Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

cousins

Should she not be described as “fifth cousin, four times removed” of Gladstone? Most recent common ancestor is typically the base number, as it were. The children of my first cousin are my second cousins, once removed.rmacd ( talk) 17:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Update Pronouns

Since they identify as on-binary and primarily use they/them pronouns, it would be nice to see that reflected in their bio. 108.160.127.47 ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"She/they" according to instagram. If there is WP:RS that confirm they/them is primary, please add. Kire1975 ( talk) 11:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no source confirming Gladstone uses or prefers they/them as primary pronouns. Most articles continue to use she/her primarily.
A few days ago, People Magazine published this - https://people.com/why-lily-gladstone-uses-both-she-and-they-pronouns-exclusive-8419312 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Ms. Gladstone uses either female or non-gendered pronouns, the latter because many Native American languages don't gender pronouns. The plural pronouns is a method for decolonizing identity language. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of what the article says; I posted it in response to the other person regarding whether there was a source for confirmation that Gladstone used they/them as primary pronouns. No such source exists, with most articles and interviews, as well as Gladstone herself, defaulting to she/her. 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lily Gladstone is a Native American actress . Her tribes should be listed ! 141.155.7.157 ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Second or first?

Yalitza Aparicio was the first Native American/Indigenous woman to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2018. An inline citation from Time magazine was placed in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. Plenty more can be found, but it was still reverted by an IP account with no other edits in its user contribution history. If this continues, I would ask that this page be protected. Kire1975 ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that Native American usually refers to Native Americans in the United States. I've added a footnote because this confusion has generated significant controversy online in the past few days. Kire1975 ( talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fourth, apparently. Kire1975 ( talk) 20:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To help clear this up, she's the fourth Indigenous actress but the first from the United States. Thus, she is the first Native American actress nominated Academy Award for Best Actress. As cited: The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post. 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 03:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hate Keeping

@ User:JDDJS I have no idea what "hate keeping" means, but being raised on a reservation doesn't make someone Native. Having a Native mother doesn't make you a citizen of a Native tribe either. And where is the evidence that her mother was a citizen of a Native tribe? Please provide the evidence that either her or her mother was enrolled. If she's not enrolled, she may be a descendant, but she's not a Native American. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having checked the article, her father is said to be of Native American heritage. Please provide evidence that HE was enrolled. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@ JDDJS If this page is correct, she has a part Blackfoot great-grandparent and a part Nez Perce great-grandparent. Both the Blackfeet and Nez Perce tribes have a BQ of 1/4th. Doubtful she makes the cut if we are talking about a great-great-grandparent or maybe even great-great-great-grandparent. Nor is it clear that her father would either. But either way, there needs to be a reliable source showing either her or her father's enrollment in either tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe prohibits dual enrollment with other tribes, so neither of them could be enrolled with both. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This is merely your POV, neither a fact nor an established consensus of any kind anywhere. It's unfounded and quite flawed. It's fraught with the colonialist and colonized view of Indian identity that ultimately, inevitably leads to all Indians disappearing. Example: the CDIB for some folks serves as a certification that their identity is so tenuous and low on blood quantums (128ths) that, if they marry a 32/128 Indian from the rez next door, their kids will never have a such a card (I know families like this). Blood quantum does indeed matter for CDIB eligibility. But not so for Native American identity, which is much more nuanced, complex and at least as unquantifiable as any human relationship. If you keep going down the path of blood quantum, you get to absurd conclusions like a 3/4 is more Indian than a 1/2, and so on and so forth. And BTW, a CDIB trumps personal affinity. If you have such a card but've never been to or plan to ever visit your kin on the rez, you're in and your cousin who's lived there all her life is out cuz her parents were "mixed-bloods"-- 128/128ths Indians but less than 32/128s in any one tribe. Only the lingering racist belief that a CDIB entitles you to a regular cash payment by the gov is what kept Indian identity from being be measured by the blood standard that confronted our African American brothers and sisters, "any parts Black...." Otherwise blood quantum wouldn't have been a thing among Natives, certainly no more so than among, say, Italians, Lithuanians, Mayans, etc. To say blood quantum is fundamental to Native identity, is to misunderstand history and human nature.
Bo's way of thinking also misinforms the WP reader that somehow (I use this term cuz he hasn't yet (?) cited any source backing his POV) only enrollment in a US recognized tribe entitles someone to say they're Native, when it doesn't even fall within the bounds of the established consensus. It's not even useful as a framework for classifying identity, riven with exceptions, anomalies, and internal contractions. Start with the fact that the US census treats American Indian identity as a race category. The census does go on to also ask about ethnicity, but this is besides the point in this discussion, which is that the general consensus regarding American Indian identity defies Bo's POV requirement of a CDIB. If you're not White, Black, Asian or Hawaiian in the US, you're American Indian. You "self-identify" only if you're going with the odd choice, as in you're actually White and identify as Black. Full-blood Native from Denetah or Brazil? American Indian. What else would you be? By Bo's POV, Natives from, say, Canada or Guatemala who should move to the US are absurdly at once Native and non-Native. Other examples: the thousands of dis-enrolled families who until their fight with their tribal council were full tribal members; also Natives from tribes who straddle an international border and were born and still live on the other side.
This POV also denies decades of learned debate and a broad consensus among hundreds of tribes throughout the Americas, including US "recognized" tribes and the US DOJ and BIA, that colonial govt recognition cannot be the criterion for Native identity. It also mis-casts the conversation about Indian identity in the same terms people use to talk about dog breeds, and it delegates the role of tagging those that make the mark to the govt. Thus contrary to the notion of self-determination, the govt, not Native communities, have power to say x individual is Native cuz their CDIB says they have enough 128ths, but y individual ain't cuz they're short a 128th. Yet this has never been the consensus about Native authenticity and identity, certainly not among Natives. To be sure, I've never read anything about any people anywhere around the world who identify their members in terms of blood quantum. Bo, Yuckie, Wolfe, I stand ready to correct my stance should you cite or otherwise prove a competing consensus, other than of course the other WP pages you've tricked out to quote yourselves.
Meanwhile, Natives keep going the other direction from your POV, as they always have-- as human always do. They recognize their identity in their own way, according to their own history and how life should present it, consistently ignoring blood-quantum as meaningful capital. Which Native elders worry the most about blood quantum? Those from tribes whose rolls are small, not large. I haven't read anywhere that the best strategy for surviving the challenge of a small roll is to restrict membership even further. Wikipedia friends, consider this weekend's article in WAPO about Lily as only the latest affirmation of the consensus that recognition by a Native community in its own fashion, formal or not, is what makes you a Native, not a CDIB. BTW, know that Blackfeet considered doing away with blood quantum altogether in the 1990s, but the US govt argued, as it still does, that a standard other than blood quantum risks loss of recognition. Many have noted this circular and downward spiraling way of thinking . It's a fair question to ask how many tribes would even talk about blood quantum if the US govt didn't impose it, even as it contradicts its own laws and admin policies.
I'm happy the proper moniker (Native American) is still up on this page. Anything short of that would be inaccurate. For it's incorrect to say Lily isn't a Native based on the uninformed (non-scholarly nor publicly vetted) POV above. OK, the Blackfeet have more important things to do than to wade into this geeky fight in WP. But to go on about it misses the point, given this page doesn't claim she's enrolled. The point is her status as a Native American based on her recognition by and longstanding engagement with that Native community. By the standard of the established general consensus of how/who is a Native, which that WAPO article reflects is still in place, Lily's as Native American as they come. It's hateful to put so much effort into trying to push her away from this identity. To argue that she's anything short of a full member of the Native community is a disservice to that community, most especially its youth who stand to benefit the most from having such a strong role model as her.
You walk this world as how it sees and takes you, Indian, Black, White, left-hander, whatever. A govt ID won't change that. As a dark-skinned Native man once told me about his run in with group of White kids taunting him outside a bar in OK: "I said, hey, I'm half White. Did it work? No, cuz they said I couldn't prove it. And they were right." Tsideh ( talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking

Cerebral726, please clearly define how wiki-linking the same subjects in two adjoining paragraphs is helpful to readers. I could see if the article was very long but we are talking paragraphs of no more than three or four sentences side-by-side in the article. In my opinion this is classic overlinking. Her heritage is properly outlined in both the lead and article now. This doesn't appear to be a reasonable revert. -- ARose Wolf 20:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion! As I mentioned in my comment (which I'll reproduce here for others to weigh in), WP:OVERLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in [...] the first occurrence in a section." Given the fact that not many people are aware of these tribes, and the importance her upbringing has to this article as has been established on the talk page, I thought it was worth linking. I totally understand that they are rather close to each other, but it feels like a minimal-to-no downside for a large amount of convenience, as I imagine that many readers will want to click on that link in particular when reading about her upbringing, and it still follows the MOS. However, if other people also disagree, I understand that perspective as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect. (emphasis mine) We shouldn't be overlinking to bring special attention to these subjects any more than we do on other articles. And we shouldn't be overlinking as a means to show respect to this subject any more than we would other subjects. As I said, if the article were really long I could see placing other wiki-links as a courtesy which I am all for. I don't believe this case follows MOS and the justification for it is clearly not founded in policy. I don't see the convenience outweighing our need to be consistent. -- ARose Wolf 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't mention anything about respect, nor do I mean it as emphasis. By the phrase "the importance her upbringing has to this article", I mean that her upbringing has a significant bearing on a readers understanding of the subject. Especially since the word "Native American" is not used in the sentence (though not exclusively for that reason), understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context. I don't want to retain the links for emphasis or respect, I want it to clarify, as you quoted above. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It is trying to bring emphasis to those two subjects because you think it is needed for context which is why it expressly says not to. It is a circumvention of standards and a consolation for the RFC not going the way initially wanted. If you believe Native American belongs in the article then state that above and stick to it. Don't try to come up with ways to circumvent consensus. Our readers are smart. They will figure out that a blue link in an article will take them to the subject spoken about and the article isn't so long that they will lose any context. Wikipedia isn't about trying to find ways to skirt policies or give out consolation prizes when discussions don't go the way of a particular side of the discussion. The fact that you had to say that it was a reason at all speaks volumes not to mention clarifying it as not exclusively why. This is not how we improve the encyclopedia or this article. "understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context" We can say that about almost every subject so I tend to think this move is more about trying to compensate for something you feel should be in the article but isn't. It's what you would like to make the emphasis for understanding what makes the subject who she is. Even the way you added the wiki-links in your response says a lot. Why? We do not have to link every time we mention the Piegan Blackfeet or the Nez Perce any more than we should for the Crow, or Cherokee, or Seneca. In my opinion it's trying to confer special treatment and ignoring what the actual policy states. I am not saying you are doing it in bad faith. I think you have every intention of good faith throughout this entire discussion. But this is why the policy against "righting wrong's" was written. We shouldn't be trying to force what we think will aid a reader in context or what they should understand about an article. Link once, and if the article a really long I can see linking again in another section further in the article. -- ARose Wolf 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see this as a path to circumvent policies, and I'm not handing out "consolation prizes". My suggestion in the RFC actually seems to be the direction we will be going, so it's quite a strange and accusatory thing to say. My reasons are the ones I've given in good faith, that linking the tribes one additional time is useful for clarity as they are of higher-than-average importance for that section to make sense. The implication that linking them in the above comment is somehow betraying an ulterior motive is also an odd thing to say, and is contradictory with you saying you are Assuming Good Faith. I simply think the links are useful and meet the requirements of WP:OVERLINK: To clarify the first instance in a section. I'd be interested in other people's opinion. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw this pop up on my watchlist. I see no problem with linking the names twice. It is useful and helpful to our global, international community of readers who may not be familiar with these peoples and their cultures. So in effect, I think there is pedagogical value in doing so; it encourages our readership to deepen their knowledge. It seems that WP:IAR is appropriate in this case. Overlinking is sometimes used for disruption (and even vandalism) but that is certainly not the case here which seems like a misunderstanding between two good faith editors. Netherzone ( talk) 22:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Native American" actress

Closed as American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage. The last edit in this discussion is from late January. The current (and stable) version in the lede of the page (in March) seems to align closely with the consensus towards the conclusion of this RfC BusterD ( talk) 21:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

JDDJS, any reason why she should be described solely as a "Native American" actress, when she is half White? Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Because she was raised on a reservation. It's no different than when someone born and raised in New York father is a Canadian national. We wouldn't be arguing that he's not American because of that. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 14:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on Native in the lead

