Talk:Patricia Marroquin Norby

Heritage

Yuchitown, Thanks so much for your interest in Patricia Marroquin Norby's article.

I am confused about this edit. The source was a school district document - not quite getting how language from one document should supersede commonly available information. In most cases,

• she's just identified as "Purépecha"

• "Patricia Marroquin Norby" Purépecha has 3200 links
• "Patricia Marroquin Norby" Purepéche has 3 links

• "Patricia Marroquin Norby" Tarascan has 6 links
• "Tarascan" had been described as "The term has pejorative connotations"
• it's better to link the words in quotes - and then find a link that best fits that phrase. The best that I could find was "[[Apache#Languages|Eastern Apache]] descent"

Based on this, it seems that the most appropriate and considerate language is that Norby "is of Purépecha and Eastern Apache descent."

I am guessing, but I could definitely be wrong, that you are a close contributor to the subject of the article, if that is right, please look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not particularly involved in this article, nor do I have a conflict of interest. It's just good practice to use the actual quote from the person in question. The quote is significant for its earlier appearance. Yuchitown (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I see. It is sounding like we can work something out. There are already sources in the article that mention that she is of Purépecha and Apache descent. I just got a count on Eastern Apache and found just three so the common information by far is that she is of Purépecha and Apache descent.

So it seems that the best approach is to: use sources already in the References list (i.e., not needing to search any more). I will add a couple extra citations, a common approach when there have been differences of opinion to show that it's the common usage. And, the usage will exactly match the source (not a requirement, but I am hearing where you are coming from).–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the article as mentioned directly above. I also put the other sentence (with the uncommon usage) in a note. So the body of the article is clean with common usage content - but the other sentence is still in the article.

As a side comment, I noticed that there were far fewer sources in the article than I expected that mentioned her specific nations / people. I am guessing that since she is representing all Native Americans it just confuses the issue by getting into her specific background. Do you have any thoughts about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Added than I expected–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I am just asking to determine if there is some sensitivity about being more specific than "Native American" or "Indigenous person", like in at the National Museum of the American Indian.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You can always ask questions about Indigenous peoples of the Americas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America! In the English-language Wikipedia uses Native American to refer to Native Americans in the United States. What exactly are you asking about Native American here? She is not a Native American herself, but she is the associate curator of Native American art. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown Yuchitown (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yuchitown, Thanks for your response.

My point was that many articles just say she is Native American and wondered why a general statement of Native American was used.

I am confused by She is not a Native American herself. She is not Apache or Purépecha? Her great-grandmother is not Purépecha?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Here (and in most cases in IRL) Native American is defined as belonging to Indigenous peoples of the United States. Purépecha are one of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico. She claims descent from them. Yuchitown (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yuchitown, Gotcha. That's the way that I have used the terms, because I use the terms commonly used in the relevant countries, e.g., "First Nations" for Canada, "indigenous people" for Mexico.

Fortunately, I just found, even though she's identified as Native American by some sources, like this, (perhaps due to her Apache ancestors), I didn't use that in the article. So, we're good to go.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous woman

Just to piggy back on that discussion, and for future reference, Norby identifies herself as an "Indigenous woman" in his interview.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Just adding, there's now claims she is a pretendian: [1].  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's from the New York Post, not the most reliable source as I have been told for awhile. I recently uploaded a java script tool User:Headbomb/unreliable, too, which checks for unreliable sources and your url lights up pink for me as generally unreliable.

Two things:

• I will take a look at the PBS article and see what else there is out there about her heritage.
• Since you bring it up, in the work that I did on Draft:Native American definition, there are definitions from some governmental agencies and the Native Rights Fund - based upon citizenship, as you well know. This appears to be related to benefit eligibility. Then, there are six definitions, such as the one from Cornell Law School which bases it's definition on 20 U.S. Code § 1059f - Native American-serving, nontribal institutions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not a preferred source on Wikipedia, but it's likely a more reliable newspaper will cover the story in upcoming days.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Indent to read a bit easier.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Research:

• From PBS, Norby states "I am Purepecha. I'm Purepecha descent" and Vanasco says "Patricia Marroquin Norby is Indigenous. Her family is from a pueblo in Mexico".[2]
• The NYP does not provide sources about it's dispute of Norby's claims, just general "legal filings", etc. nothing that can be checked.
• The Met states that she is Purepacha, a Mexican indigenous group. - which is in alignment with the PBS article.
• Tribal Alliance Against Frauds makes some claims that are concerning, making claims again without sources, like that the Purepacha have not lived in Jalisco, Mexico for centuries.[3] On the other hand, see Indigenous Jalisco from the Spanish contact to 2010. Malignment by this organization and the NYP [4][5] - when trying to find reliable sources for them. IMO, this really gets down to citizenship vs. heritage.

I am going to stop here. This is a big issue and it really gets down to the definitions. It also looks to be a brand new issue - May 25, 2024 - so there hasn't been a chance for reliable sources to respond yet. So, that's probably why I am not finding responses to this from reliable sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm shocked that The Met has been able to keep Wikipedia fr allowing articles referencing accusations - from qualified NA Indian groups - be published here. New York Post is credible, if they weren't they'd be out of business with defamation suits. Often NY Post is the 1st to publish what others are afraid or paid not to. This 1 IS 'a Pretendian' the articles source the accusations, Wikipedia is blocking that fr being included in her wikipedia bio. 172.254.56.174 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Georgia O'Keeffe article - Native Scholar’s Questions

As an FYI, I am working on items from the Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe#Native Scholar’s Questions discussion that affects this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits

There were several edits with claims without reliable sources. I reverted the edits to the last clean version here. Do you have reliable sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson I don't need to provide anything. She made the unverified claim. There are sources that demonstrate she makes those claims, but there's no source to verify the claims. That makes her self-identified. Do you have a source backing up Norby's claim? Please provide the source. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are in the article and Yuchitown and I talked about it extensively as you'll see at the top of this talk page. You cannot change cited content into something else. You need a new citation if you are going to change content. Perhaps you can wait a bit and see if more reliable sources pick up the New York Post article.

I am not making this up:

• From Reliable sources, first paragraph:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (Note: bold from the guideline)

• Without a source, it's WP:Original research.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability - "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tribal source of the numerous tribes she claims claiming her back in return? Otherwise it's self-identified.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson The sources provide documentation of her self-identification as being of Indigenous heritage. They provide nothing more. I don't actually need any additional citations. We already have the citations for her self-identification as Indigenous. There's no original research. She self-identifies and we can certainly have that self-identification mentioned in the article despite her lack of proof. We have guidance from the Indigenous WikiProject on how to navigate these issues. Is this a reading comprehension issue or you have simply chosen to disregard the guidance of the Indigenous WikiProject on these matters? If the latter, why? This really isn't all that complicated. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. We already have guidance on how to mention self-identified Indigenous heritage within articles. You have failed to provide verification of her Indigenous heritage claims. Can you provide that verification? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The existing sources do not say that she's trying to defraud anyone by claiming to be something that she's not. You're right that she says she is Indigenous, that's not a problem. But "self-identified" is a loaded word. We went through this with Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill and I am not going to go through it again. We have a discrepancy about what it means to follow the guidelines.

