Talk:Seizure of the Black Hills

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Dakota Mid‑importance

	South Dakota portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 26 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Theft of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Black Hills land claim to Taking of the Black Hills. The result of the discussion was moved.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kqwu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Hills Land Claim. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for NPOV review

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have made two edits to the page, drawing from others in the nearby graph, with the intent of restoring NPOV to the article. I feel that before these edits it slanted significantly towards an apologists' view: next to a half sentence saying the Lakota consider the land sacred, there was an explanation that some outsiders don't find that belief valid.

It's hard for me to fathom how to write this article honestly without plainly stating from the top that the land belonged to Native Americans; that the United States recognized their ownership in a treaty; and that the 1980 Supreme Court ruling confirmed the US did not honor the treaty.

Given that it's hard for me to so fathom, I'd like an editor with more Wikipedia experience or even just an outside point of view to review the prior content and my changes for balance. I'm only an occasional editor; I'll try to check back but if I've used the wrong template tags or process please do whatever's right for the content.

Thanks, flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip (talk • contribs) 20:09, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

@Mrflip:, I took a look at your recent changes and do not find that they violate any of the Core Content Policies, including WP:NPOV. There could be an argument made on the basis of WP:DUE but even a brief review of the history shows that the area was unambiguously ceded to the Lakota via ratified treaty and then expropriated and that this is the essence of the claim so it certainly seems like it is in proportion to coverage in RS. The citations could be improved but that can be addressed through the resources found at Help:Referencing for beginners. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Theft of the Black Hills" vs "Black Hills Land Claim"

We have a problem here. On 11 June 2023, User:Larataguera made the undiscussed move of this page from "Black Hills Land Claim" to "Theft of the Black Hills". This move should have been discussed, as all significant moves should. On 18 June 2023, User:Snarcky1996 restored the article to its original name. On 20 June 2023, also without discussion, User:Freoh moved the article back to the undiscussed version, also without discussion. This is not at all the appropriate process. I've been here a very long time, but I have studiously avoided learning bureaucratic back-end processes, so I'm not going to attempt to move the article back to the original "Black Hills Land Claim", because I would most likely bugger it up hopelessly - but it needs to be done - then editors can discuss the move, and come to a consensus.
Separately, the current opening wording is a misrepresentation of what took place. SCOTUS did not rule that the US government "stole" the land - this is an editorialized restatement of what the ruling was. We need to use neutral wording when presenting material in the encyclopedia.
I'm not interested in a fight here; I've no dog in the hunt. But the process for significant changes is discuss first, find a consensus, then move forward. Let's abide by the process. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will for my part simply remark that this article is indeed about the current land claim, not about the 1870s events, therefore the name "Black Hills Land Claim" is the appropriate one. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snarcky1996, I'd like to discuss this move a little more. You say that the article is about the current land claim, but around half the article is actually in the "History" and "Land rights and treaties" sections, which cover events in the 1800s. So I think "Theft of the Black Hills" is a broader title that would include these sections in its scope. Would you be willing to reconsider this move? Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend an RFC, as this is not a heavily trafficked article, so uninvolved eyes would probably be helpful in reaching a consensus. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe I agree. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larataguera Half, but not all, that's the thing, "Black Hills land claim" is broader because it include both the History background of the 19th century, and more recent and current events. Black Hills land claim is probably a broader title. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the user Freoh seems to have unilaterally blocked the possibility of changing again the page's name. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have discussed the move. I thought it was possibly uncontroversial since the supreme court ruled that the land was taken illegally without compensation (ie, theft) and because many reliable sources describe it as theft. I can provide some of these sources later when I have more time.

Based on Freoh's edit summary, I think they may not have realised that Snarcky was reverting my undiscussed move, and it wouldn't be their fault that the software doesn't allow multiple pagemove reversions.

@Snarcky, there's actually quite a lot in the article about events in the 1870s.Larataguera (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. Get a consensus first. AlexiusHoratius 02:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Snarcky1996. I prefer Theft of the Black Hills for a few reasons.

