Talk:List of Indigenous writers of the Americas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has been added[4]. She has written highly-cited articles and books.

• The Harvard Crimson, October 22, 1996, "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic... Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."
  

In addition to being a writer, on June 1, 2012 Warren herself noted that if she were elected in Massachusetts, "I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage." (See YouTube, June 1, 2012, The Daily Caller, June 3, 2012, Fox Boston, June 1, 2012.) --→gab 24dot grab← 20:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the most thorough investigation of Elizabeth Warren's heritage: ICTM Staff. "Elizabeth Warren’s Genealogical Challenge." Indian Country Today. 14 May 2012, which includes scanned images of the documents discussed in the article. Warren has appropriately been added to List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry, because she does self-identify; however, there is no evidence of any actual indigenous descent so she does not belong on this list of indigenous writers. -20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks, but you've perhaps ignored that the actual into to this actual article explicitly states:

• "This is a list of writers from Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It includes people who self-identify as Alaskan Native, American Indian, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Native Hawaiian, and Indigenous Central and South American writers. It has been noted that some writers self-identify in this way without necessarily satisfying tribal membership rules or governmental requirements (e.g. blood quantum). As the list is inclusive rather than exclusive, it contains some writers over whom there has been controversy."

So unless and until a change occurs to the criteria for inclusion in this article, it seems best to leave listed here the would-be self-described 'first Senator of Native American heritage'[5] from Massachusetts. I reinstated my edit[6]. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted the addition of Elizabeth Warren but absolutely totally without an discussion other than the simple link "WP:BRD"[7]. In the absence of discussion by that editor, the listing has again been reinstated.--→gab 24dot grab← 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What's your hurry? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you or others have a good reason to hide Elizabeth Warren, please state it plainly. Otherwise, the woman is a well-known writer and is a self-described Native American. With those two criteria established, there doesn't seem to be much reason to exclude her from a simple listing of 'Native American writers' (as you have done twice:[8],[9]). Illuminate, please. --→gab 24dot grab← 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction quoted goes on to say: "It excludes those writers such as Forrest Carter,[1][2] Ward Churchill,[3][4][5] Jamake Highwater,[6][7] and Grey Owl[1][8][9] whose claims to be of Native American descent have been factually disproved through genealogical research." The cite I provided above [10] is the most thorough research into Elizabeth Warren's genealogy and shows that she is not Native American. "Not only does Leahy say O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford was not Cherokee... Leahy also points out that none of Jonathan Crawford and O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford’s other seven children ever claim their mother was Cherokee." Christopher Child, the genealogist from the New England Historical and Genealogy Society who originally claimed to find documentation of Warren's Cherokee/Delaware heritage has recanted: "Genealogical society: No proof of Warren’s Cherokee heritage found", The Atlantic, Boston Herald. I support Elizabeth Warren as a person and a politician, but she is not Native American. Attempting to make the false claim that she is isn't helping anyone or adding the factual content of Wikipedia. If you want her added to this list, her name could be added (with the citations) the sentence with Forrest Carter, Ward Churchill, Jamake Highwater, and Grey Owl. -22:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hmm, editor Uyvsdi(talk/contribs‎) makes an interesting point, and there seems no reason not to seek outside comment on the matter. I've created a new WP:RfC: Talk:List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas#RfC: Warren's claim "factually disproved"?. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Warren's claim "factually disproved"?

This article 'List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas' explicitly states its current criteria:
* This is a list of writers from Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It includes people who self-identify as Alaskan Native, American Indian, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Native Hawaiian, and Indigenous Central and South American writers. It has been noted that some writers self-identify in this way without necessarily satisfying tribal membership rules or governmental requirements (e.g. blood quantum). As the list is inclusive rather than exclusive, it contains some writers over whom there has been controversy. It excludes those writers such as Forrest Carter, Ward Churchill,Jamake Highwater, and Grey Owl whose claims to be of Native American descent have been factually disproved through genealogical research.
Elizabeth Warren is a well-known writer, and Warren "self-identifies" as Native American; yet (per that last article criterion), editors disagree about whether Warren's 'claim to be of Native American descent has been factually disproved through genealogical research'. Your comment is requested. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, the introduction of this list goes on to say: "It excludes those writers such as Forrest Carter, Ward Churchill, Jamake Highwater, and Grey Owl, whose claims to be of Native American descent have been factually disproved through genealogical research." The most thorough published article going into Elizabeth Warren's ancestry is: ICTM Staff. "Elizabeth Warren’s Genealogical Challenge." Indian Country Today. 14 May 2012, which includes scanned images of the documents discussed in the article. The article shows that she is not Native American. "Not only does Leahy say O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford was not Cherokee... Leahy also points out that none of Jonathan Crawford and O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford’s other seven children ever claim their mother was Cherokee." Christopher Child, the genealogist from the New England Historical and Genealogy Society who originally claimed to find documentation of Warren's Cherokee/Delaware heritage has recanted: "Genealogical society: No proof of Warren’s Cherokee heritage found", The Atlantic, Boston Herald. I support Elizabeth Warren as a person and a politician, but she is not Native American. Attempting to make the false claim that she is isn't helping anyone or adding the factual content of Wikipedia. If her name must be added to this article, it could be added (with appropriate citations) to the sentence with Forrest Carter, Ward Churchill, Jamake Highwater, and Grey Owl. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Three percent indigenous background does not make a person indigenous. Perhaps another article Non-indigenous people who claim to be indigenous would be appropriate for Elizabeth Warren. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Many tribes do not have minimum blood quantum requirements, so 3% is not the issue. Elizabeth Warren is not included in this list because she doesn't have even 3% indigenous heritage. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment - I find the statement, It excludes those writers such as Forrest Carter, Ward Churchill,Jamake Highwater, and Grey Owl whose claims to be of Native American descent have been factually disproved through genealogical research, highly insensitive and inappropriate. So the fuss about whether Elizabeth Warren does or doesn't qualify seems rather misplaced. This statement appears to be a convenience for Wikipedia editors to instruct other editors who to include and who not to include, without any regard at all to the feelings of the named individuals. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that post-mortem reading of Wikipedia affects people's feelings. For the one living author mentioned, if you care to read an exhaustive examination of Churchill's genealogy, it's published here. The reality is that non-native people masquerading as Native Americans is a very real and documented phenomenon. I agree the lead paragraph and guidelines for inclusion in this list need to be re-written, based on published information about Native American writers and identity. In the meantime, Philip J. Deloria's Playing Indian (Yale University Press) is an excellent read and has a chapter devoted to "Literary Indians and Ethnographic Objects. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Have you considered that most deceased people have families who are not deceased? I do hope that DonaldRichardSands is kidding when he suggests a page be created for 'Non-indigenous people who claim to be indigenous'. Why don't we just create a general page for 'liars and other generally bad people as judged by Wikipedia' and keep it all one place eh? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this is original research, hence the many citations. No one's making the POV judgement calls that you are implying. These are simply authors who are demonstratively *not* indigenous Americans, who have in the past attempted to pass as indigenous Americans. One reason to list them is to prevent their being repeatedly re-added to the list by misinformed editors. For instance, Asa Carter's The Education of Little Tree remains an incredibly popular book today, despite the public information that he is a non-native KKK activist. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is concerned about what is verifiable and avoids libel; however, the facts that these individuals are not native has been extensively investigated and written about in secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

This is not about POV-pushing or original research. Sigh. One of the differences between real journalists and Wikipedians is that the former are trained in journalistic ethics and the latter are regrettably not. That's unfortuately a systemic problem with Wikipedia. If we were professional journalists we would be trained to weigh the public interest against possible harm caused to individuals by the unwanted public attention. Now here we have editors happily admitting that One reason to list them [i.e. people deemed to be lying about their native American ancestry] is to prevent their being repeatedly re-added to the list by misinformed editors. No, that's not a reason. Let's try the public interest test. Is your concern the public interest? No, it isn't. Is your concern the protection of the subject? No, it isn't. So what is your concern? Making your own life easier as an anonymous Wikipedian, without any regard to either the public interest or the interests of the subjects. It is highly unethical. Now, you have volunteered to be a Wikipedian. You don't have the option of writing stuff in articles simply because you think it'll save you time later - and good heavens, you don't get to do this when there is the potential for living people to be offended. Please desist. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not make any assumptions about me or any other Wikipedia editor you don't personally know. Frankly, those assumptions constitute personal attacks. The point of Wikipedia is providing verifiable information. This point of this list is providing wikilinks to Native American authors. Native American identity is infinitely complex, hence the endless discussion about it. A very real and documented phenomenon in Indian Country is non-Native people posing as Native people. This is written about extensively, for instance in the book I recommended above. The fact that you are many not concerned or informed about this reality is irrelevant; it's part and parcel of what indigenous writers face. The public should be aware that non-Native authors have tried to pass their literature off as being Native. On the subject of making people offended, it's unbelievably offensive that non-Native people attempt to co-opt Native identities; nonetheless, the article remains cited and devoid of editorial opinions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I think I'm gradually figuring out the situation here. Wikipedia is not censored. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for declaring your strong opinions about why you find it offensive for non-Native people to co-opt Native identities. Presumably you also agree that some of the people accused of co-opting a native identity either are accused falsely or at least genuinely believe they are Native. Correct? So we probably don't want to make accusations of dishonesty lightly. Correct? On the other hand, I am from Australia with no prior knowledge or interest in this topic area - so I don't have the same emotional attachment. I am completely uninvolved here and am giving views based on the WP:BLP policy after responding to an RFC. I am sorry you regard my remarks as personal attacks but I am not making any assumptions. I am simply restating what you just said. You said one of the reasons this information must be in the article is to make your life easier. I ask you again - is that about the public interest, or about the subject's interests, or about your own interests? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Native people have to prove their identity on a regular basis. I'm sure Ward Churchill genuinely believed he was Indian, but that doesn't make it so. Do you citations of false accusations? And we're obviously completely of the subject of Elizabeth Warren... what is the point you are trying to make? -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

