Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather

Attempted rewrites of consensus content
I realize you're new here, but Wikipedia operates by consensus. Please page up and read this talk page. Editors here spent a lot of time and energy going over these sources and reaching consensus on this content. It's not appropriate for you to make wholesale changes to it all without seeking consensus to do so. Don't just revert other editors - seek consensus and collaboration. However, I think you'll find that the sections you're changing have all been worked out already. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, definitely still learning and trying to go about things the correct way. My understanding was that consensus was reached by individual contributors adding sources, citations and revisions. If there is an intermediate step I should take I will gladly do so.
 * While some of my issues were addressed after my attempts at bolstering details and citations, I still have concerns regarding bias and inaccuracy in this page. The foremost being this:
 * The New York Times coverage of the Littlefeather’s sisters’s claims of fraud and their work with Keeler to publish her op-ed is an authoritative source on this matter and in instances where the results of that investigation differ from the results of Keeler’s, the information in the New York Times article should be used or at least both should be presented. Most of my alterations were an attempt to cite this source and accurately reflect its content. Yet this page consistently cites Keeler’s op-ed instead, which differs in its representation of events from the New York Times article. By choosing to present the results of Keeler’s investigation rather than the New York Times, isn’t that bias? At best, shouldn’t both be presented, which is what my edits attempted to do?
 * Another concern is the misquoting of the Yaqui Tribe of Arizona. Their full statement is quite different from the version that is on this page, and another of my edits was made to show their full statement, for accuracy and neutrality. My third concern is the extent to which sources agreeing with Keeler’s op-ed are cited and extensively quoted, while those opposing her are generalized and minimized as being social media attacks. Thoughtful critics from Native journalists were published after her op-ed. I added one here to add more balance and neutrality and this too was removed. Why can supporters of Keeler’s article be cited but not critics? For that matter, why can a scholar agreeing with Keeler have a paragraph long direct quotation but the full statement of the Yaqui tribe is removed in favor of a summary that loses part of the statement’s meaning? Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dumuzid I would greatly appreciate hearing what conclusion you came to in the time since this issue of the New York Times was raised previously. As I stated above, not including the contrary results of the New York Times’ reporting biases this entire page toward Keeler’s perspective. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello all -- I definitely think adding more context to the statement from the Yaqui is warranted, and I stand by my thinking that an op ed from American Greatness is not sufficiently WP:DUE to compare Littlefeather to Ms. Dolezal, or mush less, to ascribe selfish motives to her. Beyond that, I fear real life has kept me fairly busy, so I am not entirely sure what the other points of contention might be.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the American Greatness article! Other points of contention that I would like to raise are:
 * 1). That the New York Times article and the contrary timeline of events that it reports on, in regard to how Littlefeather’s sister’s came into contact with Keeler and how they came to believe they are not native, should be included. I see that this has been discussed above but I don’t see that a consensus was reached.
 * 2). That Laura Clark’s opinion piece for Variety (also discussed above) should be included for the purpose of including a counter argument to Keeler’s piece. Specifically, where Clark argues that Native identity is too complex to be evaluated by Keeler’s methodology and points out that due to this complexity only the Yaqui and Apache can evaluate the authenticity of Littlefeather’s tribal connection (Keeler is Navajo). Including this would help balance out the current tilt toward sources agreeing with Keeler. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure 1 really helps out at all; it's not really our job here to support or undercut Keeler, so I think that is getting a bit far afield. As to #2, I fought for some time to keep in at least a line or two about the 'complexities' of native identity, which have been removed in my absence (sic transit gloria mundi).  So suffice it to say I don't think the Variety article necessitates in-depth coverage, but I definitely think it's appropriate to nod to it in a brief reference.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My goal isn’t to support or undercut Keeler. But if a reputable source reached a different conclusion and that information is excluded in favor of the information as Keeler presents it, the page becomes biased. The New York Times reported one thing. Keeler reported another. This page needs to include both to remain unbiased. Right now, Keeler’s reporting is well represented in this page but the New York Times is not. I think that needs to be rectified in order to restore neutrality. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, the Keeler timeline stuff is simply too attenuated to be of much use. The sisters say what they say, as does Keeler.  To try and introduce the 'alternate chronology' would strike me as having the effect of implying Keeler had given them the idea.  I think that's an inferential step farther than the article goes.  Now, if a reliable source came out more explicitly making such a claim, of course it would be a different story.  But as ever, that's just my opinion, and I get things wrong a fair deal.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But that’s precisely what the New York Times article says. Direct quote from the article: “Cruz replied to Keeler on Twitter on Oct. 4 that her grandmother was of “Yaqui and Spanish” descent. Cruz herself had tried to enroll in the White Mountain Apache Tribe. But over the next few weeks, Cruz said, Keeler showed her genealogical research that traced her father’s family back to Mexico in 1850 and said there was no evidence of Native ancestry. Cruz and the middle sister of the family, Trudy Orlandi, were both persuaded by the research.” The New York Times, a highly reputable source, specifically says that they believed their family was native until Keeler persuaded them otherwise. And yet that information is entirely absent from this page. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For me there is a big difference between "Keeler gave them the idea" and "the research gave them the idea." This is just one I don't think I am going to agree on based on this source alone, but consensus may go against me as it so often does! Dumuzid (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect that and to an extent I can see that argument but I think it’s a little reductive. Keeler’s research and her presentation of such is highly subjective. What she included, what she didn’t, what arguments she made to the sister, all influenced the sisters. She didn’t provide them with the research in an vacuum and then let them draw their own conclusions. She told them their sister was a fraud and then used the research as a tool to persuade them to her viewpoint. This is all illustrated clearly by the New York Times article.
