Talk:List of Native American women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Sources

What's there to hide? If you have a source that Tani Lynn Fujimoto is Native American, she should be on the list. If not, no. I.e. not that her grandmother, ancestor, etc. was Native American, but she herself is Native American (or is Cherokee or is any specific tribe). Same thing for everyone else on this list, they need sources that say that. If we have a list of Native American women, which is good, we need sources that the women on it are Native American. It would be nice if someone sourced everyone who is now on the list (i.e. similar fashion to List of French Americans or List of Welsh Americans) Mad Jack 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    • What is the criterion to be Native American besides ancestry? Does one need to have actual tribal enrollment? How does one identify as an (fill in the blank)-American besides ancestry? I found a source saying that Carmen Electra is indeed part Cherokee and I added it to her article, isn't that acceptable?Asarelah 17:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No, you need a source that says Electra or whoever IS Cherokee or IS Native American or IS any tribe. It doesn't matter what the standards are that the source uses. Not that she "has Cherokee ancestry", "grandmother was half Cherokee", but that she IS Cherokee. This is a list of Native American women, not of American women with some Native American ancestry (and that list would be useless, btw). This is now, btw, how all these X-American lists are organized, with sources that say the person "is" X or X-American, not that their grandmother was or they have some ancestry. It's the only way to comply with WP:NOR. Mad Jack 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • In fact, I'll source a few names on the list so you can see Mad Jack 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Several of the people on the French list you referenced above are only part French, so why the apparent double standard for people who are only part Native American? Furthermore, many notable Native Americans such as Quanah Parker, Paula Gunn Allen, Lyda Conley, and several others had non-Native ancestry, yet they are all still categorized as Native American. Furthermore, you still have not answered my question as to what makes a person Cherokee in your eyes aside from ancestry? (Especially since the Cherokee Nation itself allows people who are as little as 1/4th Cherokee enroll.) Asarelah 18:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IT doesn't matter what the level of ancestry is, though, that's the point. They could be only part French or part Cherokee or part anything only, as long as the source says that person X "IS French" or "IS Cherokee" or "IS Welsh" (so for the people you just mentioned, I'm sure there are sources that say they "are" Native American). It also doesn't matter what the Cherokee Nation allows, you need a source that says the person themselves IS a member of the Cherokee Nation. It's all about the "is" :) Mad Jack 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Electra herself, I kind of doubt she has any more then some distant ancestry. However, of course, if you have a reliable source that calls Electra herself "Cherokee", regardless of what standards it uses, then she should be on here. Mad Jack 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm still utterly confused here. The inclusion on the list is acceptable if I found a source saying that Electra "is Cherokee", but isn't acceptable if I find a source saying that she "is part Cherokee"? Is the issue here just simple semantics? Asarelah 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is basically that. But you'll find it usually makes sense when all is said and done. As for "part Cherokee", I don't know, I guess it's close enough to "Cherokee". However, the Electra quote didn't even say that, it just said she had "Cherokee/Irish/German ancestry". So, with that quote, she shouldn't be under any of the categories/lists. But there could be something out there that says Electra "is" Cherokee. I don't know. Mad Jack 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How is being stating that one is "part Cherokee" different from stating that one has "Cherokee/Irish/German ancestry"? It means essientally the same thing, stating that she is part Cherokee, part Irish, and part German. Why is one phrasing worthy of inclusion on the list, but the other one isn't? 