What is evidence that people believe a claim?

If there is a claim on Wikipedia, a bunch of people read it

We can't verify every sentence on X, there has to be evidence that enough people believe this to make it worthwhile.

X could be any website. Why have you chosen Wikipedia as one that doesn't prima facie get assumed to result in belief

If a claim is on two websites is that enough?

This is what I meant by look for a reason to keep questions

It seems we didn't agree

There's plenty of discussions and decisions about this on our meta. Specifically we define notability based on the number of adults who believe a claim. There need to be many.

If there is a single instance of a claim, that's not notable. It should be easy to find many other example via a google search.

This means that if we need to debate about the notability of a single example, then it's not notable.

If the claim is all over wikipedia, then certainly it's OK to ask. I've googled and the results are pages like this which are nuanced, complete answers.

It should be easy to find many other example via a google search. - that isn't true

In this case, there are many people that believe the claim but it is hard to find examples online

The fact that there is a debate isn't indicative of notability or non-notability.

Many many people believe that indigenous people do not have sovereignty in the U.S.

95% of the people I asked believe this.

19/20

Look at how long the askers's quote from wikipedia has gone unchallenged by other editors.

(Wikipedia editors)

and sure, you found a nuanced version of the claim, but many people are unfamiliar with that nuance and simply believe the more simple claim

If the test is "do many adults believe that indigenous people do not have sovereignty anywhere in the U.S." then the claim passes.

Is that the test?

yes

you can't simply go around and ask though :-)

Why not?

Okay, I'll accapt that

Accept

But then as skeptics we should be more careful in our wording and not assert that the claim is not notable, but rather that the claim has not been demonstrated to be notable

What claims do we allow to proceed with no link at all?

Because some do

Initally, any claim is allowed. We assume that a claim (if present, of course) is notable.

In many cases people will need to check whether that is actually the case, though.

Okay, then what rebutted that assumption in this case

Because all my investigation revealed that assumption to be true

(The length of time the claim had been on wikipedia, other instances of it on Wikipedia, my friends, etc.)

The example was a bad one, a sentence in a relatively unrelated wikipedia page does not establish notability, and it confuses the question. I googled for more examples and did not find any.

If you can find many examples, edit the question and add them in, or comment, etc.

In what cases do we need more than the prima facie assumption of notability?

define "need" and define "we"

And if the example was a bad example, just remove the example. Or all examples, since all we need is the claim

Need = required by the standards of this site

We = skeptics.SE members

As I said well above, one needs a reason to vote to close. One such reason is that the claim is not notable. If the question has no valid notability examples, one way to find out is to summarily google and not find any undisputed examples. If the question has valid notability examples then it should not be closed as non-notable.

Wait. But notability examples are not needed .. I thought

Questions do not need to include them, but they need to exist

Oh so the test is more than "do many adults believe the claim"

We've never encountered a claim that many adults believe but no one repeats on line

This time you have

Apparently, since you searched and found no examples but 95% of my friends believe

I bet that 95% of your friends never thought about it.

That may be why they believe it

But that is irrelevant as regards notability right?

They believe it because you suggested it to them

It's certainly relevant. We want to focus our attention on problems that matter, not problems people don't quite care about.

Oh, so there has to be belief plus practical significance?

I think the state of indigenous sovereignty matters, and a lot of people care about it

skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask

This isn't subjective. the claim is that indigenous people don't have sovereignty in the US. The question is "is that true"

I'll agree it's not suggestive, but certainly asking that people care enough about a subject to write on it seems to be a good standard for "an actual problem to be solved".

FYI one of the people that believed that is an Aboriginal Law professor

They have certainly thought about it

People don't write about this claim

Are you sure?

The claim that "indigenous people do not have sovereignty in the US" isn't written about?

(Also, now we're talking about a different close reason, not the notability close reason)

I am not sure, but it is as far as I can tell. Note that this is a different claim from the question i closed.

If it is indeed something people believe and write about, just add an example and flag for reopening.

That claim was part of the question. The question quoted a bad example, as you say, but the simpler claim I've been stating underlies that one

I hate that this becomes a presumption of non-notability as soon as a mod thinks it is non-notable. This is why you should have looked for reasons to keep the question. Interpretations that fit your standards, etc.

"Is it true that no indigenous people exercise sovereignty over any part of the Americas?"

how is that the same as "Is it true that no indigenous people exercise sovereignty over any part of the US?

It implies the latter

And he tagged it US

No, I tagged it US

He/she

Okay

Okay, well you at least understood it to be about the US

And the asker was interested in the latter part

Which is a notable claim

(Both are, but the latter more clearly

Do you agree the question needs fixing?

I agree that you will not reopen it without fixing

But I would have understood the question fine in its original form

I don't understand why you are insisting on this

What have I insisted? Most of my comments here are questions?

I think I don't understand this site

Are you talking about the site standards or about the question?

We don't agree that the question is notable. That's an opinion on the question.

Instead of debating this, we've collectively decided that examples of people believing the claim is how we sort these debates out.

We don't agree that this is appropriate. But that's probably something which belongs on meta.

What I don't understand is why we are still debating. I'm more than happy to help, but I feel we're going in circles here.

I think my issue is subtly different. It seems that maybe you would agree that the claim "indigenous people do not have sovereignty in the US" is notable, but that that isn't what the question asked (am I correct about that?)

No

Oh you think that even that claim is non-notable?

I haven't found evidence that either is notable

In any case, we can't simply change the question without involving the author.

So the debate is premature.

What I think, in any case, is only important if you care why I voted to close. It's clear to me that the question needs clarification and a valid claim in order to gain my vote to reopen. I don't know how to do that though.