![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently goes to a page on Ballroom dancing. Circle dance is closer, but does not have a relevant section. Right now the INM mention links to the ballroom page. I've put a note at Talk:Round dance to discuss what to do, or we could discuss here. Either way, this could use sorting. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Lenape#Lenape-Delaware_tribal_flags
A user added a gallery of "Lenape-Delaware" flags; however, most of these are for completely unrecognized organizations claiming to be Delaware. They are "cited" in this [ghetto self-published website https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xa-delid.html]. It's a problem to have the "Delawares of Idaho" being given equal weight as the Delaware Nation, but I'm unsure of what Wikipedia policies would cover this. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Yuchtown
Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors it's ANI time. In case anyone wants to chime in. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We've had some discussion at Talk:Ghost Dance#In Popular Culture that has bearing on WP:IPC on Indigenous articles in general. Notably, that there is such a small percentage of us on here able to evaluate the content that gets added. It's a similar issue to evaluating WP:RS sources on these articles. Barring any objections, I'm thinking of adapting some of this to our project guidelines section. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Whether these additions are citespam, or added by well-meaning people who honestly don't know Manataka is in no way an "Indian Council", and in no way WP:RS, I'm finding a bunch of links to the Manataka site scattered about the 'pedia, and have been removing them. As one would expect, they're mostly in the fake tribe articles, but some are even in legit articles.
For those who don't know, manataka.org is notorious for copyright violations, posting Native writer's work without permission and refusing to take it down when asked. They post some accurate info via these copyvios... right next to unsourced essays with wild fabrications about Native cultures. The site should be considered the same as a personal blog or personal website and, worse, one known for copyvios, unsourced essays and, at times, grossly inaccurate and even offensive content. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: One exception on the cleanup. I am leaving up a manataka link as WP:V where they have a scan of a publication shows that a person has undergone a name change. It's not ideal, but lacking better sourcing in that instance where the name change needs to be documented. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:American people of Cherokee descent. Proposing we change the name of this cat to American people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry.
We already have cats for enrolled people.
This category currently includes both those with documented ancestry and those with completely fabricated heritage. So I propose that we harmonise this category name with
List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. "Descent" and "heritage" still has to be proven. People can have legitimate ancestry without fully meeting enrollment criteria, and that is a different thing from non-Natives who completely fabricate a Native identity. While this will leave those with actual ancestry in a grey area, the overwhelming majority of people in this category are the proven false claimants. -
CorbieV
☊
☼
19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trimming poorly-sourced content from List of cryptids. Many of these creatures, such as Cressie, are said to originate from "indigenous folklore," but searches for purported indigenous names like "Haoot Tuwedyee" tend to yield only questionable cryptid-related sources. Where can I go to verify the existence of these legends? – dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Your best bet is older books, typically by missionaries, that describe the practices of a singular tribe. Wacape ( talk) 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
...trying to use Wikipedia to bolster their claims of being state-recognized: Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown 14 September 2018
I have gotten into a dispute with another user over the use of "Indian" in an article about a historical encounter between the Spanish and a group of indigenous people in what is now the United States. In response to my attempt to use "Native American" in place of "Indian" in the article, the other editor has stated;
Both terms were used in the article previously, and we need to be consistent. The geographical region under discussion was not called "America" at the time, so those tribes cannot be "native Americans". The term "Indian" was used at the time by English-speakers; I have no idea what term the Spanish used. So our choices are "Indians" and "Indigenous people groups". It is common practice on historical articles to use the terminology that was contemporaneous to the time period being discussed, such as "Patriot" and "Loyalist" or "Roundhead" and "Cavalier." Therefore, the best way to address this is to use the shorthand term "Indians" and explain it in a footnote. This is the way that the articles on the American Revolution handle the terms "Patriot" and "Loyalist".
This was turning into an edit war, so I won't be reverting him again, but I wanted to get some other opinions on what is appropriate phrasing for future reference. - Donald Albury 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
There's probably more of an urban/Indian Country split than a generational split, but Native American name controversy is the best conversation on the web about the topic. As I put on the article in question and as cited many times throughout Wikipedia, American Indians in the United States prefer the term "American Indian" (Tucker, Clyde; Kojetin, Brian; Harrison, Roderick (May 1995). "A statistical analysis of the CPS supplement on race and ethnic origin" (PDF). Census.gov. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of the Census. Retrieved 2013-12-13.).
