On 5/16/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
On 16 May 2007 at 17:29, Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)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