Category talk:American people of Native American descent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Is this category really neccessary? The other categories aren't organized by partial descent. There aren't seperate categories for fullblooded Irish Americans and people who are only part Irish American. Asarelah 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone may have opened up a can of worms without realizing it. The instructions say that this category is for "American citizens of partial Native American ancestry. For those of full ancestry see Category:Native American people." Whoa, talk about outdated racial categories! Many Native Americans don't exactly have "full ancestry", but they're Native Americans nonetheless. I understand what the category is trying to get at: "People who have (or claim) Native American ancestry but aren't exactly Indians", so to speak. Do we really need a category for that? —Kevin Myers 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very incomplete list- check out the bios on many in the entertainment field- Val Kilmer, Wayne Newton, Heather Locklear, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems this would be a category for people who aren't actually enrolled in tribes, which isn't the same a blood quantum but is a major legal distinction. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The editor who explained the different categories "of descent" and tribal members seems to have gotten the descriptions mixed up, since the "of descent" categories (Ojibwe, Choctaw, and Cherokee) contain non-enrolled, self-identified individuals. I rephrased the explanations since they have nothing to do with being fullblood or mixed blood. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I don't think this is an appropriate category; not unless the people can prove it. I see tons of people on this list who only have family stories and "belief." Also some actual, enrolled tribal members have been added here for unclear reasons. - CorbieV 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Category is necessary as Uyvsdi mentioned it is a category also for those not enrolled. Not all individuals will know what tribe they are descended from but that doesn't discredit their heritage not all are fortunate to have that knowledge in their family for numerous reasons. Category should stay it is not unless.Mcelite (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate to have a cat for those who have known heritage but cannot or choose not to enroll. That is different from the false claims. If we are to keep the cat, we need to cut all the false claimants from it. - CorbieV 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put in a lot of work over time making sure that people who acknowledge their Native American heritage are in the category. Even getting into a few edit wars because a few editors feel they don't look native enough to claim their own heritage. I honestly think most of those with the category have a citation relating to that individual or family members.Mcelite (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I nominated it for deletion awhile back, but it was retained. pbp 23:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Hunt[edit]

We either need to cut people who have no proof or change the name. Right now the name, the description, and the inclusion of those who self-identify with zero proof are at odds. - CorbieV 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are a few people that do not have a reliable source listed describing their heritage than the category has be removed. The last time we went through it everyone had a reliable source stating the person's heritage, but that could have changed over the year.Mcelite (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)