Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This was clearly a contentious AfD. There were about twice as many delete votes as there were keep votes, but as we all know, AfDs are not just about vote counting. There were two arguments that were most convincing to me, and neither of them were adequately refuted by any of the editors voting to keep the article.

The first was FOARP's argument that the list itself is not notable per WP:LISTN. (Note that this is subtly different from saying that there are a lot of unsourced entries in the article.) Per LISTN, the subject of the list itself must be a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". In other words, it is possible to have a list article where every item in the list is properly sourced, but the list itself is non-notable because that group or set of things hasn't been discussed in sources. For instance, List of notable men with brown hair and green eyes.

The second argument that was not refuted was dlthewave's argument that the sourcing for this article is problematic. The introductory sentence of this article (as well as some of the keep voters here) implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry. In order to include people in such a list, we'd need sources that prove the falsehood of their claims, and those sources are not likely to exist in the vast majority of (if not all) cases. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a listicle which can never be complete, which is not a defining feature of anyone's life and which invites attempts to debate and argue about unproven or unprovable (either way) claims of ancestry. The place for such nuanced discussions or objections to such claims is not a list-format article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reason for deleting is lack of notability. Is there any sign at all that lists of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry are notable per WP:LISTN? Yes, there is coverage of people who have self-identified as having Cherokee ancestry, but to substantiate the notability of a list of them needs something more than just individual instances of people claiming Cherokee ancestry. Has any reliable, independent source ever listed people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry? I can't see any. As such this article fails WP:GNG and appears to be simply an editor-created synthesis of facts (see WP:SYNTH) and as such is original research (WP:OR) which should never be allowed. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these people appear to be actual Cherokee (e.g. Rae Dawn Chong, Crysal Gayle), and the claims of most of the rest are only mentioned in passing or by sources of questionable reliability. In Asa Carter's case, it seems to be a deliberate deception. Only in a couple of cases, Elizabeth Warren and possibly Johnny Depp, is it anything more than trivia, so it appears to me to be simply a hatchet job against Warren. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What’s verifiable is that these are people who have claimed to be Cherokee who aren’t tribal members. Going beyond that would be beyond the scope of what could be verified on wikipedia. The fact that endless articles about these people’s indiviual claims and the collectively claiming of Cherokee identity is testament to the fact that it’s not trivia. This article predates the Warren controversy. None of the users calling for its deletion appear to regularly to contribute to Native American articles. One of the many reasons this list is useful is that users tend to add these various celebrities to tribal lists over and over. This provides a place for them to accurately go. Yuchitown (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Keep - I wish we didn't need this page. Unfortunately, if we have a Cherokee People category, and Native American categories at all, we have to have this one or we are violating the rights of Cherokee people to define themselves, to declare who is and is not Cherokee.
This is a list of notable people who are commonly misrepresented and miscategorized as Cherokee, often over the protests of the Cherokee people, who deserve to have a voice in this matter, rather than having sources where Cherokee representatives speak deleted (such as the Secretary of State of the Cherokee Nation). The argument that this is some random list of non-Natives, or non-Cherokee is a strawman. It has never been that.
This is (or is intended to be, and was) a list of notable people who have repeatedly made documented, sourced claims, but who we have to repeatedly remove from the Cherokee categories because these claims have been proven false. The editors who have recently shown up to war on this and propose this AfD don't realize this because they don't edit Native American articles, and they don't seem to understand what we are saying here about Indigenous sovereignty and definitions. And the other non-Natives who evaluate their arguments usually don't understand, either.
Those who see this as being about Warren aren't familiar with the broader issues. Warren, as the highest-profile person on this list, has had a great deal of recent media coverage due to her racialization of Cherokee and Native identity with the recent DNA test, and the backlash to that, resulting in new interest in this old list and related articles. Her entry is sourced with WP:RS sources from Indigenous spokespeople, and extensive quotes were included in the footnotes, not to single her out, but because this high-profile case has resulted in unprecedented coverage and statements that apply to everyone who claims heritage despite having been shown by the Nation(s) record-keepers and genealogists (and even geneticists) that they do not have any Cherokee ancestors. Those who have dropped the claims have been removed.
The extensive sourcing (and since when is that a bad thing on WP?) was to explain the issue to those who are still unclear on this concept of Indigenous sovereignty - that only the Nations can say who is Indigenous. Though recent edits by those without a history of editing Native American articles have removed sources, every entry on here has at one time had (or has supposed to have had) a brief summation and RS sourcing. If this is kept, this is only useful with summations and RS sourcing. I realize this explanation is long, but this is clearly a confusing topic for some weighing in here.