Using the "American Indian" as opposed to just "Indian" helps clarify a lot. Today, simply "Native" (not "Native American", just "Native") and "Indigenous" are more and more common, but they are not precise enough to identify a group in question on from an international/Wikipedia basis. Yuchitown ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
working on this page: /info/en/?search=User:Ogahpah/subpage which hopefully will became a page on a historic tribal leader named Saracen.
If anyone is willing, please give a look over and provide any comments or help you can, so that it can be submitted and approved.
Thank you very much.
Ogahpah ( talk) 14:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
See [5].Citation bombing but most are legitimate. He put one fact tag on clearly sourced material and reverted sourced material with sn edit summary about edits being unverifiable although the sources were obviously verifiable. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Could use some input. Reasons on talk page. Not thrilled with the names I've thought of so far. There's got to be something pithier and more apt. And yes, what was there was pretty dreadful. It still needs more cleanup. Please go for it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Very few articles link to it. I've done some cleanup and want to rename before adding it to templates. Could use some input. Have added First Nations sourcing and brought it into the present. Previous version had past-tensing and title didn't conform with sourcing that this is forced/coerced sterilization that is still going on. If no objections will probably move to Forced sterilization of Indigenous women in North America, just because it's shorter than, "In the United States and Canada". - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Needs serious help. Did a bit of cleanup on Wild West shows, but that's not great, either. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion due to a potential lack of notability. The individual is a German-born writer who claims to be Chiricahua Apache, Cherokee, and African-American. Most links were recently removed for being self-promotional. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Newly-created and being added to articles: Template:Native American topics sidebar - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Native American women artists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
It would be awesome if this project could provide a guideline or recommendation as to terms, both general ("Native American" or "American Indian") and specific ("Blackfeet", not "Blackfoot"). Presumably it could be supported by citations and quotations. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be helpful to develop such a guideline. As Wikipedians, it certainly is our job to set guidelines on how terminology is used on Wikipedia. See for example MOS:MORMON and MOS:HAWAII § Hawaiian and Hawaii. Those guidelines should be informed primarily by how terminology is used in reliable sources. The NAJA style guide and other journalistic style guides may be a good starting point. Toohool ( talk) 19:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I've opened the Deletion review for the article. If you wish to comment, please do so but remember this is specifically about a review of the Closer's decision, NOT to re-argue the AfD. Please read the purpose of the DRV before commenting. Thank you. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the most insane thing I've seen happen on Wikipedia. A crew of editors concerned about Elizabeth Warren appearing on List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry nominated and voted for it to be deleted. None of them had ever contributed to a Native article before and clearly were unfamiliar with Native issues, legal rights, or history. People who actually did edit Native articles voted to keep (not because it's a pleasant subject but because the discussion of non-Native people posing a specifically Cherokees among all the tribes merits discussion and is widely published about. Intead of "no consensus" (which would have been appropriate), some editor who also didn't previously edit Native articles decided to delete.
Conversation here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. Now the editor is purging every name on a list that feeds into the deleted list; I have no idea what the rationale is. Non-Native people pose as Native people (specifically Cherokee) in vast numbers. I cannot comprehend why non-Native people feel so profoundly uncomfortable or threatened even having the subject discussed. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Multiracial Americans, Passing (racial identity), redface, and Plastic shaman might all be articles to keep tabs on, since there's some obvious brigading going on out there. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown
As we said on talk, in the AfD, and in the summations that the vandals removed - the phenomena of non-Natives claiming to be Cherokee is widespread and well-documented. Scotty took the "delete" brigaders who removed the sources at their word that there weren't sources, after they'd deleted the WP:RS sources documenting all of this. And then apparently didn't bother to check the "keep"s sources and diffs. These include all the sources on Elizabeth Warren, on Cher, and many others on the list, like Jimmie Durham. And the phenomena itself, listed as external links on the article, and in the AfD: Going 'Native': Why Are Americans Hijacking Cherokee Identity? - VOA News and "Why Do So Many Americans Think They Have Cherokee Blood?" - Slate. The Cherokee Syndrome By Mary Annette Pember. Additionally, the list/article itself has been cited and written about in a WP:RS source: A little bit Cherokee? Elizabeth Warren not alone in ancestry claim May 26, 2012 | By Mitchell Landsberg; since you may not click through, I'll tell you now: the article pre-dates Warren's inclusion in the list. It cites others on the list.the list itself is non-notable because that group or set of things hasn't been discussed in sources.
Everyone who is unenrolled was cited before the vandalism. Pre-vandalism version. I specifically note the closing admin namechecked one of the most disruptive editors. All Scotty needs to do is go back to the pre-vandalism version of the list, and read the diffs Marc Ironie provided for the disruptive editing of the very user Scotty namechecks in the closing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)The introductory sentence of this article (as well as some of the keep voters here) implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry. In order to include people in such a list, we'd need sources that prove the falsehood of their claims, and those sources are not likely to exist in the vast majority of (if not all) cases.
NorthBySouthBaranof is following me around Wiki trying to revert; perhaps in working with these articles, she/he will learn something about Native identity and enrollment. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
I've decided this AfD is worth getting a deletion review. In preparation, I've left a message on User:Scottywong's talk page here, asking him to review his closing. This is a recommended first step before filing an actual request for review. I also linked/pointed at this discussion. I don't expect a response but, hey, it would be nice having my expectations proved wrong. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Not that everyone that actually is Cherokee by blood can get enrolled.And here you cut to the heart of the issue. Not being enrolled in a tribe is not defining of someone's ancestry or heritage. I shouldn't have to go into the issues of what "blood quantum" can ever even mean, or how tangled the webs of the human family tree get. An article entitled "List of people of Cherokee ancestry" who are verifiably described in reliable sources as being of Cherokee ancestry would not be objectionable (to me, I can't speak for other AfD !voters). That's a different article entirely than the one which was deleted, which contained people who reliable sources described as *not* being of Cherokee ancestry! "Self-described Cherokee ancestry" opens up huge sourcing and verifiability issues, creates an implied doubt in the title even if unwarranted in certain cases and sets the stage for arguments about whose claims are legitimate and whose aren't - which is not what lists are good for. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable.It is knowable and verifiable only if there are reliable secondary sources which exist to verify it for each individual case - a reliable secondary source which says "John Doe does not have Cherokee ancestry," for example. If there aren't such sources, we can neither know or verify it. The prohibition on original research is foundational to our work.
If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s).That's not up to us to ask, and it suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works.
In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned.That is unfortunate, but we are not here to right great wrongs and we are not here to investigate whether or not someone's statement of their ancestry is accurate. We certainly may not make "demands" of biographical subjects who may or may not have ever asked to be included on Wikipedia. Our mission is to write an Internet-based free-content encyclopedia based upon what is verifiable in reliable secondary sources — not to create opportunities to confront or interrogate people an editor believes is being untruthful. I would suggest that if you do take this to DRV, your commentary above serves as ample evidence that you are attempting to use Wikipedia to enforce and promote your particular POV upon biographical subjects. There are no other ethnicity categories or lists on the encyclopedia which attempt to segregate purportedly "self-identified" people based on some sort of default skeptic-demand for some sort of "proof" of their ethnicity or ancestry because of a belief that most such people are untruthful. That's just not how these lists and categories should work. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Oglala Lakota, and your input would be welcome. on camera 02:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Pequots about whether "Native American" is an acceptable term or whether "American Indian" should be used instead. Knowledgeable editors are asked to weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Pequots, and your input would be welcome. on camera 01:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya (2nd nomination). --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlotte Hallmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hallmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
Specifically as to cultural appropriation and racism re the guys in Order of the Arrow: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Keene. Could also use more eyes on the article and help sourcing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I need a better source to debunk the fakelore, "An old Ojibwe Medicine Man came up with this herbal remedy" - that consists of herbs that are not indigenous to the Americas - on Essiac. Unfortunately, the site we've been using to source it looks crappy, with an out of date style and ugly background and old-style html coding, so another editor wants to keep it out. I agree it's not an ideal source, but I think, due to the fakelore around this, it's better to have a WP:V source and leave the content in, than not mention it at all. Best would be to find a better source. Would appreciate some help with this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Caveat: I am a new Wikipedian climbing a learning curve and starting class/community project at the University of Alaska, which will kick off with a Wikipedia edit-a-thon. (I hope I am posting on this talk page appropriately and respectfully, in the right place). Our campus/community project is titled Indigenize Science, and I would like to suggest and encourage the Indigenous peoples of North America project to open up a category or section on the project page that would invite articles on notable Native American scientists, or Native Science Organizations and Collaborative Projects. I see a category for politicians, and I notice that a search for Native American scientists in Wikipedia yields few results. Thank you for considering. JECason ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America. Maybe we can figure out what to do about these. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello everyone, I was wondering if I could get your input on something. I reside in Chumash lands and the languages spoken here are in various stages of revitalization and use, but I've noticed that they are described as "extinct" in their respective Wikipedia articles. While I understand that this is an academic definition of sorts, the definition seems to be neither particularly well agreed-upon nor very descriptive of on-the-ground realities. In the interest of more accurately reflecting the current states of these languages do you think it be appropriate to make use of Ethnologue's language status terms (ex. dormant/reawakening)? Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 06:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
See what I put on talk. Another mess shot out of AfC. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
HI - I've been working to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report call to action#87: “We call upon all levels of government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, sports halls of fame, and other relevant organizations, to provide public education that tells the national story of Aboriginal athletes in history.” (TRC, 2015, 336). This has entailed organizing, editing and/or creating entries on elite Canadian Indigenous athletes, and aspects of the Indigenous sport system in Canada. I was pleased to see that there is a WikiProject specific to Indigenous peoples of North America. I look forward to seeing if there are ways that our efforts, specific to Canadian Indigenous sport, can connect with this project, and to gain insights on ways we can respond to concerns by Wikipedia editors that there is not sufficient notability or public sources for some of our draft entries, even thought these individuals were considered notable within Indigenous circles (e.g., by winning the Tom Longboat award as the best athlete in Canada that year). You can see our work in three categories: First Nations sportspeople, Métis sportspeople, and Canadian Inuit sportspeople. We have also connected elements of the Indigenous sport system to these categories - our intention is to make this information easily located so that it can inform the public (e.g., students in school learning about Indigenous peoples in Canada) about the wide variety of Indigenous athletes and sports that make up their participation in Canadian sport.We are also committed to ensuring that call to action #87 continues to be addressed. Vicky Paraschak ( talk) 19:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the AfD discussion regarding John Smelcer [6]. Knowledgeable editors are also invited to improve the John Smelcer article. Smelcer is a tribal citizen enrolled at Tazlina, Alaska and an Ahtna, Incorporated shareholder, which is why this might be of interest to project members, though most of his other claims are heavily disputed. Vizjim ( talk) 08:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. Relates to UNDRIP, NARF, and page blanking. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vizjim ( talk) 09:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thought I should post this wikilink in case any are interested: Draft:Lutheran Indian Ministries.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
As we purge people with unreferenced or dubious claims from the list of self-identified African and Native descent, in the interest of diversity and inclusion, I think it's important to prioritize adding articles and information about actual Native Americans of African descent. To that end, I created a new article for Natalie Ball, Klamath/ Modoc interdisciplinary artist. Yuchitown ( talk) 03:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
As editors on this page will be only too aware, too much of your time is taken up in debates around people whose claims to Indigenous identity don't pass the usual standard of citizenship in or affiliation to a specific Nation. Nobody contributing to this project is likely to need the background to these debates hashing out here.
I would like to suggest that the active editors on this wikiproject might like to consider creating an essay on the topic of how claims to Indigenous identity should be assessed. (Such an essay should be written by Indigenous editors, hence why I am suggesting it rather than writing it myself). Though it's unlikely that the community would take this up as a formal guideline, and though an essay holds no definite authority in WP, it would still be useful to have a shortcut that would direct newcomers to these debates to something written specifically to aid Wikipedia editors, rather than to encyclopedia articles such as Blood quantum laws, Tribal sovereignty in the United States, etc. Vizjim ( talk) 06:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
IPs and others look to be basically adding everyone they've ever suspected has heritage or "looks Native" to: Category:21st-century Native Americans. Maybe the whole cat should be deleted. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, the criteria isn't up to us. It's up to the Nations. Are Wikipedians now going to decide that citizenship criteria for Canada, or France is "too strict" and put people in the Canadian and French citizen categories, too? No. We're here to document, not dictate. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The burden for sourcing Native identity is on those who write an article. We are under no obligation to put people in categories, or include claims, if they are not sourced to WP:RS standards. It's not that hard to check the sources: The sources need to come from the tribe/Nation the person claims. Remember, It's not what they claim; it's who claims them. Say, an article from the tribal newspaper about how the person was honored for an achievement. A news article of any sort about tribal members, from the official tribal sources. The tribes have websites and publications and frequently write about their notable citizens. That's why we don't have to rely on vague statements of self-identity.
