate from the question of how legitimate a movement this is -- to go on Did You Know, but I wouldn't feel right nominating it myself; I can see how putting it on DYK might be seen as using Wikipedia as a soapbox. How do others feel? --Stlemur (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't even seen this post yet when I did the nomination. Anyways, the nom is at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on December 29. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change

The group announcing the Republic of Lakota seems to have decided to change the English spelling of the country to "Republic of Lakotah". I've moved the page accordingly. The move was done silently; the URL [1] simply redirects. --Stlemur (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet domain

Was the .lo actually proposed anywhere?

Was it proposed to IANA or just brought up by some activist as a fun idea? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Largest city?

Can anybody get info on what the largest city in Lakotah is? Zazaban (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Republic of Lakotah article data box below the article title, it reads Omaha, Nebraska and the city lies 20 miles south of the proposed republic's borders. I expect Sioux Falls, South Dakota or Rapid City, South Dakota as the projected largest cities or capitals, but those cities don't have a Native American majority population. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the only American Indian separatist group

The Republic of Lakotah is not the only American Indian Movement-backed separatist movement: There are Navajo or Na-dene Nationalists in northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico and southern Utah demanded a homeland for them as the "Dinetah Republic" to cover 20 million square acres of the Southwest US or declared itself independent from the US.

Also are the Cherokee Nationalists based in eastern Oklahoma among other tribal groups there in land once was Indian Territory until the area became an US state in 1907, and hundreds of proposed Native American tribal nations awaiting BIA and federal recognition but they will exist within the United States laws, not wanting secession. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we can point out to the State of Sequoyah plan in 1905: a failed effort to create a state in what's now eastern Oklahoma with a Native American majority. The US congress combined the two territories (Oklahoma/Cimarron-western and Indian-eastern) as the state of Oklahoma in 1907 with a White/European-American majority representation. The state is a metaphor for the Republic of Lakotah and the Mexica Movement, a radical political group made up of Hispanic and Native American activists whom want to restore former Mexican rule and establish a separate Native American country. + Mike D 26 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Domain registration oddness

OK, this is a little odd. the Republic of Lakotah website is in Russell Means' name and points to somewhere in New Mexico (where I think he has a residence). The Lakota Oyate site, meanwhile, is registered to someone named David Kowalsky in Asheville, NC; I have no idea who that second person is but the site copies most of the pages, straight copy, from the original Lakota Freedom site which was launched on 10 December 2007. Any ideas? --Stlemur (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, e-mails to lakotaoyate return the following message:

Lakotah Oyate is a free and independent nation of the Lakota People. We ARE NOT a 'republic' of Lakota, which is a Latin, not Peta Sakowin, concept.

(Peta Sakowin = the council of seven tribes making up the Lakota). I am exploring further. --Stlemur (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed separate tribes for Wikinews...and got nothing...not surprised though.DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just notice that the two websites have different mailing addresses. --76.89.225.160 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more info, the phone number on Lakota Oyate is associated with Naomi Archer the communication liaison from the original press release. And she is based in Asheville, NC as well. Maybe it's a splinter movement?--76.89.225.160 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok it looks it is I found this caption on the media photos from Lakota Oyate Press Conference {Lakota Delegate Oyate Wacinyapin, or Russell Means, from Pine Ridge. Unfortunately, Russell Means has now tried to institute the "Republic of Lakota" without the guidance of the Elders and the children. Visit www.lakotahoyate.net for the Lakotah independence movement of the people.}--76.89.225.160 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy.

Right, this is going to mean re-organizing the article and unpicking which side supports what idea. And re-naming the article too...what's neutral? "Independent Lakota state"? Just "Lakota state"? --Stlemur (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I know. "Lakotah", no Oyate or Republic of, was the name given to the state in the combined group's letter to the State Department. So: country called Lakotah; Lakotah to point here with a "for other uses, see Lakota" at the top. Then, introduction and discussion of the common ideas and common history (which goes to December 26th or so). From then, a section on the Republic of Lakotah (Means faction), that one first since it's got more press coverage and far more information, and then Lakotah Oyate (the Asheville faction). That sound reasonably balanced? --Stlemur (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same thing, you beat me too it :) --76.89.225.160 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

State department

This is based on an e-mail Wikinews received from the State Department. Stlemur has received this e-mail and has verified it. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some issues

This is a good start to an article and it makes for an interesting and informative read. I commend the authors for their work so far.

