This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Native American ancestry redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
«Hispanic families in Latin America». Dude, by definition, all families in Latin America are Hispanic, save, perhaps, some immigrant who arrived last night. See Wikipedia: "The term Hispanic (Spanish: hispano or hispánico) broadly refers to the people, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to the Spanish language or the country of Spain."
To reiterate: the only exception would be a non-Hispanic family, say an immigrant New Zealand family who arrived recently to Argentina and has not yet assimilated. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi IP editor - you are removing a substantial chunk of cited content. Your edit summaries assert that there are studies supporting your changes, but you have not given any specific links. Please set out your concerns with the current content here, and provide citations to reliable sources that might support the changes you want to make; if you persist in removing sourced content without discussion, your IP address may be blocked from editing. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Relevant source quotes:
Patterns of Genetic Ancestry of Self-Reported European Americans We find that many self-reported European Americans, predominantly those living west of the Mississippi River, carry Native American ancestry (Figure 3B). We estimate that European Americans who carry at least 2% Native American ancestry are found most frequently in Louisiana, North Dakota, and other states in the West. Using a less stringent threshold of 1%, our estimates suggest that as many as 8% of individuals from Louisiana and upward of 3% of individuals from some states in the West and Southwest carry Native American ancestry (Figure S7).
Link to figure 3 demonstrating variability of ancestral components by state (data can also be found in Supplemental Document S1):
The amount of Native American ancestry estimated for African Americans also varies across states in the US. More than 5% of African Americans are estimated to carry at least 2% Native American ancestry genome-wide (Figures S1 and and1D).1D). African Americans in the West and Southwest on average carry higher levels of Native American ancestry, a trend that is largely driven by individuals with less than 2% Native American ancestry (Figure 1B).
- Hunan201p ( talk) 20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: your recent additions include original research and WP:UNDUE weught, including changing the lede to this:
In human population genetics, Native American ancestry is the theory that genetic ancestry can trace a relationship back to one or more individuals who were indigenous to the Americas.
Well, that's not "a theory in human population genetics", but more like the opinion of Kim TallBear. That kind of WP:WEASEL wording is not found in Bryc, et al. (2015) or Spear, et al. (2020), which are actual genetics studies.
And in
another edit you even projected TallBear's perspective on to those studies, such as by substituting common-sense language like "Native American ancestry" with markers associated with Indigenous ancestry
or what these companies mark as Native American ancestry
. In addition to being simply false, this language is clearly adopted from this source,
"Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism", which concerns haplogroups
and not the genome-wide genetic data found in Bryc, et al. and Spear, et al. and countless other studies, none of which use 'markers', i.e., haplogroups or single mutations, but genome-wide ancestry.
The dogmatic language here: There is no DNA test that can reliably confirm Native American ancestry, and no DNA test can indicate tribal origin
is repetitive and well beyond the scope of the article, and gives the article a distinctly biased tone based on what some anthropologists think rather than what genetics research says. -
Hunan201p (
talk)
21:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"Markers" is used in a number of the sources;
That genetic ancestry of self-described groups varies across geographic locations in the US has been documented in anecdotal examples but has not previously been explored systematically. Most early studies of African Americans had limited resolution of ancestry because of small sample sizes and few genetic markers, and recent studies typically have limited geographic scope. Though much work has been done to characterize the genetic diversity among Latino populations from across the Americas, it is unclear the extent to which Latinos within the US share or mirror these patterns on a national or local scale. Most analyses have relied on mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomes, or small sets of ancestry-informative markers, and few high-density genome-wide SNP studies have explored fine-scale patterns of African and Native American ancestry in individuals living across the US.
Here, we describe a large-scale, nationwide study of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans by using high-density genotype data to examine subtle ancestry patterns in these three groups across the US. To improve the understanding of the relationship between genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnic and racial identity, and to characterize heterogeneity in the fine-scale genetic ancestry of groups from different parts of the US, we inferred the genetic ancestry of 5,269 self-reported African Americans, 8,663 Latinos, and 148,789 European Americans who are 23andMe customers living across the US, by using high-density SNPs genotype data from 650K to 1M arrays.
Using genotype data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, we find that Amerindigenous ancestry increased by an average of ~20% spanning 1940s-1990s in Mexican Americans.
