Talk:State-recognized tribes in the United States

message: The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas is a different organization than the Lipan Apache Band.  The Tribe has been recognized by the State of Texas, whereas the Band has not.  Should the Band even be listed in this State Recognized Tribes entry?  Their citation indicates only that they are appealing for federal recognition not State.  If they are to be listed, then they should be listed in a line separate from the Lipan Apache Tribe since these are two entirely different, unrelated organizations.Wcsu ryan (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They should not be on the same line. However, I see where the confusion came from. The "Tribe" is State Recognized while the "Band" is Unrecognized. The "Tribe" needs a listing here while the "Band" needs a listing on the Unrecognized tribes page. The confusion is that until the end of 2007, both the "Tribe" and the "Band" were calling themselves "Band", and this clearly posed a confusing problem, especially when both at the time were Unrecognized. Consequently, the "Tribe" that wavered between calling themselves "Tribe" and "Band", for the purposes of State Recognition affirmed "Tribe" and not "Band" but the internet still reflects that "Tribe"/"Band" designation wavering period of the "Tribe". I will fix this on both pages. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas 

message: The referenced article clearly states that Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes.  Ergo, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky cannot be a state-recognized tribe.  Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes because Kentucky currently has no process for recognizing tribes, thus Rep. Meeks third attempt at passing a bill to put one in place (currently in the senate, where it has never made it to the floor on the previous two attempts).  In the discussion page for the whether or not to delete the article Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, one of the points its defenders have made is that the SCNK does not claim state-recognition (they actually do, but the links to that on their webpage are currently unavailable).  I fail to see why SarekOfVulcan insists on repeatedly including a group which clearly does not belong here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are also official state webpage references (which you keep deleting) that say they do have state recognition, if not legislative recognition.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tara Metts does not know what she's talking about and matters like that are not her specialty.  Kentucky has no law establishing a process for state recognition and therefore no state recognized tribes.  If that were not the case, Rep. Meeks would not be attempting for a third time to get such a law passed, so the cited references are clearly mistaken.  The defenders of the SCNK on the discussion page for whether or not to keep it have denied that it is state-recognized and that SCNK has ever claimed that it is.  Those "official" pages you mention are official in that they are official statements by the governor's office or that of his subordinates; it is a digest of comments by various officials obviously in response to questions from citizens or reporters.  State recognition = legislative recognition where these things are concerned.  In not state is any "tribe" considered a tribe by proclamation of a governor.  Not even the President of the United States can do such a thing.  It always had to be by following a process laid out by the legislature, or by having a law passed specifically giving that recognition. How long have you been dealing with these issues? I have for nearly 20 years. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere on the web or otherwise does the state of Kentucky list tribes that have state recognition.  Although it does not meet the definition of verifiability, during an earlier discussion about the proposed deletion of SCNK's article, one of those involved called the office of the Kentucky state cabinet and was told in no uncertain terms that Kentucky has no state recognized tribes.  To allow this entry to stand here is to knowingly perpetuate a lie. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Deleted entry due to irrelevance.  I was being purely argumentative Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar case exists with the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory.  There, the group has received three proclamations by different state governors yet does not have state recognition according the the Missouri American Indian Council.  Rather than being listed among State recognized tribes it is on the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The cases are not similiar at all, The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky have an 1893 Executive letter signed by Gov. John Y. Brown recognizing them as an Indian tribe. This letter predates any recent controversy about state recognized tribes, or the establishment of the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They do however have recent Proclamations from Gov. Ernie Fletcher, and the City of Henderson, Kentucky. Both proclamations acknowledge Gov. Brown's 1893 recogntion of them as an Indian tribe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.177.137 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky 