However, there are important issues in the first section, which says, "LeadingNative American separatists argue that the recent declaration of independence is not a secession from the USA, but rather, a reassertion of sovereignty. Others are reluctant to recognize the country, and certain members of the Lakota tribe itself argue that they were not represented in the decisions."

The issues are:

1. "Leading" is a characterization that requires substantiation. Who says these activists are the leading activists? Who stands behind them? Who is against them? This is a POV problem to label them this way. It needs to be cited to an independent source or else removed.
2. "Others" and "Certain" can be considered "weasel words". They really should be replaced with specific mention of exactly who believes what.

Best, Johntex\^talk 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've rephrased that section. Better? --Stlemur (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better, thank you. It still says "certain members of the..." but I know it sometimes not possible to be 100% precise. Ideally it would be great to have a hard fact like "80% of registered tribal members..." or "an opposing group..." but that may not be possible here at this stage. Accordingly, I removed the Template about "weasel words". Thanks very much! Johntex\^talk 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Questions

It seems to me that this group/nation matches fairly closely the definition of a micronation. The obvious exception is the geographical size of the area they are claiming. However, other things, such as the number of independently verified proponents and the lack of international recognition do seem like a match for the Republic of Lakotah. Should we have some sort of a discussion or link to micronation?

I see that Russell Means was/is associated with the American Indian Movement. We should probably mention that connection, shouldn't we? It seems like it would help establish context with the history of one of the best-known groups of Indian activists. Johntex\^talk 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the four signers of the withdrawal letter are all longtime activists with various movements of the Lakota. Russell Means is a member of one faction of the AIM, and was a participant in a lot of their major actions, and is a fixture in Lakota politics. Just a quick look on Google News shows that Canupa Gluha Mani's been quite prominent lately in Lakota reservation politics as well. Finally, the group's liaison, Naomi Archer, has been a spokesperson for at least half a dozen activist and charitable organizations in the past few years.

With regard to micronations, I'd say it meets the requirements but I'm not an expert enough to say. I'm inclined to think we should add the category until we have clear evidence not to keep it. --Stlemur (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Republic of Lakotah is micronation and not an unrecognized country. I mean can anyone really compare the Republic of Lakotah to Taiwan? The Republic of Lakotah lacks a critical mass of support, has no defined territory, lacks control of that territory, etc. I changed the Lakota page and this page to refer the Republic of Lakotah as a micrnation, but those edits have been reverted.

I, and other have been also trying to remove the repeated attempts to list the Republic of Lakotah on List of unrecognized countries and List of sovereign states in 2007 but supports of the Republic of Lakotah seem to keep on re-adding it. The reverting of the adding of the Republic of Lakotah to those lists is getting old. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point (and I haven't been adding it to those lists), but the definition given on List of unrecognized countries is: "The lists of unrecognized countries enumerates those geo-political entities which lack some form of diplomatic recognition, but wish to be universally recognized as sovereign states." Lakotah is not recognized, Lakotah wants to be recognized...for it not to be included on the list it needs not to be not a geo-political entity. From what I can gather from geopolitics, the distinction is: "geopolitics traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power and geographic space"; so the question is whether Lakotah actually controls any land. And to that question, we just don't know the answer right now. --Stlemur (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

they claim land but they most certainly do not control any land at the prsent moment unless someone is actually suggesting that there is a part of the midwest currently not under the "control" of the U.S. government, a pretty absurd notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJMNY (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that there was a long period, hardly a few years ago, when the US government controlled a portion of the 'middle east' known as Iraq, but we did not act as if they had lost their sovereignty. The people were utterly dependent on the US government for medical supplies, 'security', etc, and yet we still considered the place Iraq, a recognized state. Therefore it is no leap of understanding to see that although the US government may impose its will upon or control the 'territory' of a person, or a nation of peoples, that government does not represent them except under duress. Accordingly, if the Republic of Lakotah people have notified the US government of their desire to break ties or what have you, and the US gov denies it to them, they would be an unrecognized nation for certain. 50.14.146.179 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah → Lakotah — Supporters of the state have split into two factions; "Republic of Lakotah" refers to only one faction. The other calls itself "Lakotah Oyate". "Lakotah" is currently a redirect to "Lakota", which is a DAB. —Stlemur (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Move - Lakotah is neutral and would be the most common thing someone would think of typing to look for this article. Link to Lakotah (disambiguation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Straussian (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but... How about Lakotah (state) or some such? I think that "Lakota(h)"'s primary meaning is the people. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Sigpig - Lakota(h) refers to the people. That's why it's useful to have the list of usages as it stands at the moment when you search "Lakotah".

