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
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
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.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If that doesn't apply the foundation has other bigger worries.
This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support from the project
I wasn't aware we got any significant amounts of financial support. In any case wikipedia cannot afford to be influenced by donors in that way.
and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes,
Can live with that.
as well as being exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to violate US laws.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
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.
UK doesn't have citizens.
The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments,
Can they declare war? In any case the kingdom I live in does not recognise them as such.
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.
No that would be original research. Of course if they get their claim published in a reliable source we will report that
Please read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision about this matter.
Attempting to appeal to the foundation to try and overcome local consensus is not a good ploy.
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.
The view of the US goverment is mearly one POV. There are others.
geni wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
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.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If that doesn't apply the foundation has other bigger worries.r
Criminal liaibility is not exempted under this section. Better go read it again.
Jeff
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Criminal liaibility is not exempted under this section. Better go read it again.
Ok what is the exact federal statute you think the foundation would be in violation of?
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Criminal liaibility is not exempted under this section. Better go read it again.
Ok what is the exact federal statute you think the foundation would be in violation of?
Based on the wording of the proposal, and Jeffrey's wording here, the sense seems to be that the policy is meant to appeal both to the sensibilities of the tribal nations, as well as supporting the ideal that only the United States Federal government can decide who's a legitimate "Indian tribe". Several issues, unless I'm being dense or ignorant, with all that.
1. "en.wikipedia.org" isn't "unitedstates.wikipedia.org". Wikipedia's only obligation to the US is to not break laws where they're hosted. Anything else is irrelevant, since it's explicitely not supposed to be an American encyclopedia.
2. The United States has zero jurisdiction on "who is Indian" outside of the United States. Are tribes in Canada reliant on US law?
3. Why are we worrying about appealing to the support and/or sensibilities of the tribes with their own policy? Do we have WP:Muslim, WP:Jews, WP:Hungarian, WP:Tamil, and WP:Somalians?
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Criminal liaibility is not exempted under this section. Better go read it again.
Ok what is the exact federal statute you think the foundation would be in violation of?
Based on the wording of the proposal, and Jeffrey's wording here, the sense seems to be that the policy is meant to appeal both to the sensibilities of the tribal nations, as well as supporting the ideal that only the United States Federal government can decide who's a legitimate "Indian tribe". Several issues, unless I'm being dense or ignorant, with all that.
- "en.wikipedia.org" isn't "unitedstates.wikipedia.org". Wikipedia's only
obligation to the US is to not break laws where they're hosted. Anything else is irrelevant, since it's explicitely not supposed to be an American encyclopedia.
- The United States has zero jurisdiction on "who is Indian" outside of the
United States. Are tribes in Canada reliant on US law?
- Why are we worrying about appealing to the support and/or sensibilities
of the tribes with their own policy? Do we have WP:Muslim, WP:Jews, WP:Hungarian, WP:Tamil, and WP:Somalians?
Good point on number 3. Who cares about the sensibilities here anyway. It's simply an issue of WP:V.
If they are not recognized, then how can they be verified as Indian Tribes? What if I setup a website claiming to be the president of Germany? Can someone cite it in a wikipedia article since there is a we page to claim it?
Jeff
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
If they are not recognized, then how can they be verified as Indian Tribes?
Again, US recognition is one thing. The United States government recognition is just one thing. And again, we're not a United States project. :) I had actually posted once (when I edited) something to the effect of the census citizenship of all the English speaking countries, out there. It was telling. Either way, the US government is just one Reliable Source, not entitled to any more undue weight than anyone else.
What if I setup a website claiming to be the
president of Germany?
KingJeff.com is free, I think.
Can someone cite it in a wikipedia article since
there is a we page to claim it?
Sure, if 1) You as the subject is notable enough anyway; 2) enough sources say that you're the president or chancellor of Germany. If I write on my blog today that "Ben Affleck is Supreme High Chancellor of Krautland," it's not notable for inclusion. But if the NY Times, Der Spiegel, the Washington Post, CNN, etc., all pick up on it for some reason, and start saying that Benifer I has taken the throne, sure: include it. Otherwise, treat it the same as anything.
