Talk:List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

citations / npov / incite

greetings Wikipedians, just here to support this page's development, and happy to offer suggestions/questions to improve the page, where and when suggestions can be productive for building consensus.

Great to see this subject getting the attention it deserves. Respectfully suggesting WP:INCITE, WP:NPOV for sentence, "Most of these organizations are not accepted as being Native American by established Native American tribes." This claim needs supportive evidence.

Wondering, since this is a U.S.-based context, as noted in above thread, would it be more productive to create consistency (re: definitional meaning of key terms of reference) by replacing "established Native American tribes" with "federally recognized tribes"? It seems the latter terminology would be more precise, re: the U.S.-based identity distinctions being addressed, wherein, the subject's main issue is reliant upon the U.S. government terminology to understand its parameters clearly; which the term "self-identify" is being compared to and shaped by. Changing the terminology would help to satisfy for neutrality and precision. At some future point in time, it could be very useful, as a sub-section, to offer readers opportunities to learn the historicized and contextualized issues that have led to self-identification as a significant socio-political strategies of many federally non-recognized Indigenous peoples of/ undergoing U.S./North American colonization.

Also, if "established Native American tribes" remains, how is this phrase is defined by scholarly subject-matter experts, the U.S. government, and from multitudes of stake holders on both sides of the issue?

FactBanquet (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Cherokee Nation chief is pushing for stronger laws against the hundreds of fake Cherokee organizations.
• Shawnee Chief says hundreds of fake tribes are stealing millions of taxpayer dollars from established tribes.

 oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's only literature contrary to what's being argued on this page. I say the only consensus on the matter is UNDRIP. Yuchie, Wolfe, you got something better? Tsideh (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, I've sat through endless discussions about Native/Indian/tribal identity and heard proponents contort themselves to arrive at a definition that works in all possible cases of Indian identity. Those of us who paid attention long enough to see all attempts to arrive at a unified definition fail saw the wisdom of UNDRIP, which says it's all a matter of self-determination and all tribes are entitled to identify in their own way on the basis of their own unique history, which they know best. It's the same everywhere in the Americas. There's always the Natives and the colonists from other continents. So it's not that some tribes have a govt-to-govt relationship with the federal or state govt while others can only self-identify cuz they don't such govt relationships. It's that all tribes self-identify, and some, not all, achieve a relationship with the feds, states, etc.

My 2 cents for a consensus is turn this page into an explanation of the many points of view on the question of tribal identity and legitimacy. Federal recognition is one narrow POV, not the "God particle." There are others. The last consensus was reached after more than two decades of discussion among many Native American tribes. In the US, some say.... Tsideh (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Go take your original research elsewhere, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

bulleted or numbered lists

I notice that some states have bulleted lists and others have numbered lists. Should we make them consistent? Donald Albury 15:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to standardize the formatting. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I was gradually changing to numbered lists (more information) as I edited. Yuchitown (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! It is not urgent enough to edit just to change that, so I'll leave you to it. Donald Albury 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Editors commenting here did not support the proposed move, primarily on accuracy grounds given that any organisation that is not a tribe would fall within the scope of the proposed title. Arguments based on ChatGPT outputs were not weighted: editors are reminded that Large Language Models lack any actual understanding of the concepts they discuss - their primary function is prediction of the next token in a sequence. Given the lack of any discussion in the last week, no need for a relist. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

---

List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes → List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes – In reviewing the previous discussion on the list title, I noticed significant confusion and disorganization. So to review the previously proposed titles:

• List of Native American heritage groups
• List of unrecognized Indigenous nations
• List of unrecognized Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized tribes in the United States
• List of corporations posing as Indigenous nations
• List of corporations self-identifying as Indigenous nations
• List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes
• List of organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

In summary, the proposed variations:

• The main noun: groups, nations, tribes, organizations, corporations
• The descriptor: "Indigenous", "Native American", "in the United States"
• The qualifier: "posing as", "identifying as" "self-identifying as", "that self-identify as" "unrecognized", "heritage"

Now the stated purpose of the move was WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE. These principles emphasize that titles should be no longer than necessary yet descriptive and precise enough to convey the topic clearly to those familiar with the subject matter. However, these principles weren't directly addressed in the discussion and appeared only as boilerplate guidance in the move dialog.

Let's evaluate the proposals based on concision and precision:

• Main noun: On the basis of concision, "groups" and "tribes" are the best options. In fact, it was noted that "groups" was less wordy. Yet instead an argument was made based on WP:CONSISTENCY, identifying WikiProject Organizations, which is not even a mainspace page. A search of mainspace shows that both groups and organizations are used, with about 736 group lists vs. 528 organization lists. As such, consistency, to the extent there is any when it is so close to 50/50, agrees with concision in using the shorter choice "groups".
• Descriptor: While calling these groups "tribes" is controversial, labeling them as "self-identified Native American tribes" is also problematic. For example, the Cherokee Nation identifies itself as a tribe, but including it on this list would be inappropriate. Additionally, "Indigenous" raises broader issues related to colonialism. Descriptions limited to "United States" are more neutral, although not without controversy, as seen in discussions on topics like secessionists and the sovereign citizen movement, but currently those positions are considered WP:FRINGE so it seems safe to use.
• Qualifier: "Heritage" is the most concise, as it doesn't require an "as" clause, but it was mentioned that some organizations claim Native American heritage without identifying as having tribal status. A title like "List of United States heritage groups" makes clear that this word does not capture the scope of the desired list. "Unrecognized" is clear and concise - in the previous discussion, it was left out as it made the title "slightly shorter and simpler", but I would argue it is necessary. "Identify" and "self-identify" are not precise enough to distinguish federally recognized tribes from unrecognized tribes. As for "posing", it seems clear it would be a separate list from the current one under discussion. Although, there was the statement that "reliable sources on legitimacy are not 'very scarce'. It really isn't 'muddy' if you're familiar with the field", so perhaps this list will split in the future into "list of legitimate unrecognized tribes" and "list of posers".

So this leaves us with the words "groups", "tribes", "United States", and "unrecognized". Plug those through the title generator and... out comes "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes". This title seems clear, neutral, and concise in adherence with Wikipedia's guidelines. To compare lengths:

• Previous: List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, 48 chars
• Current: List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, 66 chars
• Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States, 60 chars

The proposed title is similar to the previous one but avoids the appearance of potential bias. In a similar discussion, it was determined that the title "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" was necessary over the shorter alternative "List of hate groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center" for clarity and neutrality. And the proposed title here is both more concise and precise than the current option.

Other variations would be:

• List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes, 76 chars
• List of groups the United States does not recognize as tribes, 61 chars
• List of groups unrecognized as tribes by the United States, 58 chars

However, these alternatives are either longer or use awkward phrasing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Opposed -- "Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States" -- There are federally recognized tribes that also do not recognize these groups that self-identify: Tribal leaders urge Congress to protect Native artists from ‘fake tribes’. There is a Wikipedia article about the "fake tribes" their tribal leader mentions, Cherokee heritage groups, but I also don't see any news articles or books that use that term for these self-identifying groups. In fact, the Cherokee tribes often calls these other groups "history and culture clubs" or "fabricated Cherokee groups" per Tribe establishes Cherokee Identity Protection Committee. Anyway, I think the current title is still most neutral.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the issue though? A comprehensive list can easily include notes about recognition by smaller groups than the US. The issue would be if there were groups recognized by federally recognized tribes that are not recognized by the US, which in fact there are, and classifying them as "self-identifying" is somewhat insulting when there are groups that recognize them. Like I said, feel free to create a "list of posers" article, I just don't think that should be this list. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

groups recognized by federally recognized tribes that are not recognized by the US. Would you care to share an example of what you are talking about? Yuchitown (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It was more of a hypothetical situation, but, for example, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation seems to be on speaking terms with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash. It is rare though, the federally recognized tribe is more likely to absorb the smaller group if there is a legitimate claim and they are close by, and then if they are far away there's no reason to make a statement at all. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, different groups communicate and sometimes work with each other, but that isn't "recognizing" them in any legal sense. Federally recognized tribes do not absorb smaller groups. Back in the 18th century, smaller tribes merged into larger tribes, but that doesn't happen now. A couple of organizations listed here petitioned for independent federal recognition but were denied. One of the seven current criteria for federal recognition is "not being members of other existing federally recognized tribes". The only way that's happened in the recent past is through congressional legislation. Yuchitown (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was from another case, [1]. To quote: "In 2014, a group purporting to be the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes of Oregon introduced federal legislation to 'restore' their existence as a federally recognized Tribe. The leader of this group was recently enrolled as a test case as a member of the Siletz Tribe, mooting out the group’s efforts to achieve separate federal recognition. The legislation has not been reintroduced." In that sense one could say the Siletz Tribe has absorbed the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes of Oregon. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, at this point the Siletz Tribe has enrolled "many [...] Clatsop, Nehalem and Tillamook people". [2] Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yea, as you learn about the history of different federally recognized tribes, you’ll find they seldom only have one ethnic group. The upheavals of the 18th and 19th centuries were massive: disease, war, forced removals, refugees, slavery of Indians, etc. The current confederated tribes in Washington and Oregon can contain dozens of historic ethnic groups, while the Pomo are enrolled in about 20 different federally recognized tribes today. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well in this case it is the Clatsop I am interested in. They were an unrecognized group, they asked for federal recognition, it was denied, and then essentially all of the members relocated and were enrolled in the Siletz recognized tribe. To me that's strong evidence that in most cases, a federally recognized tribe will absorb nearby groups. Hence the lack of federally-recognized tribes recognizing unrecognized tribes - there are simply no tribes to recognize, because they've been absorbed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of groups that are not recognized by the United States as tribes. Many of them also don't self-identify as tribes. Some of them are not in the United States, but are clearly tribes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  True, but for most groups, there are no reliable sources documenting that they are not recognized by the US as tribes, because there was no question to begin with as to whether the US would recognize them - neither the group nor the US had any intent for recognition as a tribe. In that sense, it is actually a pretty narrow scope. If for whatever reason, a group outside the United States got a lot of press attention in its quest to be recognized as a Native American tribe by the US - then yeah, I would certainly revise the inclusion criteria and include it on this list. Maybe that's a better title, "List of groups not recognized as Native American tribes by the United States", but I think "Native American" is implied by "tribe", and the list's lead makes that clear. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This list also excludes tribes officially recognized by state governments but not by the US. That would require something like Lists of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States or by individual states., 82 chars, which is definitely getting unwieldy. Donald Albury 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Girl Scouts of the USA is not recognized as a tribe. Neither is The Rolling Stones or the League of Women Voters. It seems like the concept of self-identification is missing in the suggested title. Something like List of groups self-identifying as Native American tribes without U.S. government recognition or List of self-identified Native American tribes without U.S. government recognition or List of groups self-identifying as Native American tribes without government recognition in the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"The US" can also include the states - federalism is quite weird in that some "US" laws are technically state laws that have passed in all 50 states. Like the drinking age in the United States, for example - technically, the federal law is only a federal highway funding bill, it is the individual state laws one would be prosecuted under. So a state recognition of tribes is essentially a "partial" recognition by the United States (1/50), hence is excluded by the proposed title. But again the lead makes this clear. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion. First, I must say I appreciate the detailed analysis laid out here. Why not "List of unrecognized Native American tribes"? This would seem to better satisfy WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. It avoids using two "main nouns" ("group" and "tribe"). It is unambiguous or at least would be clear to anyone with passing familiarity with "recognized" as applied to "Native American tribes." And I know this is me being obtuse, but I had the same initial reaction as BarrelProof. Virtually all conceivable "groups" are "not recognized by the US as tribes." It's an infinite set. I also prefer "Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" which you offered as an alternative but dismissed. I find this and my suggestion less awkward than what is proposed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. User:BarrelProof eloquently sums up why the proposed title won't work. Many "heritage groups" exist that don't self-identify as tribes; for instance, there are Kiowa groups in Los Angeles and Albuquerque who regularly meet, have potlucks, and share culture. Similar groups meet in other cities, especially in destinations in the termination era. "Organization" implies some structure, as opposed to a casual get-together. "List of unrecognized Native American tribes" makes the unsubstantiated claim that all these groups are tribes, which are political entities. Under U.S. law, Native American tribes are distinct, independent political communities.[3] The current title is the most comprehensive, neutral, and accurate. Yuchitown (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  You and BarrelProof missed the point I made above, which is that there must be reliable sources documenting the lack of recognition. When I Google Girl Scouts I don't get any sources discussing their recognition. In contrast when I Google Cherokee Tribe of California sources that mention their non-recognition are all I get. Now in this case the sources for the Cherokee Tribe of California don't seem too reliable, but it should be clear that as soon as the sources meet the basic threshold of reliability they would be worthy of inclusion. As far as self-identification, they only identify as a "tribal organization", not specifically Native American, so the current title is overprecise and not at all comprehensive or accurate. And neutral... I have already stated why some would consider inclusion on this list to be insulting, given its title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  There’s federally recognized tribes (well-documented) and state-recognized tribes (surprising nebulous but the states are the authority and provide sources, often state bills). Everyone else goes here, included terminated tribes who have not regained their recognition. Yuchitown (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, with federally recognized, state recognized, it also seems inconsistent to suddenly have self-identified rather than unrecognized. In fact many pages that link here still use the "unrecognized" wording. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The articles are List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States. Then there's Indian termination policy. As another user pointed in one of these recent, endless discussions Indian law is complex and the concepts being dealt with are complex, so they aren't going have neat, cookie-cutter titles. Nothing is "sudden" here. Yuchitown (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...there must be reliable sources documenting the lack of recognition. That has it backwards. "Reliable sources" documenting lack of recognition are rare. Most of the organizations on this list are here because they have applied for government recognition or have otherwise claimed to be Native American tribes, but have not been recognized by any government. It is the lack of reliable sources documenting government recognition that puts them here. - Donald Albury 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Petition for federal recognition, as are most of the documents here, are certainly reliable evidence that the organization is not currently federally recognized. They are, though, primary, self-published sources. It would be even better if there were independent secondary sources documenting the lack of recognition. As far as "a lack of reliable sources documenting government recognition", that can't be verified - even if one conducted a search, there could always be some source that one missed that documents government recognition, perhaps an old newspaper mentioning some obscure provision of state legislation or something. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose / Comment - As others have explained more eloquently than I could, I think the proposed alternative is poor. It's both logically imprecise while being practically confusing. That said, I do agree with OP's concerns, and would support "List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" instead. It's long, yes, but I think it would be better to be clear and precise than overly terse, in this instance. Garnet Moss (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  You would then have the challenge that state-recognized tribes are only recognized by a particular state, not necessarily "the United States." Then you would have to prove with citations that every group listed is of Native American descent. The organizations run the gamut from the Nevada City Rancheria and Sandy Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa to the Kaweah Indian Nation and the Moorish Science Temple of America. With terminated tribes, you might have to add "currently" to the title, since the United States previously recognized them. Yuchitown (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose changing the category name. The current category is accurate, neutral and descriptive. That some would feel the term self-identifying is some sort of negative thing or "somewhat insulting" totally flummoxes me. It is accurate for groups who are neither federally or state recognized, as the group itself identifies as a tribe - it's very clear. Netherzone (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The phrase "self-identified" suggests that the tribe lacks legitimacy or is merely claiming an identity without a cultural or historical basis. Most Native American tribes, recognized or not, see their identity as rooted deeply in history, not something that can be decided or "self-identified". Federal or state recognition status is an administrative label, not a judgment of a tribe's cultural legitimacy, and many tribes that are unrecognized by the US government nonetheless have extensive documentation of their historical continuity. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Continuing to insist that self-identification lacks legitimacy, or is solely negative or somewhat insulting does not make it so; it is not productive and is a personal opinion. Not all Native American groups view self-identification as a negative, but rather as a source of pride and belonging. The clearest example of this is that the largest federally recognized tribe, the Navajo, self-identify as Diné (meaning "the people"). Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't my personal opinion, it is a linguistic opinion formed on the basis of correlations between words and identifying their connotations. To wit, I asked ChatGPT which was more insulting, calling a tribe self-identified or calling it unrecognized, and ChatGPT said by far that self-identified is more insulting. I tried various permutations and prompt variations and so on, but in each case the answer was the same. If you have stronger evidence than a Large Language Model on the connotations of words, by all means bring it up. But this generally seems consistent, but e.g. you can see in the documents I have linked above where those opposed to the tribe use the phrasing "purporting to be", which is grammatically only a small step away from "self-identifying as", whereas those supporting the tribe use more direct phrasing such as "I am Clatsop", rather than something like "I self-identify as Clatsop".

  Regarding your statement, "the Navajo self-identify as Diné", this is quite interesting. There is one result for "the Navajo self-identify", which states "the Navajo self-identify to be of Siberian descent", whereas the article itself states "[scientists] are slowly erasing our cultural identity". The standard phrasing seems to be "call themselves Diné" or "are known among themselves as Diné". There is actually this one statement [4] "If you're not Navajo, call us Navajo. It's our preferred term for foreign relations. Your question is akin to, 'Can I call you sweety?'". According to this statement, then, your statement is false - a Navajo would rarely, if ever, self-identify themselves as Diné to an outsider - they would introduce themselves as Navajo.

  All along here I am making a distinction between the act of self-identification and the use of the phrase "self-identifies as". It is true that identifying oneself is often a source of pride and belonging. But use of the phrase "self-identifies as" is, so far as I can tell, primarily to mock and call this identification into question. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you will look at the discussion a year-and-a-half ago in #Rename title? above, you will see that several of us worked very hard to agree on a neutral title for the article. To claim that, ... the phrase "self-identifies as" is, so far as I can tell, primarily to mock and call this identification into question. is to cast aspersions on everybody who participated in that discussion. Donald Albury 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathnerd314159, ChatGPT and other large language models are not reliable sources for the encyclopedia. Nor is your link to a Reddit thread a reliable source nor is the link to the "Discuss Mormonism" online forum of user-submitted content. But this is a reliable source from the Department of the Interior: [[5]]. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, this statement: Navajo would rarely, if ever, self-identify themselves as Diné to an outsider - they would introduce themselves as Navajo is untrue. I live half-the-year in a geographic region of the country where many Navajo (Diné), Puebloan, Ute, and Apache live. Most of the Navajo people I know, or have met professionally, call themselves Diné, yet I am not Diné myself. Diné is used widely, for example: [6], [7] for example. That may be different in your geographic region, but the kind of blanket statements you are making does not show an attitude of good faith and is disrespectful to the Indigenous editors here as well as allies and members of IPNA. The hypothetical situations, personal opinions and aspersions you are bringing forward are not the same as reliable sources, which is what is required per WP guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll note your personal statement is WP:OR and would also not be considered reliable. Fortunately, the standard for article titles is simply consensus - there is no requirement that the evidence used in article discussions be reliable, verifiable, or even objective - those requirements only apply to the article itself. I think you took my statement out of context - I simply stated that some people find "self-identification" offensive, and some people do not professionally call themselves Diné. If you and your associates are happy to use these terms in the relevant contexts, that doesn't negate the views of others.

  That being said, despite the claim that consensus is not a vote, it seems clear that those who prefer the current article title substantially outnumber Myceteae's tentative suggestion for a slight variation on mine, and none have shown any inclination to change their mind, so there seems to be no point in further discussion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not OR, which is why I included the links to reliable sources using the term Diné outside of the Diné community. Here are some additional sources referring to Navajo people by the self-identified term, Diné: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Netherzone (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I didn't see the ninja edit of those extra sources you added (apparently the comment box alerts on new comments but not edited comments). I would agree that those sources are reliable sources that show that some Navajo people professionally identify themselves as Diné. Past that, as I have said, reliability is not a factor in this discussion. I have no doubts of the veracity of your personal statements regarding your experiences with the Navajo people. But I also have no doubts of the veracity of the Reddit comment I linked. And apparently it's a whole complex political issue, with these attempts to rename the Navajo Nation, [13]. So based on that, I think there are proponents and opponents so it's one-sided to state that the use of the term Diné is appropriate or not. But clearly, based on this bill not passing, it is not correct to state that the Navajo Nation self-identifies as the Diné Nation - otherwise, the bill would have passed. So there you go. A reliable source, a contextual inference. (technically it is WP:SYNTH, but it is also synthesis to take isolated examples of usage and make claims about usage in general).

  So far we have only been discussing one claim of self-identification. Hopefully you can see how complicated it's gotten with regard to sources and definitions and scope and so on. You've even said you've found the blanket use of terms to be disrespectful, echoing my point that the use of the term "self-identify" is harmful - maybe it is not directly disrespectful, but it certainly leads to discussions which cause hurt feelings. Getting back to this list, there are hundreds of organizations. IMO, to properly vet this list, it would probably take thousands of pages of discussion, just to iron out what some of these organizations even are. Like maybe their leader submitted the petition, but one of their members disagrees and has a completely alternate geneology for the tribe, and they had a huge fight, and this disagreement was what led to an incomplete application being submitted to BIA. I don't know, I'm sure there are interesting stories to be uncovered. But these kinds of questions do call into question the identity of the organization, and consequently any assertions of what it identifies as. In contrast, verifying that an organization is not recognized by the US takes precisely one source, that states that. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think most of us have been aware of the status of these diverse groups for years, if not decades. Perhaps you aren't seeing the logic behind the current name, but there has been no votes to support your proposed move; only opposes. Speculating and generating hypotheticals isn't helpful, but there is a wealth of published literature available to you to read about Native American tribal recognition in the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Countless groups aren't recognised as tribes by the United States Government. The overwhelming majority have absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I wrote under Barrelproof, the overwhelming majority have no reliable sources documenting that they aren't recognized as tribes by the US (federal government or states). The ones that do have reliable sources are relatively few and seem worth noting. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  People have explained repeatedly, the US has 574 federally recognized tribes, who are easily cited by the annual list on the Federal Register. Then there are state-recognized tribes, then there are all the other organizations. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any confusion about this. Yuchitown (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just want to follow up to your statement User:Necrothesp that some organizations here obviously are composed of Native Americans, like the Yuchi Tribal Organization and Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Oklahoma groups because their members are almost completely enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation; however, the Muscogee Nation would be the first to explain that these two organizations are not themselves federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  People are, of course, missing my point entirely. "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" would cover any group/organisation in the world not recognised by the United States as a tribe! The wording is appalling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I was referring to by providing the examples of the Girl Scouts of the USA, The Rolling Stones and the League of Women Voters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support rename. A variation would be preferable, such as a "List of unrecognized Native American tribes and groups," along with the creation of a separate list for those included on this page who do not have reliable sources supporting their identification as Native American.

(SOURCES FOR USE OF "UNRECOGNIZED TRIBES" BELOW, MOST COMMON IN ACADEMIA)

Further: Per WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."

The groups listed as "self-identifying" lack verifiable reliable sources. Assuming that these groups self-identify because they are not recognized by federal or state law constitutes WP:OR and WP:POV when no sources support that assertion. Therefore the more commonly used academic title Unrecognized Tribes appears more concise and accurate.

• "Native American and Indigenous Studies: Southeastern U.S. Nations"
• "In Search of Lost Tribes: Anthropology and the Federal Acknowledgment Process"
• "Acknowledging the Repatriation Claims of Unacknowledged California Tribes"
• "NAGPRA's Politics of Recognition Repatriation Struggles of a Terminated Tribe"
• "Complicities and Collaborations: Anthropologists and the “Unacknowledged Tribes” of California"
• "The United Tribe of Shawnee Indians: The Battle for Recognition"
• "Tribal acknowledgment and memory sites of Native Americans"

-- Bcbc24 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you refer to something as being a "blue car", you're saying it is a car. If you refer to a group as an "unrecognized tribe", you're saying it is a tribe. It is just a tribe that is lacking in recognition. That may involve an assumption of validity of a claim that is not desirable here. Some of the mentioned sources may also be focusing on groups with valid claims rather than considering potentially incorrect claims. Note that titles can be chosen as descriptive titles per WP:NDESC. Such a title doesn't need to be explicitly using a phrase extracted from sources. I don't think it is really feasible to try to make conclusions here to say that some list of particular identified groups don't "have reliable sources supporting their identification" while those in some other list do have such sources. That would just be inviting perpetual disputes here. Wikipedia is about providing information that is available in sources, not drawing conclusions about whose claims are valid and whose or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Unrecognized Tribe," which is more commonly used in academia, is still preferable over self-identifying organizations since some groups on this list include WP:BLPGROUPs, where the self-identifying label then extends to every member of the group, even when RS does not support this self-identification. Tribes and other Native American groups can lack recognition without being self-identifying. Secondary RS also supports that the state can recognize them without formal recognition under state law. Additionally, the groups can verifiably be known as Native American people of a particular Indigenous descent without either federal or state recognition. Extra care should be taken when labeling living people. Bcbc24 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As explained above there's a wide diversity of organizations listed including ones who included citizens of federally recognized tribes so conjection/extrapolation like would be incorrect. These organizations are identifying as tribes. WP:BLPGROUP states "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies"; these are mainly incorporated as 501(c)(3), including some as churches, but the crux is the organizations are what is being listed, not individual members of the organization. For instance, Cecile Hansen, a leader of the Duwamish Tribe is a citizen of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation.[14] —Yuchitown (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caribbean Indigenous groups

I'm not entirely sure "Native American" and similar terms quite cover Caribbean Indigenous groups (whether recognised or unrecognised), so I've called them out specifically in the main body of the article. I've tried to keep any overview of the unique situation for these groups brief, but there is also the issue that, being outside of the 48 contiguous states, they are ineligible for federal recognition anyway. The IITC has campaigned on this issue for years, including at the UN, and recognises some Caribbean Indigenous groups as associate members.

The Caribbean is a subregion of its own, and doesn't neatly fit into North, Middle or South America, so existing categories are tricky. I also think mestizaje and creolization complicate discussions of Indigeneity in the Caribbean and Latin America, so it may be that they need more detailed treatment to discuss that, but I'll park that discussion for now.

Given these distinctions, I've put them into a separate list under the main one, mainly so that if we do need to add any clarification later, we can do so there without making the opening paragraph for the main list too unbalanced towards this small number of groups. However, maybe I should nest the new Caribbean Indigenous list under the main list? I'm happy to discuss all of this if others disagree, of course. Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and nested the Caribbean groups under the main list, as the intent is merely to keep relevant info together rather to create a fork, as such. Though that may mean a subheader such as "Caribbean" might be better, to better match the state headers, with "Puerto Rico" and "U.S. Virgin Islands" remaining sub-subheaders? Lewisguile (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make the initial description clearer and more factually accurate (like making recognition present tense not past tense since terminated tribes are included in this list). I created a separate "Caribbean" section in the introduction since they are politically distinct. Yuchitown (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I also added links to Pacific Islander Americans and explained that they are not included because they are not organized by tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. They're a bit of an awkward fit here, I feel, so I appreciate your help in making the extant list work. (I would just as happily have put them in a separate list article, but that seemed like a bigger deal.) Lewisguile (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Better sourcing / consensus for "fraudulent" in Wikivoice

I've added a couple of tags to the line about CPAINs: "According to whom?" and "Better source needed". I'm hoping we can fix this pretty easily.

We currently say "fraudulent" in Wikivoice, but there's only one source for this, which is a syndicated press release picked up by Yahoo. Within that source, the term is used by someone quoted directly, rather than in the source's own voice. That source also very much frames this as something happening in Delaware, with only a brief mention of plans to work across multiple nations. Really, we need multiple good sources here to support all parts of this sentence. I think having three would be best in the article, but we can certainly compile more than that here to show consensus.

I think we can do one of two things:

1. We can show that this is the consensus among multiple sources by using multiple RSes that refer to this as "fraud" specifically, since this has strong connotations of illegality and is unlikely to be seen as NPOV otherwise. Also, we should find sources which show that the intended collaboration between tribes actually occurred, as this article frames it as someone intending to do this. (I don't imagine this is hard to do, but it hasn't been done yet, so this is hopefully just a helpful reminder.)

2. Alternatively, we should rephrase the sentence to something like "Some of these organisations are Corporations Posing as Indigenous Nations (CPAIN)". I think that's overall more acceptable (though still imperfect), although finding more sources to support the concept of CPAIN would be useful anyway.

Otherwise we need to cite who says they're "fraudulent", rather than putting it in Wikivoice.

I appreciate there have been debates before about whether WP:BLP applies in this case, but as some of these organisations are headed up by one person (or a small group of people) the statement that their organisation might be fraudulent is also an intimation that they might be fraudulent (a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, since BLP policy applies even to pages that aren't about that living person). Multiple sources will make this more robust anyway, so it's a win-win.

@Yuchitown I'm tagging you here, since you reverted my prior attempt to make this more WP:NPOV, so you may have some thoughts. Lewisguile (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies". This article is a list of organizations who are a) unrecognized and b) identifying as Native American tribes. It's not a list of individuals, and several of these organizations have members who are citizens of established tribes (as mentioned above in the move discussion, Cecile Hansen, leader of the unrecognized Duwamish Tribe, is a citizen of the Suquamish Indian Tribe.) No statement is being made about each individual member of these various organizations. Fraudulent and CPAIN are mentioned as describing some of the organizations (now with numerous references and quotes — some of which do reference illegality, some resulting in prison sentences. Plenty more references are available if needed). Wikivoice would be "These organizations are fraudulent and CPAINs", which is not how the introduction is phrased. BTW this article has a US focus so should follow American English. Yuchitown (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As a side note: even claiming some of the organisations are fraudulent and CPAIN is Wikivoice if it's not cited who said that. We can use Wikivoice if we're describing the consensus among experts. And per the quote you give, organisations don't "normally" count for BLP, but they still have to follow normal policy (e.g., sourcing info, especially when contentious/likely to be contentious). So having suitable RSes for these points is the important part.

Anyway, I can see you've added these to the article, so my issues are satisfied. I think having more sources is justified here and it's stronger as a result. Thank you. Lewisguile (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional side note: I agree that it is crucial to have verifiable RSes. Although WP:BLP states that "this policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons," it is important to recognize that many organizations on this list are not merely legal entities but rather consist of multi-generational families with both adults and children. WP:BLP also states, "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." The situation concerning unrecognized tribes is especially complicated, as the information written about them can adversely impact the lives of entire families, including their children, as you have seen in the example of the Guainía Taíno Tribe. Bcbc24 (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was broadly getting at. I think it helps that the list does say some groups just aren't recognised for bureaucratic/colonial reasons, and the new section on the Caribbean is helpful for outlining the differences there, since PR and the USVI are essentially still colonies which have fewer rights than the 48 contiguous states and Alaska—and that's without even getting into the particularities Afro-Indigenous people face due to how Black and Indigenous identities have been enforced in America, or how a singular Hispanidad identity has erased, marginalised and subsumed non-Eurocentric identities in Latin America. (A large part of the debate around the descendants of the Taíno deals with these issues, which overlap in the case of the Latin-but-American Puerto Rico.)

Really, to cover the diversity of groups here, this list should be called something like "List of organizations unrecognized as Native American tribes"—or better still, "List of organizations unrecognized as tribes of the United States" to cover groups who don't identify as "Native American" specifically, but who still traditionally hail from the lands now called the United States.¹

There are other issues with the current framing. "Self-identify as..." is a bit of a tautology, since "identify as..." covers the same ground; its particular usage seems pointed, which is less defensible when applied to every group here.

--------

¹The use of of the United States is intended to clarify this is for groups claiming Indigeneity to the lands now called the United States, rather than the members of non-American tribes who might live in the US today (such as if the San people were to migrate there). Using in the USA would probably be too broad. Lewisguile (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the tautology of the term self-identify. The term "unrecognized," rather than "self-identify," is also more commonly used in academia, so a variation with the alternatives you mentioned is still preferable and more consistent with WP:NPOV. Additionally, I think we should be extra cautious with using the term fraudulent in this article, as there is potential harm to living individuals including children when legitimate, unrecognized tribes are grouped together with fraudulent entities. Bcbc24 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There's also a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that's happened. I disagree that this isn't ever a BLP issue, for example, even if some insist that it isn't and it's okay actually because everyone has self-ID'd just by saying it. That has been discussed to death and people need to acknowledge the arguments against and recognise that this stuff is all on shakier ground than they've admitted—and thus proceed with much greater caution about all these pages. Lewisguile (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We just had a lengthy discussion about all of this in the move discussion above. These are not BLPs. Self-identify is very much used in published literature in regards to Native American tribal entities (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Self-identification, I placed them here so I don't have to keep posting examples every couple of weeks). "Unrecognized tribes" don't necessarily cover every organization listed here. Please re-read the move discussion above. A List of organizations unrecognized as Native American tribes could include the Girl Scouts, United Way, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Yuchitown (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I couldn't find those sources on the WikiProject page. Are they there?

I take your point also about the Girl Scouts, etc. From your response and prior posts, it's clear this term obviously causes frequent confusion and misunderstandings, even if it's accurate for those knowledgeable about the terminology. And responding to that can be exhausting (I have experience of this in other areas, so I honestly do sympathise).

I think your recent additions help a lot, since most readers (and editors) probably aren't experts in this area. Maybe you could have an expanded "terminology" or "concepts" section in future (if not here, then elsewhere that's easy for people to find), but this works for this article. Lewisguile (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Self-identification - Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so it's on the talk page. Thanks. As it pertains to that discussion, and for BLPs specifically, BLP policy obviously overrides an essay by a WikiProject (which is an essay and not a guideline), and the arbitration committee's comments seem to reinforce that. It makes sense, since BLP policy is founded on legal concerns (libel, etc), which have to take primacy over other concerns, unfortunately.

I think the problem that you're now facing is that there has indeed been some mischief caused with those self-ID categories (the category pages for which had wording that failed NPOV and had "Pretendian" as a "see also"). In some cases, people had had those categories added to their pages when it wasn't even mentioned in the text why it was justified because, for example, a family member had once mentioned it (I'm thinking of the Jacksons here). I'm surprised that was allowed to go on for so long.

Organisations are a different matter, and there are more nuances, but really, categories for BLPs should be non-controversial (and the fact the last CfD discussion was so split shows that's not the case) or incredibly well sourced (by which, the RSes should be framing the subjects as "self-ID'd", not us), AND in either case they should be defining (meaning used "commonly" and "consistently" in descriptions of the subject). Nearly all BLPs failed the latter and most also failed the former too.

It also devalues the purpose of these categories—if everyone and their dog is categorised as a self-ID'd Indian, and possibly a Pretendian, then there's no way to separate the actual frauds from the people who once said something dumb about a DNA test, and people will just ignore it as a valuable category. Really, the self-ID statement should be reserved for people who've made a career out of it/have had significant coverage on that basis. If they recant and haven't benefited from it, the category probably also should be removed. If they recant but they've benefited materially from that false ID, then it's worth still mentioning them.

That also seems to be the intent, IMO, of the essay at the WikiProject (which mentions people who've benefited from fraudulent Indian identities and those who've recanted), but that seems to have been forgotten in order to slap it on everyone who's remotely involved in these debates.

Anyway, I'm sure you've heard it all before, but I wanted to get that off my chest so we can all move on. Thanks for listening to my ramblings. As it happens, I think this page is mostly good now, though I'm sure there will be debates about the title again in the future. Lewisguile (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A general reminder: This article is not a biography of a living person. This talk page is for discussions about this article. Thanks! Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)