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment - are we sure they have really split into two factions, or do members just disagree over what the name should be? I am not sure I see sufficient evidence to support any move at this time. It may be better for now just to put up the appropriate redirects and note the controversy in the article. Johntex\^talk 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree, I haven't seen any evidence of how much support each faction has from the original support base of the lakota freedom delegation. As of right now it looks like Russell Means is the only one backing the Republic of Lakotah. I'm assuming if that is the case the other delegates are supporting Lakotah Oyate. However both groups are using the legal term "Lakotah".--AJHfiddler (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Use whichever name is appearing more frequently in news reports until such time as it can be definitively said what they want to call themselves /(or that they have in fact split into 2 factions) SJMNY (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could Lakotah be confused with Lakota? — AjaxSmack 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• I believe so, which is why I suggest the disambiguator "(state)", or something else along that line. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conversation with Naomi Archer

I talked a bit with Naomi Archer of Lakotah Oyate earlier. My interview notes are with Wikinews now being turned into an article which we can use as a source. Here are some of the salient facts (or at least assertions) I learned:

• The photo album of the first Lakotah Freedom press conference is being released under a Creative Commons license.
• The Republic of Lakotah is Russell Means acting on his own, without the consent of the Lakota elders. He "hijacked" the site on December 29th. They are hoping to resolve the division within a few weeks. The power company and also a bank he's trying to set up are all Russell Means's creations; Ms Archer disavowed Lakotah Oyate's connection to any of those instiutions, to the Republic of Lakotah, and to the Provisional Government.
• Canpua Gluha Mani heads the Strong Heart Warrior Society, which will probably become the paramilitary force of Lakotah.
• Although Lakotah Oyate claims 82% support from Pine Ridge Reservastion's inhabitants, only Canupa Gluha Mani has actually cut up his driver's license.
• Pine Ridge Reservation's council is going to consider supporting Lakotah Oyate's program.
• At least one member of the Lakota Freedom Delegation was part of the Grass Roots Oyate takeover of Pine Ridge reservation buildings in 2000. However, while the group has received (and welcomes) support from parts of AIM, this is not an AIM action and they are not affiliated with AIM.
• Lakotah Oyate is in negotiation with about 150 other indigenous groups in the US, including among others Northern Cheyenne Reservation and the Hawaiian natives.

Anyway, when the Wikinews article goes up this should be citeable at least as assertions. --Stlemur (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New sources

I got a huge number of news alerts this morning; we can just just put new potential sources in this list and strike them off as they get used or not used.

4 January

• Gale Courey Toensing (2008-01-04). "Withdrawal from US treaties enjoys little support from tribal leaders". Retrieved 2008-01-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publiser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) Contains interviews with Rodney Bordeaux of Rosebud Indian Reservation, Russell Means, Joseph Brings Plenty of the Cheyenne River Sioux, and BIA spokesman Gary Garrison. Integrated into "Support and reactions" section.
• "Re-Declaration of Independence by the Lakota Nation and a Red Pill interview with Duane Martin Sr. (Canupa Gluha Mani)". The Red Pill. 2008-01-03. Retrieved 2008-01-04. Contains a brief interview with Canupa Gluha Mani. Contains one quote and a few snippets but nothing new.