It better covers the scope of the article. I do not think that "Black Hills land claim" is broader, because that phrase suggests "disputed or unresolved land claims",^[1] and a lot of this article describes events before the dispute. This article is about the theft and responses to it. It is not about the responses themselves.
Reliable sources (and legal decisions) describe a theft, so this is the neutral wording. Focusing on the land claim presents a false balance.
"Claim" suggests doubt, and I think that it makes sense to avoid the word when possible.^[2]
Theft of the Black Hills seems like it is more common in sources,^[3] which would make it the more appropriate article title.^[4]

I agree with Larataguera; Wikipedia guidelines point to Theft of the Black Hills. — Freoh 17:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CLAIM doesn't apply - a "land claim" is a specific term of art; it is not equivalent to a "land said". The Ngram isn't compelling; First, the matter has been written about extremely sparsely. Second - Repeat the ngram, but eliminate smoothing and begin results in 1960, which is when the first writings appear in google's corpus. It vaccilates wildly - again due to the sparsity of results. The difference between the two results is a statistical wash. Had this ngram been used as an argument twenty years ago, it would have 'compellingly' shown that the land claim was the overwhelming result. Ngram just isn't the right tool here. I am not opposed to the move; wider discussion is what's needed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Requested move 26 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There isn't a consensus for the term "theft", but there also is a developing consensus that just describing it as a "land claim" is possibly a bit too euphemistic to the point of NPOV violation given the context of the 1981 Supreme Court case.

This particular RM is, hence, a "no consensus" close, however, I can see a possible consensus for "Seizure of the Black Hills" as a compromise title. A new RM to formalise this consensus can, and I believe, should be created without prejudice to this result. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hills land claim → Theft of the Black Hills – This article describes the theft of the Black Hills in the 1870s, not just the current land claim (which is a response to that theft). The land claim presupposes the theft. The new title more completely describes the scope of the article. Finally, the Google Ngram shows that "Theft of the Black Hills" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and this is a compelling reason to move the article. Larataguera (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified all of the listed WikiProjects of this move request. Larataguera (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator, for the above reasons and those elaborated by Freoh in the discussion preceding the move request. Larataguera (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, the new title accurately reflects the article content and it's the WP:commonname.
oncamera _{(talk page)} 14:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral based on process. An RFC - a discussion - would be the more appropriate start, rather than jumping to a 'vote'. It's best to bring onboard uninvolved - even disinterested - editors to avoid bias. Once wider (more than four editors!) discussion has taken place, my vote will change to 'support'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My word choice and 'vote' were not well put. As I originally stated, I've no dog in this hunt. So suggesting that I'll 'support' the change after XYZ is silly. I have no vote, I was trying to prod deeper discussion before just jumping to a vote. We have a fair bit more discussion now. I still think an RFC is the right way to go, because when only "interested" editors chime in, it's not uncommon for the vote to be little more than a popularity contest among partisans. But I digress. I have no vote to tally. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose How is 'theft' not editorializing? How many other instances of military conquest based on dubious reasons are described as 'theft' on Wikipedia? AlexiusHoratius 21:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not editorialising because the Sioux won in court. If there are other instances where the "conquering" country's own courts ruled against them, we should call that theft too. Larataguera (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and restore the earlier lede which was phrased better. Nearly all of the American continent was forcibly taken and conquered. The proposed title reads like a nefarious criminal somehow removed the hills from South Dakota and moved them elsewhere. What is true is that the Federal Government acted illegally, yes, but that just sets up the modern land dispute. SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the matter is to this day still unresolved, I wonder if a possible compromise title would be "Black Hills land dispute".
Or not. I'll go with whatever is decided. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This honestly should be added to List of territorial disputes under North America. A number of similar articles use the term dispute as well, so I would support this compromise. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking about compromises. Another possibility would be to keep the current title and begin the article with this:
"In 1876, The United States government claimed the Black Hills – a mountain range in the US states of South Dakota and Wyoming – in violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie which they had made with the Sioux Nation..."
This way, the word claim refers to events in the 1870s that are within the scope of the article. Larataguera (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It's incorrect to use the word "claimed" for land that was illegally seized. oncamera _{(talk page)} 03:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. This article is about the theft and subsequent response; it is not about the response itself. Reliable sources describe it as theft, and as far as I can tell, no reliable sources dispute this characterization. I think that this new title is clear and neutral, and it would violate WP:NPOV to try to make ethnic cleansing sound less nefarious. (Also, Anastrophe, there are now more than four editors, so you may want to change your bolded text.) — Freoh 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Once wider (more than four editors!) discussion has taken place predicated on an RFC, in order to bring in uninvolved/disinterested editors. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Seizure of the Black Hills" would be the more NPOV term for the original incident, and the style that we'd generally use for other similar incidents. But since this is about everything that's happened since as well, I think the current title is the best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Editorializing and confusing. Title does not indicate who is doing the "theft". The Federal government via the legislature or the Sioux via the courts? Phrasing can be interpreted either way and is unnecessarily confusing. Walrasiad (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is Black Hills land claim any less confusing? The first sentence clears up any potential confusion. — Freoh 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any potential confusion is immediately cleared up by the first line in the article. Do we ask “who was doing the massacring?” for articles such as My Lai Massacre? Paragon Deku (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, any argument that the wording is loaded is moot given that the Supreme Court has long since decided it was indeed a theft. With both de facto and de jure labeling as a theft in reliable sources, the move seems perfectly logical, especially since the event itself is the primary focus of the article.

Paragon Deku (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is disputed land claim, where a court found in favor of one party rather than another. These decisions happen every day in civil court. People sue each other for land claims and violations of contract all the time, and a court decides which one has the superior legal claim. That's all that happened here. Losing a property dispute does not make one a criminal.

Theft, however, is a crime. Who did they arrest for the theft? Where were criminal proceedings instituted? Who is the lead prosecutor?

This is just litigation over land title. It is property law, not criminal law. The Sioux won a lawsuit, that's all.

This is proposing entirely moralizing language, not legal language. There is no crime of theft involved or suggested.

What is being proposed here is an entirely emotional POV term. You can do so at the personal level if you'd like, but it has no place here. I can understand the emotion. In my indignation, I might call my neighbor a "thief" if I think his fence goes over my property line. But a court does not, and neither do the police. This is a land dispute, not theft. It is up to me to sue him in civil court and prove my legal claim, not a crime to be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the Attorney General. A court might decide the lawsuit in my favor and order him to move his fence, but he will not be arrested and charged with the crime of theft.

This proposal to replace an accurate NPOV descriptive term with misleading POV language smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which has no place here. Walrasiad (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RGW is being misused in this discussion. RGW is about adding unsourced information. Sources describing these events in the 1870s as "theft" have been provided, and are in fact quite common – and what the government did was not nearly so passive as building a fence. Surely you are aware this isn't an apt analogy?

You make an interesting point about civil vs criminal language, but in the end what matters is what the sources say.Larataguera (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What source? I have been looking and can't really find any. Googlebooks brings up a grand total of 3 hits for phrase "Theft of Black Hills", only two of which are relevant but hardly unbiased. By contrast, there are 105 hits for "Black Hills land dispute", 846 for "Black Hills land claim", 2690 for "Black Hills claim. Walrasiad (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about over 1,000 hits on Google Books for "Theft of the Black Hills". Also over 500 for "Stole the Black Hills". These are not hard to find, so suggesting only 3 sources exist seems odd to me.

The number of hits for "Black hills land dispute" isn't totally relevant, because no one is saying that there isn't a dispute. People are saying that "claim" or "dispute" is not the word for what happened in the 1870s. Literally no one says that the government "disputed" the Black Hills in 1876! Larataguera (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I guess "the" was missing. Still, "Black Hills claim" is "2820, nearly three times more. Anyway, not sure why you're obsessing about the federal government. The federal government is not the subject of the phrase, the Sioux nation is. It is the Sioux who disputed it. "Black Hills claim" refers to the legal claim by the Sioux nation on land previously assumed to belong to the federal government. It's not the federal government doing the claiming. The Sioux were the plaintiffs, not the defendants. The Sioux filed the lawsuit in the Court of Claims, the Sioux made the legal claim, and the court found for the plaintiffs. Most of this article is about what the Sioux did, how they got their land claim through, not about what the federal government did. Which is another reason why this title is awful and ambiguous. There's no subject in the sentence, and can be read as if the Sioux "stole" the Black Hills via the courts! Or, at even the most generous, make it seems as if this article is about the federal government, rather than the legal achievements of the Sioux. It has a rather patronizing tone, as if it is only what the federal government does that matters, that the Sioux are just some passive bit players in some moral drama about the sins of the US federal government. Walrasiad (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise split?

It seems to me that this article is analogous to the murder of George Floyd. (Is murder editorializing?) Both describe an exceptional use of government force where the government's own courts later ruled the actions illegal, and in each case, the response is probably notable enough to warrant its own article. How would people feel about splitting this article into two? We could have both the theft of the Black Hills and the Black Hills land dispute, just like we have both the murder of George Floyd and the George Floyd protests. — Freoh 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a suitable split and the GF analogy is a great argument of previous article title involving crimes by the govt or policing bodies that were proven illegal activities. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "murder" is editorializing if there is no criminal charge of murder. Wikipedia article titles use the term "Killing" for homicides which have not been charged or convicted for murder. Even if you feel it's murder. The article was under "Killing of George Floyd" for a long time, until the conviction for murder, whereupon it was changed.

