Talk:Rebecca Adamson

Revert based on sources

I have reverted this edit because the reliable sources cited in the article largely describe her as Cherokee, and several sources explicitly say that she is a tribal member. In the absence of reliable sources which clearly dispute this, we need to go with the sources we have. E.G. this Indian Country Today article: Adamson, a Cherokee economist, Huffington Post: Rebecca Adamson, a Cherokee economist, Early Childhood Matters, an academic publication: As a member of the Cherokee Nation of North America, Rebecca Adamson... Given these sources, what are the grounds for changing the description of Adamson? Which sources support the change? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition, Native Americans Today: A Biographical Dictionary explicitly says, under her entry: "Born 1949 Cherokee." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, since you've taken such an interest in Native American subjects, are you going to start reading books on the subject of Cherokee identity and tribal enrollment? Circe Strum, a unenrolled writer of Cherokee descent herself, is an excellent place to start. If you look online, you will not find a single reference saying that Rebecca Adamson is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, or United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. You did find a single, self-published Issuu publication from the Bernard van Leer Foundation, a Dutch nonprofit with no special knowledge of Native issues that described her as being "member of the Cherokee Nation of North America." There is no legal entity known as the "Cherokee Nation of North America," but if you want a sampling of some of the 400+ unrecognized groups claiming to be Cherokee tribes, visit List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. But for anyone remotely familiar with the subject of North Carolina Native Americans, the fact that Adamson's family is from Lumberton explains her situation completely. Yuchitown (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Again, making declarations based upon what you assert "anyone remotely familiar with" something would do or know, is not how we write Wikipedia articles. What I am, and have always been, interested in is ensuring that our biographical subjects are fairly treated and that their biographies are based upon high-quality sources. When sources all but unanimously describe someone as "Cherokee," it's not up to you to decide those sources are wrong because you "know" something that those sources allegedly don't. That's literally the definition of prohibited original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to the article or change anything based on what people would conclude from her grandmother being from Lumberton (nor have I spelled it out here on the talk page). That would be original research, so I didn't add it. I follow Wikipedia protocols. I did not remove mentions of her family being Cherokee. I didn't change anything in the article that is not based on published sources. I also want to see subjects fairly treated. Your trying to frame someone as a being a tribal member when no sources suggest that they are is neither fair nor working from verifiable, published information. If you have taking an interest in the subject of Native Americans, please do read up on the subject. Yuchitown (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown