Talk:Pretendian

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pretendian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas Low‑importance

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing and notability

@AntiRaceshifitng: anyone added to the list of Pretendians needs to

1. Be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia bio so their name is blue-linked, and
2. have multiple WP:RS citations sourcing the fact that they have been called pretendians in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. If this is not done, the article may be threatened with deletion. WP policy must be followed here; no exceptions. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reference google Helene Hagan's letter to the Academy Museum regarding the legacy of Littlefeather, her false claims of activism and the request to remove the exhibit along with Marie Cruz sister's. TAAF also forwarded a letter on the same topic. 65.131.207.3 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiRaceshifitng: There needs to be much more context in this article. For example, there has been much discussion of the Keeler list, and not all positive. Because it's an unpublished document circulated primary in social media, much of the discussion cannot be cited in Wikipedia. Better would be a good discussion of the support and critiques with appropriate references. In general this article needs much work to ensure it's not simply a "gotcha" list of people with questionable claims, but a solid, well-researched balanced article on the term "Pretendian". I'm going to add some flags to this article, but as above there are issues with sources and I am deeply uncomfortable with the way this article reads and is structured as support the comments above. --Smallison (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Maria Louise Cruz sister aka Sacheen Littlefeather. Jacqueline Keeler research is solid. Furthermore, it took me 1 week to track Jacqueline down while she was in Wyoming. With the help of another Native American woman (Sally) who's cousin is David Cornsilk I was able to reach Jacqueline Keeler. From there first nation has a foundation that Pretendians are an epidemic as Chief Ben Barnes explained to me. Unfortunately, there is a dying resistance to those who were duped by my sister and critical of Jacqueline Keeler work. I am Rosalind Cruz 65.131.207.3 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallison: Please do not ping me for edits or contributions I have not made. I incorrectly added a recently accused person (which was removed) to the Academic section of Notable Examples who lacks a wikipedia page and can not be included per point 1. from CorbieVreccan.

@AntiRaceshifitng: Apologies for that. I will shift some of my criticisms of the article to a new general section.

Sorry to add to an old point - it seems as though it's still relevant so I'm adding a comment here instead of starting a new topic. Let me know if that's incorrect - it just seemed neater.

I think that the sourcing issue is still a real problem. All attempts at improving the sources on this page are met with real pushback from the main editors, even when the sources go against Wikipedia policy. This page as it stands is still at risk of deletion, because the sources for many of the individuals named as Pretendians are either not reliable (e.g. they come from gossip blogs or unverified Twitter accounts) or they do not actually back up the claim (e.g. a news report saying that someone has been called a Pretendian in the past but does not provide evidence of or context for this claim.)

The issue of Pretendians is very current due to a large number of recent high profile cases, and surely this means that this page should attempt to better document verified cases of it. I feel that there should be an audit of some of the sources here, as at the moment it does not follow Wiki policy and still appears as a list of vague accusations rather than solid, research-based examples of the problem. If editors are not willing to allow other people to remove and update sources which are lacking in reliability and accuracy, then something should be done within the editor group to ensure that the page remains within WP guidelines, e.g. an audit of the existing sources or a restructuring of the list, as additionally not all people appearing on the list have their own Wiki pages and are not blue linked.

Thanks! Kyatic (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any confirmation of Maria Louise Cruz can be verified by us. Meaning all legal documents. Birth, marriage, pysch wards, mental disorder, parents, grandparents lived and or place of birth for our families. I am Rosalind Cruz. @truthjusticenw now X. 65.131.207.3 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the source of the term Pretendian

