Wikipedia talk:Native American Tribes

Policy Posted for Review. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the United States?
It is systemic bias of the worst kind to decide who is Native American based on which of them one particular government happens to protect under its native laws. The US alone doesn't get to define ethnicity (although sometimes we do seem to think we can). -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Following this discussion, in Canada, the federal organization does not discriminate by tribe like the editor is attempting to do. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada. The AFN represents all citizens regardless of age, gender or place of residence.
 * And yes I can prove this is a recognized Federal organization. : :http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2001/2-01128_e.html
 * http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=3


 * --Kebron 10:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The alternative is to allow any group to claim they are Indians, setup an illegal casino, then cite Wikipedia as an authority, the Federal or State Government then subsequently raid and shutdown the group, then their victims suing Wikipedia (which has no exemptions since it may be in violation of Federal Laws, depending on the circumstances), and our servers get shutdown. We are not allowed to post kiddie porn and are criminally liable, how is advertsing fake tribes any different?  Understand now? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty implausible scenario, hardly justifying a bad policy to guard against it. A group that claims to be an indigenous people of North America for the purposes of material gain will surely not rely upon Wikipedia to do its dirty work, and even if it tried, existing WP policy, if followed, would be sufficient to prevent their nefarious scheme from coming to fruition.  After all, it would take just one watchful editor to make sure claims are properly sourced and POV is balanced, and poof! goes the marketing strategy. alanyst /talk/ 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here is one that is more plausible. Alternatively, one of these fake groups posts an article, gets outed by the Federal Government or sued by the legitimate tribe (which happens all the time in Indian Country), then the legitimate tribe publicly states to the press, "Wikipedia has fake professors and fake tribes, it is the most unreliable resource on the planet.  Wikipedia cannot be considered an accurate compendium of materials related to Native American History or Culture."  Since Native Tribes have the ears of just about every politician in the US, including the Library of Congress, we next hear things in the press like "The Bureau of Indian Affairs has issued a memo to affected Government agencies to discount Wikipedia as a credible source.   This memo has also been circulated to the Libary of Congress and other agencies to distance themselves from Wikipedia based on legal concerns and conerns regarding its policies and accuracy." Another reason why having this policy is a good idea.  Next the Native tribes lobby Congress (which most Tribes have speed dial lists of all the Congressman and Senators) and pass a law called "The Native American Internet Accuracy Act" making it a felony for Wikipedia to post ANYTHING about tribes.  Don't laugh, that's how powerful these tribes are.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE. And such a law will withstand challenges under the 1st ammendment because it deals with the commerce clause and a relationship with a sovereign political entity, and the US Supreme Court says, "Congress power to regulate trade with Indian Tribes is constitutional in nature and the first ammentmend does not apply." Surprise. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, still not convinced. There are plenty of people out there already who say that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and that's okay, because in many cases it's not.  If someone wants to codify Wikipedia's unreliability into law, so what?  What are the likely real-life consequences of such an action, even if we assume for the sake of argument that such a law has some chance of being enacted?  I can't think of any, and formulating policy on the basis of fearful speculation is, to my mind, a Bad Idea.  Your scenario requires too much of the conspiracy-theorist mindset to carry much weight with me.  Congress is going to pass a law decreeing that Wikipedia can't publish information about North American indigenous people?  I think the odds are against it.  oalanyst /talk/ 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Setting a standard as to what is or is not an Indian Tribe with regards to verifiability seems reasonable. I have already seen some disputes about it.  Time for a policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * YOU or Wikipedia cannot create a policy for current policy for tribes while in the "real" world it is still in debate. Who is recognized and not recognized has been debated for years and is STILL being debated so Wikipedia CANNOT impose their policy when governments are still debating. In Canada for example, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada. The AFN represents all citizens regardless of age, gender or place of residence.