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Part Cherokee" is borderline, though I won't remove anyone cited to that. "ancestry" just means she has whichever ancestry. Why does that make her an Irish-American, a Germna-American, or a Native American when no reliable sources have referred to her as that? Many editors seem to have made the mistake that, if they stumble onto the fact that person X has "Y ancestry" or "Y grandmother", they can immediately label that person with that Y-American label and be on their way, even if no reliable sources have called that person there. Is it a matter of semantics? Sure, but you'll find, as with the French American list, that the end result makes sense. For instance, obviously Carmen Electra is not a Native American woman and no encyclopedia would list her as such, and I'm sure no reliable sources call her Cherokee. I mean, for all we know, she is 1/64th Native American or 1/64th Irish or 1/64th German. Does this automatically make her a Native American, an Irish-American or a German-American? Of course not, since we don't go by the one drop rule. That's why the term "ancestry" in general means very little. "Is" something, aside from fitting in with this page's title under NOR, could mean something more recent or that the person identifies with that, etc. Mad Jack 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed include a reliable source on Electra. If you look at the bottom of the page about her, you will find a link containing a Fox News article which states her ancestry, and given the fact that the article saw fit to mention her Cherokee heritage, I would presume that she had enough of it for it to be notable, especially since Electra has a rather dark skin tone, much too dark for her to be predominately Irish and German (I honestly thought she was Latina at first!). I don't see how you can claim that she "obviously" isn't in light of this fact. Asarelah 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The source doesn't say Electra is Cherokee, and it says she has Cherokee ancestry. This means we can say she has Cherokee ancestry in her article sure. But since when did any reliable sources say "Carmen Electra IS a Cherokee woman"? None said that and Wikipedia can't be the first to. If you have a source that someone IS X-American, they should be listed as that, if you don't, Wiki editors themselves can not just say "I think that Person X is X-American because this source said they have some X ancestry". You need the source to actually say they are X-American. Oh, and I am not really "claiming" anything. The lovely thing about this is that there is little to discuss - you either have a source saying "Person X IS something", or you don't. Regardless of who I or you think is or is not X-American, Wikipedia should list them as such if the source explicitly says so. So, despite the fact that I think Electra is definitely NOT a Cherokee or Native American woman, if you have a source that says she "IS", then that's all that matters, regardless of what I think about Electra and how distant her ancestry is. That's the brilliance of Wikipedia - it is based on the opinions of reliable sources specifically on the subject, not on the opinions of editors as to who is what or who should be classified as what. If you have a source that explicitly classifies Electra as a Cherokee or a Native American, then you may classify her as such here, if not, you simply can't do the math on your own based on whatever ancestry she has. Mad Jack 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we must agree to disagree then. I do not think it is important differentiate between the semantics of "being X" and "having (a sizable amount of) X ancestry" in a source. Perhaps we can take this issue to the Page for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America and see what our fellow editors think is appropriate. Agreed? Asarelah 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Of course not. Too many people here seem to think that Wikipedia is a debate society, and if your side wins - congrats! That's the version that goes in the article. Wrong. You either have a source that someone is a Native American, or not. This is not "List of women a group of Wikipedia editors have decided are Native Americans". It's a list of Native American women, and just like anything else on Wikipedia, it needs to be sourced to a reliable source. You can not deduce that because of Electra's Cherokee ancestry, she is a "Native American woman" (or a "Cherokee woman"), even when no source called her that. What it boils down to is:
  • You put Electra's name on a List of Native American Women because you read that she has Cherokee ancestry
  • I can easily remove her per Wikipedia:Citing sources, which states that any editor can remove any part of Wikipedia at any time that is not sourced to a reputable source that says exactly that. I challenge that Carmen Electra can be called a Native American woman, and if I challenge that, you need to provide a source that actualls calls her that, or at the very least calls her a Cherokee. You can not say "well in my opinion or his opinion", etc. You need the source's opinion specifically on Electra. If it says she is Cherokee, great, list her. If says anything else, like that she just has Cherokee ancestry, you can not translate that to saying "Carmen Electra is a Cherokee" on Wikipedia. It's about what the source says. What Wikipedia editors say or think about a particular subject is totally, completely and mercifuly irrelevant. Mad Jack 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As I have stated earlier, I do indeed have a source that states that Electra has Cherokee ancestry. The issue here is not the source, but rather, the semantics of it. Hence there is need for discussion.