A pan-Indian source may or may not be accurate, depending on the site, and the author. Some check out the people they are writing about, others do not. Sometimes there needs to be a discussion on talk, or here, about the particular source. We've had that happen in cases where sites have undergone changes in ownership, staff writers, and editorial controls (or lack thereof), or when writers have written about cultures they're not part of. Also, there are some sites out there that claim to be Native-authored but are not, or that have had their status in this department change over time. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently goes to a page on Ballroom dancing. Circle dance is closer, but does not have a relevant section. Right now the INM mention links to the ballroom page. I've put a note at Talk:Round dance to discuss what to do, or we could discuss here. Either way, this could use sorting. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Lenape#Lenape-Delaware_tribal_flags
A user added a gallery of "Lenape-Delaware" flags; however, most of these are for completely unrecognized organizations claiming to be Delaware. They are "cited" in this [ghetto self-published website https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xa-delid.html]. It's a problem to have the "Delawares of Idaho" being given equal weight as the Delaware Nation, but I'm unsure of what Wikipedia policies would cover this. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Yuchtown
Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors it's ANI time. In case anyone wants to chime in. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We've had some discussion at Talk:Ghost Dance#In Popular Culture that has bearing on WP:IPC on Indigenous articles in general. Notably, that there is such a small percentage of us on here able to evaluate the content that gets added. It's a similar issue to evaluating WP:RS sources on these articles. Barring any objections, I'm thinking of adapting some of this to our project guidelines section. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Whether these additions are citespam, or added by well-meaning people who honestly don't know Manataka is in no way an "Indian Council", and in no way WP:RS, I'm finding a bunch of links to the Manataka site scattered about the 'pedia, and have been removing them. As one would expect, they're mostly in the fake tribe articles, but some are even in legit articles.
For those who don't know, manataka.org is notorious for copyright violations, posting Native writer's work without permission and refusing to take it down when asked. They post some accurate info via these copyvios... right next to unsourced essays with wild fabrications about Native cultures. The site should be considered the same as a personal blog or personal website and, worse, one known for copyvios, unsourced essays and, at times, grossly inaccurate and even offensive content. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: One exception on the cleanup. I am leaving up a manataka link as WP:V where they have a scan of a publication shows that a person has undergone a name change. It's not ideal, but lacking better sourcing in that instance where the name change needs to be documented. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:American people of Cherokee descent. Proposing we change the name of this cat to American people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry.
We already have cats for enrolled people.
This category currently includes both those with documented ancestry and those with completely fabricated heritage. So I propose that we harmonise this category name with
List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. "Descent" and "heritage" still has to be proven. People can have legitimate ancestry without fully meeting enrollment criteria, and that is a different thing from non-Natives who completely fabricate a Native identity. While this will leave those with actual ancestry in a grey area, the overwhelming majority of people in this category are the proven false claimants. -
CorbieV
☊
☼
19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trimming poorly-sourced content from List of cryptids. Many of these creatures, such as Cressie, are said to originate from "indigenous folklore," but searches for purported indigenous names like "Haoot Tuwedyee" tend to yield only questionable cryptid-related sources. Where can I go to verify the existence of these legends? – dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Your best bet is older books, typically by missionaries, that describe the practices of a singular tribe. Wacape ( talk) 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
...trying to use Wikipedia to bolster their claims of being state-recognized: Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown 14 September 2018
I have gotten into a dispute with another user over the use of "Indian" in an article about a historical encounter between the Spanish and a group of indigenous people in what is now the United States. In response to my attempt to use "Native American" in place of "Indian" in the article, the other editor has stated;
Both terms were used in the article previously, and we need to be consistent. The geographical region under discussion was not called "America" at the time, so those tribes cannot be "native Americans". The term "Indian" was used at the time by English-speakers; I have no idea what term the Spanish used. So our choices are "Indians" and "Indigenous people groups". It is common practice on historical articles to use the terminology that was contemporaneous to the time period being discussed, such as "Patriot" and "Loyalist" or "Roundhead" and "Cavalier." Therefore, the best way to address this is to use the shorthand term "Indians" and explain it in a footnote. This is the way that the articles on the American Revolution handle the terms "Patriot" and "Loyalist".
This was turning into an edit war, so I won't be reverting him again, but I wanted to get some other opinions on what is appropriate phrasing for future reference. - Donald Albury 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
There's probably more of an urban/Indian Country split than a generational split, but Native American name controversy is the best conversation on the web about the topic. As I put on the article in question and as cited many times throughout Wikipedia, American Indians in the United States prefer the term "American Indian" (Tucker, Clyde; Kojetin, Brian; Harrison, Roderick (May 1995). "A statistical analysis of the CPS supplement on race and ethnic origin" (PDF). Census.gov. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of the Census. Retrieved 2013-12-13.).
