Talk:Black Hills

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Hills article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Black Hills: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] 1

    to me it seems odd that you would write 'many .. farmers have settled there blah balh blah'.

    today it is a tourist attraction with many national parks.

    which indians lived there? who found it sacred and why?

    no links to the history of gold or silver?

    It's incredible that some one would write that the black hills were "purchased". they were stolen fair and square like most all of the US.

    They were stolen fair and square at least twice. The Lakota stole them from the Arikara in the Nineteenth Century and then the U.S. stole them from the Lakota. I don't know why the Lakota found them sacred but it isn't such a huge stretch to think that they simply appreciated the wooded, hilly "island" in the bleakness of the plains. It isn't as if they were originally from the plains themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Accusatory tone, without references

    "The region is considered sacred by the Lakota Native Americans, although sceptics point out that they only discovered the Hills in 1765, barely 100 years before they used the Black Hills' "sacredness" as grounds for "deserving" the gold-rich territory in treaties with the U.S. government." This text seems unnecessarily inflammatory; the quote marks, at the very least, around some of the words should be removed. They inject an unwelcome accusatory tone into the article that seems unprofessional. Also, this contention needs to be referenced. --ebedgert

    Took it out of intro as unsourced and poorly worded. The info is included in the history section. Vsmith 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    "Some consider this ad hoc claim of spiritual status a dubious pretension to keep the gold-rich territory since the Sioux tribe had only discovered the Black Hills about 100 years earlier (1765) and that they themselves took the land by force from its previous residents (the Cheyenne tribe) in 1776." "Some consider" is a weasel phrase. Suggest removing or providing a source --- JBPM, 12:25 Central Time, February 26, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.202.31 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Tallest peaks?

    I think the following claim in the introduction is wrong:

    The Black Hills are home to the tallest peaks between the Rocky Mountains and the Alps in Europe (not counting undersea mountains).

    The highest point in the Black Hills, Harney Peak is 2,207 m., but in Greenland (which surely lies between the Rocky Mountains and the Alps) there are seven mountains higher than that (see List_of_mountains_in_Greenland). Dougg 23:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, that's been changed to...

    The Black Hills are home to the tallest peaks of continental North America West of the Rockies.

    ...but aren't the Black Hills east of the Rockies? I'd make the change but not being very familiar with USA geography (physical or political) I'd like someone else to verify it. Dougg 00:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Geology

    I am changing the section 'The Black Hills also has a 'skirt' of gravel covering it in areas called erosional terraces. These are conglomerate beds formed as the waterways cut down into the uplifting hills and represent the former river beds.' so it does not refer to it as a conglomerate bed. It is just gravel and not a conglomerate because it is not cemented. BHrock 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] typos, et cetera

    the page says

    The Black Hills also made an attempt at succession from the United States in the book World War Z

    I haven't read World War Z but I presume that succession should be secession in the passage above. Funkyj 08:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Article Lead

    It seems to me that the lead of this article is merely a brief history of the Black Hills and not a summary of the entire article. I think that most of this lead should be condensed into a History section and a new lead written. Are there any comments concerning this? Lmielke359 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Go for it.Spiesr 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Barring no objections I created a history section out of the former lead and with the remaining content, expanded the lead. The new lead neads to be cleaned up and wikilinked more.

    [edit] Moved from main page

    Comment from Special:Contributions/75.71.44.4 moved here by CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC). In reference to the statement about the Black Hills being the tallest east of the Rockies:

    (Not sure, but Sierra Grande is 8720 feet in northeastern New Mexico and is well east of the Rockies and near the same longitude.)

    He is talking about Sierra Grande.