If you are sure that Ward Churchill genuinely believed he was Indian then that makes it even worse that this article says his 'claim' is 'factually disproved'. If he genuinely believed it then it was no mere 'claim'; it was a sincere assertion of his most deeply held identity - and yet here we are trashing it posthumously in Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Posthumously"? Ward Churchill isn't dead yet. At Ward Churchill#Ethnicity, it states:

In June 2005, the Rocky Mountain News published an article about Churchill's genealogy and family history. It "turned up no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" among 142 direct ancestors [of Churchill's] identified from records. The News reported that both Churchill's birth parents were listed as white on the 1930 census, as were all but two of his great-great-grandparents listed on previous census and other official documents. The News found that some of Churchill's accounts of where his ancestors had lived did not agree with documented records. Numerous members of Churchill's extended family have longstanding family legends of Indian ancestry among ancestors; but, none were confirmed among the 142 direct forebears of Churchill who were identified. ...Some of Churchill's Native American critics, such as Vernon Bellecourt (White Earth Ojibwe) and Suzan Shown Harjo (Southern Cheyenne-Muscogee Creek), argue that his assertion of Native American ancestry without the ability to prove it might constitute misrepresentation and grounds for termination. The University has said that it does not hire on the basis of ethnicity. In a 2005 interview in The Rocky Mountain News, Churchill said, "I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was. And even if [the critics] are absolutely right, what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull."

To me, it seems remarkable to insist that Wikipedia must hide factual information if it might embarrass those who make dishonest or disingenuous self-serving claims, sometimes for decades. --→gab 24dot grab← 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My earlier statement was "I'm not aware that post-mortem reading of Wikipedia affects people's feelings. For the one living author mentioned, if you care to read an exhaustive examination of Churchill's genealogy..." i.e. Churchill is living. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So, to be clear, my point is all of those names should be deleted from the introduction.

Regarding Elizabeth Warren - I find the discussion above rather light on evidence. I can't see that anything has been factually proven one way or the other. So I must hold out on giving an opinion until I see it shown that there is a consensus that she is not a Native American. In lieu of such proof, I'd say she belongs in the article as much as anyone else. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's where we differ. I believe this article should be for people who are indigenous to the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

No, I didn't dispute that at all. I said you need to provide the proof that Elizabeth Warden doesn't qualify, and I said it is a BLP violation to name individuals, insinuating dishonesty, in the introduction. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the statement should be removed, since it is very well cited and nothing in it says people were being "dishonest"; they could be mistaken or deluded. Regarding, BLP it doesn't cover the four deceased individuals in the statement; two, the essay WP:Crying "BLP!" points out that "facts are facts." Cited informed doesn't need to be censored. Perusing the entries in Category:Impostors, there are over a hundred entries of individuals notable for being imposters, because Wikipedia doesn't censor cited information. Regarding Elizabeth Warren, she isn't listed here and, without proof of indigenous ancestry, she shouldn't be. If you haven't, perhaps you'd care to read the discussion about Warren on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Red links

I would like to propose moving all the redlinks over to the talk page. That way the list is in keeping with WP's MOS for lists, but the redlinks would still be accessible for anyone wanting to write more articles about Native authors. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Per WP:Red link#Dealing with existing red links: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name."

So I cannot entirely support your proposal. Even for a new writer, I'd be more likely to support listing the writer without any Wikilink in the article rather than hiding/redlinking him from some Talk or Sandbox page. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but wouldn't that be a guideline a prose article, not necessarily a stand alone list? Under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, it reads "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space" and under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists it reads "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace." I can live with keeping the redlinks in place; however, many of them have remained redlinks for years, so it's dubious that articles will be forthcoming or that they even meet notability requirements. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

MOS:LIST refers to redlinks in list-articles which "exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes"; that does not including this list-article. Perhaps you're preemptively sidestepping a potential future AfD? <mumbling></mumbling> Okay... I oppose moving redlinked terms to Talkspace and I oppose misguided bluelinking, but my lack of support here for wholesale redlink-removal is not opposition per se. I would not oppose removing the link from a currently-redlinked line-item here. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave them be, although I would debate many of these individuals' notability, even in the field of indigenous American literature. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ah, but the guideline WP:LISTN plainly states: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"

See also WP:NLISTITEM; notability need not be established for each line item. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The main contributing editor wanted to be inclusive, so I can roll with that. But as far as policy goes, it seems like there's infinite grey area. List notability guidelines seem to have changed May 26th... WP:NLISTITEM says, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." There are thousands of indigenous writers out there! Cheerio, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Actually WP:LISTPEOPLE, reads:

A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

That seems more in keeping with Wikipedia policy that I've seen in play over the years—people listed on stand-alone lists of people need to have established notability. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It seems obvious that WP:LISTPEOPLE is intended largely to limit WP:LISTCRUFT, a goal which I support. BTW, WP:LSC plainly implies of standalone lists that a consistent criteria policy is more useful than individual notability, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed...membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. ...Common selection criteria...* Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list."

Per WP:IAR, I'd guess that only a tiny minority of experienced editors would remove from this list-article every line-item which is not individually notable (and I also would not support that wholesale removal). --→gab 24dot grab← 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move a few of the more obscure individuals and place them here for further discussion:

• Louise Ann Barton
• Jimmy Beason, Osage
• Denton Bedford
• Camile Bishop, Cherokee
• Jimalee Chitwood Burton, Cherokee Nation, (born 1920).
• Asani Charles, Choctaw-Chickasaw
• Bruce Chester, Metis-Sokoki
• Rosemary Christensen, Chippewa
• Steve Crow, Cherokee, (born 1949)
• Stephanie Hedgecoke, Huron-Cherokee-Creek, (born 1955)
• Travis Hedge Coke, Huron-Cherokee-Choctaw-Creek, (born 1980)
• Richard Courchene, Sioux
• Patricia Hilden, Nez Perce-descent
• David Walks-As-Bear, Kispoko Shawnee, b. 1957
• Ron Welburn, Assateague-Gingaskin-Cherokee
• Orlando White, Navajo

-Uyvsdi (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Bedford, the second-generation Hedge Cokes, and White are emerging in their careers and could very well achieve notability in the near future. Thus far they they are not "widely cited by peers or successors"; "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"; they have not created a "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work", etc. from WP:AUTHOR. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or courage to wade through the endless pages of WP list policy. So this is just a suggestion, you guys can tell me whether it fits WP's current arcana. Why not delink the names of writers who don't currently meet notability guidelines - actually, thinking about it more, why not simply remove all links except in cases where the writer already has an article. In each case, a non-linked name would just require (one? two?) credible references to prove they are a published writer who claims indigenous American ancestry. That way we could still have a really useful and comprehensive resource not duplicated anywhere else on the web, the names of people like Rupert Costo and Ron Welburn who definitely should have articles will still be there to prod someone into writing such an article, and it won't be a sea of red links that'll never turn blue. Vizjim (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

By placing these in the talk page, it's immediately apparent if anyone bothers to create an article for them. In which case, they can be added back to the list. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

But, and forgive me again if I'm missing policy, isn't the whole point of a list that it can be more comprehensive than either a category or an article? We already have various categories that can be used to present "Indigenous American writers notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia" - this list allows for fully comprehensive coverage. Vizjim (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24dot and I are getting different interpretations from the Wikipedia policy we've read. My best understanding is, as written in WP:LISTPEOPLE (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Lists of people), that "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. ...
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."

