User talk:64.223.162.194

June 2024
Hello, I'm Jdcomix. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Patricia Marroquin Norby seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * How can stating a fact not be neutral? It's a neutral fact that she is not Native and that has been proven. 64.223.162.194 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
Hi, it appears you are new to the encyclopedia. If you click on the "talk" pages for articles ("Talk" tab is top left, next to "Article" tab), you can see the extensive discussion that's gone into articles—there has been a *lot* on some of these subjects, particularly here. Every edit, especially controversial ones, have to be backed up by published, secondary sources. More info at Citing sources and Neutral point of view. Yuchitown (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't you see the irony in that? What you seem to be saying is that somebody can claim Native ancestry, and as long as their claim was made in public and recorded, that can go into an article. If this claim is controversial, they can rely on the fact that they claimed it to defend it, while anyone disputing it has the burden of proof. TAAF is a primary source; they have extensively documented Marroquin Norby's genealogy, as my link provides. There are real, material reasons why somebody would falsely claim Native ancestry, and this happens at the expense of Native people who are passed over for jobs, grants and other opportunities in favor of non-Natives. Wikipedia can do better than the lazy journalistic trope of reporting the existence of a claim rather than investigating its veracity when that investigation has been done and merely needs to be cited. 64.223.162.194 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, this appears to have been discussed on the article's talk page, an ongoing conversation you're welcome to join.
 * Second, well, yes, that's how our policies work. Also, we have tighter rules about negativbe information about living people, such as claims they don't really have the ancestry they claim to. TAAF is just one organization. You may believe them completely; that doesn't mean everyone does. Perhaps we can have a conversation and discuss this. But we don't put things like this in articles about living people as uncontested statements of fact when just one source says it.
 * We do not investigate things like this. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that publishes what sources we consider reliable have reported. Doing the investigations that lead to this reportage is the media's job. That's what Jacqueline Keeler does (which, if I read correctly, does not quite meet with universal approval from the Native community). And when she has published these investigations, we've included them in articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, TAAF is one organization; I'm not sure how that's relevant. They investigated her claims and found them to be baseless. I suspect that if the New York Times had conducted the investigation the fact that they were a single source would be irrelevant. I did look at the talk page, and I guess this is the bottom line: Native status is not really confusing, controversial, or a question of definition. It is not about self-identification, but membership. Either you're a member of a Native community, which in the US is a publicly verifiable legal status, or you're not. In Mexico it's more complicated, but the burden of proof should be on the claimant, and she's never provided that proof. I understand that if she claimed she was born on the moon, Wikipedia wouldn't have to clarify that she actually wasn't, but in that case there would be no question of social responsibility. The irony is that in the real world, this is a woman making unverified claims and having them transmitted by Wikipedia merely because she made them. 64.223.162.194 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, The New York Times is a long-established reliable source so, yes, if they ran a lengthy investigation into her claims, we'd likely include it because it was the Times doing the reporting. Ask George Santos about that one (although since that article in the Times came out, there has of course been a lot more coverage from a plethora of sources.
 * There's also a difference between organizations like the Times that are news organizations that gather and report news without regard to an agenda, and organizations like TAAF that do have an agenda. That does not disqualify them from being reliable sources but it does mean they have a higher bar to get over (ask the ADL about that). I looked over the TAAF source; it seems pretty comprehensive but ... do you know if we've ever used it as a source before? Have other publications that we consider reliable? When we're publishing information like this about an actual living person we want to be careful as this can have legal ramifications.
 * "The irony is that in the real world, this is a woman making unverified claims and having them transmitted by Wikipedia merely because she made them." Well, until this came up, did anyone have a reason to doubt those claims? As I have said, we do not consider it our job to investigate on our own the claims that people make about themselves, as long as they're not exceptional. Yes, that means that we (and not just us; certainly other media outlets and websites have described her as an Apache) may well be reporting other people's false claims of ancestry or heritage .... but only because they have never been questioned by a reliable source (And I am not saying that TAAF is unreliable, rather that as far as I know no determination has been made as to whether it is, and we have ever since this happened learned to be very careful about what we say about living people.
 * As for your comment about social responsibility, I commend this to your attention.
 * Per the last sentence of that, and the fact that I do want to help you if there is any way we can put this in an article, I am willing to help take this issue to some places here where there would be knowledge more specialized than I have about this subject. Just hit reply and let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe it's not clear to new users to click on and read the blue links in comments. So to User:64.223.162.194, please read this blue links; otherwise, pushing a POV and breaking Wikipedia policies will get you banned from editing here. Yuchitown (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also looked around and found that this this exact issue was discussed at length on the BLP noticeboard a month ago. The consensus is that we have to wait for a source other than the Daily Mail and the New York Post to report on this.
 * That said, this source, Indian Time, which says it is the newspaper of the Akwesasne Mohawk tribe, has also reported on it. Would they be considered reliable? I am not sure if we have ever used it as a source before. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely don't want to dredge up that entire conversation, but I think it matters if you quote the source ("...as reported in Indian Time...") versus making a statement in WikiVoice. Yuchitown (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)