Talk:List of Indigenous writers of the Americas/Archive 1

Canadian First Nations writers
Hi

I do understand your reasons for removing the Canadians from this List of Native American writers, but I would ask you to consider a counter-argument. Most of these writers are Anishinaabe/Cree etc, tribes whose lands are to be found on either side of the border. They need to be seen in context with one another, not artificially separated by colonial national borders that were imposed against their people's wishes. There's some sense in having lists of writers done by tribe, but that would be to ignore a common history of persecution by the Brits & the French, followed by oppression by US and Canadian authorities, which gives meaning to reading works by Natives of different tribes. In short, as nomenclature and territory are such sites of dispute in First Nations/Native American circles, I'd argue for an inclusive as opposed to exclusive reading, which would have these writers appear on both lists. Otherwise this encyclopedia is simply endorsing the colonial act of possession and naming of the tribal peoples of North America. Vizjim 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My objection isn't to combined lists that include both American and Canadian figures — my objection is to the list title "Native Americans", because that isn't appropriate terminology for a person from a Canadian First Nation. "Native American" is not generally accepted as an umbrella term for North and South American native/aboriginal peoples anywhere outside of the United States; that usage is deprecated in Canada, for example, precisely because it's ambiguous as to whether it means "of the Americas" or "of the United States". I'm perfectly fine with a transnational list, if that's the objective, but if that's going to happen the list has to be moved to a more inclusive title. Bearcat 18:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest a term that is generally accepted? Here in Europe, "Native American" certainly *is* generally accepted as an umbrella term, as it embraces all peoples who were native to the two continents of America prior to conquest.  However, I know Natives who dislike being labelled "American" in any form, others who hate being called "Indian", some who refer to themselves as NDN, others who only ever want to be referred to as part of one tribe and never lumped into a racial category... like I said, nomenclature's something of a site of dispute.  There must be a way to combine this list.  How about we create a List of First Nations writers as a duplicate of this page?  Or List of writers of Native American/First Nations heritage, and then redirect both First Nations and Native American lists to that? Vizjim 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive vs exclusive
''The borders that determine the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central and South American countries are all drawn with the blood of indigenous people, not to mention the Native populations of Hawaii, Alaska, and other not-quite-officially-colonies of U.S. imperialism; we should not continue to replicate such a system. While the government policies and issues facing Indian communities in each country are certainly different, there are also many shared experiences that deserve acknowledgment and discussion. Many Canadian Natives, including Maria Campbell, Tomson Highway, Thomas King, and Jeanette Armstrong, have entered the Native literature canon; they and many others deserve to be read and studied as much as U.S. tribal scholars and writers.'' - Justice, Daniel Heath: "We're not there yet, Kemo Sabe" American Indian Quarterly (25:2) [Spring 2001], p.256-269 Vizjim 12:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly fine; I understand it and largely agree with it. But that doesn't make Native Americans the appropriate terminology. Bearcat 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First Nations
Again, I repeat: this list is not to include members of Canadian First Nations at its present title. If you want a list that's inclusive of First Nations writers, then find an inclusive title; as long as it stays at "Native American", Canadian writers cannot and will not be listed here. I'm perfectly happy to have a list that includes Canadians, but not at the present title. Bearcat 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I may not like the term Native American, but America is not a country. The United States of America is a country, America refers to two continents of the Western Hemisphere. I thnik the present first part of the article handles the name issue pretty well.Qwafl42 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
The whole continent with Canada censored out doesn't seem to be the solution, so I reverted that part, while adding a "Disputed" template to call attention to this disussion and dispute until some mininimally adiquate solution can be accepted. -- Infrogmation 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where on earth do you get "the whole continent" from? Bearcat 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question. The article seems to deal with people from throughout the American continent. -- Infrogmation 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I really take issue with the idea that "America" refers to two continents instead of a country. The term "America" has been used to identify the USA in historical, diplomatic, and vernacular speech. It is not common to use the term "America" for continental reference. Typically, the continents are respectively termend "North America" and "South America".

