Talk:Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

Untitled
Tribal chairman Greg Sarris is a complex man. He is a middle-aged, successful college professor and author, who associated with local Indians as a boy in suburban Sonoma County, California, and built a professional career on writing about them. He was adopted as an infant by a Santa Rosa white couple, and has written that he discovered as an adult that his paternal grandmother was a local Indian.

Sarris organized the Federated Coast Miwok in 1992, after a Pomo Indian announced plans to build an Indian casino in Sonoma or Marin County; but the Miwok never had a relationship with the U.S. government. However, the government had owned the Graton Rancheria between 1921 and 1966, and made it available to homeless Indians in the area. The Federated Coast Miwok was renamed the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and began to lobby Washington for recognition.

A 2000 act of Congress made the FIGR a sovereign Indian nation; and under Sarris' leadership, the FIGR is in partnership with Station Casinos, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada, to build a resort hotel/casino complex in Rohnert Park, California, about 50 miles north of San Francisco. It is therefore difficult for a knowledgeable, unbiased, and sincere observer to edit the FIGR page without at least suggesting that Sarris organized the FIGR, and lobbied for its federal recognition as a sovereign Indian "tribe", primarily to build an Indian casino.

Some members of the FIGR may be descendants of members of Marin and Sonoma County Indian bands, and/or of the handful of known residents of the Graton Rancheria (1921--66); but that does not make the FIGR the heir of, or the natural successor to the Coast Miwok, Bodega Miwok, Southern Pomo, or any other known aboriginal or historical Indian group. Whatever status the new tribe has as a sovereign Indian nation--especially, any right to receive land in trust from the federal government, and to operate an Indian casino under California state law--was created by the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (P.L. 106-568) passed by Congress in 2000, and signed by President Clinton.

If other editors disagree with the facts cited here, I hope they will make their case on this discussion page, before making any significant changes to the FIGR page itself. Mukrkrgsj 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues
I tagged this article a few days ago for several reasons. Mainly, the jist of the article seems to me to be very slanted, basically along the lines of opposing recognition of FIGR as a federally-recognized Indian tribe. While that's a legitimate point of view, its only one point of view and the article is very much in violation of WP:NPOV if the article takes that viewpoint to the exclusion of others. Also, the article places undue weight on the issue of recognition of this tribe, to the exclusion of discussion of any of the other activities of FIGR.

Also, I'm concerned that the article may contain original research, in violation of WP:NOR. I'm thinking specifically of all the references to National Archives documents, which are primary, unpublished sources, the meaning of which relies heavily on the article editor's interpretation.

Finally, the article contains way to many long direct quotations than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I gather this article is basically the work of one or two editors. I would appreciate if they're going to continue working on the article, that they address these concerns and make a concerted effort to make the article less one-sided. Peter G Werner 23:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding categories and assessments to this article, Peter. I'm glad you came back to explain your reasons for hanging three critical banners on it at the same time.


 * I hope you read my comments above, and have been reading about the FIGR's proposed casino project in the Bay Area papers. You may want to use the Santa Rosa Press Democrat's search feature, here: http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SEARCH.


 * The fact is, the FIGR has had no significant visible activities, other than Chairman Sarris' campaign for federal recognition, followed by its casino project. If you know of any others, you can add them to the article at your convenience.


 * You'll also find that the facts are thoroughly documented. Someone has cited 17 References, there are many external links, and the quotations are well attributed.  All the external links may not be listed in the appendix--something else you might want to check and do.


 * Unfortunately, Sarris and the FIGR have not been forthcoming, and their website is very small. However some organized opponents of the casino project have done a great deal of research, and it is well documented, and readily available.  (FYI, I am not a member of the organization.)


 * I agree there are many quotations in the article, and some are lengthy. I am continuing to edit for clarity and brevity.  In this case, the full quotations may be more appropriate than a pararaphrase--which might well appear even more critical of the FIGR's origins and motives.


