Talk:Indigenous intellectual property

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shadamss. Peer reviewers: Bh597.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Work in Progress

This indigenous intellectual property article was identified as needed/absent following discussions at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 8#Traditional_Knowledge_Disclaimer and Wikipedia_talk:General_disclaimer#Traditional_Knowledge.

It remains, at present, a 'work in progress', as I for one hope and intend to include brief review of various declarations, extracts from United Nations Declarations, summary of WIPO and other fact finding reports, identify laws around the world relating to indigenous IP etc (yep, lots of fun, for those who wish to assist expand it!) Bruceanthro (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopi and Apache Versus American Museums

I have found on an Anthropological journal from the university of Chicago: Current Anthropology: Can Culture Be Copyrighted? a very good example of a dispute for cultural patrimony: It is the Hopi & Apache versus American Museums in 1994. They wanted everything back, including written records. This was allowed under the NAPGRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Do you think it is a good idea to post it up? Xavier Peniche (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be posted in its entirety, but it can probably be cited as a reference. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mess

This article is a total mess. Headings are not to contain links or refs or repeat article title. References are full of all capitals when they should be title case. There are far too many quotes, making it is difficult to read as it is not really formal prose. Editors of this article should become more familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Shiftchange, I think you're being a little harsh. I've seen plenty of articles in far worse condition than this one .. and I think the content is pretty informative. I, for one, have had a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as suggested, and see a preference that external links not be used within the body of the text; and preference that quotations should not be italised plus few others .. but didn't find those conventions asking/requiring that article heading not be repeated in headings & overuse of quotes etc?! I will, though, if I get a chance later tonight, try to bring more in line with style convention as suggested/asked! Bruceanthro (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

- I'm sure the format can be improved. What about the substance? This seems to me unbalanced. Reading the article, you get the impression that there can be no possible objection to the idea, or any practical difficulty in implementing it. It needs balance by inserting some account of objections and difficulties. I'd do this myself, except that I'd have my comments objected to as 'original research'. Anyone have any good references to suitable published articles?Twr57 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Going along with the "Mess" comments above, this article has huge problems.

Clean up: External links in the body, links in section headers, etc. Original research: This article is ostensibly about intellectual property, yet it talks about and quotes extensively from many declarations that have no real application to the topic. Some government somewhere asserting that cultures should protect culture is NOT the same thing as saying that intellectual property rights were given. The editor who did this made that conclusion, but there is no sources actually supporting that right. Similarly, examples of cultures being offended by use of terms in their culture in advertising or marketing and the company backing down is NOT an admission that the culture had intellectual property rights. POV-pushing: By including all of this material that is not directly related, the article is slanted in a major way toward the view that these groups should or do have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them. There also is basically nothing to demonstrate the actual prevailing legal thought around the world, which is that these groups do not and should not have any special intellectual property rights.

Frankly, in order for this article to be compliant with Wikipedia policies, it would require completely removing the majority of the current content and a total rewrite of the rest. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is on Indigenous intellectual property, intellectual property has its own article. You appear to have a particular problem with anything on indigenous or traditional knowledge and IP, see public domain. I will sort out the sourcing and will remove the tag. Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All content in the article appears to be sources. I have removed the neutrality and NPOV tag. Please explain what problems you see with the article in reference to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From the lede: "ongoing misappropriation and misuse". Obviously, that's opinion, and is welcome if properly cited as such. Arguments thatthese groups should have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them is fine, but fiction isn't. --Elvey (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing issues & Removing Issues tags

Tags identify article as having multiple issues, including some POV etc.

Working onwards from the first paragraph which described the article as being about a 'term' that is used in national and international forums .. to remove POV and issues .. it seems appropriate to try to limit leading paragraph to simple description of the term and it's use .. and shift referenced opinion, such as the following, to a new section .. perhaps entitled 'debate' or 'competing opinions' about the relative pros and cons of the term and/or way it is being used:

Exerpt from pov:

</ref>

Professor Michael F. Brown has described the origin, goals, and challenges facing the movement to establish indigenous IP rights in law thusly:

The digital revolution has dramatically increased the ability of in- dividuals and corporations to appropriate and profit from the cul- tural knowledge of indigenous peoples, which is largely unpro- tected by existing intellectual property law. In response, legal scholars, anthropologists, and native activists now propose new legal regimes designed to defend indigenous cultures by radically expanding the notion of copyright. Unfortunately, these propos- als are often informed by romantic assumptions that ignore the broader crisis of intellectual property and the already imperiled status of the public domain.

Would be glad to make a start on some of the debate around the term and it's use etc .. but should also suggest, in relation to comment made back in December that 'indigenous intellectual property' may be a fiction .. that irrespective of whether or not the term/ concept is linked to anything real in the world .. much like much debated terms such as justice etc .. it is, never-the-less, a term/ concept that does exist .. and IS, as a matter of fact, being used by within the World Intellectual Property Organisation and around the world.