Using the "American Indian" as opposed to just "Indian" helps clarify a lot. Today, simply "Native" (not "Native American", just "Native") and "Indigenous" are more and more common, but they are not precise enough to identify a group in question on from an international/Wikipedia basis. Yuchitown ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
working on this page: /info/en/?search=User:Ogahpah/subpage which hopefully will became a page on a historic tribal leader named Saracen.
If anyone is willing, please give a look over and provide any comments or help you can, so that it can be submitted and approved.
Thank you very much.
Ogahpah ( talk) 14:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
See [5].Citation bombing but most are legitimate. He put one fact tag on clearly sourced material and reverted sourced material with sn edit summary about edits being unverifiable although the sources were obviously verifiable. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Could use some input. Reasons on talk page. Not thrilled with the names I've thought of so far. There's got to be something pithier and more apt. And yes, what was there was pretty dreadful. It still needs more cleanup. Please go for it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Very few articles link to it. I've done some cleanup and want to rename before adding it to templates. Could use some input. Have added First Nations sourcing and brought it into the present. Previous version had past-tensing and title didn't conform with sourcing that this is forced/coerced sterilization that is still going on. If no objections will probably move to Forced sterilization of Indigenous women in North America, just because it's shorter than, "In the United States and Canada". - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Needs serious help. Did a bit of cleanup on Wild West shows, but that's not great, either. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion due to a potential lack of notability. The individual is a German-born writer who claims to be Chiricahua Apache, Cherokee, and African-American. Most links were recently removed for being self-promotional. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Newly-created and being added to articles: Template:Native American topics sidebar - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Native American women artists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
It would be awesome if this project could provide a guideline or recommendation as to terms, both general ("Native American" or "American Indian") and specific ("Blackfeet", not "Blackfoot"). Presumably it could be supported by citations and quotations. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be helpful to develop such a guideline. As Wikipedians, it certainly is our job to set guidelines on how terminology is used on Wikipedia. See for example MOS:MORMON and MOS:HAWAII § Hawaiian and Hawaii. Those guidelines should be informed primarily by how terminology is used in reliable sources. The NAJA style guide and other journalistic style guides may be a good starting point. Toohool ( talk) 19:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I've opened the Deletion review for the article. If you wish to comment, please do so but remember this is specifically about a review of the Closer's decision, NOT to re-argue the AfD. Please read the purpose of the DRV before commenting. Thank you. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the most insane thing I've seen happen on Wikipedia. A crew of editors concerned about Elizabeth Warren appearing on List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry nominated and voted for it to be deleted. None of them had ever contributed to a Native article before and clearly were unfamiliar with Native issues, legal rights, or history. People who actually did edit Native articles voted to keep (not because it's a pleasant subject but because the discussion of non-Native people posing a specifically Cherokees among all the tribes merits discussion and is widely published about. Intead of "no consensus" (which would have been appropriate), some editor who also didn't previously edit Native articles decided to delete.
Conversation here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. Now the editor is purging every name on a list that feeds into the deleted list; I have no idea what the rationale is. Non-Native people pose as Native people (specifically Cherokee) in vast numbers. I cannot comprehend why non-Native people feel so profoundly uncomfortable or threatened even having the subject discussed. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
Multiracial Americans, Passing (racial identity), redface, and Plastic shaman might all be articles to keep tabs on, since there's some obvious brigading going on out there. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown
As we said on talk, in the AfD, and in the summations that the vandals removed - the phenomena of non-Natives claiming to be Cherokee is widespread and well-documented. Scotty took the "delete" brigaders who removed the sources at their word that there weren't sources, after they'd deleted the WP:RS sources documenting all of this. And then apparently didn't bother to check the "keep"s sources and diffs. These include all the sources on Elizabeth Warren, on Cher, and many others on the list, like Jimmie Durham. And the phenomena itself, listed as external links on the article, and in the AfD: Going 'Native': Why Are Americans Hijacking Cherokee Identity? - VOA News and "Why Do So Many Americans Think They Have Cherokee Blood?" - Slate. The Cherokee Syndrome By Mary Annette Pember. Additionally, the list/article itself has been cited and written about in a WP:RS source: A little bit Cherokee? Elizabeth Warren not alone in ancestry claim May 26, 2012 | By Mitchell Landsberg; since you may not click through, I'll tell you now: the article pre-dates Warren's inclusion in the list. It cites others on the list.the list itself is non-notable because that group or set of things hasn't been discussed in sources.
