Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

Written guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdraw due to lack of interest. –CaroleHenson (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have better, clearer guidelines - hopefully in one place that can be linked to from citizenship, etc.:

  • Definition of citizenship
  • Definition of membership
  • Definition of Native American, such as the Office of Tribal Justice, DOJ; Native American Rights Fund
  • Definition of self-identifying Native American or tribal member. When to use it, when not to use it.
  • Claims of "Native American" accomplishments
  • Dispute cited content - not sure whether or not anything specific is needed here or not

I can start a draft for review. Is there anyone interested in helping identify what should be included and work on it? Any thoughts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this go on Native American identity in the United States and WP:NDNID? Yuchitown (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown One link is an article and one is the essay WP:...Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, so neither are guidelines. But they look like great resources for creating a master guideline document, perhaps WP:Guidelines for Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities. I imagine the intention is to keep the essay as it is.
I don't know all the guidelines yet that might also be effected - with links to and from the master guideline. Some that I can think of are:
  • MOS:BIO
  • MOS:CITIZEN
  • MOS:NONSOVEREIGN, just to review for consistency
  • WP:RS, if something different should be said for Native Americans, such as in the section "Reliability in specific contexts"
  • WP:WIKIVOICE - whether there should be certain things that don't go in the infoboxes or intro regarding a Native American.
What do you think?
As an aside, I added an underlined comment for the bullet * Dispute cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to start drafting the WP:Guidelines for Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities using the essay WP:...Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, notes from conversations about citizenship and identity here, the Native American identity in the United States article (and it's sources), and other sources.
Would someone be open to working with me on reviewing drafts. I can try to do my best to write the drafts (I used to write policy and procedures documents and I have worked a bit on drafting guidelines), but I am under no illusion that I can get a finished product without the experts here familiar with citizenship, identity, etc. In other words, it doesn't even make sense for me to start if I am to do it by myself.
In the end, the intention is to have places to refer to with specific language about how to write about identify that sets the standard for writing and evaluating articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not fully understanding what guideline would achieve that the essay and article aren't achieving. I'm not against this proposed project but personally want a break from having same conversation about Indigenous identity over and over for a while (which presumably would be why to have the guideline to reference). Could contribute later. Yuchitown (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown Neither of those documents are guidelines, which are formal instructions, for users on how to write articles and to use to respond to contributors who are not following the guidelines. They are also concise and get right to the instruction about how to write and not write about the topic. They then can be used with warnings to say that the user is not following the guidelines. You cannot do that with an essay or a Wikipedia article, right?
In the past week, the only guideline I heard about was MOS:CITIZEN, kind of late in the game.
I am not trying to pressure anyone who isn't interested, available, etc. I am trying to determine if anyone can help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown I just looked back to the comment that make me convinced that guidelines were needed. It was "Could this conversation move to Reddit or somewhere else? WP:NOTAFORUM. This conversation has long moved beyond the article, which should have taken place on that talk page (however the article's issues are being resolved). Endlessly rehashing opinions is not helpful. For the new folks, please read any of the existing discussions all over this talk page, its archives, and innumerable other Native article talk pages. Yuchitown (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown"–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Self-identifying

Based upon a definition of Native American or American Indian with reliable sources and meets with consensus:

It seems that the definitions of Self-identified Native American needs to be updated a bit to state how someone can be of Native American heritage, but not be a member or citizen of a tribe or nation. The definition of Native American by the DOJ allows that there are different definition of Native American or American Indian. Perhaps a bit more work on this section.

I have another suggestion to review articles where someone is considered "self-identifying" that might be like Lily Gladstone.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential sources for definition of self-identification google, JSTOR, to start.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson Lily Gladstone is a known Blackfeet and Nez Perce descendant. I wouldn't call her self-identifying. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Bohemian Baltimore, but I understand that at one point she was labeled that way. To be clearer, I mean find others labeled "self-identifying" who are not.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No one ever questioned that they were a descendent. I think that's been very well documented. The question came about how to describe them in the lede. Some wanted to describe them as Native American. The resolution on the Lily Gladstone article, after much discussion and debate, was to say they are an American (citizenship) actress and follow that up with their heritage, in this case Blackfeet and Nez Perce (ethnic identity). In this way we satisfied both the recommendations of NDNID and gave Lily the recognition they deserved. We also left in that Lily was the first Native American to win the the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama per the sources given. I think this was an important compromise. And I think this could be the way forward. --ARoseWolf 13:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it needs to be said that the editor(s) who called Lily Gladstone "self-identifying" were three single purpose anonymous IPs originating from Bozeman, Montana whose only edits to WP were these edits. 153.90.233.177: [1], and [2], and [3], and from 153.90.233.151 [4], and from 153.90.233.248 [5]. Perhaps a check user needs to look into these IPs to see if they might be a WP:LOUTSOCK. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I see @Netherzone, ARoseWolf, and Bohemian Baltimore:. Gotcha. Your explanations help. Thanks! I am more concerned about written guidelines. I struck out the suggestion for finding self-identifying people. I got ahead of myself. Sorry about that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I would drop the "self" and just state that they identify but I agree I think it needs to be defined. Current recommendation absent clear policy says something entirely different than my personal view so giving it clarification and definition is a good thing. The UN uses self-identification to describe all those who claim Indigenous heritage but are not claimed by a specific and recognized tribal nation within sovereign nations. But also gives guidance to avoid identifying whatsoever and cautions that rules for identification vary by law worldwide. We will never make everyone happy no matter what we do. I just want it defined so good faith editors aren't arguing, casting aspersions, and edit warring every time this topic comes up. Activism is very much needed and there is a place and time for it. Every editor on both sides of this debate should be standing firm on the fact that hit pieces like the one's discussed above against good faith editors and the push to allow activism to determine policy on Wikipedia should not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to protest. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, Could we work on the self-identifying definition together? I put these thoughts out there as an option, but you might have a better approach.
Perhaps starting with Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification definition and refine it a bit, such as including what self-identify doesn't mean. I wonder if there could be a distinction between those who totally make up that they are Native American and those with some Native American heritage (even if the definition comes to include both) and create Draft:Self-identification definition, which could be used for a guideline and update the Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification and WP:NDNID - so that they are all in synch? Or, do you think it's better to just write the guideline at the moment and not be concerned about the other documents right now?
It seems to me that this ties into a definition of "Native American". Does it mean individuals with Native American heritage? Or, just those with citizenship?I picked up two definitions in the first note in Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill, perhaps that's a good place to start for that?
It would be really great to work with you on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources. IMO, it would be good to look at definitions from Native American sites, like the Native American Rights Fund, federal sites like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Tribal Justice, US Department of the Interior, etc. for the U.S. Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Assembly of First Nations for Canada. From the UN United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , and perhaps International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
The sources in the Native American identity in the United States#Self-identification article, my humble opinion, do not seem adequate for this discussion - article about Michigan State Law, and "Native American identity", New Directions for Student Services. There's not really a definition in WP:NDNID - but the closest is the paragraph about the Native American Journalists Association, but that probably shouldn't be the only source for a self-identification definition.
If you like I am very happy to start the research of the sources I mentioned if they make sense - then can list each definition where it's defined by the organizations - to see what makes sense for a thorough consideration. Of course, there would not be references in the guidelines, but perhaps in the article and essay for the best definition/source (not a long list).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I am assuming that there will be just a couple of sources that stand ahead - and encompass other definitions - for the U.S. and Canada... and it would be interesting to see what the U.N. says.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Native American