 * http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=3 --Kebron 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although there may be debates in Canada, there are no such debates in the US, as who is or is not an indian is well settled by US Law and BIA regulations. It's not me or Wikipedia who decides but the US Government and the tribes themsevles on whois or is not Indian with US jurisdiction.   This is a good baseline policy for determining who is eligible to claim to be a legitimate Indian Tribe and its also in compliance with Federal Laws. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really ???? Cherokee Freedmen were Cherokee citizens for 100+ plus years (since 1866), but then recently all that got revoked... Sorry... debate is still going on in the US. --Kebron 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad policy
This is bad policy. A few reasons why:
 * Instruction creep
 * Not clear why topics about indigenous people of North America need their own policy; should there be separate policies for native people of other continents/regions? for other cultural or ethnic groups with oral traditions?
 * Creates a loophole in WP:RS and related policies, and creates a privileged class of editors, in treating with deference the claims and contributions of certain people based on their recognized membership in a tribe
 * Claims of legal risk to Wikipedia are unlikely
 * Claims of risk to Wikipedia's reputation do not demonstrate why WP:RS and similar policies are insufficient to address this, more so than for other topics
 * No specific, real examples of problems on WP have been provided that demonstrate why this policy would have solved the problem when existing policies and the normal Wiki process would not
 * Seems to have the effect of drawing Wikipedia into taking a position in a larger societal conflict among different people who claim indigenous heritage

In short, its necessity is not demonstrated and it weakens key Wikipedia policies and principles. I will not support this policy proposal. alanyst /talk/ 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but your arguments are directly apposite to WP:RS. This policy defines a method of verifying tribes are who they say they are, not the other way around.  At present, there is a loophole in WP:RS since anyone can claim to be indian, including mormons (which they are not). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The identity of the contributors of information in WP should rarely, if ever, be of any concern at all. What matters is the reliability of the information itself.  That's what WP:RS addresses.  If a Mormon falsely claiming to be Indian were to provide a valid and reliable citation for some information in an article, that should carry much more weight than if a pure-blooded Indian were to make an unsourced addition to the same article, regardless of the article's subject.  Likewise, if the Mormon were the one making the unsourced addition and the Indian were providing the cite, the Indian's edits should be given greater deference. alanyst /talk/ 06:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: This doesn't mean that people should make false claims, of course; it just means that anytime someone appeals to their own credentials in an attempt to lend credibility to their edits in lieu of reliable sourcing, their arguments should properly be ignored. alanyst /talk/ 06:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing editors with tribes. The criteria for an editor to verify membership is to resolve issues with WP:COI, not making them experts.  I agree that section needs adjustment.  I will adjust it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that this does not appear to be necessary. A group can be listed as a Native American tribe if it is verifiably so, according to reliable sources. Could someone give a concrete example of what problem exists that this proposal purports to solve?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this policy achieve?
What is achieved by making this policy that isn't already achieved by the requirement of WP:V that claims that are likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source? JulesH 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V does not decribe the basis for verifying the legitimacy of Indian Tribes and at present fails to address this issue. I guess if someone can claim they are a fake professor, and we all agree this cannot be allowed, then why should groups be allowed to claim they are fake indian tribes without a way to verify this?  I do not think an article about "cats" should include "turtles" nor should we place disambiguation links for turtle pointing to an article about cats if the article is not about turtles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were reliable sources saying that turtles are cats, we would be obligated to mention that. If there aren't reliable sources, then we are obligated not to say that turtles are cats. That follows from WP:V already. Why do we need a seperate policy to say "No animal is a cat unless there are sources which say it is a cat?" -Amarkov moo! 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dislike this idea
I strongly dislike this idea. While Federal Recognition has in fact significant legal repercussions and benefits, tossing aside the notion of ethnicity because of their dealings with the Federal Government is not only absurd, but strikes me as systemically biased as well.