There is no information on this page about the rise of the term Pretendian or reason for the use of this term. This needs to be rectified given the title for the page. It concerns me that the act of taking on an Indigenous identity might not be new, but the term itself is a new phenomenon and there's nothing here about it or race shifting as a term. --Smallison (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I cannot find a specific origin point for the word. It would be good to add such etymological evidence if you can locate it. Vizjim (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yuchitown (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Oh, absolutely. It's not essential, but it'd be a nice addition. Vizjim (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is choice of terms: playing Indian, ethnic fraud, raceshiting, or pretendian. It would be helpful to include a definition/rationale or evidence about usage as I don't think this is a term that is very well known to the general public. The point of an encyclopedia is to help people understand the topic and the article so far mostly talks about people who practice or practised ethnic fraud, not much about the term. I haven't done the research on the term yet (haven't had time), but it strikes me that it's very new. It would be good to note what the changes are given the articles stretches back quite far in time. --Smallison (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tallbear PHD is an excellent resource. Her book on indigenous DNA and Pretendians is informative 65.131.207.3 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeler Pretendian list

There has been much discussion of the Keeler list on social media and not all positive. Because it's an unpublished document circulated primary in social media, much of the discussion cannot be cited in Wikipedia. It needs to be balanced as a particular action taken by Keeler with a good discussion of the support and critiques with appropriate references.

It is published and cited in the references as cite 12. The Alleged Pretendians List is at the bottom to download and view. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was that there wasn't any context around it and there have been critiques, not about accessibility of the document as a google spreadsheet. Typically such a document would not meet reliable source criteria on Wikipedia.--Smallison (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using it as a reliable source to "add" someone to this page. The context around it being mentioned is her activism work as it is widely discussed around this topic. It doesn't matter if people on social media review her work as "not all positive" because this topic is going to be controversial and "not all positive". oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" in this case? There is no connection between her list and making a case for the "Pretenian" page. No context was given. The spreadsheet is listed a reference/citation, not a resource.The link to the spreadsheet should not be listed a reference or citation because it is not a citation, just as we don't point to a book listing at a publisher's website when writing about a book. A citation would be a book review. Original work is not to be used a citation. Having Keeler's work as listed as a citation is incorrect. If she is an expert and her work is important you should be citing secondary sources discussing her work, not just posting a link to a google spreadsheet. This is especially important when you have a controversial topic. Help:Referencing for beginners Note: Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, including newsletters, personal websites, books, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets, are usually not acceptable as sources. The general exception is where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic; in this case, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that topic (but not other topics). Even then, third-party publications are still preferable. --Smallison (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue with self-published work applies to the sources you added. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Notable Examples list

I think the list of notable examples should be removed in favour of a narrative to give context to this list. I agree with that these lists are do not enhance the article and require readers go and figure out why they are there.It's frankly lazy. Better, for example, would be a short section on specific controversies with individuals the specific connections to ethnic fraud to support that this article is notable. Including a list also invites people to add without much work and may lead to more maintenance work. @Drmies: @Oncamera: --Smallison (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, think it's less maintenance work with a list and cited sources versus writing the ideal narrative unless one has the free time to do so. This article isn't very old so the list was better than nothing. If you have the free time, please write the list into a narrative. However, I completely disagree with blanking the section out of even more laziness than creating the list vs narrative. oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oncamera, I've been thinking about this overnight and I came to the same kind of conclusion that Smallison did. A narrative, likely a chronological one, in which these names appear if they really are relevant, that is the solution. And no, blanking is not an act of laziness: the list is severely problematic and not very well sourced. Listing is also a way of suggesting all cases are the same--as if the claims of Rachel Dolezal or Iron Eyes Cody and Elizabeth Warren are identical. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the narrative, it's the ideal thing to do. Blanking a section is not. oncamera _{(talk page)} 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a BLP violation, then it is the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icecube77, Oncamera, Gina Adams really needs work. It can't be that a "controversy" gets her listed here, when the article itself has nothing on it. Oncamera, here is an opportunity to really improve Wikipedia. I still think the list, as a list, should go. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be developed into the narrative. oncamera _{(talk page)} 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles throughout Wikipedia have accompanying lists. As long as everything is cited, it should be fine. The commonality between the individuals listed is they are are non-Native who currently or in the past have claimed to be Native American (Elizabeth Warren is main one who stopped and apologized to tribes). This happens all the time, is widely documented, and yet non-Native people seem to have such difficulty discussing the concept. I don't understand that. Yuchitown (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

One of the issues with the list and the article overall isn't the fact that these individuals are listed incorrectly as being non-native (I have no problem asserting this fact, but that people outside the native community are not as familiar with this issue, this will be especially true for people outside North America. The point is not about whether this is a real problem or not, but ensuring the article can be understood by people with little knowledge of what it means. List of "people from this town" or "people who graduated from this university" is not nearly as complex an issue. Each of these individuals used their claims in different ways. And we also need to be aware that different native communities define membership differently, with (colonial) federal governments having a heavy hand. It would not be terrible for there to be an effort to provide context. Smallison (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a list is useful, but that the idea of giving contextualizing information is also good. I've done the first section. If everyone is happy with this solution, I'll go on to do the rest later this week. Vizjim (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be beneficial to include (notable) organizations somewhere on this page that lack historical attestation or issue "identification" without proper procedures. I posted this here because I envision it to also be a list with context. I think someone earlier mentioned membership definitions should be discussed somewhere on this page too. --AntiRaceshifitng (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might be off topic. There is List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Do you think it's necessary to start a similar list for Canadian entities or what organizations were you considering?

Essentially organizations that validate or support Pretendians. These do not include valid unrecognized tribes or non-status groups that have historical attestation through documentation or by other means. I am not sure if I am allowed to link examples but any group of people who started a new "tribe" or "nation" in the late 20th century that issues identification and pushes members to use it for monetary or professional gains would be an example. Usually membership criteria is loose and can accept someone with one ancestor from four centuries ago. I think this section could open up discussion about membership criteria and what being indigenous is from the perspective of recognized tribes, nations, band governments, etc. --AntiRaceshifitng (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list about the phenomenon of the Pretenindian, I think adding organizations starts to muddy the article subject and isn't appropriate here. Better would be an article on such organizations, such as unrecognized Indigenous nations(???) in Canada.Smallison (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, calling a fraudulent group an "unrecognized Indigenous nation" is making a statement that it is Indigenous and it is a nation, when both are demonstratively untrue. Such terminology just backs up their spurious claims. Yuchitown (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

As Leroux and others have put forth (and it's honestly very obvious), fake tribes and organizations essentially manufacture pretendians. If you belong to a pretend Indigenous org you're a pretendian. These groups are absolutely part of the phenomena of pretendianism and raceshifting. These folks don't just magically appear out of nowhere.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this ^ . These are not Indigenous nations that are just unrecognized. They are organizations pretending to be Indigenous to assert "rights" or receive monetary gains for their members. AntiRaceshifitng (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this AntiRaceshifitng (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of List of unrecognized tribes in the United States are completely illegitimate. Unfortunately, a precious few legitimate groups (groups that are enrolled in other tribes, legitimate California tribes) are part of that list. You could probably create a Canadian version of the list or mention names of faux groups to the prose of this article. Of course, Wikipedia needs secondary published sources, so it's more important to get this information published in articles and books. Luckily, Leroux's Distorted Descent: White Claims to Indigenous Identity is a solid resource that can be cited here. Yuchitown (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I understand the different between fake/illegitimate and unrecognized and I absolutely do not support illegitimate tribes or nations, though I do believe the situation and context of the "unenrolled" is different in Canada where I am located. And I think it is important to note the international context of Wikipedia. This article is very focused on a particular segment of North America. Further, I know Leroux's work, but that doesn't mean proof based on his website should hinge on his website and his work alone.Smallison (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuchitown Could that article be renamed? "List of unrecognized groups claiming to be tribes in the United States" is a bit clunky. "List of self-identified tribes in the United States", maybe? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the current title is bad. There are some legitimate unrecognized tribes in the mix, but your idea is good since it is neutral. I guess we should migrate to that talk page? Yuchitown (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Capitalized or lowercase?

