Talk:Lytton Band of Pomo Indians/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment

removing cleanup tag, there is no discussion here about it. Justforasecond 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a balanced, npov article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.139.66 (talk • contribs) .

You need to state actual reasons for the tag and suggested areas for improvement, or edit the article. Justforasecond 07:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been tagged NPOV before by an established user. I've just tagged it {{tone}}. I suggest you thrash it out here. --kingboyk 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this page seems no more than a slander page, as opposed to just presenting information. If there were some attempt at a balanced presentation of facts as opposed to someone stating negative views and also their very personal opinions, it would be just a TAD better...

The truth hurts. Lytton had two families related by marriage from several different tribes. There was never a tribe there This article tells the actual facts about Lytton and its card room. They are a "designer tribe" that engaged in "casino shopping" and acquired land almost 100 miles away from the old Lytton Rancheria, in an area that was the aboriginal land of the Ohlone. They poached another tribe's land.

CA rancherias were never reservations held in trust for a tribe. According to renowned West Coast Indian expert Dr. Stephen Beckham, who regulalry testifies on behalf of tribes, "There appears to be widespread misunderstanding in California about rancherias. They were federal fee lands (not reservations/trust land) where homeless Indians (and others) lived without paying taxes. The Rancheria Termination Act ended the non-taxed status and distributed the land and assets to residents. It is possible to argue that "restoration" of the rancherias was nothing more than restoring the non-tax status of the former federal fee lands."

Just awful

This article is almost worse than no article at all. I will take a serious look at the conflicting views on the Lytton Band in the coming days, but my feeling is that the last four sections of this article should be scrapped altogether. How is the chairwoman's former employer relevant? Or something that Dianne Feinstein said? Or Abramoff? drseudo (t) 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Update Okay, I've added some {{Fact}}s here and there, and done my best to remove the worst of the POV and inflammatory language. Unless someone mounts a defense of the aforementioned sections in the next few days, I will probably delete them as irrelevant and nonencyclopedic. drseudo (t) 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The sections are notable and encyclopedic. The Condit connection, for example -- every newspaper article with enough room has mentioned that Margie used to work for defrocked Gary Condit. It is a major factor in the Lyttons rise to gambling oligarchs. Years of working for a Congressman gave the Lyttons connections to the spectrum of lobbyists, politicians, and lawyers that made CSP a reality and a scourge. References abound, I'll google up a few. Justforasecond 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The sordid details of Condit's affairs are not relevant to the Lytton Band and reprinting them in this article, when they are readily available in the Gary Condit article, is not constructive.

In addition, I'm revising the opening two paragraphs significantly. They are clearly written to create the impression that the Lytton Band are fake Indians who have no claim to tribal status when the facts do not bear this out. drseudo (t) 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, one last thing before I go to sleep: the allegation that the band made illegal contributions is a serious (and possibly libelous) one, and so unless a citation can be found I will probably delete it tomorrow. drseudo (t) 08:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Remember to be civil and assume good faith drseudo. It isn't nice to come to an article many people have worked long and hard on and start off with "just awful".

I've removed this "They have recently been bargaining for the right to fund the purchase of land for religious and housing purposes" because it is uncited and based on everything I've read...untrue. The Lyttons are amassing huge fortunes without lifting a finger (except to dial lobbyists and local politicians). I'm sure some of this is going towards purchasing mansions, luxury condominiums, etc, but "housing purposes" makes it sound like these folks are replacing hovels with modest shacks.

Justforasecond 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My source is this SF Chronicle article, which states in relevant part that "For the Lytton, the payoff from the casino gamble would be a new community, which they would build on 50 acres they aim to buy in the Sonoma County city of Windsor, said Mejia, the tribal chair. The property would include 50 dwellings, a roundhouse and administrative building." (emphasis added) So I got "housing" from "50 dwellings," and "religious" from "roundhouse".