Should she be Native or just American in the lead? MOS:ETHNICITY acknowledges as being Native different then race/ethnicity and can be in the lead. Her mother is white (European) while her father is Native. She grew up on the reservation for the Blackfeet Nation; however it is currently unknown if she is enrolled in the tribe. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Native American. She grew up on the reservation and her roots are not in question. As I said before, we wouldn't be questioning if someone who was raised in New York by their American father is American just because they had a Canadian mother. Furthermore, she is consistently referred to as either Native or Indigenous by sources, with many noting her potential to be the first Native American to win an Oscar for acting. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American since she's frequently described that way in sources in a way that treats it as a major part of her notability. See [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - She's not enrolled in the tribe thus didn't meet MOS:CITIZEN, or there's not a source showing enrollment. Technically, anyone can grow up on a reservation. The tribe can change its laws or pass a resolution to enroll her, which I haven't seen. Perhaps if there's a source from the tribe acknowledging her as a descendant member or something, then Native American can go into the lead. But without a reliable source from a tribal source, it probably shouldn't be used if she's not enrolled.
 oncamera  (talk page) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American. She is described as a "member of the Blackfeet" or a "Blackfeet[/Nez Perce] actress" in multiple sources: [5] [6] [7] [8].-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Echoing @Oncamera. While not a policy WP:NDNID, which is referenced in MOS:ETHNICITY, is the interpretation of policy within the area of interest. A notable subject can make a claim (self-identification) and have reliable sources repeat the claim but you must have that respective tribal nation's acceptance as verification through enrollment. Without that enrollment the claim is unverified and citizenship should not be written as fact in Wiki-voice. -- ARose Wolf 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link and explanation. I will continue to research to see if I can find the Blackfeet Nation describe or claim Gladstone. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Closest I've found so far is this article from ICT News describing her as "Native Blackfeet Actress". Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American. Since she is a Blackfeet direct descendent with Nez Perce ancestry, that could be listed in the lede. Unfortunately, even the NYT is terrible about relaying accurate information about tribal enrollment. The term "direct descendant" helps explain that her connection is close not distant. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • American per Yuchitown, AroseWolf & WP:NDNID. Unless a tribal source is found or posted in the future that verifies citizenship. "Direct descendant" is an alternative until then that can go into the lead paragraphs somewhere. MOS:Ethnicity says "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names".  oncamera  (talk page) 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a primary source for Ms. Gladstone's tribal heritage. Her father is my brother. Through our father, we are both enrolled in the Blackfeet Tribe in the USA. Our mother is enrolled Nez Perce. So Ms. Gladstone is a direct descendant of both Blackfeet and Nez Perce. Describing her heritage as a descendant is accurate.
    I've made edits to this page to remove a number of passive voice and redundancies. The article read more like a news clipping than as a encyclopedic biographical record. Refer to William Zinsser's "On Writing Well" to learn academic writing.
    I corrected a statement that Ms. Gladstone is a distant cousin of Prime Minister Gladstone through her mother. Again, as the brother of her father, I know that she is related to P.M. Gladstone through her father's side, as I am related to the prime minister.
    Of note, Ms. Gladstone is not only related to Red Crow on her father's side, but also Senator James Gladstone of Canada, the first Indigenous member of parliament in that country. I don't know if that's necessary for this biography as she is accomplishing accolades on her own. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    We can not use primary sources to verify such information and, you, as a claimed family member have a WP:COI which means we need an independent source. -- ARose Wolf 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned, we can't use your statement as a source. However, do you happen to know of where this information is documented? If you can't point us to an independent source for this information, then it could be included as appropriate. Hammy ( talk) 06:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American - I am not going to argue against or try to disclaim her heritage because I can't and I assume good faith even in our subjects without reason to not believe them. Heritage is different than citizenship. I don't think anyone should discount her heritage without proper sourcing so I would be fine with "direct descendant" being included in the article. If the community believes it should then be repeated in the lead I will not oppose consensus but absent that I believe "American" should be the descriptor. I am willing to change my position should sources be found verifying her enrollment. -- ARose Wolf 17:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    As a primary source for her heritage, there is no need to disclaim her heritage. To support my claim refer to The Glacier Reporter, which is the newspaper for the Blackfeet community in Montana. Their reports on Ms. Gladstone's achievements demonstrates that Ms. Gladstone is part of the tribe. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Could you link specifically where they state she is enrolled or a member for our review? -- ARose Wolf 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    The Glacier Reporter is part of a group called Cutbank Pioneer Press. This article from that collective website includes the phrase "Lily Gladstone, actor and member of Blackfeet Nation". There appears to be more but I don't have access to the archives. Cerebral726 ( talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm finding nothing that shows the tribe owns the newspaper.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    It is owned by "Ponderosa Publications". Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Based on link's provided it may be considered a reliable source for most information but it is not owned by the tribe and does not speak for the tribe so it, by itself, can not verify citizenship or enrollment. -- ARose Wolf 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I emailed the enrollment department at blackfeetnation.com, we will see if they respond. Absent of any further source though, it seems that "American" with an added sentence describing their heritage is the way to go. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    The enrollment office responds if you mail an SASE. BTW I don't believe anyone here is doubting that she has Blackfeet ancestry and that her relatives are enrolled members. I'm not seeing a single online source claiming that *she* is an enrolled tribal member. Just to totally clarify, Lily Gladstone's father Howard Gladstone is an member of the Blackfeet Tribe and and Nez Perce descendant. Lily Gladstone is not an enrolled citizen of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, but she is a direct descendant. So her nationality would not be Blackfeet, only American. Yuchitown ( talk) 22:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
    Ya'll are taking your CDIB thing way too far. Lily's a Native American, unlike DiCaprio, who's Italian American. To not distinguish between the two is merely hateful. I can't imagine Yalitza Aparicio has a CDIB. She next on your hit list for calling herself Indigenous? Tsideh ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    Refrain from making strawman arguments just because you disagree with something. See the various MOS and other Wikipedia essays included in this discussion and also Wikipedia:WikiBullying#False_accusations.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    It was not my intention to make a strawman argument of any kind. Perhaps I was imprecise in my language-- dots set too far apart. To be clear, I'm saying that the claim that only enrollment in a US recognized tribe entitles somebody to claim to be a Native American is an unfounded and minority POV. And the proponents of this POV don't provide any basis for their claim, neither citation nor even talked explanation. It's solely a political statement that leads to absurd ends, like obvious Native Americans denied the hyphenated identity and 100% Natives from other countries denied their very existence. Meanwhile, nobody would think twice about the same for their counterparts, like Korean Americans, Italian Americans, etc. Never heard of Native American Americans. Meanwhile, there's tons of literature on the long-established consensus on Native American identity that goes directly against the requirement of a CDIB for Native identity. A great start is WP: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia. Tsideh ( talk) 02:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Non-binding resolutions by the UN do not make policy on Wikipedia. You've been told this yet you continue and it's borderline bludgeoning the process at this point. You have made your point on several article discussions. If you are for gaining consensus on the matter let's let others weigh in. -- ARose Wolf 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Where's your source that a CDIB (enrollment in a US recognized tribe) is necessary for someone to legitimately call themselves Native American? You ain't gonna find it, only tomes of literature arguing the contrary.
    BTW, your argument that "heritage is different than citizenship" but you can't claim to be a Native American without citizenship contradicts itself. Native American-- also Indigenous-- is indeed heritage, same as Italian American. You don't need to prove citizenship for either. Ask Leonardo. You'll do better if you taper down your complaint and focus on folks who claim to be enrolled in a US recognized tribe when they're not. And I don't see that's what Lily's doing. See you in /info/en/?search=Yalitza_Aparicio page?

Tsideh ( talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you like to use non-binding UN resolutions to try and prove your POV here is this, supported by the UN: "People may self-identify as "Indigenous peoples at the individual level" but this is not enough by itself: the question is whether they are "accepted by the community as their member." [1] In the US, being openly claimed by the claimed tribe is crucial." Being openly claimed by a tribe is critical in the US. That may not be the case in other parts of the world. You have to be accepted by the community as their member and to do that in the US you must be enrolled. Find a source for her enrollment and this discussion ends. -- ARose Wolf 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Native American Originally I argued that prior precedent says not to put ethnicity for actors, but I've changed my mind. Gladstone makes her Native American identity a core part of both her identity and the roles she chooses, and frequently speaks about Native American issues and politics. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native Americansince she's frequently described that way in sources in a way that treats it as a major part of her notability per Aquillion. Reliable sources and self-identification combine to verify this, WP editor's assessment of how 'wholly' native she is is WP:OR and fairly dubious, rather like arguing that Obama isn't 'African American' because of this lady. The body makes clear her mixed heritage. Pincrete ( talk) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    In no other place on Wikipedia is a subject allowed to say they are a citizen of a sovereign nation and we accept that and use it as a descriptor of them based solely on their word. These "reliable" sources are not basing their repeating of claims based on her citizenship. They are basing it off of what she says and what others say. On Wikipedia being described in Wiki-voice as Native American means you are an enrolled citizen of a Native American tribal nation. African American is a race, an ethnicity. Native American is not. -- ARose Wolf 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Would like to reiterate that neither myself or anyone else is refuting her heritage. We are just advocating for naming convention and MOS policy to be enforced. -- ARose Wolf 10:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    That's not true at all. We always take people at their word for citizenship unless there are any significant challenges to it. I don't recall anyone demanding to see an official statement from the US government when John Oliver said he was naturalized as an American citizen. The overwhelming majority with living people we take their word on their citizenship. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    John Oliver has a source stating he gained American citizenship. There's nothing that says she has citizenship to the Blackfeet Nation. Rosebud Sioux Tribe verified Bob Barker was an enrolled member when asked by a newspaper.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, it is a significant viewpoint widely reported in a multitude of reliable sources, easily verified, and is relevant and notable. Indigenous voices across Montana praise Lily Gladstone's Golden Globe achievement, the first Indigenous person in history to receive the award, born on Montana’s Blackfeet Indian Reservation, The New York Times, Boston Globe, New York Magazine, The Australian, Toronto Star, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, El Pais. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Did any of those sources verify that she's enrolled? Tribes are sovereign nations.  oncamera  (talk page) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't require documentation that she is enrolled. What we do require is documentation that Native American is reliably sourced, verifiable, widely reported and a significant viewpoint. Native American checks all those boxes. checkY And it has also consistently been reported for at least 13 years: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2023. Not a single source from any Tribe member (or anyone else), has been produced that disputes the fact she is Native American and a member of the Blackfeet and Nez Perce Nations. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    She can't have duel enrollment by laws of the Nez Pierce tribe so that caption is incorrect.  oncamera  (talk page) 18:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    We don't know whether she is enrolled or not, and even if she is not recognized as a citizen by the tribal government, that doesn't automatically exclude her from being a Native American through her descendancy and heritage. Her notability derives from her being a Native American actress, and that is abundantly clear from the weight of the sources, and therefore, is WP:DUE for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    It excludes Wikipedia from saying in Wiki-voice she is Native American because being American Indian or Native American is not a race or ethnicity you are born into. There are many, many who have a shared heritage. Even if you can trace that heritage to specific individuals that does not mean you are Native American no matter what sources may say. Even on Wikipedia we are instructed to scrutinize reliable sources. They may not be reliable at everything they say. In this instance consensus by way of MOS and naming convention have determined that the way you identify whether a subject is Native American or just self-identifies as Native American is through citizenship. I have no issue with including her heritage in the article. No one is refuting it here. -- ARose Wolf 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Her descendancy and heritage is what defines her as a Native American. Citizenship is a red herring. We have published sources since 2010 that have consistently and continually stated she is Native American, not one single source has ever been produced that disputes that she is a Native American. To just ignore the overwhelming weight of the sources would be a violation of policy. Furthermore, MOS:FIRSTBIO says in #3 and #5 that we include - activities that made the person notable and the main reason the person is notable. The activity and the main reason she is notable is because she is a Native American actress, and like I said, the weight of the sources make that clear. If someone can produce some reliable sources from members of her community and/or Tribe that explicitly state that they have disowned her or dispute her being a Native American, I'll be glad to have a look at them. Otherwise - Lily Gladstone (born August 2, 1986) is a Native American actress - is WP:DUE for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    She is notable for being an actress. -- ARose Wolf 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Though being Native American is not a race I want you to look at Kevin Hart. Does it say he is an African American actor? No. It says American. Why? Because America is where he has citizenship. In America, if you are born there you are a citizen. That is not the case for Native American's. You have to be enrolled in a tribal nation to be Native American. But even if you, erroneously, considered Native American as being a race and going by your logic I assume you do then Keven Hart's lead sentence should say - Kevin Hart (born July 6, 1979) is an African American comedian and actor. After all, citizenship is just a red herring. Citizenship is not so trivial for Native American communities. -- ARose Wolf 14:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, other stuff like Kevin Hart exists, big deal. Sources consistently describe Lilly Gladstone as a Native American actress. We follow the sources, we don't ignore them. It's reliably sourced, verifiable, notable, relevant, significant and is due for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    She's an Indian/Native American/Indigenous Person even if we go with your preference that US law is what governs her identity:
    From the US DOJ ( about-native-american):
    “As a general principle, an Indian is a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe and/or the United States. No single federal or tribal criterion establishes a person's identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine eligibility for programs and services. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership.”
    From required textbook (Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law) in law schools ( Montana School of Law-Syllabus-Indian-Law-Research.pdf, among a long list of other law schools):
    “Three basic definitions within Indian law set the general boundaries for the field in terms of political units, individuals, and territory. These key terms are “Indian tribe” or “Indian nation,” “Indian,” and “Indian country....“There has never been a single, all-purpose definition of the terms “Indian tribe” or “Indian nation” for federal purposes, despite references to such entities in the United States Constitution and a wide array of federal enactments.” Pgs. 130-131. Tsideh ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    "is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe" You, again just like with the UN source, proved what we have been saying all along. This is why her identifying as Native American is not enough. We must have documentation from a tribal nation that claims her as enrolled with that tribal nation because in the US enrollment makes you a member. We can call her an American with Native American heritage or having descended from Native Americans just as has been proposed. This acknowledges her heritage, her ancestry, but says we are currently missing that one element to confirm or verify she is an enrolled member and thus Native American herself. That's all. She can self-identify all she wants but on Wikipedia and in Wiki-voice we can't verify that at this moment. This is the last I'll say on this and will yield any further to what ever the outcome is. -- ARose Wolf 12:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American -- Wow, this heated discussion herein is so strange to me; all over something that until a few days ago was never being questioned. At this point, multiple verifiable sources exist spanning her entire career thus far. All those sources, which many of you have cited above, consistently refer to her as "Native American" or "Indigenous". This has never been contested or refuted across the numerous articles by either tribe, and I would have expected that to happen by now if it was a point of concern. I'll list a few more recent articles below for good measure. Using other Native American cast and crew members from Reservation Dogs as examples, almost all articles mention the person being Native American in the lede. Yet, very few of those individuals' Wikipedia entries contain linked sources confirming their citizenship with their respective tribes. I don't see anyone proposing that edits be made in those cases or that enrollment needs to be verified beyond the journalistic sources cited. Apologies if I've repeated any sources cited above, but I'm not sure what better sources you all would like or what would satisfy those of you doubting this. Glacier Reporter, Daily Inter Lake, Montanan, Make it Missoula, EL PAÍS, Letterboxd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
    Clearly there is work to be done and you are welcome to assist when you find examples of articles that don't meet the requested guidelines. Speaking of Reservation Dogs, I would hold D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as a model article that meets the essence of what WP:NDNID is trying to do. It is a very neutral toned article. Cerebral726's proposal for this article is similar and I believe a number of editors have supported that proposal. -- ARose Wolf 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Native American -- particularly if she self identifies as such. Slacker13 ( talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:CITIZEN, Native American and First Nation status is based on citizenship not self-identification. Her ancestry can be discussed further in the article.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
particularly if she self identifies as such is not a good argument. See Pretendian or transracial identity (not saying that Lily Gladstone is either of that). Some1 ( talk) 23:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American - per Yuchitown, AroseWolf & WP:NDNID. Her ancestry can be discussed later on in the article. Nemov ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage, specifically "Raised on the Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, Montana, she has Piegan Blackfeet, Nez Perce, and European heritage". This matches the emphasis placed on her heritage by almost all reliable sources, so we are meeting WP:DUE, but also follows the well thought out guidelines that other editors have brought up. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I strongly support this suggestion. This seems like a reasonable way to comply with all the relevant guidelines and inform the reader appropriately. Hammy ( talk) 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@ JDDJS If there is a source for her tribal citizenship, then it should have her tribal citizenship. Otherwise, American. Details about ancestry can be otherwhere in the article/intro. PersusjCP ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Cerebral726's suggestion is a good compromise. Gladstone is notable for her indigenous heritage; it would be absurd not to mention it in the lead. We should not state that she is Native American because MOS:NATIONALITY states: "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity." Additionally, NDNID has been cited MOS:BIO since late 2021. Although silent consensus is the worst form of consensus, this RfC is not the forum to apply a local consensus. Debate over NDNID should be brought to the MOS:BIO talk page. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of her heritage per Cerebral726. This is a reasonable compromise. Carlstak ( talk) 16:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    Like Rami Malek's article, maybe the lead can remain as American actress, but add in "becoming the first actress of Native American descent to be nominated for an Academy award" etc; Malek was the first of Egyptian heritage to win an academy award but does not have Egyptian citizenship (they don't allow dual citizenship), so it seems similar. His article class is a Good Article.  oncamera  (talk page) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think that is a splendid example. -- ARose Wolf 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of her heritage per rationale of Cerebral726. A sensible middle-ground solution that comports with WP standards. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American per the above comments, and I would place the description of her heritage in the second paragraph since it flows better that way. My preference: [9]. Some1 ( talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

*Native American as it appears she self-identifies as such. NihonGoBashi ( talk) 02:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Some1 ( talk) 23:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  • An account created two days ago with a total of eight edits at the time just happened to find this discussion? -- ARose Wolf 12:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage per Cerebral726. It's a reasonable way to describe the lead, since there is emphasis on her heritage. Spinixster (chat!) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Fact Sheet:Who are indigenous peoples?" (PDF). UN.org. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Lily_Gladstone/Archive_1&oldid=1227979391"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

cousins

Should she not be described as “fifth cousin, four times removed” of Gladstone? Most recent common ancestor is typically the base number, as it were. The children of my first cousin are my second cousins, once removed.rmacd ( talk) 17:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Update Pronouns

Since they identify as on-binary and primarily use they/them pronouns, it would be nice to see that reflected in their bio. 108.160.127.47 ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"She/they" according to instagram. If there is WP:RS that confirm they/them is primary, please add. Kire1975 ( talk) 11:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no source confirming Gladstone uses or prefers they/them as primary pronouns. Most articles continue to use she/her primarily.
A few days ago, People Magazine published this - https://people.com/why-lily-gladstone-uses-both-she-and-they-pronouns-exclusive-8419312 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Ms. Gladstone uses either female or non-gendered pronouns, the latter because many Native American languages don't gender pronouns. The plural pronouns is a method for decolonizing identity language. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of what the article says; I posted it in response to the other person regarding whether there was a source for confirmation that Gladstone used they/them as primary pronouns. No such source exists, with most articles and interviews, as well as Gladstone herself, defaulting to she/her. 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lily Gladstone is a Native American actress . Her tribes should be listed ! 141.155.7.157 ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Second or first?

