Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities

Fraudulent tribes
How do you introduce the idea that a person might belong to a group that is a fraudulent tribe? Cherokees have been outspoken in the past about faux Cherokee "tribes," but the widespread phenomenon of creating an organization that assumes the identity of an historic, extinct tribe should be addressed here, too (especially since these groups are so active on Wikipedia, it's impossible to keep up with them. Thanks for any thoughts on the matter! Yuchitown (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Looks like there's a section in here now. Montanabw (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yuchitown (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Format
I did some wikignoming and copyediting on this page, hope it makes it more readable and clarifies some confusion. Montanabw (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Great work! Vizjim (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now, probably needs a copyedit by someone else now. Montanabw (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the renaming of the sections and the added sourcing. But... You didn't just wikignome and copyedit, you added a lot of content. Some of it contradicts what we have in the essay. Tribes don't adopt, only families do. I'm concerned some of the language is unweildly, and a lot of what has been added is redundant. This is kind of a lot all at once. I'm simplifying and reworking, but I'm too tired to do any more tonight. The lede and overview had a lot of the same content and was at too academic a level. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 01:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Solutions section
NOTE: I've moved this from article space to talk, because there are too many problems with it:

It just repeats points we've made throughout, but without all our footnotes. I was going through and editing it, but I don't think we need it. We've offered editing suggestions throughout. I'm considering cutting anything that we've already covered. I know I feel condescended to if I'm reading something and they start repeating it all again at me. I don't want to make readers feel like they didn't read the essay. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There were also mistakes added, like the idea that people can be honorary members, or adopted by entire tribes. I cut those. But for now I'm just moving the section here. If we're going to have this sort of section, whether it's called "Solutions" or something else, the section should not repeat what is already in the essay, but concisely focus on adding any editing suggestions that we haven't already covered. It should be user-friendly, with links to policies, cats, etc. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Solutions
How should Wikipedia editors handle claims of Indigenous identity, applying the criteria discussed above?


 * Indigenous identity is a political, legal and cultural designation for an entire community, as outlined by the United Nations.
 * Misappropriation of Indigenous identity is a serious concern.
 * Tribal verification by a recognized tribe of someone's legal or cultural Indigenous identity or tribal citizenship is generally reliable.
 * That said, the tribe will distinguish between an enrolled tribal member and other categories of community members, such as those who might be eligible for enrollment but not enrolled; or someone ineligible for enrollment but recognized as a descendant, relative, or family member who participates in the life of the community. These are significant distinctions and need to be clearly stated.

Above written by User:CorbieVreccan. -cv
 * A self-claim of Indigenous identity is unreliable unless verified by third-party reliable sources.
 * A self-claim of tribal membership is not verified unless the legitimate tribe in question agrees that the individual meets their definition of a tribal member.
 * It is possible for a person to qualify for enrollment in, or to be a descendant of, more than one tribe. However, most are only enrolled in one tribe, with only a small number allowing dual enrollment.
 * In some cases tribes may dis-enroll an individual. This is a question of citizenship and legal status.  It may still be acceptable to identify such people as of Indigenous descent, but they cannot be described as tribal members.
 * Some tribal groups are truly Indigenous but not recognized by State or Federal government, this may be due to Indian termination policy or other historic factors. It may be acceptable to identify people who are members of such groups as Indigenous. However, there are also fraudulent tribal organizations that do not meet any criteria for status as an Indigenous nation and members of such groups should NOT be identified as Indigenous.
 * A claim of descent from an Indigenous ancestor should be verified by third-party reliable sources; further, a verifiable claim of descent does not make someone an Indigenous individual, they are merely a descendant of a specific, named Indigenous individual.
 * Even third-party sources generally considered reliable on Wikipedia sometimes inadvertently perpetuate ethnic fraud or print an inaccurate claim of Indigenous identity without fact-checking.
 * Historic individuals claimed to be of Indigenous identity can sometimes be verified by third-party sources generally considered reliable on Wikipedia, but in some cases, even historic sources normally deemed reliable perpetuated ethnic fraud.
 * DNA "ethnicity tests" are unreliable and are not used by legitimate tribes to determine Indigenous identity.
 * If a person's unverifiable Indigenous ancestry is not a highly publicized part of their identity, then it may not need to be included in their biography at all.
 * If a person's unverifiable Indigenous ancestry IS a highly publicized part of their identity, then the issue needs to be addressed with reliable sources, being careful not to engage in original research nor synthesis.
 * If a living person's claim of Indigenous identity can be debunked, editors must follow WP:BLP to explain this. If the person is deceased, the claim may be debunked with reliable sources.
 * If a person's claims cannot be verified or debunked, all that Wikipedia editors can do is state that the individual makes a claim but there is no independent evidence to support the claim. For example, a phrase such as "genealogical research has failed to unearth such ancestry and this individual is not a member of the [named] tribe."[cite]
 * The recommended solutions should be concise and not reiterate material written elsewhere in the essay. It should consist of action items. I wonder if anyone could design a flowchart? Yuchitown (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown


 * Nope, Montana wrote it, in the essay:. I initially tried making corrections, then felt it wasn't fixable in the form it was in so cut it and moved it here to talk. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that clarification. Yuchitown (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Sorry if that created a mess. My intent was to create a bullet point summary, but then I got carried away—the rest of the essay covers a lot of ground. I do think the last three bullet points do need to be made, somewhere, somehow., Montanabw (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In the back of my head, I've been trying to think of a concise list of protocols to use in assessing an individual that follows Wikipedia protocols (no original research, etc.). The first step would be to ask if the person is enrolled in a tribe. Few Native identity frauds make a concrete claim to be enrolled in an actual tribe (Ward Churchill claiming to be a member of the UKBCI is the notable exception). The bulk of celebrities and their fans just make vague claims (Apache, Cherokee, Lenape, etc.) but don't actually name specific tribes. Then the actual identity frauds usually claim ancestry/descent as opposed to tribal membership. Seems like there needs to be massive education about the difference between being Native American (being enrolled in a US tribe) and claiming or having Native ancestry. It seems that when someone says they are, for example, Chiricahua Apache, then the default description for this would they claim Chiricahua Apache ancestry/descent. This default could then change if there is evidence of them having Chiricahua Apache ancestry/descent, but that would still not make them Native American. Then if they are enrolled in an actual tribe, they are, for example, an enrolled member of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and would be considered to be Native American.
 * So a flowchart might be:


 * 1) person claims Native identity = default listing on Wikipedia: person claims foo ancestry.
 * 2) person's Native ancestry is proven = Wikipedia list: person is of foo descent
 * 3) person is an enrolled tribal member = Is the tribe a federally recognized tribe? A state-recognized tribe? An unrecognized organization?
 * 4) If federally recognized = person is listed as an enrolled member of official name of the specific tribe and considered to be Native American
 * 5) If a state-recognized tribe, list person as being member of official name of tribe but state that it is a state-recognized tribe. [Here I don't have easy answers, but state-recognized groups that are the primary representative of that group, such as the Nipmuc Nation appear to be far more valid than state-recognized groups claiming identities of federally recognized tribes that have been removed from the states in question.]
 * 6) If an unorganized organization, say they are a member of that organization but do not use the terms enrolled or citizen since they are members of a heritage group, not a nation. Person is not considered Native American. [Again no easy answers: but California will have exceptions.]
 * Anyway, just some ideas. Yuchitown (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * For identification protocols, does: "If citations don't explicitly say an individual is enrolled in a specific tribe, then the default would to be to state they claim to be of [foo] descent, until evidence suggests otherwise" — work for you all? Thoughts? Yuchitown (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Categories on Wikipedia
Perhaps the endnotes we have, using William Birdshead and Kyrie Irving as examples, shouldn't be buried in notes, but could be used in a section like this at the end, with a third example of, say, someone like Johnny Depp who we put in self-identified (and who has additionally been repeatedly called a pretendian and called out for appropriation in RS sources)? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Termination
The Chinook Tribe had their federal recognition terminated. Most other tribes who were terminated regained their recognition. Honest question, how many tribes left were terminated and have not regained their recognition (other than the Chinooks)? Yuchitown (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * This page lists the following tribes in California as terminated and not restored:


 * Colfax Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe
 * Mission Creek Reservation
 * Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
 * Miwok Tribe of the El Dorado Rancheria (El Dorado Rancheria)
 * Mono Indians of the Strathmore Rancheria (Strathmore Rancheria)
 * Pit River Tribe, California (Likely Rancheria)
 * Pit River Tribe, California (Lookout Rancheria)
 * Pit River Tribe, California (Montgomery Creek Rancheria)
 * Tsi Akim Maidu of the Taylorsville Rancheria
 * Strawberry Valley Band of Pakan’yani Maidu


 * Plus, particularly depressingly, three "unknown tribe" entries. The page also lists the following Oregon entities as terminated and seeking restoration (lots more detail on the link):


 * Cathlamet
 * Clatsop
 * Wahkiakum (in Washington State)
 * Lower Columbia Chinook


 * Then in Wisconsin there are:
 * Brothertown Indians

Not sure how up to date these are, but the page looks pretty reliable and gives at least a general idea of the possible answers to your question.Vizjim (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank for sharing that information! Middletown Rancheria is federally recognized now. I'm wondering if the Lookout Rancheria and Montgomery Creek Rancheria members are eligible to enroll in the Pit River Tribe today. This still reflects a very small population, so it seems in a biography, one could mention if a person belonged to a terminated tribe — just as one could mention if someone were disenrolled from a tribe — but it would apply to very, very few BLPs. Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * All of the Oregonian entities listed above are subsumed into the Chinook Indian Nation . So, really, there's only a case for the Chinook, the Brothertown Indians, and possibly some very small Californian entities.Vizjim (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

More comprehensive term in title?
Hi. I'm just wondering if there's a reason the title refers to First Nations rather than Indigenous Canadian identities? The latter is the more comprehensive term, whereas the former generally excludes the Inuit and Métis. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. * goes to look and think about this * - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Would you mind if I move the essay to WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 01:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection from me Vizjim (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done :) Thanks for putting this important essay together. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 10:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the shortcuts and redirects need to be checked and, if not yet done, fixed. This needs to be taken care of promptly or people can't find the essay. This is part of what needs to be done when a page move is undertaken. I left a note for Clayoquot, whose job it is as the page mover. If not done promptly I will try to get to it, but I don't really have the time or energy right now. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A bot usually takes care of these things within a few days. See WP:Double redirects. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been 3 days. Check the pages. There are only notices of the page move. If they bots are coming, this is too much of a delay. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation example
I switched the example of using a tribal newspaper for citing a person to Jonathan Nez, who is completely unambiguous, away from William "Hawk" Birdshead, who is more complex. Half of the online citations list him as being Lakota, since he was born on Pine Ridge. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes is confusing, since some members are ethnically Cheyenne, some are Arapaho, and some are both. People tend to not just list themselves as being just "Cheyenne" these days. Usually, it's Northern Cheyenne, Southern Cheyenne, or Cheyenne-Arapaho (and some Cheyenne people also include Suhtai). So I figured a more cut-and-dry example might be better, since the point is to use tribal newspapers as a source. It also doesn't matter where you are born or grew up; that just confounds the issue (I've noticed many Canadian people cloud their identity by listing the tribal homelands they were born or live in). Yuchitown (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown


 * Thank you! Good points. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Confusing sentences
I pulled this from the "Protocols" section:
 * "If someone is exposed as a pretendian, and the claim was an honest and low-profile mistake, sometimes the false claimant will drop their claim. In these cases, it may be acceptable to simply remove the claim and categories from their article. However, if they used their false claim to access resources - jobs, funding, etc, or to speak on behalf of Indigenous peoples, it is probably notable to include these incidents in their articles - no matter how the incident played out."

Upon rereading, I think I finally understand what was being suggested. Elizabeth Warren is the most famous person who dropped her mistaken claims and apologized to Native peoples, but I can't imagine the general public being okay with removing any mentions of her claims of being Cherokee and Delaware. Yuchitown (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Misleading and borderline racist quote
The following is quoted in the WP:NDN-DNA section:

"So your ancestors could be from Nunavut, for all you know. But if you have never skinned a seal or spent half your year in near darkness, can you claim to be Inuit?"

