Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Nomination of List of honorary Native Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of honorary Native Americans 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 honorary Native Americans until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

New Article Spelling

I'd like to see a stub article about this:

Wonchala - A Lakota idea that: We're thrown into a world of forces that we can't control, of powers that are much greater than us, and that we have this awareness that we're just small little humans beings, with so little influence on what's going on around us — when we start from there we then realise the it's up to us to make meaning and purpose out of this crazy world, to make something happen and create a story that is heroic, and takes the chaos into which we're throne and turns it into something beautiful, something that reduces suffering, something that crates pattern and order, something that we're proud to be apart of.

I think the spelling of "Wonchala" needs correcting? I tried searching online for the right spelling, though couldn't find anything. Does anyone know what the correct spelling is?

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 Unfortunately, the site we've been using to source it looks crappy, with an out of date style and ugly background and old-style html coding, so another editor wants to keep it out.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)

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)Template:Z48

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)

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)

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)

Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent

OK, we've gone back and forth on these a couple times (some past discussion) and I'm hoping for a bit more clarity. This is the current description, but I don't recall there being consensus for it, or for the criteria that seems to be currently applied:

This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who self-identify as being of Native American ethnic descent but do not belong to a Native American tribe.

I don't think we should put people who only have vague claims of distant heritage, and/or blood myths, in this category. I think to do so does a disservice to the people who are part of the community but simply do not meet enrollment criteria. Enrollment criteria varies widely between Nations, from very loose to very strict. Right now this cat is being used as a dumping ground for people that everyone knows are fantasists and false claimants. Worse, if you look at the section above, I just had to do a ton of cleanup on people from this cat being moved into the "descendants" and "21st Century Natives" category, when there is zero RS sourcing that they are even descendants. Zero. So, clearly we need criteria here.

I am proposing there needs to be some degree of sourcing to put people in this category. At the least, a Nation and ancestors named. Something more credible than, "Yeah, I'm (list of ethnicities) and Native American and (continued list of ethnicities)." I realize Wikipedians who think Native identity is racial rather than based in citizenship may not understand why this matters. But I'm hoping that the Wikipedians here who understand these issues will get why I'm bringing this up. There are legal issues that impact this, and that are impacted by this. And I'd like to have our cats sorted so we're in harmony with the laws, rather than pop culture "sources" and misconceptions about Blood Quantum etc. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

These categories are specifically a place to put people who "claim" (that's verifiable that they have made the claim.) Barely anyone with a Wikipedia article has documented tribal ancestry but isn't eligible to enroll (the only one I can think of right now is Rose B. Simpson). Plus, what person has documented Native ancestry but doesn't know what tribe? If you remove this category or remove the vague claimants from this category, then it's just nonstop edit-warring with uninformed editors to keep them out of actual Native categories. Yuchitown (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

That may be true for the CNO types, but not the tribes that have much stricter enrollment criteria. I do agree strongly that, if they don't know the tribe/Nation, it's a blood myth. If this is the slush pile for blood myths, the name of the cat can't imply the claims are true. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change of Category to harmonize with the description to include some form of the words:

"self-identified"

. This would solve the problem of us having to police and research the claims.

1. American People who claim Native American descent
2. American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent

• Support - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - oncamera 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Indigenous girl (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Mark Ironie (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mcelite (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

1. American People who self-identify as having Native American heritage
2. American People who self-identify as Native American descendants