Everyone who is unenrolled was cited before the vandalism. Pre-vandalism version. I specifically note the closing admin namechecked one of the most disruptive editors. All Scotty needs to do is go back to the pre-vandalism version of the list, and read the diffs Marc Ironie provided for the disruptive editing of the very user Scotty namechecks in the closing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)The introductory sentence of this article (as well as some of the keep voters here) implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry. In order to include people in such a list, we'd need sources that prove the falsehood of their claims, and those sources are not likely to exist in the vast majority of (if not all) cases.
NorthBySouthBaranof is following me around Wiki trying to revert; perhaps in working with these articles, she/he will learn something about Native identity and enrollment. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown
I've decided this AfD is worth getting a deletion review. In preparation, I've left a message on User:Scottywong's talk page here, asking him to review his closing. This is a recommended first step before filing an actual request for review. I also linked/pointed at this discussion. I don't expect a response but, hey, it would be nice having my expectations proved wrong. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Not that everyone that actually is Cherokee by blood can get enrolled.And here you cut to the heart of the issue. Not being enrolled in a tribe is not defining of someone's ancestry or heritage. I shouldn't have to go into the issues of what "blood quantum" can ever even mean, or how tangled the webs of the human family tree get. An article entitled "List of people of Cherokee ancestry" who are verifiably described in reliable sources as being of Cherokee ancestry would not be objectionable (to me, I can't speak for other AfD !voters). That's a different article entirely than the one which was deleted, which contained people who reliable sources described as *not* being of Cherokee ancestry! "Self-described Cherokee ancestry" opens up huge sourcing and verifiability issues, creates an implied doubt in the title even if unwarranted in certain cases and sets the stage for arguments about whose claims are legitimate and whose aren't - which is not what lists are good for. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable.It is knowable and verifiable only if there are reliable secondary sources which exist to verify it for each individual case - a reliable secondary source which says "John Doe does not have Cherokee ancestry," for example. If there aren't such sources, we can neither know or verify it. The prohibition on original research is foundational to our work.
If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s).That's not up to us to ask, and it suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works.
In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned.That is unfortunate, but we are not here to right great wrongs and we are not here to investigate whether or not someone's statement of their ancestry is accurate. We certainly may not make "demands" of biographical subjects who may or may not have ever asked to be included on Wikipedia. Our mission is to write an Internet-based free-content encyclopedia based upon what is verifiable in reliable secondary sources — not to create opportunities to confront or interrogate people an editor believes is being untruthful. I would suggest that if you do take this to DRV, your commentary above serves as ample evidence that you are attempting to use Wikipedia to enforce and promote your particular POV upon biographical subjects. There are no other ethnicity categories or lists on the encyclopedia which attempt to segregate purportedly "self-identified" people based on some sort of default skeptic-demand for some sort of "proof" of their ethnicity or ancestry because of a belief that most such people are untruthful. That's just not how these lists and categories should work. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Oglala Lakota, and your input would be welcome. on camera 02:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Pequots about whether "Native American" is an acceptable term or whether "American Indian" should be used instead. Knowledgeable editors are asked to weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Pequots, and your input would be welcome. on camera 01:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya (2nd nomination). --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlotte Hallmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hallmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
Specifically as to cultural appropriation and racism re the guys in Order of the Arrow: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Keene. Could also use more eyes on the article and help sourcing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I need a better source to debunk the fakelore, "An old Ojibwe Medicine Man came up with this herbal remedy" - that consists of herbs that are not indigenous to the Americas - on Essiac. Unfortunately, the site we've been using to source it looks crappy, with an out of date style and ugly background and old-style html coding, so another editor wants to keep it out. I agree it's not an ideal source, but I think, due to the fakelore around this, it's better to have a WP:V source and leave the content in, than not mention it at all. Best would be to find a better source. Would appreciate some help with this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Caveat: I am a new Wikipedian climbing a learning curve and starting class/community project at the University of Alaska, which will kick off with a Wikipedia edit-a-thon. (I hope I am posting on this talk page appropriately and respectfully, in the right place). Our campus/community project is titled Indigenize Science, and I would like to suggest and encourage the Indigenous peoples of North America project to open up a category or section on the project page that would invite articles on notable Native American scientists, or Native Science Organizations and Collaborative Projects. I see a category for politicians, and I notice that a search for Native American scientists in Wikipedia yields few results. Thank you for considering. JECason ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America. Maybe we can figure out what to do about these. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello everyone, I was wondering if I could get your input on something. I reside in Chumash lands and the languages spoken here are in various stages of revitalization and use, but I've noticed that they are described as "extinct" in their respective Wikipedia articles. While I understand that this is an academic definition of sorts, the definition seems to be neither particularly well agreed-upon nor very descriptive of on-the-ground realities. In the interest of more accurately reflecting the current states of these languages do you think it be appropriate to make use of Ethnologue's language status terms (ex. dormant/reawakening)? Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 06:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
