The result was no consensus. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Edith Kirby (April 15, 1992), "Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers", Edmonton Journal.
John F. Kirch (May 9, 1993), "Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett", Telegram & Gazette, p. B4, retrieved January 9, 2016.
Jessie Salisbury (July 6, 2005), "Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship", The Telegraph (Nashua), retrieved January 9, 2016.
While the Assonet Band is not federally recognized as a tribe, the Wampanoag Nation recognizes the Assonet Band as a Wampanoag state-recognized tribe of their nation and the Wikipedia article now reflects that. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.
I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)
I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:
It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.
There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.
It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.
It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.
Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.
By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.
If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.
I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment. This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)
I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to. Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.
Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.
Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.
Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:GRAPES WP:SVT WP:REPEAT WP:WABBITSEASON User:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in /info/en/?search=User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)
In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth
As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing ( talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern. Indigenous girl ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now: Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.
You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.
Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.
As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.
SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat. Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)
re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.
There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.
Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census [2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages. Indigenous girl ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.
I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others. You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.
I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing ( talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Edith Kirby (April 15, 1992), "Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers", Edmonton Journal.
John F. Kirch (May 9, 1993), "Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett", Telegram & Gazette, p. B4, retrieved January 9, 2016.
Jessie Salisbury (July 6, 2005), "Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship", The Telegraph (Nashua), retrieved January 9, 2016.
While the Assonet Band is not federally recognized as a tribe, the Wampanoag Nation recognizes the Assonet Band as a Wampanoag state-recognized tribe of their nation and the Wikipedia article now reflects that. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.
I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)
I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:
It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.
There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.
It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.
It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.
Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.
By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.
If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.
I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment. This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)
I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to. Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.
Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.
Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.
Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:GRAPES WP:SVT WP:REPEAT WP:WABBITSEASON User:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in /info/en/?search=User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)
In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth
As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing ( talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern. Indigenous girl ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now: Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.
You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.
Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.
As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.
SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat. Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)
re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.
There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.
Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census [2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages. Indigenous girl ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.
I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others. You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.
I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing ( talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)