If that is your only quarrel with my version, though, why didn't you simply remove that part, rather than reverting the first two paragraphs altogether? Reverting is generally only used to combat vandalism and not edits with which you disagree. See Help:Reverting. I am reverting the opening paragraphs, and adding the citation above, based on the belief that the previous version is more informative (how many Lyttons are there? where are they from?) and less POV ("aggressive lobbying efforts" and "with the explicit purpose of exploiting Indian Gaming laws" come to mind as examples of this). I will reproduce the paragraphs below to make it easier to compare them, and hopefully to reach consensus. drseudo (t) 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lyttons have misrepresented their attentions in the past. Mejias explanation for why the casino was expanded to 5,000 slot machines? "Things change". But there is another reference to this utopia [1]. If the Lyttons do plan to live there and hold religious ceremonies there, it seems pretty laughable that they call Casino San Pablo their reservation.

Unorthodox, maybe, but laughable? drseudo (t) 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As for "fake Indians", just take a look at Mejia -- does she appear to be Native American?

Your implication that all Native Americans look a certain way is not accurate. drseudo (t) 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You might have noticed further down "Her band of Pomo was among 38 California tribes that gave up their rights to federal land, known as rancherias, four decades ago in a government program that aimed to assimilate tribes into mainstream culture." This program let the Lyttons own their land privately -- typically Indian reservations are owned. What happened to this land? Well we don't know about every plot, but I've read that much of it was lost due to people not paying thier taxes or foreclosed upon. ([2] mentions some of the history as well as the land being used for vineyards now)

BTW The Lyttons claim to being a tribe is pretty weak Justforasecond 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for this? Every article I've seen reaches the same conclusion, that the Lytton Pomos were dissolved as a tribe by the government in the 50s, then successfully petitioned to be recognized again. If there are credible sources who feel that their "claim to being a tribe is pretty weak," then those sources and their views can be included in the article. Representing that one viewpoint as the only one is the very opposite of NPOV. drseudo (t) 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have articles showing the basis for the Lyttons being a tribe please include them. I'll try to find the article I read a few years back stating their history. Justforasecond 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lyttons settled with the government and were recognized as a tribe by the BIA in 1991 after being dissolved in the 1950s, according to this government report and this news article. If some people with certain POVs feel that they do not "deserve" tribal status, then their POVs can and should be presented here, but "The Lyttons claim to being a tribe is pretty weak" is opinion, not fact. drseudo (t) 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Lyttons claim to being a tribe is pretty weak" is on the talk page, not the article. Why is it weak? Look at the history:

By that time, some Indian ethnicities had all but died out, and a "tribe" could sometimes be composed of a single nuclear family.

Such was the case with Bert Steele, Mejia's great-grandfather, who was granted the Lytton Rancheria in 1938. Steele, who was one-quarter Pit River and Nomelackie Wintun Indian, built a simple, one-room house at Lytton for his wife, an Indian of the Cashia tribe, and their children. His brother-in-law took an adjacent piece of land on the same rancheria. All members of today's Lytton band of Indians, therefore, are descendants of Steele and his brother-in-law.[3]

So we're talking about a single family that was never an independent, cohesive group. In comparison to other tribes, this is a very weak claim. Prior to '38 Steele and his wife lived elsewhere, with established tribes. In 1938 they moved to the rancheria land as a brand new tribe. In 1959 the gov't fully deeded them the land in 1959. It was not "stripped" from the family, quite the contrary, the Lyttons were given full title to the land. 50 acres of fertile farmland for free -- not a bad deal. After 1959 the Lyttons (they named their tribe after the land) manged to lose it, apparently through foreclosure. Justforasecond 04:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read carefully: it was their tribal status that was stripped from the Lyttons, not their land.