Hope this assists. Bruceanthro (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is still horribly biased toward promoting these non-existent "rights" and highly misleading. There is no sane discussion of the topic, only promotion of extreme positions as if they were the only ones out there. Even the name of the article is biased, as the things being discussed do not fall under normal legal definitions of "intellectual property." I have restored the tags, as no improvements happened. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Updated

Overhauled the article, though it was mostly just formatting problems by the time I came across it. This is well-sourced and documents an issue that can be contentious. But just because someone may not like the concept of intellectual property rights, doesn't mean we don't document the issue on Wikipedia. Do we go to articles on freeing the slaves or African Americans getting the vote and flag it for POV issues and demand there be a "criticism" section? The article documents the issue, and largely relies on quotes from the Indigenous groups themselves. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"criticism" section, or rather, the lack thereof

so, there is NO criticism of this concept?

none at all?

REALLY?'

Lx 121 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone has obviously added this section, though it was pretty bad, almost offensive in parts. I distilled what I thought was the essence of it, but I couldn't add any citations.--Gueux de mer (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The term "offensive" is highly subjective. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and is not censored to protect people's feelings. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613105447/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous intellectual property. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150626112013/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626112013/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous intellectual property. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1992/52.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210023314/http://www.indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_search&areas=content&searchphrase=all&searchword=TEK to http://www.indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_search&areas=content&searchphrase=all&searchword=TEK

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) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indigenous intellectual property. 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/20160330114112/http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf to https://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155048/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html to http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521222630/http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/LiveArticle.asp?ArtID=1234231829 to http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/livearticle.asp?ArtID=1234231829

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) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a highly biased article

Why is there no mention of the fact that no courts or countries recognize these rights. I get that some in these Nations believe/feel that this information is theirs and that harm comes from its use outside of their cultural norms, but that doesn't jive with current laws/treaties which aren't mentioned. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop hounding Indigenous editors. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have ZERO idea what your race/ethnicity is nor do I particularly care (nor do you even know mine). You don't get to have special privileges on Wikipedia based on that. I'm hounding no one and you don't WP:OWN these articles. I'm here for the exact same reason you are: we're both editing Cultural Appropriation which references this article. Given that I feel it's inadequate, I tried to address it on the talk page BEFORE editing.

But, obviously, I can't do that either. You block attempts to make an article better or incorporating opinions that dissent with your own because it's "edit warring" or "disruptive editing". Any attempt to talk about it is "hounding". It's pretty obvious you aren't interested in collaboration, but maintaining the status quo. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about the ethnicity of individual editors. I'm talking about your following the editors of Indigenous and Indigenous-related articles to the articles they edit to push an anti-Indigenous POV. You've done it on a handful of articles now, and you've shown a clear pattern. You're not stupid, and neither are the other editors who've seen you do this. You've been warned for this already. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a valid concern that this article doesn't mention that there is zero legal precedent for this concept worldwide (but it mentions in the opening sentence that it's a "legal term"). That's a pretty big omission. Just because I disagree with your opinion or NARF (or anyone else's for that matter) doesn't mean I'm pushing an an anti-Indigenous POV. The only thing I'm "pushing" is for WP:NPOV. I've been addressing copyright and trademark issues here on Wikipedia for over a decade. THAT is my interest.

I have every right to be here and edit these pages as much as anyone else. I don't care if you're an admin or not, no one gets to dictate where editors can/can't edit. That you are "warning" me is an attempt to intimidate me. At this point, you aren't addressing issues I brought up. You are EXCLUSIVELY focusing on the editor, not the edits. Stop it. Buffs (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive examples of declarations regarding IIP

@Jack90s15: Please stop edit warring. We do not need to list every declaration about Indigenous intellectual property as not every declaration is notable. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

you were removing references and information from the page your edits I saw on Recent changes that's why undid them Jack90s15 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content not on the person removing it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should not list every single example of every claim that any tribe has ever made. Please provide a valid reason for inclusion of each example. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was just making sure you were not trying to the page was not being Vandalized It came up on the Recent changes I see now you were not trying to do such a thingJack90s15 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you have admitted that you were wrong to revert, I am now going to reinstate the change if that's OK. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

yes since you explained why you were doing itJack90s15 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing and not edit warring. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

IP editor, you are removing sourced content to insert completey unsourced opinion. You are also edit-warring with others. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring nor inserting WP:OR. Please do not make accusations w/o evidence. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You have reverted three times to your preferred version and received a final warning. You do not have consensus to remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced opinion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not true. I only reinstated my edit once after being reverted. The second reinstatement was only after the other user said it was OK. I have not reverted since nor do I intend to until discussion concludes. I had already made my final revert before your first warning and made zero edits to the page whatsoever between your first warning and your "final" warning. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I am willing to compromise. I'll leave out the criticism section for now since it's unsourced but I still think that we need to reduce the number of declarations. I don't think it's necessary to include all of them because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it adds unnecessary clutter the page. If you disagree, can you explain why? (Same editor from before different IP) 46.140.62.94 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to some of the sections being made more concise. But, dynamic IP editor who is removing warnings from your pages and who fits the same profile as the UTRS troll, I'd rather have someone who hasn't been disruptive do it. Like someone who hasn't been disruptive on these articles. Your edit-warring and attempts to avoid accoutability rule you out. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussions about article content exclusively. If you have an issue with my conduct you can bring it up on my talk page or at ANI. I did not remove the warnings to hide part actions. In fact, I left a note at the top of the page linking to the page history where the notices can be found. What evidence do you have that I am in any way related to the UTRS troll? Why haven't you opened an SPI? 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the warnings to remove any doubt about my intentions. I would ask that you please assume good faith on my part. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Structure

