Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Round dance

Currently goes to a page on Ballroom dancing. Circle dance is closer, but does not have a relevant section. Right now the INM mention links to the ballroom page. I've put a note at Talk:Round dance to discuss what to do, or we could discuss here. Either way, this could use sorting. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Made Round dance a disambig. At least for now. Suggest putting Roundie info at Circle dance. If the section becomes large, can reconsider. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand.... It did not go over well. See what happened on my talk page for more details. Someone needs to either write ==Americas== sections in Circle dance so we can fix this mess, or even a Roundy article itself. Other articles that exist now: Round dance (honey bee), Round dance (ballroom). Round dance (First Nations)? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lenape-Delaware tribal flags

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape#Lenape-Delaware_tribal_flags

A user added a gallery of "Lenape-Delaware" flags; however, most of these are for completely unrecognized organizations claiming to be Delaware. They are "cited" in this [ghetto self-published website https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xa-delid.html]. It's a problem to have the "Delawares of Idaho" being given equal weight as the Delaware Nation, but I'm unsure of what Wikipedia policies would cover this. Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Yuchtown

I've reverted the addition and pinged the uploader to engage here at the project and on talk of the article. As the article is about the actual Lenape, not unrecognized heritage groups, it is undue weight to upload a gallery like that. There is a very small section on the unrecognized groups, as is appropriate for that sort of article. If the user wants to put, say, one image for a group that is notable enough to have its own article, in just that section, that might be appropriate, but even that would be pushing it. I'd only do that for, say, a state-recognized group, not a heritage club or one of the groups that has been marked by authorities as fraudulent or criminal. As Wikipedians, we can't allow the 'pedia to be used to promote scams, such as fraudulent orgs trying to establish themselves to steal government funds, set up a casino, etc. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This user has gone through quite a few Native articles altering text to change heritage groups to "Nations", along with posting flags from fake tribes as the flags for recognized tribes. No one knows if this user is doing it out of ignorance or a POV push, as the user won't engage on talk. They've been here for years and have never responded to any warnings. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate. They will wind up blocked if they don't stop, but either way we are going to have to clean up the damage they've done. I'm going through their contribs now, but could use some help with this. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The users contribs are so bad!! This is the absolute worst I've seen. They made a Pequot band into Lenape and so much more. I'm going to do as much clean up as I can whilst trying to wrangle two hot and miserable kids. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors it's ANI time. In case anyone wants to chime in. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor is indef-blocked now, but in the investigation I found a sock (also indeffed). As this most recent account was created to evade a block on the original account, I suspect there may be more. If you come across this editing pattern again, or have before, don't hesitate to either bring it up here, at ANI, or to just directly contact me or one of the blocking admins. Whether it's the same user socking, or another with the same agenda, this stuff needs to be stopped as soon as it starts. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ghost Dance

Could use more eyes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We've had some discussion at Talk:Ghost Dance#In Popular Culture that has bearing on WP:IPC on Indigenous articles in general. Notably, that there is such a small percentage of us on here able to evaluate the content that gets added. It's a similar issue to evaluating WP:RS sources on these articles. Barring any objections, I'm thinking of adapting some of this to our project guidelines section. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Manataka links

Whether these additions are citespam, or added by well-meaning people who honestly don't know Manataka is in no way an "Indian Council", and in no way WP:RS, I'm finding a bunch of links to the Manataka site scattered about the 'pedia, and have been removing them. As one would expect, they're mostly in the fake tribe articles, but some are even in legit articles.

For those who don't know, manataka.org is notorious for copyright violations, posting Native writer's work without permission and refusing to take it down when asked. They post some accurate info via these copyvios... right next to unsourced essays with wild fabrications about Native cultures. The site should be considered the same as a personal blog or personal website and, worse, one known for copyvios, unsourced essays and, at times, grossly inaccurate and even offensive content. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: One exception on the cleanup. I am leaving up a manataka link as WP:V where they have a scan of a publication shows that a person has undergone a name change. It's not ideal, but lacking better sourcing in that instance where the name change needs to be documented. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rename discussion

Category talk:American people of Cherokee descent. Proposing we change the name of this cat to American people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry.
We already have cats for enrolled people. This category currently includes both those with documented ancestry and those with completely fabricated heritage. So I propose that we harmonise this category name with List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. "Descent" and "heritage" still has to be proven. People can have legitimate ancestry without fully meeting enrollment criteria, and that is a different thing from non-Natives who completely fabricate a Native identity. While this will leave those with actual ancestry in a grey area, the overwhelming majority of people in this category are the proven false claimants. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

I'm in the process of trimming poorly-sourced content from List of cryptids. Many of these creatures, such as Cressie, are said to originate from "indigenous folklore," but searches for purported indigenous names like "Haoot Tuwedyee" tend to yield only questionable cryptid-related sources. Where can I go to verify the existence of these legends? –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your best bet is older books, typically by missionaries, that describe the practices of a singular tribe. Wacape (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another unrecognized group

...trying to use Wikipedia to bolster their claims of being state-recognized: Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown 14 September 2018

"In 2015, the Texas state senate passed a congratulatory resolution, authored by Charles Perry, recognizing the organization.[1]" Are you suggesting that this source is wrong? Wacape (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC) EDIT: (I don't know why it's in a box, I'm sorry).

There's a difference between a congratulatory resolution (which all sorts of individuals groups receive and confers no rights) and a formal state recognition process that would involve more than just the senate (i.e. legislature and/or governor). The National Congress of State Legislatures keeps tabs on state-recognized tribes and has no listings for Texas. [1] The National Congress of American Indians lists only the Lipan Apache as being state-recognized. [2] The Indian Arts and Crafts Association lists no state-recognized tribes for Texas. [3] Most official governmental sources only focus on federally recognized tribes; other sources listing state-recognized tribes are self-published and out of date, but still don't list the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. Yuchitown (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

I fixed the formatting by removing the leading space. Indyguy (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of the term "Indian"

I have gotten into a dispute with another user over the use of "Indian" in an article about a historical encounter between the Spanish and a group of indigenous people in what is now the United States. In response to my attempt to use "Native American" in place of "Indian" in the article, the other editor has stated;

Both terms were used in the article previously, and we need to be consistent. The geographical region under discussion was not called "America" at the time, so those tribes cannot be "native Americans". The term "Indian" was used at the time by English-speakers; I have no idea what term the Spanish used. So our choices are "Indians" and "Indigenous people groups". It is common practice on historical articles to use the terminology that was contemporaneous to the time period being discussed, such as "Patriot" and "Loyalist" or "Roundhead" and "Cavalier." Therefore, the best way to address this is to use the shorthand term "Indians" and explain it in a footnote. This is the way that the articles on the American Revolution handle the terms "Patriot" and "Loyalist".