Because there is significant geographical and historical discontinuity between the indigenous peoples of North and South America, and because it is not usual to lump authors of both continents into one list, I would like to propose that two lists be created - one for North America and one for South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.81.184 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move
The article was mistakenly copy and pasted from " List of Native American writers" to "List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas". I have no objection to either title, but please: 1)Mention proposed title change of an article on the talk page before moving to get feedback before the move is made (except in obvious problem cases like a typo). MORE IMPORTANTLY: 2)NEVER try to "move" a page by copy and pasting to a new title! Use the "page move" feature, which is on the task bar at every article for logged in users. See How to rename (move) a page for details. A prime reason why this is important is that "copy and pasting" text of an article written or edited looses the attribution of who wrote what in the article history, contrary, to GFDL. (I have cleaned up this case, by deleting this article, rolling back the redirect edit of the old title article, and then performing a proper page move.) -- Infrogmation 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been away for the weekend, but just wanted to thank you for resolving this. I'm happy with the new title, and have no further objections to a transnational list. Bearcat 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
I removed the disputed box from the article, I hope not prematurely. Is there still any major problem? -- Infrogmation 17:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jamake Highwater
Jamake Highwater's status is famously disputed. What do you think? Does he belong here? The source I just added to the article suggests that perhaps he does (although "there has been controversy").Smmurphy(Talk) 16:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read Hank Adams' evidence on this score? It's here.  Highwater simply was not Native American: he could not, and never did, produce a shred of evidence to back up his assertion of Native genetic ancestry. Vizjim 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * sheepishly:: Sounds like a no. I just thought I'd bring it up based on the paper I was working through.  Thanks for the link. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
I really don't see any consistency, or Wikiness, in criteria for inclusion in this article. The statement "people who self-identify" is entirely too vague and subjective. In lacks consistency in the policies for the 50 states, north of the Canadian border, and south of the Mexican border. If an author is indigenous to the tribes of the 50 states then they must be an enrolled member of a tribe or nation. The criteria of self-identity opens the door for vanity links as a viable source, and this is very un-Wiki like. The same criteria of enrollment applied to Canada is in some cases vague and non-verifiable, and it cannot be applied at all to indigents south of the US border and infers that they just need to be born there. I really don't see the need of this list under these considerations and the current criteria and believe that the indigents of the 50 states need their own list apart from this confusion. Amerindianarts (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with the creation of separate lists by tribe, which wouldn't in any case replace this list here. A separate list for US Native American writers would also work, though it seems a bit of a waste of effort.  Tribal enrollment is a minefield.  Would you have wanted to exclude e.g. Greg Sarris (until almost a decade after the publication of Watermelon Nights)?  What about 19th century Native writers such as Sequoyah, who weren't enrolled as there was no such process?  Enrollment is a colonial imposition that's very problematic for some people, and there are writers who are fullblood but have chosen not to enroll themselves (e.g. Wub-E-Ke-Niew), or rather allow themselves to be enrolled.  For that reason when I created this list I deliberately left a certain amount to common sense and try to keep an eye on the list for people such as Highwater, Forrest Carter, etc being added.  IPL, incidentally, which you quote as a source, is completely open to the same kind of gaming. Vizjim (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - I think you meant "indigenous" rather than "indigents", which means poor and/or homeless people. Vizjim (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The same problems exist for us at the List of Native American artists but the criteria remains the same. They must be an enrolled member. Historical figures are usually documented enough to verify.  As for the IPL, I don't use it as a source without double checking other sources, e.g. Hanksville or American Indian Arts Institute.  An example of the vagueness of the criteria is Velencia Tso-Yazzie. She is an enrolled member and several articles she has written can be found but she is not listed on any major lists.  So, does she remain uncited or do list the several websites referencing her?  In all my years at Wiki "common sense" has never been a verifiable criteria for any posting. Amerindianarts (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to set up a List of enrolled Native American writers, that seems logical enough. Writers aren't bound by the Arts & Crafts Act, so things work a little differently in discussions of Native literature.  However, you haven't really addressed my points about enrollment, so I'm not sure what else can usefully be said at this point. Vizjim (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are not bound by the act that doesn't mean the same criteria can't be used or shouldn't apply. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act goes back to 1935. Enrollment began many, many years before that. If there is an artist or writer prior to enrollment there should be enough written to acknowledge their accomplishments, and heritage.

I am not starting another list. No time. There is one at Nativewiki that should be the center of attention anyway. You continue as you wish. I have made my statement. Amerindianarts (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - but, as a footnote, what do you mean by saying that the (1990) Indian Arts and Crafts Act "goes back to 1935"? Vizjim (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a few examples of writers who appear here (and on the Nativewiki list) who would be deleted under your criteria: Wendy Rose, Carter Revard, Jim Barnes, Diane Glancy, Marijo Moore, Louis Owens. These are some of the most significant Native writers of the last thirty years.  Are you going to campaign for them to be kicked off NativeWiki? Vizjim (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it that they would be deleted? They are not enrolled members? Amerindianarts (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is your reasoning then are you sure about these authors? Diane Glancy won an award from the Five Civilized tribes and I don't think that is an award given to non-enrolled members. Carter Revard was raised on the Osage reservation and is not an enrolled member? I find that doubtful. I will have to check further on the others.  But no, I'm not going to push the issue here.  Another user deleted the writers category from the List of Native American artists as a duplication, and given the criteria here I think that was a mistake and the category should be reinstated there. Amerindianarts (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Diane Glancy has written in several places about being non-enrolled (see, for instance, Firesticks or Claiming Breath). Carter Revard was adopted and also didn't fit the descent criteria. It's really not terribly unusual. Vizjim (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Wendy Rose? She has a full blooded Hopi father and her mother is part Native American.  Is it just a matter of paperwork? Amerindianarts (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes: that's what enrollment is. Wendy Rose's situation is explained on the article at Wendy Rose. Vizjim (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Five Tribes Museum works with state recognized artists and writers. There is no law requiring Native writers to be enrolled - many have CBIDs but aren't enrolled. For instance Robert Conley is not enrolled but the Cherokee Nation has hired him many times to write for them. Obviously his is knowledgeable about his subject and respected in his community. I moved the very few authors listed in the List of Native American artists to this list to avoid duplication and because that list was woefully inadequate. And there's certainly unenrolled artists on that page too.-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, why don't you point the artists that are on that page who aren't enrolled and don't fit the criteria for that page. I have closely scrutinized the painters section and I believe they are correct. They are pretty easy to confirm. If you see anything objectionable make it known. Amerindianarts (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Grey Owl, etc
(Please also see the discussion immediately above). The idea of the sentences that introduce this list is to try to strike a balance between purists such as the user Amerindianarts, whose comments above originally suggest limiting the list only to enrolled members (as per the IACA), and those who would include writers with very vague and highly disputed links to indigenous ancestry. I think that the idea of an inclusive list needs to be explicitly explained, but then counterbalanced by mentioning those writers who do not qualify for inclusion. Unfortunately the issue of who is/is not an American Indian writer can get really quite fraught, and there is no gold standard of NPOV-ness that can be reached, so I have tried to word the standfirst to keep such wars away from this page. Vizjim (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case I have to suggest that you create the article "List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas with purist ancestry according to Vizjim" or "List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas who are enrolled in Indian groups." Otherwise, you are stepping into an open debate in which you have no call in solving the matter. You are basically defining how much these people are "american indians", with your own admission that is POV. Take notice that I didn't even try to include those names in the list. So, this exclusion in the top is quite clearly an attempt to define the article without any objective basis.