If lots of good RS say that there is a tribe of indians outside of Pensacola, Florida, named the "Pensacolan Pequots" but they're clearly a 'fake tribe', they can have an article. And the equivalent V/RS that say soon enough they're a fake tribe will bear out things fine. If the US department of Indian Affairs actually tried to use Wikipedia as a source for verifying their status... their stupidity is not our fault or liability.
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Criminal liaibility is not exempted under this section. Better go read it again.
Ok what is the exact federal statute you think the foundation would be in violation of?
Based on the wording of the proposal, and Jeffrey's wording here, the sense seems to be that the policy is meant to appeal both to the sensibilities of the tribal nations, as well as supporting the ideal that only the United States Federal government can decide who's a legitimate "Indian tribe". Several issues, unless I'm being dense or ignorant, with all that.
- "en.wikipedia.org" isn't "unitedstates.wikipedia.org". Wikipedia's only
obligation to the US is to not break laws where they're hosted. Anything else is irrelevant, since it's explicitely not supposed to be an American encyclopedia.
- The United States has zero jurisdiction on "who is Indian" outside of the
United States. Are tribes in Canada reliant on US law?
- Why are we worrying about appealing to the support and/or sensibilities
of the tribes with their own policy? Do we have WP:Muslim, WP:Jews, WP:Hungarian, WP:Tamil, and WP:Somalians?
Good point on number 3. Who cares about the sensibilities here anyway. It's simply an issue of WP:V.
If they are not recognized, then how can they be verified as Indian Tribes? What if I setup a website claiming to be the president of Germany? Can someone cite it in a wikipedia article since there is a web page to claim it?
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
geni wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments,
Can they declare war? In any case the kingdom I live in does not recognise them as such.
I will admit that the status of American Indian tribes within the borders of the USA is a very interesting issue. In most cases, they never gave up their independent sovereignty to the U.S. government, and are technically independent nations unto themselves. Some tribal groups operate as independent entities almost as peers to American states, and in many cases they even issue their own passports independent of the U.S. State Department. In one bizzare (and unfortunate) incident of an American Indian tribal group in New York state, there was a group that declared complete independence from the USA and even started to fire weaponry at federal agents who tried to fly over the claimed territory in helicopters. And certainly many of these tribal groups did not willingly join with the USA, as evidenced by the numerous conflicts throughout most of the 19th Century between the armed military forces of the U.S. government and these tribal groups. Groups like the Navajo Nation have completely independent legal systems of the states that their reservation is located technically within, and that can be a bit of a surprise when you get caught violating tribal laws like speed limits on highways that cross the reservations.
In most cases, their current status in terms of their relationship with the U.S. government is established by treaty and not more typical legislative act, although that has occurred as well. I would have to say, however, that if other government entities (such as current members of the UN) were to independently recognize these tribal groups as fully independent sovereign nations, that would be considered an act of war upon the United States of America, and for some reason there are not too many countries willing to deal with the consequences of that kind of action.
The exact status of these groups (such as the Cherokee Nation that Jeff associates with) is one of those unsettled political questions, but the current defacto status is to treat them as American citizens if they want to leave designated reservations and to otherwise treat the tribal governments as independent governments. Because state governments are not able to enforce their laws within the reservations, it is a very common practice for many of these tribal groups to establish a casino or some other forms of gambling that may not be legal outside of the reservation, and they are also noted for selling tobacco and other products at much cheaper prices due to the fact that the state governments can't collect the taxes from stores on the reservations.
But as Jeff has also pointed out, there are groups that want to presume this level of sovereignty when in fact they have no formal legal relationship with the U.S. government or any other government entity. Some of these tribal groups are legitimate in terms of having a sort of historical claim and can trace ancestry to people who lived in North America prior to European settlement in the 16-19th centuries. In a very few cases, they may be recognized by individual state governments but not the federal government, and some smaller groups have no formal recognition at all. In the case of groups recognized by state governments, they are entirely at the mercy of that state government which has granted the recognition, and they can't appeal to the same sort of independent sovereignty that the federally recognized groups enjoy. That means that they also must be subject to state laws. A notable example of this is Hawaii with that government's relationship with native Hawaiians, which in most cases doesn't have federal recognition even though state laws do recognize some unique circumstances and territorial claims with those groups.
To me, this issue that Jeff has raised seems more like a question of notability standards for tribal groups, and should be treated as such.when trying to decide if a given Wikipedia article deserves to be kept or deleted. While the legal issues may be significant to these groups claiming sovereignty, I fail to see how this really impacts the WMF if an article is written about one of these groups or even if an independent language edition of Wikipedia is set up for one of these groups that does not have federal recognition. The separate edition of Wikipedia is for speakers of that language, and not about sovereignty issues even if many languages can be tied with a specific country or government on a cultural basis.
Robert Horning wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments,
Can they declare war? In any case the kingdom I live in does not recognise them as such.
I will admit that the status of American Indian tribes within the borders of the USA is a very interesting issue. In most cases, they never gave up their independent sovereignty to the U.S. government, and are technically independent nations unto themselves. Some tribal groups operate as independent entities almost as peers to American states, and in many cases they even issue their own passports independent of the U.S. State Department. In one bizzare (and unfortunate) incident of an American Indian tribal group in New York state, there was a group that declared complete independence from the USA and even started to fire weaponry at federal agents who tried to fly over the claimed territory in helicopters.
When Joe Byrd did this in the 1990's, they sent in SWAT teams and bia helicopters with high powered automatic weapons, Federal Troop, and BIA police.
Byrd's goons did not get away with it either.
:-)
And certainly many of these tribal groups did not willingly join with the USA, as evidenced by the numerous conflicts throughout most of the 19th Century between the armed military forces of the U.S. government and these tribal groups. Groups like the Navajo Nation have completely independent legal systems of the states that their reservation is located technically within, and that can be a bit of a surprise when you get caught violating tribal laws like speed limits on highways that cross the reservations.
In most cases, their current status in terms of their relationship with the U.S. government is established by treaty and not more typical legislative act, although that has occurred as well. I would have to say, however, that if other government entities (such as current members of the UN) were to independently recognize these tribal groups as fully independent sovereign nations, that would be considered an act of war upon the United States of America, and for some reason there are not too many countries willing to deal with the consequences of that kind of action.
The exact status of these groups (such as the Cherokee Nation that Jeff associates with) is one of those unsettled political questions, but the current defacto status is to treat them as American citizens if they want to leave designated reservations and to otherwise treat the tribal governments as independent governments. Because state governments are not able to enforce their laws within the reservations, it is a very common practice for many of these tribal groups to establish a casino or some other forms of gambling that may not be legal outside of the reservation, and they are also noted for selling tobacco and other products at much cheaper prices due to the fact that the state governments can't collect the taxes from stores on the reservations.
But as Jeff has also pointed out, there are groups that want to presume this level of sovereignty when in fact they have no formal legal relationship with the U.S. government or any other government entity. Some of these tribal groups are legitimate in terms of having a sort of historical claim and can trace ancestry to people who lived in North America prior to European settlement in the 16-19th centuries. In a very few cases, they may be recognized by individual state governments but not the federal government, and some smaller groups have no formal recognition at all. In the case of groups recognized by state governments, they are entirely at the mercy of that state government which has granted the recognition, and they can't appeal to the same sort of independent sovereignty that the federally recognized groups enjoy. That means that they also must be subject to state laws. A notable example of this is Hawaii with that government's relationship with native Hawaiians, which in most cases doesn't have federal recognition even though state laws do recognize some unique circumstances and territorial claims with those groups.
To me, this issue that Jeff has raised seems more like a question of notability standards for tribal groups, and should be treated as such.when trying to decide if a given Wikipedia article deserves to be kept or deleted. While the legal issues may be significant to these groups claiming sovereignty, I fail to see how this really impacts the WMF if an article is written about one of these groups or even if an independent language edition of Wikipedia is set up for one of these groups that does not have federal recognition. The separate edition of Wikipedia is for speakers of that language, and not about sovereignty issues even if many languages can be tied with a specific country or government on a cultural basis.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/05/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
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.
Of course, there are no shortage of people who are being completely upfront about using Wikipedia to claim sovereignty...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Micronations
The idea that federal recognition somehow confers validity upon a tribe, peoples, or nation is a ridiculous one.
Yes, there are people who impersonate Indians. Yes, there are fake tribes. But then there are also people who really are Indians but whose tribes are not federally recognized. You have equated this on Talk:Cherokee with being a "wannabee" and having lost language and culture.
You have also shown surprising ignorance towards US Indian Policy by stating that states don't have the power to recognize tribes. (it is Congress' job to regulate commerce with tribes, but that does not mean that states, municipalities and other local government entities cannot enter into contractual relationships with tribes amounting to a sort of recognition).
In fact, Alabama has a committee especially for that purpose. The federal government seems to have no issue with that.
Of course, is someone is saying they're a member of CNO when they're not, that's one thing. But saying that they are Cherokee, that is not illegal by any measure.
Many groups that were recognized at one point are no longer recognized due to the policy of termination. That does not mean they have ceased to exist as a people, or that their cultures are dead, just that they are not recognized by the BIA, an agency with incredibly racist and colonialistic roots in the first place.
Mark
On 15/05/07, 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
Mark Williamson wrote:
The idea that federal recognition somehow confers validity upon a tribe, peoples, or nation is a ridiculous one.
Yes, there are people who impersonate Indians. Yes, there are fake tribes. But then there are also people who really are Indians but whose tribes are not federally recognized. You have equated this on Talk:Cherokee with being a "wannabee" and having lost language and culture.
You have also shown surprising ignorance towards US Indian Policy by stating that states don't have the power to recognize tribes. (it is Congress' job to regulate commerce with tribes, but that does not mean that states, municipalities and other local government entities cannot enter into contractual relationships with tribes amounting to a sort of recognition).
Better go read the US Constitution Mark. Also read up on the preemptive nature of the Commerce Clause. After you read up on these topics, we will have a basis to discuss this where you have the necessary groundwork.
In fact, Alabama has a committee especially for that purpose. The federal government seems to have no issue with that.
Of course, is someone is saying they're a member of CNO when they're not, that's one thing. But saying that they are Cherokee, that is not illegal by any measure.
Mark,
This is exactly what is being argued. This last group claimed to be a division of the Cherokee Nation. This is clearly false.
Jeff
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, 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: Jeffrey V. Merkey To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:47 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
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
Here's a great article on the topic with an explanation of the legal issues surrounding this debate.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1055857097
Jeff
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, 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
Well, I can see I am wasting time with this debate. Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity). I think perhaps the policies may already be in place to deal with these issues under WP:V. One such fake tribe already has had an article purged out and deleted without the policy, so it appears folks have gotten the point. It does not matter if Wikipedia is involved in the debate or not. If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
Jeff
On 5/15/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
If a fake tribe is listed, and they meet RS, ATT, and V, and general notability standards, they have every right to be in the encyclopedia, the same as any other "fake" topic that meets all the requirements of a given WMF project.
No offense, but the opinions of whether people who are a part of the tribal nations (yourself included) don't matter in that. The tribal nations nor the US government have any authority or weight of voice in what topics are covered in the encyclopedia.
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
Ilario
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Here's a great article on the topic with an explanation of the legal issues surrounding this debate.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1055857097
Jeff
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, 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
Well, I can see I am wasting time with this debate. Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity). I think perhaps the policies may already be in place to deal with these issues under WP:V. One such fake tribe already has had an article purged out and deleted without the policy, so it appears folks have gotten the point. It does not matter if Wikipedia is involved in the debate or not. If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
Ilario
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Here's a great article on the topic with an explanation of the legal issues surrounding this debate.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1055857097
Jeff
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, 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
Well, I can see I am wasting time with this debate. Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity). I think perhaps the policies may already be in place to deal with these issues under WP:V. One such fake tribe already has had an article purged out and deleted without the policy, so it appears folks have gotten the point. It does not matter if Wikipedia is involved in the debate or not. If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Aphaia wrote:
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
Some good discussion came from it. Fred included. I can see where non-US folks would have trouble understanding it.
