Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Alright folks, let's discuss.
I'm going to say right now...in my opinion putting this article, in its lead section, on the same footing as the mostly recent spate of mass shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook, in with lone gunmen acting on personal grievances instead of putting it in with massacres or slaughters of civilians perpetrated by agents of the US Government? - goes against the very title of the article. And, as a personal aside...just because content is long-standing doesn't make it categorically correct.
And, information in a lead section isn't supposed to necessarily be cited, because per WP:LEAD it exists elsewhere in the article as a major point. That is referenced.
So. Let's discuss and come to an editorial consensus instead of editing & reverting & editing etc. - Shearonink (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say. There are currently at minimum five sources already cited that use this exact language. It is not for us to express an opinion as editors on Wikipedia that differs with the clear consensus of the reliable sources.

Sources:

The worst mass shooting? A look back at massacres in U.S. history - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

The Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History Was Not in Orlando - Big Think

Wounded Knee, and the bloody history of mass shootings in the US (rapidcityjournal.com)

Orlando shooting headlines gloss over Native American massacres - oregonlive.com

Deadliest mass shooting in modern US history – Wounded Knee, not Las Vegas | Letters | The Guardian Iljhgtn (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for more on how we are supposed to act in this case and those like it. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also add that an event can be two things at once and that these terms are not mutually exclusive. The article title is correct as it is indeed a massacre, but it also is the largest mass shooting committed on American soil. Both of these things can be and are correct at the same time (according to reliable sources). Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, first off I'm not righting any great wrongs here. This section is what we are supposed to do...discuss editorial issues on the article talk page. I said what my opinion was. So? I keep on eye on this article because it does get attention sometimes from vandals or whatnot but I haven't really edited it that much. Righters of Great Wrongs usually are IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME when things don't go their way. I just want to discuss the changes to the lead and get off this present cycle of edit! revert! edit! revert!

A couple of things...the lead section of an article is supposed to summarize important facts that appears in the main text. The concept that a massacre perpetrated by an official part of the US government can also be called a mass shooting appears nowhere else in the article. *If* the editorial consensus is that this information is verifiable and reliable etc then that concept should be discussed in the main part of the article perhaps in the Remembrance section or in the Other subsection of Popular culture. If historians and scholarship and reliable sources since the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016 and the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 (which I suppose why the cited sources date from those years) regard this awful event as a mass shooting and ties it in with the American gun culture etc., etc. then maybe how people's attitude towards the Massacre have changed and also how they refer to it has changed then that changing attitude could be mentioned in the main part of the article. But right now it is not. So mentioning this terminology in the first sentence at all is incorrect.

5 sources are cited above and in the article as references for saying that the Massacre was a mass shooting. The Guardian source is a single letter to the editor from an individual. The LA Times states that people's definitions of what massacres are and what mass shootings are can differ, it is not cut and dried or laid out as an absolute. To my mind calling the Massacre a mass shooting diminishes it since it was committed by agents of a governmental entity, the US Army and therefore the Federal Government but I can see that other people's regards in this matter differ. It is sad isn't it that we keep tallies of "worst" events?...

The first sentence would possibly seem to more accurately reflect current attitudes & reliable sources if it states something along the lines of: The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was the killing [I think murder would probably be more accurate] of two hundred fifty to three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army and is regarded by many as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. But then a section on scholarship/historians/interviews about the massacre/deadliest mass shooting concepts etc. would also have to be in place in the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee massacre doesn't fit the definition for a mass shooting as it is defined on Wikipedia (mass shooting, mass shootings in the United States) or the common use of the phrase, even if it was literally a mass shooting. They are clearly different phenomena. The mass shooting article states that warfare is generally excluded and this event and events similar are not mentioned. Including this event would broaden the definition (to the point of being not useful) and the articles would need to be massively rewritten.

As for the articles, those hardly count as a "clear consensus". It's five news articles (or four articles and a letter from a reader) reporting that some people are complaining that Wounded Knee is not considered the worst mass shooting by the public and media, which obviously implies it is not a consensus. The opposite actually, those placing it in the same category as Las Vegas or Orlando are in the minority (unless we're going with the premise that those calling those shootings and the deadliest are simply unaware of Wounded Knee or deliberately acting in bad faith, which would be absurd). Clintville (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"as it is defined on Wikipedia"? Really? Both of the Wikipedia articles you provided state the following, "Definitions vary, with no single, broadly accepted definition" (from Mass shootings in the United States) and then "There is no widely accepted definition" (from Mass shooting). In both instances there is no "defined on Wikipedia" definition from which to operate on as "clearly different phenomena". I think Shearonink (talk · contribs) provided the most useful comment in that there need be more commentary on this in the body of the article, and even provided suggested sections within which to write these. I will begin making some of those suggested updates now and we can add more in the body together, but it is not up to us to decide what term is best when reliable sources (as already cited) clearly use the "mass shooting" term specifically to refer to the Wounded Knee Massacre. Also, as I mentioned already, the terms are not seen by reliable sources as mutually exclusive. A tragedy such as this can clearly be both a massacre as well as a mass shooting.

Lastly, on a note of my opinion alone, though this is not backed up by policy the way the rest of my above comment is, I do not believe that the words "mass shooting" do anything at all to take away from the significance and horrid nature of this shooting. If anything, to me, it serves only to demonstrate that this shooting is the worst (if ranking is indeed done by reliable sources as it morbidly appears to be) among a long history of shootings in the American experience. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I was notified to weigh-in, I'll point out that the use of the term "massacre" was an intentional revision by Lakota in the early twentieth century to rebut the Army's dishonest classification that it was a "battle." While the label of massacre is generally accepted by scholars, it has no agreed legal meaning--there is no crime in any jurisdiction or any enforceable LOAC treaty that uses that term, although I'm aware that some genocide scholars are advocating to make it one (but would have to substantially narrow the definition in order to do so, and tie it to genocide).

In re: worst/deadliest mass shooting, if you search Twitter/X, you will note that Wounded Knee has been widely appropriated by 2nd amendment activists arguing that it is a textbook example of what happens when the government takes away your guns. Of course, the claim is complicated by the fact that most Natives were not citizens at that time, including those at WK, which obviously changes the constitutional argument. Natives were expressly written out of the 14th amendment and generally did not receive citizenship until after WWI. So I don't think it's a scholarly claim at all, but some in the media apparently have picked it up without critical analysis. While WK is certainly discernible in the non-declared war sense, as well as the fact that the campaign was initiated based on bad information, if it's a "mass shooting," then how is it discernible from, say, any use of military force on American soil? That definition would potentially make Civil War battles "mass shootings," even though there are clear differences between the Civil War and what happened at WK. I ran a search of "deadliest mass shooting" and "Wounded Knee" in Google Books. It returns some scholarly books making an entirely different argument, namely that the modern, narrowly-defined focus on mass shootings (mass shootings by a lone shooter or small number of shooters in a public or semipublic place) unfairly ignores the historical mass killings of minorities, such as at WK, Tulsa, etc. I have no problem with that claim, but no scholars seem to be arguing that WK is a mass shooting in the same way as Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc. So I think that's a claim that lacks any support outside of popular media. But again, the debate is over a term with no universally agreed definition. Call it a mass shooting or not, but it objectively should not be described as the "worst" or "most deadly," since the lack of a clear definition prevents a definitive comparison with other shootings. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion is anachronistic to the point of being silly. Serious scholars don't have a problem with this issue. We're certainly not relying on tripe like a three sentence comment from "somebody" that was published next to a comment about how booze is better than television. GMG^talk 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Feel free to start an RfC. Whatever you've got in the above thread is not a consensus. That isn't affected by whether someone puts ALL CAPS comments in the article warning people not to change something. GMG^talk 17:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand your comment about "booze is better than television"? Please explain. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, please disclose if you are editing from the IP that has been reverted already serially by me and other editors. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that I do not live in Iowa. GMG^talk 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it was worth asking since you seemed to have suspiciously decided to start defending a single purpose IP's edits who was warned and who only ever did one thing, revert to a non-consensus view. Remember WP:TIND and these discussions can sometimes take time. What is the rush to come to the best consensus? We most WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES and not just hurl insults and insert our own opinions... Iljhgtn (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Or more plausibly perhaps, I have worked a bit on topics regarding indigenous peoples and this was on my watchlist. GMG^talk 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well that is fine except that you could have joined this discussion months ago. Though you are perfectly welcome to join it now of course. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's in the Guardian source you cited above. I'm not sure why you cited it, because it's complete crap. GMG^talk 17:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please self-revert for now and we can continue this discussion. You are currently edit warring and have failed to make any policy arguments or cite sources and show any evidence for anything. You came out of no where and immediately are swinging punches and warring. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to self revert. Get an actual consensus for this novel classification. GMG^talk 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources use this language and that is why we had a stable consensus before. We are still in the midst of achieving new consensus to CHANGE from that per WP:ONUS and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES and WP:BESTSOURCES. I appreciate your good faith electing to self-revert and stick to the process. Please remember also WP:TIND. Thank you. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay...so...where is your consensus? GMG^talk 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We are working that out and have been since September. Only a single anonymous IP who has edited on NO other parts of this page, and on NO other pages at all was reverting to a non-consensus based view. Per WP:CONSENSUS, again, worth quoting from the actual policies and not simply talking about this stuff from thin air, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." I cited numerous reliable sources that use the "mass shooting" language and "deadliest in U.S. history" line directly. If you have countervailing evidence, we can weigh that accordingly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, at least one of your sources is complete crap, which you apparently don't remember reading or didn't read. The rest are fairly passing coverage related to one event nine years ago. That doesn't carry a lot of weight for a major historical event for which entire books have been written. GMG^talk 17:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, make this argument after self-reverting. Happy to carry on discussing and I will even change it to the new view myself if you want if/when new WP:CONSENSUS is apparent.