The reason that we have talk pages for articles is because of issues like this, not because Wikipedia is a "debate society". I suggest that you read the Wikipedia guideline regarding consensus here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Which states: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails."

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to bring in other editors for comment in order to build a consensus on what to do in regards to this issue.

I am placing a link to this talk page in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment under the section of "Society, Law, and Sex". Asarelah 01:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. So if 10 editors decide that it's ok to call Carmen Electra a Native American woman, we are going to do so? Can I change the title of this page to "List of woman Wikipedia editors have decided are Native Americans"? I repeat - we follow what reliable sources say. You may not call a person a Native American unless they have been called that in a reliable source beforehand. I can and will stick a POV tag on this page if you do (not to mention an unsourced tag), because it is then the consensus-based POV of 10 Wikipedia editors that the following women are Native Americans. Mad Jack 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The title-change would not be appropriate, as the POV tag would enough to explain that there are issues with the page that need to be resolved. Feel free to add the POV and unsourced tag to the article, if you feel you must. Asarelah 01:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
And you butchered any argument you may have when you said "I think that a person qualifies as Native American if they have a significant amount of ancestry". "I think" - why should a Wikipedia article be based on what User:Asaraleh thinks should be on it? "Significant" - who has decided what is or is not significant? How do you know Electra has "significant" Cherokee ancestry? Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources said, not on what Wikipedia users "think". Users' POV needs to be kept away from articles. I don't want to change the article title. A "List of Native American women" is a perfectly rational, useful and encyclopedic list. As for which women are Native American, that is not for me or you to decide, but for the reliable source which explicitly says so on whichever woman is in question. And yes, if you get 10 people who say "Oh I think significant (oh right, because that word means anything) ancestry makes a person Native American" and then list women here based on that, it is totally and completely indeed the POV of those users and you that the women are "Native American", when no sources have called them that. Mad Jack 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "I think" by an editor on the talk page does not make the article POV, it is a phrase commonly used to share ones thoughts and facilitate discussion. My poor phrasing does not automatically invalidate my arguement. I am confident that our fellow editors will help us work out this issue. I will disengage from this discussion until they arrive, as we are clearly not going to reach an agreement at the present time. Asarelah 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course saying "I think" on the talk page isn't POV. We all know that. What I meant was it is POV when this "I think" turns into published fact when something is put in the article based on the "I think". What kind of compromise do you think we can reach? It's either 100% or 0% on Wikipedia. We either have a source that says what we want to say in the article, or we don't. If say, we get 6 editors coming here who say "Oh, why don't we use this, that or those criteria" for inclusion it is completely irrelevant, because we may not use any criteria in any article, category, or list, except for the most "basic" criteria on Wikipedia - which is - of course - we report what reliable sources say and do not twist it around to say something slightly different, per WP:NOR, which explicitly states that we may not use a reputable definition of the term plagiarist to decide who is or is not a plagiarist based on their actions, if no reliable sources have made that same decision in that case. Same thing here. We may not decide who is or is not a Native American woman based on some kind of criteria we find, and much less based on some kind of criteria several Wikipedia editors decide is good. We may only report which women reliable sources have said are Native American (or Cherokee, or Cree, or etc.) Mad Jack 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Via the RFC: Of course proper sourcing should be required. Cher is included on the list, her article stating that she is "half Cherokee"; yet the given [1] reads: "...mother, Georgia, with Irish, English, German and Cherokee bloodlines, and a father, John, whose parents left Armenia..." A list of notable women with some Native American blood/genetics/ancestors seems of little utility. A reader examining this list is most likely interested in Native American topics and persons merely posessing a few genes would probably be irrelevant.EricR 18:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megalyn Echikunwoke

This,[2] the most reliable source on her, says her mother is a white American. It says Megalyn was raised on a reservation, but that doesn't mean anything Mad Jack 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People who need to be sourced to a reliable source that says they are Native American:

Mad Jack 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)