I started Draft:Native American definition. I think this will be easier, but already have two topics of conversation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities. Is this a WP:POVSPLIT?  oncamera  (talk page) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
No, that's an essay. See my response here and what comment made me think guidelines were needed (besides all the talk on the LRMH article). Check out MOS:CITIZEN for Native Americans for an example, I know you're familiar with this one, but just in case you haven't looked at it for awhile.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You could also look at Draft:Native American definition - most of it is work sections. There's one section for the actual guideline. Right now the U.S. version of the definition is about done and ready for a draft guideline, unless there are other sources that you think would be helpful and perhaps change the definition.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
On MOS:CITIZEN, the essay is linked there a couple of times: (See also WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities § Notes.). I don't see how what you're writing is much different than what's on the essay and there's no way all that you're writing is going to be added to MOS:CITIZEN. Maybe merge the "Research" section to the essay under resources or give it a better title. Otherwise, it's just rewriting the essay and thinking you're going to put all of that on the MOS page which won't happen. All of these complexities are put on the essay for that reason to provide guidance for uneducated editors on Indigenous identities.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
An essay is not a guideline. Please see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware, Carol lol. But you're not going to get that draft turned into a guideline.  oncamera  (talk page) 03:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity - why is it important for you to stop an effort to make things clearer for users about
What could be wrong with that? Just as a side note, my name is Carole, just so you don't type CarolHenson as a username, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Vanessa Jennings is absolutely a tribal citizen. She’s pretty famous. Yuchitown (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
She's in the American people of Native American descent category with the description "Americans who have proof of Native American ancestry but are not members of any Native American tribes."–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
She's in Category:American people of Apache descent because she's enrolled Category:Kiowa people. Yuchitown (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
Ahhh, the apparently tried and true, let's just wear her down approach. Well, I said earlier that if no one wants to work on the guidelines, I don't think it makes sense for me to continue. I don't have the background to do this alone and it's very clear that it's not a desired outcome. I hope that some time down the road you rethink it and work on it yourselves. It would be a really nice work and help out users and people that evaluate articles about Native Americans. All the best.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion re: name change of Genocide of Indigenous peoples to lower case indigenous

There is a discussion going on at Genocide of Indigenous peoples to change the name of the article to Genocide of indigenous peoples (lower-case indigenous.) The discussion can be found here: Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Proposed merge of Canadian genocide of the First Nations into Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Canada on the same talk page. Yuchitown (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Taíno categorization