As for the sources, just as a quick response. The Guardian (and I believe most of what was listed) are all considered WP:RELIABLESOURCES, so do you not consider them reliable? What is meant by "complete crap"? Please elaborate.... AFTER self-reverting. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm...No. And a newspaper publishing reader comments is not a reliable source. You don't have consensus above. You definitely don't with me here. Figure it out or start an RFC. GMG^talk 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You are edit warring. I am discussing options with you before ANI report for edit warring immediately, then happy to review. As of this moment I actually counted FIVE reverts by you, which means you are actually CURRENTLY in violation of the WP:3RR.

Last opportunity to self-revert immediately. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Including your reverts of both me and @Catalyzzt I count 5 in a matter of minutes. You seem to be an experienced editor, so I am very surprised at this. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Go for it. I've made three. The first one had nothing to do with you or this dispute. It was just a crappy source. The next two are serial edits which count as one edit. GMG^talk 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just in case you are not aware of the consequences, I want you to be perfectly aware before I file this report. You have been exceedingly notified over normal, but I only do so out of the interest of good faith, from WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours."

I will file the report then in 15 minutes if I don't see the self-revert. Thanks! Iljhgtn (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Have fun I guess. I've already told you the route to accomplish what you want here. This discussion meets the standard of starting an RFC and that will establish a lasting consensus. GMG^talk 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And I will happily start such an RfC if that is what we think best.

But in the meantime, this is a pretty cut and dry case of violation of the WP:3RR policy, so that is that. One thing at a time. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile, please self-revert as you stated you would and we can then review the sources and see if a new consensus is reached for changing away from the currently stable lead. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, please stop revert the revisions by Iljhgtn. You are violating the three revert rule. Just review the reliable sources in the lead if you have evidence. Migfab008 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Migfab008. I agree that we should restore the stable lead, and at minimum be discussing each of the sources only AFTER that. A discussion of the sources would actually be constructive, and there might well be valid points to be made about several of them. For example, the one The Guardian citation does look to be unusable, however, the rest of the sources are both reliable as well as they support the prior stable lead before being deleted by GreenMeansGo 3+ times today. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Like the LA Times article that cites in it's second sentence...umm...the LA Times calling Pulse the worst mass shooting in US history? It then goes on to say that the definition of mass shootings "does not typically include killings that are part of military operations."

Do we want to do the Big Think piece? The one that prefaces it's entire argument by saying essentially that Pulse is generally recognized as the largest mass shooting by the media and the president? The one that goes on to say there are important differences between Wounded Knee and Pulse, as the former was part of a protracted military campaign? Again, military operations generally don't count, and if they do, the largest mass shooting is the Battle of Antietam by something like a factor of 75 times the casualties.

The Rapid City source does the same hedging, identifying in the first paragraph that the prevailing opinion is that Pulse was the worst mass shooting, pretty explicitly identifying itself as a minority opinion.

The Oregonian cites an arguably equally reliable source, The Oregonian, calling pulse the worst mass shooting, along with "nearly every news outlet".