There are duplications between the Declarations and Claims of Violations sections. Even if there isn't a ton of duplicated content, it points to the fact that editors have skipped sections to start new ones, and this needs to be restructured to flow better. Still looking this over to see if I have a clear idea on how to best do this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think we need an overview section with the most important rulings, that comes before the chronological stuff. I think UNDRIP needs to be prioritized. I'm going to do a bit of a shift with this, I think.... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I mostly just restructured it. Most of the tedious, unreadability was poor formatting. The main issues are now up top, and the historical resolutions are now compressed in a history section. We can continue to discuss POV and sourcing, but the tagging was largely driveby, with no concrete suggestions forthcoming. Feel free to suggest productive changes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Content removal

Hello, User:Jwoodward48wiki. I erase some of the items from because I think that there is too much examples and thought maybe we should remove a few if that is OK. 152.165.67.17 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What are your specific reasons for the specific examples you removed? Why do you think they do not add to the article? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And use your real account or IP to engage here. Hiding your identity vie Tor proxies is an abuse of editing privileges. The IP above has been blocked. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, User:CorbieVreccan. I removed these examples because Wikipedia is not and should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't matter to me which examples stay and which go but the onus is on you to achieve consensus for the inclusion for contested information not the other way around. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

And you don't have consensus for these removals. I compressed this a great deal, and this number of examples have been stable for years, with you being the only person (under multiple names and numbers) who has objected. They provide a timeline and examples of legislation. Why do you want to remove these specific ones? There is no set number, so why these? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific reason for those examples in particular but we need to see the forest for the trees. Listing too many examples can distract the reader from the main point of the article. I think that a few examples, somewhere in the single digits would suffice. At the very least, I think that a conversation needs to be had about reducing the number. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not an indiscriminate collection. It is very specific and pertinent to the topic. I do not believe the number needs to be reduced. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to be much of an article. It is merely a list of claims of "wrongs" by some Indigenous Peoples and the text of their claims (not a summary). A summary of the claims should be sufficient. It also fails to point out that few courts have ever ruled in favor of IIP. I concur with the IP on this one. Regardless of how offended you are, the idea that you can claim a dance move or clothing is protected by copyright controlled by a culture is not backed by any legal precedent. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It also has too many quotes and I've tagged it as such for cleanup. 11 of 15 subsections have quotes longer than their prose. Surely we can summarize them rather than use excessive quoting. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not our role to declare what is and isn't legal. We're just documenting. Neither you nor Storm/shifting IP has stated which precedents aren't relevant, or why. It's not that long of an article, and TL;DR isn't really a convincing rationale. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No one is "declaring" anything legal here. These aren't "precedents". They are just "declarations" or statements by highly partisan and WP:FRINGE groups who seek to change existing laws/legal structures to give Indigenous Peoples rights as a collective over IP retroactively; rights that NO ONE else enjoys. Of these listed, NONE carry weight in legal matters. Of the few worldwide which carry ANY legal weight, none are recognized beyond the borders of their country. I don't concur with the IP's methods (which, by Corbie's description are sockpuppetry), but he also has a point. Buffs (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, no one's cited "TL;DR" as a rationale for edits. Buffs (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you do not have consensus to remove the quotes from UNDRIP and NARF. Just because you and the shifting IP/two different named accounts user don't like them. Discuss it here. Those are two of the most important things in the article, that's why they're up top, and that's why I've reverted you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I only just realized the extent to which this had been gutted. Look, if you don't like the article, go work on something else. What you did here is gut content for no good reason. TL;DR is no reason. When articles get too long, we split things off, we don't just delete them 'cause some people don't like it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed this content for a VERY good reason: MOS:QUOTE: " Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text...". Literally more than half of this "article" is quotes. No, I don't "like" this article the way it's written and, I tried to improve it. Rather than address my concerns, you ignored them and effectively said "no, you need my permission to edit this page in any way. Your concerns are beneath my dignity, so I'm reverting them." You do NOT own ANY article on Wikipedia, but you act as if you control anything you want and then threaten those with whom you disagree, block them, etc. I'm re-adding the concern I have and it's up to YOU to address it. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not how it works. If you want to change the article you need to work with the4 other editors who are editing it. Noone's concerns are "beneath your dignity" - if that case your dignity would have to go somewhere else. So work towards convincing other editors and achieving a compromise, or you ewill find a hard time working here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in User:Maunus, but I don't think you read what I wrote the way it was intended. I'm saying that Corbie's attitude that he's acting as if my edits are beneath HIS dignity. As for the rest, the last I checked WP:BEBOLD was still an editing guideline. I made the changes I felt were appropriate. Instead of a response of "I disagree with your edits and here's why:..." I get a response that falls one of in two categories 1)focused on me personally/exaggerations and lies in order to denigrate my character or 2) focused on keeping it the way he wants it:

