Category talk:American people who self-identify as being of Lipan Apache descent

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... There is no reason to delete, especially not a speedy delete. The claim that the category is "vicious", "bullying", etc. is baseless. --Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the proposal deletion wasn't properly conducted, but I also oppose deletion of this category. Self-identification is often the only information that is verifiable by published, secondary sources. It's a neutral place for people who have publicly self-identified as being of this historical band's descent. Yuchitown (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * The page that this self-identification is linking peole a wikpedia created list with limited criteria for tribal recognition not including recognition recognized by verifiable published, secondary sources which editors in this page are ignoring even the authority in forms of American Indian tribe recognition. They promote a meaning for tribal recognition that is only verified in the Wikipedia page, not in the real world. The editors themselves have admitted to issues with POV. Until this issue is resolved, tagging these individuals as self-identified is vicious and bullying. Wikipedia has rules about damaging inaccurate information that is posted on living people's pages. TelGonzie (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This category is libelous. No evidence has been provided that the people of the Tribe or the Band T have no proof of this heritage. Having a page created by wiki editors using biased evidence is CIRCULAR. Wikipedia content is being used as the proof. TelGonzie (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support deletion of this category. Why have a page for one tribal organization with evidently malicious or maligned intent? Are we going to create a page for every single Native person who identifies as a Native of any kind? Weird, weird category that is out of place on Wikipedia. To keep this page up would be to commit to creating pages for various levels of granularity -- why is this a page for Lipan Apache people versus Apache people? Is this a category based on social organization, linguistic identity, political status? And do we have the standards necessary to enforce a unilateral creation of these pages for each and every tribe, tribal entity, or Indigenous grouping?
 * I think that those opposing deletion should wholly commit to authoring novel category pages for every non-federally recognized tribe (arbitrary and U.S.-centric in and of itself—how are we organizing persons whose tribes straddle borders? i.e. tribal groups who reside in both Canada and the U.S., or those who reside in both Mexico and the U.S.?). Creating this page seems to stray from standards, as well as based on a topic or classification that doesn't conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. This isn't a topic that has been substantially covered by independent media, and even categorizing individuals for this page requires original research on the parts of these editors. Ghgilbert (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Recapping: All that we know based on verifiable, published sources is that these people have self-identified as being of Lipan Apache descent. There's none libelous about that. It's a completely neutral fact. User:TelGonzie who tried to nominate this category for deletion ended up being blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. Yuchitown (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown


 * Well, isn't that the heart of your argument: that if their tribe doesn't meet the standard of "recognition" you set out in your other page, then they're pretend? Pretty tricky, but destructive for the whole idea of an honest platform. Consider a similar trick from, say, Russia: Ukraine doesn't exist because I don't recognize it, therefore.... But even if we look away from your tautology, you proffer a nuance of a nuance in a spectrum of nuances for the definition of recognition. Merriam-Webster says there's 3. Cambridge Dictionary says 4. Oxford Dictionary says 5. Who's your source for that hyper distinction? I haven't seen it. Please show me if I've missed it. I've countered that the United Nations has established a widely accepted definition of Indian identity: "Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions (Article 33)," and you haven't presented a definition that enjoys a better deliberated consensus. So all you have as a basis to call anybody pretend is your other List of organizations page. How is this not abuse of WP to use as a social media site to simply be mean? Tsideh (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never said anything about anything being "pretend." Talk pages are to discuss the article/category not general discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * That's progress! How about a clarification on your self-identify page to the effect of: American people who self-identify doesn't mean pretendian? You OK with that. Wouldn't defeat your whole purpose will it? Tsideh (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When you get a chance, let's discuss the case of the generations of descendants of Santa Clara women who were disenrolled because they married non-Pueblo men but then were eventually back in cuz, you know, their community never stopped recognizing them. Tsideh (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)