Template:Did you know nominations/Tohono O'odham Nation


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tohono O'odham Nation

 * ... that the Tohono O'odham Nation is the second largest Native American land holder in the United States?
 * ALT1:... that the Tohono O'odham Nation southern border is exposed to the Mexico–United States border for 74 mi?

Created by Labattblueboy (talk). Self nominated at 02:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article replaces a redirect and is long enough and new enough. The sources are mostly offline and both the hook facts are accepted in good faith. However there are copyright issues with the article. Searching for the sentence "The landscape is consistently compelling: a wide desert valley, interspersed with plains and marked by mountains that rise abruptly" I found it was lifted straight from this site. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck the offending content. the content likely came from one of the topic's related article. If there are other areas please advise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's "Economic support for the tribe comes from a variety of sources. Some of the Tohono O’odham still farm or engage in subsistence ranching. The tribe also sells and leases copper mineral rights to support itself." and "Gambling from the three casinos that the tribe operates has become the major source of support for the tribe in terms of revenue and jobs creation." which seem to have been copied from here, but a lot of the sources are offline and difficult to check. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That page was created 4 May 2014 and this article created well before. I think it's safe to say that the details on the wisegeek page were copied from the wikipedia article not the other way around. Both the statements mentioned are cited. Every source listed is likely available through Google books so do feel free to check. Source being offline does not make it somehow more likely that copyvios exist.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If material was taken from one or more of the topic's related articles, that should be properly attributed per WP:CWW. Which article(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are typos and poor punctuation in the article, may want to do a thorough copyedit no matter what else shakes out. There is also material that contradicts Tohono O'odham, which states it is the third largest reservation area. Someone needs to sort that out.  Montanabw (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Completed a copy edit but a second round might be warranted. The material isn't contradictory. Navajo Nation (via the Navajo Indian Reservation) is the largest, The Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is the second largest but controlled by numerous parties. By consequence the Tohono O'odham Nation via its multiple reservations is the second largest native land owner.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But "controlled by numerous parties" is WP:SYNTH; it's a reservation, it's a single legal entity. By land area, Tohono O'odham appears to be third (and I fixed your it's -> its apostrophe above, hope that was OK). Not sure the sources verify your analysis, if not, it's SYNTH.  Montanabw (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no shortage of sources that are going to state that the Tohono O'odham Nation (tribe) is the second largest native land owner (Mexico and the United States, edited by Lee Stacy, p 821, The Tohono O'odham and Pimeria Alta edited by Allan J. McIntyre, p. 23, Pima County edited by Arizona Historical Society, p.24). Even the website for the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation makes clear that they live on the second largest reservation but exercise authority over just under 1/3 of it. You assumption that the reservation is in fact a single legal entity is incorrect and one that is being made without any reliable sources behind it. Interpret as you like but it's certainly not WP:SYNTH.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, reconcile the two articles so they both have WP:RS and don't contradict each other (or explain the contradiction) and I'll be happy.  Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted (with refs) the section Tohono O'odham, and the header of Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, to match Tohono O'odham Nation regarding the "second largest" issue because the sources in Tohono O'odham Nation are more recent than the sources in the other articles. --Storye book (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies because today I have reversed all my edits as detailed above, and have struck out my comment as it no longer applies. This is because on reflection I did not have enough evidence, or understanding of the legal complexity, to support those edits. If in the future a fully-informed editor can re-edit the three articles concerned so that they do not contradict each other regarding the second-largest landholder/controller-of-land, then that is fine by me. Meanwhile, now that I am no longer an editor of any of these related articles, and in the interests of doing a review to move things along, I'll do a review below.--Storye book (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg In my opinion, due to an important contradiction between the nominated article and two articles related to it (about second-largest land-owner/land-controller as discussed above), and because this contradiction has not been resolved in good time, this nomination should be closed. I should add that I am happy to accept that the nominated article is correct on this point (as evidenced by Labattblueboy on 24 May above), but somebody needs to add that information to all three articles concerned, so that all three articles are in agreement, and before we can accept this nomination. So far no-one has done so.--Storye book (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. There is no requirement that articles be consistent, and a DYK review does not involve any articles other than the ones that are nominated. Just because an editor fixes up one article does not oblige the editor to work on other, related articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated Storye book's icon. Hawkeye7, if you disagree with it, then you may supersede it with one you believe more appropriate, but not remove it. However, you're incorrect in your assertion: as WP:DYKSG clearly states, If your article contradicts an existing article, the contradiction should be resolved one way or the other before your article is approved. Since the Tohono O'odham existed prior to Tohono O'odham Nation, the latter article cannot pass DYK until the contradiction is resolved (and I gather this involves another pre-existing article as well; if so, that also needs to be resolved). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's outrageous. Such an interpretation of that rule flies in the face of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Uses Wikipedia as a Reliable Source. Asks for DYK reviewers to check hundreds of thousands of articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point is here that if there is no DYK nom, and the several articles continue to contradict each other regarding who is the second-largest landholder, then that is fine because Wikipedia is about developing articles and knowledge and most articles are in that process. However if we put a link to this particular article with this particular (possibly contentious) statement on the front page, we are possibly inviting loud objections from certain knowledgeable and highly articulate groups. Without the nom, these groups know they can edit the articles if they wish, or accept that some articles are incomplete. With the nom, we risk being seen to be pushing one side of what may be a contentious issue in their face. If we could have resolved the contradictions, we wouldn't have had to consider this problem. Of course this is just my personal opinion.--Storye book (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)