We already knocked out the Guardian piece, which is such a profoundly bad source it isn't even fit for a Facebook post. So please do not lecture me on sourcing when you apparently didn't read your own sources in any level of detail. GMG^talk 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So lets take this line by line, and source by source:

• LA Times 1, instead of just making unsupported claims, lets quote from it more thoroughly. Yes, it does say, "The definition does not typically include killings that are part of military operations.", but then it also says right after, "critics counter that the more narrow terminology prevents comparisons with some of the nation’s bloodiest chapters." and "In the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, people in positions of power, such as cavalry members and religious groups, often murdered the so-called have-nots" and then finally, "A broader definition of “mass shooting” includes many of those incidents. Among them", "Wounded Knee Massacre: In 1890, U.S. Army troops near Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota opened fire on Lakota Chief Big Foot and a band of his tribe. More than 150 men, women and children were killed." Then it goes on to cite other mass shootings such as, "Other mass shootings involved altercations between pioneer settlers and communities already established in the West, including the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857. A wagon train headed to California was attacked by Mormons as it passed through southwest Utah. About 120 people were killed."
• Next, you make a false claim about the Big Think piece. 2 That source says, "It [Pulse Nightclub shooting] was immediately dubbed “the worst mass shooting in American history” by many media organizations (and our President), looking to single out this event from the almost weekly incidents of gun violence that plague the U.S. But this kind of categorization is very debatable and has been called out for “whitewashing” history." In fact, the source closes out its argument in favor of calling the Wounded Knee Massacre the "worst mass shooting in American history" by saying, "Let us call a spade a spade. Every opportunity to own up to our history and get a full accounting of what has made our country what it is, will allow us to make the right choices going forward. Choosing to ignore our complicated history with minority groups while looking to oppress others will continue to shore up the fractured and schizophrenic American psyche that explodes in violent episodes way too often."
• Continuing on to the The RapidCity Journal 3 "hedging" done by the RapidCity Journal is that it says "Orlando as the deadliest shooting in "modern" U.S. history." Key word there is...modern! If instead we look at the same source for "history", meaning, all of history in the United States the same source says, "The AP also published a list of "frontier bloodshed," describing mass shootings dating to 1857." and then, "The list includes the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890, when U.S. 7th Cavalry soldiers gunned down hundreds of Lakota men, women and children — making it among the worst mass shootings in American history." The source does make the claim that "Orlando's death toll is the worst by a lone U.S. gunman in the last decade." So that is the language that could be used. There seems to be an argument here for adding language that this was "the deadliest mass shooting committed by multiple shooters" or "gunmen" as a synonym, but there is nothing in the sources provided to say that the Wounded Knee Massacre is still not the deadliest, or worst, or whatever label we decide on, mass shooting in United States history.
• Looking now to The Oregonian, 4 since I agree we could leave off The Guardian in any edit restoration done here to mostly what was the stable lead prior, though I am agreeing now that some changes are justified, but again with regard to The Oregonian specifically it says, "the attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando over the weekend that left 49 people dead, saying that calling the attack "the deadliest in U.S. history" erases the plight of Native Americans." Not exactly what you are claiming, again. Additionally writing, "The Oregonian/OregonLive, originally billed the attack as "the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history," but that isn't true." and the source explains how though some call it a massacre, there is this to consider, "To be sure, many thousands have died in armed military conflicts in the U.S. throughout history and those deaths should be counted in a different category than the events in Orlando, but Depoe-Hughes noted that "these massacres differ from wars and battles because some were done under the waving of white flags, and promises of safety," as was the case at Wounded Knee." An earlier mistake in calling Pulse the "worst" or "deadliest" "mass shooting" was even corrected for, "After an internal discussion, The Oregonian/OregonLive clarified our wording in stories about the Orlando attack, qualifying it as the most deadly shooting "in modern U.S. history." This shows that there is consistency across sources that the Pulse Nightclub shooting (at the original time of writing for those sources) is only to be considered the deadliest shooting in MODERN US history, and further clarification of "by a lone gunman" or "single shooter" appears supported by the sources. Lastly, I will show one more quote where the source says, "...presenting the events in Orlando without historical context does a disservice to us all, Depoe-Hughes said, especially Native Americans, whose brutal treatment at the hands of the U.S. government has often been given less attention than it deserves." Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Just going with the Oregonian because geez, I'm not writing two pages for a response: Nearly every news outlet, including The Oregonian/OregonLive, originally billed the attack as "the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history" That's pretty much it. This piece is dead to your argument. Wikipedia doesn't really care about a source that starts off saying that nearly everyone disagrees with them. We also don't really favor a week's worth of trendy coverage over a century of study. Surely you understand that you're trying to stack a few web sources against a boat load of books by experts, and not people who cover the local heat wave to sell adds online. GMG^talk 23:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is still ridiculous and only cited to poor news sources. Is there a single academic work that calls it this, and not news articles? We shouldn't be using any news articles on a source with this much high quality academic work about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This is, at the very least, wildly UNDUE for the lead, especially the first paragraph. Whether technically true or not this is not terminology used in any of the widely established sources.