5 January

• Harlan, Bill (2008-01-05). "Land of 'Lakotah' to be celebrated Saturday". Rapid City, South Dakota: Rapid City Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-05. Article on upcoming celebration of Lakotah. Nothing new except unconfirmed hint that Means and rest of delegation will appear together.
• "Lakota Freedom Delegation says spokesman Russell Means 'hijacked' organization". Wikinews. 2008-01-05. Retrieved 2008-01-05. Wikinews article as mentioned above
  • See below for discussion on whether Wikinews sources can be used

7 January

• "Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji), an Oglala Lakota and first president of the Native American Journalists Association, has also discredited the December 2007 developments (or possibly only Russell Means' actions), writing briefly in an early January 2008 piece that the mainstream medias sources reported inaccurate information about "the Lakota Sioux (a misnomer)". He stated that the "mainstream media never bothered to check the authenticity of this article by talking to the legally elected presidents of any tribe in South Dakota. They never considered that treaties are made between nations and not individuals."

My inclnation would be not to use this for three reasons: the point that the Lakota Freedom Delegation doesn't represent the elected Lakota governments is made in already-cited news sources; the Giago article is an opinion piece rather than reportage; and while I think it's a fair question whether Russell Means or anyone else is designated to speak for the Lakota people, I think we can agree that Tim Giago isn't (despite his journalistic credentials). --Stlemur (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does speak to the reaction of people who aren't elected officials. I think that is important too. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true; it's a "general public" reaction in that sense but we simply don't know if it's representative or not. Apart from the Harlan blog piece there's no hard evidence out there either way how the average Lakota feels. Furthermore, Giagio is notable for his journalistic credentials alone and for that reason he might be quotable, but he's certainly not the average "person in the street". --Stlemur (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just notice that the mailing address on on lakotaoyate.net has been taken down —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhfiddler (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like they were just updating the address.--AJHfiddler (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Colleen Simard (2008-01-07). "Lessons from the Lakota". Retrieved 2008-01-07. -- editorial piece but contains quotes from Phyllis Young.
  • I can't tell if Phyllis Young is supporting the republicoflokotah.com or if that is where the editorial author found the information.--AJHfiddler (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Two tribal leaders reject secession". Rapid City Journal. 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-01-07 name=Bill Harlan. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help) -- News-wise, is a rehash of what we already know. Has extensive quotes from Rodney Bordeaux. --Stlemur (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Marni Soupcoff (2008-01-07). "Lakota Indians set the record straight". Full Comment, hosted by National Post. Retrieved 2008-01-07. -- Lise King, publisher of The Native Voice, says the Lakota Freedom Delegation has no authority. --Stlemur (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rebecca Bentz (2008-01-07). "Tribe wants out". Pierre Capital Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-11. -- Sioux tribe withdraws from treaties, wants to form their own country; some quotes from Clarence Skyes, executive director of the United Sioux Tribes)

9 January

• Rebecca Bentz (2008-01-09). "Rebirth of a nation". Pierre, South Dakota: Capital Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-09. -- details about split, mentions politician to talk with Means about LFD's concerns.
• A bunch of audio interviews with Russell Means are online at Republic of Lakotah's media page but it's going to be a pain to match some of them to original sources. --Stlemur (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

14 January

• Statement by Vivian High Elk in Support of Alfred Bone Shirt; Statements by Phyllis Young and Garry Rowland on Lakotah Oyate dot com; Statements by Alfred Bone Shirt, Phyllis Young and Garry Rowland on Lakotah Freedom DLN Coalition web page. Unverified but most probably authentic since some of this has also been posted to the forum at the Republic of Lakotah website. -- 14 January 2008

25 January

• Fighting Terrorism since 1492 (by John C. K. Daly for ISN Security Watch, 25 January 2008), an interim review of the situation; includes some quotes from a 24 January telephone interview with Russell Means, and quotes from Jerry Collette: ISN Security Watch. -- 25 January 2008

28 January

• Radio interview with Jerry Collette, Interim Attorney General of the Provisional Government the Republic of Lakotah Direct link to mp3. -- 28 January 2008

31 January

• Becky Shay (January 31, 2008). "Activist urges Indians to keep culture". Billings Gazette. Retrieved 2008-01-31. -- summarizes Republic of Lakotah visit to the Northern Cheyenne reservation. Note that the article misidentifies Tim Lame Woman as chairman of the tribal council; as far as I can tell he's an AIM organizer but not a member of the tribal government. --Stlemur (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