I don't see any point to splitting or what you're asking to be split. This should be in the same article. There was a land dispute, a lawsuit was filed, legal title was decided in court, and now there remains implementation. It is all the same topic. Walrasiad (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement, There was a land dispute, a lawsuit was filed, legal title was decided in court... is not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say "There was a theft, a lawsuit was filed, damages were awarded 110 years later..." The implementation is contested, leading to the present land dispute. Continuing to call the theft a "land dispute" is indeed similar to continuing to call Floyd's murder a "killing". Larataguera (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a reasonable fact and legally speaking the theft is recognized by the supreme court and not under dispute. There remains some dispute about compensation but not about the original land which was stolen but that is not relevant to the article title. Jorahm (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose (but support alternatives Taking of the Black Hills or Seizure of the Black Hills). The alternatives I have listed are both more common than the current or proposed title according to Google Ngrams (WP:COMMONNAME). And it is not true that the Supreme Court declared this a "theft" (contra nom, Paragon Deku, Freoh, Jorahm). That term has legal meaning: It's a criminal offense. When the government takes something (with or without valid legal claim) relevant terms include a "taking" (5th Amendment) or "seizure" (4th Amendment). There is not ordinarily any crime for a government taking, even if it is held to be unlawful. Indeed, what the Supreme Court held was that this was a "taking" of property without just compensation. (As such, the Court held that the United States must pay just compensation for the taking, not that the taking was void to effect a transfer of ownership — as would be the case for stolen property.) SilverLocust (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilverLocust for this analysis. You make a pretty good argument for Taking as the common name, based on the ngrams. I would add the caveat that the word "theft" doesn't only describe a criminal offence. "Theft" also means "The act of stealing", or "to take without permission or right"[1] more generally. The word refers to the crime, but also the action; and reliable sources frequently use "theft" in this general (dictionary) sense to describe the Taking/Siezure/Theft of the Black Hills. Lawyers don't own this word, and if we cut through the legalese, the Court didn't just rule that it was a "taking". It was an illegal taking: ie, a theft according to the dictionary definition of the word.
So while I wouldn't strongly oppose the title Taking of the Black Hills, (it's better than not having an article about these events at all!), and I agree that the word "Taking" should be used specifically in legal contexts (ie, to describe the supreme court ruling), the word "theft" would still be a legitimate descriptor for these events in a more historical context (ie, to enable varied prose and to concisely describe the "illegal taking"). Larataguera (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlawful government takings are not generally called theft other than as a POV term. Here are several notable cases when SCOTUS has held a government taking of property illegal: Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023) (keeping entire proceeds of tax sale) (opponents call it "home equity theft" but news sources often put in scare quotes), Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) (regular union intrusion on private farm land), Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015) (raisin reserve), Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (2012) (causing flooding of private property), Babbitt v. Youpee (1997) & Hodel v. Irving (1987) (law reverting fractional private ownership of reservation land to tribes), Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) (public access through privately owned beaches), Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) (TV lines). SilverLocust (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

California gold rush

In the "Origin of the land claim" section, the article states "In 1849 the Californian Gold Rush attracted prospectors to the Black Hills, who were often killed by the Lakota as result of encroaching on the sacred grounds." I can't view the cited page of the source, but this seems dubious. The California Gold Rush attracted prospectors to California; prospectors may have traveled through Lakota lands en route to California, but they would have little reason to enter the Black Hills themselves (being more difficult terrain for travel, and a significant detour from major routes to California). Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is misrepresented in the article; your speculation is correct. The source states Yet the California gold rush, along with Oregon fever, attracted so many whites to the Oregon trail that the Indians through whose land they passed felt compelled to react. Unrest spread [...]. I'll fix the text. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hills land claim → Taking of the Black Hills (Alternative: → Seizure of the Black Hills^[a]) – This is the most common phrase on Google Ngrams among options discussed in the recent move request (result: no consensus), where Theft of the Black Hills was proposed based on WP:COMMONNAME (while overlooking more common phrases). In addition to "taking" being more common here than "theft," it is a legally accepted and neutral term (WP:NPOV) in this context. In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress^[b] "effected a taking of tribal property" and that it "had taken the Black Hills without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (i.e., the Takings Clause). The Supreme Court did not use the terms "theft" or "stolen" and did not hold that the lands must be returned, but rather that the U.S. Government must pay just compensation (as normally required for eminent domain).^[c] I objected to the title Theft of the Black Hills because it (1) is less common, (2) is a non-neutral term as applied to an unlawful government taking (as distinct from criminal theft), and (3) is not legally correct^[d] terminology.

Notes

^ The phrase "seizure of the Black Hills" is also more common than "theft of the Black Hills", and I think "seizure" may have the best sound. However, it is less common than "taking of the Black Hills". See the Google Ngrams.
^ For background, the way in which Congress took the Black Hills is explained at Black Hills land claim#"Sell or Starve" and the Act of 1877.
^ United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) ("the 1877 Act effected a taking of tribal property, property which had been set aside for the exclusive occupation of the Sioux by the Fort Laranme Treaty of 1868. That taking implied an obligation on the part of the Government to make just compensation to the Sioux Nation, and that obligation, including an award of interest, must now, at last, be paid.")
^ This is what I said about the legal meaning of "theft": That term has legal meaning: It's a criminal offense. When the government takes something (with or without valid legal claim) relevant terms include a "taking" (5th Amendment) or "seizure" (4th Amendment). There is not ordinarily any crime for a government taking, even if it is held to be unlawful. Indeed, what the Supreme Court held was that this was a "taking" of property without just compensation. (As such, the Court held that the United States must pay just compensation for the taking, not that the taking was void to effect a transfer of ownership — as would be the case for stolen property.) I also listed some examples of notable cases where SCOTUS has held government takings illegal.

{{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Larataguera, Freoh, Oncamera, AlexiusHoratius, SnowFire, Necrothesp, Walrasiad, and Jorahm: Because you participated in the recent move request Black Hills land claim → Theft of the Black Hills (result: no consensus), you may be interested in this new proposal for the page's title. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seizure of the Black Hills, oppose Taking of the Black Hills. If no consensus on theft is possible at this time, I believe seizure to be the most apt term for how things went down both materially and legally and how the event itself is referred to in reliable sources. “Taking” seems far too cautious and could give the wrong impression devoid of broader context. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seizure of the Black Hills as the more WP:PRECISE term. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support "seizure", oppose "taking" - taking is too vague for my liking, and "theft" feels like loaded language. Seizure is the happy middle ground. Couruu (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seizure of the Black Hills is most precise and neutral. oncamera _{(talk page)} 05:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment (nom). I'm not quite sure what others mean by seizure being more WP:PRECISE than taking. If anything, to the extent they are not synonymous (see Wikt:taking#Noun; Merriam Webster), the more precise term is a taking. For instance, the U.S. v. Sioux Nation judgment never uses the term seizure, only taking. A seizure can include temporarily taking possession, as in "search and seizure." And seizure is also sometimes used to mean a forfeiture (for wrongdoing), where no compensation is required to be given, such as Seizure of Megaupload. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I do support the alternative I listed (Seizure). Evidently nobody else prefers my main proposal (Taking). {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Sioux did not "take" nor "seize" the Black Hills. They laid a legal claim on them, and won in court. Walrasiad (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad For clarity, the "Seizure of the Black Hills" refers to the US' aggressive actions. It does not refer to the Sioux's attempts to get it back. Couruu (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear in the title. Title needs to stand alone. If that's what you mean, then you should call it "US federal seizure of the Black Hills". Although I don't know why you are emphasizing that, since most of this article is about the Sioux's land claim and their success in the courts. Walrasiad (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't need a "land claim" if it wasn't seized in the first place. oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the case for any land claim, yes. But that's just background information. The actual topic of this article is about the Sioux land claim and their success in the recent court case. The article should be titled to reflect its actual content. Walrasiad (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Land claim

[2] MOS:CLAIM

[3] ttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Black+Hills+land+claim%2Ctheft+of+the+Black+Hills&year_start=2000&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=10

[4] WP:COMMONNAME

[5] The phrase "seizure of the Black Hills" is also more common than "theft of the Black Hills", and I think "seizure" may have the best sound. However, it is less common than "taking of the Black Hills". See the Google Ngrams.

[6] For background, the way in which Congress took the Black Hills is explained at Black Hills land claim#"Sell or Starve" and the Act of 1877.

[7] United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) ("the 1877 Act effected a taking of tribal property, property which had been set aside for the exclusive occupation of the Sioux by the Fort Laranme Treaty of 1868. That taking implied an obligation on the part of the Government to make just compensation to the Sioux Nation, and that obligation, including an award of interest, must now, at last, be paid.")

[8] This is what I said about the legal meaning of "theft": That term has legal meaning: It's a criminal offense. When the government takes something (with or without valid legal claim) relevant terms include a "taking" (5th Amendment) or "seizure" (4th Amendment). There is not ordinarily any crime for a government taking, even if it is held to be unlawful. Indeed, what the Supreme Court held was that this was a "taking" of property without just compensation. (As such, the Court held that the United States must pay just compensation for the taking, not that the taking was void to effect a transfer of ownership — as would be the case for stolen property.) I also listed some examples of notable cases where SCOTUS has held government takings illegal.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]