Frankly, though, this is all very much beside the point. Your claim is that the Lyttons aren't a real tribe. Others (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Lyttons themselves) disagree strongly. As WP:NPOV says,

We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge". We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In light of this policy, it seems prudent to revise those sections of the article which are constructed, either by their tone or by the selective way in which facts are included or excluded, to imply a particular point of view (i.e. that the Lyttons are a bunch of phonies). Instead, conflicting viewpoints (with citations) should be presented; e.g. 'The Lyttons and their representatives believe that they should get a bunch of land, while (some source) disagrees, based on (some objections)'. Does this sound reasonable?

(P.S. As it happens, I know a few members of the Lytton Band, and none of them feel that the CSP land is 'sacred'; I suspect that the author of the article you linked misinterpreted their position. But incorporating that information would probably violate WP:NOR, so it will have to stand.) drseudo (t) 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that the Lytton's aren't a real tribe, its that their claim to being a real tribe is weak. There was no independant Lytton "band" before '40 and Bert Steele was not a Pomo. Imagine Bert Steele had moved to Hawaii in 1940. Would they now be the "Hawaiian band of Pomo"? That's not to say there's no such group as the Pomo, there are, but the Lyttons claim to being a tribe arose in the 20th century, because the gov't had some empty land that was already called the Lytton rancheria. In comparison to say, the Cherokee, who existed long before 1940, the Lyttons claim is very weak, do you agree?

IMO the sacred statement is an insulting use of religion to both the Lyttons and the non-Indians living in the area. If your friends get their viewpoint out there I'd be happy to see it in here.

Of course we should follow wikipedia policies here, but keep in mind they all have limits. NPOV does not mean we can't state the obvious. Wikipedia cannot be used as a propoganda device (the Lyttons, through Margie, have misled the public in the past). We also need to be careful about what is not "neutral". It is legitimate to state that the Lyttons are racially mixed, but you removed it. Justforasecond 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem arises, of course, when what is "obvious" to you is deeply contentions to other people. This is one of NPOV's strengths, not one of its limits; when there is tension between viewpoints, we should fairly report them all, not just the one that is "obvious" to someone. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's true, but that applies to all viewpoints. It is no more appropriate for this to be a transparently pro-Lytton article than it is for it to be a transparently anti-Lytton one.

Any thoughts on what I wrote down below? drseudo (t) 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what NPOV is all about. It is still OK to say something is weak if it is readily apparent that it is (even if there are an exceedingly few that disagree -- see flat earth society) Would you say the Lyttons have a strong claim at being a tribe, other than by government decree? Justforasecond 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Flat Earth Society article, you'll note that nowhere does it say that their claims are "weak," or otherwise use POV to discredit them. Rather, it says that "No modern religious groups or scientists have published support for this belief." Writing that the Flat Earthers' claims are "weak," even though it's "readily apparent" to most of us, is still POV. The same principle applies here (although less extremely; more people think that the Lyttons should be a tribe than believe the earth is flat, I would guess). drseudo (t) 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

The Lytton Band of Pomo Indians is composed of people with mixed lineage, including caucasians who have 1/32nd Native American heritage, 1/2 Native American heritage, and multi-racial heritage. Its leaders have formed the band with the explicit purpose of exploiting Indian Gaming laws‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} that were enacted by the United States Congress in 1988 with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

By rediscovering their Indian heritage, a few individuals claimed sovereign status as the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. Through aggressive lobbying efforts and campaign contributions‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} to such members of Congress as Representative George Miller (D-CA, Martinez), Lytton band of Pomo Indians were retroactively recognized for gambling purposes.

The last two sections

I'm adding a new section because the indenting in the above one is making my eyes bug out. ;)

Specifically, I'm curious about your reasoning for including the last two sections of the article (assuming it's something you feel strongly about). Inclusion of the Condit factoid seems more appropriate for a Margie Mejia article, rather than here. In particular, the fact that Condit seemingly dallied with and then abducted an intern of his sheds exactly no light on the Lytton Band, its history, or its motivations.

As for the DiFi section... this appears unmotivated. A better way to make sure this viewpoint comes to light would look something like this:

(blah blah blah this is what the Lyttons were planning), a move that was met with harsh criticism from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among others, who said that "Off-reservation casinos are bad blah blah."