2 February

• Emily Fischer (February 2, 2008). "Sioux Nation Treaty Council addresses Native rights". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-02. This ties in via wikinews:'No treaty withdrawal', says Lakota elder. The treaty council of the Sioux -- this is the organization which crosses over reservation lines and consists of the traditional chiefs and spiritual leaders of the Sioux -- is sending their own list of grievances to Washington, in a less-radical parallel to the Republic of Lakotah. I'm not certain whether the "Black Hills Sioux Nation" refers to just the Lakota or to all Sioux. --Stlemur (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

10 February

• Steve Miller (~February 10, 2008). "Means proposes wind project for new republic". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Confirms Jerry Collette as Attorney General, expounds on wind project, more. --Stlemur (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• James Arthur Jancik. "Feet to the Fire" (Podcast). Retrieved 2008-02-14. {{cite podcast}}: Text "date-February 10, 2008" ignored (help) -- interview with Phyllis Young. Don't know about content yet. --Stlemur (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

14 February

• Jim Headley (February 14, 2008). "Lakotahs withdraw from U.S. treaties". Gering Courier. Retrieved 2008-02-15. Contains lazy background research but original interview information, including intent to sue the US for genocide. --Stlemur (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

15 February

• ISA (February 15, 2008). "Indian Country: Fight or fade". SperoNews. Retrieved 2008-02-15. -- contains analysis and an interview with a member of tribal government, but I don't know if it's neutral. --Stlemur (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

28 June

• Bill Donahue (29 June, 2008). "Ways and Means". Washington Post. p. W08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Five-page article on Russell Means and the Republic of Lakotah. --Stlemur (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

July

• http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2008/07/200871091550984214.html Riz Khan

References

Original research

Throw out the original research references, private communications and the like, immediately. And everything based on that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? Number one it is a direct response from the State dept. which can be verified and if need be I can send it through OTRS to have it marked as such. All info related to the US government is PD and a response from the media department regarding this exact situation is every bit of relevant, and verifiable for this article as a source. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines would appear to be WP:COS and WP:RS. I'm staying out of this discussion as I don't think I can be in it objectively enough. --Stlemur (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have forwarded the letter to OTRS for confirmation. DragonFire1024 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikinews qualifies as a reliable source, an argument could easily be made that citing it is just a sidestep from original research. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According to some people from Wikinews, it's OK to cite them in Wikipedia articles (see the brief discussion below). According to others, the subject is currently hotly debated within the Wikinews community. I'm putting the article link here but I won't be integrating it myself as I don't think I can fairly judge. -Stlemur (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia and wikinews wishes don't apply here. It is up too the wikipedia community to decide weather wikinews is relible no wikinews community. BonesBrigade 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more previous discussions to consider: Wikipedia:RSN#Wikinews_redux, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ

The point is that this is a 100% verifiable letter from the U.S. State Department. OTRS can verify that. So if this is a question of being verifiable, wait for OTRS. DragonFire1024 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and its not my wishes, its the Wishes of WP. DragonFire1024 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Making this article a Good Article.

What would bring this article to Good Article status?

I think it's pretty close already. Here's what needs doing:

• Comprehensiveness -- We've got it in spades.
• Clarity & language usage -- This is mostly fine too, with one or two sentences (the Venezuela sentence) a little awkward.
• Balance of content -- I'm not sure. Each section is as long as it needs to be, but could some things be moved around? The "liens" part might go elsewhere, and the historical and legal discussion could use more background beyond just wikilinks. Someone might argue that the size of the article in total gives undue weight to the movement but providing complete information has to be the priority.
• Copyright -- no problems as far as I know
• NPOV -- I think we do a good job with neutrality in a contentious issue but an outside editor should have a look.
• Images -- we do as well as we can with what we have.
• Original research -- this might be difficult. There is an overall flag on the page which I think is extreme and came from the Wikinews debate. The two statements specifically flagged ("However, none of these nations have publicly announced recognition for Lakotah" and "In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians awarded $122 million to eight tribes of Sioux Indians as compensation ($17.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877 and $105 million in interest at 5% per annum between 1877 and 1980), but the court did not award land. The tribal governments of the Lakota has refused the settlement, and as interest accrues, the unclaimed award is approaching $1 billion") don't need to be -- there's no way to cite a negative and the latter has its own article with its own sources. The big question is about incorporating Wikinews's research; with that, I think we follow the right path by just linking to the Wikinews articles at the bottom and I honestly don't see how a State Department response which has been verified by Wikinews's ticketing system and which is verifiable to anyone can be objected to.