This was turning into an edit war, so I won't be reverting him again, but I wanted to get some other opinions on what is appropriate phrasing for future reference. - Donald Albury 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the term "Indian"? "American Indian" might be preferable, but Indian is fine. Yuchitown (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

I've seen "Indian" summarily replaced a number of times, including in a DYK hook where I was trying to use the term ironically (speaking of a rancher who was captured by pirates and rescued by Indians), and have gotten the general impression that the term is avoided in Wikipedia. I won't worry about such usage, in the future. - Donald Albury 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

How many tribes call themselves Indian? A huge number, see List of federally recognized tribes and the US official list.[4] Why would we avoid it when many Indians embrace it? Not all, I was once told there was a bit of a geographical split. Odd, 2 lists.List of Native American peoples in the United States. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, as an Indigenous American who disagrees with the term, I would say that I'm hoping society will slowly push it out of use for several reasons. First off, Indio (Indian) was from Columbus' misconceptions about being in Asia. It is a name originating in colonialism and geographical inaccuracy. You cannot say "Indian" without remembering Columbus. Furthermore, we are not only named after an Asian people, but that word is still in use to describe these Asians. As a result, I have to specify "Indian-Indian" vs "American Indian" "vs "No, an American Indian, not an Indian-American". If I ever move to India, I guess that'll make me an Indian-Indian? If I wear a shirt from one of the popular Nepal brands here, it is suddenly "Oh, no, that shirts' the wrong kind of Indian". Lots of humor, but it's humorous because calling Indigenous Americans Indians is ridiculous in the first place. It messes with English language and, as I said, is geographically, racially, inaccurate; and stems from a colonial source. There is also the matter of the history of the word itself. Lots of negativity there. Lots of easy negative phrases such as "Indian giver" and "dirty Indian". Who wants that? I don't. We call ourselves Indians because that's what we were taught and as a form of colonial reclaiming. But it's perfectly okay to reject that and hope for a better word to describe ourselves. Wacape (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To my understanding the use of the term is generational with much older generations tolerating or being okay with the use of Indian. While younger generations find it completely offensive because we're not Indians we do not come from the country of India. This is especially true in the United States where Native American or Native is used and by far more acceptable. In Canada I have friends that definitely prefer First Nations or Indigenous. There really is a lot of negative relation towards Indian or American Indian, and some would consider it extremely ignorant to keep using the old terms when they are very inaccurate.Mcelite (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There's probably more of an urban/Indian Country split than a generational split, but Native American name controversy is the best conversation on the web about the topic. As I put on the article in question and as cited many times throughout Wikipedia, American Indians in the United States prefer the term "American Indian" (Tucker, Clyde; Kojetin, Brian; Harrison, Roderick (May 1995). "A statistical analysis of the CPS supplement on race and ethnic origin" (PDF). Census.gov. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of the Census. Retrieved 2013-12-13.).

Using the "American Indian" as opposed to just "Indian" helps clarify a lot. Today, simply "Native" (not "Native American", just "Native") and "Indigenous" are more and more common, but they are not precise enough to identify a group in question on from an international/Wikipedia basis. Yuchitown (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Who took the census though that's what leads up to the findings and not in my opinion but just being around others that are young the term American Indian is seen as a negative because there is so much negativity involved with the terminology. Yes American Indian is different than saying Indian but it is still an offensive and outdated terminology not welcomed by many individuals.Mcelite (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Tribal Leader Page for Saracen

working on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ogahpah/subpage which hopefully will became a page on a historic tribal leader named Saracen.

If anyone is willing, please give a look over and provide any comments or help you can, so that it can be submitted and approved.

Thank you very much.

Ogahpah (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed

See [5].Citation bombing but most are legitimate. He put one fact tag on clearly sourced material and reverted sourced material with sn edit summary about edits being unverifiable although the sources were obviously verifiable. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Native American use of fire#Article needs to be renamed/moved

Could use some input. Reasons on talk page. Not thrilled with the names I've thought of so far. There's got to be something pithier and more apt. And yes, what was there was pretty dreadful. It still needs more cleanup. Please go for it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sterilization of Native American women#Rename / Page Move

Very few articles link to it. I've done some cleanup and want to rename before adding it to templates. Could use some input. Have added First Nations sourcing and brought it into the present. Previous version had past-tensing and title didn't conform with sourcing that this is forced/coerced sterilization that is still going on. If no objections will probably move to Forced sterilization of Indigenous women in North America, just because it's shorter than, "In the United States and Canada". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Show Indians

Needs serious help. Did a bit of cleanup on Wild West shows, but that's not great, either. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Haircrow

This article is being considered for deletion due to a potential lack of notability. The individual is a German-born writer who claims to be Chiricahua Apache, Cherokee, and African-American. Most links were recently removed for being self-promotional. Yuchitown (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Newly-created Template:Native American topics sidebar being added to articles

Newly-created and being added to articles: Template:Native American topics sidebar - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Native American women artists for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Native American women artists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Terminology

It would be awesome if this project could provide a guideline or recommendation as to terms, both general ("Native American" or "American Indian") and specific ("Blackfeet", not "Blackfoot"). Presumably it could be supported by citations and quotations. Hyacinth (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage is generational and regional. When possible, we state the person's Nation. When talking in more general terms, we use what is in the sources. Older Natives and those from the Plains tend to say "Indian." Younger folks and those from the PNW and East Coast tend to say, "Native." Younger than that often prefer, "Indigenous," but Indigenous is a worldwide term and not specific to one continent. Many people don't like terms that include "American." There is no universal consensus, but this is not a reason to change established usage unless there is consensus. Recent attempts, including the IP edits, were not improvements and tended to break links and just create unnecessary work for those of us who maintain these articles. Reverting established usage of "Native American" to "American Indian" (As Hyacinth has been doing) is generally perceived as regressive, rather than an improvement. As to members of the Blackfoot Confederacy, et al, again, stick with Nation and WP:RS sources, which for Indigenous topics are primarily those from community leaders within the culture. These guidelines, and this chart from the Native American Journalists Association may help. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. As Wikipedians, our job is not to set policy on terminology. We can only document what is in the sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the term Indian or American Indian is fine when the sentence is a quote from the past like from Fredrick Douglas or whoever vs. using the term passively because again yes I strongly agree that it is generational, but the younger you go the more the term Indian or American Indian is seen as a form of racism or disrespect no different than more African Americans would be insulted if they were called Negro. Also to that the term "native", "Native American", and "Indigenous" seems to really be accepted on an individual level just like some are okay with the interchange of Black or African American. You will find some that either term is fine, others prefer black while other prefer African American. Indigenous usually from my experience is used to describe all of the New World, but seems to be way more commonly used in Canada when they prefer that over First Nations.Mcelite (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with CorbieV on this. Wikipedia is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, it summarizes information from reliable sources and doesn't (and shouldn't) attempt to create standardization where there is none among reliable sources used in the citations for articles. This follows the no original research policy. Prescriptive policies would suggest editors dictate and enforce standard based on personal opinion. That would create friction between editors and result in more edit wars. I think the Native American Journalists Assoc. guidelines are good. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, folks. I'd appreciate more eyes on one of the incidents that set this in motion: Template talk:Native American dances#Why was this moved? Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to develop such a guideline. As Wikipedians, it certainly is our job to set guidelines on how terminology is used on Wikipedia. See for example MOS:MORMON and MOS:HAWAII § Hawaiian and Hawaii. Those guidelines should be informed primarily by how terminology is used in reliable sources. The NAJA style guide and other journalistic style guides may be a good starting point. Toohool (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get on it. Updating Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) links to archived versions: Reporter's Indigenous Terminology Guide and Evaluating Indigenous Sources. They also have a new AP Style Guide (PDF) that, just reading it now, covers some of the same material, and some new ground, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry

I've opened the Deletion review for the article. If you wish to comment, please do so but remember this is specifically about a review of the Closer's decision, NOT to re-argue the AfD. Please read the purpose of the DRV before commenting. Thank you. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry

This is the most insane thing I've seen happen on Wikipedia. A crew of editors concerned about Elizabeth Warren appearing on List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry nominated and voted for it to be deleted. None of them had ever contributed to a Native article before and clearly were unfamiliar with Native issues, legal rights, or history. People who actually did edit Native articles voted to keep (not because it's a pleasant subject but because the discussion of non-Native people posing a specifically Cherokees among all the tribes merits discussion and is widely published about. Intead of "no consensus" (which would have been appropriate), some editor who also didn't previously edit Native articles decided to delete.

Conversation here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. Now the editor is purging every name on a list that feeds into the deleted list; I have no idea what the rationale is. Non-Native people pose as Native people (specifically Cherokee) in vast numbers. I cannot comprehend why non-Native people feel so profoundly uncomfortable or threatened even having the subject discussed. Yuchitown (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

This was absolutely unbelievable.Indigenous girl (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That's very unfair, the last time I looked at that article majority of it was cited. Yes, it is the most common tribe cited when a person is talking about their ancestry some are telling the truth, others have native blood but are misrepresenting the tribe, and others don't have any blood and talk about their Cherokee princess great great grandma. I'm going to look at the discussion tomorrow.Mcelite (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiracial Americans, Passing (racial identity), redface, and Plastic shaman might all be articles to keep tabs on, since there's some obvious brigading going on out there. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

The closing admin, @Scottywong: clearly looked at !votes by uninformed and brigading !voters; Scotty, I don't think your arguments indicate that you looked at the pre-disruption article history, or that you thoroughly read the AfD itself, including the diffs and links.

• 1. Scottywong wrote:

  the list itself is non-notable because that group or set of things hasn't been discussed in sources.

  As we said on talk, in the AfD, and in the summations that the vandals removed - the phenomena of non-Natives claiming to be Cherokee is widespread and well-documented. Scotty took the "delete" brigaders who removed the sources at their word that there weren't sources, after they'd deleted the WP:RS sources documenting all of this. And then apparently didn't bother to check the "keep"s sources and diffs. These include all the sources on Elizabeth Warren, on Cher, and many others on the list, like Jimmie Durham. And the phenomena itself, listed as external links on the article, and in the AfD: Going 'Native': Why Are Americans Hijacking Cherokee Identity? - VOA News and "Why Do So Many Americans Think They Have Cherokee Blood?" - Slate. The Cherokee Syndrome By Mary Annette Pember. Additionally, the list/article itself has been cited and written about in a WP:RS source: A little bit Cherokee? Elizabeth Warren not alone in ancestry claim May 26, 2012 | By Mitchell Landsberg; since you may not click through, I'll tell you now: the article pre-dates Warren's inclusion in the list. It cites others on the list.
• 2. Scottywong wrote:

  The introductory sentence of this article (as well as some of the keep voters here) implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry. In order to include people in such a list, we'd need sources that prove the falsehood of their claims, and those sources are not likely to exist in the vast majority of (if not all) cases.

  Everyone who is unenrolled was cited before the vandalism. Pre-vandalism version. I specifically note the closing admin namechecked one of the most disruptive editors. All Scotty needs to do is go back to the pre-vandalism version of the list, and read the diffs Marc Ironie provided for the disruptive editing of the very user Scotty namechecks in the closing. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is following me around Wiki trying to revert; perhaps in working with these articles, she/he will learn something about Native identity and enrollment. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

There are so many irregularities in the closing and even the cleanup after the closing. Scottywong (talk · contribs) removed about 20 instances of the list appearing on other pages but also mentions of Cherokee and Cherokee descent, even when citations were attached. Then reverted himself on those 20 so a different editor could remove the redlink within the next hour. This AfD and related edits are almost the only thing he's done after 2 months off WP. This appears to be a closing done in collusion with the delete crew, some of which were in obvious collusion. I'm slightly on the fence about whether a list is the best format specifying these people but I'm certain that the AfD and related concurrent edits to the list were coordinated off-wiki. I can't find a WP page on this specifically but it is an abuse of process in my opinion. I'll just end with this Deletion review link. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to disabuse you of the notion that anything was "coordinated off-wiki." I have had zero off-wiki communication regarding this matter with anyone. A retraction of this false allegation would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about those removals of the list appearing on other pages. It appears that a script that I use for closing AfD's has been updated recently, and it has a new feature that attempts to remove backlinks from deleted articles, but it behaved in an unintended way. I attempted to revert the incorrect edits that it made, hopefully I got them all. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:HOUNDING - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've decided this AfD is worth getting a deletion review. In preparation, I've left a message on User:Scottywong's talk page here, asking him to review his closing. This is a recommended first step before filing an actual request for review. I also linked/pointed at this discussion. I don't expect a response but, hey, it would be nice having my expectations proved wrong. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the best step. If the page can be restored it can easily be cleaned up by removing anyone that was in the list that doesn't have a citation. To my knowledge that list was created for people that have Cherokee blood, or people that claim it whether they were enrolled or not. (Not everyone that actually is Cherokee by blood can get enrolled) I think that's the best solution so the article doesn't face this kind of deletion again.Mcelite (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Not that everyone that actually is Cherokee by blood can get enrolled. And here you cut to the heart of the issue. Not being enrolled in a tribe is not defining of someone's ancestry or heritage. I shouldn't have to go into the issues of what "blood quantum" can ever even mean, or how tangled the webs of the human family tree get. An article entitled "List of people of Cherokee ancestry" who are verifiably described in reliable sources as being of Cherokee ancestry would not be objectionable (to me, I can't speak for other AfD !voters). That's a different article entirely than the one which was deleted, which contained people who reliable sources described as *not* being of Cherokee ancestry! "Self-described Cherokee ancestry" opens up huge sourcing and verifiability issues, creates an implied doubt in the title even if unwarranted in certain cases and sets the stage for arguments about whose claims are legitimate and whose aren't - which is not what lists are good for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Not that everyone that actually is Cherokee by blood can get enrolled." No one disagrees or has disagreed with that statement at any point. Descendants of John Rollin Ridge can't enroll; many descendants of people on the 1835 Henderson Roll and the 1848 Murray Roll can't enroll in the three tribes. However, almost none of these people Wikipedia articles and have made verifiable statements of their heritage. An exception would be Native people enrolled in other tribes who are of Cherokee descent but who do not identify as being Cherokee; they identify with the tribe with which they are enrolled. On a separate tack, we cannot prove on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) that Cher, Wayne Newton, or Elvis Presley have Cherokee descent, but we can prove that they have, at least at some point in their careers, identified as being of Cherokee descent. Yuchitown (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

And my point is that the latter is not a notable list; merely self-identifying as something creates a list which is overbroad and unuseful. It lumps together people who verifiably are described in reliable sources as having some Cherokee ancestry with people who verifiably are described in reliable sources as lying about their purported ancestry. We should rely on reliable sources to create a list only of the former. The latter would be a separate list, "List of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry," or something of the like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Our argument has consistently been that this phenomenon is notable with a great deal of literature published in the grey area of Cherokee identity. You do not have access to verifiable, published sources to create two lists (unenrolled people with actual Cherokee ancestry and people who claim Cherokee ancestry without having any). Lying is an inaccurate term because people may believe, sincerely if mistakenly, that they are telling the truth. On a parallel discussion, Rachel Dolezel believes with all her heart (as she has published) that she is Black. Yuchitown (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

If, as you say, there are not reliable sources sufficient to create these lists, then we simply can't create them and shouldn't have them. Creating an overbroad mish-mash list is not a good solution to not having sufficient sources for two separate lists. We don't list Dolezal in any of our Lists of African Americans because reliable sources don't describe her as African American. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying you cannot create two distinct lists of people who identify as being of Cherokee descent who have Cherokee ancestry and who who identify but do not have Cherokee ancestry. We can have a sourced, verified list of people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent. I'm writely as clearly and explicitly as humanly possible. Rachel Dolezal would not be on a List of African Americans; likewise, Ward Churchill would not be on the list of notable members of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, a separate topic. Yuchitown (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

And I'm saying that's not a valid list, any more than we would have a List of self-identified African Americans. Either reliable sources identify someone as African American, in which case we include them in such lists, or they don't, in which case we don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Read up on the subject. Self-identifying as Cherokee (as opposed to any other group) is a widely known, published about phenomenon. Users have provided you with numerous links over the last week in which to read further. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

(After edit conflict) And how do you prove that someone has falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry? Short of a confession of lying by the person in question, the best you can say is that the claim is unverified. My grandmother had a 'family history' (two hand-written pages) that indicated that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. The geneaology enthusiasts in my family have been unable to verify that (although they have verified that a collateral ancestor [putative brother-in-law of that Cherokee woman] did marry a Choctaw). Many families with deep roots in the southeastern US have traditions about Native American ancestors. That such traditions cannot be verified today does not mean that they are not true. Whether people should be claiming such heritage when the ancestor was many generations in the past, is another question. It is comparable to a man I knew who claimed to be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. So what? I do know that, whether or not I have a distant Cherokee ancestor, it doesn't show in my DNA, and is not part of my identity. - Donald Albury 18:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"And how do you prove that someone has falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry?" IRL it's easy as hell to do, because family stories fall apart so quickly and specifically Cherokee history is so thoroughly documented (a Spanish-American descendant of an Apache would be much more likely and more difficult to research). If you can't identify/name/document the Cherokee ancestor, it is most likely because they are not in fact Cherokee. But this material wouldn't be published because few people are going to openly admit their family stories are wrong or people don't want to publish anything potentially conflicting a claim by a beloved celebrity. Usually the claims get quietly dropped over time. Again, *lying* is seldom an accurate term. Most people are just mistaken or, in the case of Jimmie Durham whose lack of Cherokee ancestry has been proven and published, he is in denial and unlikely to change his views. Like Dolezal, Durham thoroughly believes his own story. Yuchitown (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

It's not our job to "prove" anything, merely to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources generally describe someone's claim as false, we can and should state facts as facts, not opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

IRL = "In real life", as in off wiki. Please stop suggesting other users are not versed in and compliant with basic wiki standards. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

I would support the article being restored, cleaned, and it being renamed List of people of Cherokee ancestry to avoid anymore controversy. Yuchitown I want you to remember that everyone in the Cherokee nation wasn't documented nor were those that were documented correctly documented. That is why we have issues like the 5 Dollar Indian because you had white people that took advantage of the census process, and had zero native blood. So yes it will be harder to document people with Cherokee ancestry, and documenting was more accurate when they started with tribes like the Navajo because policies "improved" and their history was different. That's why we can't say everyone that can't find a documented ancestor is a liar. Now if they start off with my great great grandma was a Cherokee princess which is an unfortunate thing some white people will say then yes either they're lying about their ancestry, or it's a high probability they are not of Cherokee descent.Mcelite (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Any list title should be factually, so List of people of Cherokee ancestry not be accurate, since many that self-identify as being of Cherokee descent, do not in fact have that ancestry. What is verifiable, notable and factually accurate is that notable individuals have self-identified as being of Cherokee descent. While each tribe's rolls are distinct the Five Tribes' Dawes rolls process (not a census) was a longstanding, multiyear process that was contested in courts (by US and tribal) and cross-referenced (neighbors and relatives). Kent Carter's The Dawes Commission and the Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893-1914 is a good source on the subject. While Dawes Allotment was not 100% accurate, I would challenge anyone to find an enrolled Cherokee Nation tribal member with no Native ancestry that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Navajo rolls were first taken in 1885, so predate the Dawes Rolls. Many New Mexicans have undocumented Navajo, Ute, and Apache descent (and can't prove it) due to the Spanish Indian slave trade of the 15th–18th centuries; they became Genízaros. A good source on that is Román A. Gutiérrez's essay, "Indian Slavery and the Birth of the Genízaros" in White Shell Water Place (Sunstone Press, 2010). Cherokees have had rolls (conducted by outsiders and themselves) since the late 18th century; they are the most documented group in the United States. As I've pointed out twice before, "lying" is an inaccurate and inappropriate term for this discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

NorthBySouthBaranof, the "claim" of Cherokee ancestry is not a self-proving fact. Being Cherokee, both historically and currently, is a matter of sovereign tribal definition. If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s). Constructed identity is not the same as genealogical fact or proof. That is the whole point of the list. In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned. Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable. I've also noted conflation of reliable with verifiable sources on this issue. While the two are usually closely associated, they are not the same thing. This is particularly true of claims of Cherokee identity and heritage when there isn't even a bare minimum of verification, only the bald claim itself. This is not some semantic difference between the two policies but goes to the heart of why they are separate policies. Historical Cherokee genealogy is extremely well-documented, particularly from the Trail of Tears period forward, so claiming Cherokee ancestry is indeed verifiable without violating No Original Research. As to my point above about possible coordination between some of the "delete" editors on the AfD, please note I did not provide specific names. I'm holding onto the evidence for the deletion review. It will be up to the review to determine whether the basis is sound or better suited to a different WP forum/venue for determination. As for your particular bias in the matter, you've spoken of it more than once. It's also abundantly clear that you are engaging in hounding some participants in the AfD as well as re-arguing it on other talk pages such as here. Of course, you're free to do so but the AfD is closed. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As you should know, "claim" is a word we clearly avoid on Wikipedia. When someone states that they have Cherokee ancestry, our default position is not to doubt or question their statement, as you appear to be suggesting we must. Instead, we rely upon what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say that someone has Cherokee ancestry, that's what our article should say. Conversely, if reliable sources say that someone has falsely stated that they have Cherokee ancestry, that's what our article should say. If reliable sources are silent on the matter, we should simply report the person's statement and move on. "Tribal sovereignty" does not exist on Wikipedia — tribes have no special powers to determine whether a person is or is not of a particular ancestry (as distinct from citizenship which they are of course entitled to determine), and I'm surprised that an administrator would believe otherwise.

Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable. It is knowable and verifiable only if there are reliable secondary sources which exist to verify it for each individual case - a reliable secondary source which says "John Doe does not have Cherokee ancestry," for example. If there aren't such sources, we can neither know or verify it. The prohibition on original research is foundational to our work.

If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s). That's not up to us to ask, and it suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works.