Yalitza Aparicio was the first Native American/Indigenous woman to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2018. An inline citation from Time magazine was placed in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. Plenty more can be found, but it was still reverted by an IP account with no other edits in its user contribution history. If this continues, I would ask that this page be protected. Kire1975 ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that Native American usually refers to Native Americans in the United States. I've added a footnote because this confusion has generated significant controversy online in the past few days. Kire1975 ( talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fourth, apparently. Kire1975 ( talk) 20:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To help clear this up, she's the fourth Indigenous actress but the first from the United States. Thus, she is the first Native American actress nominated Academy Award for Best Actress. As cited: The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post. 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 03:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hate Keeping

@ User:JDDJS I have no idea what "hate keeping" means, but being raised on a reservation doesn't make someone Native. Having a Native mother doesn't make you a citizen of a Native tribe either. And where is the evidence that her mother was a citizen of a Native tribe? Please provide the evidence that either her or her mother was enrolled. If she's not enrolled, she may be a descendant, but she's not a Native American. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having checked the article, her father is said to be of Native American heritage. Please provide evidence that HE was enrolled. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@ JDDJS If this page is correct, she has a part Blackfoot great-grandparent and a part Nez Perce great-grandparent. Both the Blackfeet and Nez Perce tribes have a BQ of 1/4th. Doubtful she makes the cut if we are talking about a great-great-grandparent or maybe even great-great-great-grandparent. Nor is it clear that her father would either. But either way, there needs to be a reliable source showing either her or her father's enrollment in either tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe prohibits dual enrollment with other tribes, so neither of them could be enrolled with both. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This is merely your POV, neither a fact nor an established consensus of any kind anywhere. It's unfounded and quite flawed. It's fraught with the colonialist and colonized view of Indian identity that ultimately, inevitably leads to all Indians disappearing. Example: the CDIB for some folks serves as a certification that their identity is so tenuous and low on blood quantums (128ths) that, if they marry a 32/128 Indian from the rez next door, their kids will never have a such a card (I know families like this). Blood quantum does indeed matter for CDIB eligibility. But not so for Native American identity, which is much more nuanced, complex and at least as unquantifiable as any human relationship. If you keep going down the path of blood quantum, you get to absurd conclusions like a 3/4 is more Indian than a 1/2, and so on and so forth. And BTW, a CDIB trumps personal affinity. If you have such a card but've never been to or plan to ever visit your kin on the rez, you're in and your cousin who's lived there all her life is out cuz her parents were "mixed-bloods"-- 128/128ths Indians but less than 32/128s in any one tribe. Only the lingering racist belief that a CDIB entitles you to a regular cash payment by the gov is what kept Indian identity from being be measured by the blood standard that confronted our African American brothers and sisters, "any parts Black...." Otherwise blood quantum wouldn't have been a thing among Natives, certainly no more so than among, say, Italians, Lithuanians, Mayans, etc. To say blood quantum is fundamental to Native identity, is to misunderstand history and human nature.
Bo's way of thinking also misinforms the WP reader that somehow (I use this term cuz he hasn't yet (?) cited any source backing his POV) only enrollment in a US recognized tribe entitles someone to say they're Native, when it doesn't even fall within the bounds of the established consensus. It's not even useful as a framework for classifying identity, riven with exceptions, anomalies, and internal contractions. Start with the fact that the US census treats American Indian identity as a race category. The census does go on to also ask about ethnicity, but this is besides the point in this discussion, which is that the general consensus regarding American Indian identity defies Bo's POV requirement of a CDIB. If you're not White, Black, Asian or Hawaiian in the US, you're American Indian. You "self-identify" only if you're going with the odd choice, as in you're actually White and identify as Black. Full-blood Native from Denetah or Brazil? American Indian. What else would you be? By Bo's POV, Natives from, say, Canada or Guatemala who should move to the US are absurdly at once Native and non-Native. Other examples: the thousands of dis-enrolled families who until their fight with their tribal council were full tribal members; also Natives from tribes who straddle an international border and were born and still live on the other side.
This POV also denies decades of learned debate and a broad consensus among hundreds of tribes throughout the Americas, including US "recognized" tribes and the US DOJ and BIA, that colonial govt recognition cannot be the criterion for Native identity. It also mis-casts the conversation about Indian identity in the same terms people use to talk about dog breeds, and it delegates the role of tagging those that make the mark to the govt. Thus contrary to the notion of self-determination, the govt, not Native communities, have power to say x individual is Native cuz their CDIB says they have enough 128ths, but y individual ain't cuz they're short a 128th. Yet this has never been the consensus about Native authenticity and identity, certainly not among Natives. To be sure, I've never read anything about any people anywhere around the world who identify their members in terms of blood quantum. Bo, Yuckie, Wolfe, I stand ready to correct my stance should you cite or otherwise prove a competing consensus, other than of course the other WP pages you've tricked out to quote yourselves.
Meanwhile, Natives keep going the other direction from your POV, as they always have-- as human always do. They recognize their identity in their own way, according to their own history and how life should present it, consistently ignoring blood-quantum as meaningful capital. Which Native elders worry the most about blood quantum? Those from tribes whose rolls are small, not large. I haven't read anywhere that the best strategy for surviving the challenge of a small roll is to restrict membership even further. Wikipedia friends, consider this weekend's article in WAPO about Lily as only the latest affirmation of the consensus that recognition by a Native community in its own fashion, formal or not, is what makes you a Native, not a CDIB. BTW, know that Blackfeet considered doing away with blood quantum altogether in the 1990s, but the US govt argued, as it still does, that a standard other than blood quantum risks loss of recognition. Many have noted this circular and downward spiraling way of thinking . It's a fair question to ask how many tribes would even talk about blood quantum if the US govt didn't impose it, even as it contradicts its own laws and admin policies.
I'm happy the proper moniker (Native American) is still up on this page. Anything short of that would be inaccurate. For it's incorrect to say Lily isn't a Native based on the uninformed (non-scholarly nor publicly vetted) POV above. OK, the Blackfeet have more important things to do than to wade into this geeky fight in WP. But to go on about it misses the point, given this page doesn't claim she's enrolled. The point is her status as a Native American based on her recognition by and longstanding engagement with that Native community. By the standard of the established general consensus of how/who is a Native, which that WAPO article reflects is still in place, Lily's as Native American as they come. It's hateful to put so much effort into trying to push her away from this identity. To argue that she's anything short of a full member of the Native community is a disservice to that community, most especially its youth who stand to benefit the most from having such a strong role model as her.
You walk this world as how it sees and takes you, Indian, Black, White, left-hander, whatever. A govt ID won't change that. As a dark-skinned Native man once told me about his run in with group of White kids taunting him outside a bar in OK: "I said, hey, I'm half White. Did it work? No, cuz they said I couldn't prove it. And they were right." Tsideh ( talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking

Cerebral726, please clearly define how wiki-linking the same subjects in two adjoining paragraphs is helpful to readers. I could see if the article was very long but we are talking paragraphs of no more than three or four sentences side-by-side in the article. In my opinion this is classic overlinking. Her heritage is properly outlined in both the lead and article now. This doesn't appear to be a reasonable revert. -- ARose Wolf 20:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion! As I mentioned in my comment (which I'll reproduce here for others to weigh in), WP:OVERLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in [...] the first occurrence in a section." Given the fact that not many people are aware of these tribes, and the importance her upbringing has to this article as has been established on the talk page, I thought it was worth linking. I totally understand that they are rather close to each other, but it feels like a minimal-to-no downside for a large amount of convenience, as I imagine that many readers will want to click on that link in particular when reading about her upbringing, and it still follows the MOS. However, if other people also disagree, I understand that perspective as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect. (emphasis mine) We shouldn't be overlinking to bring special attention to these subjects any more than we do on other articles. And we shouldn't be overlinking as a means to show respect to this subject any more than we would other subjects. As I said, if the article were really long I could see placing other wiki-links as a courtesy which I am all for. I don't believe this case follows MOS and the justification for it is clearly not founded in policy. I don't see the convenience outweighing our need to be consistent. -- ARose Wolf 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't mention anything about respect, nor do I mean it as emphasis. By the phrase "the importance her upbringing has to this article", I mean that her upbringing has a significant bearing on a readers understanding of the subject. Especially since the word "Native American" is not used in the sentence (though not exclusively for that reason), understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context. I don't want to retain the links for emphasis or respect, I want it to clarify, as you quoted above. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It is trying to bring emphasis to those two subjects because you think it is needed for context which is why it expressly says not to. It is a circumvention of standards and a consolation for the RFC not going the way initially wanted. If you believe Native American belongs in the article then state that above and stick to it. Don't try to come up with ways to circumvent consensus. Our readers are smart. They will figure out that a blue link in an article will take them to the subject spoken about and the article isn't so long that they will lose any context. Wikipedia isn't about trying to find ways to skirt policies or give out consolation prizes when discussions don't go the way of a particular side of the discussion. The fact that you had to say that it was a reason at all speaks volumes not to mention clarifying it as not exclusively why. This is not how we improve the encyclopedia or this article. "understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context" We can say that about almost every subject so I tend to think this move is more about trying to compensate for something you feel should be in the article but isn't. It's what you would like to make the emphasis for understanding what makes the subject who she is. Even the way you added the wiki-links in your response says a lot. Why? We do not have to link every time we mention the Piegan Blackfeet or the Nez Perce any more than we should for the Crow, or Cherokee, or Seneca. In my opinion it's trying to confer special treatment and ignoring what the actual policy states. I am not saying you are doing it in bad faith. I think you have every intention of good faith throughout this entire discussion. But this is why the policy against "righting wrong's" was written. We shouldn't be trying to force what we think will aid a reader in context or what they should understand about an article. Link once, and if the article a really long I can see linking again in another section further in the article. -- ARose Wolf 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see this as a path to circumvent policies, and I'm not handing out "consolation prizes". My suggestion in the RFC actually seems to be the direction we will be going, so it's quite a strange and accusatory thing to say. My reasons are the ones I've given in good faith, that linking the tribes one additional time is useful for clarity as they are of higher-than-average importance for that section to make sense. The implication that linking them in the above comment is somehow betraying an ulterior motive is also an odd thing to say, and is contradictory with you saying you are Assuming Good Faith. I simply think the links are useful and meet the requirements of WP:OVERLINK: To clarify the first instance in a section. I'd be interested in other people's opinion. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw this pop up on my watchlist. I see no problem with linking the names twice. It is useful and helpful to our global, international community of readers who may not be familiar with these peoples and their cultures. So in effect, I think there is pedagogical value in doing so; it encourages our readership to deepen their knowledge. It seems that WP:IAR is appropriate in this case. Overlinking is sometimes used for disruption (and even vandalism) but that is certainly not the case here which seems like a misunderstanding between two good faith editors. Netherzone ( talk) 22:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Native American" actress

Closed as American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage. The last edit in this discussion is from late January. The current (and stable) version in the lede of the page (in March) seems to align closely with the consensus towards the conclusion of this RfC BusterD ( talk) 21:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

JDDJS, any reason why she should be described solely as a "Native American" actress, when she is half White? Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Because she was raised on a reservation. It's no different than when someone born and raised in New York father is a Canadian national. We wouldn't be arguing that he's not American because of that. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 14:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on Native in the lead

Should she be Native or just American in the lead? MOS:ETHNICITY acknowledges as being Native different then race/ethnicity and can be in the lead. Her mother is white (European) while her father is Native. She grew up on the reservation for the Blackfeet Nation; however it is currently unknown if she is enrolled in the tribe. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Native American. She grew up on the reservation and her roots are not in question. As I said before, we wouldn't be questioning if someone who was raised in New York by their American father is American just because they had a Canadian mother. Furthermore, she is consistently referred to as either Native or Indigenous by sources, with many noting her potential to be the first Native American to win an Oscar for acting. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American since she's frequently described that way in sources in a way that treats it as a major part of her notability. See [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - She's not enrolled in the tribe thus didn't meet MOS:CITIZEN, or there's not a source showing enrollment. Technically, anyone can grow up on a reservation. The tribe can change its laws or pass a resolution to enroll her, which I haven't seen. Perhaps if there's a source from the tribe acknowledging her as a descendant member or something, then Native American can go into the lead. But without a reliable source from a tribal source, it probably shouldn't be used if she's not enrolled.
 oncamera  (talk page) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American. She is described as a "member of the Blackfeet" or a "Blackfeet[/Nez Perce] actress" in multiple sources: [5] [6] [7] [8].-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Echoing @Oncamera. While not a policy WP:NDNID, which is referenced in MOS:ETHNICITY, is the interpretation of policy within the area of interest. A notable subject can make a claim (self-identification) and have reliable sources repeat the claim but you must have that respective tribal nation's acceptance as verification through enrollment. Without that enrollment the claim is unverified and citizenship should not be written as fact in Wiki-voice. -- ARose Wolf 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link and explanation. I will continue to research to see if I can find the Blackfeet Nation describe or claim Gladstone. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Closest I've found so far is this article from ICT News describing her as "Native Blackfeet Actress". Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American. Since she is a Blackfeet direct descendent with Nez Perce ancestry, that could be listed in the lede. Unfortunately, even the NYT is terrible about relaying accurate information about tribal enrollment. The term "direct descendant" helps explain that her connection is close not distant. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • American per Yuchitown, AroseWolf & WP:NDNID. Unless a tribal source is found or posted in the future that verifies citizenship. "Direct descendant" is an alternative until then that can go into the lead paragraphs somewhere. MOS:Ethnicity says "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names".  oncamera  (talk page) 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a primary source for Ms. Gladstone's tribal heritage. Her father is my brother. Through our father, we are both enrolled in the Blackfeet Tribe in the USA. Our mother is enrolled Nez Perce. So Ms. Gladstone is a direct descendant of both Blackfeet and Nez Perce. Describing her heritage as a descendant is accurate.
    I've made edits to this page to remove a number of passive voice and redundancies. The article read more like a news clipping than as a encyclopedic biographical record. Refer to William Zinsser's "On Writing Well" to learn academic writing.
    I corrected a statement that Ms. Gladstone is a distant cousin of Prime Minister Gladstone through her mother. Again, as the brother of her father, I know that she is related to P.M. Gladstone through her father's side, as I am related to the prime minister.
    Of note, Ms. Gladstone is not only related to Red Crow on her father's side, but also Senator James Gladstone of Canada, the first Indigenous member of parliament in that country. I don't know if that's necessary for this biography as she is accomplishing accolades on her own. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    We can not use primary sources to verify such information and, you, as a claimed family member have a WP:COI which means we need an independent source. -- ARose Wolf 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned, we can't use your statement as a source. However, do you happen to know of where this information is documented? If you can't point us to an independent source for this information, then it could be included as appropriate. Hammy ( talk) 06:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American - I am not going to argue against or try to disclaim her heritage because I can't and I assume good faith even in our subjects without reason to not believe them. Heritage is different than citizenship. I don't think anyone should discount her heritage without proper sourcing so I would be fine with "direct descendant" being included in the article. If the community believes it should then be repeated in the lead I will not oppose consensus but absent that I believe "American" should be the descriptor. I am willing to change my position should sources be found verifying her enrollment. -- ARose Wolf 17:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    As a primary source for her heritage, there is no need to disclaim her heritage. To support my claim refer to The Glacier Reporter, which is the newspaper for the Blackfeet community in Montana. Their reports on Ms. Gladstone's achievements demonstrates that Ms. Gladstone is part of the tribe. Jsgladstone ( talk) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Could you link specifically where they state she is enrolled or a member for our review? -- ARose Wolf 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    The Glacier Reporter is part of a group called Cutbank Pioneer Press. This article from that collective website includes the phrase "Lily Gladstone, actor and member of Blackfeet Nation". There appears to be more but I don't have access to the archives. Cerebral726 ( talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm finding nothing that shows the tribe owns the newspaper.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    It is owned by "Ponderosa Publications". Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Based on link's provided it may be considered a reliable source for most information but it is not owned by the tribe and does not speak for the tribe so it, by itself, can not verify citizenship or enrollment. -- ARose Wolf 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    I emailed the enrollment department at blackfeetnation.com, we will see if they respond. Absent of any further source though, it seems that "American" with an added sentence describing their heritage is the way to go. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    The enrollment office responds if you mail an SASE. BTW I don't believe anyone here is doubting that she has Blackfeet ancestry and that her relatives are enrolled members. I'm not seeing a single online source claiming that *she* is an enrolled tribal member. Just to totally clarify, Lily Gladstone's father Howard Gladstone is an member of the Blackfeet Tribe and and Nez Perce descendant. Lily Gladstone is not an enrolled citizen of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, but she is a direct descendant. So her nationality would not be Blackfeet, only American. Yuchitown ( talk) 22:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
    Ya'll are taking your CDIB thing way too far. Lily's a Native American, unlike DiCaprio, who's Italian American. To not distinguish between the two is merely hateful. I can't imagine Yalitza Aparicio has a CDIB. She next on your hit list for calling herself Indigenous? Tsideh ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    Refrain from making strawman arguments just because you disagree with something. See the various MOS and other Wikipedia essays included in this discussion and also Wikipedia:WikiBullying#False_accusations.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    It was not my intention to make a strawman argument of any kind. Perhaps I was imprecise in my language-- dots set too far apart. To be clear, I'm saying that the claim that only enrollment in a US recognized tribe entitles somebody to claim to be a Native American is an unfounded and minority POV. And the proponents of this POV don't provide any basis for their claim, neither citation nor even talked explanation. It's solely a political statement that leads to absurd ends, like obvious Native Americans denied the hyphenated identity and 100% Natives from other countries denied their very existence. Meanwhile, nobody would think twice about the same for their counterparts, like Korean Americans, Italian Americans, etc. Never heard of Native American Americans. Meanwhile, there's tons of literature on the long-established consensus on Native American identity that goes directly against the requirement of a CDIB for Native identity. A great start is WP: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia. Tsideh ( talk) 02:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Non-binding resolutions by the UN do not make policy on Wikipedia. You've been told this yet you continue and it's borderline bludgeoning the process at this point. You have made your point on several article discussions. If you are for gaining consensus on the matter let's let others weigh in. -- ARose Wolf 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Where's your source that a CDIB (enrollment in a US recognized tribe) is necessary for someone to legitimately call themselves Native American? You ain't gonna find it, only tomes of literature arguing the contrary.
    BTW, your argument that "heritage is different than citizenship" but you can't claim to be a Native American without citizenship contradicts itself. Native American-- also Indigenous-- is indeed heritage, same as Italian American. You don't need to prove citizenship for either. Ask Leonardo. You'll do better if you taper down your complaint and focus on folks who claim to be enrolled in a US recognized tribe when they're not. And I don't see that's what Lily's doing. See you in /info/en/?search=Yalitza_Aparicio page?