message: To hyphenate the latter seems more natural to me, and I note it's used in one of the sources, as is the unhyphenated noun-form of the former.  Comments?  What is the norm in sources, if there is one?Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I see "Federal recognition", "Federally recognized", "Federally-recognized", "State recognition", "State recognized", "State-recognized", "Federally non-recognized", etc. so it seems to be all over the place when it comes to if hyphenating or not, etc. The issue with the First Nations, thank goodness, is a bit easier, as the terms are "Status" or "Non-status"... I think in the US, this is going to be an issue for a while. However, from Wikipedia's standpoint, this is an issue of style, so we should check out the MOS to see what it says on how to address this issue. CJLippert (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "State Recognition" vs "state-recognized"

message: I don't know the status of tribes in, say, Brazil or elsewhere in the Americas (outside Canada and the US), or in Africa and....Turkey even?  Are they state/province-governed in other countries, or all "federally recognized" if "federally" is even an apt term in unitary states (vs federal one).  It just seems to me that this and its sister articles are USian in the context of their title-usage, but is it only of USian relevance or should either the title be tweaked or dabbed to specify the US, or the content adjusted to a global context?  NB all First Nations governments are "federally recognized tribes" in the Canadian context, though we don't often use the term "tribes", and there are historical peoples who aren't recognized, either because they're extinct or, as the Sinixt say about themselves, disenfranchised.  Thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is definitely a list of State-recognized tribes in the United States. A similar list could be generated for Non-status First Nations of Canada.  Official status of recognition or non-recognition of various indigenous groups with the ability of autonomous or semi-autonomous rule and/or governance really depends from county to country. I would support renaming of this list to specifically include "United States" in the title for better reflect the nature of this listing. CJLippert (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed to State recognized tribes in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In Canada, the issue of Enfranchisement is in parallel to the US's Citizenship. However, I believe since the Canadian Constitutional reform of 1984, all First Nation citizens are Canadian citizens, so today "to enfranchise" really means "to give up Native citizenship". Before 1984, "to enfranchise" meant more of "to give up Native citizenship to gain Canadian citizenship". The Canadian government recognizes Aboriginal Title and Right (in theory, anyways) of all Aboriginal peoples, but the government the people forms is another story... which is why we end up with terms such as "status" (as in their status as rightfully recognized Indian, Metis or Inuit government entity have been confirmed) or "non-status" (as in their status as rightfully recognized Indian, Metis or Inuit government entity have not been confirmed). US went through the same issue back in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act. For some tribal entities, it meant to go for federal recognition (as in the case of the Citizen Potawatomi Band) as they too were enfranchised to give up their Potawatomi citizenship to become US citizens back in the 1860s, but they maintained government since then, and when all Native Americans became US citizens, then under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1936, the Citizen Potawatomi sought and re-gained their federal recognition. CJLippert (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: globalize title or content?

message: The Cherokee Nation's Fraudulent Indians Task Force Fraudulent Group List is not a reliable source because It lists virtually all state recognized Cherokee tribes as fraudulent, if not all of them.  In fact, the Cherokee Nation only recognizes the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes as being legitimate.  Therefore, the Fraudulent Indians Task Force (FITF) does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to state recognized Cherokee tribes, and should not be used as a source by for an Wiki article entitled “State recognized tribes in the United States”.  According to “Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources” all sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.  In other words, the FITF source being used is not supportive of the claims being made by the article. The FITF source would be better used in an article entitled “List of unrecognized tribes in the United States.  Although the FITF chooses not to recognize a tribe as being legitimate does not have anything to do with weather a given state recognizes a group of Native Americans as a legitimate tribe.  Every state recognized tribe that is unfortunate enough to carry the Cherokee name is footnoted in the article with the FITF source. If the tribe is Shawnee or perhaps Chickasaw, they are not tagged with the FITF negative source.  State recognized Cherokee tribes listed in the article are being stigmatized just because they happen to be on a list entitled “Fraudulent Indians Task Force”. Where is the proof that these State recognized tribes are fraudulent?  It appears that the FITF fraud list is “original research” that just happens to be published on the internet, and not easily accessed by the public anyway. One cannot even access their list without a username and password.  The FITF is not a proven reliable third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousegg (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudulent Indians Task Force List 

