On 16 May 2007 at 17:29, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
While KPB's comments are correct, there is something to what Merkey wrote. Wikipedia articles should reflect all major points of view and significant facts. Tribal recognition by the U.S. Government is a major characteristic of modern Indian tribes.
Certainly... given that this recognition is significant, it should certainly be noted with respect to any tribes to which it applies, and none for which it does not, and the policies on requiring reliable sources for all assertions and not publishing original research must apply. But does this require a specific policy enshrining Federal Indian tribe recognition to special status that can be enforced onto all aspects of how articles on actual or alleged tribes must be written and categorized?
On the talk page for that policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Native_American_Tribes Merkey makes what I see as an indefensibly ridiculous statement in support of the proposed policy:
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.
Anybody who thinks that Congress would pass, or the Supreme Court affirm, such a clearly unconstitutional law deserves to be taken away to a place with padded cells, rather than to be permitted to have any influence on the development of Wikipedia policy.
On 5/16/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 16 May 2007 at 17:29, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
While KPB's comments are correct, there is something to what Merkey wrote. Wikipedia articles should reflect all major points of view and significant facts. Tribal recognition by the U.S. Government is a major characteristic of modern Indian tribes.
Certainly... given that this recognition is significant, it should certainly be noted with respect to any tribes to which it applies, and none for which it does not, and the policies on requiring reliable sources for all assertions and not publishing original research must apply. But does this require a specific policy enshrining Federal Indian tribe recognition to special status that can be enforced onto all aspects of how articles on actual or alleged tribes must be written and categorized?
On the talk page for that policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Native_American_Tribes Merkey makes what I see as an indefensibly ridiculous statement in support of the proposed policy:
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.
Anybody who thinks that Congress would pass, or the Supreme Court affirm, such a clearly unconstitutional law deserves to be taken away to a place with padded cells, rather than to be permitted to have any influence on the development of Wikipedia policy.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I know, it's like saying the Supreme Court would say the Constitution allows one group of Americans to be treated like shit, and it's all good. Oh wait, the Supreme Court did that, then a later Court had to reverse it, and Americans put their children on the front line to enforce the reversal..
I know, it's like saying the Supreme Court would affirm a law sending Americans to concentration camps. Oh wait, that's far worse, and the Supreme Court did that.
I know, it's like thinking the Supreme Court justices are political appointees. Oh wait, they are.
I wouldn't bet on the Supreme Court NOT being a bunch of idiots. Even the current court has had a few that will go down ignobly in history or cause them to apologize 50 years later on behalf of a prior bunch of idiots. There just aren't many guarantees in the American judicial system--and now, with Paris going to jail, if privileged lock-up, even the rich are wondering how good their green-paper guarantees really are.
Our Wikipedia articles on Korematsu and Endo are shameful--I studied more than that in junior high school on the cases.
KP