Talk:Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Organizations

The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas has two non-profit organizations. It benefits this article to include the purpose of each of the tribe's non-profits and their board of directors. The purpose and board of each non-profit is listed in the by-laws of each of these organizations, by-laws which are posted on the tribe's website. But when I added the purpose of each of the by-laws, they were removed and WP:PROMO and WP:SELF-PUBLISHING was used as the reason for doing this. WP allows for citing an entity's own website as long as it does not involve advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion piece, scandalmongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. WP even states that there are exemptions that allow for using self-published source and quite a few WP pages include the page topic's own website such as National Congress of American Indians. The purpose and board of directors of each of the tribe's non-profits is not self-promoting information. It adds clarity to the article. TelGonzie (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I invite @Yuchitown to this discussion.--TelGonzie (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The National Congress of American Indians is a terrible example to share; that article is a trainwreck that is flagged for inadequate references. The NCAI's website should not be used as a citation there, and this LATT's website should not be used it. It is WP:SELF-PUBLISHED. Use the secondary, WP:published sources, since many are readily available; several are already cited and can be used to cite further info.

Besides the promo/PR/advocacy problem, there's also the issue of notability. If no one else has published about a particular facet of the organization, then perhaps it doesn't need to be included in the article. The two nonprofits are listed, and the cemetery is listed, and all are cited with disinterested, third-party sources. Then the LATT's website appears in the appropriate places (infobox and external links), so anyone curious to read directly from them can easily do so. Yuchitown (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

WP allows for citing a entity's own website as long as it does not involve advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion piece, scandalmongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. WP even states that there are exemptions that allow for using self-published source. Please point to how posting the purposes and the complete explanation of their board of directors of these non-profits of the Lipan Apache Tribe as listed in the by-laws are "advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion piece, scandalmongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations." TelGonzie (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's a last resort not a first resort, and, yes, it can be seen as advocacy, self-promotion, publicity, and public relations.

Also, of your 29 edits, 4 of them have been on this talk page. This is a bizarre trend. Yuchitown (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Bylaws of nonprofit organizations that are registered with a state and sometimes with the IRS are not advocacy, self-promotion, publicity, and public relations. They are evidence of transparency to the public and will unlikely be found anywhere else than with the entity they belong to and will not be published in a different source. Since the state of Texas is responsible for governing and monitoring nonprofit organization, the nonprofit bylaws that are posted for the public cannot be advocacy, self-promotions, publicity, and public relations else the organization would get in trouble for misleading the public. So, can you point to where you see in the purposes and complete Board of Directors information that I posted from the bylaws of each of the tribe's nonprofits that seemed to you to be "advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion piece, scandalmongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations"? TelGonzie (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You aren't reading anything I'm writing. Yuchitown (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

I am trying to discuss the exemptions to using self-published sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability section "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". WP policy does say "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." but it includes exceptions. The bylaws would fit this exemption since bylaws are part of standards used by non-profits to demonstrate transparency, in this case the tribe's two non-profits registered with the state. As to NCAI as an example, the WP NCAI page uses information from the organizations' By-laws and Constitution posted on the ncai.org website as the source for the page's section on "Constitution". The section was added in 2009 and ncai.org as a reference for the section has not been questioned or debated since that time. This is an important example as it demonstrates the exemption to the self-publishing policy and the use of the Lipan tribe's two non-profit's bylaws posted on their website as WP acceptable sources. Posting the purpose of each non-profit improves the article by clarifying the differences between their goals. TelGonzie (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The NCAI article was a trainwreck; as mentioned before, it is flagged for needing references; it's not a example of what to do here. Not everything needs to be listed on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The purpose of the nonprofits are available in news sources, several of which are already on the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