 * You have absolutely no understanding of the laws or our historical relationship with the US, or our culture if you make such a statement. I hope you can come to understand it after I explain.  In ancient times, race was never a factor in who was or was not native.  This is something that came in when the government began dealing with us.  We were governments and cultures, not races, much like the culture of the US today.  Everyone speaks English but americans are a diverse group racially.  So it was for us in ancient times.  People from other tribes and cultures were taken in and made one of us because we were a political and not racial group in the distant past.  When the US came in and established relationships with us, these reletionships were political and not racial in nature because it was between two governements.  Any editor here or any author representing that American Indians are an ethnic group instead of a political delineated group are mispresenting THE LAST 13000 years of North American History and do not know what they are saying.  I agree, that due to the governments ethic classifications with blood quantums, race has become a factor, but it was never so in ancient times in any native culture.  Please think about this. This statement is so far from reality, its sad, and I want you to understand. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposed guideline needs to contemplate such a big number of exceptions, that in fact demands simply one thing: Tribes, Nations, Bands, et al which are not federally recognized cannot have an article. Long known tribes, with a perfectly documented history, that have not succeeded in attaining reconition due to one of the incredibly numerous bureaucratic circumstances should therefore be removed altogether? There are literally dozens of tribes that would fall under this blanket rule, like the Yuchi, the Abenaki, the Duwamish and the Narragansett, to name just a few, all of which have great historical significance, and whose articles are clear in stating the pending or rejected status of their federal recognition. While the reason behind this proposed guideline may be commendable, it is misguided. WP:V is a solid ground that provides more than enough reason to remove any unsourced claims without the need to cut a huge amount of well sourced, relevant and accurate material.  P h a e d r i e l  - 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy specifically states that groups who have never been recognized can have articles. It mainly related to already recognized groups having their articles preserved and preventing fake groups from using these articles inappropriately.  The general idea here is to flush out what are clearly fake groups and place them in separate articles to avoid offending and pissing off the real tribes.  This does not apply to tribes who have never been recognized.  It's just another tool in our arsenal of dealing with groups who may be misrepresenting themselves as indian tribes, and running roughshod over the rights of real tribes.  The way I worded it is we can still basically allow articles on these other groups, but we can keep them out of the articles on Federal Tribes, since most of the Federal Tribes really take offense at these groups inserting their blood sucking proboscises into their necks and misrepresenting their cultures (my people and our tribe esspecially since we have major problems with these fake groups claiming to be Cherokee just so they can run illegal casinos or other unsavory conduct).  View it as another means of protecting native cultures from misrepresentation.   The flip side is that there are Federal Laws to contend with here we may be breaking, and yet another chink in our armor in this area related to verifiability which this policy will shore up effectvely.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to just say that groups which are not recognized by the federal government can't be listed as recognized by the federal government. It's quite another thing to say that those groups may not be called Native American tribes at all, which is what the proposal says. Like I've said before, the United States government does not have sole right of definition for what is a Native American culture. -Amarkov moo! 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone can edit -- then change it in the policy. The general idea is to prevent these fake groups from misusing wikipedia.  with that being said, and keeping that thought in your head, go forth my son and edit away. :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But WP:V (and common sense, actually) already exist, so you can't say that a group is something they are demonstratably not anyway. If the proposal were changed to simply repeat that, it would become redundant. -Amarkov moo! 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, regarding your reply to me above: to the first part of it, I think we're misunderstanding each other here, because basically we're saying the same thing. My statement was based upon my fear of seeing the articles about known, existent and important Native Groups which have failed so far to achieve federal recognition for whatever reason, deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Therefore, I expressed that using that criteria as the measure to judge whether or not a Group should be called Native American at all, was bent out of shape. At first sight, that's what I interpreted from the wording of the policy, and I must admit that it struck me as misguided. However, you have clearly dispelled this fear with your clarification, both here and at your talk page, and at your addendum below I have finally observed what you propose with a clear sense.


 * As to the second part, let me tell you I totally agree that any unrecognized groups pretending to be folded in the same articles of federally recognized Native Groups should be removed on sight. That's totally out of the question, and has been unacceptable way before you wrote this guideline. I have personally removed that kind of additions from Comanche and Chiricahua, and I know for a fact that many of the members of WP:IPNA watch over those articles of their interest for the same reason. Frankly, Jeff, I applaud your initiative, because when I see a group of 10 individuals who call themselves the "Western Oklahoma Qwahadi Council" listing their "group" into our article on the Comanche Nation, I feel infuriated.