See what I put on talk. Another mess shot out of AfC. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
HI - I've been working to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report call to action#87: “We call upon all levels of government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, sports halls of fame, and other relevant organizations, to provide public education that tells the national story of Aboriginal athletes in history.” (TRC, 2015, 336). This has entailed organizing, editing and/or creating entries on elite Canadian Indigenous athletes, and aspects of the Indigenous sport system in Canada. I was pleased to see that there is a WikiProject specific to Indigenous peoples of North America. I look forward to seeing if there are ways that our efforts, specific to Canadian Indigenous sport, can connect with this project, and to gain insights on ways we can respond to concerns by Wikipedia editors that there is not sufficient notability or public sources for some of our draft entries, even thought these individuals were considered notable within Indigenous circles (e.g., by winning the Tom Longboat award as the best athlete in Canada that year). You can see our work in three categories: First Nations sportspeople, Métis sportspeople, and Canadian Inuit sportspeople. We have also connected elements of the Indigenous sport system to these categories - our intention is to make this information easily located so that it can inform the public (e.g., students in school learning about Indigenous peoples in Canada) about the wide variety of Indigenous athletes and sports that make up their participation in Canadian sport.We are also committed to ensuring that call to action #87 continues to be addressed. Vicky Paraschak ( talk) 19:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the AfD discussion regarding John Smelcer [6]. Knowledgeable editors are also invited to improve the John Smelcer article. Smelcer is a tribal citizen enrolled at Tazlina, Alaska and an Ahtna, Incorporated shareholder, which is why this might be of interest to project members, though most of his other claims are heavily disputed. Vizjim ( talk) 08:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. Relates to UNDRIP, NARF, and page blanking. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vizjim ( talk) 09:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thought I should post this wikilink in case any are interested: Draft:Lutheran Indian Ministries.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
As we purge people with unreferenced or dubious claims from the list of self-identified African and Native descent, in the interest of diversity and inclusion, I think it's important to prioritize adding articles and information about actual Native Americans of African descent. To that end, I created a new article for Natalie Ball, Klamath/ Modoc interdisciplinary artist. Yuchitown ( talk) 03:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
As editors on this page will be only too aware, too much of your time is taken up in debates around people whose claims to Indigenous identity don't pass the usual standard of citizenship in or affiliation to a specific Nation. Nobody contributing to this project is likely to need the background to these debates hashing out here.
I would like to suggest that the active editors on this wikiproject might like to consider creating an essay on the topic of how claims to Indigenous identity should be assessed. (Such an essay should be written by Indigenous editors, hence why I am suggesting it rather than writing it myself). Though it's unlikely that the community would take this up as a formal guideline, and though an essay holds no definite authority in WP, it would still be useful to have a shortcut that would direct newcomers to these debates to something written specifically to aid Wikipedia editors, rather than to encyclopedia articles such as Blood quantum laws, Tribal sovereignty in the United States, etc. Vizjim ( talk) 06:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
IPs and others look to be basically adding everyone they've ever suspected has heritage or "looks Native" to: Category:21st-century Native Americans. Maybe the whole cat should be deleted. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, the criteria isn't up to us. It's up to the Nations. Are Wikipedians now going to decide that citizenship criteria for Canada, or France is "too strict" and put people in the Canadian and French citizen categories, too? No. We're here to document, not dictate. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The burden for sourcing Native identity is on those who write an article. We are under no obligation to put people in categories, or include claims, if they are not sourced to WP:RS standards. It's not that hard to check the sources: The sources need to come from the tribe/Nation the person claims. Remember, It's not what they claim; it's who claims them. Say, an article from the tribal newspaper about how the person was honored for an achievement. A news article of any sort about tribal members, from the official tribal sources. The tribes have websites and publications and frequently write about their notable citizens. That's why we don't have to rely on vague statements of self-identity.
A pan-Indian source may or may not be accurate, depending on the site, and the author. Some check out the people they are writing about, others do not. Sometimes there needs to be a discussion on talk, or here, about the particular source. We've had that happen in cases where sites have undergone changes in ownership, staff writers, and editorial controls (or lack thereof), or when writers have written about cultures they're not part of. Also, there are some sites out there that claim to be Native-authored but are not, or that have had their status in this department change over time. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)