Talk:Sexual victimization of Native American women

This is very serious issue, shouldn't the tag be removed?
I want to make sure it is okay if remove the tag. This is a collection of facts about women who victims. The tag could take away from the public knowing of this. It is NPOV because it stating factual data on the crisis. Starlighsky (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I added the following section, DOJ and Congressional Efforts on This Issue.
 * If it is okay, I can remove the label because it seems the article is now more encyclopedic in tone. Starlighsky (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It may be a while before I can go over all these edits you've made, but one thing you need to fix is the formatting on the headers and sourcing you're adding. See the links editors have posted on your talk page that have guidelines and instructions about basic formatting, and look at the code for similar sections and text on the article page and use what is standard, like == marks to make headers, rather than bolding text, for instance, and don't put external links in headers or body text. External links should be formatted into inline cites per WP:CITE or moved to the External links section. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I am making changes as best as I understand of what you are saying. I am new here. If it is okay, it is alright if I edit what you said as I understand what your instructions are? Starlighsky (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course keep editing, just look into how to format correctly. Other editors will eventually go over the content, but it's always good if we don't have to fix formatting. For one, I'd put that chunk you added to the lede into the body text. Again, I haven't gone over the content, but we don't put subsections in the lede. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What is a lede? Starlighsky (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead / opening / first section of the article. Up top. See MOS:LEAD. On that page the navigation box on the right has similar pages with guidelines for the other sections of articles. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The tag really shouldn't be removed yet. It's got a lot of the telltale issues of a WikiEd article. It's hard to phrase, but it still very much reads like an undergrad research paper where you have a required citation count for your professor. That's "way down there" and an encyclopedia is supposed to be "way up here" where we're supposed to be summarizing the sources, looking down on the broad landscape of a topic and packaging it using our own words.  G M G  talk  11:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with GMG. I've made some major edits in the direction of addressing some of this.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are the sections about the government program addressing this issue, the National Institute of Justice report, as well as the NISVS Survey. These are from sources of information that are encyclopedic in nature, especially since they are from the US government. It just seems like going from these types of references can make it more encyclopedic. Not to controversial, but some foundations may have reports that can tend to go toward "down there" because it helps them raise money. Starlighsky (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The tag has nothing to do with how serious the issue is. It's only about the state of the article. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Does the state of the article appear to have improved? I would think deleting the section on Halloween and fashion could help the article focus on the main issue, but I am new here. Starlighsky (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Goodness gracious. I dunno. I put about another hour into it, and we could still remove probably a quarter of the article as meaningless filler. It's near a point where what needs to be done next is writing an actual article, because almost everything has been removed.  G M G  talk  11:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An hour is a significant effort on an article. I am new here, but it looks you improved it. I am new, so not sure how this all works. Starlighsky (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's cool. You could say people on Wikipedia fight like cats and dogs sometimes, but really we mostly fight like brothers and sisters. You're still family when it's over. Most people are happy to help any way they can. WP:BEBOLD. Ask questions. Talk it out. Then WP:BEBOLD again. Also...I think just me and Corbie specifically have probably spent upwards of 40 or 50 combined hours on an article. There's been times when I've worked on an article for something like six or eight months.  G M G  talk  13:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I meant to write "it improved". I will edit it now Starlighsky (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiEd
Off topic (sort of): Has anyone tried to, um, do something about WikiEd? I know I'm not the only one who dreads the arrival of the student projects, and the attempts to insert student papers into article space. I've never known any of them to stick around and become Wikipedians. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most folks who pay attention agree that they represent the highest concentration of crap contributions on the project. I don't suffer unskilled wikied editors making out-of-policy changes kindly. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've talked about it at conferences with folks, though that was all pre-pandemic. There's a quality argument and an outreach argument. Just dip people in and they'll come back. We...do need a constant stream of new editors who at least know how the software works. It's hard to knock the enthusiasm and dedication of the people who organize these kinds of events.  G M G  talk  15:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toddst1. I've never seen their enthusiasm work in favor of quality articles or the 'pedia in general. I've never seen them stick around and collaborate. I've seen edit-warring, disruption, then leaving forever once the course is done. Some of the repeat offenders, who do return, are the teachers leading the classes. They keep sending the students at us, often never bothering to learn policy. But some have learned enough to wikilawyer, misrepresent policy to their students, and be a real problem. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Section: Representations and stereotypes in American culture
This section seemed like a list of politically incorrect things related to native americans rather than victimization. I think the section should be removed and have WP:BOLDly done so. The entire section is approaching WP:COATRACK and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the student's complete lack of response to concerns raised by three editors in good standing, and the copyvio issues, maybe instead of flagging it should all just be reverted? I haven't gone through it all but that may be best. I will check the copyvios and see if the diffs need to be hidden. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I pulled the entire section discussed above out and subsequently removed two sections that were copyvios / close paraphrasing . We're not fooling around with students used to plagiarizing.   Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, despite multiple messages to the student editor, they have engaged with no one and gone against all advice and requests and just done a dump and run. I wish this wasn't so typical. We're WP:NOT their free publishing service. And if they have managed to get away with copyvios at school, they should learn now that it needs to stop. Support reverts. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I messaged who I believe is the instructor for Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/NAS_R1A_-_Summer_Session_(Summer_Session), that  appears to be taking.  SierraTL was responsive on their talk page, unlike the student.  I suspect the student is inactive due to the long weekend in the US.  They last edited this page on July 2 and didn't edit the section on Representations and stereotypes in American culture.  Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for flagging these issues. The students in the course were made aware of copyright concerns and appropriate citations and style regarding quotes and paraphrasing. Due to outside constraints, some students have been limited to online work. Given the thread’s list of issues, I can try and revert these edits. SierraTL (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @SierraTL Not only are there copy vios, the student also misrepresented content in sources. Their work was sloppy and rather than improving Wikipedia, it simply served to create more work for established editors. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS R1A - Summer Session
— Assignment last updated by SierraTL (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's been brought to my attention that there are issues with your sandbox draft. Please be aware that it is not appropriate to draft a new article and replace the current article with what is in your sandbox. Wikipedia functions by consensus, and all the usual policies - which all Wikipedians must respect and abide by - apply equally to student editors. No one is exempt. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential additional sources
Moving the following from the article to talk for future use since we have extensive references/footnotes: Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Vague mention of "Reports from the U.S. Department of Justice"
I've asked for clarification on which reports from the U.S. Department of Justice are referred to in the lede, but has edit warred removing my tag. Since the whole sentence that contains this vague mention is only supported by a dead link, I've removed the entire sentence. If someone wants to add it back, please clarify which reports and support it with a valid reference. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey now. I'm not edit warring. I c/e'd the whole article this morning for like the second time. Help me out here a little bit. I didn't understand why we were questioning the DOJ when there's a whole section there. AGF. I specifically pinged you in the summary so you could clarify.  G M G  talk  19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)