Talk:California Valley Miwok Tribe

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Potentially controversial

Apparently there's a great deal of controversy surrounding this tribe, including many of groups claiming to represent the tribe and groups already organizing against any potential gaming facilities they might establish. Please make sure any information added to this article is NPOV and backed up with an adequate citation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Certain editors cultivate a non neutral, inflammitory, potentially deffamatory page and or edits.

This Dispution explained below.

The version of this paige last edited by users "firetopaz" and or "fireonyx" seem to contain federally disputed facts, and contain potentially defammatory statements presented to be fact. Also it has a highly non neutral point of veiw. This addition to the corrisponding Wiki talk page is not only for reader awareness but also the begenning notice of intent to create a neutral, factual Wikipedia paige about The California Valley Tribe of Miwok Indians also known as The Sheepranch Rancheria Of Miwok Indians. Sources will be provided soon. 174.254.67.52 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHORITY IS UNDER DISPUTE

To whom it may concern: The Federally Recognized Authority for this Tribe is in formal dispute and currently under a Court ordered remand to the BIA. The Burley's keep posting a page on Wikipedia that contains grossly inaccurate, libelous, and defamatory information in an effort to reinforce her case that she and her daughters are the only members of the Tribe. Below are the pages which are posted by the Hereditary Members and that posted by the Burleys - each continuously replacing the other. Ooh-ya-ah-yoo (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Chadd Everone, Deputy[reply]

http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/wikipedia/

OTRS Ticket 2015011510022105 complaint

In short, the user is requesting that the information be updated to reflect what's currently listed with the government which is information that @Bgwhite: reverted. The user has been advised to request edits via the talk page under a non-shared username as the article is currently semi protected. Given what's above, I'd recommend a lengthier protection. Regards, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dusti I'm late to this mess, so I'm not sure what is all going on. I don't have an OTRS account, so I have no clue what is going on there either. I've removed most of the content that you reverted to. A blog, non-existent ref, comments page and a link to one of the two competing groups talking about the lawsuits with the other group are not reliable; therefore, I removed that information.

Currently the refs on the page date to 2012. On the reverted page, they were newer. BIA (page 63) docs have no President/Chairperson listed for the tribe. What references did the OTRS list? Maybe if we put both of our heads together we can straighten things out.

I've increased page protection to indef per your suggestion. Bgwhite (talk)

I'm heading out to a dinner date, but I'll respond shortly :) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the two tribes don't have to be mentioned on the same page. They have different names, live on different reservations, and have a different history. Personally, I was going to rewrite that page using the .gov website of the California Valley Miwok Tribe => http://californiavalleymiwoktribe-nsn.gov/ The Sheep Ranch Rancheria tribe uses this website => http://californiavalleymiwok.com/ The California Valley Miwok Tribe is a federally recognized tribe whereas the Sheep Ranch Rancheria is not, but the Sheep Ranch Rancheria does pretend that they're the true hereditary members of the true leader of the tribe. The dispute has been going on for years now. Yesterday, the deputy of that tribe(Chadd Everone) rewrote that page entirely and claimed that the only true tribe was his. He deleted everything and entered the information about his tribe only, etc. This is unacceptable. I agree with some previous critics about the sources which had to be better, but this is no reason to delete the entire page and defend one party only. I suggest Mr. Everone to create his own Wikipedia page, and everything will be fine. As for the edits I want to make now, I don't know who has the final word on it. Is it the tribe, or Wikipedia? I don't want to work on it unless I know who decides what. Firetopaz (talk)

Firetopaz First, thank you for talking here. Boy, I thought my family reunions were "fun".

As it appears http://californiavalleymiwoktribe-nsn.gov is the federally recognized tribe, this article "should" be about them.
Sheep Ranch can have it's own article as long as there is reliable references that go into detail about it. If there are going to be two pages, the dispute should be mentioned on both as it appears to be relevant to both.
In some ways, I think one article would be better. Both have a shared history. Both have the same dispute. There can be a section about the dispute and a section about the Sheep Ranch group.
Hold off on any edits for the moment. I'd like to hear from Dusti and the Sheep Ranch group first.

Bgwhite (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure there's still 24 hours in a day? Dear me. I've gotten sidetracked. I'll compile the information and report back here shortly. Sorry for the delay @Bgwhite:. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dusti No problem. Almost nothing is a rush around here, plus it's a 3-day weekend. Bgwhite (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redo article - Before 1999

@Ooh-ya-ah-yoo, Firetopaz, and Dusti:

Ok, I've got information from everybody. Boy, what a mess. I think I'm going to break this into two editing sections. First section is the current status of the federally recognized tribe and the history of the tribe. I think the most important thing is the who/what/where/how of the tribe. Where is the original Rancheria? What is its status? How/What of the 1920-1934 censuses? How did the tribe come to be?

Second section, which will be dealt with later, will be post 1999. How there are now "two" tribes. Give detail on the "second" tribe. The litigation.

I'd love to have any information for the first part. What reliable websites I can use for information. What good books can I use. What do you want people to know about the tribe? Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's flesh this out, but avoid an edit war

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I have added a brief 20th-century history of the tribe, and a summary of the post-1999 legal dispute. I'm not a party to the dispute and have no WP:COI in this issue, so I have tried to provide an introduction to the parties and issues, without favoring either side or delving too deeply into the claims and counterclaims. I'm pretty sure that at some point one or both of the parties will stop by here, and perhaps they'll take exception to some of the text. Here's my advice:

Please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and realize that it is not appropriate for you to directly edit an article in which you so clearly have an interest.
If you feel that the current wording is not accurate, you're welcome to clearly explain the issue here on this talk page or on my own talk page. If you are able to provide reputable independent secondary sources that support your revision, that would be greatly appreciated. Please bear in mind that neither the article nor the talk page are provided as platforms to advocate the position of either party. On a separate matter, I'd like to avoid devoting much more of the article to the dispute than it already has. Tweaks to improve accuracy would be fine; adding reams of text would make this unbalanced.
I truly hope that nothing in the article spurs those involved to take up further litigation. Certainly, it was written specifically to provide a neutral account. In the unlikely event that you do feel motivated to consider making a legal threat, I would suggest you read WP:No legal threats and recommend that you engage in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures as an alternative.

Thanks! Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed several recent edits from IP addresses of one or (less likely) more Verizon subscribers. These edits introduce new information purportedly from a BIA "decision" issued on December 30, 2015. If this information can be substantiated with a reference to a reliable source it does seem relevant to include. I'd be grateful if the IP editor or anyone else can provide a reference. I have been unable to find one, and therefore I am removing the information from the article. Once we have a source we can pull some text from this version of the page to update the article based on this apparent recent decision.

In addition, I see that the IP editor has removed a significant amount of sourced material. If the decision mentioned above is verified, this may need updating, but it's unlikely that we'll want to entirely purge all mention of the dispute over who should govern the tribe. Therefore, I am restoring this material. I would ask that people planning to change these areas engage in discussion on this talk page so that we can move towards consensus. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Hello, I had to restore the page to January 13th, cos somebody has been editing it and changing the content without notices.

Firetopaz (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Valley Miwok Tribe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014023723/http://www.californiavalleymiwoktribe-nsn.gov/ to http://www.californiavalleymiwoktribe-nsn.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]