I have noticed that pages and categories for the Taíno are often listed as "Native American". An example would be that Category:Taíno leaders is a subcategory of Category:Native American leaders. Maekiaphan Phillips, a Taíno revivalist "chief" in the Virgin Islands, is classified under several "Native American" categories. I'm skeptical that Taíno people should be listed as Native Americans for multiple reasons, not least of which their pre-1924 extinction as a tribe. Indigenous-related articles for the Taíno in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, the Chamorro and Carolinian peoples in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Samoans, etc all pose the question: do we need to create more parent categories for peoples within the US who are Indigenous but aren't necessarily Native American? Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans, legally speaking? My impression of Alaska Natives is that some are considered Native Americans, but others are not. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Census says Taino descendents identify as Native American/American Indian and they are part of the United States. Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islander have a separate category on the census. It says "American Indian or Alaska Native" for the others. Calling them extinct seems odd when their genetics and culture continues on to this day. The National Museum of the American Indian has educational material about them that even says the Taino people living today and revitalizing their culture are challenging the notion that they are "extinct".  oncamera  (talk page) 06:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
A large majority of Puerto Ricans and Latinos have some degree of Indigenous ancestry, but that alone doesn't make them Indigenous. By "extinct", I mean as a distinct group and culture, not that every single Taíno died without leaving any descendants. It's unfortunate, but cultural genocide/assimilation are realities. Many Puerto Ricans and other Latinos who have been living as white-mestizos for generations/centuries are now championing Taíno revivalism, in some cases 400 or 500 years after the Taíno stopped existing as a separate cultural group; does that make those people Native Americans? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Oncamera Circling back to this, since there have also been broader discussions on whether or not "extinct" is proper
terminology...would "historical" be a better term? Is it grammatically correct to say something like "are an historical" tribe/group? Many articles use "were" for historical groups. EG, the Susquehannock (who do have living descendants enrolled in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation). Just trying to be careful and clarify, since whether a group exists or not is often contested; EG, the Opata people in Mexico. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
North America is commonly defined to include Central America and the Antilles. This project does tend to concentrate on the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the U.S. and (northern) Mexico. Culturally and historically the Taino are related to the Indigenous Peoples of South America rather than those of North America. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas was started to cover that part of the Americas not covered by the North America project. There is no dividing line defined, but I feel that the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean should be grouped with those of South America (Central America and southern Mexico are a different problem). The term "Native American" is an invention of the U.S. government. How we use it in Wikipedia depends on how it is used in reliable sources. If it is being used in reliable sources to refer to Tainos and people of Taino descent, then I would argue that it is no longer tied to peoples indigenous to the United States, and its use by the U.S. Census is not relevant to how we categorize Tainos. Donald Albury 16:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Reservations are an "invention" of the American government, yet we consider them sovereign lands... "federal recognition" is important to Native American identity today, as well too. I don't think editors can just easily dismiss the US government when editing articles. And Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands is part of the United States, you can't deny that lol. Also the Guainía Taíno Tribe of the US Virgin Islands was officially recognized by the Virgin Islands Government in June 2021 and the article states: "In 2022, the tribe was contacted for consultation by the National Park Service of the US Department of the Interior on a project involving the exchange of land". Bizarre these all interactions between the US government and the Taino are being ignored just to be classified as outside the scope of this Wikiproject or to be called extinct.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Oncamera What does recognition mean in this context? Is a territory-recognized tribe equivalent to a state-recognized tribe? Do the protections of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act apply to the Guainía Taíno Tribe? Has any tribal heritage group in a US territory ever applied for federal recognition? There have been numerous non-profit organizations in the continental United States who have made false claims to be "state recognized tribes" on a flimsy basis, like citing a friendly resolution from a politician or legislature. So I'm curious what the exact legal status of the Guainía Taíno Tribe is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The governor of the Virgin Islands signed a proclamation recognizing the Guiania Taino Tribe "as an indigenous American Indian Tribe of the Virgin Islands, for the purpose of assisting this tribal entity in establishing eligibility for federal health benefits, federal education benefits, housing benefits, job training, land use, and the right to engage in traditional religious practices and ceremonies." State recognition of tribes is pursuant to legislation, either a process to granting recognition established by law, or a special act of a legislature recognizing a specified tribe. A governor's proclamation does not rise to that level. As this was a proclamation from the governor, and not a legislative act, I do not think it confers any legal status on the tribe. The requirements for recognition as an American Indian Tribe by the Federal government are laid out here, and a proclamation from the governor of a state or territory is not one of the requirements. Donald Albury 23:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but this accords with my understanding of the legalities involved. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Donald Albury The Guainía Taíno Tribe's website states that "Iukaieke Guainía of Borikén has established, through separate organizing documents, a non-profit entity entitled Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc, in Borikén to further its goals for community development. While mutually supportive and interconnected, Iukaieke Guainía, Borikén and the Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc. are separate entities." Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc is a domestic non-profit corporation with the registration number 354273. Is the Guainía Taíno Tribe also a non-profit corporation or organization? I'm not seeing the Guainía Taíno Tribe or Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc listed on the IRS search tool for tax exempt organizations. I see two listings of Guainía Taíno Tribe, Inc on the Government of Puerto Rico's website: one expired, the other active. @Yuchitown Would you know how to look this up? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
That all seems to be in Puerto Rico. The proclamation from the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands doesn't specify if it refers to the organization registered in Puerto Rico, although I would expect that there is a counterpart registered in the Virgin Islands. I do not see any of those organizations listed at List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes#Puerto Rico, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes#Virgin Islands, or at State-recognized tribes in the United States. @Yuchitown:, is it time to add them? Donald Albury 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about overcatting, but they aren't a state-recognized tribe (Keep waiting for some official source to publish a list of state-recognized tribes). I don't believe Taíno is commonly considered "Native American." Native Americans in the United States currently says it covers "American Indians from the contiguous United States and Alaska Natives." With unrecognized/state-recognized, we don't use the organization itself as a source, so any acknowledgment would have to be cited by an outside official source. Yuchitown (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
@Donald Albury I don't see any such organization in the Virgin Islands listed by the IRS. Could the VI have their own list of non-profits? I'm not sure why the Puerto Rican nonprofit is listed by the government of Puerto Rico but not the IRS. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-profits have to register annually in the Virgin Islands to operate there. I would expect that the tribe was properly registered when the governor issued his proclamation. I haven't found how to search for such registrations on-line (I haven't looked very hard). Residents of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands do not pay income taxes to the U.S. on income earned in those jurisdictions. Residents of the Virgin Islands pay taxes to the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. I assume that means that non-profits in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands do not need to obtain tax-exemption certificates from the IRS, with such exemptions handled locally. Donald Albury 01:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Donald Albury Thanks for the clarification. Found it. The Guainia Taino Tribe of the Virgin Islands (TN0120928). It is listed as a domestic partnership corporation. An expired listing can also be seen here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't want to retread the lengthy conversations at Talk:Taíno, but seeing how Chamorro and Native Hawaiians are categorized under Category:Indigenous peoples in the United States, I'd say problem solved. It's clear that "Native American" isn't exactly defined as "Indigenous peoples of what is now the United States" but rather "Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States." Of course, the Caribbean is part of North America and part of this WikiProject. Back to the original question, Category:Taíno leaders can go under Category:Indigenous leaders of the Americas (so I put it under that). There's also Category:Caciques, but determining which Indigenous leaders are Caciques or not seems arbitrary, so that should probably be deleted. Yuchitown (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Could there be a category such as Category:Indigenous leaders in the United States? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
What's wrong with Category:Indigenous leaders of the Americas? Seems like categories should be created due to a need. Yuchitown (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
@Yuchitown That's for both continents. There's already a subcategory for Category:Indigenous leaders in Canada. My thought process was that a US category could include both Native American and non-NA Indigenous leaders in the US. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Horace Pierite, Jr.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Pierite, Jr., if anyone has any thoughts on this matter. Yuchitown (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"was" vs "is" for articles on ancient human remains, including those of Native Americans