Comments

• I prefer 1. It's more concise; but since we're supposed to avoid "loaded" terms (see WP:CLAIM), perhaps the second is better. 4 is also concise but might not be as clear to to the average reader. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the category was fitting for anyone that has Native American heritage that is not "Full Blood" and it was cited through a WP:RS. We can't say oh they're claiming Native American heritage but they're not specifying the tribes so they must be lying or going by myth. That's taking things to a level of personal opinion which stands in the way of WP:NPOV and essentially saying if we can't trace it then they don't have it regardless if a WP:RS states that they have Native American heritage. That's basically going into the area of WP:OR by saying that's too vague they can't possibly be connected to a tribe/s or it's a family myth. NOT everyone that has Native American ancestry can go back to documentation that is a fact, and it is unfair to pull in opinion of well their statements or the WP:RS statement is irrelevant b/c we can't trace them back to a Roll or a Census. We don't treat other races in the same manner, and we certainly shouldn't get into the dangerous habit of being overly critical because an individual doesn't state the tribe/s they descend from.Mcelite (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As I've said above, and on your talk page, this has nothing to do with Blood Quantum. It is solely about citizenship, and the lack of RS sources to prove their citizenship or heritage. Just as no Wikipedian can decide who is a citizen of France, Germany, or the US, no Wikipedian can decide who is a citizen of an Indigenous Nation. Different Nations set their own citizenship criteria. We do not decide, we only document. WP:RS sources for citizenship are the Nations themselves, not self-identification, not anyone else's ideas of Blood Quantum. This category has never been about BQ. That is only your opinion. The category is described as self-identified, so the category name should be in accord and state, self-identified. You are also making the mistaking of racializing this, when it's about citizenship. I realize that's a common mistake, but we're trying to do cleanup here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite I have status but I am not a "Full Blood". I am a member of my Nation fully even though my ancestry is not fully indigenous to the Americas. My "Full Blood" relatives are no more members of my Nation than I am and implying that an individual with status that is not a "Full Blood" is a desscendant plays into blood quantum bs. My grandchildren are recognized by the community but do not have status. They know their relatives, ancestors and are culturally immersed. They are descendants and have heritage. This is how community sees these relationships. And individual who has proven ancestry but no cultural connection is still a descendant. People who claim to be Native American or First Nations without any knowledge of which Nation they supposedly descend from are almost always running on blood myths. The only exception is those that were adopted out. Nations decide who their relatives are whether is it by enrollment or decendancy. There is boh legal and cultural criteria that should be respected. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yipes, so many typos! I just got in from a very long road trip, my apologies! Indigenous girl (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I am also enrolled in my tribe and I don't take it for granted. I'm fortunate that my family stuck around long enough in a specific area to be documented others don't have that privilege. I want to first apologize if I seemed upset I hate writing b/c it fails to convey the emotion that is there. If we want to make a divide on citizenship and heritage fine. If that's what's being proposed but again as my previous statements we can't say who belongs and who doesn't because they're not specific about their tribe. If we want to keep people like Deb Haaland out of American people of Native American descent because she's enrolled fine, but in agreement that we don't go into overkill mode and say yes this source is good for saying this person is African American, Cuban, but Native American we can't include Native American regardless of what the WP:RS b/c we can't find their people on record which would be WP:OR. Again if we're going to set the bar for the category American people of Native American descent to this category will include ppl that have Native American heritage but they can't get enrolled in their tribe/s or we don't know if they are enrolled then fine. I will personally take out the category on Angel Goodrich's article b/c I'm pretty positive it is in her and she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.Mcelite (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are enrolled then you know that you are a citizen of your Nation, not a partial citizen if you have other ancestry. Again this is how this work. I am first and foremost a citizen of my Nation, not a half citizen because my other parent is indigenous to another part of the globe. A descendant is an individual without status who knows their ancestors but cannot enroll. It's very simple. Calling a member of a Nation less than that is utilizing colonial blood quantum politics. Angel Goodrich is not a descendant. She is an enrolled member of CNO. She is enrolled in her entirety. And because CNO doesn't even have BQ requirements it's incredibly offensive to enforce them on a citizen. Also, even if a family moved around often, if there were indigenous ancestors at some point in history they would have been enumerated or recorded. When it comes to listing ethnicity I prioritize my community and the community at large, respect culture and tradition and a tribe's right to determine who is and is not a member as well as the criteria of descendancy. Not everyone does and that's okay. You said, "Again if we're going to set the bar for the category American people of Native American descent to this category will include ppl that have Native American heritage but they can't get enrolled in their tribe/s or we don't know if they are enrolled then fine." It's not about setting a bar. A person who is a member of a Nation is fully a member of said Nation. It doesn't matter what their BQ is, period. It just doesn't. That is how citizenship works. I would like to think you know this. I think that it is important to have distinctive catagories. If an individual is enrolled then we should not devalue that. If a person has heritage but cannot enroll then we should not devalue that either. If an individual is making unsubstantiated claims then it is not on us to substantiate them but I suppose they should still have a category. Each category needs to be specific in it's description so that people are not devalued or we are not assigning value to an unsubstantiated claim. If I were to claim to be a citizen of another country but could not prove it the other country is not going to take me at my word. I would need to prove my citizenship. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a fair number of white Americans who honestly believe they have Native American ancestry, however little it might be. I am descended from Suki/Soucie/Susan/Sarah Robertson/Robinson, who is said in various family traditions to have been Cherokee/Choctaw/not otherwise specified Indian (the written account that my grandmother showed us stated that that her name was Suki and she was Cherokee). The details of the story seem to have drifted in the past two centuries. There are a lot of other people around who are also descended from her and her husband, James Townsend. From comments on the Internet, Suki/Soucie/Susan/Sarah had a white father, and was adopted and raised by his brother. She and James Townsend were married by 1815. Even if she had Native American ancestry, the last ancestor who was culturally Native American would have lived in the 18th century. As it happens, no one has found any documentation that she had any Native American ancestry, but at least some of her descendents still believe that she did. Personally, I thought it was a neat factoid when I first heard it in the 1970s, but I also realized that whatever Native American ancestry I might have was too small and remote to have any effect on my identity. And then the geneaologists in the family said they couldn't find any evidence that Suki was Cherokee. So, I am left with an unprovable possibility based on a family tradition that I might be 1/256th part or less Native American. That, and $5, will get me a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, some people do publicly claim Native American ancestry on such thin grounds. - Donald Albury 00:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

