Talk:United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation

message: I'm going to have to revert the edits that effectively dismiss the URB's claim to recognition. The editor employed no source material in denying that the General Assembly has the power to legally recognize Native American tribes. Without this source material, the edit smacks of POV. -- SwissCelt 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ohio General Assembly

message: Your edits to this article are incredible; literally, they are impossible to believe. Your allegations that Hawk Pope is suing the tribe are unfounded, as no source can be found to collaborate. Neither the Bellefontaine Examiner nor WPKO-FM report any such court filings, which they surely would have done if such a thing had happened. I can do a more thorough search at the Logan County, Ohio courthouse on Monday; but frankly, a responsible editor would have done the search already before making such a claim. At the very least, you should have provided a citation less ambiguous than "the court records in Logan Co. Oh".
As for the claim that the Zane Shawnee Caverns have reverted to their former name, that is patently false. I'd even go so far as to characterize it as a hoax. Please don't add hoaxes to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. -- SwissCelt 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the editor at [[User talk:64.136.27.229|64.136.27.229]] 

message: Even though there are some disputed edits (below- that I have no part of), this tribe, or organization however it should be properly called, apparently does exist and has an identity, an organization, some kind of government (laws and bi-laws, etc- I would suppose), possibly a flag, etc- please, this is interesting stuff here, could someone please post some interesting general facts about this body of people as it is the only "tribe" even close to where I live (Cincinnati). The article seems sparse at best. Personally, I have Native American Indian decent ( 1/8th Cherokee and some blood from another "assimilated tribe" that my family lost the name of generations ago) and am interested in local Native culture as this could be my distant relation.
Thanks.
--4.224.9.240 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag and stuff

message: An anonymous IP just added uncited material to this article in the attempt to bolster claims of legitimacy. This article must focus on the organization in question, not unproven connections to Shawnee people. Every claim must be cited or removed. An encyclopedia is an inappropriate place to try promote a group's unfounded claims. Yuchitown (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place to fantasize. If you want to make a highly unlikely claim, back it up by a reliable source. Yuchitown (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: so much of what you have written here is false. You clearly know nothing about this given your sources are so weak and clearly biased. Peshewapope (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources are biased in some form or fashion. Wikipedia, though a tertiary source, is very biased. We only allow content found in published sources deemed reliable and independent of the subject. Some of those sources may be particularly biased for or against the subject or they may have no opinion about the subject at all. While Wikipedia strives to include content that is factual if reliable sources are incorrect then Wikipedia will be incorrect until or unless those sources change their statements. Everything written in Wikipedia should be cited to a source and that source should verify what is written. So, getting mad at Wikipedia is the wrong approach. Go to the source or find counter sources that fit the criteria. --ARoseWolf 13:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not only the bias in some of the sources cited here, but also some of the sources linked to the more heinous accusations don't point to anything related to the claims they are making. For @Yuchitown to continue making the claims and use their own completely unrelated and unreliable sources, with no oversight by wiki admins is just plain wrong. While simultaneously removing factual edits I have made at that. They are not following through on their duties as admins and are contributing to the notion that wiki itself is a completely unreliable source. Peshewapope (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Peshewapope  Again, you are wrong and need to stop making these suggestions. If you think you can back them up, take us to WP:ANI, not here,. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to correct Doug because he is absolutely right that, @Peshewapope, you are wrong on many different levels but the correct forum for content disputes is WP:DRN. However, since misconduct is also claimed by @Peshewapope then AN/I would be the correct forum for that. Most of the admin's here are acting in their capacity as editors. The only admin action that has taken place is Cullen's very appropriate protection of the article from edit warring on all sides. I will caution @Peshewapope, if you do bring this to AN/I then I don't think you'll like the outcome. Wikipedia has very specific policies that are sometimes difficult to understand and harder to master but not impossible and they are also not unreasonable to objective people. If your approach is that a source can not be reliable because I know the truth and it says something other than what I know then this is going to end very badly for you. Rather accept that somethings may be different than what you know to be truth and if you can't find a published reliable source that's okay. Things are not made more true because they are in our articles. They are also not made less true because they are not mentioned. It just means there isn't a reliable source or reliable sources say something to the opposite affect. It's no reason to lose your ability to edit over.--ARoseWolf 15:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: you guys are willfully abetting misinformation here and you know it. Totally in contradiction of your duties as admins. Thank you for the link. I will most certainly take it up there. Peshewapope (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are giving you accurate explanations of the relevant policies and correctly outlining your options to proceed. They are trying to help you, and what you are giving in response is insults. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: the link you cited to the claim that the URB is a registered Christian church makes no mention of that whatsoever. Clearly a factually incorrect statement. As for state recognition, Ohio reserves the right to format its recognition process however it sees fit and is not beholden to any format set by other states or entities. There is a lack of information out there about HJR8 ,but it does exist and is intended to bestow official and permanent recognition of the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band. I will have to find a way to upload the document to bury these claims for good. Peshewapope (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohio does reserve that right, and the Governor's office has specifically said , which is correctly quoted and properly sourced in our article. We cannot simply handwave that away. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: And actually the link you reference does say the NTEE code; primary is "Christian" and under types on non-profits it says "charities" and "churches"'. Maybe it is a little inferred and I would need a further source to call it a church but it is definitely filed as "Christian". --ARoseWolf 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably say it filed as a "Christian organization" in place of "church" based on that source. --ARoseWolf 16:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: it is definitely not filed as Christian and we do not hold any religious exception therefor we are not a church of any kind. Peshewapope (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how many ways we can say, what you know to be true doesn't matter. The source matters and it does say the organization filed as a 501(c)3 Religious organization and the religion listed as Christian. There is no reason to discuss this here further because you have ignored everything we have tried to tell you thus far. Please take this to one of the forums we linked you too. --ARoseWolf 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: where is your source on that? Non existent I assume since it is empirically false Peshewapope (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look up the IRS's NTEE codes in many places, for example (https://x4i.org/nonprofit-ntee-code-finder/31403e5f946dded9ff58). X20 is indeed 'Christianity'. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: False claims