Jeff
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Aphaia wrote:
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
Some good discussion came from it. Fred included. I can see where non-US folks would have trouble understanding it.
I don't agree with the point that Jeff has been trying to make, but I also don't think that his rights to raise the point should be suppressed. In broader terms it's not just a US issue. There are parallels all around the world. Issues of Basque or Ainu self-determination should be viewed with equal importance.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Aphaia wrote:
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
Some good discussion came from it. Fred included. I can see where non-US folks would have trouble understanding it.
I don't agree with the point that Jeff has been trying to make, but I also don't think that his rights to raise the point should be suppressed. In broader terms it's not just a US issue. There are parallels all around the world. Issues of Basque or Ainu self-determination should be viewed with equal importance.
Ec
Yep.
Jeff
On 5/16/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... I don't understand this thread.
I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.
Is this the correct ML?
I wonder why moderators allowed the originator to begin this thread here.
I actually do not see a reason to step in here. List administrators have the task to deal with personal attacks and flame wars. Of course, if a discussion went completely off-topic (say, people would start discussing US politics en large on foundation-l), we might remind people that this is not the right place to discuss it or we might even declare a thread to be "closed". The very last sanction would be to moderate people who are constantly trying to raise off-topic issues on this list. However, I'm not willing to exert any kind of further "censorship" on the topic raised here. If list subscribers think that this is a matter for foundation-l (and obviously they do, as many have responded), then so be it. If a discussion is out of place here, it's best not to take part in it, because if nobody takes part in it, it won't continue (what a beautiful piece of logic, isn't it?)
Michael, speaking as list moderator/administrator/whatever
Ilario
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Here's a great article on the topic with an explanation of the legal issues surrounding this debate.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1055857097
Jeff
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have to tell you, as a former employee of an organization that dealt with Indian Sovereignty on a daily basis, 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
Well, I can see I am wasting time with this debate. Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity). I think perhaps the policies may already be in place to deal with these issues under WP:V. One such fake tribe already has had an article purged out and deleted without the policy, so it appears folks have gotten the point. It does not matter if Wikipedia is involved in the debate or not. If a fake tribe gets listed, they use WP for misinformation and something happens, Wikipedia can retroactively deal with it the same way it handled the "fake professor" fiasco -- lots of bad publicity and public scrutiny. I guess it will get dealt with if and when it happens.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity).
Simply not true. Federal recognition may imply verifiability, but it isn't the same thing. We have plenty of articles on unaccredited "universities" (aka Diploma Mills), they are perfectly verifiable even if they aren't formally recognised. You logic would suggest we should get rid of all of them too.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Federal recognition = verifiability (not validity).
Simply not true. Federal recognition may imply verifiability, but it isn't the same thing. We have plenty of articles on unaccredited "universities" (aka Diploma Mills), they are perfectly verifiable even if they aren't formally recognised. You logic would suggest we should get rid of all of them too.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You call them "diploma mills". The proposed policy did not state they could not have article, only that they had to be tagged as not federally recognized.
Jeff
You call them "diploma mills". The proposed policy did not state they could not have article, only that they had to be tagged as not federally recognized.
If they are not federally recognised, then the article should say they are not federally recognised. That's just a matter of including relevant information in an article. It doesn't need a policy or a tag.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You call them "diploma mills". The proposed policy did not state they could not have article, only that they had to be tagged as not federally recognized.
If they are not federally recognised, then the article should say they are not federally recognised. That's just a matter of including relevant information in an article. It doesn't need a policy or a tag.
Saying that they are "not" recognized is stating a negative. Such a statement needs to be substantiated because it could be libellous if it's wrong; saying nothing needs no verification.
Ec
If they are not federally recognised, then the article should say they are not federally recognised. That's just a matter of including relevant information in an article. It doesn't need a policy or a tag.
Saying that they are "not" recognized is stating a negative. Such a statement needs to be substantiated because it could be libellous if it's wrong; saying nothing needs no verification.
Of course it needs a citation - anything the slightest bit controversial should be cited. Not including it is easier, certainly, but it makes for a worse article.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org