 * On a somewhat procedural note, what happens in the event that a consensus can’t be reached on the talk page? Clearly the people here represent a very small sample size. How do contentious matters get settled. I apologize for my lack of knowledge, I ask so that I can better participate in this process. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can always ask for help at a noticeboard, perhaps WP:BLPN in this case (while the subject is obviously no longer with us, the recently deceased are also covered and I would think she qualifies). You could start an WP:RFC to draw comments from far afield if you'd like.  But the bottom line answer is that if content is disputed, it must achieve consensus to be included per WP:ONUS.  I would also suggest trying to find some workable compromises. CorbieVreccan, above, is in my experience a reasonable and civil editor.  Break some things down to single element questions and see if you can make some headway.  For instance, Corbie: how would you feel about including the expanded quote from the Yaqui as better context?  I would appreciate your thoughts.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you so much for your opinions and insights, it’s truly been so helpful. Have a lovely day! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Googleguy007, I would invite you to join us in discussion here, and perhaps, if the spirit moves you, to self-undo your revert. While I basically agree with the end result in substance, WP:BRD is a valid take on things and, for me, a helpful template on how to proceed.  Aquamarin9719 boldly made changes, CorbieVreccan reverted, and now we're talking it over.  But the self-revert is really up to you.  More important to me is you continue engaging here (which I expected, but just wanted to make sure you'd seen this section).  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d like to try this a little differently after having talked to Dumuzid below. I hope this is more productive than my previous reply.
 * Would you be opposed to including the full quote from the Yaqui Nation? I feel it increases accuracy and neutrality. For reference, I had added the full quote in one of my edits that was undone. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you put the proposed text as you want to include it here for us to discuss, please? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This?
 * - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Corbie, obviously I don't mean to speak for Aquamarine, but that is the section I had in mind. It strikes me that omitting the latter part does seriously change the tenor of the Tribe's response.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly standard reply by whomever fielded the request for the tribal offices. They have no record of her or her family, but, yes, no one can prove a negative. I guess if anyone thinks the statement implies she's Native they don't really understand what is being said or how WP:NDNID works. I don't think there's any problem with including the quote.
 * The issue with Aquamarine's other edits, that took place in a series, is the blanking of consensus, well-sourced content, the attempt to add problematic content we've already decided doesn't float, such as the idea that all of this is only Keeler's opinion, or that attacks on Keeler are warranted here (and sources like the powwows.com blog that was ruled out at the RS noticeboard). The sisters have clarified the miscommunications around the timeline, which we've also discussed and come to consensus language around. There's no need to rehash all of that again. Aquamarine, if you are truly a new user and believe all of this in good faith, I don't mean to give you a hard time. But you also need to give folks some good faith here. We've really gone deep into all of this, and spent a lot of time on it. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Corbie, thanks for your response. I am engaging in good faith here, I’m afraid I’m just very new with much to learn. I completely agree that the folks here are operating in good faith and I only mean to contribute.
 * Yes, the above section is what I am referring to. I agree with Dumuzid that the full quote has a different tenor and is more fully representative of the situation. Further, I think that it is only appropriate to fully quote the Yaqui tribe and render their words directly as were given, considering their position in the controversy. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aquamarine9719 -- I think you are well within your rights at this point to reinstate that particular edit. Are there others you would like to discuss? Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit resorted! And thank you, yes. For organizational purposes I will bring those up one at a time in reply to the original message. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Technical question here: I think the best way to move forward is to link my next proposed edit, as CorbieVreccan did above, and open discussion. Do you know, or can you point me to a resource about how to do this? Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you select "edit" at the top of this section, you can see his formatting. Basically you can use {[tq|.....]} (but use ALL curly brackets) to create the green text, and a {[talkref]} (again, all curly brackets) to include the citation.   Here is the page on talk quotes. and here on references.  But there's also no need to be fancy.  If you post your proposed text and a link to your supporting sources, we will all get the idea.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you select "edit" at the top of this section, you can see his formatting. Basically you can use {[tq|.....]} (but use ALL curly brackets) to create the green text, and a {[talkref]} (again, all curly brackets) to include the citation.   Here is the page on talk quotes. and here on references.  But there's also no need to be fancy.  If you post your proposed text and a link to your supporting sources, we will all get the idea.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The next edit I would like to discuss is restoring a version of my edit that added a citation from Laura Clark’s op-ed for Variety. I think this adds neutrality to the page by showcasing both people who support the allegations and those who challenged them. I also suggest grouping the quote from Liza Black, which is already present, in the same paragraph, for structural clarity. Essentially, this would only move the existing text down a paragraph and so is pretty minor. Finally, I think there is a bit of editorializing going on in the current text that should be eliminated. Littlefeather was beloved by some but reviled by others. The allegations were met with challenges and attacks, yes, but also praise. To highlight one narrative and not the other is to introduce bias. It is better to use simplified, neutral text. I propose the following:
 * Because Littlefeather had been a prominent activist, these allegations caused mixed reactions. According to Liza Black, an Associate Professor of history and Native American and Indigenous studies at Indiana University, and a citizen of Cherokee Nation, "Keeler proves Littlefeather was a troubled woman who made the stories of others her own". In a guest column for Variety, Muskogee/Cherokee journalist Laura Clark challenged Keeler’s ability to report on Littlefeather’s identity, noting that due to a history of genocide, Native identity can be complex and difficult to document. Further, Clark argued that because requirements for tribal citizenship vary from tribe to tribe, only Littlefeather’s tribes, the Yaqui and White Mountain Apache, could decide if her connection was authentic.
