Talk:Ani-Stohini/Unami

message: *
*
*
:Please don't remove the citation needed templates unless you are providing a citation. Information about what constitutes a reliable citation can be found at: Wikipedia:Citing sources. The links above are sources for citations; however, most published references to Ani-Stohini/Unami only refer to the group's recognition status and any material that lists Wikipedia as its primary source is not acceptable. Information about the Unami language belongs on the Unami language article, unless it mentions this group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I am not finding a whole lot about those group.  No contact information (that isn't outdated), no videos on youtube, and only one thing from the BIA. I really think we need a lot more to justify keeping this page.  Do they go by a different name now, per chance?Adam (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this group still exist?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ani-Stohini/Unami. 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/20131211175852/http://www.wsls.com/story/20820735/morning-song-way-film-screening to http://www.wsls.com/story/20820735/morning-song-way-film-screening
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213101524/http://www.moviefone.com/movie/morning-song-way/51930/synopsis to http://www.moviefone.com/movie/morning-song-way/51930/synopsis
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: And apparently they used to have a website, and this is what I could find <http://web.archive.org/web/19990220014549/http://ani-stohini-unami.com/>, check the date on that capture.  If members of this tribe could please help with actual, original sources, it would greatly benefit us, here.  Thank you! Adam (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So it appears the May 29 2022 edit was by a member and all those changes were reverted.  I have already added a Baltimore Sun article that is a source for one of the revereted changes.   One change that was reverted is the statement that this group DID NOT take the Unami name in relation to the Lenape.  The tribal member specifically said that was not true.   So information with no verifiable source is being retained, and information that is verifiable (although no one took the time to check) is being removed.   These sources tying the Unami name to the Lenape should be removed. Federer20201 (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: So I used the Wayback machine

message: What archives exist to search BIA petitions, testimony and documents prior to 1978?  There is no guarantee this content is indexed via Google or other search engines.  Caution should be exercised in deleting content of historically disenfranchised groups.  For example, the Muscogee Nation of Florida:
   As Petitioner Number 32 in the Office of Federal 
Acknowledgment, we now have the dubious distinction of being 
one of the three oldest petitioners. We have seen many things. 
This year marks 60 years since the longest serving community 
leader, my great grandfather, wrote to the BIA and explained 
that our people should share in land claim settlements under 
the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The BIA's written response: well, 
you are mistaken, you cannot possibly be who you say you are, 
because the members of that tribe are either dead or removed.
    Ten years later, the BIA admitted they were wrong. But it 
took until 1971 to receive a notice of settlement. By then, my 
great-grandfather had been dead for 2 years. Telling you this 
today is important, because in 1852, State law made it illegal 
to be an Indian living freely in the State of Florida. So the 
settlement letter was our mechanism to confirm our racial 
identification in a place where Jim Crow laws had forced us to 
become either white or black. Indian wasn't allowed where we 
lived. And I guess today that would be called ethnic cleansing.
    We continued with a petition submitted in the mid to late 
1970s. That was returned because the rules had been restated. 
And we started again.
THere are specific claims being made here.   That an Ani-Stohini/Unami petition was submitted to the BIA in 1968.  That Holly Reckor of the BAR stated that petition was lost/destroyed in the 1972 BIA takeover.  That the Ani-Stohini/Unami attended six Clinton-administration meetings for non-federally recognized tribes.
The lack of an easily found Google-indexed reference does not seem adequate to refute such specific claims.   Those and other claims were hastily deleted.  Yet it took only a short time to find a reliable source that the Ani-Stohini/Unami were part of the campaign to save the Bog Turtle. Federer20201 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BURDEN, you shouldn't have restored the poorly or unsourced information without providing an inline citation. By doing so you take on the responsibility and burden of providing such a source. Adding a "citation needed" template is only temporary to give you a very limited time to find the source. Ideally if you are going to restore unsourced information you should already have the source needed to verify the information prior to restoring it. --ARoseWolf 12:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless if that is the intent it is not the practice. There are countless articles on Wikipedia with many years old 'citation needed' tags.  If you do a google search for "citation needed" site:wikipedia.org it produces 100s of millions of results. The source for this claim is the tribal member Charles Howard Thomas referenced in this talk page. I provided an external source for one of the specific claim regarding the bog turtle and suggested other avenues to further source the other claims.  Federer20201 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because other poorly referenced and questionable articles exist on Wikipedia is no excuse to drag this one down. Although since notability is non-existent, it might be time to request deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No information is better than wrong information.  You've addressed none of the points I've raised.  Restoring a trivial reference from a linguistics book doesn't change the fact that the Lenape and Tla Wilano languages are not the same and there is no scholarship indicating they are related.   The words within them are not the same. Take some basic examples: water in Lenape - mpi, water in Tla Wilano wauga, I in Lenape - ni, I in Tla Wilano kimih , bear in Lenape - maxkw, bear in Tla Wilano - a'koh (throat click sound - a sound which doesn't exist in Lenape)  Federer20201 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no scholarship about Tla Wilano, period. A self-published website and self-published books don't qualify. That was the only scholarly mention of this alleged language. BTW searching Ethnologue yields no results, nor does searching Google Scholar. Yuchitown (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIA records pre-1978