Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous rights to land along rivers


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Winters v. United States.  Sandstein  05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous rights to land along rivers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Personal essay/term paper-like content/content forking from places where relevant text should go, namely indigenous land rights or aboriginal title. As one might expect from an essay, it is a synthesis of other sources to make a point (i.e., original research).

As an alternative to outright deletion, I initially suggested a redirect to another page. This has been reverted without comment or discussion by the editor, who is a student creating this as part of a very sloppily organized class project. There is nothing worthwhile to merge (the article is compromised almost entirely of unsourced statements, statements cited only to Wikipedia itself, or statements not supported by the cited source) so deletion is appropriate here. Neutralitytalk 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep some content, but not necessarily article (needs rewrite) If article is not kept, copy and paste some material to another article with some rewrite. Knox490 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Riparian rights is a well established area of law, and I have no doubt it is complicated by the complex relationships of the U.S. government to Native American tribal law (see Indian_Country_Jurisdiction). This article is typical of our legal articles, which often have NO or few sources (but may include well written portions by an expert in the field):  e.g.  Licensee,Condominium, Bundle of rights, Petit jury, Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage law,  Concurrent estate,  Accord and satisfaction,consideration,  Pacta sunt servanda. Unfortunately, there are not enough editors with expertise in law interested in addressing the problems of proper referencing. Deleting all of our legal articles that have this problem is probably not the best solution.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing "deleting all of our legal articles." This article is basically a rambling essay that discusses matters that have nothing to do with water rights. And in any case the articles that discusses tribal reserved water rights is Winters rights. Neutralitytalk 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have read the initial post more carefully.  I didn't realize you were the one who posted this.  I mistakenly thought this was like the post trying to delete Enterprise law by an editor who knew nothing about that area of law and did not know about the shabby state of our legal articles--I know you do.  Wrong audience.  Yeah, I can go along with what you are saying, if the subject is properly handled in Winters rights.  I will change my vote accordingly.   You are right, it does look like an essay.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy essay. Redirect page to Winters rights.  Merge anything that can be easily be saved.  Changed vote per above discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * TNT and redirect to Winters rights Statements like "His administration does not respect environmental justice or indigenous rights." and "The history of displacement of Native Americans is one of the biggest genocide histories" and citing to Wikipedia  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete or redirect this page: Hello all, This project is being done for a grade in a semester course and to have all of that suddenly disappear is very disconcerting. I hope you understand we are students and if we had to redo the work we have done it would be extremely time consuming and we would suffer from that. The content of the page is a discussion of the land and water rights to set a stage to discuss our Environmental Justice case studies/subsections on Shasta, North Dakota, Colorado and the Klamath. We can link this page to the land rights page as well as the other relevant wiki pages that were already linked. Additionally, we have not finalized the project yet and will continue to edit the content for neutrality and overall cohesiveness. If it is still concerning and you think the page still needs to be redirected please let us know so that we can make sure the content is not lost.Drgood13 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13
 * What's your deadline and when will the final assessment of your work be made?  I suggest you *request* that it be userfied.  You can also copy all the Wiki-code to a user page that is a subpage of your talk page.  If you want to know how to do that, please ask--very easy.  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Drgood13, I think you've been shortchanged by your instructor and your university. You should protest your shabby treatment. StAnselm (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make the claim that the instructor or the university has done anything wrong? Remember to WP:AGF.  There are any number of reasons for problems.  One problem could be experienced Wikipedian editors who are not encouraging and helping students, but instead biting them for trying to learn how to edit here.  Perhaps, the instructor might not have warned students that Wikipedia can be a snake pit of incivility.  Is that really the instructor or University's fault?   That said, I do wonder if students are reading the guide provided in these courses.  Careful attention to that guide might have avoided the problems that have led to some of these WP:AfD.  If the students are not reading and following the guide, is that entirely the instructor or University's fault?  Perhaps we could provide more guidance to these students and not be so judgmental of them.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the basis, for example, of the POV course description (whose blatant BLP violations have now been removed). UCB can teach whatever they want, of course, but the instructor should have realised that his approach was at odds with Wikipedia's. Grading a student on the basis of an assignment that has a high possibility of getting deleted is also poor educational practice. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt the instructor would have anticipated the articles would end up here and that the hard work of the students would be treated with such disdain. It seems to me the problem comes from our end of making Wikipedia sound more welcoming than it actually is.  Please look over the guide and show me the warnings in it that this would happen when you write on a controversial subjects or the problems with WP:BLP.  I did not see them.  It's written for scientists dealing with non-controversial subjects.  I have looked over some of these courses and I don't see how the instructor did anything substantially different from the other courses, except that the topic of study is political. I would be curious to hear from the instructor,  on whether my assessment of the issues is accurate.  I would be happy to take this discussion to a more appropriate place--not sure where that would be, possibly the course talk page?  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi...I will keep my thoughts here fairly short and incomplete as my students and course have been further targeted as a result of the times (one time actually) I have commented on the broader nature of what's going on here. I hope this comment does not ignite any further fury on the part of their critics. I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility.  I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world.  (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements.


 * I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The students' intention is to neutrally discuss this topic, and they're getting a lot of learning out of this for sure.  Environmental justice is an increasingly broad and deep field of study and yes, politics.  And almost all environmental issues have social and economic (and therefore justice) dimensions.


 * But we're working through it and will get good information out where we can! Thanks to all of you for the constructive attention.
 * EJustice (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, but the Instructor is responsible for being familiar with WP policy (including, in this case, discretionary sanctions). Yes, it's a political subject, and that's what's causing the POV - because the course is "Enviornmental justice", all environmental topics are seen as justice issues, even when there is no reliable source explicitly making the connection. StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @David Tornheim, the deadline is April 24th. How do we *request* it be userfied? Thanks! Drgood13 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13
 * Hi...your prof here. Please check the bcourses page for how to proceed! (for everyone else there are really great people guiding our students at WikiEdu and we have 4 TAs on campus...180 students contributing...some mistakes will be made!) --EJustice (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How do we *request* it be userfied? Just make an entry here like the all other editors did here and give reasons for your proposed action for this proposed Article for Deletion.  Also, take a look at .  The ping didn't work by just putting my name with an ampersand (@); It requires the proper use of that template or one similar.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Winters rights as synthesis, with a slightly plausible search term. Redirects are cheap, anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Winters v. United States (the correct name of the article) per the above. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Winters v. United States.  In this case userification is not an option as the article is SOAPBOX about the RW with BLP violations, and should not exist anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.