 * Source: https://variety.com/2022/film/columns/sacheen-littlefeather-who-gets-to-call-themselves-native-1235412067/
 * I am open to tweaking the language of course. But I think the editorializing needs to go and Clark’s argument re the sovereignty of the Yaqui and Apache to decide on the validity of Littlefeather’s connection needs to be included. Thoughts?
 * Aquamarine9719 (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just added a quote that says the tribe says she's not a member. Why include another quote that says "only Littlefeather’s tribes, the Yaqui and White Mountain Apache, could decide if her connection was authentic" when the tribe did just that? Keep the article simple. oncamera  (talk page) 07:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there’s such a thing as being a reconnecting native. She never said she was an enrolled member of those tribes. It’s up to the tribes to decide if not being enrolled but still calling herself Apache and Yaqui constitutes ethnic fraud or if she is a reconnecting native who claims them and they claim her. That’s the whole issue with this page. Native identity is complex, opinions are varied, yet there seems to be narrative on this page pushing the idea that if she wasn’t an enrolled member she was an ethnic fraud. Not everyone sees it as that binary. Laura Clark’s op-ed helps address this and represents a different point of view. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sort of with oncamera here; as a look at the talk page will likely reveal, I very much believe in the complexity and layered nature of native identity. But I think the Tribe's statement, so long as included in full, introduces the right amount of ambiguity.  I certainly appreciate Clark's article, and there may be ways to use it, but I don't think this one is particularly helpful.  Something along these lines may be appropriate, but I should think a line, two at the most.  I'm thinking!  Also, Happy Friday to everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the below quotation might be more to our purpose: “But not only that, what many people don’t understand about Native existence is that some Natives aren’t enrolled. Some Natives are reconnecting with their tribes. Some Natives don’t have enough “Indian blood” to register because of blood quantum minimums. And some Natives have had their tribes nearly erased to the point that organized citizenship records simply don’t exist.”
 * I still think it’s important to note that some Native believe that only the specific tribe should be able to make the allegation of ethnic fraud. Many people not well versed in conversations about native issues operate under a colonial mindset of pan-indigeneity. They don’t differentiate between Yaqui and, in this case, the Navajo. Yes the Yaqui issued their own statement, one that notably did not call Littlefeather an ethnic fraud. The person who did call Littlefeather an ethnic fraud is Navajo. Clark very clearly states that, in her opinion, that means Keeler is not qualified to levy that charge. I think this is a notable perspective of the ancestry dispute and should be acknowledged somehow. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your intentions seem to be outside the scope of this article, and I rather keep it on topic... not go off on Clark vs Keeler tirades. Some of your other edits that were reverted did the same in nature -- seems to attack Keeler on an article about Sacheen. Maybe some neutral form of this can be included at pretendian instead if it's not already stated there. oncamera  (talk page) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My intention is to make the article neutral. As a reader, it seems biased to extensively quote people who had positive reactions to the allegations or who agree that Littlefeather is an ethnic fraud, but not quote or substantively acknowledge those who challenged the allegations of ethnic fraud and affirm her Native identity. I’m simply working through ideas and trying to gain a consensus on the best way to incorporate some of the opposing perspectives. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an appropriate place to go in to who gets to make the allegations; that strikes me as better dealt with elsewhere. I do think it's worth trying to get Clark's main point in, with something like a brief sentence with attribution -- "Native journalist, Laura Clark, while writing about Littlefeather's influence, pointed out that not all natives are enrolled, for numerous reasons."  I'd be okay with something like that, though someone could certainly word it more eloquently than I have.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tribes are contacted every day with a barrage of questions about frauds. The policy is to almost never answer. They don't have the resources, and there are concerns about libel lawsuits if they call someone a fraud. Saying, "they're not a citizen" or "we have no record of them" (when combined with the lack of heritage) is saying they're a fraud. The caveat was only acknowledging that she could maybe possibly have some Indigenous Mexican ancestry way back, but genealogists didn't find any.
 * The combination of 1. the tribes Cruz/Littlefeather claimed not knowing her, 2. her family having no tribal ties or knowledge (or even rumors/myths) of Indigenous ancestry, 3. Genealogy showing zero Native ancestors means: Cruz/Littlefeather was not a reconnecting Native. She was not even a descendent. The reality of reconnecting Natives has zero bearing here. Their stories are not hers. To use stories about reconnecting Natives and those issues would be WP:COATRACK and irrelevant to this bio. There are some early statements defending her only because she had made friends that she fooled, or in the case of frauds like Heather Bybee Rae, their fortunes were tied up with hers. Aquamarine, you calling any tribe, "hers", raises concerns that you don't understand the basic issue of Native identity: It's not what tribe someone claims, it's whether that tribe claims them. She was not claimed. She was not Native. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Corbie, I don't really disagree with the upshot of your comment here, but I will say that your description of the thought process behind tribal statements is, in my experience, quite incorrect. Different groups might certainly have different approaches.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but incorrect in what way? I've dealt with many of these cases. Most refuse to talk to the press. Many won't even answer inquiries by those who aren't citizens. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As have I, mostly in ICWA contexts. The tribes I have dealt with are acutely aware that their own records and histories are, to put it mildly, incomplete. Sometimes there was a definite undercurrent of "this person is a fraud," but the most usual response I got was "no records, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯."  My point is merely that there's no need to get out over our skis here and I think the situation becomes abundantly clear by reporting the sources, rather than doing too much interpretation of them.  As ever, though, reasonable minds can differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But as always, some tribes have far better records that non-Native communities, and most nons have no idea about this. This always needs to be stressed due to the non-Native belief that it's all vague and mysterious, so anyone can claim anything unless you can prove the negative - as Aquamarine is trying to do here. It's just a matter of whether or not tribal officials will go on record with the press about famous pretendians, which has historically been rare. Though that may be changing more recently, since Liz Warren, Johnny Depp, Kelsey Chow and now this, among others. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting a bit philosophical, but I would just say we don't need to completely disprove something to effectively discount it as a possibility. All that said, I think it is appropriate to note (briefly) some of the minority opinions here about the complexity of native identity--at least in sources which are specifically discussing Littlefeather.