In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned. That is unfortunate, but we are not here to right great wrongs and we are not here to investigate whether or not someone's statement of their ancestry is accurate. We certainly may not make "demands" of biographical subjects who may or may not have ever asked to be included on Wikipedia. Our mission is to write an Internet-based free-content encyclopedia based upon what is verifiable in reliable secondary sources — not to create opportunities to confront or interrogate people an editor believes is being untruthful. I would suggest that if you do take this to DRV, your commentary above serves as ample evidence that you are attempting to use Wikipedia to enforce and promote your particular POV upon biographical subjects. There are no other ethnicity categories or lists on the encyclopedia which attempt to segregate purportedly "self-identified" people based on some sort of default skeptic-demand for some sort of "proof" of their ethnicity or ancestry because of a belief that most such people are untruthful. That's just not how these lists and categories should work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no other circumstances that precisely replicate the issues around Native American citizenship and ancestry. Here, the verifiable facts are that a) the person on the list has claimed Cherokee ancestry, and b) the person on the list does not have Cherokee citizenship. Since Wikipedia does not support original research, we can't separate such people into i) liars and ii) truthtellers. The list of self-identified Cherokees was an elegant way around this dilemme, created by the (artificial) conflict between "Cherokee" as national/political affiliation and "Cherokee" as ethnicity. The list should not have been deleted. Vizjim (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Native Americans of the United States appears to be just fine without the "self-identified" qualifier. So do List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry, List of Native American actors, List of Native American politicians, etc. There is a neat discussion at the top of each of those lists about the nuances of what "Native American" means. But the lists don't immediately begin on a skeptical footing by using the title to call into question whether or not any given person on the list is telling the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That's precisely because they are only about the ethnicity "Native American", whereas "Cherokee" is a matter of citizenship not ethnicity. You are also not taking into account the specific dynamics of claims to Cherokee ancestry and their effects on the Cherokee nation as laid out in the many articles Yuchitown links above. Vizjim (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The people in question are explicitly not stating that they have citizenship, only ancestry. If there's too many complexities to disconnect Cherokee ancestry from Cherokee citizenship, then I agree that we shouldn't have a list discussing "Cherokee ancestry" at all, only a list of citizens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no complexities here. There is Cherokee ancestry. There is Cherokee citizenship. There can be a list of Cherokee citizens. There can be a list of people who have identified themselves as having Cherokee ancestry that does not satisfy the criteria for citizenship. Such a list does not need to imply dishonesty, and can include people like Diane Glancy, Thomas King, Betty Louise Bell whose Cherokee identity is foundational to popular interest in them, as well as people like Johnny Depp whose Cherokee ancestry was used as the basis for his casting in The Lone Ranger. This is something that is often discussed and is therefore encyclopedic. Vizjim (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the best solution is to recreate the list and have it as List of people with Cherokee ancestry trying to create 2 lists one for Cherokee ancestry and one for Cherokee citizens is pushing it. In my viewpoint that is recreating a swing at people that claim Cherokee blood, but are not enrolled and there are numerous reasons why people can't get enrolled (I'm not listing all the reasons). Like NorthBySouthBaranof said our job is to rely on reliable resources not trying to do original research to try to disprove or prove that a person is Cherokee which in it itself has limitations especially b/c again the Dawes Commission had a lot of serious issues even though the Cherokee are the most documented tribe there were still serious issues including the "5 dollar Indians" which were white people that lied and managed to get put on the rolls to get land, and had zero Native American blood. I also understand that there is a difference between being Cherokee by blood and being a Cherokee citizen, but again that creates the issue of excluding people that are Cherokee by blood just b/c they're not a citizen of the tribe. We can't be skeptical of everyone that claims Cherokee ancestry. Again I think the best solution is for the list to just be recreated as List of people with Cherokee ancestry, make sure it is cleaned (only articles with reliable resources should be on the list), and do our best to update it as time goes on.Mcelite (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we need to follow reliable sources and shouldn't be trying to prove or disprove ancestry. Although tribes have the authority to decide who is and isn't a citizen, they do not have a monopoly on genealogy. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RM: Oglala Lakota

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Oglala Lakota, and your input would be welcome. oncamera 02:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of term "Native American" at Pequots

There's a dispute at Talk:Pequots about whether "Native American" is an acceptable term or whether "American Indian" should be used instead. Knowledgeable editors are asked to weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested Move: Pequots

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Pequots, and your input would be welcome. oncamera 01:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya (2nd nomination)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya (2nd nomination). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Charlotte Hallmark for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlotte Hallmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hallmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Request for Comment regarding Adrienne Keene's official site/blog Native Appropriations

Specifically as to cultural appropriation and racism re the guys in Order of the Arrow: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Keene. Could also use more eyes on the article and help sourcing. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help sourcing a negative on Essiac

I need a better source to debunk the fakelore, "An old Ojibwe Medicine Man came up with this herbal remedy" - that consists of herbs that are not indigenous to the Americas - on Essiac. Unfortunately, the site we've been using to source it looks crappy, with an out of date style and ugly background and old-style html coding, so another editor wants to keep it out. I agree it's not an ideal source, but I think, due to the fakelore around this, it's better to have a WP:V source and leave the content in, than not mention it at all. Best would be to find a better source. Would appreciate some help with this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a list of Ethnobotany of the Ojibwe Indians and I looked for the plants listed and I believe only burdock and slippery elm was included in the list. This could be a possible reliable source noting those other herbal ingredients weren't traditional medicines of Ojibwe people. Also, this document Culturally Important Plants of the Lakota has similar results. Considering these two tribes are major groups, I would find it hard to believe that if this "Essiac" was real traditional medicine, it wouldn't be mentioned by either group. Those may be helpful to you. oncamera 20:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks for this! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Request new project section for notable Native American scientists

Caveat: I am a new Wikipedian climbing a learning curve and starting class/community project at the University of Alaska, which will kick off with a Wikipedia edit-a-thon. (I hope I am posting on this talk page appropriately and respectfully, in the right place). Our campus/community project is titled Indigenize Science, and I would like to suggest and encourage the Indigenous peoples of North America project to open up a category or section on the project page that would invite articles on notable Native American scientists, or Native Science Organizations and Collaborative Projects. I see a category for politicians, and I notice that a search for Native American scientists in Wikipedia yields few results. Thank you for considering. JECason (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi JECason. There is a article on American Indian Science and Engineering Society that could use some work, it can and should be expanded on if you have the inclination. The AISES website would be a great resource along with https://www.sacnas.org/what-we-do/native-american-programs/Indigenous girl (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. There is one person in our group working on that one, hoping to expand out to articles of the founders who do not yet have an article. I'll encourage additional input on the organization as well.JECason (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You might want to include the Gregory Cajete article, which could use a lot of expansion. Vizjim (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America

Discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America. Maybe we can figure out what to do about these. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Problematic Language Statuses

Hello everyone, I was wondering if I could get your input on something. I reside in Chumash lands and the languages spoken here are in various stages of revitalization and use, but I've noticed that they are described as "extinct" in their respective Wikipedia articles. While I understand that this is an academic definition of sorts, the definition seems to be neither particularly well agreed-upon nor very descriptive of on-the-ground realities. In the interest of more accurately reflecting the current states of these languages do you think it be appropriate to make use of Ethnologue's language status terms (ex. dormant/reawakening)? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I updated the Chumash article noting the language reclamation school that began in 2010 and removed some of the inaccurate text. If there are reclamation programs established I feel they should be noted as opposed to using dominant culture or academic vernacular.Indigenous girl (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that language statuses be omitted entirely and the gap filled by a sourced description of the current state of the language? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps mention that some sources have classified the language as "extinct", and then give a sourced description of the current status of speakers, and of efforts to preserve and teach the language. That may help deter editors trying to add definitive statements that the language is "extinct". - Donald Albury 22:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Poor representation of lived realities in scholarship is in a (narrow) way part of the history of these topics so that sounds like an appropriate middle ground. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Squaw (disambiguation)