 * If indeed there is controversy over these authors in the mainstream society, I propose that we include those names with the note "(disputed)" in front of the name. I have seen that used in many articles, and I believe this is the most wp:npov option we have. "Wikipedia is about verifiability-not truth". We must reflect the exact condition that they face over this category, based on reliable sources. Maziotis (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for sarcasm. I've been through this wording with a number of editors previously, would be happy to see you re-word it and am happy to accede to a better wording.  However, I think that just deleting the offending sentence doesn't work very well.  Would you care to re-write the entire opening paragraph instead?  The "disputed" note seems like it'll create more trouble than it'll solve, but I'm happy to try it. Vizjim (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A second thought after seeing another editor's contribution. You said that I'm trying to create a "List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas with purist ancestry according to Vizjim" - actually, I'm trying to do the exact opposite, creating a list of people who self-identify and whose self-identification has not been disproved. Vizjim (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But if the criterion is yours, then we have a problem of whose list this is. On the other hand, if the list is objective and clear enough to define itself, why the note "it's obvious to everyone that these authors don't belong here". It seems like you are pushing for a definning led sentence where you (or whoever collective body wrote that part) have an authority on the subject. I think the problem is quite clear.


 * I am sorry if I sounded sarcastic. But I am trying to highlight that the article has a serious problem. I am not sure if we need to re-write the first paragraph. What I propose is that we delete the last sentence. If the article cannot stand on its own, then maybe it shouldn't exist at all. Maybe we will have to create a "List of writters who self-identify as american indigenous" for us to have an article with an objective, undisputed subject. Maziotis (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the sentence with links to Grey Owl, Forest Carter, etc., especially in its current form, simply because it's educational. Non-native people and people not involved with the Native community might not be aware of these individuals or the phenomenon of non-Native writers trying to assume a Native identity. Self-identifying is tricky. There is a major difference between a non-Native person lying about belonging to a tribe, ala Jamake Highwater, and someone of known Native descent who is not enrolled in their tribe, ala Robert Conley. For known nonenrolled authors, I simply put "-descent" after their tribe. If that's not clear enough, the entry could read "nonenrolled [tribe]-descent." William Least Heat-Moon's background seems highly dubious, but he was notable enough to have an article about him, so I put "contested Osage descent." Indian identity is incredibly complex- what about people previously enrolled who are disenrolled? What about people eligible to enroll but who simply haven't done so? (I know people in both situations.) What about non-recognized tribes? For instance L. Frank, whose notability and Indian identity is not under question at all, belongs to tribes that are not federally recognized. Enrollment is irrelevant for Native writers from anywhere besides Canada and the US and for Native Hawaiians. Notability is a factor that should be considered too. Obviously none of us are omniscient, but the Indian community is still fairly tight knit, and new scholarship about Native authors is continually expanding. You simply provide the best information that you can.-Uyvsdi (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * If it's obvious that this list should only concern people who are genealogically descent of indian blood, why the need to make a notice in the beginning of the article for the rest of them? If it's not, then who are you to decide what this article should be about? It's very simple.


 * I truly appreciate your lesson on the several current categories in terms of being "indian", but that doesn't really provide an answer for the discussion we were having here. Maziotis (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the problem with a single sentence providing valuable information. Non-Indian writers posing a Indians is a reality, and mentioning this fact is helpful (with famous examples). Who am I? A published Native American author (not on this list, don't worry). Who are you? We're all editors, so really it doesn't matter who we are - we should all work together in good faith. My solution, to recap from last post, is a) leave the sentence - it's educational, b) for nonenrolled authors (in the US and Canada), list "descent" after their name, c) for people whose identity is truly in question, add "contested" in front of their tribe, d) people whose identity is not known and authors who aren't notable, remove them for the list.-Uyvsdi (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Obviously, the fact that you are a published native american author is an asset for you as an wikipedian and for Wikipedia, as long as you use that value in the terms of what Wikipedia sets its goals.