Thoughts? --Stlemur (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of {{Fact}} tags that need to get sourced as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everything is now sourced. I think it could be GA but there's some repetition that needs tending to.Trachys (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled across this article while looking for something else entirely (the Oglalla Aquifer and how it is overlain by an overwhelmingly Republican voter population... what can I say? I am a public administration geek.) Anyway, I noticed you were looking for an outsider to give input on Good Article status? I think you folks have already done a good job with this, style-wise, especially given the paucity of public sources. However, there are a few problems. First, the article lacks a sense of scale. By that I mean there is no indication of how serious or widespread support for a Lakota nation is. Now, I understand that possibly no one knows this, and short of a Gallup poll it probably can't be known, but presenting the Lakota nation on the same footing of some much more viable proposed nations (such as Quebec, United Ireland or the devolution of the UK's constituent parts) may, in and of itself be POV. Treating it seriously without quoting an outside source to point out how, let's face it, loony the whole idea is makes me think the article is soapboxish. Second, I really think the article needs a map clearly showing the boundaries as propsed by Means. If no such map exists, or he refuses to supply one, then either the original research map should be removed or noted as the best guess based on the description in the treaty. Third, more work should be done on establishing the nature of the territory involved. Wikipedia original research guidelines allow the simple summing of numbers, and with that allowance any interested party, with a half decent description of the territory should be able to produce demographic info. I'd like to see total (not just Lakota) population figures, how this territory has voted in recent elections and what percentage of the population is Native American. Some figures on poverty would be good, too, though more difficult to collate. (BTW, off the top of my head I would say this area is filled with overwhelmingly white and hard conservative voters, with a few pockets of highly Democratic Indian Reservations. If by some miracle this happened Means would likely find himself losing the Lakota presidency to a candidate slightly to the right of Dick Cheney, a native of this area.) Posting the population numbers would go a long way toward highlighting the unlikelihood of this proposed nation ever being realized and thereby balance the article somewhat. Nosimplehiway (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Lakota Freedom Movement into this article

I support the merge. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As do I. This "unrecognized state" does not belong with the likes of Transnistria, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, etc. because those unrecognized states actually have soverignty, governments, and a populace that is under their control. The fake Republic of Lakotah is a dream of a few dozen crazy Indian activists. Ask most people who live in the area what the "Republic of Lakotah" is and they wouldn't be able to tell you. --Tocino 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. The proponents of the "unrecognized state" are so few and likely to be all part of the Lakota Freedom Movement that you can't really distinguish one from the other. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. Lakota, as a nation is a seperate entity from the Freedom Movement.

Wageslave (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. I agree with Wageslave above. --Smeira (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. A (proposed) nation is not a "movement." Trachys (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention Putin?

A few of the sources this article cites ([2] for example), as well as countless blogs, mention a rumor that Vladimir Putin is taking steps to have Russia recognize Lakotah. While I've seen absolutely nothing to substantiate this (it seems to have originated here citing absolutely no sources), the rumor is quite widespread. Is it better to mention it in the article, making it clear of course that that it is a rumor ("While Lakota Oyate and many weblogs report that Vladimir Putin is considering extending recognition to Lakotah, no reliable independent source has been found to verify this) or better not to mention it at all? --Stlemur (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Russia will not recognize it because Russians respect territorial unity of other states unlike the USA who recognized the breakup of the USSR even before it was officially dissolved and also call Chechen separatists "fighters for freedom". It think Russians unable to do such vile act to the USA.--Certh (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes because the leader of the second most powerful nation in the world and largest nuclear arsenal is obviously going to make a direct verbal assault on the legitimacy of the most powerful nation in the world and second largest nuclear arsenal, over an incident so insignificant most people *in the relevant area* don't care about it. Brilliant strategic move. Also, since when does the US government support Al-Qaeda satellite groups? Leushenko (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That article on Putin looks like a hoax. According to this the Lakotah seem to be ignored by the Russians as well as the Venezualans. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Country

Infobox Country does NOT belong in here, because the "republic of Lakotah" is not an actual country (and does not seem to be a likely candidate to become one during the next, say, 1000 years). The article is terribly biased in the Lakotah direction, olympically ignoring the social reality of those areas.