See what I put on talk. Another mess shot out of AfC. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I just made some adjustments in Squaw Creek, including removing a few waterways that are not mentioned anywhere else in WP. I think that as a general principal we should not have listings in DABs for nothing can be found in WP, and that particular DAB seems like a good place to start. - Donald Albury 18:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Indigenous sport

HI - I've been working to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report call to action#87: “We call upon all levels of government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, sports halls of fame, and other relevant organizations, to provide public education that tells the national story of Aboriginal athletes in history.” (TRC, 2015, 336). This has entailed organizing, editing and/or creating entries on elite Canadian Indigenous athletes, and aspects of the Indigenous sport system in Canada. I was pleased to see that there is a WikiProject specific to Indigenous peoples of North America. I look forward to seeing if there are ways that our efforts, specific to Canadian Indigenous sport, can connect with this project, and to gain insights on ways we can respond to concerns by Wikipedia editors that there is not sufficient notability or public sources for some of our draft entries, even thought these individuals were considered notable within Indigenous circles (e.g., by winning the Tom Longboat award as the best athlete in Canada that year). You can see our work in three categories: First Nations sportspeople, Métis sportspeople, and Canadian Inuit sportspeople. We have also connected elements of the Indigenous sport system to these categories - our intention is to make this information easily located so that it can inform the public (e.g., students in school learning about Indigenous peoples in Canada) about the wide variety of Indigenous athletes and sports that make up their participation in Canadian sport.We are also committed to ensuring that call to action #87 continues to be addressed. Vicky Paraschak (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

John Smelcer AfD

You are invited to comment on the AfD discussion regarding John Smelcer[6]. Knowledgeable editors are also invited to improve the John Smelcer article. Smelcer is a tribal citizen enrolled at Tazlina, Alaska and an Ahtna, Incorporated shareholder, which is why this might be of interest to project members, though most of his other claims are heavily disputed. Vizjim (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous intellectual property

Could use more eyes. Relates to UNDRIP, NARF, and page blanking. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Vizjim (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft article on Indian Lutheran Ministries (former LAMP)

Thought I should post this wikilink in case any are interested: Draft:Lutheran Indian Ministries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Black Indians

As we purge people with unreferenced or dubious claims from the list of self-identified African and Native descent, in the interest of diversity and inclusion, I think it's important to prioritize adding articles and information about actual Native Americans of African descent. To that end, I created a new article for Natalie Ball, Klamath/Modoc interdisciplinary artist. Yuchitown (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thank you for this. We're also removing people who are definitely Indian from the unsourced/dubious list, and moving them to Notable "Black" Indians I'd also encourage people to add notable Natives who also have African heritage there - these are the people who are recognized as Native by the tribes that claim them. Often they'll already be well-cited as Native in their articles, and will probably also be listed as notable members on their tribe's article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

How should the people in Category:Black Seminoles be incorporated in this? - Donald Albury 20:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They should be included in the Black Indians cat if they are shown to be Black Seminole and not self-identified as such. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Of the seven people in the category, five were active in the 19th century, and another is Billy Bowlegs III, born in the late 19th century to a half-black, half-seminole mother who lived in a camp of the Snake clan (and belonged to the Little Black Snake clan, created for her family) and a black father. The one who has a weak claim is Mabel_Fairbanks. Another possibility is Jim Jumper, who doesn't have a biographical article, but is the namesake for the Jim Jumper massacre. - Donald Albury 21:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to check them individually right now, but, as IG said, if the community accepted them as Seminole, BQ is irrelevant, they are Seminole. If you want to list them at Black Indians, that's fine, too. If they didn't live with a tribe and only have heritage - documented heritage - they are descendants. For groups that don't have a descendants category (and don't forget to look under "American people of X descent", I always forget the "American" part), you can create a new cat or just put them under general Native descendants. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia essay on Indigenous identity

As editors on this page will be only too aware, too much of your time is taken up in debates around people whose claims to Indigenous identity don't pass the usual standard of citizenship in or affiliation to a specific Nation. Nobody contributing to this project is likely to need the background to these debates hashing out here.

I would like to suggest that the active editors on this wikiproject might like to consider creating an essay on the topic of how claims to Indigenous identity should be assessed. (Such an essay should be written by Indigenous editors, hence why I am suggesting it rather than writing it myself). Though it's unlikely that the community would take this up as a formal guideline, and though an essay holds no definite authority in WP, it would still be useful to have a shortcut that would direct newcomers to these debates to something written specifically to aid Wikipedia editors, rather than to encyclopedia articles such as Blood quantum laws, Tribal sovereignty in the United States, etc.Vizjim (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I have no idea how to start a internal Wikipedia essay. However, protocols for establishining Indigenous identity shift from country to country. Even if you created an essay specifically for the United States, Indigenous identity is established differently for members of Alaska Native corporations, American Indian tribes in the lower 48, Native Hawaiians, Indigenous peoples in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other US territories, and Indigenous peoples of the Americas from other countries immigrating to the United States (for instance, Indigenous Canadians have rights spelled out in the Jay Treaty, while Indigenous peoples of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc. have no similar treaties). Yuchitown (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Here's a first pass at a first section - User talk:Vizjim/Indigenous American identity. Editors from this project are invited to collaborate by directly editing it. At CorbieVreccan's suggestion I have changed the name from my original title of "The Elizabeth Warren Principle," but many WP essays have semi-humorous titles so suggestions for a new title also welcome. Vizjim (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, glad you changed the title. Any questioning of Warren's background is immediately seen as a rightwing attack. No need to drag that crap into the conversation. Yuchitown (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Well, we could always have a humorous subtitle. Such as the perennial, "No, your favorite celebrity's great-grandmother was not a Cherokee Princess. Or Blackfoot. Or Comanche." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup help needed on spamming. Category:21st-century Native Americans

IPs and others look to be basically adding everyone they've ever suspected has heritage or "looks Native" to: Category:21st-century Native Americans. Maybe the whole cat should be deleted. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned it up. I think I got all, or most, of the non-Natives and vague descendants out of the category, but if folks could watchlist these pages, it would help. I'm a bit resistant to the category as it overlaps so many others, and implies those not in the category are... what? Extinct? Clearly those who were doing well-intentioned additions thought that descendants raised outside of community and nons with blood myths are "modern Natives". So, I guess we either boycott the cats and delete them, or follow an enrollment standard and add it to pages of actual Natives. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good concerns. I feel that the matter of indigenous identity is one which has always been very complex, and not at all easily reduced down to a category box. I think it would be very difficult to moderate use of this category without acting in some respect as the "blood quantum" police, and even then the category would still convey little to no information without a lengthy discussion tagged on to provide reasoning and context. I respect the intention of the category's creator, who no doubt imagined it would be useful as a cultural classifier, but it is highly problematic in its vagueness and implications (whether these are intended or not). Seeing as it does not constitute either an academically rigorous classification or one that contributes to the reader's understanding, I would personally support the boycott/removal of these tags. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikipedians are making no judgements about BQ; we are going with what the tribes and the reliables sources from the tribes say. This is what I just posted on the talk of someone who has been reverting some of these: Descendants are different from enrolled people. Different category. If they're listed as a member of their Nation, they go in that cat, not "Native descendants." If they're ALSO a descendant of another particular Nation, they go in that particular Nation's descendants cat. Take it to talk at the Wikiproject if this is unclear. Why are you reverting without discussion? Also, the people who are claiming heritage and full Native status need to have sources. We don't list people who just make claims, unless it's in one of the few "claims of Cherokee heritage" cats that exist. They have to be claimed back, by RS sources, to be put in full Native cats. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The category itself is very vague I didn't take the time to look at who created it. If the person that created says it was meant for everyone who is native by blood I'll support it. I'm strictly for going by reliable sources regardless if their tribe is stated or if they are enrolled or are not able to be enrolled in the tribe/s they descend from. I also took the category as regarding anyone with Native blood period whether the tribe they descend from is stated or not largely because again the purpose of the category isn't stated. If we're going to be so strict on saying who belongs in the category then we should make up for those we exclude or simply include everyone that has a reliable source stating their heritage.Mcelite (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite, you're currently edit-warring on Lolo Jones to put her in these categories without any WP:RS sourcing. It doesn't matter what was intended in the creation, what matters is whether it fits appropriate legal and social criteria for how these things are defined in the real world and reliable sources. "Native by blood" is not a concept. Statments of self-identification in interviews are not WP:RS, especially if they don't name a tribe. As I just said on Lolo Jones, we have to read the sources. A sports bio that says the person mentioned "Native American" among a list of other ethnicities, but never named a tribe, means we can't check with the tribe to see if it's true. So it's not a WP:RS source for Native Identity. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Blood Quantum. The tribes/Nations set citizenship criteria. If someone is a citizen in the Nation, they are considered Native American / Indian. If they were raised in another culture, and only have distant ancestry, or if they in another way do not meet that Nation's enrollment criteria, they are considered "a descendant". It's in some cases a legal, and in other, a quasi-legal, term. As I said in the Wikiproject, it's not up to us as Wikipedians to determine someone's tribal status, but to respect what the tribes themselves say about who is and is not a citizen. It's just like we don't decide who is a citizen of a country - the country decides. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree excluding people from the category because they didn't mention the tribe they descend from. That's literally like expecting someone to tell everything in an interview or for a reliable source to tell everything. What if that individual doesn't communicate like that for instance if Ashton Locklear said in an interview yeah I'm part Native American, but didn't state her tribe does that really make her invalid? I'm sorry I completely understand tribal policy and how it fluctuates with each tribe, but this is being too strict. We're supposed to just stick to the sources not try to dig in deeper to try to proof or disproof plus not everyone is documented that is a fact. I think we're just being too strict on it if we only want to include people in the category that state their tribe fine, but who are we to determine how culturally connected someone is.Mcelite (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the criteria isn't up to us. It's up to the Nations. Are Wikipedians now going to decide that citizenship criteria for Canada, or France is "too strict" and put people in the Canadian and French citizen categories, too? No. We're here to document, not dictate. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Many tribes do not allow for dual enrollments, so there are people who could technically be of multiple tribes, but only one tribe can officially enroll them. Are they to be put into "descendants" of their non-enrolled tribes even if their CIB includes those tribes? Seems confusing. oncamera 03:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall if we've discussed this, and I don't think there's been consensus on it that I'm aware of. If someone is a full member of one Nation, but is documented to have heritage from another community, - say someone who lives in one parent's community, but is also documented as participating in the other parent's community events, or both parents are notable, etc - I've added them to the heritage category for the other Nation. This is why I consider it important that the "heritage from Nation" categories be people who actually have sourced heritage. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS Sources for Native Identity

The burden for sourcing Native identity is on those who write an article. We are under no obligation to put people in categories, or include claims, if they are not sourced to WP:RS standards. It's not that hard to check the sources: The sources need to come from the tribe/Nation the person claims. Remember, It's not what they claim; it's who claims them. Say, an article from the tribal newspaper about how the person was honored for an achievement. A news article of any sort about tribal members, from the official tribal sources. The tribes have websites and publications and frequently write about their notable citizens. That's why we don't have to rely on vague statements of self-identity.

A pan-Indian source may or may not be accurate, depending on the site, and the author. Some check out the people they are writing about, others do not. Sometimes there needs to be a discussion on talk, or here, about the particular source. We've had that happen in cases where sites have undergone changes in ownership, staff writers, and editorial controls (or lack thereof), or when writers have written about cultures they're not part of. Also, there are some sites out there that claim to be Native-authored but are not, or that have had their status in this department change over time. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is too strict I know very well that there is a difference between being a citizen and being a descendent. Also relying on the tribe/Nation to claim someone isn't always reliable in terms of providing us with a source. To my knowledge I don't believe the Lumbee have claimed Ashton Locklear on their website it's other WP:RS like the Olympic committee that mentioned that she's an enrolled member of the tribe not the Lumbee themselves stating Ashton is Lumbee.Mcelite (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mcelite here. Tribes/Nations decide who is a citizen, but they don't keep track of every person who has Native ancestry. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)