Talk:List of Native American women of the United States/Archive 2

Elizabeth Warren
I've added Elizabeth Warren, whose former absence was conspicuous. Obviously, The Harvard Crimson is a plainly verifiable source, and Ms. Warren continues to insist that she is, in fact, part Native American. No brainer, folks. 207.255.10.164 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Harvard Crimson, October 22, 1996, "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic... Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."
 * There's a huge gulf between claiming partial Native American descent and actually being Native American. Warren is not a tribal member nor is she eligible to enroll in a tribe. Here's a good source explaining the subject in Warren's case: Harjo, Suzan Shown. "What’s the Deal With Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee?" Indian Country Today. 15 May 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. I've added Warren's name to List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry, which is appropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I added Warren again. Not sure why a wiki editor would want to deny Ms. Warren her proper recognition. Although I think the Harvard Crimson article is a great source, I used Uyvsdi's reference to satisfy all parties. MiamiManny (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather that you didn't actually read the article, since it discusses how Elizabeth Warren is not Native American. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Please remove Elizabeth Warren from the list because of failed verification. The cited source says, "People are Native American because Native nations they say they are; not because of the magic wand of self-declaration." It says, "A tribal citizen must have at least one tribal citizen ancestor. Her ancestors are not on the Cherokee Nation citizenship rolls" and that Warren has never been declared Native American by a Native nation. In other words, the source is a rebuttal to those who might say Warren is Native American. This is a BLP issue and should be acted upon quickly. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree she should be removed and added to list of selfidentified Cherokee people. The very article about her notes that the claim is not considered valid by Native American groups. And that she no longer lists herself as Native American in the bar association. I.e. neither does she herself identify as Native anymore nor does the group she claims ancestry from identify her as such. She shouldn't be on this list at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article was protected because people were edit warring over that exact edit. Please discuss the issue with the users involved to reach a consensus, instead of attempting to continue the edit war by proxy. Anomie⚔ 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta love this place. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Took it to WP:AN. This is a WP:BLP-issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but you forgot to mention which person was the problem, so I fixed a different one and you forgot to explain how it is a BLP for Elizabeth Warren. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now fix the rest of'em. I'm actually one of the people who regularly fixes these lists; not daily, of course, but now I can't at all. So go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the question 'Should this list include Elizabeth Warren?'. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the question 'Should this list include Elizabeth Warren?' was No.

Discussion

 * No. Warren has never been identified as Native American by a Native American tribe or nation. End of story. Self-identification does not cut it, nor does rescinded self-identification. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that criteria, but 1) it needs to be stated at the top of the article; 2) everyone on the list should be held to the same standard; and 3) everyone on the list should have a citation. -- MiamiManny (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I would add that the citation should prove the person a Native American, rather than disprove the status. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. NOT a fan of Warren or her false claims of Native American heritage. Can't support adding her to the list, even though the (false) heritage has been claimed many times. Putting her name on this list claims IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE that she IS Cherokee (or whatever), and this is not the case. Not on Dawes Rolls, the standard for the most inclusive Nation.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It is a wellknown phenomenon that some people have family histories about Native American ancestry. Being Native American for the purposes of this list is not about genetic heritage or family stories but about being a member of a Native American community. Warren is not. She also claims that she stopped chekcing the Native American box on her bar association membership in 1995 - so she no longer identifies as such officially. There is also no known Native American community or tribe that claims her as a member - in fact they contest her claims. She does not belong on this list but on the list of selfidentified Cherokee people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. For the same reasons that Ward Churchill is not a Native American man, Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American woman.  Recognized tribes in the United States are allowed to determine their own criteria for membership, AFAIK always a certain level of provable genetic heritage ("blood quantum"), and since no tribe has "claimed" Ms. Warren, she is ipso facto not a Native American. siafu (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually at least Ward Churchill has been described as a member of a Native American community by Russell Means.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as Mr. Means convinces the Oglala Lakota to accept Mr. Churchill as a member, this will become relevant to his actual Native American status. siafu (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, just pointing out the fact that Warren hasn't a single Native American recognizing her claim, while Means at least has one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once Warren's WP page has anywhere close to two sections, 20 paragraphs, and 900 words definitively debunking her Native American claims (like Ward Churchill's WP page), she can be in the same category as Ward Churchill. Until then, she has been confirmed (by herself, Harvard Law School, UPenn, Fordham Law Review, etc) as Native American and should be treated as such.  Cheeseburrito

(talk) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those news sources have even less authority than Russell Means. They are simply reporting her self identificaion - selfidentification is not enough.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Churchill's wikipedia page is not the reason that he is not a Native American. siafu (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Not a citizen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Reason for inclusion: In addition to her self-identification as a Native American in law directories and cookbooks, Warren has also been identified by Harvard University as a Native American. See source here. Also, Harvard continues to report Warren as Native American in its annual Affirmative Action reports. She was reported as such last year. See source here. Even if she stopped listing herself as Native American, that does not change her ethnic make-up. Reason for exclusion: If this list is only for documented citizens of Native American tribes, then Warren obviously does not belong and the entire list on this article will be considerably shorter. The criteria for inclusion should be made clear and included on the top of the page. If Elizabeth Warren was untruthful and is not a Native American at all, then that fact and her misrepresentation of her background should also be clearly detailed on her biography article (which it presently does not). MiamiManny (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does mention the issue in her article which does not characterize her as Native American. Also see the article that clearly shos that she stopped identifying publicly as Native American.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but it definitely does not say Warren is a Native American or that she lied and misrepresented her background in the Elizabeth Warren article. Whether she stopped identifying herself as a Native American is immaterial. She is either a Native American or a liar and her biography should accurate reflect that. If she is not a Native American, then it is POV pushing to simply state that she no longer calls herself Native American without mentioning that lied about her background for more than a decade. I no longer refer to myself as a Hispanic American; however, I will still always be Hispanic. MiamiManny (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an overly simplistic way of representing the issue. The article about her clearly states the fact that in a specific period she identified as Native American in the census and that she later stopped doing that, and that the community she claims to belong to does not consider her to belong. Being Native American is not necessarily something one either is or isn't there are obviously different definitions - Warren's definition (having a family story of a a Cherokee uncle with high cheekbones) is just not very convincing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is completely incorrect, she publicly self-identified as Native American on May 24, 2012.  Cheeseburrito (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. She is definitely confirmed as Harvard's first Native American female professor and its first "woman of color," and by the same criteria (her own criteria) should be honored as the first female Native American in the US Senate.  Any subsequent person would only be the second in each of the above categories, and therefore it is perfectly logical and appropriate to confer recognition on Warren for being the first.  If any of the foregoing is incorrect, that should be clearly noted on her own WP page. 108.35.92.226 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Warren, who I completely support as a person and politician, is appropriately included on the List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. There many definitions of what constitutes a Native American person - Warren does not fit any of them. She is not a member of a tribe; she is not eligible to enroll in a tribe; she does not have a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood; her family is not part of any tribe; and she is not involved in any Native American community, even an urban Indian community. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvdsi
 * No. I think Uyvsdi has it right. The self-identified category seems much more appropriate, especially in light of the limited evidence that she really is, independently demonstrated, a Native American woman. Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - This source seems to suggest she self-identifies as native american. WP gives great deference to self-identification. Terms like "Native-American", "African American", and "Mexican American" are abstract and impossible to define/measure. It's not up to us to determine what "Native American" is. It's up to the subject of the article. If this woman has any kind of legitimate claim to being Native American (whether she is 1/32 or 1/128 or 1/256) and she chooses to self-identify that way, than according to WP principles, she belongs to that category. NickCT (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The designation of "Native American" is not just an ethnic designation; it's a political distinction based on the sovereignty of the tribes who were here prior to the creation of the United States. The US declared tribes as "domestic dependent nations" in the 1832 Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. Because of prior occupation and political status, Native American is a designation unlike any other ethnic group in the US. And the tribes have the ultimate authority to determine Native American status.

No, Wikipedia doesn't get to decide who is and isn't Native American nor does Harvard University, the tribes do. As Wikipedia editors, we go by the best published reliable, informed, up-to-date secondary sources available. Such as Harjo for Indian Country Today, The Atlantic, National Review, New England Cable News, Delaware County Daily Times, and innumerable other published sources confirm that Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in a tribe, ineligible to enroll in a tribe, and not Native American. The New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find conclusive documentation that Warren is even of Cherokee descent, and the Logan County Clerk ReJeania Zmek from Oklahoma says there are no marriage applications from 1894 as NEHGS genealogist Chris Child had previously claimed Boston Herald. The most thorough examination of the subject of Warren's ancestry is at: ICTMN Staff for Indian Country Today, with scanned images of the documents being discussed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Acknowledging that tribes are the arbiters of who is and isn't a Native American is exactly the sort of decision I was referring to. We have other options, like accepting self-designation or relying only on proven genealogical records, e.g., but as I put forward above, these are not as precise or useful as accepting tribal membership as the defining characteristic. siafu (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to create a new section for a new subject? -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment. "Native American" has different legal statuses depending on context. In the US Census and in EEO reporting, categories are self-reporting. There are no requirements for percentage of ancestry or proof of ancestry or even "looking like" whatever to report yourself in a category. As I understand it, there are legal restrictions in the US on who can call themselves a "Native American Artist", but that does not extend to "Native American" in other contexts. Finally, while each tribe can set its own criteria for membership, no tribe can legally define "Native American" for non-members. So, if you want to restrict this list to accepted members of tribes, state that, but then you will have to create rules to handle women who lived before tribes created membership rolls. -- Donald Albury 10:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No Native American nations have the right to declare who is and is not a member.  "Self-identified" works well here.  If Harvard is really using Warren to punch their card for promoting "women of color," then I have to say that is a mark against Harvard for not seeking out people who have actually had to live the life of a person of color in America.    Montanabw (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No SebAz actually explains it the most convincingly IMO. It's exactly like the difference between citizenship, and ancestry. It is difficult, because without doubt many of us are in the same boat of having the ancestry (in various degrees), but not the officially recognized 'citizenship'-equivalent status.  So it should be no problem for us to differentiate between the category of 'official recognition' (which her case is not) and the 'claims of ancestry' category, which doesn't have such strict standards of inclusion, and could perhaps constitute a separate list as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No 1. The Cherokee are the most documented people in the US. Multiple genealogists have gone through the lines of Warren's family that Warren claims have heritage, and there is none there. There is also none in the related lines. All her ancestors are clearly listed as Caucasian. Therefore, she cannot even be listed as a descendant. 2. It's the tribes themselves, as sovereign nations, who determine who is a member. No Cherokee community claims her.  3. She is not an enrolled member of any tribe, and is not eligible for enrollment in any legitimate tribe. Cherokee status is the equivalent of being a citizen of a country. An American may believe they have distant ancestry from the English Royal Family; this does not mean they can declare themselves a citizen of the UK and move in to Buckingham Palace. This is especially true if they do their genealogy and find out all their ancestors came from Sweden instead.  4. Many non-Natives have vague family stories of heritage that turn out to be false. That is what has happened in this case. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument would make sense, if we were arguing about a nationality. "Native American" is a nationality in the same sense that "Aborigine" is a nationality. That is, it isn't. NickCT (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what she is saying. She is saying that Cherokee is a nation, which it is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This list is call Native American women of the United States. Not Cherokee women of the United States. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is relevant because Elizabeth Warren is claiming to be Cherokee. Native American is an umbrella term, and everyone who is "Native American" is also more specifically associated with a particular tribe. siafu (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What this one editor refuses to accept, even though it's been backed up by cited sources, is that Native Americans have a unique position in the United States, , . Native American identity hinges on inclusion in American Indian tribes or Alaskan Villages , . There is no generic, uniform "Native American" language, culture, or religion,. Inuit are ethnically different from American Indians. "Native American" means the collective American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native villages found within the United States - with the some sources including of Native Hawaiian. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * No Sadly - I am a supporter of Warren, however, in issues like this I tend to lean towards what recognized members of a minority advise regarding issues of identity. It seems to me that members of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas have presented some fair arguments in favor of using the "Self-identified" list - which contains other notables. Until the Cherokee Nation or other recognized body of authority says otherwise on this issue, I'm inclined to listen to Wikipedian Native Americans.  Most of the claims above about this issue of her being a liar and such seem politically motivated and unwarranted.  Taking politics and accusations out of the picture, this compromise seems reasonable to me.  --Varnent (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes By the way, Elizabeth Warren personally says that if elected she would be Massachusetts's first Native American Senator. Cheeseburrito (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment you have got to be kidding me. I also am inclined to support her IRL, but this stuff is just annoying and is an insult to folks with an actual tribal affiliation.  She doesn't "get it" about the difference between heritage and nationality.   Montanabw (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. As has been noted by other editors, Warren has absolutely not abandoned her claims to having Native American ancestry, and furthermore there are verifiable references which explicitly state, "Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.". Is there a better, newer verifiable reference that explicitly states 'Warren is not Native American'? If not, it seem original research to ignore the plainly stated verifiable reference cited by the thread originator and wrong to exclude Elizabeth Warren from this list. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uyvsdi cited a number of such sources above, all of which make the exact claim that she is not Native American. To spare you having to scroll up, they are, , , , , , and . siafu (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but those references don't say that Warren is NOT Native American, only that she hasn't yet proven her Native American ancestry. Since other references explicitly state that 'Warren is Native American', it seems WP:OR for Wikipedia to exclude those more-explicit references. As far as I know, the critera for inclusion in this article is "reliable source", and I agree with the view that The Harvard Crimson is a reliable source. If the criteria for inclusion in this article has changed, that new criteria should be plainly stated at the article intro and the top of Talk. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 21:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources disprove all of the claims for her Native American ancestry; you cannot expect sources (or anyone) to prove a negative, but basically the "evidence" for her being Native American has been reduced to rumor and family story, neither of which qualify as reliable. siafu (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a source may have shown only that a certain line of evidence (or two or three or four) has been disproved. It seems possible maybe even likely that Warren is not Native American, but frankly Wikipedia is less concerned with the truth than with verifiability (see WP:Truth and WP:Verifiability, not truth). Here is what a verifiable source states:
 * The Harvard Crimson, October 22, 1996, "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic... Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."
 * Since The Harvard Crimson is a WP:Verifiable source which has not specifically been proved false, then Wikipedia must respect what that verifiable source states. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If "reliable source" is no longer the criterion for inclusion in this article, the article needs to plainly state that.--→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. The issue is that there are conflicting sources and definitions not whether the claim is verifiable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get to the crux here: I have provided a verifiable source stating explicitly, "Elizabeth Warren is Native American." Editors wishing to exclude Warren from this article/list should provide a verifiable source which states explicitly either 1) "Elizabeth Warren is not Native American." or 2) "The Harvard Crimson was wrong to state 'Elizabeth Warren is Native American.'" I haven't yet seen any source which states either; have you? So anything editors themselves conclude here is purely original research.--→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't looked. Plenty of such sources have been presented. You are misrepresenting what OR is - OR is not weighing contradictory claims by reliable sources against eachother. It is also not using editorial discretion to decide that a particular claim in an otherwise reliable source appears to be inaccurate or controversial or based on a mistaken definition. We do not have to report all and any claims in reliable sources. We are not transcription monkeys as someone once said.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that an assertion that you have looked? Hmm, let's reexamine the sources linked so far in this thread. I'll spread out User:Siafu's June 4 edit "To spare you having to scroll up" into line-items: ",, , , , , and
 * Indian Country 2012-05-15... Strongest statement: "[Warren's] ancestors are not on the Cherokee Nation citizenship rolls, which included the Delaware Tribe throughout Warren’s life, until 2009." That does not say "Elizabeth Warren is not Native American."
 * The Atlantic 2012-05... Explicitly states, "To be sure, the absence of readily located evidence of Native ancestry outside the oral tradition does not mean that Warren has no Native American ancestry." You exclude-Warren guys should stop citing that article.
 * National Review... That's an opinion piece, including such charming ideas as this: "Warren should renounce her false claims to minority status and Cherokee ancestry, which she maintained for years as she climbed to the heights of the legal academic world. She should also renounce her candidacy for the U.S. Senate out of respect for Native Americans, whose heritage she leveraged on her way to a life of privilege, power, and riches — actions that stand in marked contrast to the rhetoric that she is so fond of uttering in her political speeches about helping the poor and underprivileged."
 * NECN.com... Strongest statement: "The New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) has not expressed a position on whether Elizabeth Warren has Native American ancestry." A far cry from "Elizabeth Warren is not Native American."
 * Delco Times... Also an opinion piece, but even its strongest statement states that Warren is part Native American, namely: "George Zimmerman...is eight times more black than Ms. Warren is Native American."
 * Boston Herald Strongest statement: "Warren, who said she relied on family lore when reporting her Native American ties, once again [is] without any proof of her heritage." Hmm. Oh, but that contradicts the next source...
 * Indian Country 2012-05-14... Includes the statement, "Warren’s Cherokee ancestry is based on family stories, which oral history does carry some weight in genealogical circles."
 * So, while it's fun to condescendingly pretend that I haven't read the sources, I did before and I have again. I have seen no source that states anything approximating either 1) "Elizabeth Warren is not Native American." or 2) "The Harvard Crimson was wrong to state 'Elizabeth Warren is Native American.'" If you have one, please share it. Otherwise, it seems wrong to apply a different criteria for inclusion to Warren than that applied to other article listees. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No source will claim that Warren is explicitly not Native American based on any genealogical investigation, since that is essentially impossible to prove. She is not Native American until she is proven to be so.  As a result, these sources, which clearly debunk all of the presented evidence in favor of her actually having Native American ancestry, are sufficient for removal from this list.  Keep in mind that inclusion on this list is not the same as inclusion of information (both for and against) on the article on Ms. Warren itself; the list has only two states, included or not included. siafu (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you were to make an annexe list at the bottom, such as "the following additionally have disputed ancestral claims, but lack official status"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 24Dot left out several points made in Indian Country Today 14 May 2012: O.C. Sarah Smith, the alleged Cherokee/Delaware ancestor: "There’s no evidence that 'Peggy,' O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father’s father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants." Leahy: "it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage. Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian." And regarding family stories: "Many people do have stories about Native American ancestors, but could Warren become an enrolled Cherokee citizen based on them? No, she could not." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * The evidence has certainly piled up against Warren's claims of Native American ancestry, but more significant for our purposes is the clear consensus here. I yield. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
The clear consensus is that Elizabeth Warren should not be listed here at List of Native American women of the United States. As I previously noted, Warren's listing met the article's criteria at the time I added her, but consensus has since rejected Warren's unsupported claims of Native American ancestry. Furthermore, editors (see below) have actually modified the article's "criteria for inclusion" to exclude those (like Warren) without any evidence for their self-identification as American Indian.--→gab  24 dot  grab← 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Shanawdithit