State-recognized tribe

WikiSage2025 and Yuchitown, I read this article after seeing a related question from Whitewolfdog1 at the helpdesk. The lead says The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas is a state-recognized tribe diff and the Resolution and bill section says Texas has "no legal mechanism to recognize tribes." diff. Can you agree which is correct? TSventon (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There's been several recent edits to this article which you can peruse. Texas State Senator Juan Hinojosa has introduced several bills to to formally state-recognize the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas; however, these have died in committee—the most recent being Texas Senate Bill 231, introduced on November 15, 2022. Yuchitown (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the distinction is that there isn't a specific process to recognize a tribe, but the legislature can still elect to do so through their own powers. There is no standard for tribal recognition across states, many states recognize no tribes or like Texas have not set up a standard way to do so, although also like Texas states might pass acts recognizing tribes anyway. It's a complex part of law. Pingnova (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me @TSventon. I only used top tier RS to edit this page. WikiSage2025 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again @TSventon. To answer your question, I have top-tier reliable sources stating that the tribe is state recognized. I found more but only used three in the lead sentence. I can post others if needed. Reliable verifiable sources also say that there are various ways that a tribe can be recognized by a state. Three of these sources have been cited in this article. As you mentioned, the article’s bill section says that Texas has “no legal mechanism to recognize tribes” and the source to support this statement is not a very strong one. This source is an NBC news report on a Texas Cherokee community, were the reporters write “… in Texas, there is no legal mechanism to recognize tribes, leading many groups to secure legislation recognizing their “valuable contributions to the state,” instead.” This news article uses active links to support or enhance their statements and the report’s words “no legal mechanism” links to an NCSL.org error page. However, NCSL’s stance on state recognized Tribes is included in the Tribe’s article: "States’ government-to-government relationships with tribes continue to evolve, taking many forms, including formal recognition. Usually accomplished through legislative action, state recognition of American Indian tribes is just one tool used to build state-tribal collaboration." NCSL agrees with other reliable sources that state recognition takes many forms and legislative action is one way. I suggest that the NBC news article is selective in representing NCSL’s opinion. Currently, NCSL does not post information or opinions on state recognized tribes. RS on this Wikipedia article supports that the Tribe is state recognized and that they do not self-identify. WikiSage2025 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon WikiSage2025 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@WikiSage2025, Whitewolfdog1, and Yuchitown: I just wanted to note that the lead and the body of the article seemed to be inconsistent, I am not familiar with the processes for recognition of tribes in the US. Wikipedia guidance says that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (WP:DUE) and then the lead should summarise the body of the article (MOS:LEAD). TSventon (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon Thank you so much. Yes, I agree the page needs some work. I am happy to work on some additional edits using reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidance. WikiSage2025 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

State recognition is a complex topic which already has its own page to better explain it. This specific article doesn't need to explain what a state recognized tribe is, it would lose its focus on the tribe. I added the wikilink to State-recognized tribes in the United States to the lead. I would remove the blurb about federal recognition from the lead and leave that it is state recognized to simplify it - it wouldn't be listed as state recognized if it was federally recognized anyway, and any further explanation can be found on the state recognition article. @WikiSage2025 has been doing very well providing sources, so I'd wait to see if they will add anything else since they've indicated they're willing to work on the page. Thanks for the guidance @TSventon. Pingnova (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We aren't talking about recognition from the standpoint they exist and have contributed to the cultural enrichment of the state. This recognition is a congratulatory recognition. When state-recognized is mentioned it is similar to federal recognition. They recognize they have standing treaties from one sovereign to another. It assumes a financial obligation to carry out those treaties and opens the door for the recognized tribe to receive federal or state money. This is why one has to be careful with throwing around the word "recognize" and "identify". If you want to say the state has recognized the tribe or organization for many years of cultural enrichment but to say they have state recognition is to say the state recognizes they have a treaty of obligation with the tribe. I don't see where Texas has done that and assumed responsibility. Not yet. --ARoseWolf 14:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ARoseWolf focusing on reliable sources, a citation from the Texas Dept of Education, a State of Texas agency, states them as state recognized. This is a legal agency of the state that administers the laws and rules that govern education in the state. It is also important that the 5th District Federal Court of Claims accepted, as did the defendant Department of Interior, that the Tribe had been acknowledged by the State. It looks like this led to over 400 plaintiffs acknowledged as being American Indians who could then possess the eagle feathers as stated in the Morton Policy. I have also found several law reviews who agree on what was determined in the federal case that the tribe is state recognized and also that the plaintiff members of the tribe are American Indians. There are several sources (WP:DUE) already mentioned in the article that state that there are different forms of recognition and by law is just one form. WikiSage2025 (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But you are missing the point. They are indeed recognized but when you say state recognized or federal recognized that is completely different. The rulings say they are American Indians but does not afford them the recognition to receive state and federal money reserved for American Indian tribes the state and federal government have entered into in a co-relationship with as sovereigns. You need that to say state-recognized. because that's the definition in this case. We agree they have received recognition and that recognition comes in many forms. I could say a tribe is recognized because a governor wrote a letter of recognition on a napkin and a source reported it but that's not the same as state-recognition. I do not see any source you mentioned conferring legitimacy to this group in regards to receiving federal or state funding. It does not mean they do not have a claim or should not be recognized. It does mean we are not to that level yet. As to why, it could be government bureaucracy or it could be that the group does not have the evidence to gain state recognition, id lean to the former, however that is speculation. --ARoseWolf 12:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources say the tribe is state recognized, then they are state recognized. Especially if there are no reliable sources disputing that. It's not Wikipedia's role to interpret laws or policies, but to reflect what reliable sources say. Pingnova (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The source does not say the LATT is state recognized else you would see "state recognized" in the source. It says the Lipan Apache tribe. The LATT has not established they are directly linked, as an organization, to the pre-colonial Lipan Apache tribe from over 300 years ago, else they would be federally recognized as other Lipan Apache tribes are. Of course, if you have sources that present this evidence then perhaps you could put it in the article or even help them with their efforts to be federally recognized and get the funding they deserve. --ARoseWolf 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources on the page say that the tribe is state recognized. Pingnova (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @ARoseWolf I appreciate your input. I do not want to be disagreeable but as @Pingnova said reliable sources would not support your interpretation because state recognition is complex. I found several law reviews and other reliable non-law verifiable sources that also state that the Lipan Apache are state recognized. I will link a couple more in the article to clarify. Additionally, the rulings of Federal Court of Claims, part of the third branch of the U.S. government with the power to make such determinations as they did in the eagle feather case, is a more authoritative, reliable source than a governor writing a letter of recognition on a napkin. With the evidence presented in the case, the Court does present information that is not disputed by the Department of Interior (the department that acknowledges NA tribes) that the tribe had “government to government” relationships with the Republic of Texas, State of Texas, and the United States and has received federal funding. WikiSage2025 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I will research the case further to see where the Court is getting their information from. It is true that the Lipan Apache tribe is over 300 years old and does have a government-to-government relationship with both state and federal governments but there is one very huge distinction here. Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas has, thus far, been unbale to produce the evidence which ties them to the Lipan Apache tribe from over 300 years ago. There are other federally recognized Lipan Apache tribes that have been able to establish this. Unless evidence was provided to the courts this threshold has not been met. The courts ruling mostly pertains to individuals protected religious freedoms. I think the statement can stay for now based on the sources but this needs to be fleshed out. Court rulings and government documents are considered primary sources and therefore should receive the highest level of scrutiny. What I do not see in any source is that the Lipan Tribe of Texas has received state or federal funding as a recognized tribe. If you have evidence they have then please do present it. --ARoseWolf 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would reiterate that Wikipedia is not for WP:OR such as interpreting laws and government actions, such as you describe. @WikiSage2025 and past users have provided multiple sources that verify the statement that the tribe is state recognized. If you find issue with the sources used, at this point in the discussion you should take them to WP:RSN to be evaluated. Pingnova (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not talk condescendingly to me. I know where WP:RSN is and I will take discussions to the appropriate place as I determine according to policy. OR would also be trying to make sources state they are state recognized when that is not the exact wording used. Please show where I have edited into the article OR or do not make those accusations again directed at me as you have now done twice. --ARoseWolf 11:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been arguing that the tribe is not state recognized, against multiple RS that it is recognized, and are not willing to formally challenge the sources at RSN. You have provided no RS that says the tribe is not state recognized, only your own interpretations. If it exists, please provide RS that states the tribe is not state recognized, so that we can discuss how to include it. Wikipedia only reflects the information found in RS. Pingnova (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's just it, there is no provided source which specifically says "state recognized". I don't have to prove content doesn't need to be in the article. The onus is on you to prove it does. The onus always lies with the one that wants content added. Provide one source that specifically sates unequivocally that this organization is recognized by the the state of Texas as being a Native American/American Indian tribe and I will gladly agree, otherwise you are reading into and making inferences based on court rulings and the limited wording you think proves your POV. Either we specifically say what our sources do, verbatim, or we don't. Trying to find language that seems to support a position is counterintuitive to the effort of improving the encyclopedia. They may be state recognized and if they are then it shouldn't be hard to find a source which says those words exactly, right? --ARoseWolf 17:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll even help you out. Usually this type of information resides with the states' attorney's office. Perhaps there is some documentation that the SA of Texas has issued at some point which says the state recognizes. If so then that is admissible because it is directly saying it. As said, this subject is complex. It does Wikipedia a disservice, our readers a disservice and this organization/tribe a disservice to have their recognition hinged upon sources that do not say anything about their recognition unless you begin to infer and read into what is being said. This is why I say you are being condescending. You immediately believe my position is one thing but to come to that conclusion you, again, have to make inferences. My position is not that this organization is not who they say they are. It is also not that they are not state recognized. But as an editor, as an Indigenous editor, I want, I demand better sourcing which leaves no doubt whatsoever or it shouldn't be worded as such. --ARoseWolf 17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I've been lurking this discussion for the last few days. I'm familiar with the federally recognized tribes and can contribute info that may be of help. @ARoseWolf, you may be thinking of different Apache tribes that are federally recognized. The BIA's list in 2024 of the 574 Tribal entities that are recognized includes eight Apache tribes, but no Lipan Apache tribes or nations.

I can also help with editing, but only simple edits until I look up sources. I have access to law journals, so I may find something that is useful. Bcbc24 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. --ARoseWolf 11:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Follow up. After relooking at the sources provided I see where the sources specifically say they are "state recognized". I missed this initially because of the court case in which the inferences were made from in this discussion. I have added the direct quotes to the sources so this issue is clarified going forward. --ARoseWolf 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad that was cleared up. Pingnova (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Work on Lead

Work on fixing lead following WP:LEAD.

Things to do:

The lead should

• identify the topic (done)
• establish context (done)
• explain why the topic is notable (done)
• summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies (done)

--Bcbc24 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)