This page exists to simplify and reduce the miscategorization of Bios. Deleting this would result in more confusion among non-Natives and waste of editors' time, not less. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm personally sympathetic to your argument, this sounds like attempting to right great wrongs, which is discouraged. Furthermore, on Wikipedia the only thing that counts is the reliable sources, regardless of whether that's in line with what the tribes say. It has nothing to do with removing people from the Cherokee category if they are not actually Cherokees. Catrìona (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also sympathize with your efforts to understand this, but your attempt to cite right great wrongs does not apply, and is rather dismissive, because the entries have always been sourced - before the disruptive editing by this new crew that removed sources. I regularly go through and remove unsourced people, and move Cherokee people to the Cherokee (or other Nation) categories if they've been mistakenly placed here. Those who edit in the field and know the history of these entries and bios, and how Native identity works, know that. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... I just re-read what you said. RS sources, "regardless of whether that's in line with what the tribes say." OK, you've just shown you don't know how RS sources for Indigenous identity work. Only the Nations decide who is a member of their Nation. You've just said the equivalent of wikipedians can choose sources that decide who is or is not a citizen of Israel, regardless of what the Israeli government says. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One would think that the tribes themselves are THE most reliable source. Most every tribe has a website with criteria outlined clearly and concisely. This has nothing to do with righting any wrongs, I have no idea where you are getting this from Catrìona it is being factual. Assuming that we are attempting to right wrongs via wikipedia is infantilizing at best. Adding a source that provides inaccurate information does a great disservice to the pedia and is, quite frankly, lazy editing.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these claims of distant Cherokee ancestry have not been proven false. The sources document the claims, but most do not comment on their veracity. –dlthewave ☎ 23:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's important to have a space to list individuals making verifiable false claims. Every single person on the list has been verified as not being Cherokee though they have made statements claiming they are or it is included in their biographies. This is imperative because it comes down to Nationhood and the issue of sovereignty. One cannot self-define indigeneity. It is far more complicated than that and to disallow indigenous criteria which has been included in sourced material over self-declaration is unacceptable and does a disservice to the pedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Most of these claims are not "false," much less "verifiable false." Someone who states that they have some percentage of Cherokee heritage is not the same as that person stating that they are eligible for tribal membership. I recognize and respect your POV on this issue, and on a personal level I substantively agree with much of what you said, but your POV doesn't get to override our requirement to adhere to a neutral POV. The broader point is, listicles are not appropriate places for us to write nuanced discussions of a person's family or cultural heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what familiarity you have with Native identity or tribal enrollment, but these issues widely published and discussed in literature. Getting into who has or doesn't have Native heritage is beyond the scope of the list; the list is for people who claim Cherokee descent but are not tribal members, so cannot go placed in the three tribe's articles. I agree a NPOV tone can be achieved. This list corresponds well-established and well-populated Category:American people of Cherokee descent and related lists under the supercat Category:People of Cherokee descent. Yuchitown (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I fully agree that the category is appropriate, but I believe the list is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're simply wrong. Once again, a person can have heritage or ancestry (genetic, cultural or both?) of Native peoples without necessarily being an enrolled citizen of a tribe. If someone claims tribal citizenship and is not a tribal citizen, then of course that would be factually provable one way or the other relatively easily - look at the tribal rolls. But if someone says that some part of their family is Native American and they thus have that "ancestry" the only way to factually disprove that would be exhaustive genetic and genealogical research. In the instant case, there is nothing remotely describable as "disproof" of Warren's family heritage. A "List of people who have falsely claimed to be Cherokee tribal members" would be a different article entirely. If you want to start such an article, I would have no objection. But a "List of people with self-described Cherokee ancestry" is merely that, and it should not be a platform for exhaustive, inconclusive and generally unprovable arguments about whether or not those statements are true. The place for such nuanced debate would be the person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just form the discussion above it is clear this is a very controversial and fraught with POV issue. There is no reason to make this list, especially since it invites many, many more similar lists, like List of people of self-identified African ancestry for Rachel Dolezal, and I could go on and on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above we have the notable people section of an article about this. Categories (which require sourcing) also take care of grouping people who have this ancestry onto one page (the category page). The problem with this page is sourcing as many names on the list are unsourced or poorly sourced and that presents a BLP problem for BLP entries on the list who are unsourced or poorly