At Indigenous girl yes I do you're either a citizen or not. In the case of BQ specifically with Deb Haaland's case she was added to the category American people of Native American descent because her father is white. She was not placed in the category to diminish her Pueblo identity also there was no clear line made that people who are enrolled shouldn't be placed into the category. I was just basing the category strictly on blood not if the individual was enrolled or not I interpreted it as she is Pueblo by blood period and not full blood. Now again if we're going to keep people who are enrolled in a tribe/s out of the category then okay I have no problem with that. I'm firmly against blood politics it's done nothing but damage the tribes. Also you have to remember things at certain time periods were not recorded properly especially when you're dealing with people whom are descendants of the Eastern, Southeastern, and Midwest tribes it gets extremely messy especially with laws put into play that did paper genocide and only wanted to acknowledge colored or white. The Californian tribes will have far better records than let's say the Narragansett, and that's just b/c the history is different. We don't even know how many Native Americans were actually slaves through the 1600s to 1800s because the records were trash. I do apologize if it seemed like I was pulling in blood politics into this I'm very against it. I have friends that can't get enrolled b/c of blood politics or bad records but I respect them as descendants of the tribe. No they're not citizens but they are native by blood.Mcelite (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Lots going on here, so we should keep it simple: First, the category needs to be renamed so it's clear why people are added into it. It's not for enrolled citizens of tribes with a non-enrolled parent etc. It's for Americans who claim Native American descent, but aren't enrolled (for whatever valid or invalid reason). Therefore, 2 is my prefered renaming of the category. There's lots of discussion here about enrollment issues due to BQ, but none of us are the enrollment department of a tribe; therefore it's not something for us to decide how to differentiate from people with true/false claims of Native heritage. Enrollment/citizenship is a consistent standard to go by. oncamera 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