The markers are principally analyzed in two locations in people's genes‚ in their mitochondrial DNA and on the Y-chromosome.
The source you added is not scholarly and uses some problematic language.
Multiple scholarly sources agree that these genetic results cannot reliably indicate if someone has Native American ancestry
Fitzgerald, Kathleen J. (3 June 2020). Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-51440-1.
Kim Tallbear (2013) writes about how genetic science takes centre stage in defining indigeneity and belonging – the privileging of the 'genomic articulation of indigeneity' over traditional practices of adjudicating belonging.
Native studies scholars who have interfaced with science and technology studies, such as like Kim TallBear, Gregory Cajete, Kyle Whyte, and Robin Kimmerer, similarily challenge the view of science as objective, arguing that what counts as science is culturally relative, that Indigenous knowledge should be better incorporated in to what counts as science, and that it is important that indigenous are protected in the production of scientific knowledge.
Bryc 2015: "We generated cohorts of self-reported European American, African American, and Latino individuals from self-reported ethnicity and identity. We obtained ancestry estimates from genotype data by using a Support Vector Machine-based algorithm that infers population ancestry with Native American, African, and European reference panels, leveraging geographic information collected through surveys (see Durand et al.33). For details on genotyping and ancestry deconvolution methods, see Subjects and Methods."
generate cohortsof
self-reported European American, African American, and Latino individuals from self-reported ethnicity and identity. Notice, there are no Native American cohorts in this study. The ancestry estimates (which do include Native American ancestry) are obtained from
genotype data by using a Support Vector Machine-based algorithm that infers population ancestry with Native American, African, and European reference panels, leveraging geographic information collected through surveys (see Durand et al.33).
"I previously wrote about a large-scale genetic analysis among the American population by personal genetics and genealogy company 23andMe, using its extensive database to begin to decipher the ancestral origins of various ethnic groups in the United States. Though the study involved more than 160,000 people, less than one percent of those who participated self-identified as Native American."- Suresh, Arvind (6 Oct 2016). "Native Americans fear potential exploitation of their DNA". Genetic Literacy Project. Archived from the original on November 23, 2021. Retrieved 7 Sep 2021.
four ASW individuals with high proportions of Native American ancestry (NA20299, NA20314, NA20414 and NA19625)., three of whom
have previously been reported as likely to have Native American ancestry (Gourraud et al., 2014)..
SureshGLPand
CareyNHGRI, to cast WP:SYNTH doubts and preserve your POV. You won't fare well with this kind of blatantly biased and heavy handed editing no matter who you think you are. - Hunan201p ( talk) 23:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, depending on how one views the importance of lineal biological descent in constituting a "tribe", it might surprise that the only direct Native American lineage scientists found [ed: in the Wampanoag tribe] is traceable probably to a Cherokee ancestor who married a Wampanoag several generations ago.
My attempts to find a verifiable link to Weyanoke.org Tallbear citation have proven unfruitful.
Wayback machine has a number of "captures" of the link, but all are the same rotted page as the raw url, or otherwise broken:
Anyone got a replacement citation that says something similar? Hunan201p ( talk) 21:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Tallbear, Kim (2013) pp.132-136 is cited in the lede, as a result of using the ref name cite from the main.
Pp.132-136 are an accurate range for the content about those with Native American ancestry in their test results still identifying as white, but these pages do not substantiate the lede claim. The content about Native American DNA geneaology starts from pp.142-xx (Chapter 4: The Genographic Project, concerning Spencer Wells's commentary). I am noting this here as a reminder to work it out with a harvnb cite using specific page numbers when I get the precious time, any help from CorbieV or others is greatly appreciated. Have a good one. - Hunan201p ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This easily digestible and straightforward first sentence:
In human population genetics Native American ancestry has been detected in non-Indigenous populations.
Has been changed to this really monstrous heap of words:
In human population genetics, genetic indicators assigned by most researchers to Indigenous Peoples of the Americas have been detected in non-Indigenous populations; these indicators have come to be known in most studies, and marketed by DNA companies as, Native American ancestry.
The former accurately reflects the pull quote in the citation given, which boldy states that "Native American" ancestry is found in European and African Americans, and can be reliably detected at low proportions in genotype studies.
The latter is CorbieVreccan's over-reaching POV.
Policies and an essay against this kind of poor penmanship are linked below.