Printing her opinion uncritically, and unopposed by contrasting viewpoints, is not NPOV. Also, the heading "Diane [sic] Feinstein Speaks on Behalf of California Voters" is kind of unencyclopedic. Come to think of it, maybe a "Criticism of casino plan" section and a "Reasoning behind casino plan" section might be the most NPOV way to handle this. I will sleep on it. drseudo (t) 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism section" notion comes up pretty often at wiki, that is, to have a "pro" and then a "con". I think Jimbo has weighed against it but I'm not sure where I stand.

The Condit section is relevant because it goes to the tribes political connections. We need a small amount of detail about Condits most famous events because, even though today everyone remember Chandra Levy, a few years ago no readers will remember who he was.

Readers who don't remember who Gary Condit is can read about it at Gary Condit; including his sordid details here serves no real purpose, except maybe to imply that Mejia was somehow involved in offing Chandra Levy, an implication that is highly questionable. drseudo (t) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines on the perfect article state that terms should be defined well enough that users don't have to go clicking all over the place. Justforasecond 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The section of WP:TPA to which you're referring reads:

...includes and explains all essential information and terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles.

I suspect that anyone could completely understand the Lytton Pomos, including their history and their efforts to build a casino, without having to know that Gary Condit resigned because of a dead intern. drseudo (t) 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me to rename the Feinstein section to something else. Quoting her comments was a straightforward way of getting across the outrage at the casino plan without running into NPOV issues, etc.

Quoting her comments isn't the issue; allowing one viewpoint to dominate the article is. "Getting across the outrage" isn't our task here. drseudo (t) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to rename the section go for it. But area politicians outrage towards the Lyttons and their gambling machinations is legitimate. Justforasecond 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm renaming the section and adding some balance. Let me know what you think. drseudo (t) 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW I looked up the Abramoff connections. So far I haven't run across anything. I did find a citation for the Pt Molate plan (under "continued lobbying") and added it to the article.

One other thing occurred to me. If the Lyttons really just want to fund some modest housing and a roundhouse on 50 acres of land in Sonoma, I wonder if they will agree to close CSP and Pt Molate once land and construction costs are paid off? Justforasecond 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This kind of speculation isn't all that relevant to the matter at hand, methinks. drseudo (t) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just makes you wonder. That 50 acres has been paid for by now and modest houses really don't cost all that much to build...but the Lyttons haven't closed CSP or ended the Point Molate effort. Sounds like a case of Lyttons misleading the public. Again. Justforasecond 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"mixed-race individuals"?

The "mixed-race individuals with some amount of Native American heritage" language that is now in the introduction to this article seems inappropriate. Virtually all Native American tribes now consist of "mixed-race individuals"; intermarriage has vastly reduced the number of "pure-blood" Native Americans. Yet articles on the Pomo peoples and the Miwok don't include the "mixed-race" language. Including it here seems to subtly reinforce the POV that the Lyttons aren't deserving of tribal status.

I'm reverting this latest change, not because it's 100% bad and wrong (it's not), but because I'd like to get this hashed out here on the talk page before any sweeping changes are brought to bear. Does that sound okay? drseudo (t) 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

if you agree it isn't bad nor wrong i don't see what the problem is. their being mixed race is an important part of understanding the lyttons. take a look at margie, her skin is quite fair. the phrasing is fine and shouldn't be read as reinforcing the notion that the lyttons aren't really a tribe. in contrast, it isn't preferable to call the lyttons native american -- it denies their european heritage and ancestors and is a half-truth. Justforasecond 02:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As I alluded to above, saying that the Lyttons aren't Native Americans because they look a certain way is explicitly racist, and you really ought to knock it off. I also disagree that "their being mixed race is an important part of understanding the lyttons," any more than it is to understanding the Miwoks or anyone else. A lengthy accounting of how racially mixed they are would be giving undue weight to a factor that is minimized or left out altogether in other articles on Native Americans. Citing a credible source saying that the Lyttons' European ancestry is important would be one thing, but giving it such importance smacks of original research to me.

In sum, calling the Lyttons "Native Americans" seems to be uncontroversial; they describe themselves as (and believe themselves to be) Native Americans, and the government body in charge of determining who is and isn't a Native American (the BIA) has stated that they are. Saying that they are Native Americans with some European heritage (as is usually the case these days) is okay, saying that they are not Native Americans isn't. drseudo (t) 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Communication

jfas, despite my mentioning my concerns with the "mixed-race individuals" language here on the talk page, and suggesting a way in which the subject might be broached more neutrally, and making a request in edit summaries that broad changes to the article not preceed discussion on the talk page, you've gone ahead and reverted the introduction to "your version" without warning. Rather than reverting your reversion, which would help no one, I'd like to request a third opinion. Is this acceptable? drseudo (t) 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

drseudo, it's not really fair to go and alter the first paragraph, and then ask that it not be changed. it's also not nice to come and say the article is "just awful". the version i put there was a compromise between yours (lets call it N) and the version just prior to yours (N - 1) and also a major enhancement as to the history of the lytton's. i think we've already had a third opinion -- the author who wrote N - 1. but its wikipedia, you're welcome to invite whoever you want to comment on this page. BTW to say someone does not look native american is not a racist comment. Justforasecond 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving that section the headline "Just awful" was intemperate, and I apologize. A lot of the new "history" stuff looks good, too, although I will probably go through and shorten/wikify it somewhat tonight or tomorrow. However, I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye on how WP:NPOV should be applied here, so I've gone ahead and added this article to WP:3O. Hopefully someone will come by before we all grow old and die. ;)

well you've misstated it there. the question is whether to include the info that the lyttons are mixed-race, not whether the lyttons are "fake" indians.

As for the "look Native American" business... well, imagine for a moment that we determined who could be listed as an African American based on whether they "looked black" or not, and I think you'll see the problem. drseudo (t) 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Read up on racism -- saying George Bush doesn't look Native American is not racist Justforasecond 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive edits

I'm giving this article somewhat of an overhaul, incorporating much of the history jfas added, wikifying, and reorganizing.

The stuff on Schwarzenegger is more his scandal than the Lyttons, so I'm taking it out, especially since he denies knowing that the guy was mixed up with the casino in the first place.
For organizing the messy stuff, I'm trying the "Criticism and response" idea that I mentioned before. Not optimal, but it's better than nothing.
The Condit section is out. If anyone ever creates a Margie Mejia article, we can mention it there. I'm not trying to whitewash the fact that she worked for him, but once you take out the "involved with the disappearance of Chandra Levy" stuff, there's not enough to merit a section.
Re "continued lobbying": it looks like it's the Guidiville Band who want to build a casino on the naval base, not the Lyttons.
Took out one or two of the critical politician references. I think there are still enough that people get the idea.

What do you think? drseudo (t) 07:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The writing is good but I don't agree with the items you've removed

the mixed-race nature of the lyttons
- I've said why I'm uncomfortable with this--the Lyttons are no more mixed-race than any other Native American tribe, and mentioning this here seems prejudicial
  - Think of all the European contributors to the Lytton family. Is it any more right to call the Lyttons "Indian" than it is to call them "white"? Justforasecond 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
details of the lyttons founders -- bert steele was 1/4 indian
- I will change this.
  - OK
the lyttons land now contains valuable vineyards
- Why is this relevant?
  - It is relevant because the lyttons claim they want the land back. several newspapers have included the detail.
criminal charges against the lyttons
- I think "plagued by crime" seems to cover this, but I will clarify in the article.
  - plagued by crime doesnt show that the lyttons are commiting the crimes, nor what they are.
their casino manager raising a million for schwarzenegger
- As I said, this would probably be more appropriate in Arnold Schwarzenegger than here, but adding a sentence or two would be all right.
  - OK.
political connections of the lyttons
- Which political connections, besides George Miller, are you referring to?
  - gary condit, for one.
that the lyttons consider CSP "sacred land"
- This claim is very shaky, as I've mentioned. It's sourced to one floridly-written article and isn't mentioned in direct speech by any tribe member or spokesperson.
  - it has appeared more than once. its not reasonable to ask for *multiple* citations for information, is it?
that none of the lyttons, 70% of whom were unemployed, actually work at the casino
- We can probably work this in, although it should also be mentioned that few (if any) of them can afford to live close by.
  - in comparison to other folks on the same salary that work at the casino and presumably don't receive a cut of the profits, it is safe to say lyttons can afford to live nearby.
the lyttons' work toward building another casino at point molate
- This isn't the Lyttons, it's the Guidivilles. See [4].
  - OK, I was wrong about that. But it is worth noting that under the Arnold-Lytton plan, a casino set up within 35 miles would end any profit sharing with the state. Justforasecond 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

well we can continue working on it.

Justforasecond 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. :) drseudo (t) 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mystery man

An anonymous user with the IP address 155.91.28.231 showed up and made some changes to the history section. I've cleaned them up somewhat. If you're reading this, Mr. (or Mrs.) 231, please log in! drseudo (t) 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was me -- I wasn' tlogged in. Justforasecond 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O

A 3rd opinion was requested regarding whether this tribe is a real tribe or not, and to which side both issues should be included. After reading the article, and some outside research, this tribe is an official tribe. It should be included as a real tribe, even though it was created in the 20th century. However, I do think that the issue of it not being a real tribe could be emphasised a little more, maybe even in a seperate section. Sbloemeke 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sbloe. Justforasecond 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The next round

After some thought, I've removed the "fake tribe" section. The main problem is that it seems like original research; except for the one quote from the cardroom lawyer, no sources that I've seen have seriously claimed that the Lyttons shouldn't have tribal standing. If you want to claim that the Lyttons shouldn't be a tribe, that's fine, but you can't do it here; Wikipedia is not the place to expound on personal theories. Having that much unsourced claims about the Lyttons' tribal status is an undue weight issue, and unless you can come up with some more verifiable sources it'll have to go. drseudo (t) 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we asked for a third opinion (above) and the opiner suggested a separate section. The government stripped them of their status in the 50s, but none of the more traditional tribes lost their status. Others have sued based on these grounds. Really, when you think of a native american tribe, do you think of groups formed just before WWII? Justforasecond 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The issues

So there are several issues here, how should we work this out?

That the former Lytton Rancheria now has valuable vineyards doesn't seem to be so controversial, but you've removed it. Margie has mentioned the vineyards herself, saying "If they gave us back the vineyard land, we wouldn't need to build a casino" (the implication being that the Lyttons would become wine magnates?)

Inouye's support of ANWR is also legitimate, though perhaps controversial. The man supports *everything* natives support, including despoiling a wildlife refuge. So when his aide supports the Lyttons it needs some context.

The Lyttons plans don't just "discourage" others from setting up casinos, they request a monopoly. This is part of the reason the casino will cause huge traffic problems, if ever expanded. (have you ever driven on I-80 from in the extended rush hours in the area???) The terms say that if another casino ever does go up, the Lyttons will cease sharing revenue with the state.

etc

Justforasecond 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts

Jfas, there is plenty that I find objectionable about the material you've reinserted into this article, but the "A fake tribe?" section is the most problematic, and it serves as a microcosm of the problems with the rest of the article. Here we go, line by line:

Unlike better-known Indian tribes in the U.S. such as the Cherokee, which existed long before the arrival of Europeans, the Lyttons did not come into existence until well into the 20th century.

I'm guessing you mean 'the Lytton band did not come into existence.' All the same, how is this relevant? I don't recall the Google article saying anything like, 'Unlike better-known American corporations such as General Motors, which existed long before the arrival of the Internet, Google did not come into existence until well into the 21th century.' It's totally not relevant to Google's legitimacy as a corporation, any more than it is to the Lytton's legitimacy as a tribe.

As Lytton founders Steele and Myers belonged to different tribes, the Lyttons are not a homogenous (sic) group.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'homogeneous' here---they're both Native Americans, and they were a family, so how are they not 'homogeneous'?

Though the Lyttons refuse to disclose a list of their members, some descendants of Steele and Myers who are eligible for Lytton membership are instead enrolled in other bands.

Some Lytton members marry people from other bands. Their children are allowed to decide which band they will choose to enroll in.

Also, you've used the 'refuse to disclose a list of members' language a lot---why, unless your intention is to impute bad faith?

Though early photographs of Pomo have dark complexions, Lytton members such as chair Margie Mejia are comparably light skinned

No original research. Also totally subjective and irrelevant. I will delete this.

and many of the younger members have less than the 25% Indian blood threshhold required for federal recognition.

So? Intermarriage is an issue with any Native American group, and this one is no exception. Membership isn't decided by 'blood percentage,' either.

Some question the validity of the Lyttons (sic) tribal status. Said Alan Titus, an attorney who has fought the Lyttons' plans "They never had sovereignty. You can't restore what never existed."

This is really the heart of the whole thing. As evidence for 'some question their validity,' you cite exactly one person: an attorney for competing Bay Area cardrooms! This is not enough to support the multiple aspersions you've cast on the Lyttons, especially the ones for which no evidence at all is cited. This creates both a undue weight problem and an original research problem, which is why this section is not tenable. Remember:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Other, less critical issues:

It is not encylopedic to say that they 'recently purchased' the land in Windsor. Better to write that they 'purchased it in 200x' and cite a source.
It is not NPOV to include any and all information, however tangential, that casts aspersions on a viewpoint with which you disagree. The thing about how Inouye always supports Native Americans no matter what falls under this category, as does labelling him an 'Indian gaming supporter' when no other politicians in this article are given similar titles.
Once again, you have reverted the introduction to say that the Lyttons have plans to build 'several casinos,' even though I have pointed out that this is a misconception.
'Mixed-race individuals'---by now I'm sure I've made my feelings about this phrase clear. What are the justifications for leaving it in?

Jfas, I respect the amount of time that you've put into editing this article, but I'm worried that you're letting your passionate feelings on the subject cloud your better judgment. Take a deep breath, reread WP:NPOV, and let's see if we can make this the perfect article. drseudo (t) 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm opening to changing this section but remember that this section is the result of the third opinion above. Justforasecond 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That third opinion sounded rather confused and contradictory to me. -A 24.22.37.88 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition

In addition to what drseudo already said:

The Lytton Indians are a band of the Pomo tribe , not a tribe themselves. Your language in this section suggests that the Lyttons see themselves as a tribe themself, like the Cherokee you mention in the first sentence. Lyttons are primarily Pomo, an offshoot of the Kashaya band, though as the history section of this article suggests, there is other Native blood in the tribe too. If this is what you mean by non-homogeneous, fine, but to call the Lytton band a "fake tribe" is a leap in logic. Additionally enrollment (which is currently closed) has always been decided by lineage not percentage.

I'm also curious if you know Margie personally and thus feel comfortable describing her as "light skinned," because that seems like an arbitrary opinion. -A 24.22.37.88 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at her photos, you'll have to agree. They can't be included here because they are copyrighted. Justforasecond 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the photos; I don't agree. I still see it as an arbitrary opinion. It would be just as easy for me to say, hey, look at her features, she's clearly native. Should I edit that line to say "Despite having stereotypical Native features, Lytton members such as chair Margie have comparably lighter skin than Pomos in earlier photographs" or does that take away the punch you're looking for? The sun does play a part in how dark-skinned people--hey, even natives--get and immersion in white culture has encouraged many natives to stay as pale as they can. Remember that old portrait of Pochahontas where she's painted up to look like a white gal because it was considered more flattering? There's still some of that going around. And just incase there's any confusion, Margie's Mexican last name is her husband's. And she dyes her hair.

As a fourth opinion, I'd say scrap the "fake tribe" section all together or at least retitle and fix it up a little. You didn't contest the first thing I said so I assume it would be all right to change the word "tribe" to "band" and so forth.-A 24.22.37.88 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Margie is pale skinned compared to other Indians. Sun might be a factor. She might be bleaching her skin. It could be a disease? Or maybe...just maybe...it's because she's mixed ethnicity. Anyway, it's not for us to decide why she's pale skinned, but its obvious to see from photos that she is, and its a reason why people think the Lyttons are a fake tribe. It's not at all obvious that she has native features. Beyond her dark hair and dark eyes, she doesn't look like a Pomo. The press has described her as squat and pug-nosed, which isn't how Pomos typically look. I guess if Margie disclosed the list of members and had some photos put on the web we'd have more to go on but for now all people have are shots of Margie on tv and in the press. Justforasecond 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"It could be a disease?" Now you're being facetious. I did not say she wasn't a mixed ethnicity. She is. Her mother, Rose Marie, was Pomo though and so is Margie. "Light skin" is not obvious from photos because photos (esp outdoor ones) can make people appear washed out--surely you can agree with this. And look at [5] again. Note how the tiny icon of Margie to the left is lighter in color (look at her jacket) than the original photograph. Who decided to lighten in anyway?

Margie's is not the chair because she "looks" the most Indian or has the purest percentage of blood, she's the chair because she's the one who can get the job done. The "people" questioning the Lytton's legitimacy (and I'd like to see as citation for this too, because I suspect it's primarily you) based on one woman's skin color are at best ignorant. And you must not know many Natives if you don't think her features are at least a little telling. Natives nowdays do not all look a certain way, and intermarriage happens. I'm getting the opinion that you'd rather Natives only marry other Natives, or bar their mixed children from their for being "too white." It's the preservation of culture that's important to Native tribes nowdays--not a pure bloodline. If you want to see Margie for yourself, why don't you go to one of the city meetings and take your own photos? You'll be surprised to find she's not as pale-skinned as the press makes her out to be.

The sfgate miniphoto is not lightened. I can't paste it here to show you because it would be a copyright violation but they are definitely the same hue. No one is saying Natives should marry Natives only (my aunt is native, btw) but for a caucasian/latina looking woman to be the only public representative of this tribe makes people question the tribes' legitimacy. Margie should take her millions and put together a website and then we can know what the other members look like (and I hope without putting on a bunch of garb). I have seen her at hearings and she is pale skinned, but I haven't tried to take her photo. Her supporters were very secretive, they wouldn't even tell me their names. Well I'm outta here for a while, you have fun guys! Justforasecond 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess we differ on what we consider pale-skinned. If it will help I will try to find some snapshots of other "darker" band members to post, and you, when you get back, find some reference to support your claim that "a caucasian/latina looking woman to be the only public representative of this tribe makes people question the tribes' legitimacy." I'm just wondering who these "people" are. For now I'm changing that line to reference her mixed ethnicity, not her skin color.

(The citation I was refering to was the 25% Indian blood one, which I still can't find, but I will look again) -A 24.22.37.88 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

there's already one in the article! Justforasecond 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the heading to "a legitimate band?" and made some minor language changes. I still disagree with the line about Margie, but we can hash that out some more. Also, can we get a citation for the federal law that requires 25% Indian blood? - A 24.22.37.88 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"a legitimate band?" sounds good to me -- nice edit. Justforasecond 23:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lytton is scandalous

There was a lengthy, anti-Lytton-Pomo diatribe here by User:Scotti2hotti. It didn't pertain to the article in any real way, so I removed it. drseudo (t) 06:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)