There are literately thousands upon thousands of published indigenous writers from the Americas. Listing them here would be impossible and not serve much of a purpose. The overwhelming majority (if not all) of the authors currently on this list meet Wikipedia's notability standards and would be eligible for articles, which is the goal—to have them all bluelinked over time. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Related nonlist article

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." Of course standalone lists (WP:STANDALONE) are allowed, but it seems best to somehow connect a list with some nonlist article. It seems obvious that the nonlist-article 'Native American writers' is needed (probably with that title per WP:EPONYMOUS and Category:Native American writers). The article 'Native American Renaissance' could perhaps be expanded to cover the larger topic, and renamed (I'm not sure if any other article comes closer; 'Native Writers' Circle of the Americas'?). The whole category and subcategories need some attention (compare Category:Native American short story collections, Category:Books by writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas, Photography by indigenous peoples of the Americas; Category:Native American novels. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, the ideal article would be Literature of indigenous peoples of the Americas. That would be an incredibly ambitious project. I could start the barebones beginning of such an article, but definitely couldn't write the whole thing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yeah, I always meant to come back and write the Native American literatures and First Nations literatures articles, not to mention helping create something on Central and South American indigenous writers. Sadly time is a bit more precious to me these days with 2 kids and a book manuscript to finish. Might be worth creating both as stub articles and letting other editors flesh it out along the way? Vizjim (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Providing "Proof" of American Indian ancestry isn't always easy.

What level of "Proof" are various editors looking for? In my case, I knew my long deceased grandfather was on the Dawes Rolls taken of the Cherokee in the early 1900s. However, it took almost 40 years (no exaggeration) to find enough "proof" to meet BIA standards to get a Certified Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card. After that, getting Cherokee Nation citizenship was easy.

Years ago, I recall the State of California telling me I could not claim to be of Cherokee ancestry on official forms because I was not a citizen at the time. That was extremely frustrating. Five years later when I was a citizen, the state no longer had that section on their forms.

I can see omitting people who have made a claim of ancestry, but documentation shows they are not. I have come across many people who "feel" they are American Indian, but have no specific details.

Perhaps the editors who wish to delete some questionable people could contact those people directly to see if they want to be on the list; and if so, could they provide some proof of their claim or the basis of their claim. Then the editors could at least have something to go on.

FYI, while the Cherokee Nation has approximately 300,000 enrolled citizens, over 750,000 people self-claimed Cherokee ancestry during the most recent census. Many people are familiar with the part of Cherokee history called the Trail of Tears which moved the Cherokees to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) in the 1830s. However, many Cherokees left our ancestral lands decades before the removal. Many settled in what now is Arkansas and Missouri. After the "Trail," The US government took numerous rolls of tribal members. If you did not live in the "official" Cherokee lands in Indian Territory, you were not included in those rolls. All of those Cherokees in Arkansas and Missouri (just to name a few, others went to Mexico/Texas, etc.) were not included in most rolls. Presently, the Cherokee Nation's primary requirement to become a citizen is being able to trace your blood ancestry back to anyone listed as Cherokee on the Dawes rolls. It does not matter what your blood-quantum is, just verifiable Cherokee blood. So, if your full-blooded Cherokee grandfather and your full-blooded Cherokee grandmother were not on the rolls, you will not be able to become a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, even if you are full-blooded Cherokee.

This all just goes to show that "proof" can be hard to come by, and varies from person to person.

For disclosure purposes, I am on the list of people being discussed here.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil - Great summary of the situation. In short, this list has been deliberately created so as not to have Wikipedian editors going out and doing genealogical research. You'll find non-citizen Cherokee writers on this list including Diane Glancy, Kim Shuck, Robert J. Conley and others: I think all three of these are in exactly the situation you describe. Rather than looking for "proof," the list was set up to accept people's word for their ancestry unless there have been credible proofs by third parties that the claim to indigenous ancestry is incorrect. Vizjim (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the discussion of inclusion criteria, asking for indigenous ancestry and some indication of community recognition is a compromise between requiring all authors, in the United States at least, to be enrolled members of federally recognized tribes versus including anyone who has ever self-identified as being indigenous. I think it's a good compromise with flexibility, but still creating a list of people who actually are of indigenous descent, as opposed non-Native people such as the Crying Winds and Asa Carters of the world. The earlier introductory paragraph was self-contradictory. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'd missed that rewrite. I have to say, I don't like it. If you're going to go that way without original research, you may need to move all unreferenced entries over to talk and only add them back once they've been proved. Vizjim (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't like community recognition as a criterion? I see it as a good way to get more tribal newspapers and websites used as sources, as I demonstrated with several Navajo and Osage authors. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3