In mid-sentence, should this be Pretendian or pretendian? I found both in the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would think capitalized, since it's a word based off "Indian". oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree, as it's a pseudo cultural identity, and the names of cultural identities are typically capitalized. What about pretendianism? (Or can we just avoid using that term?) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I think avoiding "pretendianism" would be ideal. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it lowercased in

this article and this article in Vancouver Sun
this article in Vice
this article in Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network
this article in Substack.com
this article] in The Ringer
this article in ET Canada

and uppercased in

this article in AzCentral
this article in National Post

This is just a beginning, so I don't know for sure what's more common, but lowercase is looking more popular at first glance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not settled either way, then lower case would seem the better bet. Unfamiliar terms tend to get capitalized or put in quotation marks by reporters/writers new to working with them. Vizjim (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia guidelines say that when the sources are mixed, we should generally use lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little digging to see what I could find - and it wasn't much. I am not seeing any usage outside the press. I tried looking at a number of the books cited in the article. It is pretty much a term coined by the press. I think that the sample of the sources is telling us to lowercase per the guideline. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use lower case since the sources are inconsistent. There's nothing special about this case. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Sufficent arguments that this title meets WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION title criteria Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretendian → False claims of Native American identity – The term "pretendian" is a neologism and is not recognizable to many readers. Arguably, as a derogatory term it also falls foul of WP:POVTITLE. Many of the cited sources don't even mention the word "pretendian", suggesting that it is not the most common way of referring to this topic. The proposed title also better matches the article content, as it's not about the people who wrongly claim to be Native American but the false claims themselves. Furthermore, the article currently covers both mistaken beliefs of Native American ancestry as well as deliberate lies. An alternative option is the more recognizable non-abbreviated form of this word, "pretend Indian". (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't know what sources you're looking at, but Pretendian is the term used in many of the sources, even in the titles of the articles. The article is entirely about the long history of pretendians, motivations and includes a list of people who fall into this category. If you replace pretendian with "false claims of Native American identity" throughout the article, it's difficult to read; showing that it's indeed about the people who are pretendians and how they create a career for themselves. It's not about "False claims of Native American identity" because anyone can do that, a pretendian is one who does it for financial or political gain. Considering that it's modern problem and by that nature, will be considered a "neologism" so that's no reason to change the title either. If the page must be moved, I suggest "fraudulent claims of Native American identity" since it's a form of ethnic fraud, not just ethnic falsehood. oncamera _{(talk page)} 05:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that it's not a new phenomenon, for example the first non-lead sentence is "Historian Philip J. Deloria has noted that European Americans "playing Indian" is a phenomenon that stretches back at least as far as the Boston Tea Party". Deloria's book on the subject does not use the word "pretendian". If the article is not supposed to include non-fraudulent cases, then there is some serious pruning to do and a strong case to merge the rest of the content into Racial misrepresentation. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those books you mentioned were written prior to the 2000s when the term became more into use. Playing Indian is connected but not the same thing as modern pretendians; that history is there to an evolutionary view of where the concept started. When you read the 2000s: Contemporary controversies, that is when the fraudulent claims became less about wishing to be part of a Native tribe because of their culture and connections to the land and more about financial gain, which is the motivation of the claims behind most of the people included in the list of pretendians. The article Racial misrepresentation isn't about Native Americans, which is the content you suggest removing. Also, this article isn't long enough to break into a separate article on False claims of Native American identity. If you google "False claims of Native American identity" this page is the first thing that comes up, so people will be able to find this topic under the current name despite your claims otherwise. oncamera _{(talk page)} 06:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Racial misrepresentation arguably shouldn't even include pretendians, as Indigenous identity is not racial. All the content there is already covered in Passing (racial identity). I'm not sure why it even exists. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just because a phenomenon pre-dates the use of a specific word to describe it, that does not invalidate discussion of that history using that term. There is no difference between Deloria's term "playing Indian" and "pretendianism," but it makes sense to use the current term not the historical one, just as we have an article on Hypnotism rather than mesmerism. This article cannot be merged with Racial misrepresentation because Indigenous Americans nations are not "races," but rather sovereign nations with a specific legal status. None of the people listed are there because of "mistaken beliefs" - some are conscious frauds, and others are listed because even after they were made aware of the facts of their genealogy, they continued to claim either tribal membership or descent status without being entitled to do so.Vizjim (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretendianism is very specific. It's not the same as random folks with blood myths. It is very precise and very calculated resulting in some sort of gain for the pretendian. This in turn has negative effects on members of Indian Country, for example, pretendians in academia or government roles, take job opportunities away from actual Indigenous people. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term is widely used in publish literature. The term and phenomenon are also widespread in Canada, and OP suggested name uses "Native American," which is not used to describe Indigenous peoples in Canada. User:Vizjim is completely correct that this is not a discussion of race or ethnicity. Yuchitown (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Oppose per Oncamera, Vizjim, Indigenous girl, and Yuchitown. The inline sources use "Pretendian". The title is concise and easy to understand. The proposed alternative is too wordy, does not adequately cover the scope of the issue, and is WP:OR. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have read several discussions of this topic and this is the first time I've ever seen the word "Pretendian". Some of the "oppose" votes seem to be conflating the issue of "is this a notable topic" (yes, of course) and "what is the best term for this topic's article title." Apparently there are sources that use Pretendian per Oncamera, but I'm not convinced it's anywhere close to a majority, so this neologism shouldn't be privileged over a neutral description. SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth checking out the view counter on this talk page. This page is being found under this name tens and sometimes hundreds of times a day. Editors suggesting the term is not in contemporary use need to provide substantive evidence, not personal feelings. Vizjim (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with high page hits are moved, too - they're found by internal links or search engines which can smooth over an obscure title. buidhe has already pointed out above that one of the major books cited by this article doesn't use the term. The reason I didn't provide substantial evidence is because reverse whack-a-mole is impossible - I can list 10 works that don't use "Pretendian" while discussing false claims of Indian identity, and that means very little. But have this to chew on: Google NGrams returns NOTHING for Pretendian. That's right, nothing. I don't think that's a bug - as I said before, I've read books that discuss this topic, and this is the first time I've ever seen this term. Several of the books cited in "Further Reading" in this article don't appear to use the term either. Ergo, this term is far more obscure than is being claimed above. SnowFire (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more straightforward Google Books search yields numerous results for "pretendian" (you do have to screen out Spanish language results, since pretendian means "to pretend"). A general Google search yields 336,000 results. Meanwhile, the suggested alternative "False claims of Native American identity" yields three hits on the entire internet, two of which being this conversation. Yuchitown (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