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Corbie, You are ascribing an argument to me that I am not making. Unless you are arguing that the allegations of ethnic fraud were universally positively received and no one challenged them, which we all know is not the case, then that means a minority/counter perspective exists. As this is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay, and must be neutral, that minority/ counter perspective should be acknowledged. I simply want to edit the article to do so make it more neutral. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be concise. We’re all well versed in this subject, we understand that the connection is disputed. You’re advocating for and against edits based on your own personal belief that her ancestry has been definitively debunked. Many might agree with you. Some, however, like Clark, disagree. This perspective is equally significant and in the interest of neutrality needs to be reflected. Readers can make up their own minds.I’m not interested in swaying anyone’s point of view or debating Littlefeather’s ancestry with you. I’m not pushing for a conclusion, I’m pushing for the to be an accurate archive of the dispute and the diverse reactions to it. Imo, it is currently lacking. As I stated previously, I support Dumuzid’s proposed edit as a way of acknowledging Clark’s perspective. Do you have any thoughts on his proposal? Aquamarine9719 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, I think that’s a very eloquent way of putting it and would fully support that addition! You got to it much more succinctly than I did. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See above. It's not relevant to get off on tangents about reconnecting Natives or descendants because independent research has shown she is neither. I agree with OnCamera that we should keep this simple. The points others have raised about issues of identity don't apply to Cruz and would be WP:COATRACK. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, Corbie and oncamera, I suspect I know the answer to this, but how would you feel about adding my one sentence nod to the Clark article in Variety after the quote from the Tribe? It's above, but here was my suggestion: Native journalist, Laura Clark, while writing about Littlefeather's influence, pointed out that not all natives are enrolled, for numerous reasons.  Let me know if this would be okay, if there's a reworking that would make it okay, or if it is simply not ok.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Clark said herself that the tribe gets to decide and they said Littlefeather is not enrolled. Your statement is off-topic and belongs on Pretendian if it's not already covered. oncamera  (talk page) 21:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Off-topic" strikes me as an odd objection given that the article is specifically about Littlefeather's identification, and the quote is an explicit caveat to the statement that the tribe gets to decide and they said Littlefeather is not enrolled. That said, happy to go with consensus.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, Is it consensus if two people think it’s necessary and two do not? Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A tie is a definite "no consensus." A simple majority is not a consensus either, and there's no real mathematical way to express consensus.  I can give you some rough ideas I keep: two against one is enough for a consensus, generally.  Three against two is not.  Four against two I am torn about, but five against two is a clear consensus.  As you and I (I think) are on the side of including disputed content, per WP:ONUS, we have to demonstrate a consensus for inclusion before putting anything in.  If Corbie were to agree with us (which I don't expect, but one never knows), we would have a consensus.  Assuming he does not, no consensus for now.  But consensus can change over time.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dumuzid Okay. So do you just wait for other people to find the page and get involved or do you ask others for their inputs? For instance, by inviting users that have previously weighed in on this page to weigh in on this matter. Or previously, you told me about WP: BLPN or WP:RFC. Would those be appropriate to involve here? To be frank, I lean toward anything that gets broader input. I have reservations about this kind of stuff getting decided by whatever 5 or so people happen to be privy to the discussion at the time. Consensus within a larger group of people is more compelling. But of course, I am new, and would like to hear what you think is appropriate. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, an WP:RFC is kind of a big formal call to all of Wikipedia to weigh in; I think of those as the last resort. We have already brought something like this up at WP:BLPN, though for the life of me, I can't remember the specifics.  If you'd like to invite comment there again you certainly can (although it might do you well to search the archives first to make sure you're not being too duplicative).  If you do choose to leave a message at a noticeboard (I suppose it could also be WP:NPOVN depending on how you choose to frame the issue), the best practice is to leave a brief notice here on the talk page that you have done so.  Short of that, yes, we would have to wait for more input or continue attempts to persuade--without badgering anyone, of course!  I would just say to have a little faith in Wikipedia.  In the long run, things generally turn out okay.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, point taken. I will let the discussion breathe a little bit and trust the process. Hope you have a good weekend!! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OnCamera,The tribe said she was not enrolled. They did not say it was ethnic fraud for her to claim a Yaqui ethnicity. Clark’s argument is that there is a middle ground between enrolled remember or ethnic fraud. Her view should be included, regardless of if you agree with it. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Native journalist, Laura Clark, while writing about Littlefeather's influence, pointed out that not all natives are enrolled, for numerous reasons.' To folks that are not Native, this is a dangerous passage out of context. Does this mean people with extremely distant ancestry who are not enrolled are Native? That they get to reclaim indigeneity from 400 years ago? Because that's weird. I don't find myself going to other countries where I might have distant ancestry from, demanding or expecting to be recognized as such because I might be 'reconnecting'. That would be rude and ego driven. What about people who are not enrolled because they are basing their indigeneity on family myth? What if the supposed lack of record is because there are none, the person is not Native? Community can be very open and welcoming if you know who your people are. If you're say, a scoop kid, there are folks who will lovingly help you reconnect. If a person is not enrolled because of blood quantum, their family and community doesn't just cut them off because their mom or dad or grandparents married out. The manner in which the comment is phrased leaves much open to interpretation and basically says anyone who wants to claim their Native while not being enrolled should be allowed to. This provides no checks and balances for pretendians. So I'm with oncamera and Corbie. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there an alternate phrasing that you think acknowledges Clark’s view and would be acceptable? My desire is to help the page achieve greater neutrality by representing the minority view, which is currently not acknowledged. I’d like to hear any suggestions you have. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful it could be phrased in a way that isn't problematic, like Indigenous Girl pointed out. I'm even more against it when I add in the WP:COATRACK argument. It's just not an improvement to the article. oncamera  (talk page) 22:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find something tonight. One thing that Clark says, that I think will help clarify the issue,"First off, we’re the only race that has an actual card telling you how much Native blood you have. (You might be curious about my blood quantum, but other Natives, some in my own family, would chide me for sharing that info.)", this isn't about race, it's about nationhood. Tribes are nations, they are not races. If a person is American, they need to prove that. Same goes for every other Nation (I presume) in the world. Why should our Nations be any different? If we want our sovereignty to be taken seriously then we need to be serious about it and not make it racial. We were separate Nations before race was constructed. Nations get to decide who is and isn't a member. They get to claim who they want to if those people are descendants. I know Nations that claim non-Natives even, not as citizens, but them claim them. Neither White Mountain Apache or Pascua Yaqui Tribe claimed her. Neither said, 'oh yeah, she's a total fraud, she can gtfo' but they did not say,'oh no, she nor her family is enrolled but we consider her family' or ' she is not enrolled but she participated as a member of the communty'. Nothing like that happened. She was never acknowledged as a descendant of as an individual looking to connect with her people by participating with her community. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without going into too much of a tangent, I hear you, and I respect your views on native sovereignty. However, they seem slightly at odds with what Clark is arguing. She seems to think there’s a little more complexity or shades of gray to the issue. I’m not trying to argue on what view is correct, I simply want to acknowledge the other perspective. Whenever you’ve had some time to think on it, I’d love to hear if you think there is a good way to acknowledge Clark’s perspective. Have a good weekend! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that there might be a way to acknowledge a different perspective without using an op-ed based on an individuals personal feelings rather than research. It all depends on if it was written, right? I'll see what I can find. At this point I would hope there would be something scholarly out there about the issue with Sacheen but I haven't checked in quite some time. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indigenous girl, perhaps that would be helpful. But it seems strange to rule out Clark’s perspective on the basis of it being an op-ed when Keeler’s original article is also an op-ed. Clark and Variety are both reputable sources, and while perhaps not as compelling as something more scholarly, it feels a little like we’re holding the minority perspective to a higher standard. Perhaps pairing Clark’s op-ed with a scholarly source could help to sufficiently address the minority opinion. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:SYNTH and isn't allowed on Wikipedia per WP:No Original Research: "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." Any scholarly work has to be about Sacheen, otherwise it's going off topic and/or original research to combine it here. oncamera  (talk page) 01:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t mean to combine them to form a new conclusion. I meant that maybe having multiple articles that represent the minority view might put less pressure on trying to find one perfect quote or reference from the Clark article to represent that perspective. Just a thought. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indigenous girl -- I think your point about a "dangerous passage" is well taken. You'd have to ask Ms. Clark exactly what she meant by her writing, but I certainly don't think it throws the gates as wide open as you say.  I see it (rightly or wrongly) as a simply acknowledgment that enrollment does not cover all people who might legitimately be called native (or whatever term one prefers).  There are, for instance, 200 unrecognized tribes.  Some of them are definitely suspect.  But some also seem fairly uncontroversial.  The point I was trying to get across was that while tribal affiliation is absolutely the major and most important marker of identity, it is not always a perfect match to the facts on the ground.  That said, there's clearly no consensus for the change, so Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid - the gates are already open. Trust. This is an extremely frustrating issue right now. As far as unrecognized tribes go, there are more fakes than there are genuine. The difference is, we recognize our relatives that don't have federal recognition. We claim them. We understand that they didn't just pop out of the woodwork because they've been hidden in plain sight or whatever the story may be. They've always been our neighbors, not a recent incorporation. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No quibble with any of that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in case it matters for consensus, I'm for adding the line Dumuzid proposed. I don't think there's a lot I can add that hasn't already been said, though. Loki (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like you guys have worked it out, and the current version with Dumuzid's recent edit looks solid. Just wanted to say that I see no any value in adding commentary by Laura Clark (Muscogee/Cherokee), who talks about her own experiences and perspectives rather than adding anything fact-based about Littlefeather. As CorbieVreccan pointed out "reconnecting" is whataboutism since Littlefeather did not focus on visiting, moving to, or otherwise engaging with the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, or any of the Yaqui Pueblos in Sonora. Yuchitown (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Just to make sure I understand your comment for the purpose of consensus, are you saying you support Dumuzid’s edit but not any of the other quotations or references to Clark’s piece? Aquamarine9719 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is nothing fact-based to add from Clark's piece. It is a personal opinion piece focused on the author's identity as a Muscogee Nation citizen. Yuchitown (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Okay thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it!! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dumuzid, hope you’re doing well!! Conversation on this topic seems to have stagnated and by my count we’re 4 to 2 in favor of your edit. Myself, you, Loki and Yuchitown seem to be in favor while Indigenous Girl and oncamera have said they are opposed. I’m not sure if that is sufficient for you to make your edit or how you feel about that moving forward but let me know if there’s anything I can do to help move the conversation along. In addition, I had originally proposed rewording existing language to remove some editorializing that’s present in the article’s current form. I wanted to change the section that currently says “Because Littlefeather had been a beloved activist, these reports were met with controversy, challenges, and attacks (e.g., on Keeler), largely on social media,” to say “Because Littlefeather had been a prominent activist, these allegations caused mixed reactions.” My reasoning in full was explained elsewhere, and while editors took issue with the following quotation I proposed, no one directly took issue with this change. Since your proposed edit seems to have been accepted as a compromise to the quotation issue, are we free to also change the above to remove the editorializing or do I need to reopen the discussion to discuss that specifically? Thanks again for all your help:) Aquamarine9719 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Because Littlefeather had been a prominent activist, these allegations caused mixed reactions is so much more concise and neutral! Yuchitown (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * I could go either way on it. But conversation didn't stagnate, as Yuchitown wrote on May 7, things were resolved. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Stagnated in the sense that the conversation had sat for a while and it seems now that no new parties are going to bring their opinions to the table or possibly change the consensus. Since everyone seems to be on the same page, I’ll go ahead and make the edit Dumuzid proposed, as well as the one I just discussed with Yuchitown. Thanks for everyone’s input! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with the content added. Clark's comment doesn't really apply to Littlefeather, the woman had no reason to believe she was Native American and lied about her family background. She was clearly not honest about who she was.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So you prefer the previous sentence, "Because Littlefeather had been a beloved activist, these reports were met with controversy, challenges, and attacks (e.g., on Keeler), largely on social media"?? Yuchitown (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * No, I mean this edits.★Trekker (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aquamarine9719 at this point I don't even understand what I am opposed to. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, my head is also spinning let’s see if we can get this back on track. I opened discussion because this article needs increased neutrality. Not everyone agrees with the allegations of ethnic fraud. The views, both for and against, should be acknowledged. We discussed extensively how best to acknowledge the minority viewpoint and seemed to arrive at a consensus for an additional sentence that referenced an op-ed by Laura Clark. Clark’s op-ed represents the minority view that Littlefeather is not necessarily an ethnic fraud. Since we had a consensus, I went ahead and made two edits to reflect that. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any widespread support to return it to the previous statement. I'd leave it you edited it. If ★Trekker wants to create a new proposal, please start a new dicussion (with a new heading). Thanks! Yuchitown (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * I did not think @Yuchitown agreed. They said, "Just wanted to say that I see no any value in adding commentary by Laura Clark (Muscogee/Cherokee), who talks about her own experiences and perspectives rather than adding anything fact-based about Littlefeather."
 * I'm still very confused. Also, just a word of advise, offered kindly. Because your edits are focus on only two articles that are tied together, this one and Jacqueline Keeler, it comes across that you could be a SPA account. I am not making accusations - I am suggesting you branch out in your edits so that you don't find yourself in a situation where you need to explain yourself. I don't care where you edit, I simply want you to know how it looks. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. I clarified with Yuchitown so I don’t think I misunderstood their position but of course they can always correct me. As for my edits, it was suggested to me on this talk page that some of the info I was trying to add might be a better fit on related pages, such as the page for Keeler or the Pretendian page. I tend to hyper focus on certain topics anyway so I imagine my contributions will always be grouped around related pages for whatever topic I happen to be entrenched in at that moment. I plan on contributing to more topics as I get more experience but I’m quite new and trying to do one thing at a time while I learn. I understand that SPA accounts can be an issue if advocating for a conclusion, but I think I’ve made it quite clear I’m only advocating for neutrality. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though, it’s something I’ll keep in mind. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indigenous girl, you are very kind in your wording, to say some "might think" Aquamarine9719 is a WP:SPA. By the very definition, they are a SPA, as they've made almost no edits outside this topic of Littlefeather and Keeler. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @CrobieVreccan I’m new. I’m learning. I’m figuring out where and how I can contribute. And to be honest, I have to say I’ve found you less than gracious and helpful and have been a little timid to try and contribute to unrelated topics since joining because of my experience here. But whatever. I appreciate @Indigenous girl and other users for giving me the benefit of the doubt and gentle constructive criticism as I try to figure this out. We don’t have to agree but we should all be able to contribute. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to learn. However, most of your edits on this highly contentious article. I've been an editor for 15- years here and even my edits get reverted on this page until a consensus can be reached. If you're feeling worked up, focus on less contentious articles or take a wikibreak. oncamera  (talk page) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @oncamera That’s kind thank you. I didn’t realize this was a contentious article when I stumbled in blindly, but you know what they say about hindsight. Tbh, I don’t care at all that my edits are getting reverted. That’s part of the process. I don’t appreciate turning things on a more personal slant by scrutinizing my user history, or constantly accusing me of pushing for an agenda or operating in bad faith when I just keep saying “Hey, an opposing view exists. Let’s see if we can reach a consensus on an appropriate way to address it.” Truly I’m just trying to increase the accuracy and neutrality of the article. I’ll take your advice though and try making more edits on other pages. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @StarTrekker That’s totally fine if that’s your opinion. But Clarke’s article is specifically about Littlefeather. The whole reason we arrived at this edit was to include the minority view. Not everyone agrees she was a fraud. This wiki page isn’t supposed to advocate for a conclusion, it’s supposed to neutrally represent the issue. In order to be neutral, the minority view should be represented. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's pretty clear in the context of the article that that statement was about Littlefeather (though maybe not exclusively about her), and that the article as a whole is a defense of Littlefeather (though maybe not exclusively so). Loki (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with StarTrekker that this addition by Aquamarine9719 is problematic, and have reverted it. For easier reference, we are talking about this sentence:
 * There are several issues here which I do not see addressed in the discussions above:
 * First, this is clearly an opinion piece (marked as "Guest Column" in the title and filled with first-person musings, opinions and feelings - "extremely disheartened", "Thank you, colonialism", "bullshit" etc.). WP:RSOPINION strongly advises that these should not be used as the (sole) source for factual assertions. But that's how it is used here, to make a factual argument against Keeler's conclusions. Were there other, independent RS that quoted Clark's argument (such as Keeler's conclusions were quoted in numerous RS)? And to be clear, that factual argument consists not just of the assertion that "not all natives are enrolled, for numerous reasons", but also of the implied assertion that this is relevant to the credibility of Keeler's conclusions (otherwise quoting it here would be WP:SYNTH anyway). Which brings us to the next problem:
 * Now personally, I think RSOPINION is sometimes too strict, in the sense that some newspapers and magazines publish opinion articles that are actually stringently fact-checked, well-researched and authored by highly reputed subject matter experts. But I find it hard to make such a defense of Clark's article. Consider that it was published right on the day after Keeler's article came out. It's now June 2023, over 7 months later, and Keeler's revelations have been subject to a lot of followup analysis, commentary, additional reporting etc. I don't see how we can justify casting serious doubt on the veracity of Keeler's conclusion by highlighting a speculative possibility from a quickly dashed off reaction piece. Clark freely admits further down in the article that she wrote it without specific knowledge about the actual issue at the heart of the matter (I don’t presume to know about her tribal connections) and as an apologist (What I do know is that she has been a strong voice in the Native community ...).