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology#"was"_vs_"is"_for_individual_ancient_human_skeletons for a discussion regarding whether Wikipedia articles about individual human remains (like skeletons and mummies, including those of Native Americans) should be described in the past or present tense. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill

Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill is described in her article as a Native American and as a person of Mohawk descent. She was not a citizen of any tribe. The article claims her biological mother was Mohawk but that there's no proof of her Mohawk heritage. Her husband was Oneida and she was an honorary member of the Oneida Nation, but was never a citizen. Media have inaccurately claimed she wasn't allowed to be an Oneida Nation citizen due to blood quantum laws. The Oneida Nation does have a blood quantum of one-quarter, but that seems irrelevant as her "blood quantum" was zero. She never even claimed to be an Oneida descendant. I'm not sure describing her as the "second Native American female doctor" is suitable. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have this project talk page on my watchlist for some reason, and from time to time I take a peek. Usually it is over my head. But after reading the thread below, I saw this thread, and then read the article, and ... I guess I'm just really confused. It appears her father was Mohawk, her birth mother was Mohawk, she lived as a Native American, so how is she not Mohawk, piece of paper or not? At the very least, how is she not Native American? This isn't a gotcha kind of question, I honestly don't understand. I understand there are groups of hangers-on that kind of pretend to be Native American tribes, or "the" official group representing the tribe, for various reasons, and I understand there are tribes that are not officially recognized, but which have a continuous history of living as - and being treated as - Native American. So I understand there are some really complicated issues here. But this seems like low-hanging fruit. Having two parents both members of a recognized tribe, and marrying someone from another recognized tribe, seems like being able to be described as Native American just strikes me (and, likely lots of other casual observers) as obvious. If both my parents were Black, and I married a Black woman and never tried to "pass" as white, I wouldn't need a piece of paper. I guess I just don't understand - even after reading the section below - why Federal recognition or bureaucratic record keeping matter so much, but for Native Americans only. If I understood better what was going on, maybe I could possibly help out sometimes, but right now I'm just totally puzzled. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That "piece of paper" is tribal sovereignty and Wikipedia respects citizenship established by the tribes because they are nations per MOS:CITIZEN, not just ethnic groups. This is an issue of citizenship that is established by tribal law.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but then do we need proof that someone born to parents who are both US citizens is a citizen too, before we say they’re American? That doesn’t seem to be how nationality is typically handled. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Tribal citizenship requirements vary widely between tribes and are generally more complex than the U.S. citizenship requirements. A short answer is every child born to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen; every child born to a tribal citizen is not automatically a tribal citizen of their parent's tribe. So there isn't the same presumption of tribal citizenship based on a parent's tribal citizenship as there would be for US citizenship. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Citizenship is whatever the law says. My grandmother, who was born in Kentucky and lived in the U.S. all of her life, lost her citizenship when she married my grandfather, a British national. U.S. law at the time specified that a woman changed her citizenship to that of her husband when she married. My grandfather became a naturalized U.S. citizen, but by then the law had changed, and my grandmother did not regain her citizenship when he was naturalized. She was quite upset when government agents showed up at the beginning of WW II and made her register as a resident alien. So, yeah, the definition of citizenship in a nation is dependent on the laws of that nation. Donald Albury 00:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have been working on the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill article recently. She's described in reliable sources as Mohawk and her mother and grandmother are described as Mohawk. Her father was Quaker, and she was not a citizen of any Native American tribe because of federal government blood quantum laws. I understand that someone questions whether she is really of Mohawk heritage, but there does not appear to be anything published anywhere saying she is not Mohawk. The Wikipedia article does state that she is not considered a citizen of any Native American nation. There are also sources that say that she is Native American.
There are a number of reliable sources that say that she is Mohawk and also that she is "The second Native American female doctor in the United States, after Susan La Flesche Picotte (Omaha)". I have not found anyone else stated to have this honor. The cited content was removed and she was said to have self-identified as a Native American. I have not seen that anywhere. To believe we should second-guess our sources and believe something that is not published, sounds like both verifiability and original research issues. I am so confused how this has come up as an issue and hope it's not a trend. Your perspective would be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
CaroleHenson, thank you for your hard work. Understand that I truly appreciate anyone that researches and follows what sources say about a subject. We are definitely required to do so, generally.
When it comes to citizenship, which is what being Native American is, not an ethnic group or a race, there are many nuances. Let me ask a question. If I am born in America to an Italian father that immigrated from Italy and a German mother who immigrated from Germany can I claim to be a citizen of both Italy and Germany? Am I truly Italian or German despite those nations having no claim on me? Or am I descended from Italians and Germans? We can't expect all sources to understand something they are not accustomed to, even the reliable ones.
It's really just that simple and it isn't as complicated as it is made out to be. If my father was a citizen of the Mohawk nation and my mother was a citizen of the Mohawk nation that doesn't make me a citizen of the Mohawk nation because I am born to them. I must be claimed by the Mohawk nation and be a citizen of that nation myself, some documented verifiable proof has to exist that I am accepted as a citizen. That is what it means by having "papers". A sovereign tribal nation which has entered into agreements with other sovereign nations and is recognized by them has accepted me as a citizen, therefore I am Mohawk, therefore I am Native American. That's how Native American citizenship works. --ARoseWolf 11:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, Thanks so much for your comments. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to sort this out in order of importance.
  • Minoka had no citizenship with a Native American nation
  • Sources say that her mother's family were Mohawks, but it seems the point is that it's immaterial, whether her mother was also mixed-race or there was some other reason she (Lillie) wasn't considered a citizen.
  • I don't think it's fair to say that she self-describes as Mohawk, I really have a hard time with that (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind). But, maybe what is meant is that is what she heard about herself. Would it be appropriate to say that "what Minoka heard about herself was that she had (some) Mohawk ancestry"?
  • I think it's very clear that she identified as Native American, for whatever that is worth... which may be very little.
The think what has me puzzled the most is why does it appear that there is no dispute about her being considered the 2nd Native American medically-trained physician? I cannot find another woman with that distinction and there are a lot of sources that say that she was. I searched on variations of "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" without a name to see what names came up.