The only arguments I see here in support of a move are based in Original Research, not terms used in the article, so are against policy. The other argument is based in a personal lack of familiarity with the topic. Buidhe and SnowFire, if you go to articles on medical topics, you will find terms you've never heard of. Will you suggest moving Diabetes to Thirsty a lot? Or Glaucoma to WTF is wrong with my eyes? That's the type of rationale I'm seeing here.

I haven't weighed in yet on the AFD for Buidhe's Racial misrepresentation article (which is more of a list, culled from actual articles), but I'm tempted to say delete and redirect to Passing (racial identity) as Buidhe has pretty much indicated that the stub/listicle is there as a placeholder where they want to eventually to move this article. As people have explained, Indigenous identity is based in citizenship, not mainstream ideas of race. Additionally, this article covers more Indigenous/Indian identities than just Native Americans. While I understand the intent with the Racial misrepresentation article, it's potentially very misleading and possibly harmful to list pretendians in that article. I think the topic is probably handled with more context and nuance at the articles you took all the examples and sourcing from to make that blunt tool - this one and Passing (racial identity). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads any literature on diabetes knows it is called "diabetes". That would be an appropriate analogy if I was lying about having read literature on the of topic of faux Indians. However, I'm not, and I stand by what I said before: I've never seen this phrase, so it's obviously not as common a term as "diabetes". Cobb's 2020 "The Great Oklahoma Swindle" calls it "the Tribe of the Wannabees" for the most recent example I read. I'd bring up earlier examples but you'd dismiss them as from pre-2000 literature since it seems clear that this is a fairly recent neologism, but those old sources count for something too - no need to hop on every fad term. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Per Talk page guidelines, replies go after others' comments, not WP:INTERPOLATEed into anothers' post. Read others' comments all the way through before responding. When you inserted your reply in between paragraph one and two of my post above,[1] you made it look like the first para was unsigned; confusing readers as to who had written the paragraph you were responding to. This was disruptive. But I think it's indicative of the larger problem here. You seem to just skim articles and sources and opine before understanding the topic. Maybe slow down, absorb information, and follow policy. Per talk page protocol I've moved your reply to after mine. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuchitown: Your Google Books search is also evidence for a move. Of the top five relevant hits, four are a novel, a book of humor, a book of poems, and a life guide/ self-help book. The only one that appears to be a nonfiction take on the phenomenon - i.e. what this Wikipedia article is about - is Deloria's book, which was discussed by buidhe above and does not appear to use the term much and uses "Playing Indian" instead. On page 2, there's Native American DNA Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, which apparently uses Pretendian somewhere but not in the Google Books preview section - but there's very little evidence that it's the term the author usually uses, more likely was just mentioned once in passing which is apparently a legit use. We're talking about "maybe used in passing in one nonfiction book and used by another one". This term exists, sure, but this is hardly evidence of a WP:COMMONNAME. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Are you really saying that there is very little evidence that Kim Tallbear uses the term pretendian? I would be more than happy to list articles, interviews and podcasts where she uses the term. She uses it quite frequently on social media as well, which I am aware is not usable as a source. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't paying attention to that book's author closely enough! Nah, I believe you she does, edited my above comment. However, the whole problem is that every author has their own favorite term, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus term. Tallbear's use is certainly a point in favor of "Pretendian" but if one or two authors using a term was enough, then there'd be 50 different titles of the article. COMMONNAME is looking for a term that towers overs the rest - it doesn't have to hit 50% usage, but it should be clearly more common. It needs to not just be Tallbear, it needs to be lots of unrelated people all using the term. SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Just Kim. It's Indian Country Today, CBC, APTN, Indian Time (a weekly out of Akwesasne that is distributed throughout the Iroquois Confederacy), the Vancouver Sun, Eagle Feather News (which is a Saskatchewan Indigenous monthly), Lakota Times, the Toronto Star, a variety of uni papers, insidehighered.com, the Cree Literacy Project, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, the Guardian and even Yahoo news for crying out loud. I would say that these outlets are unrelated. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I phrased the above in the wrong way, conflating the amount of use of "pretendian" I found with the amount to determine the common name. I hope I don't come across as moving the goalposts, but this is a topic with a reasonably deep amount of coverage. There's a lot of articles that discuss the matter; getting to even 20% serious usage should generate a lot of hits. If we want to focus on newspaper articles - site:washingtonpost.com pretendian shows only a single hit and when I read the article, it doesn't actually include the term (but might have in the past when Google indexed it?). A similar search on the NY Times shows that the term Pretendian is mentioned once in passing in the article on Andrea Smith (already linked as a reference in the Wikipedia article) but only as one alternative between "Playing Indian" and "Pretend Indian". (NYT also mentions it in a book review of "There There", but only in acknowledging the term is mentioned in the novel.) I do agree that the Vancouver Sun article is a good example in favor of "Pretendian", but it still just doesn't seem that common a term for a topic that has come up quite often.

