Talk:Native American Guardians Association

Neutrality

This reads like a promotional piece for NAGA. I've cut it back to strictly mainstream RSes, which should help a bit - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for this organization, only their own website and local news reports of their opposition to the efforts by the majority of Native Americans to eliminate racist sports mascots.

The lead misrepresents NAGA, whose board includes Andre Billeaudeaux, who is not Native and has been working against the elimination of Native American mascots beginning with a self-published book, "How the Redskins Got Their Name. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed much of the non-neutral content, and added some balance, but this only emphasizes the lack of notability. NAGA is a very small group of individuals opposing the efforts of Native American organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians to eliminate racist mascots. (How small? No way to tell since it is not mentioned in any secondary sources. It may be no more than the half dozen listed as officers/board members.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Im just typing what the articles say. Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba: The first version of this, that you wrote, sounds very promotional, and doesn't question any of the controversial issues about them. Anything you want to disclose? Other editors, is Scu ba the editor that the "connected contributor" tag is about or is there someone else? Whoever has the COI should be tagged on this page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no affiliation to NAGA, I just wrote what was in the article cited, if it was Pro-NAGA that is a problem for whatever media company published it. Scu ba (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability

There are no published sources except local news coverage of school board meetings at which NAGA presents itself as representing Native Americans. Two of these stories also report Native American participant at these meetings describing NAGA is a fringe group.

The only source offered for organizational details is NAGA's own website.

At the national level, the article points to Change.org petitions in support of changing the Washington NFL and Cleveland MLB teams back to their former mascots, which is clearly self-promotional. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Which of the 16 sources that aren't the groups own website used to pull their mission statement for the preamble and their leadership for the infobox do you find non-notable? Scu ba (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

---

@Scu ba: I have assumed good faith on your part, and I see some attempt at providing balance in your recent edits. However, I have examined the sources and language in the article and continue to think it should be deleted as unworthy of being part of Wikipedia due to its lack of notability (supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources); neutrality (using language that does not go beyond what the sources state); and is not self-promotion.

Wikipedia is not the news: The mention of NAGA in local news coverage of local mascot debates, which may be wp:primary sources but may not be deemed reliable (unbiased), do not establish the organization as a notable voice in that debate. This would only result from the inclusion of NAGA in a wp:secondary source about the mascot debate in general. A secondary source synthesizes the facts from primary sources, but a WP editor cannot do this themselves, which would be wp:synth, a form of original research. Most of the content of the article meets this description.

The content about NAGA sending letters to team owners threatening boycotts and claiming support for reversion of name changes based upon change.org petitions is entirely self-promotional. The current language in the section on the Washington Redskins reads as gossip, not anything worthy of an encyclopedia.

I have been researching the mascot debate for more than ten years, and have contributed the majority of text to the major articles (three of which are GA). I have encountered NAGA a few times in my research, but never thought the group worthy of mention. That debate is about facts supported by peer-reviewed social science research, and books written by those with academic credentials; not the testimony of individual Native Americans.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, the only primary source used is the mission statement used in the preamble, and the leadership in the infobox, unless you think those NBC, ABC and CBS affiliates are biased.

regardless of if it is self promotional, it made the news. it was reported on. by sites that pass WP:RS.

congrats on admitting you have a WP:COI.

Scu ba (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You reveal your own bias in calling my dedication to Wikipedia's core guidelines a conflict of interest. You reveal your lack of understanding of those guidelines by saying that WP must include news reports. And no, I do not think local affiliates of national broadcasters are automatically RS's; they often report trivia for ratings. The existance of change.org petitions is certainly trivia.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So you don't believe the news should be cited on Wikipedia? that anything published by the news should be omited? that just outright not how wikipedia works. Scu ba (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history, the articles contributed the majority of text to are about nudity, not Native Americans and or mascots. Scu ba (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this organization is less notable than it claims to be. -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Another guideline that you have not read or if so not understood: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Misbehavior will only lead to being banned.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Scu ba needs not to do this - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Didn't mean it as a personal attack, my bad if it came across that way. Scu ba (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It was not only the above, but a snide comment in an edit summary. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP is not the news

This is how WP works per wp:notnews:

Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability [emphasis added] of persons and events. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I am listing the efforts that NAGA undertook. most of these cases are from years ago. Your argument of citing WP:NOTNP fundamentally fails as the events are no longer current enough to even fall under that category. and again, the sources are reliable. Scu ba (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You have used Generally Unreliable sources. This suggests you need to review your understanding of Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought affiliates of major news networks, CBS, NBC, etc where reliable? Scu ba (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is a fringe source and Post Millennial has been found in an RFC to be Generally Unreliable. Per WP:BURDEN, you have responsibility for every source you add or re-add. In addition you have been edit-warring in self-sourcing and promotional statements, in a manner that suggests you have a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Neshaminy

Deleted section which contained text not supported by the citation, which also did not seem related to the topic of NAGA as an organization. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Current state

The article currently presents an accurate picture of NAGA as a group of individuals with a minimal organizational structure, whose message is contrary to that of the majority of Native Americans on the topic of mascots, and a negative reputation among those they claim to represent. The POV may now be balanced, this does not address the primary issue of notability. A few mentions of the group in primary sources establishes little; nothing compared to the many thousands represented by the NCAI, the organization that is actually working to preserve Native American heritage. Fringe groups are just that, noted in other articles but not given their own. However, as I have said before, while working to make the two major articles on Native mascots GA, it never occurred to me to include anything about NAGA.

I have found no secondary source to confirm any of the details about the organization beyond the IRS database. As a tax-exempt organization, NAGA is required to file a Form 990, either a short form if they had no funding over $50,000 or a full return if more. The short form was filed in 2017 and 2018, the long form in 2019, nothing since. Does NAGA currently exist beyond having a PO Box? WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Going by WP:WPBIO standards, in order to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, an individual needs articles from two major reputable sources talking about them specifically. I feel that the Sports Illustrated, Salt Lake Tribune, and Denver Post articles brings the count on this article up to 3. However, I am not 100% on if there is a different standard for organizations. Scu ba (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The general guideline for any content is due or undue weight:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. - Jimmy Wales

WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So yeah, we have reputable sources giving the organization due weight. Scu ba (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Marginal (primary) sources have been used to give the organization undue weight.

Which is of little significance compared to the failure to find a secondary source that established that NAGA continues to exists as a non-profit, since there are no IRS filings after 2019. Failing to address this is also a neutrality issue, so I have changed the lead and restored the Neutrality tag. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the last of the text sourced from the NAGA website, and added more from the IRS, so the article may be considered unbiased. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

None of these are marginal. What even is this argument. CBS NBC ABC, nor their regional affiliates, are not marginal. Scu ba (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevant standard here isn't WP:WPBIO - it's WP:ORG. Organisations and corporations require significant coverage in depth. The level of coverage we see here for NAGA, for instance, would be unlikely to pass AFD for a corporation - it's all writeups of efforts at public relations by the org, no-one bothering to do an in-depth writeup of NAGA. Two newspapers mentioning them isn't sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion

Since the speedy deletion tag has been removed, I have started a formal AfD. If I had been warned that "speedy deletion" meant uncontested, I would have started the there.WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The recent tax returns through 2022 for NAGA have been published by ProPublica, although I am sure they were not there when I searched a few days ago. Can't image why they are not available in the IRS database. The educational activity of NAGA is a single panel discussion and "grant writing"? The entire organization consists of eight individuals.WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The proposed deletion was contested. Speedy deletion is something else. Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Guardians Association. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of cited content

I restored a deletion of content supported by the Sports Illustrated article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability tag

The AfD discussion ending with no action due to lack of consensus, I have added the Notability notice, which should only be removed if the main criteria for the notability of an organization is met; the citation of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Thus far, the sources cited have been primary (news reports of particular events), and give NAGA only a trivial mention in coverage of other issues.

"A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, the sports illustrated article is the secondary source. Scu ba (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

COI tag

As with all disputed content, a COI tag is removed after a discussion that results in a clear consensus. Note that User: Scu ba is effectively identified as the COI editor, and should not remove it.

• Keep - WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What? I have no conflict of interest here. How on earth did I get "effectively identified"? You're the one with ties to Indian advocacy groups. Scu ba (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note - for "effectively identified" see #Neutrality above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  No consensus, COI tag restored - . WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  you can't close a discussion right after starting it. that is now how discussions work. you should know. your RfD for this article sat around for a couple of months before a no consensus was reached. Scu ba (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The AfD was open one month, Aug. 25 to Sept. 27. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  we're talking about the COI tag. Who has it? Nowhere in this section did I mention the RfC. Scu ba (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again what is that supposed to prove? there is nothing in that that shows I have a COI. What on earth are you going on about? Have you read the COI page? Do you know what COI is? WP:COINOTBIAS brush up on it. Scu ba (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory

NAGA is cited as submitting an amicus brief in support of the Redskins trademark appeal in 2015, but was founded in 2017. This may be due to confusion with Mark Yancey's "Native American Redskins Fans", a precursor to NAGA. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You got the year wrong.

A Supreme Court ruling functionally ended Blackhorse’s challenge of the team’s trademark in 2017

There are two briefs talked about in the article, the one that NAGA briefed for was in 2017, after the group was founded. Scu ba (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The SCOTUS decision in 2017 had nothing to do with the football team, so NAGA would not have been filing any briefs. The case ruled on a challenge by a band of Asian Americans who wanted to trademark their name, "The Slants" but were refused. The court declared in Matal v. Tam that this was a violation of the first amendment, invalidating a section of the Latham Act, making trademarking a racial slur (including Redskins) protected speech thus retroactively overturning the 2015 case.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is amazing that you typed this out with such confidence because it proves that you simply did not read the sports illustrated article, nor the quote I pulled. This is about the BLACKHORSE challenge to their trademark for the term redskin. Not any other case. The case was opened in 2015, but was brought before the supreme court in 2017 after NAGA was founded. 18:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Another contradiction

I have noted NAGA's claiming a change.org petition started by a Redskins fan who wants his team back. The petition itself cannot be linked on WP due to a ban on citing the website. The text supporting the petition does not mention NAGA.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The change.org petition itself was never cited. not sure what the contradiction here was. Scu ba (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Improper use of template

The documentation of Template:Archive top states:

When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

I will now revert all the improper use of this template. WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have also deleted the template naming me as having declared an affiliation to the topic, since I have not. I have declared myself to be an expert editor, having contributed to the Good Articles on the topic of Native American mascots.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Then who on earth has the COI? Scu ba (talk) Scu ba (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

All those conversations have ended. They should be closed. Scu ba (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and POV

As I expected following the failure to delete this article, the "astroturfing" has resumed with the addition to the article content regarding a Change.org petition (not identified as such) and a lawsuit against those that say that NAGA is a fake organization. This content is supported by local broadcast news reports and other questionably reliable sources, and written to push a POV.

This talk page has also the target of the same editor, who has made personal attacks and disruptive edits, which will inevitably result in their being blocked. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You have no authority to block me. You may not like the petition, but it exists. Half of the citations are about them. You might not like that local subsidaries are reporting on the petition, but there is no rule saying that subsidiaries of national broadcasters shouldn't be cited. There is nothing in that paragraph that breaks POV. The only editor being disruptive here is you. Scu ba (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing, such as removing the COI tag without consensus, builds a case for a block request being submitted for administrative action. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

who has the COI? you are being disruptive by baselessly saying someone has a COI and then doing everything in your power to delete this article because you don't like the group. Scu ba (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

you have also been disruptive to this article by flagrantly violating WP:3RR. Scu ba (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In the first section of this talk page, #Neutrality, David Gerard posted: "This reads like a promotional piece for NAGA", and three days later he placed the COI tag. Another senior editor asked if Scu ba was the editor being referred to, but got no confirmation, however Scu ba denied having any COI, outing himself. Not having placed the COI, and being an involved editor, I cannot remove it and neither can Scu ba according to the guideline I explicitly cited.

I have only had one direct exchange with Scu ba, in the #Notability section, which soon devolved into personal attacks which have continued in the form of questioning my knowledge of (or ability to understand) WP guidelines because I disagree with him. I have therefore refrained from further direct interaction, instead making comments directed to anyone reading this page. This is likely in vain, since it appears that this is indeed a topic of little interest except to me, having studied the topic of Native American mascots for ten years, and Scu ba, who thinks asserting expertise is an admission of bias. My knowledge of Native mascots comes from the ten years of reading peer-reviewed journal articles and books by PhD social scientists, and nothing else. Rather than assert my academic credentials, I point to three main articles on the mascot controversy to which I have contributed the majority of content and that are GA.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome man, I also have a PhD in history, not sure how you having a PhD in social sciences would discredit what I say. You, as someone deeply involved in the "study" of Indian mascots, is the person with a conflict of interest, if there is one in this article. Ignoring me doesn't make you right, just hope you know that. Scu ba (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The AfD having failed to draw sufficient attention to reach a census, I am resigned to maintaining this article as I would any other, keeping content to that supported by published, reliable sources. Being a publisher of the news does not make a source reliable, which the citations in this article have demonstrated. The obvious example is the many sources that attribute the Change.org petition to NAGA when it was started by a white Washington Commanders fan, a fact that can be determined by simply following the link to the petition's web page. Again, it is only Sports Illustrated that has established reliability by doing this minimal amount of fact-checking, local affiliates of national TV networks (some owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group) have not. Change.org cannot be cited on WP, and should not be by any news source as indicating anything worthy of being called news. A majority of the signatories are likely former Washington Redskins fans, which is a population in the millions, so 150,000 would be a small percentage who want the name restored. Other instances of bias in reporting are shown in news reports that refer to the NCAI (one of the targets of NAGA's lawsuit) as "Soros-backed" based upon a donation from the Open Society Foundations, ignoring the fact that NCAI is supported by membership dues and many other philanthropic organizations.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like Sinclair, start an RfC to blacklist them, maybe it will do better than your RfC to try and get this article deleted. But as it stands now, they are notably absent from WP:RSP, and as such, until an RfC is opened, are fair game to be cited. You may disagree with their politics, but that does not make them any less valid.

the change.org petition was never directly cited, only articles talking about the change.org petition were cited. Not sure why you would include that argument, or why the race of the creator would invalidate them.

And again, if a group receives a donation from George Soros, how is it factually incorrect to state that? It happened. He gave NCAI money. Simple As. Sure, you could argue that the vast majority of NCAI's money is from membership dues, which is something that they actually refute on their "backers" section of their own website, stating that most of their funds come from tribes, not individuals.

Scu ba (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)