On gscholar there are 45,000 hits for Wounded Knee , about 100 of which use the term "mass shooting" in the same article... mostly not in reference to wounded knee. Only about 7~ seem to use it in reference to Wounded Knee, which all appear to be from or discussing the works of one scholar, Dewe. . There appears to be a single scholar (Dewe) who propounds this, which has been criticized and debated by other scholars . It's probably fine to stay in the body but no high quality RS on Wounded Knee use this terminology! None! Cherrypicking three news articles from a week in 2016 for the lead of one of the most significant events in US history is madness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Despite the opposition of multiple people on this talk page, this extremely WP:FRINGE (an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field - this being a mass shooting qualifies) descriptor is repeatedly inserted into the lead. Please stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop it with the hyperbolic language. Consensus is about more than a simple or other majority; we must base arguments in policy and guidelines. Even a minority, if based in such policy arguments, is the way edits are to be retained. The fact is that numerous reliable sources do support the label, and I outlined each and specifically carried the argument forward line-by-line above. You are welcome to respond to that.

Also, you added numerous qualifiers which I felt were actually constructive which I gave you credit for and think improved the lead. Though it is odd that you added them in several edits only to blank your own work on the third. Please restore the latest with those qualifiers, which was a new wording from prior versions, and I am happy to continue discussing and working towards a new consensus from there based on academic or other sources that either of us may identify and discuss. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is a matter of agreement. No one here agrees with you - I do not dispute that you are doing this in good faith. The sources you produced are reliable, but they are not high-quality, they are news items from a fleeting period - this could work for an incident less known than Wounded Knee, with a less significant body of scholarship, but when faced against the hundreds of years of discussion and recent, high quality scholarship, virtually none use the term "mass shooting". There are many facts that are technically verifiable to reliable sources, but are not WP:DUE weight for inclusion in an article.

When we determine due weight, we must look at the highest quality, most respected sources on a topic... news sources, all produced in the breaking aftermath of another event, though reliable, will not be that for a historical event. I removed it entirely after checking for academic discussion, and found nothing outside of one scholar. There are things that may be due weight in the body, and I feel like it is probably (though I would prefer replacing the newsy sourcing with the academic stuff) but not the first paragraph of the lead, for one of the most significant events in a nation's history. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Consensus doesn't mean that every opinion must shift the narrative to a middle ground. Often there are opinions that simply don't have consensus. There is no consensus for this novel classification. This discussion happened five months ago. Drop the stick. GMG^talk 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, a scholar of WK who produced one of the more thorough books on WK in the last 20 years wrote me last fall asking about the claim of WK as a mass shooting. He'd never heard the claim from any scholars. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have this documented in a Wikipedia:Verifiable source? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

He's a history professor with a PhD who specializes on Native Americans, and whose book is cited several times in this article. I'm not suggesting that this should be included in the article--my point is that, to my knowledge, no scholars are making the mass shooting argument, and in his case, he just became aware of it. It seems to be purely a non-scholarly claim. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Foxtrot5151 There is one scholar, Grant Duwe, making the mass shooting argument. All of the news articles and scholarly articles that argue this involve him. This is as I said above an extremely eccentric view of things and it is not due weight for the lead given the very wide array of scholarship on Wounded Knee, but there is one guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It isn't in the lead anymore anyway. I think this conversation can be retired unless new sources are found. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, agreed, one scholar, Duwe. I just read his article. Sounds like he is defining "mass murder" very broadly, perhaps to be provocative. He cites Fox & Levin's book on this, even though they don't make that particular argument in re: Wounded Knee Massacre or similar cases. Duwe is piggybacking off a table in Fox & Levin which is basically a taxonomy of homicide types. I think the root of the problem here is classifying a state-sanctioned action (by the military in this case) as a subset of homicide, and then jumping from the classification of "mass murder" to "mass shooting," terminology that did not exist until the mid to late twentieth century, and which involves some substantial disagreement. Of course, I agree that the government can commit homicide, including through the Army, and certainly that did happen at Wounded Knee, but it's clearly a complicating factor because government sanction normally immunizes the result as being classified as murder, because soldiers are licensed to kill so long as they are acting lawfully. We also don't have a clear breakdown of crimes at Wounded Knee (nobody was ever prosecuted or even accused of murder by the government, and the record is hardly exhaustive). At Wounded Knee, the aggregate result is more nuanced because there are several different intersecting motivations for killing, some more justifiable than others; so not all of the deaths can be classified in the same way. The massacre was likely a misunderstanding at the outset, given that the government mistakenly viewed the Lakota at Wounded Knee as insurrectionists, and also the confusing way the violence started (a rifle shot and then a melee). This is very different from how the violence ended at the ravine at Wounded Knee, which certainly also involved murder, but also much negligent homicide. Many (perhaps even most) of the Lakota deaths were due to negligent homicide than the more culpable forms of murder that Duwe certainly intents to invoke. Duwe never focuses on what murder or homicide actually is--perhaps he thinks it is self-evident, but I think that's a clear omission if he's fixating on such narrow semantics. Further, Duwe is only looking at data from 1976 or after for the purposes of his article, so including Wounded Knee is just a provocative, throw-away claim. Anyway, it's just not a great argument with unresolved terminology that didn't exist at the time of Wounded Knee, and that's probably why only one scholar is making it. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of what you are saying may be true, but more importantly, it is WP: Original research. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I am just weighing-in. Duwe does make the claim, but his argument is more that the terminology of "mass shooting" alone isn't specific enough to exclude Wounded Knee depending on how you actually define it (technically true). He says that the public really means "public mass shooting" when they use the phrase "mass shooting." Which is to say, he's just pointing out that the preferred terminology in the media and public is imprecise. In his interview he said "A mass public shooting, as I’ve defined it in my research, is any incident in which four or more victims are killed with a firearm within a 24-hour period at a public location in the absence of other criminal activity (robberies, drug deals, gang “turf wars”), military conflict or collective violence." So his own preferred terminology excludes Wounded Knee as he defines it, but notably even the term "mass public shooting" doesn't clearly exclude killings by the military unless you somehow bundle that into the term itself, such as "mass public shooting not by the military, not a product of collective violence and not otherwise contemporaneous with other criminal activity." Of course you're never going to get that precise with the term itself outside of scholarship.

Duwe's debate over the proper terminology reminds me of the debate over using the terminology "drink the Kool-Aid," which is technically incorrect because Jim Jones poisoned his followers with Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid. So every time someone writes the Kool-Aid version it draws a rebuke, but that's the version most people know and use without thinking--its been reified in popular terminology, so it's unlikely to change among a public that is generally unconcerned about historical accuracy and the most accurate terminology. Here, "mass public shooting" isn't likely to replace "mass shooting" in public discourse, and even if it did, would people read it to exclude Wounded Knee? I doubt it.

Agree with PARAKANYAA that this is esoteric, and even Duwe would apparently agree that Wounded Knee shouldn't be within the scope of the term (his preferred version, anyway). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I would reiterate again, and you even admit as much in saying, "as I’ve defined it in my research", that what you are engaged in is Wikipedia: Original research. We cannot and do not include such orginal research of Wikipedia editors in the main space versions of encyclopedia articles. That is just not the space or place for such work. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, so please read my earlier comments again-- "as I've defined it in my research" is a direct quotation of Duwe (hence the quotation marks and me clearly saying it's Duwe, not me). Here is the URL: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678/

My point is that even Duwe doesn't seem to agree that Wounded Knee should be included within "mass shootings" as he defines them (by adding "public" to the term in his case, which is what he claims the common understanding of the term is). The only reason he's saying that Wounded Knee falls within "mass shooting" is to argue that the term should be more specific and include additional qualifiers. I think it's a poor argument, because he claims that Wounded Knee doesn't fall within his expanded term of "mass public shooting," but the addition of public doesn't modify the term to exclude state sanctioned killing like what happened at Wounded Knee. IMO, the disconnect here is that this is simply a term that has no settled definition in the public eye. So unless you invoke a completely different term that is far more precise, there will continue to be debate over what "mass shooting" actually means. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the "Mass shooting" page itself, it says, "There is no widely accepted specific definition, and different organizations tracking such incidents use different criteria." Iljhgtn (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I concur! And to an extent, so does Duwe I think. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The very next sentence does say it generally excludes shootouts and warfare, which the article does. Clintville (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is mostly wrapped up about the lead, so we can let this particular talk page discussion close there. The rest was related to a mention in the body, which is supported as weighted against the sources and for due weight. This is why in the body it makes sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The wording "up to 300 people of the Lakota" seems awkward. Shouldn't we change this to "up to 300 Lakota people"? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I changed it to what you suggested Ericfood (talk | contribs) 22:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)