 * However, I'm still not convinced that this guideline in its current form can't be misused (not by your or other editors familiar with these matters, of course - but there are many users who don't have expertise in them) and we won't see articles about established and historical groups denied a place, or even their condition as Native American because they haven't attained federal recognition.Unfortunately, there are many grey areas when it comes to judge which group is notable and which isn't; yes, there are evident case, but some are not that easy. Take the Yuki, for example - they currently can be counted in the few hundreds at best, and haven't been recognized, yet they have a long and rich history. I fear cases like this will spark controversy if the guideline doesn't reflect this properly. If you allow me, I'll study your text in detail and see if I can come up with a solution to this issue. Regards,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to modify the language to reflect your concerns. It's clear we need some sort of policy to set some verifiability standards, and all the perspective gain from your hard work on Native Articles (and exceptionally excellent work), should be valuable in addressing these topics.  This is a good shot for us to help promote Wikipedia to the tribes proper.  I feel this may be needed for credibility and integrity of content for the reasons stated and to set a baseline.  Now is a great time to do so.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected
Reading through the discussion this appears to be rejected. --Kevin Murray 10:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the original proposer has supported it so far, so I agree. -Amarkov moo! 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave open for 30 days for others to discuss
Three comments do not constitute a quorum for rejection. After 30 days, I have no objections. Particularly since the lack of such a policy exposes Wikipedia to liabilities and potential legal action by various tribes and the Federal Government if such a policy does not exist. Some sort of reasonable policy is needed in this area. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm..? A quick perusal gives me *at least* six editors (some with multiple comments) who have problems with this proposal. --Jerry (Talk) 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No this has failed. It is less the vocal oppositiona nd more the lack of broad support that demonstrates the failure.  If litigation is a concern, then lack of support is all the more critical.  You have all the time inthe world to generate suppot and propose a new guideline.  --Kevin Murray 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will discuss it with the Foundation. The tribes will not provide funds to support the foundation with misinformation being placed into the project.  I have been working a long time to get such support and am very close.  I'm sorry, but the opinions of folks who are not native, and have no stake in the matter or a basis of understanding the legal issues of posting fake tribes and misrepresenting them creates severe legal issues for the Foundation and any projects supporting the Foundation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have knowledge we don't, but this is a community project and you need to get consensus. It seems that there may be a legitimate problem needing to be redressed.  --Kevin Murray 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is, and I am glad you recognize this. Let's move the discussion to FoundationL. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The tribe's point of view can be taken, but it is not final. That would be like getting approval from the Democratic party on all information on their article. It just does not make sense. --Kebron 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, and following the discussion at Cherokee, which I haven't seen until today, I am not the leader of WP:IPNA, (and I thank you for the distinction, Jeff, but it has no leaders, for that matter) but merely its creator and informal coordinator, and I'm more involved in the technical and organizational side of it than writing articles right now. Therefore my word carries no special weight in this matter, other than that of just another interested editor (and involved due to ancestry, of course).
 * That being said, I repeat my opinion above to avoid confusion: I do believe that this proposed guideline has merit, but it can and I'm positive it will be misused in its current form. In the last days, I've tried different drafts to solve this problem, but I still haven't found a definitive wording. I plan to still work on it further if possible.
 * I also wish to suggest that this matter be brought upon the attention of interested users at WP:IPNA, in order to bring more input to the discussion (in fact, it should have been notified there since day one, and I take my part of responsibility). As it stands, the proposed guideline clearly fails consensus, and needs further work if it can ever be considered policy. Regards,  P h a e d r i e l  - 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please point out where in Wikipedia policy it is stated that proposals must stay open for 30 days, or have a quorum. If you can't, you don't really have an argument.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename native American by state categories
At CfD on Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 12 there is a discussion about the various subcats of Category:Native Americans by state. I made a counter proposal to 1-rename categories like Category:Native Americans in Maryland to Category:Native American culture in Maryland. This would make it a clear ister to the similar category Category:Czech-American culture in Maryland and Category:Greek-American culture in Maryland. 2- we have categories like Category:Native Americans from Pennsylvania and I have proposed renaming these to Category:Native American people from Pennsylvania to make it 100% clear they are meant to be for people. No one has made any comments about my proposal at all, so I thought I would mention it here in hopes of getting someone to say something about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)