1. Veiled threats: "With the history you have of this stuff? You really want to go down this road again?" Calling my edits "page blanking" or "gutting" or "disruption" when, by definition, they are not and repeating that lie over and over along with WP:FORUMSHOPPING
2. "This is wholly inappropriate" If we're going <change anything, it needs to have my permission, not> slashed and burned. You have no consensus to just go through and remove quotes. Suppressing criticism of his misuse of authority to protect the page in the manner which he wants (as an administrator, he has blocked those whom they disagree with, improperly blocked IPs, and reported them as sockpuppets when it was clear to everyone it was a single editor and then hiding such criticism/problems with the article).

Buffs (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Might I ask what brought you here? Near as I can tell you have not been involved EVER editing this page or the talk page. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, quit badgering people. You came here because you didn't get your way in a content dispute on Cultural appropriation. Maunus edits in this field and has for years. None of this is about article improvement and once again we are into the area of your conduct issues. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe I asked Maunus, not you. Maunus may indeed have edited other similar topics, but he's never edited this page or the article. It seems pretty clear that you or IG are asking others sympathetic to your point of view to comment the scenes. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Bebold is tempered with the BRD cycle - if you are bold and someone reverts then you discuss, you don't edit war.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, Maunus. Where have I engaged in an "edit war" here? I tagged the article for improvement and then started to work on the improvements. At no point have I done ANYTHING close to approaching an edit war and I don't appreciate the insinuation of impropriety. Unless you can substantiate the charge, I request a retraction of the allegation.

I would agree to discussion, however, I'm not getting discussion. I'm getting "don't edit war", "quit badgering people", "none of this is about article improvement". No one is responding to my concerns. Instead, all I'm getting are remarks about me personally and unfounded assumptions on my motives. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

Here is why there are so many quotes, and why the article, which has been stable in this format for years until this disruption, needs to stay in this format: This is a timeline of resolutions and consensus statements. It is important that they be accurately represented, rather than paraphrased (and especially not paraphrased by anyone who has been involved in conflicts regarding POV-pushing on these topics).
I didn't start this article, or make the choice to focus on pull quotes, but I've come to see that this is a good choice for this particular article. The reason being we want to avoid misinterpretation of these statements. The exact wording of these resolutions is important.
In a general article exploring a topic, over-reliance on pull quotes is indeed a lazy writing style. This is not that type of article. But even on articles where we're not quoting resolutions, exact quotes can be an effective way to deal with disruptive editors who want to inaccurately reword sections. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

So your justification is that I'm not allowed to paraphrase because I disagree with your personal opinions? I'm literally speechless. Buffs (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could read people's reasons without thinking everything here is about you. No one should be putting their interpretation into these resolutions. That is the point. Perhaps if you could calm down you could see that. If you can't discuss article improvements without making it all about yourself and your feelings, perhaps you need to take a break. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Corbie, you've been uncivil from the start. Your condescending remarks here are ample evidence of that. Your assertion that "No one should be putting their interpretation into these resolutions." flies in the face of WP:SUMMARY and WP:MOS. You categorize EVERY disagreement we have on editing as "disruption" and claim that the version you want is the only one that MUST be done without compromise or discussion.

This is not civil behavior. This is ownership. It's absurd that an admin would be wielding such nonsense instead of saying "ok, you may have a point. How about we..." Buffs (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, let's discuss potential changes. Make an offer! If your answer is "nope, we're going to do it my way", then we're pretty much at the end of options for collaboration. I've pointed out an issue with this article (It violates WP:MOS). On this article, you've just undone ANY attempts to improve it, declared any disagreement "disruption" and dismissed these editors' concerns, and ignore valid concerns on the talk page to further political objectives.

This article isn't about "Indigenous intellectual property". It's 90% just statements from various groups about their political position on the subject. It grossly fails WP:NPOV as it contains nothing about opposing views on the subject. If you want to create and article List of Indigenous intellectual property claims, THAT would make more sense (I'm 100% fine with that!). But as the "article" stands right now, it's almost exclusively intros & quotes about Indigenous People's claims, not the subject of the article.