MOS:REFERS ... Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
WP:ISAWORDFOR ... sometimes articles (particularly stubs) have poorly written dictionary-style introductory sentences, such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus.", or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine."
WP:SPADE ... For example, POV pushers often like to create obfuscated prose which disguises the majority view.
The obvious best course of action here is to just keep the first sentence the way it had been for roughly half a year. - - Hunan201p ( talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In human population genetics, what is defined as Native American ancestry is based on genetic indicators from Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in general, and not on data isolated to Native Americans in the United States. (ref Carey)(ref Garrison) These indicators have also been detected in non-Indigenous populations.(ref Bryc)
Likewise, our estimates of Native American ancestry arise from a summary over many distinct subpopulations, but we are limited in scope because of insufficient sample sizes from subpopulations, so we currently use individuals from Central and South American together as a reference set (see Durand et al.33 for a list of populations and sample sizes).
@ User:CorbieVreccan, @ User:Yuchitown, @ User:Vizjim, @ User:Indigenous girl, @ User:TulsaPoliticsFan
The article on Cherokee descent addresses both legitimate Cherokee descendants who aren't enrolled (who are usually UKB or Eastern Band, since those nations use BQ and the Cherokee Nation doesn't) AND the idea of self-identified/DNA-test-identified "Cherokee" ancestry. This article mostly addresses self-identified ancestry, DNA, etc. but doesn't really mention legitimate non-enrolled descendants (Examples: Paula Gunn Allen, Andrea Carlson, Van T. Barfoot). Should that be mentioned in the article? Should that be a separate article? I have little interest in adding this content, but I thought I'd bring up the issue. Thanks.
I would also ask...is there even one person in the American people of Cherokee descent category who is a legitimate Cherokee descendant? I don't think there is, but open to correction. Should we move self-identified but unverified "Cherokee descent" (and "Ojibwe descent", "Muscogee descent" etc.) people to the American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent category? Should there be sub-cats like Category:American people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent? I think only a few groups like Cherokee or Muscogee would be big enough to populate. Note: If we moved all the unverified "of descent" people into the broad category for self-identified Native ancestry, some or maybe even most of these "of descent" categories would be deleted for being unpopulated. Most of these people claiming Cherokee descent or some vague distant ancestry are simply white Pretendians with a family lore, but I'd also add that N. Scott Momaday's white mother claimed Cherokee descent through a great-grandmother...so we should be aware that even Native people (and Native descendants) may have a white parent or white grandparent with Pretendian lore. Leslie Marmon Silko had a white grandparent with "part Cherokee" claims, as another example. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 23:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with the creation of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent since we can verify claims, but as far as verifying legitimacy, that's a whole different story. Where are the secondary, published sources discussing all of these people's ancestry? There's no room for WP:OR; that goes for others; that goes for us. We can verify with published references when someone makes a claim; then it's fairly easy to substantiate it when a tribal community claims an individual, but finding ancestral information that is published and not a blog, a Tweet, a personal conversation, or primary documents (i.e. original research genealogy) is a massive challenge. In response to Corbie, Eddie Chuculate (Muscogee/Cherokee) just popped up on my watchlist. I believe that's what you will find a lot of; people who are documented descendants who have enrolled in other tribes. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
@ Bohemian Baltimore, Yuchitown, Indigenous girl, Vizjim, TulsaPoliticsFan, Hunan201p, Northern Moonlight, and IntoThinAir:
If you haven't, please look over the two discussions above about renaming and the various articles we could possibly merge this into. Bohemian Baltimore has been doing a heroic job of cat sorting, and along with Yuchitown we've done some page sorting, as well. Cleanup is ongoing, but I think we can now assess:
Native Americans in the United States already has a DNA section. Native American identity in the United States, does not have a section on DNA, but does discuss some of the same issues as this one, and uses some of the same sources. Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas is the main article, and has a subsection I'm cleaning up that actually links here. While we could just move this to that section: Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas#North America, I'm thinking this article would probably work best moved to be a section in Native American identity in the United States, titled "DNA" or "DNA tests", with the "main" link section header to the Genetic history article. Any overlapping content could then be trimmed. If there are no objections or better suggestions, I'll proceed. Or another option would be to swap the content at Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas#North America into the Identity article, and merge this section over to Genetic history. If you have a preference, please let us know. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Native American ancestry redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
«Hispanic families in Latin America». Dude, by definition, all families in Latin America are Hispanic, save, perhaps, some immigrant who arrived last night. See Wikipedia: "The term Hispanic (Spanish: hispano or hispánico) broadly refers to the people, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to the Spanish language or the country of Spain."