 * I have commented elsewhere that anthropologists and ethnohistorians will probably prefer to contribute to the existing and new articles re the Coast Miwok, and the various Pomo groups. Sarris' new tribe will be of interest primarily to students of economics, politics, and contemporary sociology.
 * -- Mukrkrgsj 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleanup of this article is in order. A simple way to cut through the seemingly bickering among the contributors to this article is to do in-line citations.  There is an excellent listing of citation at the end of the article.  All that is needed now is to attribute each fact presented to each of those citations.  Folks, this is how it is done.  After the factutal statement, cite it by saying   and then in the "Reference" section instead add   once and the article will automatically place notes at all the citations above and footnote the citation sources.  Remember: Clear citation = no doubts.  Good luck to the clean up -- I look forward to seeing a stronger article. CJLippert 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ewass --Ewass (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)It's hard for some people to hear the unvarnished truth with regard to modern Native American history. In the case of the Graton Rancheria, the record, some of which is actually available online, is very clear. The archival documents made available to the public by Stop the Casino 101 Coalition is a valuable asset to any serious researcher. These documents, which I understand are a fraction of what the group has in its possession, represent hundreds of hours of research at the National Archives in San Bruno, CA, and exhaustive Freedom of Information Act requests to the federal government. The group even has the original deed to the Rancheria on their web site. We may wish things to be a certain way, but when it comes to whether or not a tribe ever existed at the Graton Rancheria, the answer is an unequivocal no. Just read the record.

Recommended Revisions
GoPerelandra (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)I am an attorney for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe). I am contributing comments to help improve the quality of Wikipedia pages related to the Tribe. I will not directly edit any pages related to the Tribe. Instead, my contributions or comments will be posted on this talk page for other Wikipedians’ help and consideration. I will do my best to abide by Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

The article on this Tribe has long been tagged with problems and multiple issues related to original research, neutrality, bias, too many quotations, lack of relevancy, lack of source/references, etc. The underlying problem is that Wikipedia is being used improperly to further the agenda of opponents of the Tribe’s proposed resort casino and hotel near Rohnert Park  The content under the article title and in Sections 3 through 8 are essentially information and arguments, including references to primary sources, found on the website of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, a Sonoma County organization which strongly opposes the Tribe’s casino project and has filed a lawsuit against the proposed project. The district court dismissed the case, but the case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and further litigation is anticipated.

More specifically, the short paragraph right under the under main article heading and the content under Section 3 (Modern History) through Section 8 (Proposed Casino) violate Wikipedia rules. Sections 3-8 make up a lengthy exposition with arguments that essentially espouse a minority view that the Tribe should not have been restored by Congress. Regardless of one’s viewpoint about the Tribe’s proposals for a casino, the article in its current form is a soap box for folks who may disagree with the Tribe’s proposals for a casino.

In order to make the article as neutral as possible and to resolve the other concerns with this article, my recommendation is to delete in their entirety: both (1) the introductory paragraph that appears right under the name of the article, as well as, (2) Sections 3 through 8 of the article; and keep only Sections 1 and 2, as currently posted. Such a change would make this article fairly consistent with articles on other California tribes, including those in Sonoma County and elsewhere that currently have casinos or are in the process of developing casinos. Please see, e.g., Wiki articles on Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Guidiville Rancheria of California, and others.

I realize I am proposing a big change from the current version, but something in this order is needed to bring this article in line with Wikipedia’s strict standards and rules for encyclopedia entries. I think the cleanest and simplest way to approach the article, given the on-going debate and legal battle, is to keep it fairly barebones and devoid of any politics or disputes, like many of the entries for other Indian tribes in California. My point here is that people are free to disagree with the Tribe’s proposals for a casino based upon whatever reasons, but do it transparently or don’t do it at all on Wikipedia.

Suggested revised article
Please go to my User Talk Page if you are interested in seeing my suggested revisions: User talk:GoPerelandra. Thanks. GoPerelandra (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the recommendations and input of other editors who have reviewed my comments about the concerns with this article and the suggested revisions to address those problems, I will be editing the article accordingly. Thanks in advance to other editors' assistance and any additional ways to improve this entry. GoPerelandra (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004655/http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/106/publ568.106.txt to http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/106/publ568.106.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626030604/http://www.friendsoffigr.com/ to http://www.friendsoffigr.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions
This sentence seems odd "As early as 1830, a Filipino married a Coast Miwok wife"; please name those people and cite a source. The whole article would like nicer with some images.Goldenrowley (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)