message: Removed "United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation" since HJR 8 of 1979-80, entitled "Joint Resolution To recognize the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band." is a resolution in which the members of the 113th Ohio General Assembly "commend the Shawnee Nation and salute its people as among the first Ohio citizens" (text of bill). "The content of this resolution is not codified law and does not appear in the Ohio Revised  Code, was never printed in Ohio's session laws, and is considered ceremonial or congratulatory in nature." per Debbie Tavenner, Library Administrator, Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Columbus OH 30 may 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkunesh (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there can also be a note about what state recognition means in Ohio, vs. such a ceremonial resolution.Parkwells (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio 

message: I suppose it is possible I need to refresh but some references worked and some did not. I received various codes that were dead links for reference # 4--15--23--26--30--33--34--35--37--38--41--43-- and 51. I will look at these a little later (all refreshed) but maybe someone else is watching this page and can help out. Otr500 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also noticed that many were dead links, but want to suggest that so many sources are not needed. Most of these seem to be well-established; many states list which tribes they have recognized and that should be enough. Maybe it is simply time to get rid of some of the dead links. Listing ten cites per tribe when there is consensus on status is not useful. Parkwells (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References --over 22% dead links 

message: '"... most Natchez families and communities are found in Oklahoma, where the Natchez Nation is a treaty tribe..." Snori (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Oklahoma?

message: Why is Rhode Island not on this list?  According to the Wiki page for this tribe, they have received federal recognition since 1983 and state recognition since 1880.  173.48.76.98 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island is a federally recognized tribe. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhode Island Narragansett Tribe 

message: The Troy Johnson source  does not identify the tribes on its list as state-recognized, but as tribes organized by state that do not have federal recognition. This does not mean they have state recognition.Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that this is not the same thing.  Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Why are so many cites given for tribes listed as state recognized? Or that they have petitioned for federal recognition? One or two official sources should be sufficient, especially if they agree; they don't need five or six or eight. What's the point?Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When a state has a process and an administrative body, such as the Alabama Indian Commission, why are a kazillion other sources listed for its state-recognized tribes; why is more than one state source listed - as another list is a small business administration. It makes the page unnecessarily cluttered and hard to navigate. I suggest that the cites be reduced to two at most, unless someone presents a compelling reason for more. Big databases have to be working off information provided to them by the states, or organizations such as the Conference of States Legislatures, and National Congress of American Indians and we should, too. If sources disagree, then that should be noted and explored. Parkwells (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The so-called Manataka American Indian Council is in part a marketing site, a non-profit representing itself. I don't see that its list of state-recognized tribes adds anything to what is already available from the states, feds and the National Congress of American Indians, and we do not need two citations from the same source, as has been done here. Let's clean up this article by deleting low-grade sources such as this one, which I am doing. A quick look at its articles shows they are undated, often not sourced, and inaccurate - example is one about the historic Lenape and Pequot peoples on Long Island, whose geographic locations over time were mistakenly thought to mean they were separate tribes; the article repeats that mistake. I'm deleting this source. Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't fret about a hard and fast rule; in some cases it may take multiple sources to verify info.  That said, no need for eight, as a rule, unless this settled an edit war or something.  I'd look at them case by case.  Sometimes a non-profit or other reliable source with a list is easier than going through the statutes of 50 states to find specific enabling legislation. So long as the site is generally reliable, I'd say keep it pending being able to find the statute.  Be careful not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.  Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with sources

message: As there is an article, Unrecognized Indian tribes in the United States, wouldn't it be better to have unrecognized tribes, especially those with copycat names, that have no recognition, all put there, rather than giving them any space in this article? Examples include Juaneno Band...(II) Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a merge, state-recognized tribes have a specific legal status - and the above is a redlink anyway.  Montanabw(talk) 07:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I made a mistake on the title. But, I was not suggesting a merge. In two places in this article on State-recognized tribes, there were copycat tribes discussed with names similar or the same as those recognized, and it was noted that these other tribes had no recognition. I was suggesting that "unrecognized tribes" should be displayed only at the article Unrecognized Indian tribes in the United States, rather than giving them space in this article.Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep focused

message: This page was filled with information that was years out-of-date and many of the sources used aren't particularly authoritative—they are just self-published, e.g. www.wildapache.net, www.hanksville.org, etc. Kstrom.net is "Beaded Lizard Books" website, and NativeData.com is some kind of domain parking right now, not a website. Some of the previous references dated from 2007, 8 years ago. I went through the National Congress of the American Indians' tribal directory and the National Conference of State Legislatures' list of State Recognized Tribes to provide 2015 citations for state-recognized tribes. These are two authoritative and objective sources. Neither NCAI or NCSL is pushing through an agenda to support or go against any particular state-recognized or unrecognized group. If there are any lists with greater authority than NCAI or NCSL, then they should be used as well. However, Beaded Lizard Books website from years ago does not trump a 2015 listing by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Yuchitown (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Native American Rights Fund links to both the NCAI and NCSL directories. They link to the BIA's lists, but the BIA only lists federally recognized tribes. They link to dickshovel.com (no date or author listed on that website), so that could potentially be another citation. Yuchitown (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as to RS being used.  In some cases, state statutes may expressly acknowledge state recognition in some fashion, even if indirectly, for example, in Montana, the Little Shell Chippewa is state-recognized via statutes such as this.  Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree the article needs updating we should cite from state government sources rather than secondary organizations. For instance the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is a voluntary membership organization, which tribes can choose to sign up and pay for. Only tribes that have chosen to be NCAI members are listed on their page. Thus NCAI does not define or determine the recognition status of tribes. 174.61.182.242 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the items removed had sources. If individual items were incorrect, it seems unlikely that such large numbers as were removed were all wrong. Rmhermen (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rmhermen, could you please look at the source websites and their dates? Some of these are deadlinks, many of these are self-published websites whose information was not cited (ala Wild Apache, an Internet service provider). So you've thrown out tons of editing work with recent citations from objective sources. Can you now furnish recent citations from authoritative sources to demonstrate that the tribes removed are in fact state-recognized and NCAI and NCSL somehow failed to notice? NCAI does not determine state recognition, they make no claim to do so, and do not only list "member tribes." Yuchitown (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I would suggest adding at least all of the "state historic tribes' listed in the Michigan Indian Directory from 2012-2013 or the four "state historic tribes" listed in Michigan State Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.  174.61.182.242 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sourcing appears greatly improved. Given User:Yuchitown's edit summary for this recent diff, I just wanted to acknowledge that in my opinion he has done much good work to improve this page. If there is any problem with the specific references for the Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Nation in establishing that Connecticut has recognized them and that the BIA has not, please let me know. My additions (diff) were intended to keep the page factual. I think we can agree that a current Connecticut General Statutes reference trumps the lack of a 2015 listing by the National Conference of State Legislatures as regards a matter of Connecticut state law. That said, I think the NCSL source is considerably better than much of what was there before, even if not legally authoritative. Regards. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This page needs further improvement given that some of the tribes on this list according to the present criteria are questionable and have been challenged by leaders of federally recognized tribes including those whose names these groups are invoking. I see previous editors have used Koenig and Stein, but is there any other better criteria we can use? Hedgenettle (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: State-recognition doesn't necessarily confer legitimacy from the Native community, but it is a third-party criteria that has some legal ramifications. But, as you can see from the endless conversations, trying to determine which groups are state-recognized tribes is challenging, due to no neutral, authoritative source maintaining a master list. Yuchitown (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating Information

message: Hello, I happen to know that the Pamunkey have been granted Federal recognition, and according to this websitehttp://paialowereasterncherokeenationsc.com/ the PAIA Lower Eastern Cherokee have state recognition (I live in South Carolina, so I am privy to this sort of thing).  I don't have the energy to do it right now, and sorry for not signing in.  Personally, I think this whole article can use an overhaul.  Thanks! 104.62.114.211 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Date

message: Inaccurate sources are repeatedly being provided for the Assonet Wampanoag. The correct name is Assonet Wampanoag Inter-tribal Council, Inc. They are an intert-tribal incorporated non-profit organization. They are not a 'tribe' http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=000327276&SEARCH_TYPE=1 Indigenous girl (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. They are incorporated for tax purposes, yes, but look at Mass.gov, it lists the Assonet as a state-recognized band in search results 3 and 10. 92.48.194.166 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I can't find anything, either.  Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massachusetts 

message: Hey y'all, I wouldn't know the first place to look, so could someone help with replacing the links with active ones?  Thanks.  Adam (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Links

message: This has come up more than once, but states pass feel-good bills honoring organizations that carry no legal weight and are not the same as establishing state-recognition. Is there any way to spell this out more clearly in the introduction? The most recent example is a Texas law that just passed that "Recognizing the Mount Tabor Indian Community for its contributions to this state.". Ahalenia (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The bill that just passed in Texas about the Mount Tabor Indian Community is described as "Resolutions--Congratulatory & Honorary (I0705)". It was passed "as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives and Senate." The bill does not establish any legal framework for the Mount Tabor Indian Community to operate as a tribe within the state of Texas. Yuchitown (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Honoring and State-Recognition

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on State recognized tribes in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112024604/http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/ to http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925020543/http://www.doi.gov/iacb/act.html to http://www.doi.gov/iacb/act.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013155515/http://www.indianaffairs.com/tribes.htm to http://www.indianaffairs.com/tribes.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20091026175747/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/INDI23_20091022-223007/301146/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/INDI23_20091022-223007/301146/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102201038/http://www.state.sc.us/cma/pdfs/s_c_tribes_and_groups.pdf to http://www.state.sc.us/cma/pdfs/s_c_tribes_and_groups.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111134058/http://southcarolinaindianaffairs.com/members.html to http://southcarolinaindianaffairs.com/members.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902045830/http://scindigenousgallery.com/ to http://scindigenousgallery.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513173319/http://www.doi.gov/bia/off_fed_acknowledg/status_summary_021507.pdf to http://www.doi.gov/bia/off_fed_acknowledg/status_summary_021507.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917205052/http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf to http://indian.senate.gov/2000hrgs/s611_0524/jones.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here are two listings that I just pulled from the main list; one has no citation; the other's citations are only about how they were denied federal recognition.
* Nipmuc Nation (Hassanamisco Nipmuc and some Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuck) Letter of Intent to Petition 04/22/1980; Proposed finding in progress. Declined to acknowledge on 6/25/2004, 69 FR 35667; Reconsideration request before IBIA (not yet effective)
* Assawompsett-Nemasket Band of Wampanoags
The "Nipmuc Nation" is not listed on the NCSL List. Icecube77 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massachusetts 

message: The map of states with state recognized tribes is severely out of sync with the list of said tribes in the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradicting 

message: https://www.500nations.com/tribes/Tribes_States.asp seems to be an unreliable source. For starters, it lists many more tribes as recognised by Massachusetts than the National Conference of State Legislatures (https://web.archive.org/web/20210602114015/https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/quad-caucus/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#ma) does, and I'm inclined to trust the NCSL a lot more. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: I was wondering who Koenige and Stein were and why their recommendations might matter or not.
Koenig and Stein have recommended the processes of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, all established by-laws passed by the state legislatures, as models worthy of other states to use as the basis for legislation related to recognition of Native American tribes. Statutes that clearly identify criteria for recognition or that explicitly recognize certain tribes remove ambiguity from their status.
Alexa Koenig is a professor from UC–Berkeley, but turns out that Jonathan Stein falsely claimed to be a member of the unrecognized but historic Gabrielino-Togva Tribe, and they sued him for "identity theft and defrauding the Tribe out of more than $20,000,000"(CaseText). Not only is he not a reliable source apparently he's highly controversial. Would it be acceptable to remove his recommendations from the article? The final statement of that paragraph is highly debatable opinion. Yuchitown (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koenig and Stein