To reiterate: the only exception would be a non-Hispanic family, say an immigrant New Zealand family who arrived recently to Argentina and has not yet assimilated. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi IP editor - you are removing a substantial chunk of cited content. Your edit summaries assert that there are studies supporting your changes, but you have not given any specific links. Please set out your concerns with the current content here, and provide citations to reliable sources that might support the changes you want to make; if you persist in removing sourced content without discussion, your IP address may be blocked from editing. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Relevant source quotes:
Patterns of Genetic Ancestry of Self-Reported European Americans We find that many self-reported European Americans, predominantly those living west of the Mississippi River, carry Native American ancestry (Figure 3B). We estimate that European Americans who carry at least 2% Native American ancestry are found most frequently in Louisiana, North Dakota, and other states in the West. Using a less stringent threshold of 1%, our estimates suggest that as many as 8% of individuals from Louisiana and upward of 3% of individuals from some states in the West and Southwest carry Native American ancestry (Figure S7).
Link to figure 3 demonstrating variability of ancestral components by state (data can also be found in Supplemental Document S1):
The amount of Native American ancestry estimated for African Americans also varies across states in the US. More than 5% of African Americans are estimated to carry at least 2% Native American ancestry genome-wide (Figures S1 and and1D).1D). African Americans in the West and Southwest on average carry higher levels of Native American ancestry, a trend that is largely driven by individuals with less than 2% Native American ancestry (Figure 1B).
- Hunan201p ( talk) 20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: your recent additions include original research and WP:UNDUE weught, including changing the lede to this:
In human population genetics, Native American ancestry is the theory that genetic ancestry can trace a relationship back to one or more individuals who were indigenous to the Americas.
Well, that's not "a theory in human population genetics", but more like the opinion of Kim TallBear. That kind of WP:WEASEL wording is not found in Bryc, et al. (2015) or Spear, et al. (2020), which are actual genetics studies.
And in
another edit you even projected TallBear's perspective on to those studies, such as by substituting common-sense language like "Native American ancestry" with markers associated with Indigenous ancestry
or what these companies mark as Native American ancestry
. In addition to being simply false, this language is clearly adopted from this source,
"Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism", which concerns haplogroups
and not the genome-wide genetic data found in Bryc, et al. and Spear, et al. and countless other studies, none of which use 'markers', i.e., haplogroups or single mutations, but genome-wide ancestry.
The dogmatic language here: There is no DNA test that can reliably confirm Native American ancestry, and no DNA test can indicate tribal origin
is repetitive and well beyond the scope of the article, and gives the article a distinctly biased tone based on what some anthropologists think rather than what genetics research says. -
Hunan201p (
talk)
21:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"Markers" is used in a number of the sources;
That genetic ancestry of self-described groups varies across geographic locations in the US has been documented in anecdotal examples but has not previously been explored systematically. Most early studies of African Americans had limited resolution of ancestry because of small sample sizes and few genetic markers, and recent studies typically have limited geographic scope. Though much work has been done to characterize the genetic diversity among Latino populations from across the Americas, it is unclear the extent to which Latinos within the US share or mirror these patterns on a national or local scale. Most analyses have relied on mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomes, or small sets of ancestry-informative markers, and few high-density genome-wide SNP studies have explored fine-scale patterns of African and Native American ancestry in individuals living across the US.
Here, we describe a large-scale, nationwide study of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans by using high-density genotype data to examine subtle ancestry patterns in these three groups across the US. To improve the understanding of the relationship between genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnic and racial identity, and to characterize heterogeneity in the fine-scale genetic ancestry of groups from different parts of the US, we inferred the genetic ancestry of 5,269 self-reported African Americans, 8,663 Latinos, and 148,789 European Americans who are 23andMe customers living across the US, by using high-density SNPs genotype data from 650K to 1M arrays.
Using genotype data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, we find that Amerindigenous ancestry increased by an average of ~20% spanning 1940s-1990s in Mexican Americans.