French and German nationality keep being mentioned here as analogous to Native tribal citizenship. So it's worth noting that there are categories for Category:American people of French descent, etc. These have no more rigorous standards than "this person has at one point claimed to be of French descent."Vizjim (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever course of action is selected I think it would be a very good thing to include a concise paragraph explaining the criteria for the category and why those have been selected as the most educational criteria.Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury Thank you for getting it :) Mcelite, regardless of where a Nation is located regionally there is still documentation. The Cherokee are the most documented Peoples in Indian Country. The Narragansetts whom you use as an example are well documented. There are records of contact, enumeration and later tribal rolls. The Narragansetts decide who is and isn't Narragansett according to this documentation. In Massachusetts there are records of enumeration as well as historical documentation beginning with first contact through to current day. The Massachusetts Nations decide who is and isn't a member of their communities. The midwest Nations have enumeration records as well as very detailed records from the Catholic church. It was actually a heck of a lot more difficult than people think to escape enumeration and record keeping. If a family left community their relatives and friends would include them in enumeration. With regard to your friends, if they have a connection to their respective community (their community claims them irregardless of enrollment) then that is one thing. If they are making claims without basis of facts then it's problematic and colonizing. Also, making a decision that goes against the community at large and/or a specific Nation and listing them as descendants even though they are not is misleading at best and absolutely plays into BQ politics. It doesn't matter who your parents are/were. If you are a member of your Nation you are a citizen and not a descendant. I'm with camera and Pliny the Elderberry. We need something very concise as a title with a detailed description. I think #2 is probably best with a well thought out explanation to alleviate any misunderstanding. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's one idea: change the name to one of the above suggestions (for what it's worth I would also support American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent), but then make that purely an organizational category, with a note that "Native American" is not generally a valid category in issues of descent. Then create sub-categories in that category for each tribal nation as needed. So you would have, for instance, American people who self-identify as being of Ojibwe descent, which would cover such people as Margaret Noodin. You also can that way insist on tribal affiliation outside of citizenship, without getting into a race vs citizenship confusion that is as someone above notes not understood by many editors. Each sub-cat could have an introduction para stating that it is for individuals who have claimed descent from the specific tribe without being citizens of the nation. Vizjim (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Except Margaret doesn't self-identify. She's recognized and accepted by the community as being Nish. She has directly collaborated with people like Howard Kimewan, a highly respected Traditions Keeper from Wikwemikong. This is why I feel we need three catagories. She, to the best of my knowledge, is not enrolled/status however she is without a doubt accepted by the Anishinaabe community in the US and Canada. With regard to your previous statement,"French and German nationality keep being mentioned here as analogous to Native tribal citizenship. So it's worth noting that there are categories for Category:American people of French descent, etc. These have no more rigorous standards than "this person has at one point claimed to be of French descent." the problem is when people simply use Native American. That is like an individual stating they are of European or North American descent. It's extraordinarily vague and, at least within community, very silly. I realize we are not writing for people within community alone however I would rather see the dominant culture educated rather than continuously citing inaccurate and embarrassing information in their over generalization. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Three categories as in: 1. Citizen 2. Noncitizen of specified nation but "recognized by community" (how would that work, BTW? Would John Smelcer pass the test?) 3. Noncitizen and not recognized by community? And would the subcategorization I mention not be sufficient to prevent the catch all "Native American descent" claim?

I'm with User_Talk:Oncamera and User:Pliny the Elderberry the summary must be present in the category to avoid this type of vagueness and confusion again. I don't believe the name needs to be changed otherwise we're taking a step in the direction of being speculative which is why the category People that self-identify as Cherokee was deleted b/c it turned into a category that was taking a subliminal swing at individuals b/c they weren't enrolled in the Cherokee Nation. We don't hold the same standard of including self-identify to other categories such as American people of French descent or American people of Cuban descent therefore we shouldn't include self-identify for this one.

Indigenous girl yes the Cherokee are the most documented by far can't argue that but again that brings into the issue that everyone wasn't documented and we know that's a fact. There's also the issue of individuals no being accurately documented and of course the $5 Indian (white ppl that paid to get on rolls and censuses to gain land). We can't paint everyone with the same brush b/c everything wasn't documented or records were manipulated it's a complicated history especially for specific tribes. I say keep the same name but make sure the summary is absolutely clear as to who belongs in the category so yes a cleanup will have to be done to make sure anyone who is enrolled is not in the category.Mcelite (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel we need three categories. One for people who are Native American - who are members of their Nation, one for actual descendants like Margaret Noodin who may not be enrolled or have status but are obviously claimed by their respective communities and one for people like perhaps Smelcer who makes claims which are not backed up by community or people who simply claim Native American and no Nation. Smelcer has a lot to say on his various pages but these claims have not proven to be true. Mcelite if a family was not documented and chose to assimilate during the Dawes period or any other period for that matter their ancestors would have been enumerated. As far as $5 indians go, well, those families are now enrolled and it is what it is. If an individuals ancestry is previous to enumeration then they are very distantly connected to their communities. If nothing was done to connect with these communities for multiple generations then I don't really know what to say. Being indigenous isn't about self-declaration. It is about culture and community. If there is nothing at all to connect said person with any Nation then there is no way to know whether that individual claims are blood myths (which, more often than not they are) or based in reality. I do not feel that it is appropriate to be modern day indian agents granting indigeneity to nouveau $5 indians here on wikipedia or anywhere else. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

While I see us also considering creating some new sub-categories, I see a consensus for aligning the cat name with the cat description, and that #2 is the consistent choice. So I'm going to start enumerating the supports to make it clear to new readers. I'll start with adding myself, and encourage others to do their own. If folks don't return to the discussion we'll eventually total based on the discussion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm for making sure it is clearly summarizing that American people of Native American descent is strictly for people who are not enrolled in their tribe/s or the tribe they descend from isn't known through the WP:RS. Will we also apply this to the category Native American sportspeople b/c that category also didn't have a summarization and people who were enrolled and people not enrolled are included in the category. Indigenous girl I respect and completely understand your viewpoint. You have to take into account every individual wasn't properly enumerated also there were laws and events that certainly negatively impacted the native community. Things like the Jim Crow laws, Segregation, and Racial Integrity Act heavily played a role in destroying cultural connections and forced assimilation. Therefore created generations that aren't culturally nor communally connected even losing information on what tribe/s they descend from. That's whole deep conversation in itself and I don't mind discussing it with you on my page I do enjoy listening to different viewpoints. Especially those that effect the communities.Mcelite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This semantic and grouping issue is sometimes difficult to parse. Once you take as a given Tribal sovereignty concerning decisions on citizenship, that make one pretty clear and definable category. I see that as a core group/circle by specific tribal citizenship. The group outside of that mostly falls to descendants and those who self-identify as "Native American". There are variants and crossovers with the last two groups but this seems like a workable breakdown of the cats. At this point, there are 5-6 editors in support, more or less, of American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent as covering the category. Mcelite seems to be the only consistent oppose. I'd say that's a consensus for the change. I'll try to get to implementing it later today or anyone else can start to change the cat on articles. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If this name change is done then all the other categories that are structured this way should also be changed i.e. American people of Cuban descent, American people of French descent, American people of Puerto Rican descent etc. It makes no sense to change the name when we can monitor the category and keep the summary so other editors understand how the category is structured. Again if we change the name then it should apply to the other categories as well.Mcelite (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, Mcelite, to propose changes to those categories on their talk pages. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if criteria is clearly provided we need not rename the category. While it is important to confront the appropriation of Native American culture, it is also important to be aware that the distinct category title we seem to be leaning towards is reflective of the unique and problematic scrutiny that Native American identity is subjected to. There are, as CorbieV points out, very salient legalistic concerns behind the "self-identification" distinction, but again I feel that these can be addressed through description in a manner that doesn't risk, however unintentionally and subliminally, suggesting that every member should be treated with an element of suspicion (especially since we seem to be dedicated to monitoring it). On the basis of these concerns I am logging a placeholder vote of "oppose", but I am more than interested in further feedback. On a separate point, having noted that our discussions seem to hinge quite heavily on tribal citizenship, where would those individuals who belong to peoples who do not have the good fortune to be federally recognized would fit in to all this? Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pliny the Elderberry, while you make valid points, the core issue rests on reliable sources. I have not done an exhaustive study of the people currently under the category of "American people of Native American descent" (375 pages which includes 31 other cats) but virtually none are tribal members as far as I can see. This also concerns biographies of living people in most cases. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In the main category (self-identified Native descent), I've monitored many of these pages for years. They are the BLPs where, with zero sourcing of descent, and even sometimes after the tribes have issued statements that the person isn't a member (see Kelsey Chow) fans keep adding them back. The people with actual sourcing are all in the named tribe cats, or named tribal heritage cats. If they have any sourceable heritage, they're in a more specific category. Or should be. If they get put here by mistake, we can move them. Blatantly: this is the slush pile. We can try to keep it clean, but this is what it is. One guy that I removed yesterday, was listed as having heritage for no other reason than having been in a Boy Scouts troupe that mimicked Native dances as a kid. I still think egregious things like that should be deleted wholesale. I was for deleting this category entirely until Yuchitown reminded me that those who can never be sourced as having heritage, because they have none, will keep getting added back to the tribal cats if we don't rename this one and let them stay here. That's what changed my !vote. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also going through the cat again and doing cleanup. I was expecting I'd have to move the few actual Natives and descendants there into more appropriate cats, but the few I've found are already in those cats and this superfluous one just needs to be removed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. If it really is that egregious and has been so consistently over time then I understand the conviction behind the distinction. I remain uncomfortable with it, but if Indigenous girl and Yuchitown feel it is the best among our options then I will defer to them. So long as the "self-identified" label is not present on the pages of individual nation's descendants (Choctaw, Ojibwe, etc.) then I suppose we'll avoid the most problematic caveating. As a final point, I do want to be sure that enrolled members and descendants of non-federally-recognized nations are not falling between the cracks here for lack of "official" sourcing (I apologize if this last sentence sounds a bit blunt, 'tis not my intention). Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It really is that egregious and consistent. I agree that self-identified should not be present on the pages of legitimate descendants. This was happening not only to legitimate descendants but to enrolled individuals as well and this is unacceptable. With regard to tribes lacking federal recognition this is a complicated issue. There are legitimate state recognized tribes but there are also hundreds and hundreds of groups that are 501C3s, social organizations and the like that have no business being called a 'tribe'. That needs to be acknowledged and respected. These fake tribes are as threat to legitimate tribal entities. They appropriate funding, perpetuate stereotypes and in many cases cause harm and general frustration to legitimate Peoples and communities. I need to not and acknowledge that I really appreciate you listening. It's not a particularly common practice here so it means a lot. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite is now altering the descriptions of the Natives in sports and modeling categories to include descendants,[1],[2] and then adding descendants (including those without RS sources, who likely have no heritage at all) to these "Native American people" categories. This is going against consensus and the WP rules of sourcing. It is also going against the definitions of Native identity that have been established for the categories. I see this as an attempted end-run around the consensus here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I created those categories in the first place and the people in those categories have an WP:RS. I did nothing wrong.Mcelite (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The ones who are Native stay; the self-identified people you're adding are getting removed because, no, they don't. And your posting in various places that WP policy overrides tribal sovereignty... yeah, well, we've been over this ad nauseum. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Related: Page move discussion

We had the same sort of mess over at List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry as in the cat we moved above. Indigenous girl and I have done a lot of cleanup, but due to the same perennial problems as discussed above, we probably will need to move the page. We could use some more folks weighing in at: Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Cleanup; especially at Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Proposed Move. Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 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[3]. 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)

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)

Knowledgeable people would be appreciated at Talk:Tongva

There's a history of sockpuppetry there, but I don't understand enough to know if it's good faith or bad faith, correct of incorrect. It just looks like a wall of text to me. It seems like the complaint is that "Tongva" is a made-up name for "Gabrieleño"? If so, is that completely bogus, ultimately correct but being handled poorly, or somewhere in between? If knowledgeable people could address the content issue, I'll try to address the sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous intellectual property

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