Tsideh ( talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you like to use non-binding UN resolutions to try and prove your POV here is this, supported by the UN: "People may self-identify as "Indigenous peoples at the individual level" but this is not enough by itself: the question is whether they are "accepted by the community as their member." [1] In the US, being openly claimed by the claimed tribe is crucial." Being openly claimed by a tribe is critical in the US. That may not be the case in other parts of the world. You have to be accepted by the community as their member and to do that in the US you must be enrolled. Find a source for her enrollment and this discussion ends. -- ARose Wolf 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Native American Originally I argued that prior precedent says not to put ethnicity for actors, but I've changed my mind. Gladstone makes her Native American identity a core part of both her identity and the roles she chooses, and frequently speaks about Native American issues and politics. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native Americansince she's frequently described that way in sources in a way that treats it as a major part of her notability per Aquillion. Reliable sources and self-identification combine to verify this, WP editor's assessment of how 'wholly' native she is is WP:OR and fairly dubious, rather like arguing that Obama isn't 'African American' because of this lady. The body makes clear her mixed heritage. Pincrete ( talk) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    In no other place on Wikipedia is a subject allowed to say they are a citizen of a sovereign nation and we accept that and use it as a descriptor of them based solely on their word. These "reliable" sources are not basing their repeating of claims based on her citizenship. They are basing it off of what she says and what others say. On Wikipedia being described in Wiki-voice as Native American means you are an enrolled citizen of a Native American tribal nation. African American is a race, an ethnicity. Native American is not. -- ARose Wolf 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Would like to reiterate that neither myself or anyone else is refuting her heritage. We are just advocating for naming convention and MOS policy to be enforced. -- ARose Wolf 10:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    That's not true at all. We always take people at their word for citizenship unless there are any significant challenges to it. I don't recall anyone demanding to see an official statement from the US government when John Oliver said he was naturalized as an American citizen. The overwhelming majority with living people we take their word on their citizenship. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    John Oliver has a source stating he gained American citizenship. There's nothing that says she has citizenship to the Blackfeet Nation. Rosebud Sioux Tribe verified Bob Barker was an enrolled member when asked by a newspaper.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, it is a significant viewpoint widely reported in a multitude of reliable sources, easily verified, and is relevant and notable. Indigenous voices across Montana praise Lily Gladstone's Golden Globe achievement, the first Indigenous person in history to receive the award, born on Montana’s Blackfeet Indian Reservation, The New York Times, Boston Globe, New York Magazine, The Australian, Toronto Star, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, El Pais. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Did any of those sources verify that she's enrolled? Tribes are sovereign nations.  oncamera  (talk page) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't require documentation that she is enrolled. What we do require is documentation that Native American is reliably sourced, verifiable, widely reported and a significant viewpoint. Native American checks all those boxes. checkY And it has also consistently been reported for at least 13 years: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2023. Not a single source from any Tribe member (or anyone else), has been produced that disputes the fact she is Native American and a member of the Blackfeet and Nez Perce Nations. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    She can't have duel enrollment by laws of the Nez Pierce tribe so that caption is incorrect.  oncamera  (talk page) 18:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    We don't know whether she is enrolled or not, and even if she is not recognized as a citizen by the tribal government, that doesn't automatically exclude her from being a Native American through her descendancy and heritage. Her notability derives from her being a Native American actress, and that is abundantly clear from the weight of the sources, and therefore, is WP:DUE for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    It excludes Wikipedia from saying in Wiki-voice she is Native American because being American Indian or Native American is not a race or ethnicity you are born into. There are many, many who have a shared heritage. Even if you can trace that heritage to specific individuals that does not mean you are Native American no matter what sources may say. Even on Wikipedia we are instructed to scrutinize reliable sources. They may not be reliable at everything they say. In this instance consensus by way of MOS and naming convention have determined that the way you identify whether a subject is Native American or just self-identifies as Native American is through citizenship. I have no issue with including her heritage in the article. No one is refuting it here. -- ARose Wolf 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Her descendancy and heritage is what defines her as a Native American. Citizenship is a red herring. We have published sources since 2010 that have consistently and continually stated she is Native American, not one single source has ever been produced that disputes that she is a Native American. To just ignore the overwhelming weight of the sources would be a violation of policy. Furthermore, MOS:FIRSTBIO says in #3 and #5 that we include - activities that made the person notable and the main reason the person is notable. The activity and the main reason she is notable is because she is a Native American actress, and like I said, the weight of the sources make that clear. If someone can produce some reliable sources from members of her community and/or Tribe that explicitly state that they have disowned her or dispute her being a Native American, I'll be glad to have a look at them. Otherwise - Lily Gladstone (born August 2, 1986) is a Native American actress - is WP:DUE for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    She is notable for being an actress. -- ARose Wolf 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Though being Native American is not a race I want you to look at Kevin Hart. Does it say he is an African American actor? No. It says American. Why? Because America is where he has citizenship. In America, if you are born there you are a citizen. That is not the case for Native American's. You have to be enrolled in a tribal nation to be Native American. But even if you, erroneously, considered Native American as being a race and going by your logic I assume you do then Keven Hart's lead sentence should say - Kevin Hart (born July 6, 1979) is an African American comedian and actor. After all, citizenship is just a red herring. Citizenship is not so trivial for Native American communities. -- ARose Wolf 14:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, other stuff like Kevin Hart exists, big deal. Sources consistently describe Lilly Gladstone as a Native American actress. We follow the sources, we don't ignore them. It's reliably sourced, verifiable, notable, relevant, significant and is due for the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    She's an Indian/Native American/Indigenous Person even if we go with your preference that US law is what governs her identity:
    From the US DOJ ( about-native-american):
    “As a general principle, an Indian is a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe and/or the United States. No single federal or tribal criterion establishes a person's identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine eligibility for programs and services. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership.”
    From required textbook (Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law) in law schools ( Montana School of Law-Syllabus-Indian-Law-Research.pdf, among a long list of other law schools):
    “Three basic definitions within Indian law set the general boundaries for the field in terms of political units, individuals, and territory. These key terms are “Indian tribe” or “Indian nation,” “Indian,” and “Indian country....“There has never been a single, all-purpose definition of the terms “Indian tribe” or “Indian nation” for federal purposes, despite references to such entities in the United States Constitution and a wide array of federal enactments.” Pgs. 130-131. Tsideh ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    "is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe" You, again just like with the UN source, proved what we have been saying all along. This is why her identifying as Native American is not enough. We must have documentation from a tribal nation that claims her as enrolled with that tribal nation because in the US enrollment makes you a member. We can call her an American with Native American heritage or having descended from Native Americans just as has been proposed. This acknowledges her heritage, her ancestry, but says we are currently missing that one element to confirm or verify she is an enrolled member and thus Native American herself. That's all. She can self-identify all she wants but on Wikipedia and in Wiki-voice we can't verify that at this moment. This is the last I'll say on this and will yield any further to what ever the outcome is. -- ARose Wolf 12:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Native American -- Wow, this heated discussion herein is so strange to me; all over something that until a few days ago was never being questioned. At this point, multiple verifiable sources exist spanning her entire career thus far. All those sources, which many of you have cited above, consistently refer to her as "Native American" or "Indigenous". This has never been contested or refuted across the numerous articles by either tribe, and I would have expected that to happen by now if it was a point of concern. I'll list a few more recent articles below for good measure. Using other Native American cast and crew members from Reservation Dogs as examples, almost all articles mention the person being Native American in the lede. Yet, very few of those individuals' Wikipedia entries contain linked sources confirming their citizenship with their respective tribes. I don't see anyone proposing that edits be made in those cases or that enrollment needs to be verified beyond the journalistic sources cited. Apologies if I've repeated any sources cited above, but I'm not sure what better sources you all would like or what would satisfy those of you doubting this. Glacier Reporter, Daily Inter Lake, Montanan, Make it Missoula, EL PAÍS, Letterboxd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.138.203 ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
    Clearly there is work to be done and you are welcome to assist when you find examples of articles that don't meet the requested guidelines. Speaking of Reservation Dogs, I would hold D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as a model article that meets the essence of what WP:NDNID is trying to do. It is a very neutral toned article. Cerebral726's proposal for this article is similar and I believe a number of editors have supported that proposal. -- ARose Wolf 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Native American -- particularly if she self identifies as such. Slacker13 ( talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:CITIZEN, Native American and First Nation status is based on citizenship not self-identification. Her ancestry can be discussed further in the article.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
particularly if she self identifies as such is not a good argument. See Pretendian or transracial identity (not saying that Lily Gladstone is either of that). Some1 ( talk) 23:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American - per Yuchitown, AroseWolf & WP:NDNID. Her ancestry can be discussed later on in the article. Nemov ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage, specifically "Raised on the Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, Montana, she has Piegan Blackfeet, Nez Perce, and European heritage". This matches the emphasis placed on her heritage by almost all reliable sources, so we are meeting WP:DUE, but also follows the well thought out guidelines that other editors have brought up. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    I strongly support this suggestion. This seems like a reasonable way to comply with all the relevant guidelines and inform the reader appropriately. Hammy ( talk) 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@ JDDJS If there is a source for her tribal citizenship, then it should have her tribal citizenship. Otherwise, American. Details about ancestry can be otherwhere in the article/intro. PersusjCP ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Cerebral726's suggestion is a good compromise. Gladstone is notable for her indigenous heritage; it would be absurd not to mention it in the lead. We should not state that she is Native American because MOS:NATIONALITY states: "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity." Additionally, NDNID has been cited MOS:BIO since late 2021. Although silent consensus is the worst form of consensus, this RfC is not the forum to apply a local consensus. Debate over NDNID should be brought to the MOS:BIO talk page. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of her heritage per Cerebral726. This is a reasonable compromise. Carlstak ( talk) 16:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    Like Rami Malek's article, maybe the lead can remain as American actress, but add in "becoming the first actress of Native American descent to be nominated for an Academy award" etc; Malek was the first of Egyptian heritage to win an academy award but does not have Egyptian citizenship (they don't allow dual citizenship), so it seems similar. His article class is a Good Article.  oncamera  (talk page) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think that is a splendid example. -- ARose Wolf 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of her heritage per rationale of Cerebral726. A sensible middle-ground solution that comports with WP standards. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American per the above comments, and I would place the description of her heritage in the second paragraph since it flows better that way. My preference: [9]. Some1 ( talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

*Native American as it appears she self-identifies as such. NihonGoBashi ( talk) 02:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Some1 ( talk) 23:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  • An account created two days ago with a total of eight edits at the time just happened to find this discussion? -- ARose Wolf 12:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • American, immediately followed by a description of their heritage per Cerebral726. It's a reasonable way to describe the lead, since there is emphasis on her heritage. Spinixster (chat!) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Fact Sheet:Who are indigenous peoples?" (PDF). UN.org. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Lily_Gladstone/Archive_1&oldid=1227979391"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE