Talk:Melungeon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Southwest Virginia vs. Western Virginia

Hi, coming here to discuss a disagreement as to whether to use "western Virginia" or "Southwest Virginia" in the infobox. I've explained my position in the edit history, and also linked to a source using the terminology (that was already linked in the infobox).

Can the other editors please explain their position on why "western Virginia" is a better term? In my head, "Southwest Virginia" makes more sense, as "western Virginia" could just as well refer to the counties of the state that border West Virginia. Whereas, the sources in the infobox, and elsewhere in the article, link Melungeons to the Cumberland Gap area and specify that the part of the state we're talking about here is where Virginia meets Kentucky and Tennessee, i.e. its southwest. Furthermore, why not link to the Southwest Virginia page but link to East Tennessee?

Appreciate the work done on this article to remove fringe theories. 2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

My major concern at this point is the frequent reverting without discussion, which is why I asked you to discuss here. Yuchitown has made many improvements to the article recently, so let's wait for their comments. But don't revert again without a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks. Would like to add to my previous comment that the book Other Souths, used a source that specifically uses the term "western Virginia" also refers to Albemarle County as being in "western Virginia near Charlottesville." Thus, for this author, western Virginia refers to a huge swath of area, including those northwestern counties of the state. Albemarle County, I think, is decidedly not in the territory associated with Melungeons or in Appalachia. Thus, I think this book actually lends more credence to using the term Southwest Virginia to be more specific. 2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly on this particular subject, I couldn't care less. Find decent secondary, published reliable sources and source the edit you want. I'm much more concerned about the wp:fringe theories creeping in and self-published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Okay, reverting to my edit that used the USA Today article as a source for "Southwest Virginia," which I made before I was asked to bring it to the talk page. 2601:18D:4600:A610:D12D:DE57:B8A4:C487 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Yuchitown The article right now is a huge WP:REDFLAG StephanieTree (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree- the citation reference book Other Souths is not properly cited in this article, nor is it relevant. I believe it should be removed. StephanieTree (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

loss of self-identification?

@Yuchitown: Per your revision of 15:17, 26 August 2023, it states:

[Plecker] directed the offices to reclassify members of certain families as black, causing the loss for numerous families of documentation in records that showed their continued self-identification as being of Native American descent.

I'm trying to parse this change. The reclassification of certain people of native American descent caused the loss of documentation of their self-identification as native Americans to be lost.

So they themselves are being identified (i.e. as "colored" or native American), but the issue is "by whom?". Adding "self" makes it seems like they're relying on the documentation as to how they identify themselves, whereas the issue is how they are identified by others who are going by whatever the documentation states. Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Native American is capitalized as per MOS. You appear very resistant to the verifiable truth that in the past certain Melungeon families self-identified as having Native American ancestry. No tribes identified them as such, so falls to self-identification. Yuchitown (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Au contraire! I am not resistant to any such claim, but the issue is how state officials identified them. Plecker insisted on changing their identification (on existing birth records) from "Indian" to "colored" with the result that subsequent offspring would, by law, be identified as "colored". Fabrickator (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Your change represents that changing the designation on birth certificates affected how they self-identified, when it actually affected how they were identified on official state records. In so doing, it also precluded descendants from being identified as "American Indian". Thus, the problem is not how they self-identify, but how they are identified by the state on their birth certificates. Fabrickator (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

But these families are the origin of the identification. The identification is not originating from any Native American tribe. Make it "self-identify on their official forms" if you want. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Regarding the above statement and your edit adding "on official forms", it sounds like you are trying to put forward some prescriptive standardized and well-enforced process, going beyond mere self-reporting of births by those persons directly involved in the birthing process. Can it be recorded as a "tribal birth" only if reported on an "Official Tribal form"? Can you provide a source for this? Fabrickator (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am attempting to accomodate you while keeping the article truthful. You do not appear to be familiar with Native American topics. You can try reading WP:NDNID, but, in a nutshell, with Native identity when an individual or family claims a Native American identify, we at Wikipedia can only verify that that have self-identified. To claim anything beyond that and to make a statement that they actually are of Native American descent would require that a specific Native American tribe claims the individual or family. Census records are primary documents; today they are completely self-identified. Yuchitown (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

You need to sign your comment below. But you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families, hence "self-identification. Yuchitown (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

You are attempting to apply WP:NDNID out of context. That's clearly when, in a WP article, a claim is made that some specific person or persons are indigenous. No such claim is being made (i.e. about a specific individual or individuals) in this instance. Instead, we are describing a generic case of somebody registering a birth and reporting how they claim the offspring should be registered. We are not making any claim in the article that a particular individual is in fact indigenous. This is how the birth is registered and how the state recognizes it, thereby determining how that person is treated by the law, even if it is not satisfactory as evidence to support such a claim on WP. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023

Yuchitown wrote: "... you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families."

I am missing something. This is not dependent on any specific person actually being a Native American. Rather, the claim is that there was a set of persons who had been reported on their birth certificates as American Indian, which had actually provided them with certain advantages as compared to being registered as "colored". I'm perplexed as to where you're coming from, I guess it's that they were properly not Native Americans, so they shouldn't have been able to register as American Indians. Or you feel it's material for some other reason. But it's not a relevant issue, inasmuch as the article is not claiming that any particular person was a Native American. The intention of the Wikipedia guideline is that within an article, we should not assert that someone is a Native American without a tribal acknowledgement to that effect. Such a claim is not being made in the article, and in particular, it's not being made with regard to any specific person. The claim is that "... documentation in records ... showed their continued identification as being of Native American descent." The claim is not that they were in fact Native Americans, but that right or wrong, the actual birth records showed them as Native Americans.

So what's my objection to prefixing "identified" with "self"? In this context, "self-identified" would likely be interpreted to mean that they actually considered themselves to be Native Americans, but we should only infer that they registered their births that way because they couldn't register as "white" and they didn't want to register as "colored". Until the passage of the Racial Integrity Act, Melungeons were able to be reported on their birth certificates as American Indians. That's not to assert that they were in fact American Indians, but that was the best choice available to them, and until Plecker came along, they were able to have that claim accepted. None of this depended on tribal documentation for the selection of "American Indian" to have the desired effect. Fabrickator (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Here I am, back again. I can see how people looking at the phrasing in the article may think that "self-identified" is an appropriate term here, yet it provides a pretty specific inference that the person (the parents?) were able to exercise their own free will in the matter, yet the reality is the only available choices were "white", "colored", and "American Indian" (setting aside the issue that the rationale for the "self" prefix is a Wikipedia policy about verifiability). But if we were to be consistent, we would have to say that after the Racial Integrity Law became effective, they self-identified as "colored", even though that was the only choice open to them.

This system of classification of race is something that was "done to" these people. They may have had a greater or lesser influence on this, depending on the conditions under which the race was reported. When they had the option, they chose "American Indian" rather than "colored". What they actually self-identified as? I don't know, but it wouldn't have been limited to the selections provided on the official forms. I suggest that it would lessen the confusion to replace "identified" with "assigned", "recorded", or something similar. Fabrickator (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to add "self-identify" to "colored" or "white." Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown