Reposting this mail from Jeffrey to the Foundation list, since it seems specifically relevant to the english Wikipedia. This was a rejected policy that would have given more weight and authority apparently to people/editors 'from' Federally recognized tribes, giving additional weight to the US Government as a source on these matters. Reposting after I noticed the edit war on the [[Cherokee]] article, where Jeffrey and another editor both apparently violated 3rr over related things.
I'm not sure why any matter beyond BLP issues should be treated any differently, content wise. The United States government has no authority as far as I know over content in articles, so long as it's not illegal (i.e., child pornography and so forth). As I mentioned to Jeff on the other list, it's not a United States encyclopedia, and the "support" of the tribal nations is no more important than the support of, say, the Jews, Muslims, Hungarians, Somalis, or the Tamil. In other words, whether the leaders or representatives of the Cherokee nation (or whomever) have a problem with the existence of the Southern Cherokee Nation, it has no relevance on the existance of an article on Wikipedia about them.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based concensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes
The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify their activities.
Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to violate US laws.
I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations.
I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we allow these groups to post false information into the project.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree with Joe. I'm reposting below what I wrote on the Foundation-list.
Direct repost, except I added the parenthetical statement in the first sentence for this list, because I didn't think to put it in the post to foundation-l.
________________________
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis (and, incidentally, someone who's spent more time in Chief Smith's office than I care to admit - phb), I'm loathe to recommend that Wikipedia get involved in the recognized/non-recognized battle. Particularly given that tripes are having recognition stripped and given even today - just google "Tribe Sovereignty stripped" for some interesting reading.
There are too many uncertainties in this area, and frankly, I don't want to be the one (or suggest that anyone else is) to involve us in tribal policies. I don't want to call the Chief/Chairman/Chief Executive of any of these tribes and say we're going to alter their article and this is why, and I think it's not good policy for us to get in the middle of this one.
Federal recognition does not equal validity. Until the BIA is straightened out, and the Department of the Interior, and ancient treaties, this is a field full of landmines, and I think we're best to stay the heck off of it.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Szilagyi To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [repost] Native American Tribes Policy
Reposting this mail from Jeffrey to the Foundation list, since it seems specifically relevant to the english Wikipedia. This was a rejected policy that would have given more weight and authority apparently to people/editors 'from' Federally recognized tribes, giving additional weight to the US Government as a source on these matters. Reposting after I noticed the edit war on the [[Cherokee]] article, where Jeffrey and another editor both apparently violated 3rr over related things.
I'm not sure why any matter beyond BLP issues should be treated any differently, content wise. The United States government has no authority as far as I know over content in articles, so long as it's not illegal (i.e., child pornography and so forth). As I mentioned to Jeff on the other list, it's not a United States encyclopedia, and the "support" of the tribal nations is no more important than the support of, say, the Jews, Muslims, Hungarians, Somalis, or the Tamil. In other words, whether the leaders or representatives of the Cherokee nation (or whomever) have a problem with the existence of the Southern Cherokee Nation, it has no relevance on the existance of an article on Wikipedia about them.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based concensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes
The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify their activities.
Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to violate US laws.
I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations.
I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we allow these groups to post false information into the project.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wow, ain't that the ultimate, an American Indian is now someone who is recognized as such by the American government--on the other hand, now that the US government has taken all their land, their wasn't much left to take, so why not their ethnicity? Someone can claim they are of German ancestry, but claiming you are of Indian tribal ancestry of any sort is more akin to claiming citizenship? How does that go? You're either descended from Germans or not. You're either descended from Indians or not. You aren't NOT descended from your ancestors because the US government does not recognize the sovereignity of your tribe, they can't unborn you, or disappear you.
The US government's proclamation that a tribe is federally recognized or not does not change or delegitimize your ancestry. North American Indians are in no way a homongeneous group of peoples with a unified outlook towards the US federal government--they spoke hundreds of languages, had vastly different forms of government, marriage rites, and religions.
And politically they are all over the specturm also--I have friends who want others to say "Indian" because it recognizes they are a member of a federally recognized tribe and have certain rights as such that others do not have (the right to collect basketry materials, and to declare spraying certain areas of native plants off-limits for road crews spraying pesticides). I have other friends who belong to federally recognized tribes and don't pay taxes, don't register as a tribal member, don't acknowledge the US government's right to have any impact in their lives whatsoever--the Fight terrorism in America since 1492 t-shirt is big with this group.
This is about Indian gaming rights. Wikipedia should have no part in this political issue of recognizing tribes. However, articles should accurately reflect this dichotomy in the United States for recognition of Indians, the association with gaming, the practice of removing members from tribal rosters to consolidate the profits in fewer hands, and all other documented, reported, and notable issues concerning this. But, no, Wikipedia does not have to support the gaming Indians political power plays. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, I agree with that.
KP
On 5/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, ain't that the ultimate, an American Indian is now someone who is recognized as such by the American government--on the other hand, now that the US government has taken all their land, their wasn't much left to take, so why not their ethnicity? Someone can claim they are of German ancestry, but claiming you are of Indian tribal ancestry of any sort is more akin to claiming citizenship? How does that go? You're either descended from Germans or not. You're either descended from Indians or not. You aren't NOT descended from your ancestors because the US government does not recognize the sovereignity of your tribe, they can't unborn you, or disappear you.
The US government's proclamation that a tribe is federally recognized or not does not change or delegitimize your ancestry. North American Indians are in no way a homongeneous group of peoples with a unified outlook towards the US federal government--they spoke hundreds of languages, had vastly different forms of government, marriage rites, and religions.
And politically they are all over the specturm also--I have friends who want others to say "Indian" because it recognizes they are a member of a federally recognized tribe and have certain rights as such that others do not have (the right to collect basketry materials, and to declare spraying certain areas of native plants off-limits for road crews spraying pesticides). I have other friends who belong to federally recognized tribes and don't pay taxes, don't register as a tribal member, don't acknowledge the US government's right to have any impact in their lives whatsoever--the Fight terrorism in America since 1492 t-shirt is big with this group.
This is about Indian gaming rights. Wikipedia should have no part in this political issue of recognizing tribes. However, articles should accurately reflect this dichotomy in the United States for recognition of Indians, the association with gaming, the practice of removing members from tribal rosters to consolidate the profits in fewer hands, and all other documented, reported, and notable issues concerning this. But, no, Wikipedia does not have to support the gaming Indians political power plays. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, I agree with that.
KP
Thank you for that. ~~~~
K P wrote:
This is about Indian gaming rights. Wikipedia should have no part in this political issue of recognizing tribes. However, articles should accurately reflect this dichotomy in the United States for recognition of Indians, the association with gaming, the practice of removing members from tribal rosters to consolidate the profits in fewer hands, and all other documented, reported, and notable issues concerning this. But, no, Wikipedia does not have to support the gaming Indians political power plays. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, I agree with that.
KP
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. There are exactly 561 such groups. Their status should be indicated on their articles in a consistent and neutral manner, perhaps with a category or template. It isn't necessary for us to specially indicate which tribes aren't recognized, though that may come up in some circumstances. We carefully indicate the status of even minor political entities. We should give the same care to tribes that we give to townships, counties, and minor nations.
Will Beback
On 5/16/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
K P wrote:
This is about Indian gaming rights. Wikipedia should have no part in
this
political issue of recognizing tribes. However, articles should
accurately
reflect this dichotomy in the United States for recognition of Indians,
the
association with gaming, the practice of removing members from tribal rosters to consolidate the profits in fewer hands, and all other
documented,
reported, and notable issues concerning this. But, no, Wikipedia does
not
have to support the gaming Indians political power plays. That's not
what
an encyclopedia is for, I agree with that.
KP
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. There are exactly 561 such groups. Their status should be indicated on their articles in a consistent and neutral manner, perhaps with a category or template. It isn't necessary for us to specially indicate which tribes aren't recognized, though that may come up in some circumstances. We carefully indicate the status of even minor political entities. We should give the same care to tribes that we give to townships, counties, and minor nations.
Will Beback
Yes, I agree with you that this information should be noted in the articles, wherever the information is properly verified, referenced, etc. It is a part of United States Indian tribes, federal recognition or not. I wonder if anyone has written about this from the Indian perspective, as it's rather shocking how strongly some Indians feel about this, both negatively and positively, as I noted before.
KP