The markers are principally analyzed in two locations in people's genes‚ in their mitochondrial DNA and on the Y-chromosome.
The source you added is not scholarly and uses some problematic language.
Multiple scholarly sources agree that these genetic results cannot reliably indicate if someone has Native American ancestry
Fitzgerald, Kathleen J. (3 June 2020). Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-51440-1.
Kim Tallbear (2013) writes about how genetic science takes centre stage in defining indigeneity and belonging – the privileging of the 'genomic articulation of indigeneity' over traditional practices of adjudicating belonging.
Native studies scholars who have interfaced with science and technology studies, such as like Kim TallBear, Gregory Cajete, Kyle Whyte, and Robin Kimmerer, similarily challenge the view of science as objective, arguing that what counts as science is culturally relative, that Indigenous knowledge should be better incorporated in to what counts as science, and that it is important that indigenous are protected in the production of scientific knowledge.
Bryc 2015: "We generated cohorts of self-reported European American, African American, and Latino individuals from self-reported ethnicity and identity. We obtained ancestry estimates from genotype data by using a Support Vector Machine-based algorithm that infers population ancestry with Native American, African, and European reference panels, leveraging geographic information collected through surveys (see Durand et al.33). For details on genotyping and ancestry deconvolution methods, see Subjects and Methods."
generate cohortsof
self-reported European American, African American, and Latino individuals from self-reported ethnicity and identity. Notice, there are no Native American cohorts in this study. The ancestry estimates (which do include Native American ancestry) are obtained from
genotype data by using a Support Vector Machine-based algorithm that infers population ancestry with Native American, African, and European reference panels, leveraging geographic information collected through surveys (see Durand et al.33).
"I previously wrote about a large-scale genetic analysis among the American population by personal genetics and genealogy company 23andMe, using its extensive database to begin to decipher the ancestral origins of various ethnic groups in the United States. Though the study involved more than 160,000 people, less than one percent of those who participated self-identified as Native American."- Suresh, Arvind (6 Oct 2016). "Native Americans fear potential exploitation of their DNA". Genetic Literacy Project. Archived from the original on November 23, 2021. Retrieved 7 Sep 2021.
four ASW individuals with high proportions of Native American ancestry (NA20299, NA20314, NA20414 and NA19625)., three of whom
have previously been reported as likely to have Native American ancestry (Gourraud et al., 2014)..
SureshGLPand
CareyNHGRI, to cast WP:SYNTH doubts and preserve your POV. You won't fare well with this kind of blatantly biased and heavy handed editing no matter who you think you are. - Hunan201p ( talk) 23:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, depending on how one views the importance of lineal biological descent in constituting a "tribe", it might surprise that the only direct Native American lineage scientists found [ed: in the Wampanoag tribe] is traceable probably to a Cherokee ancestor who married a Wampanoag several generations ago.
My attempts to find a verifiable link to Weyanoke.org Tallbear citation have proven unfruitful.
Wayback machine has a number of "captures" of the link, but all are the same rotted page as the raw url, or otherwise broken:
Anyone got a replacement citation that says something similar? Hunan201p ( talk) 21:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Tallbear, Kim (2013) pp.132-136 is cited in the lede, as a result of using the ref name cite from the main.
Pp.132-136 are an accurate range for the content about those with Native American ancestry in their test results still identifying as white, but these pages do not substantiate the lede claim. The content about Native American DNA geneaology starts from pp.142-xx (Chapter 4: The Genographic Project, concerning Spencer Wells's commentary). I am noting this here as a reminder to work it out with a harvnb cite using specific page numbers when I get the precious time, any help from CorbieV or others is greatly appreciated. Have a good one. - Hunan201p ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This easily digestible and straightforward first sentence:
In human population genetics Native American ancestry has been detected in non-Indigenous populations.
Has been changed to this really monstrous heap of words:
In human population genetics, genetic indicators assigned by most researchers to Indigenous Peoples of the Americas have been detected in non-Indigenous populations; these indicators have come to be known in most studies, and marketed by DNA companies as, Native American ancestry.
The former accurately reflects the pull quote in the citation given, which boldy states that "Native American" ancestry is found in European and African Americans, and can be reliably detected at low proportions in genotype studies.
The latter is CorbieVreccan's over-reaching POV.
Policies and an essay against this kind of poor penmanship are linked below.
MOS:REFERS ... Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
WP:ISAWORDFOR ... sometimes articles (particularly stubs) have poorly written dictionary-style introductory sentences, such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus.", or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine."
WP:SPADE ... For example, POV pushers often like to create obfuscated prose which disguises the majority view.
The obvious best course of action here is to just keep the first sentence the way it had been for roughly half a year. - - Hunan201p ( talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In human population genetics, what is defined as Native American ancestry is based on genetic indicators from Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in general, and not on data isolated to Native Americans in the United States. (ref Carey)(ref Garrison) These indicators have also been detected in non-Indigenous populations.(ref Bryc)
Likewise, our estimates of Native American ancestry arise from a summary over many distinct subpopulations, but we are limited in scope because of insufficient sample sizes from subpopulations, so we currently use individuals from Central and South American together as a reference set (see Durand et al.33 for a list of populations and sample sizes).
@ User:CorbieVreccan, @ User:Yuchitown, @ User:Vizjim, @ User:Indigenous girl, @ User:TulsaPoliticsFan
The article on Cherokee descent addresses both legitimate Cherokee descendants who aren't enrolled (who are usually UKB or Eastern Band, since those nations use BQ and the Cherokee Nation doesn't) AND the idea of self-identified/DNA-test-identified "Cherokee" ancestry. This article mostly addresses self-identified ancestry, DNA, etc. but doesn't really mention legitimate non-enrolled descendants (Examples: Paula Gunn Allen, Andrea Carlson, Van T. Barfoot). Should that be mentioned in the article? Should that be a separate article? I have little interest in adding this content, but I thought I'd bring up the issue. Thanks.
I would also ask...is there even one person in the American people of Cherokee descent category who is a legitimate Cherokee descendant? I don't think there is, but open to correction. Should we move self-identified but unverified "Cherokee descent" (and "Ojibwe descent", "Muscogee descent" etc.) people to the American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent category? Should there be sub-cats like Category:American people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent? I think only a few groups like Cherokee or Muscogee would be big enough to populate. Note: If we moved all the unverified "of descent" people into the broad category for self-identified Native ancestry, some or maybe even most of these "of descent" categories would be deleted for being unpopulated. Most of these people claiming Cherokee descent or some vague distant ancestry are simply white Pretendians with a family lore, but I'd also add that N. Scott Momaday's white mother claimed Cherokee descent through a great-grandmother...so we should be aware that even Native people (and Native descendants) may have a white parent or white grandparent with Pretendian lore. Leslie Marmon Silko had a white grandparent with "part Cherokee" claims, as another example. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 23:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with the creation of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent since we can verify claims, but as far as verifying legitimacy, that's a whole different story. Where are the secondary, published sources discussing all of these people's ancestry? There's no room for WP:OR; that goes for others; that goes for us. We can verify with published references when someone makes a claim; then it's fairly easy to substantiate it when a tribal community claims an individual, but finding ancestral information that is published and not a blog, a Tweet, a personal conversation, or primary documents (i.e. original research genealogy) is a massive challenge. In response to Corbie, Eddie Chuculate (Muscogee/Cherokee) just popped up on my watchlist. I believe that's what you will find a lot of; people who are documented descendants who have enrolled in other tribes. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
@ Bohemian Baltimore, Yuchitown, Indigenous girl, Vizjim, TulsaPoliticsFan, Hunan201p, Northern Moonlight, and IntoThinAir:
If you haven't, please look over the two discussions above about renaming and the various articles we could possibly merge this into. Bohemian Baltimore has been doing a heroic job of cat sorting, and along with Yuchitown we've done some page sorting, as well. Cleanup is ongoing, but I think we can now assess:
Native Americans in the United States already has a DNA section. Native American identity in the United States, does not have a section on DNA, but does discuss some of the same issues as this one, and uses some of the same sources. Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas is the main article, and has a subsection I'm cleaning up that actually links here. While we could just move this to that section: Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas#North America, I'm thinking this article would probably work best moved to be a section in Native American identity in the United States, titled "DNA" or "DNA tests", with the "main" link section header to the Genetic history article. Any overlapping content could then be trimmed. If there are no objections or better suggestions, I'll proceed. Or another option would be to swap the content at Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas#North America into the Identity article, and merge this section over to Genetic history. If you have a preference, please let us know. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)