And, in my opinion, it relates to the guideline that I would like to get reviewed Draft:Native American definition because that covered citizenship (required for benefits) and heritage, like Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill. I don't know how things will turn out for Norby, but it's seeming like it's being said that since she's not a citizen of an American reservation, she should not be able to work as a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I have just opened up Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia Marroquin Norby and I am trying to figure out if I have to hide the claim against her as it seems defamatory to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Self-identify" isn't defaming anyone, just stating she is self-identifying since she lacks MOS:CITIZEN or any other proof of her claims. This is an issue of citizenship, not race.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera: AFAICT self-identifying does not come from any source. I don't give a damn whether it's defamation if you continue to add BLP violating claims to our article without any source I will ask for you the be blocked or topic banned from BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson It seems that I was mistaken in thinking that it was agreed upon that Hill was of self-identified Mohawk descent without any verification of citizenship or descent. Hide what claims against Norby? I added nothing to the article questioning her claims, nor did I add the recent coverage claiming that she is a Pretendian. I added a category for self-identified Apache descent and clarified that her claims are self-identification, because that's exactly what they are, and we have sources documenting that. It seems there is a reading comprehension issue here. If you think that "self-identified" is defamatory or the same as calling someone a "Pretendian", that is a reading comprehension failure. I will assume that your intentions are in good faith. I also don't think it's being a good team player to attempt to unilaterally and unnecessarily craft Draft:Native American definition by yourself without meaningful input from the Indigenous WikiProject. We already have an article on Native American identity in the United States. There is no use for your draft. Which editor here is claiming that Norby should be fired? Which editor has inserted such a POV claim into her article? None that I see. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I wanted input for the draft. I posted something on the Project talk page that it's ready for review. If you would like to edit it, please do, that would be wonderful.

• Instead of self-identified, why not say that she is an American of Purépecha descent?

• I wasn't making a claim against editors. It's the NYP and the org. It's up above. I am exhausted. I think we should let the noticeboard take it from here.–CaroleHenson (talk)

Where is proof of the descent besides her claims? No one is attempting to add the New York Post as a source to the article. I posted it since there was discussion a year ago about writing about her claims and because there's likely to be follow-up journalism from more reliable sources; that has been the pattern with these types of claims and articles such as Sacheen Littlefeather and Buffy Sainte-Marie.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed about the reliable sources, as we discussed Oncamera.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Because we don't actually know that she is a Purépecha descendant or an Apache descendant. All we know is that she self-identifies as having Purépecha and Apache descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT, we don't know any such things. Editors keep making this claim but no one can provide any source. As I said at BLPN, AFAICT none of the sources used say anything about identifying or self-identifying. Editors cannot make shit up and add it to articles and especially not to BLPs. If editors do so, they should expect to be blocked or topic-banned. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So people can "make shit up" about being part of a tribe and Wikipedia is supposed to repeat it without any regard to tribal sovereignty or the fact these are sovereign nations with citizenship laws. Got it. Ignore MOS:CITIZEN.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I heard that content that can be added is based upon reliable sources, including if it questions her heritage.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I restored the lead to what the source actually says.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera: I went inactive at around the time of this dispute but in any case, didn't want to get too involved. But I came across it again because of an ARE discussion. Wikipedia I'm a strong believer that we should interpret WP:ABOUTSELF's requirement that any self published claim isn't unduly self-serving very liberally. Definitely I'd consider any claim about someone's heritage to fall into the unduly self-serving category regardless of whether it was indigenous or anything else. Even more so if someone claims to be part of some tribe, which is distinct from simply making a claim about heritage. (For example, someone can claim to have Navajo heritage while fully acknowledging they are not part of the Navajo nation.) So no someone cannot just "make shit up" about being part of something and we'd repeat it. However if reliable secondary sources, having done whatever fact checking they think is necessary for someone's claim have chosen to repeat it in their on voice as something that is factual rather than simply a claim the person has made then yes, we will likely repeat it. We still have to consider issues like WP:UNDUE etc and we can also consider reliability issues like whether a source while generally reliable, might be unreliable for certain specific things (like indigenous heritage). But we generally will not exclude something several reliable sources state just because some editors are not happy about it or disagree with it especially when they cannot find any reliable secondary sources which challenge the claim. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs with the world like how sources chose to handle issues of indigenous heritage. When and if sources change we will follow, like we always do since we follow sources not lead them. This is how everything on Wikipedia works, if you're not happy with that then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What's your point related to something that's written in the article? The talk page isn't a discussion forum or a place for you to soapbox opinions.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted cited edits about her heritage

I returned cited content that had been removed from the article. I assume that these edits were made before the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia Marroquin Norby weighed in here and on the noticeboard.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)