Wikipedia talk:Native American Tribes

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bad policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What does this policy achieve? 

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

message: At CfD on Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename native American by state categories