This quote, from an article by one Andrea Crossan, almost implies that indigenous identity is determined by what you do, or your past experiences, which is flatly contradictory with other parts of the article including other parts of the source itself and the page lead, which tell us repeatedly indigenous identity is really about being claimed by an indigenous group. It is also (borderline?) racist in invoking stereotypes ranging from that of the primitive Indian who apparently cannot even light a fire to that of the noble savage who lives blissfully unaware of such oppressive conveniences as "electricity" or "the indoors". The reality is, the vast majority of Native Americans, and probably a good deal of Inuit, have never skinned a seal, or spent half the year in darkness (i.e. without electricity), and whether they have or haven't isn't any basis for determining their identity as indigenous people. And there have been plenty of pretendians, e.g. "Grey Owl" (Archibald Stansfeld Belaney), who did engage in activities they stereotypically associated with the "primitive Indian" (such as living in the woods and hunting one's own prey), who nevertheless do not become Indians by virtue of the experience.

I do not think this quote should be in the article. I am going to go ahead and remove it, but I am recording my reasons here in case of objection and for posterity. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article, this is an essay. Life experience should most definitely be an indicator, not the definitive attribute. There are other indicators. I think it's equally problematic when we dismiss it as a factor to be included. I think you've pointed out, excellently, the complexity, which the essay reflects, in determining legitimacy of claims. The essay presents a number of indicators, the primary of which is being claimed by a recognized Native American or Indigenous Canadian tribal nation.
 * I find the assertion that the essay invokes racist stereotypes a bit bizarre as the article never describes the examples you mentioned. The darkness comment was about the region they live in not their ability to light a fire or have electricity. I live in Alaska. It is dark here a large percentage of the year because our Winter is much longer than in other parts of the world. We do have a large percentage of daylight in Summer too. I would say people that don't live above the Article Circle would not understand fully the life experience of someone that does. It seems to me that is the point being made. That life experience does play a factor in Indigenous identity-- A Rose Wolf  16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Andrea Crossan is talking about community connection — a concept that seems incredibly difficult to illustrate to the general public who are fixated on DNA tests and lone ancestors from the 18th century. That said, I don't mind the quote being removed if need be. Yuchitown (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not place people from before 1850 at the earliest directly in Native America categories
WIkipedia categories are supposed to be by ethnicity, not race. This requires the people by seen by themselves as some sort of eth ic group. In 1810 an Objibwe person would

See themselves as Ojibwe, a Navajo as Navajo, a Ute as Ute. It is not categorizing by ethnicity icity to put articles on individuals from this time period directly in Native American categories. Also because of ERGS non-diffuding rules, people will place such people in American X categories. People who were not direct subjects of the US should not be in American X categories. A Lakota warrior who attended peace conferences with the US does not belong in any American Category at that point. Now if he later joins a performing trope and goes around the US as an actor, we can call him an American actor etc. However if he died a few months after that peace conference still living on unceeded land, putting him in an American category just does not make sense. I am thinking that for many people we will just have birth, death and say Ojibwe people categories. Three categories are enough for some people. Maybe thry were in the fur trade. People in the fur trade works. The reality is that for Ojibwe, Navajo, Cree etc who were not yet under a clear state, as well as for various people from the African continent either not under a clear state, or under one where we have very few bios on people from it, the ethnic group they are part of and the birth and death years may be all we have. That should be enough. We should not feel a need yo shoehorn them under a country that either did not exist, or that they were clearly not a subject of. A Wampanoag a ailir living in early 19th-century Massachusetts is another story, people who were subjects of a ciuntry should be categorized as natuonals of it, but not everyone was a national of a country, and we need to not try to shoe horn all of them into categories for such just because we want to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Being Native American is not a race. Inupiat are not the same race as Pueblo people. I can see your point about 19th-century Navajo people not being citizens of the United States, but the term tends to be defined as being a member of an Indigenous people from the current continental United States; not necessarily citizens of the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)