I tried to revamp the intro for getting at least some reality check in that part. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In response to the Press Release by Russell Means"

I visited the cited source http://www.defendblackhills.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=1, and it has not preserved the typo "Ariq" instead of "Iraq" in the quoted passages. I will correct the typo and remove the "[sic]." Pulsadinura (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Free Lakota Bank

As far as I can tell, Free Lakota Bank is a project of Canupa Gluha Mani, who broke from the Republic of Lakotah early in the movement. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

New edit done, based on this info. If this is unsatisfactory, where do you propose this information be located, then? Perhaps a new section? 151.213.227.76 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on Canupa Gluha Mani's and Jerry Collette's involvement in the Republic of Lakotah was included in earlier revisions but has since been cut; it might be restored now that we know Canupa Gluha Mani is active again. --Killing Vector (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Credibility

I know this has been touched on before, but this article gives the imaginary "Republic of Lakotah" way too much credibility. If it weren't so well sourced, you could nominate it for speedy deletion per WP:MADEUP. Even then, most of the sources are self-published or unreliable (ie, press releases by Lakotah people or blogs by activists). The most reliable of the sources deal with the legitimate leaders of the Lakotah distancing themselves from this madness, or explicitly rejecting it. There is no case for this "country" to be compared with the likes of Taiwan. It absolutely fails the definition of an "unrecognized state", and there is absolutely no prospect of this changing. What to editors think about rewriting this article to reflect reality? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the article as written that this doesn't have widespread recognition. I think the Republic of Lakotah is something more than WP:MADEUP as it's been "recognized" by a number of other notable secessionist movements, and received mainstream coverage -- although the Washington Post article which covered it hasn't been integrated into the Wikipedia article yet (it's the "Ways and Means" article linked above). (I'm not saying it's a functioning country though.) --Killing Vector (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell Means' real motivations

The article should go further into why exactly Means is "going it alone" essentially in proclaiming the Lakotah's sovereignty. Does he really care about the plight of the Lakotah on the reservations like Pine Ridge or is this quest another one of his ego trips? Sure he'll cite facts that are undeniably true, about high suicide rates among Lakotah teens, the high rates of alcohol abuse and the high incidents of diseases, the fact that men live only to 44 and women live only to 47 on average. Yet it is clear that he did not even consult the high members of the Lakotah tribes to get the go-ahead. Clearly, if he believed he was on a mission to save his people and their heritage, he could've taken the conventional route. But, Russell Means is anything but conventional. And it's not like he had a revolutionary idea. Consider this excerpt from the Washington Post article by Bill Donahue published on June 29, 2008:

"I'm a little frustrated that he [Means] just went ahead and went to Washington," says Alex White Plume, a bison rancher who serves on the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, which fights for Indians' land rights. "It's not like he came up with a brand-new idea. We've talked about separating from the U.S. at treaty council meetings. No traditional Lakota wants to be colonized, and actually I wanted to bring a group to Washington myself. But I wanted to bring thousands. Russell didn't build that kind of consensus. He never even sat down with our traditional elders." "Russell didn't do the protocol," echoes Floyd Hand, also on the treaty council. "What I do is, I make people welcome at a meeting. I buy everybody some meat and vegetables and fry bread. Russell went solo."

This should be incorporated into the article to show while the Sioux and Lakotah may agree with Means in principle that their culture, language and traditions must be preserved, they are disappointed with the fact that Means completely circumvented them and disregarded them in his personal quest. If there are no objections, I will add this excerpt into the article. Ericster08 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that either of us could explain RM's motivations in full, but it is quite possible that he chose to circumvent the system in place because that system had been compromised. I certainly have no knowledge of it directly, but given all we know about how the US government manages conquered peoples, historically, it would not be much of a shock to discover that the 'elders' and other people involved in decision-making were corrupted in some way. If he followed the 'protocol', how far would he have gotten? Probably about as far as the ones complaining about his initiative. 50.14.146.179 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)