sourced. JC7V (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope whomever concludes this AfD is aware that the many emotional calls for deletion are based on objectively incorrect conclusions. There is no "notable people section of an article about this." Even before I recently added more citations (with extreme ease; these statements of self-identified are widely documented), the overwhelming majority of people listed have been cited. This list actually doesn't invite similar lists (although that's not a cause for deletion in Wikipedia policy), a List of people of self-identified African ancestry might not more than a few notable additions besides Rachel Dolezal; she stands out because she is an outlier. Being potentially controversial is no cause for deletion (Wikipedia is not censored); however, this subject is only controversial to editors who have not previously been involved in Native American subjects. In Indian Country, self-identification of Cherokee descent is widely discussed and written about. Native American identity in the United States (that includes American Indians, Inuit, Yupiit, Aleut, and Native Hawaians—so it's not even a discrete ethnic group) does not compare to the identity of other ethnic groups because of its political status. Of course, a NPOV tone has to be achieved, but this is a challenge with innumerable articles and not cause for deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • For example, from the external links:
There are more sources like this; these are just two examples. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:LISTCRUFT that fails to establish the importance of the list. desmay (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria "Notable people who have stated that they have some Cherokee ancestry but are not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes" is problematic due to the fact that their status an enrolled citizen is A) unsourced and B) not an indicator of having "some" Cherokee ancestry. Most if not all of the entries are individuals who claim to have a small percentage of Cherokee blood; they generally are not claiming tribal citizenship. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this point, by you, as a classic example of moving the goalposts. Above, you explicitly spell out the criteria from the list 14 minutes before you try to change criteria of the list. Once you start changing the criteria, of course, then some of those on the list can have citations removed by not meeting the new criteria. Funny how that works. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By removing the tribal enrollment requirement, I actually changed it to a more lenient criteria that would have allowed many of the entries to remain, but this change was quickly reverted. My subsequent removals were based on a lack of sourcing for the original criteria, "not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes". –dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The various arguments marshaled for deletion are almost all Straw man arguments. When the arguments appeal to WP policy and guidelines about why the list should be deleted, the policies are either misrepresented or not applicable; please, check the links yourself. Throw in some disparaging terms like "listicle" or "listcruft" to question the list's very existence (plus I don't like it and They don't like it) and that covers the delete arguments. It is clear the list and the people on it fall under the linked guidelines. The remaining argument about lack of reliable and verifiable sources illustrate inadequate source evaluation skills of those making it rather than lack of sources. People on the list without R/V sources attached? Transfer them to the talk page under research needed rather than delete the list. This has been an ongoing standard for the list. I also note that User:NorthBySouthBaranof, the AfD nominator, recently removed four sources from the list under a "Trim sourcing overkill" edit summary while this AfD is ongoing, leaving only one source. And then, surprise! An editor removed Elizabeth Warren from the list because "sourcing is outdated". Some editors clearly do not want Elizabeth Warren on the list despite Warren being one of the more widely documented public cases. I'd gently suggest reading Wikipedia is not censored. I'm starting to get a real Ministry of Truth vibe. The phenomenon of people claiming and self-identifying as Cherokee is widespread. An article (predating Warren's Senate run, I might add) illustrates some of the factors around this: The Cherokee Syndrome. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started my !vote/comment above without thinking much about Warren being on the list. I didn't really care. Now it seems obvious to me that this is cleansing AfD, a scrubbing of potentially damaging information from the 'pedia before her presidential run. That is why some of the delete arguments seem so weak IMO, because they start with a goal and then create a rationale. I'm certainly not saying all delete opinions here fall under that but a significant portion may. This is why the list/article history shows people removing citations/sourcing, not because the sources aren't reliable or verifiable, but to degrade the list as inherently unreliable as well as Warren's place on it. Wow. And I just noticed a few people definitely using some talking points from the Warren campaign (without mentioning Warren of course; that would be too blatant.) Now I'm starting to wonder whether anyone here is with the Warren campaign or a volunteer. Or paid. I know at least one person here has done paid editing in the past. Not accusing Clarityfiend of being paid for this, just wondering generally. This theory explains irregularities here and on the article page. I'm also beginning to wonder about Canvassing as a factor. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue with Warren is that this article was being (mis)used as a platform to rehash and (mis)present a one-sided argument about Warren, in a manner which was repeatedly rejected by consensus at Warren's actual biography. If an argument is rejected at one article, that's not license to go right ahead and do the same objectionable thing at an entirely separate article - that is classic and exemplary of a WP:COATRACK. List articles shouldn't be used for this, and that misuse raised the question of whether this should be a list at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo, you're saying that unless information has been arbitrated on the main WP article of a person and confirmed as biographical canon there, editors can't express other facts about them? And you're saying Warren is the reason why this list is at AfD? That you strongly object to any variant or non-canon information anywhere on WP? Good to know. Is the article a "classic and exemplary of a WP:COATRACK"? No, it is not. Were there citations on Warren's entry that were not specifically connected to the page criteria? IOW, coatracked on her listing? Yes, probably. Did it violate WP:BLP? No. Really, NO. Some of the citations hung on her entry might have done so? The content of the page, though, did not violate BPL and the stated purpose and majority content of the page precludes being a coatrack, much less a classic example. The page predates Warren's active political life by a few years. If her entry was given undue weight over the years, that can be edited and discussed. Any editor could have come in and done that to the article. What I'm seeing, though, is a wholesale scorched earth policy to delete the page so Warren's entry can never be on the page, particularly if the list is deleted. Is the page/list framed/defined ideally? No. It was trying to describe (notable) people who lay claim to Cherokee identity without actually being Cherokee. Warren seems to be one but she is an incidental example of a much larger pool of people. This phenomena has been examined in academic books and journal articles and probably needs an article on it. I have rarely witnessed what has been going on during this AfD: the active degradation of citations. I absolutely mean it when I say most of the WP policies and guidelines linked by various people in this AfD are almost entirely specious IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM. Just because someone invokes a policy doesn't mean it's applicable. I've seen this in more than few delete rationales here. Also wikilawyering and attempts at intimidation (sorry, to gentle warn me to change my behaviour) using negligible grounds. This is not funny. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor is reminded to Assume good faith, and hasn't offered any evidence to justify not doing so. All removals of content have been explained in edit summaries or on the article's Talk page, and are based on sound interpretations of Wikipedia policy that call for the removals. The editor can "wonder" whatever he wants, but when he makes unsupported assertions of bad faith here, he violates our requirement for civility and the spirit of this discussion. General Ization Talk 03:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor is reminded to Assume good faith, and hasn't offered any evidence to justify not doing so. All removals of content have been explained in edit summaries or on the article's Talk page, and are based on sound interpretations of Wikipedia policy that call for the removals. The editor can "wonder" whatever he wants, but when he makes unsupported assertions of bad faith here, he violates our requirement for civility and the spirit of this discussion. General Ization Talk 03:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFG is not a suicide pact and I do not have to AGF if evidence points elsewhere. I apologize for any perceived incivility on my part. I have been blunt here and sometimes not presented all my supporting evidence (diffs, etc.) for statements about what is going on here. I have not done so because it would take more time and effort than I have available for WP. This AFD is not ANI or some other administrative board and certainly it would be wasted effort here. I do, however, have some experience in researching editors when something seems off or there are discrepancies in the process, or actions don't match what is being said. I've observed abuse of process and gaslighting. If it quacks like a duck... It isn't incivility to state what is going on. As for "sound interpretations of Wikipedia policy", much of that falls to the abuse of process and gaslighting linked above. Wielding BLP as a cudgel to achieve a goal provides a technical justification for gutting the list as quickly as possible during an AfD, going from this to this. BLP throws a glamour of righteousness, of concern for WP's liability and people's reputations over it. Some editors might have used the process of an AfD to improve the citations if they were not adequate rather than razing it to the dead. It's possible some people might believe even the existence of this list on WP is somehow racist, unconsciously or otherwise. It won't be spoken of, that wouldn't be polite or civil, but WP has a pervasive bias on this front that has never been adequately addressed. You want citations for this? Do a little bit of research; it's not that hard. As for the list, the unwavering, steadfast dismantling of it with no significant adjustment through dialog on the talk page show a disregard for consensus and good faith engagement. That is a sad state of affairs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of those other ethnicity lists include the qualifier "self-identified" in their titles. We don't have an article titled List of self-identified Greek Americans. It's just List of Greek Americans. So if this article is to be kept, I would argue that we have to remove the "self-identified" qualifier from the title for the sake of consistency and avoiding judgment. Also, none of those other lists, so far as I can tell, have, as this article has, devolved into a platform to argue that someone is wrong or bad or evil for merely being on that list. There appear to be troubling, and by all accounts, good-faith, issues about the meaning of identifying with Cherokee or indigenous ancestry in general. If that's the case, this subset may not be a good candidate for a list, which is by definition and practice not a good place for nuance. You either are or you aren't on a list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_of_self-identified_Cherokee_ancestry&oldid=1065980998"