Lastly, "It is important that they be accurately represented, rather than paraphrased..." is in direct contradiction to " Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text...". Furthermore, this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit and you don't get to dictate who can and cannot make edits. These accusations of impropriety are wearing thin. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Buffs' position on the quotes. There are way too many of them; WP:QUOTEFARM applies. Either many of these quotes should be trimmed, or if this is really just a list of statements, then it should be turns into an explicit list article and assessed for notability per WP:LISTN. R2 (bleep) 04:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the quotes should be trimmed to their essence, as the proportion between prose and quotes seems a bit skewed, even if we do allow for leeway that pertains to the article's focus on legislation. But I don't think the subject exhibits issues or needs to be reevaluated in terms of of notability — it just needs some work. El_C 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In a sense, the more the prose is lengthened, the less the quotes need to be trimmed. So further expansion is always welcome. El_C 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's largely the proportion that's off. During the main cleanup I cut and compressed a number of the quotes, but due to the repetitive and attempted comprehensive wording in the resolutions, it's difficult to keep their main points and not have them be... wordy. I really wanted to compress them more at the time, and balance it out, but I felt a bit overwhelmed at deciding what else to cut without losing those important points. By the time I cleaned it up to where it is, I was too tired to read the declarations thoroughly enough again to write more in the sections. I decided to wait for more input and consensus here on talk to determine what we should and shouldn't cut. The current editors at that point seemed satisfied with where it stood. I was going to come back to it in a few days or weeks and flesh it out. Then things got weird. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, hopefully, the weirdness is done with now. But at any rate, this hardly counts as something that needs urgent editorial intervention. It's better that you take your time and do it right than have the quality compromised with a rush job. Something I'm confident most, if not all, participants here would agree with. El_C 04:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Block seems out of line

Off topic discussion about editor conduct. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CorbieVreccan, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that you're well-involved here and shouldn't have blocked anyone with whom you're having a disagreement. Likewise, blocking a TOR node indefinitely seems to run contrary to WP guidance. What am I missing? Buffs (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Look at the block history. It has built to this. I can review it in the future. For the moment, there are a number of issues here, and with the user who has used three different IPs and two different named accounts, just on this page. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Then it seems you should report it to an uninvolved administrator (seem that a WP:SOCK may be a factor) to handle it + block the TOR node for something other than an indefinite period of time. Buffs (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Ones does simply never block a person with whom one is in a content dispute. It is grounds for desysopping.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC) I thought people using TOR were supposed to ask for an exemption? Indigenous girl (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, but policy states that blocks are supposed to be made by an uninvolved administrator. Also, an online check shows that the IP is not actually a TOR node. That being said, I think that Buffs should have started this discussion somewhere else as it is not related to article improvement. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC) I blocked the IP for being a proxy, per the policy - "Open proxies may be blocked on sight according to the policy on open proxies" - not per content disputes. The proxy had previously been blocked for three months so I increased it. Then I took it SPI. The case was evaluated by other admins and closed. When it was cleared from Tor I reduced it from indef. I didn't engage here because it had already been handled by other admins and this is not the place for it. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should we include more than 10 claims and declarations regarding IIP?

Closed. Reworded below. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we include more than 10 examples in the section titled "A history of claims and declarations regarding Indigenous Intellectual Property"? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Reworded. See below. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Yes Yes It is a history of not examples of. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Number Doesn't Matter - It's not about arbitrary numbers. The resolutions need to be weighed on merit, precedence, and what they contribute to the topic. What I see happening with the two of you who have said "too many quotes" is neither of you have given a single reason as to why any of these specific examples shouldn't be here. TL;DR is not a valid reason, nor are any of these examples "cruft". When I went through and did cleanup, I had no numerical value in mind; only the criteria of whether the ruling made a significant point in the overall topic. So, there should be no number chosen at all. The content is the point, not a random number. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC) No No Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and too many examples can distract from the main topic. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC) No We don't need the text of 10+ different claims in order to understand the subject at hand. Several of these declarations are for people who weren't involved in the decision process. I question whether they pass the criteria of notability. Buffs (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC) It's not the full text of every claim that's been made. It's some of the historically-relevant resolutions that have been made over decades, with relevant quotes from some of them. I thought you'd read the article. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean I didn't read the article. Please stop this incivility. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Other Neither; objection to RfC. The RfC doesn't accurately capture the dispute, and seems to be framed to lead to a particular result. It's inappropriate to set either an upper or a lower bound on the number of items to list. Inclusion or exclusion should be done on a case-by-case basis based on applicable policies such as WP:V and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Moreover, there seems to be a disagreement about the nature of the section. Should it be an exhaustive list or just examples, and either way, what should the inclusion criteria be? This is where the dispute seems to lie. Although not strictly applicable, WP:LSC might serve as a helpful guideline. In my view RfC should be closed/withdrawn and re-written as something along the lines of: "Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list of all such claims and declarations, or a limited number of the most notable examples?" R2 (bleep) 15:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC) @Ahrtoodeetoo:  Done see below. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Discussion The section is 'a history of'. It includes a variety of examples that represent a variety of s communities. The examples are pertinent to the topic and shows that intellectual property violations are international. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Agreed. We include as many examples of resolutions, and exact quotes of those resolutions - so there is no misinterpretation possible - as is needed to document the process. If the article gets too long, we make subsections and more articles. That's how Wikipedia works, not by censoring material people don't like. Additionally, we are showing how the process is evolving over time. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Disagree. There's not a single example of intellectual property violations here at all, just claims. None have been actually successfully adjudicated in ANY formal setting. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC) It documents the history of claims and declarations regarding Indigenous Intellectual Property. The section is not called Successfully adjudicated claims as well as declarations regarding Indigenous Intellectual Property. While it is your opinion that not one of the recorded instances shows an example of IIP violations that is your opinion. Others have a differing opinion. That is not what is chronicled here however. We are chronicling claims and declarations. When the claim in Sapmi hits the trademark office in Norway I will be including that here as well. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Notability is also a requirement. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Which instances do you feel are not notable and why? Indigenous girl (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Which instances do you think are notable and why? The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. Not the other way around. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC) They are all part of the history of claims and declarations regarding Indigenous Intellectual Property providing a timeline where action has been taken in one form or another (this is not stating they were all successfully adjudicated as that is not the topic of the section). Each one is significant for the communities represented. No one community is more important or significant than the other in these instances. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Perhaps we could create an article called List of Indigenous intellectual property claims or List of Indigenous intellectual property claims and put the claims there. Neither I nor Buffs would be opposed to that. But again, including too many examples in the main article can distract from the main topic. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Undent. Neither I nor Buffs would be opposed to that. So, Solarstorm, you already know that Buffs is OK with a list? You're comfortable speaking for him? Anything you'd like to disclose? A list would be redundant, and is a reversal of the argument you've been making of "listcruft". The examples need to be contextualized so I think your point is, well, Pointy. Why are you putting so much energy into wanting to cut a couple examples from this? Your edits focused on two in particular, which is also what the number you've chosen would do, so I find it odd that you don't say so transparently here on talk. Why don't you just tell us why you want those particular examples removed instead of dancing around this? Buffs has made it clear in his edits on Cultural Appropriation talk, and on the related articles, and then again when he turned up here, that he just doesn't like the idea of Indigenous Intellectual Property. All these arguments about random numbers of examples and lists have proceeded from that, with you materializing to back him up, first as a series of IPs, and then with the two named accounts. Neither of these are good reasons to set an arbitrary number, fork content, or convert an article into a list. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Each one is significant for the communities represented." Just because it is significant for a small community does not mean it meets notability requirements. Every decision is by a committee meaningful to someone. That doesn't mean they are notable. Corbie, I'm disgusted by your attitude towards new editors. ANYONE who agrees with me or disagrees with you is immediately an "enemy" in your book. You have made several assumptions here that are WELL outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BITE. You continue to insinuate malfeasance where none is present. You intentionally misquote people to disparage them. Enough already. To Corbie AND Solarstorm, neither of you speak for me, so stop assuming what I think. Solarstorm, I'm guessing your assessment based on my earlier statement. Please make YOUR statements accordingly (such as "Buffs already indicated that he supported a separate article") and don't put words in my mouth. Corbie, whether I like the idea of Indigenous Intellectual Property or not is irrelevant. How YOU feel about the subject is irrelevant! What matters are the editorial standards at Wikipedia. As such, this article needs to comply with WP:MOS. Currently, it does not and over half of the body is quotes in violation of WP:SUMMARY. The entire argument thus far is based on WP:ILIKEIT. I've seen nothing to support WP:Notability requirements for these quotes. Listen, I'm fine with a few quotes for emphasis, but literally over half the body of the article is quotes. Surely you can see how it fails WP:MOS guidelines. Buffs (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes. I don't see any harm in making a complete list; the no votes aren't compelling. The list isn't unwieldy and seems valuable to readers. I don't know much about the subject matter but agree with Tchouppy that it would be more helpful if the rest of the article were built out. R2 (bleep) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

   User:Ahrtoodeetoo,I tried that... Buffs (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Yes, BUT it depends on how we're viewing "complete". The topic should be covered in-depth, as with any article. There's no need for an arbitrary upper, or lower, limit of examples. I think those arguing against "complete" [note 6-7-19: and calling it "exhaustive"] have some idea that frivolous lawsuits will be included, or they have something against the resolutions that are here (going by which ones were cut); and those wanting a complete list are thinking in terms of significant resolutions that can be fleshed out (though some, like UNDRIP, already have their own articles, as they should). The answer, as always on WP, is consensus and collaboration. As there has been severe conflict on talk, and massive changes without consensus that have incited these conflicts, seeking consensus on talk before any major changes to the article is the only way to proceed in accord with WP policy. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC) (note added - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

• Yes Summoned by a bot. While it is a significant amount of content, I don't think that any individual section is overbearing or has WP:UNDUE weight when they are all organized in the way that they are now. Comatmebro (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's over 50% of the body of the article. How does this pass as meeting WP:SUMMARY? WP:MOSQUOTE is more apropos. What bot summoned you? Buffs (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No

1. No Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and too many examples can distract from the main topic. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
2. No As previous...We don't need the text of 10+ different claims in order to understand the subject at hand. Several of these declarations are for people who weren't involved in the decision process. I question whether they pass the criteria of notability. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
3. No An exhaustive list is not necessary, though that does not speak to the essence of your debate here. If this is supposed to be an article about a legal concept, it has very little discussion of the law. A long list of declarations of what people think the law *should* be is not necessary. A section with a history/discussion of the declarations followed by a section with actual cases or action, like the Maori stuff and the opt-out of american museums, might be better than a list. Tchouppy (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

   Tchouppy Something like this? Buffs (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Can anyone speak to whether the current list would satisfy our notability standard for standalone lists, namely, have items of this type been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? Please ping me. (No talkback please.) R2 (bleep) 18:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This is still not the right framing here, and is a badly-formed RfC. It's never been, or attempted to be, an exhaustive list, as far as I know. I didn't start it; just did some cleanup. My point in the first, badly-formed "RfC" is that there should be no arbitrary number, and that the cases should be assessed individually. The quotes are only there when there are Declarations and Resolutions. Where it's just a claim or such, no quotes. The problem is, those who've wanted cuts have not made a single suggestion as to which examples or sections they would like compressed or cut, and in what manner. There's only been screaming, rather than discussions that could lead to consensus. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Garbage. The edits I've suggested were summarily reverted, you erroneously accused me of blanking, and effectively said "no, I don't like that so we aren't going to do it". Describing all disagreement as "screaming" is just plain uncivil; please stop. Buffs (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  @CorbieVreccan: if this is a "badly formed RfC", then how would you propose that the question be rephrased? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Rather than having the list of example as it is, what if we were to break it down by regions? It would certainly present better. The article currently looks sloppy to say the least. I do not have the time to do so currently but should be able to next week should it be an acceptable idea unless someone else would like to take it on themselves. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I think I considered doing this when I did cleanup, but decided to wait for more discussion. It's gone this long without major edits, I think it can wait till you have the time and energy for it. Looking through the edit history, I only see one, relatively minor edit on the article, that you've done. That would put you in the category of someone who hasn't been in any kind of edit war on this. I'd support you doing the changes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please stop referring to any/all edits as "edit warring". You're unnecessarily rachetting up the tension here. Plus, I'm sure you have no problem with someone who supports your POV nearly 100% of the time rewriting the article. As it stands, you two are the only ones who are opposing the changes. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are, once again, misrepresenting what has happened here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Buffs I offered to do something. No one opposed my offer. I broke things down into categories in my sandbox and realized that it did not improve the article. I have stated previously that I agree that the article is sloppy and biased. I also have not said yes or no regarding the RfC. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(intentionally ignoring Corbie's remarks) @Indigenous girl: Are you thinking something like this? We should have more prose and less quotes. Additionally, the article needs significant TLC on opposition. Right now, it's nearly exclusively protest-ish and "we want this; here's what we say" + "others that want this too; here's what they say" Buffs (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

While I am not entirely onboard this is somewhat of an improvement. I really feel that a complete overhaul is warranted. It is in no way up to WP standards. It would be nice if we could all work collaboratively though I do not know how this can happen constructively. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be willing to help with an overhaul, though I don't know when I would be able to get to it. I could immediately do something simple like separating the declarations and claims into two different sections, which would at least make that section less cumbersome and make more sense structurally. If everyone is ok with that, I'll do that and then we can discuss other improvements. I don't have any specific knowledge of this subject- I just came here from the RfC, but I would be glad to help where I can.Tchouppy (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tchouppy and Indigenous girl: Then let's start with what I had and add/subtract to/from it. I'm not interested in mandating every little change. Let's just use that as a starting point. Everyone onboard? Buffs (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to read what you had tagged me in above before. But, yes, that is generally what I was envisioning and seems more effective than the current list of declarations. I think that would be an appropriate starting point if others agree. Tchouppy (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Tag

All I've added a POV tag to this article. Of the 42 citations in this article, 18 are primary sources (11 originating from the same UN body). 11 additional sources are from advocacy or activist articles. 10 are from third party sources, but of these only 2 are NOT Maori-related and both of those are Anti-Cultural Appropriation advocates in academic publications. Of the remaining 3 citations, one is self-published, one is an unpublished law school paper, and one is a dead link.

If you take out issues related to the Maori, 100% of the article is primary sources, self published articles, and advocacy/activist pieces. Ergo, in addition to the WP:MOS issues listed above, this article is woefully out of compliance with WP:NPOV and needs an overhaul. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the sources, but I agree with the tag. The article's language reads non-neutrally. Many statements likely require in-text attribution. R2 (bleep) 04:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo, your input in the above RfC would be appreciated too. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree regarding neutrality. The article is extremely biased. The criticism section needs to be expanded but I do not support a full on copy and paste from the Cultural appropriation article. As I stated above under the latest RfC as it stands now the article already looks sloppy, we don't need to add to that when we should be cleaning things up. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

This article needed a criticism section so I have added one from our article on cultural appropriation. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The section from CA was about the concept in general, with no content about Indigenous Intellectual Property issues, so I cut it. Link to it for the general issue of cultural appropriation. But it adds nothing to the issue of Indigenous Intellectual Property. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriation of culture is indeed what this legal concept attempts to address. While I don't think the concept has legal merit (and, if implemented, would destroy the foundations of our copyright system, introduce lawsuits galore over innocuous things), the fact that it IS something people are pushing to attempt to provide legal remedies for cultural appropriation is clearly a related matter. For now, the placeholder is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990

I think this is relevant. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say it's a related topic, but it's not the same. One prohibits false claims about Indigenous origin, but that is prohibited already; this law simply increases penalties and more clearly specifies it. The IIP is an attempt put exclusive ownership of many things not currently thought of as IP (effectively) in permanent copyright status.

All that said, the fact that both ARE attempts to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples certainly makes them related and I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion. Buffs (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Images

The four images could be more informative and would look better if they were larger and aesthetically placed instead of being haphazardly off to the side. Shadamss (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Images Buffs (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Page Concerns

hello, i am a pretty inexperienced editor and don't really know this article very well, but i noticed that this article has a "multiple issues" template, so i went to check the talk page to see what those issues were and what the consensus was to see what to do, and saw that the talk page is kind of a dumpster fire, to put it mildly. i noticed that a lot of the, uh, disagreements, i'll say, seemed to revolve around three users in particular, an admin and two others (one IP and one user), and i worry that the article's quality has suffered because of it. i'll be honest, i'm a little scared to speak up because of the fact that the most involved, passionate, and heated user in the discussion is an admin, but i'll do it anyway, because it is a concern, because the admin did kind of go after the editors themselves rather than the edits, and as a result, i'm kind of scared to mention the people involved.

i did notice that the article has a disproportionate focus on specific tribal declarations, as much of the bulk of the article is of direct quotes from tribal declarations, many of which have similar themes, and comparatively little on the wider discussion surrounding the topic. as a result, i feel it doesn't really provide an accurate overview of the topic, it just lists the statements themselves. additionally, it appears that the majority of these statements are from north american and austronesian tribes, which makes me a little concerned about WP:GLOBAL, on top of the WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, WP:NPOV, and maybe WP:OWN, not as an accusation but a simple concern as an outsider. i hope this doesn't come across as being malicious, and i'm sorry if this is necroing. Birdn4t0r (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Birdn4t0r. Having rather belatedly looked at this talk page after making a few attempts at tidying the page earlier, I think that you make some very valid points. I am too tired to do a lot more now (although do just want to improve a few more of the citations), but will be coming back to it tomorrow most probably. At the very least it would be nice to see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so that readers can get the gist of the topic and article without scrolling down for miles. You will see that I have abbreviated the subheadings of the list of declarations, and now wondering whether perhaps they should all be converted to simple bold or dot point formatting so that the TOC is not so long and not particularly helfpul. Also, I moved the criticism section down as there is not a lot there, and it is not clear what exactly is being criticised - as far as I can tell on a first glance, it is more about the difficulty of codifying the idea into legislation and enforcement rather than the actual idea of Indigenous intellectual property itself? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

sorry for the late response; but yeah, i think that would make a lot of sense. perhaps condensing them down into a single section of tribal declarations, or even using them as citations for a general overview of the supporting arguments for IIP protection, would be good?

as for the criticism section, i think that is the gist of the argument "against" the idea, yeah. IP and Fair Use is already a massive legal grey area, because it's difficult to define what constitutes either in concrete legal terms due to the non-concrete nature of artistic and cultural expression. add colonialism, the fact that a lot of major cultural pillars are based in human universals, and the potential implications and unintended consequences of the precedent it would set for artistic and cultural expression and diffusion if it is not crafted extremely carefully into the mix, it's easy to see how drawing up concrete, enforceable legislative protection for IIPs that would actually protect indigenous communities would very quickly become extremely messy. Birdn4t0r (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

IP and Fair Use are fairly concrete. While there may not always be agreement, IIP protected via force of law in perpetuity would rend international IP standards moot. For example, even if a tribe in the US wanted to say "you can't use our sacred lands for filming", I mean, I'd probably just respect their request, but US law and international agreements with the US and other countries would trump that request in a court of law, regardless of whether they liked it or not. Most, if not all of these claims for IIP will never go through with the same weight of Copyright Law. They are little more than a wishlist. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source on composition of Ka mate haka written by John Archer.

After encountering this 'paper' being cited to as evidence that the composer of Ka mate was not Te Rauparaha for the first time in my life, I read it closely, and it is self-published by an amateur folksong historian, and is not verified or corroborated or even cited by any other researchers in this area. Further, it directly contradicts other published sources.

So have removed it in line with WP:SELFPUB until the author's reliability in the field can be verified. Cyresse (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)