Talk:Guy Barker (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

WP:NPOL

WP:NPOL
is in favor of including "Politicians ... who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." In the United States,
WP:NPOL
.

Additionally, the Quapaw Nation has 6 people in their category, Category:Quapaw, expanding coverage is appropriate. His page is of similar length and source quality of other tribal politicians (see Milton Bluehouse Sr.). Category:Navajo Nation politicians has categories for Tribal Councilors and judges, similar coverage for other tribal nations should be in line with wiki guidelines.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: added signature later, original comment 04:29, 23 July 2022‎[reply]


@TulsaPoliticsFan: I disagree that the Quapaw nation with 13,000-acres of territory and only 3,240 (2011) enrolled tribal members has any equivalence with national legislative bodies. I think this is a clear failure to meet the guideline of NPOL based on the unsuccessful run for the US senate (he was 5th in the primary). Bruxton (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go as far to argue they are equivalent of the United States federal government, but for
WP:NPOL (This article has more sourcing and content than say Jim Roscoe
of Wyoming).
The logic of why
WP:NPOL
in the same way state elected officials do.
I totally understand the skepticism given his recent run for office which does not meet
WP:GOODFAITH and understand the creation of this article is motivated not by his recent run for office, but because he is a tribal elected official in Oklahoma and I'm trying to expand coverage of tribal governments as part of the Oklahoma wiki project. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]


The question involves our

Native American tribe pass the NPOL guidelines? Bruxton (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm self-collapsing this side discussion about the appropriate scope and forum for the question--which discussion, while very important here, I'm going to sequester like this to avoid distraction from the the content issues. Any party may feel free to revert this hatting. SnowRise let's rap 21:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment:(

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
as to whether or not the subject of this particular article should be afforded the benefit of your proposed interpretation of NPOL. So if that is all that you are ultimately seeking here, I recommend you reformat the RfC prompt before you have further input from FRS respondents.

If, on the other hand, you want to establish a broader rule, I suggest you open a discussion on
WP:PROPOSAL
processes and would not be in any way considered guiding consensus for another article in the same circumstances. (see [[WP:CONLEVEL).
And fyi, once you have settled on your approach and chosen the location for the discussion based on the scope you are seeking, I will happily come back and give my two cents, but for the moment that would just complicate your next step. SnowRise let's rap 01:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: Thank you for the comment. There are just so many back alleys in this project. I had no idea where to go with the concern but a request for comment seemed logical. My concern was that we need clarification or comment regarding the NPOL guideline because the elected office of a tribe is not specifically mentioned in the guideline. Also what office of each tribe is notable. Bruxton (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Sorry, for the slow reply, but I'm happy to have been of some small help! Yes, unfortunately the appropriate forums/processes for addressing particular questions can be a little opaque here! It just takes a little time to figure out where to go to address a question of a particular scope. In this particular case, I would say you have two options:
1) If you are satisfied with seeking an answer as whether or not the NPOL language applies for just Mr. Barker's, you could just continue to pursue that question here, with a slight alteration to the prompt language ("Does Guy Barker qualify for presumptive notability under NPOL, on the basis of his tribal elected official status?" or something to that effect). However, that won't necessarily protect the article from being proposed for deletion at WP:AFD, where the same question might be re-litigated. But it can't really hurt your case if an AfD comes around and you already had support here for the proposition. That said, NPOL is what we call an
WP:GNG
(general notability guideline), meaning that they must be demonstrated to be the subject of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. So bear that in mind as well.
2) You could attempt to build out the existing rules of NPOL in order to address this general question more broadly, and potentially provide guidance and consensus for future editors working on similar biographical articles of tribal leaders. This is not necessarily a bad idea, in my opinion: if it hasn't been addressed before (and you'll want to check the talk page archives for NPOL, because its possible it has) then it probably should be, because there are undoubtedly a lot of potential articles it could apply to. It's a bit more work though, and I have to say that it might be a tough sell for the advocates that the presumptive notability should apply, because the use of SNGs to greenlight otherwise non-notable articles got way out of hand for a number of years, and the community, by my observation lately, has been moving back to a stricter GNG standard for establishing notability. That said, this is a nuanced case, and the community may very well be inclined to make a carve-out here for such persons as Barker. Either way, establishing a consensus could be helpful. If you want to follow this approach, I would suggest going to the policy talk page and starting a discussion there, followed by an RfC if there is a loggerhead; if there is an RfC, you could also put a notice up at
WP:VPP
itself to begin with, as an alternative.
Of course, you can always pursue both lines at once: just be sure to let the participants of both discussions know that the discussions are running in parallel (one to address the specific scenario here, and one for the more general question at talk:NPOL or VPP), or else you might get accused of forum shopping after the fact, if someone didn't realize the procedural history here. I know that's a lot of moving parts, so if I have been unclear about anything above or can provide further help, please don't hesitate to ping or drop a message on my talk page! SnowRise let's rap 19:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So, not withstanding the scope and forum issues discussed above, I want to address the general content question being raised. Personally, I think this is a really close call for me, and something I think bears additional community discussion--there may well have been already for all I know, but assuming there is no standing consensus reached in a general community space or on the policy talk page, I think it needs careful scrutiny. Both sides have made cogent arguments above, and I want to look a little deeper into the specifics here before I lean towards or feel I can outright endorse one position or the other. We have a tension here between applying the notability guidelines neutrally, and considering that there is context here where the elected representatives of a semi-sovreign community might not get any significant coverage. Complicating matters further is the fact that some of this positions, in terms of the scale of their responsibilities, lands somewhere between a conventional municipal officer (who would typically not meet GNG in the longterm, and only sporadically benefit from the temporary benefits of an SNG), and a typical state level representative or deputy executive official, who almost always would.
Needless to say, ultimately GNG has to be met. But is a carve-out warranted here for closer parity with similarly-situated politicians who might coast on SNGs for a while? Maybe. I was not a fan of the way SNGs were increasingly abused for a pretty substantial number of years there, like re-using a parking pass that was never renewed. And I've noticed that in the last few years while my contributions have been very sporadic, the community has more expressly than ever repudiated that approach and tightened the specific wording of SNGs. I am broadly supportive of that outlook and approach, because the habit of using SNGs as if they were an alternative to GNG (rather than a supplement to it meant to be used for niche effect) eviscerated the very point of having a notability framework based in the sourcing, and thus insulated from our idiosyncratic personal views on the innate "importance" of a topic. And yet I am hesitant here. We're talking about a culture and a polity here. No, the scope is not immense for most tribal groups, and yes the sovereignty is highly qualified, to say the least. Still, if we're going to make carve outs for anything, would this not be as good an example of a pragmatic exception? I reference
WP:IAR about once every five years, because I am wary of it. But maybe here? I'm going to dig deeper for now, but felt these observations were relevant. SnowRise let's rap 21:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Oncamera: I am in agreement. Also to clarify which elected positions in the tribe would meet the SNG. Bruxton (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Barker_(politician)&oldid=1205740984"