message: I can't yet find the text of the "Joint Resolution to recognize the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band, as adopted by the [Ohio] Senate, 113th General Assembly, Regular Session, Am. Sub. H.J.R. No. 8, 1979-1980." Ohio Laws & Administration doesn't have it. LegiScan appears to only go back to 2007 for Ohio. The Ohio General Assembly Archives only goes back to 2007. Ohio HJR 8 (1979–80) is only a resolution so wouldn't be legally binding, but it would still be good to access the original text. Yuchitown (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the original document framed on my wall. Peshewapope (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Really, you should know better. For all that talk you don't understand a thing about this. Ohio as a state dictates how it's recognition process will look. Not by formatting it to another states process. So the claim that it isn't legally binding is baseless. Not only did we get state recognition, but we had it reaffirmed as well after the scandal with the fed Shawnee out west. All of this is well documented and I have the physical documentation to prove it all. Like I said, The actual document of HJR-8 with the gold seal of ohio and accompanied signatures is framed on my wall. Clearly stating its intent to bestow recognition to my people. Peshewapope (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: How can I send you a picture? Peshewapope (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Basing Wikipedia content on something  is a violation of two of Wikipedia's core content policies, namely Verifiability and No original research. We require published reliable sources, and that requirement is non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: so if I have a source that disputes the claims on this page, will I be allowed to enter it into this page? Peshewapope (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can request edits with the template . Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is third party and is not a COI Peshewapope (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a published source, which meets the requirements of WP:RS and can be independently verified by others? We need to be able to find it in a library or bookstore or the like, it can't be a document you happen to be in possession of. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Older resolutions like this probably require a trip to a law library (and probably one in Ohio at that). They'll have records of most the laws and resolutions passed each session there in books. A lot of states haven't digitized older legal records, in Oklahoma digital records only go back to about the 1980s. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: all of the state letter head is to come. I have physical copies, but finding a digital source is what I'm working on. The sources I am talking about are internet sources referring to our state recognition. The same legitimacy that all of the previous sources hold I might add... Peshewapope (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Many internet sources will not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Be sure to study the sourcing guidelines carefully. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio House Joint Resolution No. 8, 1979–1980 

message: I have semi-protected the article for three days due to edit warring. Any editor who resumes edit warring when the protection expires will be blocked. Instead, build consensus for any changes here on the talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just emboldened these people making false claims. You are on the factually incorrect side of this. The source cited for becoming a church says nothing at all about becoming a church. Nothing. It's an empty and false citation just like 90% of them on this page. Peshewapope (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have no opinion whatsoever about the content dispute. I am here for the sole purpose of enforcing Wikipedia's well-established behavioral policies. Study the relevant policies until you understand them, and comply with them from now on if you hope to contribute to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly disgraceful 71.213.174.28 (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think long and hard before disparaging an admin in such a fashion were I you. A word to the wise.   Aloha27  talk  04:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: When they willfully abett gross misinformation about topics they know nothing about i consider it disgraceful. Not sorry 71.213.174.28 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: you may consider it an attack because you know it's indefensible what you are doing here. I only made a factual statement. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it less true. You know what you're doing is wrong. Peshewapope (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I know with 100% certainty that I am doing my job as a Wikipedia administrator correctly. I am doing nothing wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Peshewapope As another administrator, Cullen328 is correct according to our policy, whether your edits are right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring