Talk:Lumbee

Lowery and how to cite

@Sundayclose: The Washington Post article I cited notes that Lowery is a Lumbee. Thus, when I modified Doug Weller's edit, you will see that I still left mention that Lowery was a Lumbee, but removed the emory bio cite, since it is unnecessary and doesn't support any of the other information in the paragraph. If splicing was simply an "stylistic issue", then there would be no such things as proper inline citations and all of the refs would be dumped at the end of every paragraph on every article, thus making verification harder. I see no evidence that Doug disagreed with my edit (since I left in the material part of his addition, that Lowery is a Lumbee, did you notice?), so your claim that two editors oppose my work is spurious. You apparently did not understand my edit summaries or my edits.-Indy beetle (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's my major point: There is no need to remove the statement "a member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina", regardless of how it is cited. That is more precise (and relevant) than "Lumbee historian". Someone could be considered a "Lumbee historian" but not a member of the Lumbee tribe. That distinction is important. And there's no harm in two citations. Citing two sources at the end of one sentence is quite common on Wikipedia. I actually preferred it in the original place, but you objected to "splicing", so I moved it. Feel free to move it back. Thanks. Pinging Doug Weller. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It should be specific and two cites aren’t at all unusual. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I see some merit in the clarification, and it is not quite clear what the WashPost meant (a historian who specializes in Lumbee history, or a historian who is also a Lumbee, both are applicable for Lowery). That said, bring in outside sources to add biographical info on an academic being quoted leans towards potentially problematic SYNTH, especially where we're using their ethnic status as some sort of qualification, whereby we would get things like "According to agronomist John Smith, who is black,[ref 3] the farmers of this region...[ref 4]", or, at its worst, Jew-Tagging. I won't push too hard since this is offering clarity on the ambiguous connection made by the WashPost, but generally I think bringing in a source not germane to the rest of the info (and by that I mean Lowry's biography isn't immediately relevant to a broader discussion about the origins of the Lumbee tribe) to make assertions about someone's personal characteristics when they're being used for their professional opinion is, well, problematic. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH. And we are not claiming specifically that ethnic status gives her any more "qualification", but that doesn't mean ethnic status is irrelevant, just as identifying Martin Luther King Jr. as African American is relevant to his life's work. We're not telling readers what, if anything, to conclude from her ethnic status. We're just informing them. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be a problem. It’s not synth in any way and is useful context. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)