 * Let's also mention that pointed out runs contrary to WP:CLAIM, betraying a writing that may not be fully guided by WP:NPOV.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello all! Having been summoned, I figure I should probably weigh in!  I still think the gravamen of this point (that native 'identity' and tribal belonging is a complex issue) is worth getting into the article, assuming we can do so in a manner that complies with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.  I will confess that some of this is a result of my own anecdotal experience, but I also think it is a worthy contextualization of the Yaqui tribe's own statement which is quoted in the article.  To that end, perhaps this article might be a bit more acceptable to add a bit of such nuance?  It offers the same point about enrollment ("There are various reasons that someone with a legitimate link to a tribe might not be enrolled, many of which can be traced back to US policies that sought to erase Native Americans").  Would this change the calculation for any of those opposed?  Obviously, we would not be attributing to Laura Clark, but otherwise, I would support similar language.  As ever, happy to go with consensus.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HaeB I strongly disagree with your points. Firstly, Keeler’s original allegation of ethnic fraud was published in an op-ed. Disqualifying Clark’s article because it is also an op-ed seems to be holding the opposing viewpoint to a higher standard. Secondly, Clark’s article is not introducing new facts, it is introducing a different perspective of the facts Keeler presented. Keeler provided a genealogy and facts that showed Littlefeather was not an enrolled tribal member. Clark is simply saying that her perspective of native identity is nuanced and that, in her opinion, the facts that Keeler provided doesn’t necessarily preclude Littlefeather from being native because not all natives are enrolled. That’s her perspective of native identity as it relates to Sacheen. She isn’t introducing any new investigative material to the issue. She’s a credentialed writer published in a reputable source. Nitpicking the timing of her article or arguing against its quality is beyond our purpose. It is biased for this wiki page to extensively quote people supporting the allegations of ethnic fraud, but exclude any reaction arguing against it. Both views exist and should be acknowledged. The reader can make up their own mind about which is better sourced, etc. as far as the verbiage “pointed out” that can easily be replaced with more neutral language. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Aquamarine9719, it seems that you are not fully understanding the concerns raised above, and are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the various Wikipedia policies that are being mentioned as relevant to this matter.
 * Clark’s article is not introducing new facts, it is introducing a different perspective of the facts Keeler presented. Keeler provided a genealogy and facts that showed Littlefeather was not an enrolled tribal member. - this is misrepresenting both Keeler's and Clark's articles. Keeler didn't just say that "Littlefeather was not an enrolled tribal member" (my emphasis). Rather, she directly asserted that Littlefeather isn’t Native at all (based on the sisters' statements) and that she didn’t tell the truth in her Oscar speech. Clark's summarizes this correctly, writing that Keeler claimed that venerated White Mountain Apache/Yaqui activist Sacheen Littlefeather had fudged her identity and, according to Littlefeather’s sisters, wasn’t actually Native. But Clark doesn't agree with this conclusion. So there is a dispute about facts here, not merely a different perspective of the facts as you claim. And if Clark's speculation (that you want to highlight in this article) is true and Littlefeather was an unenrolled tribal member, that would mean that Keeler's conclusion was false.
 * Disqualifying Clark’s article because it is also an op-ed seems to be holding the opposing viewpoint to a higher standard. - No, there are several important differences, which I already alluded to above. For example, Keeler's conclusions have been reported and quoted in numerous other (non-opinion) articles published in reputable news sources. Hence my question above, which you appear to have ignored: Were there other, independent RS that quoted Clark's argument (such as Keeler's conclusions were quoted in numerous RS)? Please read WP:RSOPINION (again, I didn't make this policy).