According to the blurb at the top of the page; "This is a list of notable Native American women of the United States. Please note that it should contain only Native women of the United States and its territories, not First Nations women or Native women of Central and South America." So how does Shanawdithit qualify? Newfoundland was never a US territory. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. That is a problem. It should probably read "North America" instead of "United States." A much bigger problem though is the ambiguous term "Native women." What does that mean? Can someone simply identify herself as a Native woman? Of does one need to be a member of a tribe as some here have suggested in their effort to exclude Elizabeth Warren? The criteria for what constitutes a Native woman should be made clear and included on the top of the page. In addition, all women included on this list should have a proper citation or they should be removed. -- MiamiManny (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not a good idea to change to North America. Doing that would open up even more problems, see Native American name controversy. There is already a List of First Nations people for both men and women and we also have List of Canadian Inuit, List of American Inuit (of course some on the last list are probably not Inuit either but are Yupik peoples and Aleut people), List of Greenlandic Inuit and List of Métis people. The second part of your comment is a good idea in that what is a Native for the purpose of the list should be defined. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Note
As soon as the edit-protection expires (June 25), I will remove all entries that do not have a footnote with ref. Those who are interested in keeping particular entries on this list should already start looking for suitable references. This list will thereby be brought to the standard shown @ List of Native American actors. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Amen. That measure is long overdue. MiamiManny (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have been removing some of the most blatant, but the list does clearly need pruning.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good proposal. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

 * Yes - This source seems to suggest she self-identifies as native american. WP gives great deference to self-identification. Terms like "Native-American", "African American", and "Mexican American" are abstract and impossible to define/measure. It's not up to us to determine what "Native American" is. It's up to the subject of the article. If this woman has any kind of legitimate claim to being Native American (whether she is 1/32 or 1/128 or 1/256) and she chooses to self-identify that way, than according to WP principles, she belongs to that category. NickCT (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For African-American and other racial classifications that doesn't imply membership of a community that is true, but Native American does imply community membership. IF someone self-identifies as a free-mason but the masonic orders deny this then their selfidentification means little. That is analog to this case. Also being Native American is a political issue in the US quite distinct from the groups you mention because of the fact that it comes with certain rights and privileges.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Native American does imply community membership" - Really? Says who? Are you saying if you aren't part of a community of Native Americans you can't be Native American? So the son of two native Americans who grew up isolated on Mars wouldn't himself be Native American? A lot of people would argue racial definitions give them membership to communities. Look at Jews.
 * "being Native American is a political issue" - True of a bunch of stuff. Applies to African Americans in regards to affirmative action. The country of India gives non-Indian citizens of "Indian" race certain rights and privileges in relationship.
 * Bottom line is, there is no ultimate authority that gets to decide what "Native American" means. Sure the US Government might have a definition, but it's not going to be shared by all. You certainly don't get to decide what Native American is. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of deciding who qualifies as Native American or what being Native American is for the purposes of maintaining articles like these (which is all that is being debated here, not any grand conception of race or community), the wikipedia community (i.e., us) do in fact get to, and must, decide. siafu (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that we require verifiable information based on reliable sources. The most reliable and widely accepted sources are the ones we give the greatest weight. Those sources include the various practices of the Native American nations as established by tradition, case law, and as published in (of course) reliable sources. The extent that the Wikipedia community decides is merely the debate about weight and applicability of sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no RS for race though. This has been the subject of long and extensive discussions on policy pages. The result of those discussions was that we hold "self-identification" as being overriding in situations like these". NickCT (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue. The question is akin to "Are you a Polish citizen?" You can certainly claim to be of Polish ancestry, but that doesn't mean you can walk into an election-booth in Poland and get to vote. The same here: people on this list are supposed to be citizen of those nations. Warren is not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though it isn't necessarily about tribal enrollment this is the correct view. It strikes me as a very (non-native) American phenomenon to actually believe that one Great grandparent from Denmark, Poland or the Cherokee nation makes you able to claim membership of that group. Old-Schoolo American racial thinking I guess.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. You're saying "Native American" is basically a nationality? Can you provide a reference for that, because it seems like an unusual interpretation? So again, you'd say a kid born to two legitimate Native American parents on Mars, who never became part of the "community" wouldn't have any right to call himself native american?


 * Additionally, in the policy discussions regarding race, ethnicity, religion and gender, nationality was also discussed as a potential ambiguous category. For instance, if I take a Mexican kid at 6 months old to the states and raise him here so that he speaks English and is essentially 100% culturally American, do I continue to call him Mexican simply b/c he doesn't hold US citizenship? The point is that there's a "technical/legal" definition to what "American" means, but there's also a cultural definition. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've suggested that it matter one bit where a person is raised. What matter is of course how he was raised and what his subsequent experiences in relation to the community is. Warren has no experiences with any native american community she merely has a great grandfather with high cheekbones that the family used to say was cherokee, she has not cultural or linguistic ties to any native american group but only a dubious claim to having a small amount of genetic material from a cherokee person. There is just no way at all that that is a legitimate claim. I am not as strictly tribal enrollment focused as SebAz because I think that there are certainly federally unrecognized tribes that are legitimate native communities with separate ethnic identities and traditions and even languages - but being Native American is definitely not genetically defined and even if it was 1/32 could not be enough by a long shot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok well look. We're getting opposing viewpoints here. Seb is "enrollment focused". You are saying "experiences in relation to the community" is important. We seem to acknowledge that there at least might be a genetic component. All of this goes to demonstrate the term "native american" is subjective. The subjective nature of the classification is the same thing that drove "self-identification" as being integral in WP policies governing race/ethnicity/religion categorization.
 * Honestly, when I look at Warren I don't think she seems very "Native American", but that doesn't matter. Policy trumps how you or I feel. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Native American" is not a nationality of course; but Navajo is, and Cherokee is, and Lakota is, etc. It's not an unusual interpretation, the constitution of the United States treats them as separate nations; and the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia ruled that Native Americans are part of foreign nations.
 * I don't know where your Mars-example is coming from; if the nation in question decides that children born on Mars are eligible for citizenship then the kid will be Mohawk or Cheyenne or whatever. And yes, someone raised in the U.S. who never acquired U.S. citizenship would be included in a list of Mexicans (or whatever). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans (American Indians and Alaska Natives) have a unique position in and relationship to the United States. Besides ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, familial, and genetic concerns, being Native American is political. Comparisons to other ethnicities in the United States are irrelevant. While it might not be pleasant to acknowledge, ever since there was anything to be gained from being Native American, non-Natives have claimed to be Native. This may be an innocent mistake or calculating (a particularly egregious being non-Natives who married in the Osage Nation and killed their spouses and their children to claim mineral headrights—moving onto plastic shamans of today). Self-identification is not a valid criteria - legally or factually - especially in light of the marked increase of US citizens claiming Cherokee identity on each decade's US census.

Tribal enrollment is a good baseline for criteria of inclusion for this (and other indigenous lists); however, the questions of Native American identity is never simple in writing because it isn't simple in real life. Tribes, especially in California, who were formally recognized, have been terminated by the federal government throughout the 20th century, and not all have regained their recognition. Lumbee people have been acknowledged as being Indians by the US federal government; however, they have not yet received federal recognition. Some people get disenrolled; Pueblo tribes reserve their traditional right to disenroll members who behave in extremely criminal manners that endanger tribal members. So... tribal enrollment should be a baseline, but I propose community acknowledgement (not self-identification) as an additional criteria. If tribal authorities and related members of the Native community acknowledge a person as being Native American in reliable, published sources, that could be a valid criterion for inclusion, with the disclosure that a person is "of descent" of whichever tribe in question, as opposed to being an enrolled member. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Again, lots of ethnicities in America are "political"; hence comparison most certainly are relevant.
 * re " I propose community acknowledgement " - Well that's great, but 1) it goes against established policy, and 2) it makes no sense. If the Catholic church excommunicates someone, are they no longer Catholic because they aren't "recognized" by the community? What if the Catholic Chruch says I'm catcholic when I insist I'm not? Does that make me Catholic? What is some tribal authority says I'm Cherokee even though I'm as Anglo-saxon as one can get. Does that make me Cherokee? Of course not. The Catholic Chruch can't arbitrarily make or unmake a catholic, as "tribal authorities" can't arbitrarily make or unmake a member of a tribe. NickCT (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well that's your uncited and slightly warped interpretation of what "Native American" means Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. Recognize that it sits in contrast to WP's general rules on race/ethnicity/sexual persuasion.
 * Personally, if my pal was born to two Cherokee parents and raised on some reservation somewhere for most of his life, in my mind he's Cherokee. I don't give a darn what some "tribal authority" has to say about it. Heritage/race/religion/persuasion/ethnicity/nationality or whatever are not purely legalistic concepts. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I don't appreciate personal attacks if you want me to continue to put up with your interpretations, alright? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be thin skinned. We all have warped interpretations. If you have trouble fessing up to them you shouldn't be offering your opinion. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not working out for your proposal, Nick. Warren is not going to be included on this list. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good argument Binksternet. Carries about as much value as your other points I guess. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Chruch can't arbitrarily make or unmake a catholic, as "tribal authorities" can't arbitrarily make or unmake a member of a tribe. Actually, the Catholic Church can and does decide who is and is not Catholic; I suggest you read the articles on excommunication and confirmation for explanations.  Similarly, Native American tribes are legally free to determine their own criteria for membership, which they have all (again, AFAIK) done according to provable genetic heritage; see the section in Blood quantum laws regarding implementation to see examples of this.  The only point of question here is whether wikipedia holds that being Native American for the purposes of a list article like this means being a recognized member of a tribe. siafu (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @siafu - re "Actually, the Catholic Church can and does decide who is and is not Catholic" - Actually they don't. Just because someone is excommunicated doesn't mean they aren't Catholic. A Catholic is a person who believes the pope has a direct line to god. re "Native American tribes are legally free to determine their own criteria for membership" - Sure. But because you're not a card carrying member of some group, doesn't mean you shouldn't be categorized alongside other members of that group.
 * This conversation is very old and repetitive. It's been had over and over at WP:BLPCAT and the outcome is always the same. We decide "self-identification" is the most important criteria here. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are both misrepresenting and misapplying BLPCAT. Selfidentification is established as necessary for inclusion in categories - it doesn't say that it is sufficient for inclusion. BLPCAT does not say that we must place someone in the category they selfidentity as belonging to - it just states that we cannot place them in a category to which they don't identify. IN this case it would make sense not to categorize Warren as "White American", because she clearly doesn't identify as such. That doesn't mean she has to be included here however. I.e. it is perfectly possible to follow BLP cat and not categorize someone in accordance to their selfidentification if there is a reason to do so. IN the casde of North American Native Americans there is ample reason to do so because this is a politically contentious area where non indigenous peoples have frequently attempted to attain rights and privileges by impersonating or falsely claiming indigenous ethnicity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:Maunus - re "BLPCAT does not say that we must place someone in the category they selfidentity as belonging to" - Ok, granted. But I self identification is key for exclusion, why shouldn't it be key for inclusion as well? Seem like a narrow interpretation of policy. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have an odd idea of what a Catholic is; if it were true that the Church did not decide membership, there would have been no reason for the Anglican church to call itself anything other than Catholic when Henry VIII created it, and Traditionalist Catholic churches would be just called Catholic (they aren't). The relevant policy page you cite actually says "Citizenship, nationality (which country's laws the person is subject to), national origin, and national self-identity (which country the person feels closest to), although sometimes correlated with ethnicity, are not the same as ethnicity..." so your interpretation is overly simplistic, and simply claiming that "we" do this or that is inappropriate.  "We" have to decide on this one, hence the need for an RfC, and respecting that fact (along with respecting your fellow contributors) is the first step to getting there. siafu (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @User:Siafu - re "there would have been no reason for the Anglican church to call itself anything other than Catholic" - Don't understand this point. I don't think the Anglican Church accepts the primacy of the Pope. But this is besides the point. The point is this : What do you call someone who owns iconolatry, prays the rosery, and believes in the catholic dogma (including the primacy of Pope) and who happens to have been excommunicated? Do you call them a "not catholic"? Being "catholic" involves more than just whether you are a card carrying member.
 * re "Citizenship, nationality (which country's laws the person is subject to), national origin, a" - Still don't think "Native American" is a nationality, but regardless if think policy on WP:BLP is a little more relevant here.
 * re " "We" have to decide on this one......." "We" seem to be deciding this by scratching our heads and saying "Doesn't look Native American to me" (which is something I happen to agree with). What "We" should be doing is turning to policy where this debate has been had over and over, and drawing guidance from there. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "We" nothing – you appear to have little to no familiarity with Native Americans or issues of Native identity. Regarding "established policies", they are discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Native Americans in the United States, List of Native American artists, or List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Tribal enrollment is the baseline with room for unique situations. By mentioning that Pueblos reserve the right to disenroll members, I was just pointing out that identity is complex; frankly, I would be for including disenrolled people (if any of them were notable and had Wiki articles - honorary memberships are symbolic and irrelevant) with the explicit disclosure that they have been disenrolled. Because the phenomenon of people who don't belong to a tribe or have any involvement in the Native American community claiming specifically Cherokee descent is so ubiquitous, the List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry was created, which is a place for self-identified individuals. On a list such as this one, List of Native American women of the United States‎ the implication is that someone is Native American. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * "We" seem to be deciding this by scratching our heads... Yes, discussion and debate is, in fact, how policy is developed and decisions like these are made. Odd to see a comment like that from someone who doesn't appear to be a new contributor. siafu (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy have been developed. We aren't giving it deference. Odd to see someone who seem to care so little for past precedents. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. This list is the one that should be governed by the strictest definition—that of Native American nations. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy you are referring to, which I actually quoted earlier, only indicates that ethnicity is a complicated issue. The precedent you seem to believe is being ignored is in fact being deferred to by discussion.  If this was so obvious, then there wouldn't be an RfC, and there wouldn't be so much discussion and disagreement. siafu (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a surprisingly well-written overview for laypeople of the unique nature of Native Americans' political status in the United States from the BIA. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi I agree with Uyvsdi and others with like reasoning. To be Native American in the USA (and a similar status under Canadian law) is a political designation with tremendous significance, backed up by almost 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence that even predates Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. If Indian nations cannot designate their own identity but must put up with every wannabee who wants an identity that is more interesting than the one they grew up with, then those of us who are nonwhite have once again stolen the heritage of people who have a right of self-identification. A snippet of DNA does not equate with modern destiny. Thomas Jefferson's descendants carry DNA to a Middle Eastern ethnic group, that doesn't make them either Arab or Jew. Similar here, ancestry is interesting but it does not inherently convey political or ethnic status absent additional criteria. Montanabw (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok folks.... I think the "If the Navajo nation says you're Native American, you're Native American" position seems to be pretty widely held here, so I'm going to cease my debate. In dissent, I would point out that 1) This discussion has been had in many different forms and manners throughout WP and the standard we usually stick to is "self-identification". So the consensus that's arising here is against both policy and convention. This sorta supports my long held feeling that one of WP's biggest problems is an inability to universally implement simple policies. Slightly arrogant editors on individual articles tend to think it is up to them to decide who counts as black or white, or protestant or catholic or a greek cypriot or a turkish cypriot. So they override policy which tells us it's not up to us to decide. 2) It's just plain ridiculous to think that the Navajo nation gets to decide who is Native American or not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 seems to think if the Navajo nation so desired they could magically make me a Native American. I can pretty much guarantee you, that is not the case.
 * Hope the NAACP doesn't wave it's wand and make me black. NickCT (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about chilling out with the personal attacks? The Navajo Nation has an established enrollment policy requiring that anyone who wishes to enroll must have a minimum of a quarter Navajo blood quantum. So you have to be Navajo to be a Navajo Nation citizen. The NAACP is not an Indian tribe. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Could you point to exactly what you feel is a personal attack? Either that, or stop accusing people of personal attacks when simply because you can't find fault with their argument. And who cares how many "blood quantums" the Navajo nation uses? That's an arbitrary measure. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia is large enough to contain a more than one way to define inclusion in a group, acknowledging that defining a person's religion is different than defining whether they are Native American. We don't have to reduce to one method and shoehorn it in everywhere. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet We need a shoehorn. We need a shoehorn b/c the concept behind all of these things are the same. Whether it's race, ethnicity, national identity, sexual persuasion etc etc, the lines are blurry and subjective. WP is not a place for put people in racial/sexual/ethnic categories. That's what they tried to do in Nazi Germany and Rwanda. Didn't work out well there. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. That's why I proposed two criteria for inclusion in this list, which I will make more explicit:
 * A) enrollment in a federally- or state-recognized tribe or Alaskan village –or–
 * B) Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native) heritage/ancestry plus Native community recognition of the individual as a Native American and a member of that community, in reliable, published, secondary sources. The latter will be helpful with historical individuals. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I think this is a good idea, and is sufficiently rigorous to allow relatively easy resolution of dubious cases in the future. Under these criteria, neither Ms. Warren nor Mr. Churchill (my previous example), would be considered Native American, also. siafu (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - the proposal for inclusion seems good too me. (Disclosure: I am 1/16th Menominee, not enrolled and not recognized. Neither the tribe, nor the federal government would recognize me as Native American.  Even if I self-identify as Menomenee, that doesn't make me a member of that nation.)  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I am happy that part B of the proposal also recognizes that it is possible to be Native and be a member of an unrecognized tribe - of which there are many that are nonetheless legitimate indigenous communities. Basically i think that the problem could be solved by simply saying that regarding Native Americans we require a stricter identification criterion than for other ethnicities in that self-identification is necessary but insufficient, only mutual recognition is sufficient. I can think of other groups where this standard would be well applied. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose When genealogists document her Native American ancestry, I would change my vote. But without facts there's nothing. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to oppose the inclusioin of Warren? That is the section above, this is the section for establishing new inclusion criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant Warren. The first post here mentions here so I was confused. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but also wondering if this should apply to other pages, something we can't do from here. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Should this be summarized and taken to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America? A single country, such as the US, is easier to discuss - Native peoples are defined differently in Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean. Also List of people of African American and Native American admixture is completely self-identified because there is no claim that the individuals listed are Native American or members of tribes; just that they have Native American descent. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Probably, yes. Montanabw (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I am beginning the re-write of the lead paragraph. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Support. My main concern has always been consistency. I suggest requiring at least one specific (sourced) tribe or community be listed with each name, and simplify the criterion to this: "Listed individuals have been recognized as Native American by the cited tribe or community." The legitimacy of the cited tribe/community might be discussed at the article for that tribe/community. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)