 * If there is a dispute on whether Owell and Churchill are "indian americans" in this list, then there is a dispute on whether Owell and Churchill are "indian americans" in this list. My question "who are you?" was meant to be rethorical, and not offensive. My point is that this is not the palce to solve such dispute. You are not an authority on this matter, and even if you were, you could not display such authority as an wikipedian.Remember: "Wikipedia is not a primary source" and "wikipedia is about verifiability-not truth". Our job is to write an encyclopedia, reflecting the sources in a neutral way.


 * My last response was based on the perception (mine and of another user) that there is a problem on the definition of the subject of this article. When I tried to list the possibile interpretations for this list, and where these men could stand, I didn't actually conceive the possibility that you would actually assume this led to be the time and place to advance a clarification on this debate. I can see no justification, under wikipedia policies, for you to demand writing an errata at the beginning of this article.Maziotis (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But there is no dispute whatsoever. Grey Owl (not Owell) and a number of others have been proved (see the sources in the appropriate articles) not to be of Native descent, and therefore are excluded from the list, perfectly in line with verifiability policies.  However, in dealing with a difficult and hotly disputed area such as Indian identity, where people regularly dispute the "right" of others to call themselves an Indian writer, it is, I think, necessary to have a standfirst that explains clearly that this is a non-exclusionary list (which is all that the current standfirst does). The alternative seems to me to be a list without such a clear guideline, which is an open invitation to POV and inclusion disputes. Vizjim (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is " no dispute whatsoever" and it is "proved" then there is no need to have them on the list, which is pointed out by Maziotis. It is inane to make it a part of the criteria which was pointed out by me.  If it is "proved" then the info should be readily available for resolving any dispute if someone tries to put them on the list, and I am absolutely certain that someone will be playing watchdog and monitoring this list in the event that an editor tries to do so.  Think logically. Think encyclopedic. Amerindianarts (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph clearly points out that the criteria for "peoples indigenous to the Americas" is a slippery slope. Even though the list is predominately Native American there are no clear lines of demarcation for inclusion to the list. Specifying which individuals are to be excluded is inane and provides no useful information as to who is to be included. As such it falls outside of the scope of the article as a criteria. The listing of individuals to be excluded may have an educational value, but that value lies elsewhere and does not conform to good Wiki, or encyclopedic form. Otherwise, the only requirement is that if the last sentence is to be retained, the word "only" must be removed. Within the context it is definitely inappropriate in regard to Wiki standards. Amerindianarts (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would recommend reading both the edit history and talk page for Grey Owl and also the deletion discussion for this page (linked at the top) for a context that might explain why some editors feel the disputed sentence is necessary. Vizjim (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was a candidate for deletion. It was voted a keeper and many of those voters also made recommendations none of which as far as I can see have  been implemented.  It is still in pretty much the same form as it was when it was made a candidate.  I would like to see it made in good form but I'm not going to spend a lot of time here arguing.  I noticed that several positive voters recommended changing the title.  I think this is  1) because the first paragraph is not sufficient, and 2) "peoples indigenous to the Americas" is such a slippery slope, especially when there is such an intermixing of different groups, some which have a clearly defined criteria and others that really don't have much of a criteria at all. Confronted with these problems needing to be resolved adding a list of individuals not to be included in what is an encyclopedic format strikes me as juvenile.  That is all I'm going to say about this and the reigning editors here do what you will.  Most of the info here can be found elsewhere on Wiki, if you get my meaning. Amerindianarts (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no "reigning editors" and it's not necessary to start calling people's actions "juvenile" just because those people don't agree with you. As one of those people I have indicated that I would welcome a suggestion for rewording of the first paragraph, but (politely) disagree that the simple deletion of a sentence will work. Equally, I would welcome a suggestion for an alternative title that adequately reflects the content - the current title is definitely clunky, but it does the job. Continuing to post messages here that posit problems without offering solutions isn't very helpful or useful in improving the article.  Your final point that most of the info here can be found elsewhere on Wiki seems to indicate that you aren't fully cognizant of the uses of list articles (WP:LIST), one of which is indeed to index material available elsewhere in the wiki. Vizjim (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The recommendation to rename made in the deletion discussion was to change to List of Indigenous American writers. The first problem with this is that it excludes Indigenous Canadian, Mexican, South American writers and so forth.  The second problem is that the word "indigenous" is problematically ambiguous - under one dictionary definition, anyone born in America is Indigenous.  As the discussion with Bearcat at the top of this page shows, any attempt to use terms such as "Native American" or "First Nations" will be seen as problematic. Vizjim (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't name call because someone disagrees with me. And I wasn't referring to the act. I was referring to the level of the mentality of the edit in trying to discern a suitable criteria. And yes, there are reigning editors. Despite all the argumentation here little has been done to remedy the complaints. As far as myself, how much time to you think I have to monitor this page and spend the time on this talk page getting nothing done? I have a hundred other pages with priority that I monitor and I have very little time in my day as it is to do Wiki things. This article is not one of my priorities but I do feel it is worthwhile and would like to see it in good form, which it is not, despite all the time that appears to have been spent on this page and others. My only suggestion is rather than a generic, alphabetized list, the list be categorized according to ethnicity with each category having its criteria. The problem with this however is that it makes it more apparent that the material is duplicated elsewhere on Wiki. Beware of definitions like the one you cited above. Not only does it contribute to the slippery slope argument but it is this type of mentality that is the reason laws and acts have to be enacted in order to protect Native American interests.

In regard to defining a criteria by selecting what it is not, the method is sometimes used in philosophy when trying to define something when you don't know what it is or if it even exists. But this method generally results in only more questions and the problematic multiplies exponentially. I suppose the same method is used in science and in labs by a process of elimination, and sometimes an answer is found as producing massive volumes of negative data.

I also suggest this: the opening sentence declares those that "self-identify" are eligible but the next sentence then refers to satisfying tribal memberships, enrollments, blood quantum, yet the discussion has evolved around entries that may satisfy one at the exclusion of others, e.g. blood requirements but not enrollment. There seems to be a huge logical gap, or leap here. Who can not be on this list seems to be inserted in order to fill this gap, but is hardly sufficient. What does blood quantum mean as opposed to membership or conforming to a legal description? Does this mean that 50% quantum in a non-enrolled member is sufficient but 1% quantum in a self-identifying individual is not? Sorry, but I still don't get it. Self-identify is extremely ambiguous, or even vague, meaning; it is questionable that the term can even apply.

In regard to my reference of "juvenile": In light of the noticeable lack of criteria concerning "self-identity", "blood quantum", "enrollment", etc., the specification of certain self-identifying individuals appears as nothing more than vindictive.Amerindianarts (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The criterion is self-identification unless such self-identification has been factually disproved. Self-identification surely doesn't need much in the way of explanation, does it? It means that the person, in a WP:SOURCE-satisfying source, has identified themselves as Native, First Nations, Native Hawai'ian, Indigenous, Amerindian, Inuit, or a member of another indigenous group within the United States.  Why insist on exclusionary criteria such as "blood quantum" (and how, exactly, would you genetically profile writers without original research?) or "enrollment" (see our previous discussion of enrollment above)? Vizjim (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also (and I apologise in advance for this), I've read the following sentence about 18 times and still can't make head nor tail of what you are saying: "I also suggest this: the opening sentence declares those that "self-identify" are eligible but the next sentence then refers to satisfying tribal memberships, enrollments, blood quantum, yet the discussion has evolved around entries that may satisfy one at the exclusion of others, e.g. blood requirements but not enrollment." Could you break this suggestion down for me a bit? Sorry if I'm being thick. Vizjim (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't understand what I say is one way of countering that I can't understand what you say. If you're happy with the criteria, let it ride. I can be more productive elsewhere. Given the current criteria, if I wanted to make an addition to this list I would only feel secure by adding an enrolled Native American The rest is hodge-podge.Amerindianarts (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)