 * Nitpicking the timing of her article or arguing against its quality is beyond our purpose. - to the contrary, assessing the quality of sources is a very important part of writing articles, and Wikipedia's guideline about this specifically advises that the timing of their publication matters in that (WP:AGE MATTERS). It is biased for this wiki page to extensively quote people supporting the allegations of ethnic fraud, but exclude any reaction arguing against it. Both views exist and should be acknowledged. - Your last sentence indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which asks editors to eschew bothsideism and to instead represent views according to their weight as covered in reliable sources.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HaeB I did read the policies you linked. WP:AGE MATTERS refers to the recency of a source, something that is hardly at issue here considering the recency of Clark’s article. You are conflating recency with immediacy in order to argue that Clark’s article is somehow not reputable enough because it was published immediately after Keeler’s article. This is a misapplication of the policy you cited. There is nothing in the policy that states a reaction piece is less reliable the closer in proximity it is published to the event it is reacting to. In fact, good journalism requires that publications be able to render quality pieces in a timely manner to current events. Further, Clark’s article has been cited elsewhere, most notably in the New York Times, an article which is discussed rather extensively in these talk pages. I’m not sure it was at all appropriate to revert a consensus change that was arrived at from extensive discussion simply because you didn’t take the time to fully research the sources that have already been discussed. Finally, Clark’s article is an OPINION piece and her point of view on native identity as it relates to Sacheen Littlefeather is her opinion, not a fact. She does not challenge any of the facts presented by Keeler or supplement them with investigative research of her own, she simply arrives at a different opinion than Keeler on Littlefeather’s identity. Including the minority view is not bothsideism. Again, if you take the time to read the sources that have been discussed in the talk page, you will see that the allegations of ethnic fraud are highly controversial and there is plenty of disagreement on it. Again, The New York Times article offers a fairly comprehensive summary of this and actually acknowledges the opposing view, unlike the current state of this wiki page. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Clark's opinion is an opinion which has zero relevancy to Littlefeather. It's apropos of nothing.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's in an article about Littlefeather. Loki (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So? It still doesn't contribute anything of value because her stance that some Native Americans aren't registered isn't relevant to Littlefeather. Littlefeather had no reason to think she was Native American (no tracable family history or even blood myth) and she's been shown to have repeatedly lied about her background, these are all facts that have come out that Clark seem to have either been unaware of or ignored. Not everything is noteworthy or worth mentioning just because its written about someone.★Trekker (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Aquamarine, consensus was, and is, clear to leave Clark's opinion and vague statement, that could be very misleading taken out of context, out of this. Your edit summary was either dishonest, or you don't understand consensus. On the other hand, you're over at Talk:Jacqueline Keeler, trying to say that tribal leaders, interviewed by Voice of America specifically for an article on the topic, are "just opinions". I don't know if you're really that unclear, or if this is what it is WP:QUACKing as - a WP:TENDENTIOUS POV push. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @CorbieVreccanI mean if you have an issue with that edit on another page let’s discuss it on that page. Things are already quite chaotic on this page. As I said before, I hopped over there because it’s a related topic and I was told some of my suggestions might be better fit on related pages to avoid WP:COATRACK. I was reading through the citations that were already there and noticed an issue. Beyond that, we can discuss on that page but you are misrepresenting my argument, yet again. As far as consensus here, Yuchitown said they supported current version with Dumuzid’s edit and then to make sure, I asked point blank a second time if they support Dumuzid’s edit and they said yes. What I thought they were saying was, yes to a one line nod to Clark, but nothing else. I’m sorry if that was a misunderstanding but if so it was a good faith one because they did twice say they supported Dumuzid’s edit and then I made that edit because at that point it was 6-2 in favor of the edit with weeks passing without anyone else chiming in. Then I made the edit and new editors came to voice their opinion for the first time, which is fair and I’m happy to discuss with anyone. If you don’t want to make any more changes to this article that’s your point of view but you can’t stop other people from weighing in and seeing if improvements by consensus can be made. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I disagree with your reading of consensus. I definitely support adding Clark's opinion to this article.
 * I also very much disagree with your WP:ASPERSIONS against Aquamarine, and feel that this is an attempt to intimidate a newcomer out of productive contributions to the project. Loki (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also very much disagree with your WP:ASPERSIONS against Aquamarine, and feel that this is an attempt to intimidate a newcomer out of productive contributions to the project. Loki (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Father is mexican so she is native american?
A majority of mexican people in Mexico are real native americans. Was her father a real native american from Mexico? If her father was a native american mexican then she is native american as well. 50.45.51.222 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You can review the extensive conversation on this page with regard to this issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that her father had indigenous ancestry, this is discussed both in the article and on this talk page.★Trekker (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"new research"
I'm not sure if this source can be included of Keeler's quote and other info per WP:DAILYBEAST, but it speaks to the "newly discovered" research that was added to the article:

Keeler told Sun that the record in question “describes [Seam] as being born on Yaqui land with the Spanish words ‘criollo de la tierra,’ and the location ‘de yaqui,’” going on to explain that “the historian we consulted pointed out that criollos de la tierra refers to migrants from somewhere else.” She contrasted that with the baptism record below of a Native child who was Apache. In this case, the location is not “de Apache” and the child is described as “Apache hijo,” or “Apache son.” Citing the historian, Keeler wondered why Littlefeather’s ancestor’s baptism was missing the words “yacqui hijo.”

There are other interpretations of the record in question. Prof. Brian Haley of State University of New York at Oneonta told The Daily Beast that while it could indicate that Littlefeather had a Yaqui ancestor, he stressed further confirmation is needed since errors do occur in parish records. He wrote to me via email that “one record alone is not enough to confirm Native ancestry, and that there is no evidence of a Yaqui community claiming any family members as their own in this or subsequent records.” oncamera  (talk page) 01:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think a back-and-forth on this is particularly helpful; for my money, as long as we make clear that this is a "maybe" and don't give it too much weight, I think a brief mention suffices. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's very helpful. There is no loss in being clear here.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but I fear that by giving this too much space, we make it look like a bigger deal than the blip it actually is. Combine that with Professor Haley's opinion, which essentially says "maybe, maybe not" and all we're left with is a claim that perhaps the subject was 1/16th Yaqui.  If consensus is against me, I certainly won't complain, but I think brevity is the soul of wit on this one.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)