I don't think there are words to tell you how much this means to me. Your username, a Rose Wolf, sounds really appropriate. You are a treasure. Thanks so much!
P.S. I feel like her surname Minnetoga may mean something, but I don't know that it can be figured out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Added Lillie in parenthesis - to distinguish from her mother.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) And (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind).–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I am definitely not the monster slamming new editors who come here in good faith as some off-wiki have suggested. I have no authority to legitimize claims of Native American ancestry or discount them. For that we would require the sources, as we normally would. In the case of identifying as Native American we need that extra step of verification to definitively say that they are because it is about citizenship.
I think it's very appropriate to say she claimed to be Mohawk or identified as Mohawk if in fact she did and we find the sources which say she did. I think it is also appropriate to include "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" if the sources say that. We just need to make sure to attribute that to the direct source in the statement rather than Wiki-voice. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure she thought she was Mohawk and Allen did what he could to reinforce that. I think my problem is intent. I don't think she ever tried to fool anyone. There are people that fraudulently self-describe as a member of a Native American nation. It would be nice to have language that distinguished the two cases.
Lightbulb moment re: "Wiki-voice". Thanks! That helps a lot!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have lots of whirling thoughts on this, but don't have the time to organize them properly or word this properly. But I guess it boils down to two main worries. First, it feels like WP is using "self-identified Mohawk descent" to completely discount her lived experience. I now understand why we wouldn't say she was Mohawk, but I don't get why we won't say "of Mohawk descent". This is not some pretender, this is not some weasel saying "I'm one sixteenth Cherokee". Second, I guess I would disagree with @ARoseWolf: that "When it comes to citizenship, which is what being Native American is". It's a more complicated concept that is part heritage, part lived experience, part self-identification, and part citizenship/membership, isn't it? I understand it makes things much more difficult, but saying someone who is not a member of a US government-recognized tribe isn't Native American is like saying a DREAMer who has lived all their life in the US is not an American. Sure, they aren't a US citizen, but being an American is part heritage, part lived experience, part self-identification, and part citizenship/membership, isn't it? Would we say "self-identified American"? It's all so much fuzzier than the tribal membership criterion makes it appear. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
For an analogy: If I grew up Baptist, but am currently not enrolled as a member of any Baptist church, several people here seem to be saying WP wouldn't consider me a Baptist. Maybe a self-identified Baptist. Which I disagree with, but can at least understand the logic. But they also seem to be saying WP wouldn't even consider me a Christian. I guess a self-identified Christian? For me, this just fails the "take a step back and do a reality check" test. Is there really no room for nuance? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one. It should be "of Mohawk descent." That is clearly what the reliable sources state. I don't think she should be claimed to be Oneida or Mohawk or a citizen of any of those nations. But the reliable sources state that she was of Mohawk descent. That is enough proof for Wikipedia.
Now, if someone came along and did research and found who her mother was, and it turned out she wasn't Mohawk, or someone wrote a piece claiming she wasn't, I would be fine with saying it was "self-id" and that she wasn't of Mohawk descent. But I don't think we can write that when the reliable sources say otherwise. PersusjCP (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It really isn't that simple. What about minoritized/diaspora communities? I would say being born to Chinese immigrant parents makes you ethnically Chinese even if you are not a citizen, because you have a heritage with that culture. It's simply not that black and white. What about disenrolled people? Do they suddenly become white when they lose their enrollment? What about people who are born just outside the BQ cutoff? People can ethnically belong to a culture even if they are not a citizen of its associated nation.
I think this compounds when many reliable sources, especially those from Native media, can be ignored simply because there is no official communique from the nation stating that they are a citizen. It doesn't work this way with any other citizenship. Now, I am totally on board with limiting claims of citizenship in specific nations and not putting their ethnicity in the lede, but I think there should be less push for Wikipedia editors to unilaterally decide that people aren't ethnically part of some culture when reliable sources state otherwise. It is clearly controversial and non-neutral and especially an issue with BLP.
Now, I don't necessarily think that's the case with Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill, given all the evidence. I understand that this is a contentious topic and definitely don't want Wikipedia to give undue weight to pretendians and such, but I feel that the current understanding is a little too restrictive in its application. PersusjCP (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
But Native American is not an ethnicity or race. There is no one Native American race of people. It is absolutely predicated on citizenship in a sovereign tribal nation. Can someone please point to where I said we can't say she is of Mohawk descent or I challenged her heritage? "I think it's very appropriate to say she claimed to be Mohawk or identified as Mohawk" and I think it is also appropriate to include "2nd Native American medically-trained physician" if the sources say that. --ARoseWolf 16:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I never said that "Native American" is a race or ethnicity. I'm saying that there are ethnic identites as part of that grouping. Generally these have one or more tribal bodies associated with the ethnicity. For example, Mohawk. The Mohawk have the various Mohawk communities in the U.S. and Canada: the St Regis tribe and the various Mohawk First Nations in Canada. All of these have different standards for citizenship, and they are all Kanien'kehá:ka/Mohawk.
Another example is Tulalip. While there is a quickly growing trend of people to identify as a Tulalip person over the last few generations, "Tulalip" is (at least for most of its existence) purely a term of citizenship. There are various communities of different tribes/ethnic groups on the Tulalip Reservation, such as the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, etc. Someone might be enrolled Tulalip (citizenship) but be of Snohomish and Skykomish descent (ethnicity). Hell, tons of people just identify as ethnically "Coast Salish" nowadays. PersusjCP (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US Census are among the reliable institutions that consider Native American an ethnic category. It is common sense. Tribal citizenship is just that: citizenship. But it does not describe ethnicity. Some tribes accept non-Native spouses and children as citizens and thus have ethnically Scandinavian members. I am American but I am not ethnically American - I am Scandinavian.
Further if reliable sources describe someone as Native or their specific ethnicity or tribal enrollment, and there is no indication in other reliable sources that fact has been challenged, then it would be OR to make that claim on their page. Particularly if claims are made using only primary sources. This is a universal Wikipedia rule for all wiki content. Native topics are not exempt. Pingnova (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Donald Albury I was born in Miami with an ancestry in America going back to the Mayflower. I moved to London when I was 27 and became a British citizen 4 years later. The US Embassy asked for my passport back as the law then said you couldn't have dual nationality. I kept it and told the Embassy I still considered myself American. Years later I discovered that a US space shuttle pilot was an Irish citizen and my dad, who worked in Washington DC for the Internal Revenue Service, found out the law had been overturned. So I got my passport back and my children, born in the UK with an English mother, also got US passports. So I have always had American nationality, lost my citizen ship for a while, and have never considered myself to have British nationality. My children have dual citizenship - but I don't consider them to have American nationality. Does that make sense? Doug Weller talk 08:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Citizenship is set by law, and laws can change. Donald Albury 14:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Could this conversation move to Reddit or somewhere else? WP:NOTAFORUM. This conversation has long moved beyond the article, which should have taken place on that talk page (however the article's issues are being resolved). Endlessly rehashing opinions is not helpful. For the new folks, please read any of the existing discussions all over this talk page, its archives, and innumerable other Native article talk pages. Yuchitown (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Ah, new people not welcome. Got it. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I value your perspective, Floquenbeam, and I am glad you came here and offered it. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is related to Wikipedia. It is related to this Wikiproject. It has spun off from the topic of discussion, yes. But there's no reason why consensus can't change, and shutting down good discussions isn't the way to resolve this. However, I do concur that it probably should happen in another topic... PersusjCP (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This is related to Wikipedia. It hasn't been endlessly circling the drain. What I have come to realize is in the past 24 hours and helped to have input from PersusjCP, Floquenbeam , and the grace and background from ARoseWolf has brought good clarification, a little more refined over the past 12 hours:
The key first issue is - is a person a citizzen of a Native American nation or people?
Their heritage is important, but it's key whether they are a citizen or not.
I appreciate that I am not the only one that differentiates someone who acknowledges someone's family history vs. someone who claims to be of a certain people WITHOUT heritage.
And, it is seeming that there is more consensus on people who are cited as of being a certain heritage, and we shouldn't ignore that.
Last, if they are universally considered xyz Native American in sources, but they are not a citizen of a nation, then cite and state the info - but don't put it in the infobox or in the introduction (no Wiki-voice). I think refinement of this idea should be typed up somewhere - if I am getting the points right or just needing refinement - at least an update of an essay. I am not going to be the only one that needs the info - and it's not fair to ask people to read through archives (and then essentially come to their own understanding of the discussions). Thanks so very much for the great discussion!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Missed this trying to avoid an edit conflict:
That's what I've got from the continued discussion. And, to be fair to everyone, I am not new. I am in the top 800s (826?) of new article writers. I have been here since 2011 and have several niches including Southwestern native peoples over thousands of years, Puebloans over thousands of years, prehistoric life in the Southwest, and colonial Spanish / Mexican history. But the citizenship in context of heritage, and being considered a particular heritage or "Native American" if not a citizen - that's new to me. I heard it before, of course, but not with the nuances. I have followed WP citing rules and regs... with a twist going forward.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I know you've been contributing great articles for a long time. Sorry for my grumpy comment; it was not aimed at you—or anyone. It just seems like the discussion about Native American identity is endlessly repeated all over this platform. If you are focused in the Southwest, the 1978 NM Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act might be worth looking up. Santa Clara Pueblo's patrilineal mandate for enrollment was upheld in the 1977 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez court case. Pueblos also reserve the right to ostracize/disenroll members who posed a threat to the community. Indigenous ancestry can always be listed on an article if substantiated, but saying one is a tribal member is a totally different situation. Yuchitown (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
Understood. Thanks for your comments. Yes, I realized people could lose their citizenship - or be disenrolled - based on their behavior.
Thanks for the Sales Act and patrilineal mandate for enrollment for Santa Clara being upheld. I will look into both. I have heard about the first, because I deal with specific biographies and artisans, but not the second.
I truly think it would help a lot to summarize the understanding, as I tried to do just above this. I may not have it right, but I think a couple key points are that will help others. There's heritage and then there's citizenship - and citizenship is required to be a member of the group of people from which you descend... as one key principle.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown (talk), great citation to make the point that the foundation of Indian identity isn't US law. The act to disenroll women who married out of the tribe was taken out of fear that White men would pursue Pueblo women as a scheme to stake a claim on rez land, as was similarly depicted in a recent a hit movie (more on this later). The fear was justified. It had been happening in NM for some time by then. The Spanish land grants (mercedes) in Norther NM, which border the Pueblos, were broken up largely this way. That was the local law, but most of the disenrolled folks stayed in the community cuz that's what they and their enrolled kin desired. Ultimately, this desire proved stronger, and local politics reversed the law and let back in generations of Pueblos who only non-community members would say they had been "self-identing (?)" since their grandmothers. The Case for Re-Argument Before the American Indian Nations Supreme Court. This story is not unique to NM. It's repeated In Indian Country throughout NA. CaroleHenson (talk), the POV that only enrollment/BIA-certified citizenship in a tribe acknowledged by the US govt confers Native American identity is in fact new. This platform is one of the few places you'll see it. There's no body of literature that supports this notion. I've asked and searched myself and come up empty handed. Consider UNDRIP_E_web.pdf. It's a very deliberated statement on the subject. Also the consensus among Natives in Central and South America, as well as NA. I consider myself to be well read on this issue and haven't come across anything even close. Tsideh (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Tsideh, Thanks so much for the information and your perspective. I assume by "this platform" you mean this page. I am not surprised to hear that there has been good conversation on this page, if that's what you mean. The UNDRIP is very good. I tried to see if the U.S. has done anything in response.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I would note something Yuchitown said which may have been overlooked. "Indigenous ancestry can always be listed on an article if substantiated" We have never disputed that on Wikipedia or in this Wiki-project. --ARoseWolf 16:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have an open question about the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill article about the wording her of status as a non-citizen and that she was told she was a Mohawk at Talk:Lillie_Rosa_Minoka_Hill#Mohawk. If you are interested, would you please weigh-in within a week with your opinion? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Native American, American Indian, Indigenous American

I have been using "Native American" because that is the label used in Native American and Native Americans in the United States - the foundational disambiguation page and article about indigenous people of the United States.

Is it better, or more proper, to say "American Indian" or "Indigenous American"? It seemed to make more sense to ask here before asking for a move on the talk pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why you have a sudden interest in writing about Native people and that you continuously create topics about identifying them? Like if you have so much difficulty over even that, other editors will have to hold your hand throughout writing articles which can be taxing.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I find this uncivil, particularly inappropriate for a project talk page, and I responded to your user page here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I think oncamera's is fair question and not uncivil. I scrolled through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology; it appears that participants there come to the table with a basic understanding of the subject matter. Not everyone needs degrees in the subjects they contribute to; Wikipedia supports autodidacts, and fortunately books, journals, and online courses on Native American studies are readily available. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown, I am not understanding your point here. We have to agree to disagree. I wanted to clarify if "Native American" is the best label for indigenous people of the United States or not. For context, I was prompted by an article that spoke of these three and that "Native American" may not be the best of the three. It's not the first time I have heard that. I wondered it it appropriate to bring up for Native Americans of the United States. Based upon the next part of your response, I won't.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
But to answer your original question: terminology depends on your subject matter. If you are writing about Indigenous people of the continental United States, Native Americans should work. American Indians or Indians are the majority of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, but the term is considered pejorative in Canada. The US Census uses American Indians and Alaska Natives because not all Alaska Natives are American Indians. Yupik peoples, Aleut, and Inuit are not American Indian. The Indigenous peoples of Greenland are Inuit. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are the Indigenous peoples of Canada. Indigenous peoples is commonly used in Mexico and Central America. Native people is a good catch-call. But one can also just use the terms found in the reference books and essays one is reading to inform edits. Native American name controversy is a good article on terminology. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yuchitown, Thanks for your response. I said in my question that I was asking about indigenous people of the United States. I agree that "Native American name controversy" is a good article on terminology. It doesn't, though, offer a suggestion about what is most appropriate. I am getting from your comments:
It's fine to use "Native Americans" and "American Indians". It's better to be more specific when writing about people from Alaska, using Native Alaskans, and I am guessing you also mean Native Hawaiians for indigenous people from Hawaii, too.
It sounds like "Indigenous American" is not used often in the United States - and would not distinguish someone as from the U.S. (I don't remember reading that in the article.)
I do use "native people" and "indigenous people" within the body of articles rather than repeating "Native American" and I don't capitalize them to make it seem as if I am talking about another group of people, but merely that they are native or indigenous.
Next steps:
I appreciate your respectful tone and thorough answer quite a bit! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous is capitalized when referring to human beings, WP:INDIGENOUS. Likewise Native people has a capitalized Native. These are standard with AP, Chicago, APA, etc. Terminology depends on what exact group of people you are discussing. Yuchitown (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Yuchitown, I will make that change going forward. I haven't seen it used that way consistently, but I am happy to be part of the crowd that follows the definition and terminology standards.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I made edits to "Next steps" - which are underlined.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
And what people of European descent feel comfortable calling the people whose ancestors lived in the Americas before Europeans showed up is in constant flux. I won't bother listing the terms that have been used in the past century or two (some of them are highly offensive), but I see no reason to believe that discarding old terms that have come to be seen as perjorative, or disrespectful, or impolite and adopting new terms will stop the cycle, as any term begins to take on negative connotations from its association with a minority group that the majority does not fully respect or accept. I believe that it is right to call a people by a name that they accept for themselves, but that works best for groups that share a language or a relatively recent shared history. I don't feel entirely comfortable with any of the terms commonly used in WP to refer to the people whose ancestors lived in the Americas before Europeans arrived. Donald Albury 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Donald Albury Yes, of course, it is best to use terminology that is not offensive, perjorative, disrespectful, or impolite terms. I haven't used "Indian" for that reason. I don't know that there's one term that everyone feels great about, but I think your goal or intention is right-on. I think that has been the intention in recent years, but I don't know how well the effort comes across. Out of curiosity, what do you think is the right terminology?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
When I have asked here in the past about using "Indian", the consensus has been that it is OK to use it. The use of "Indian" certainly has not been deprecated. As for the "right" terminology, "Indian" is controversial, "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" just feels too academic/pretentious(?), although I did choose the title Indigenous peoples of Florida when I created that article. I don't think "Amerindian" and "American Indian" ever caught on enough to be serious contenders. I suppose "Native American" is OK in contempory topics in the U.S., but I edit a lot on history, and the term has felt anachronistic to me when I am editing on topics prior to the 20th century. Thinking about that some more, I see that one book I've been heavily using as a source recently is The Native American World Beyond Apalachee by John Hann, which covers roughly the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries, so "Native American" does have scholarly use in the study of history. I think I'm talking myself into supporting "Native American" until something better comes along. Donald Albury 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Donald Albury, That is where I am at, too. I recently read an article that said that "Native American" is the worst of the three, but based upon the comments here and what I read in most sources, Native American seems to be most prevalent. Some complaints are that some people think that it means someone who is born in the United States, but I have not run across that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The term "Native American" is indeed controversial. First, the term was invented in 1902 by the American Anthropological Association and other white people in an attempt to appease their critics, journalists and activist types, and also to appear politically correct. By the 1960's the term was often used by white politicians for the same basic reason. Second, many Indians don't identify themselves as Americans and overall prefer to be identified in terms of their tribal ancestry. Third, the term more than suggests that non-Indian people who were born in the U.S.are native to no land, which to many, is an exclsionary term, based on race. Yes, many historians often employ the term, even to those Indians who were around before their was ever an America, while many historians use the common term Indians, esp in regard to the period before the US was founded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
As an enrolled citizen of a Native American tribe, I can tell you "Native American" isn't really that controversial, mostly to European Americans who think they should be considered native because they were born here on stolen land.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I try to refer to the people I write about in articles by their tribal identity, but most of the articles I work on are about people who have left no descendants that are identified as part of that people (i.e., peoples who are often called "extinct"), so I have to use what Europeans recorded as their names, whether that is some approximation (filtered through European ears) of what the people called themselves. or of what some enemies called them, or something that some Europeans made up. The problem in choosing a name for all of the people who originally lived in the Americas and their descendants is that we have only what Europeans invented. In Canada, at least, they settled on "First Nations", but even there, it is an English term. We need to use terminology that most of our readers will recognize. We cannot create a novel term. So what do we use that is least offensive or misrepresentative, but still recognizable and precise enough to be usable in the encyclopedia? Donald Albury 19:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Native American/Category:Native American history is the term used on most article titles here.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples of Canada is the most inclusive term in Canada. First Nations doesn't pick up Metis and Inuits in the sub-artic region. If we followed the rest/most of the rest of the Americas, it seems it would be Indigenous people of the United States. See Native American#Ethnic groups.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Per Indigenous peoples of the Americas: "Indigenous peoples of the United States are commonly known as Native Americans, Indians, as well as Alaska Natives."  oncamera  (talk page) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to get in a fight with you, I really don't. It's nice to start fresh. Starting fresh, though, still means addressing what you see. The sentence you referenced didn't have the word continguous in it and seems inadequate. I looked it up and it said "clarification needed".–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
How am I "fighting" you?  oncamera  (talk page) 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If this was misunderstanding on my end, I am glad to sort it out. I think I am getting your writing style a bit better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I was answering Donald Albury and thought it would be rude to exclude you. Perhaps, I should have put the ping on, after all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying on this topic, being a Native American, regardless of who you were addressing lol.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand your point. I am not telling you not to reply to this topic - and I bet you are not telling me not to reply. Time for a break, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard, Patricia Marroquin Norby

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia Marroquin Norby about how self-identification and sources should be used that might be of interest to editors.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CITIZEN / Native American/First Nations citizenship

There's discussion to remove tribal nations from MOS:CITIZEN at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Native American/First Nations citizenship.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Man, it's Crush Indigenous Sovereignty Week at Wikipedia. How dare we try to assert our existence? Yuchitown (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I guess our existence is the Great Wrong that must be corrected on Wikipedia since they always bring up WP:RGW when mentioning MOS:CITIZEN.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Regina M. Anderson

I have a question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Regina M. Anderson about whether ethnic or race information should be in categories if it's minor. In reading MOS:Ethnicity, ethnic background or race should only be in an article if it is part of a person's notability and of defining importance.

In Anderson's case, the only thing that is relevant to her education, career, and participation in the Harlem Renaissance is that she has African heritage. There's only some specific information about her African heritage. And, it is not relevant that she has partial Jewish, Swedish, Native American, etc. heritage. Please comment there if interested.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You literally answered your own question after posting the guidelines. Being African American is the only part of her ethnicity that is relevant to her career so she doesn't belong in other categories.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Well kind of, my question was about categories. I sorted out that the answer applied to both inclusion in the article and use of categories. That kind of awareness in steps happens some times with my brain. I tried to give you the most up-to-date information in this post. And, I posted here because I thought the Project might have an opinion about leaving out minor heritage info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:People of Native American descent

Is Category:People of Native American descent being used properly? Per Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#Defining:

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. The principle of "defining characteristics" applies to categorizing people, as it does to any other categorization. As the guideline on categorization says:

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

  • For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.

I see people put into descent categories where their claims are not why they are notable. An example is Category:People of Sioux descent, there are two articles, one is Linus Woods, who is an artist where his Native culture plays a crucial part to his notability, the second is Jas Mann, whose claims of being Native seem to have no notability to his musical career. I'm not saying the claims have to removed from the article, but instead, why is he in that category when it's not a WP:Defining feature?  oncamera  (talk page) 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

These evolved out of necessity because editors kept dumping various celebrities into Native categories over and over. Yuchitown (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Unless their ethnic backgrounds are relevant to their careers, why would they need to be in a category about their heritage anyway?  oncamera  (talk page) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, I'll add that if someone is enrolled citizen, they should be put be into categories about their citizenship etc, even if it's not totally why they are notable since citizen. That's different than the "so-and-so of tribal-nation descent" categories about heritage, and not citizenship.  oncamera  (talk page) 02:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it just evolved from a practical reality of Wikipedia. If you take these away, editors will just add and re-add them of the main Native categories. Whether their heritage is deemed notable or not. Yuchitown (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ in declarative statements, rather than table or list form

Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy has a thread "State-recognized tribes and the Indigenous peoples of North America WikiProject" about this WikiProject and editors are mentioned in there, since that's the apparent standard to share these links on this talkpage.  oncamera  (talk page) 04:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not un-interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Could lead to WP:canvassing since I see active discussions are being posted there and editors have been blocked in the past for making similar posts on Wikipediocracy.  oncamera  (talk page) 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure what role anyone thinks I have in First Nation discussions. I don't usually edit First Nation articles or about Indigenous people in Canada. I think I've even said that before so that comment kind of perplexes me. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Additional thoughts coming, I just need to clear my head space and I have chores to complete first. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my word, no one has ever claimed that Joy Harjo is not Native American. But glad that folks have a place to vent that isn't here. Yuchitown (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Joy Harjo is a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. I don't understand how anyone actively weighing in on Native issues could not already know that or easily look that up. Yuchitown (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
It is frustrating that these off-wiki commentators are seemingly so dead-set on assuming the worst about Wikipedia editors that it has apparently impaired their ability to read. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The internet loves conspiracy, outrage, and projection. Unfortunately, Wikipedia appears to be no exception, which saddens me. Yuchitown (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Archive_27&oldid=1243461153"