I can't comment on the indigenous newspapers, but I'll grant that if the term is used heavily there, that could change the analysis, and I'll defer to you if you say the term is used heavily there. SnowFire (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough sources that prove it's a common term among Indigenous sources, which is the main topic and concern of the article. Instead of moving the goal posts on what you think are qualified sources, why not answer people's concerns on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive title is acceptable; see WP:NDESC. There are many articles on Wikipedia with such descriptive titles, they don't violate WP:OR and are preferred if there is no COMMONNAME. (The real concern might be a change of scope, but I think that could be cleared up in the lede.) SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a COMMONNAME for those who are paying attention. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The term Pretendian is in common use. The proposed title is WP:OR WP:SYNTH. Oncamera, Vizjim, Indigenous Girl, Yuchitown, CorbieVreccam, make substantial arguments for opposing a move - they are all knowledgeable and active editors on indigenous topics. Netherzone (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SnowFire. Google Scholar shows no relevant results, either. Proposed title is clearly more recognizable and descriptive. Rublov (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar yields 88 English-language results that use "pretendian." Yuchitown (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Yuchitown, compared to the alternative term "playing Indian" with 6,200 results, it is clear that "Pretendian" is far from the COMMONNAME. Rublov (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that there were "no relevant results" via Google Scholar; I demonstrated there are. This conversion is about a proposed move to False claims of Native American identity. Let's focus. Yuchitown (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Yuchitown, let's focus indeed. You claimed (in your vote) that The term is widely used in publish[ed] literature; I demonstrated that it is not. Whether the number of Google Scholar results is 0 or 88 hardly matters because either number is negligible compared to the more than 6,000 articles that discuss this topic. "Playing Indian" as a title has its own problems. In the absence of a WP:COMMONNAME Buidhe's proposal seems the best solution per WP:NDESC. Rublov (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchitown Did you actually look at any of those 88 hits? The vast majority are actually quoting passages in Spanish. There's less than a handful of hits. One them seems to be a novel which mocks it as a made-up term found in "Urbandictionary" (NOT a reliable source according to Wikipedia). This seems to be a slang term from some online subculture thing, neither common nor scholarly. Walrasiad (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rublov said there were *NO* hits, which not true. I'm familiar with topic and term, I'm familiar with Tiffany Midge's poem. I'm familiar with US poet laureate Joy Harjo writing, "We ... have had to contend with an onslaught of what we call 'Pretendians', that is, non-Indigenous people assuming a Native identity." The issues that we Indigenous peoples of the United States and Canada face are not mainstream, but that doesn't mean they aren't important and aren't reflected in published materials (news, books, etc.). The question on the table is not whether people like this term; it's whether or not to move the article to False claims of Native American identity, which is obviously inadequate in that it does not include Indigenous peoples of Canada, so doesn't reflect the topic. Yuchitown (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Exactly, this is an article title. It is supposed to be WP:COMMONNAME, a term found preponderantly in works of general reference, a bar which this clearly does not reach. The title should be recognizable by Wikipedia readers. Not obscure terms used by some poet here or some online activist there. You are welcome to use the term in the introductory lede, and explain who has used it. But it should not be the title. It is doing a disservice to our readers, and making the topic more difficult to find. Walrasiad (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses like this show you are ignoring, or never bothered to read, all the cited news reports that use Pretendian in their titles and text. Terms like "some poet" (used to describe our current United States Poet Laureate), and "some activist" about notable (and famous) Indigenous authors are demeaning and dismissive and show you either have no concept of how significant these people are or have some agenda to denigrate their work and opinions. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am looking for those articles. I don't see them. As for the tone and allegations of your statement, there's no need for that. Walrasiad (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad, you said, "This seems to be a slang term from some online subculture thing, neither common nor scholarly." this is patently untrue. Indigenous peoples are not an online subculture. We use this term within academia, journalism, by authors and by regular folks. It has been used by mainstream journalists covering the issue in universities in Canada recently. Non-indigenous academics are publishing works on the topic. The proposed article title fails to address Indigenous peoples in Canada, which several of us have addressed but have not received a response to - this is not a US only issue. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? Who is "we"? Wikipedia editors? The only "we" that is of concern here is the readers from a global audience. I have asked for evidence of preponderance of use in works of general reference. I have yet to see it. The scant examples (and the testy replies the requests for evidence seem to be eliciting here) only reinforces that it is little more than sub-culture slang, and not useful nor helpful as an article title. Walrasiad (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Native American identity" more descriptive when this article also covers false claims to Canadian Indigeneity? For instance in this source from APTN National News: Pretendians and what to do with people who falsely say they’re Indigenous - "Pretendians – noun – A person who falsely claims to have Indigenous ancestry – meaning it’s people who fake an Indigenous identity or dig up an old ancestor from hundreds of years ago to proclaim themselves as Indigenous today. They take up a lot of space and income from First Nation, Inuit and Metis Peoples." - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Corbie here. The pretendian issue impacts FNIM peoples just as much as it impacts Native Americans. And again, the thought that this is racial as opposed to it being about nationhood is bothersome and frustrating (especially since those who support have yet to address this). Some folks are so disconnected from Indigenous academia and contemporary issues that they seem to think the term is in minimal use are not paying attention and are showing a clear lack of knowledge on the topic. It has been in the headlines in Canada from Joseph Boyden https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/giller-prize-winner-joseph-boydens-indigenous-ancestry-questioned/article33429989/ to Cheyenne Turions https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-arts-curators-indigenous-ancestry-claims-panned-as-pretendian to Carrie Bourassa https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/11/30/the-violence-of-pretending-to-be-indigenous.html and others. The aforementioned Star article states,"This encompasses precisely what has been happening to Indigenous communities. We have been so heavily affected by stolen identities that the word “pretendian” has become a colloquially used term." Indigenous girl (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Scholar results for "playing Indian," after the first few results many of the articles are about cultural appropriation, not people pretending to have tribal ancestry.Vizjim (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rublov also raises the question of WP:COMMONNAME. One example given there is "Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)." To change this article to a longer and clunkier name would be the equivalent of the latter. Vizjim (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no evidence this is a common name. The suggested title is more recognizable and descriptive. Please remember Wikipedia's audience are a general audience, not part of some narrow subculture (online or offline). Walrasiad (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the article and the sources? Neither the proposed new title, nor any of the alternative suggestions, cover what is actually in the article - those who pretend to be Indigenous to Canada as well as the United States. Not a single one of the "supports" has addressed that these proposed alternate, wordy names would be inadequate to the article content. And once again, they are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to specify which article(s), because I have been sent in various directions here. Including several misdirections to articles claiming they said what they did not say. So make sure you're actually bringing up evidence you have checked yourself. Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand that we're discussing the article that is being proposed for a move, in this move discussion? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources don't support your contention, I am looking for evidence you are claiming. Walrasiad (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know the New York Times is obscure and subcultural: "the 1990s saw the beginning of what would eventually be significant pushback by Native Americans against so-called Pretendians or Pretend Indians". This was already cited in the article. I've added it to the lede, for those who don't read the article. Additional news outlets, yes, even those run by non-Natives, have been listed above. No one should have to repeat themselves if you aren't willing to read the article and the discussion. When you ask us to "show you" things that are already here in the article itself or the discussion right here, it really feels like you are fine with wasting our time. Hence, the responses you're getting. Sorry, but no one can do the reading for you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One or two instances of a throw-away phrase qualified by "so-called" or using square quotes (""), if anything indicates it is not an accepted term. I've gone through the sources in the article that I could access. Other than online specialized or activist websites, most do not use the term at all. I'm sorry, but this is not reaching close to preponderance threshold for common name. It reinforces this is subculture slang, unknown and unused by anybody but "insiders". This is not suitable for an encyclopedia article title with a more general readership. (PS - Please lay off the snarky edit summaries. You're an admin, you know better.) Walrasiad (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For you to call the New York Times and CBC, among all the other mainstream sites cited, "Specialized and activist websites" makes your comments lack all credibility. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the CBC articles cited in the article use the term. Except in one instance, where, like the NY Times's only instance, it uses it only once and with qualification "so-called" and square quotes. Once again, I read the sources, but apparently, you have not or are choosing to misrepresent them. One more time, I urge you to please cease your rudeness. Walrasiad (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Push to remove 'pretendians' from Algonquin membership rekindled after CBC investigation. Again: I urge you to actually read the article and This helpful essay. Quotes have nothing to do with it. The word is used in many mainstream sources, as has been amply demonstrated. And you simply don't see how rude your biased statements are, as is your wasting of our time with your repeated falsehoods. I think you are hoping others come here and don't look at the article, either. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one I referred to. There are other CBC sources cited in the article which don't contain the word. No, two rare instances qualified by so-called and scare quotes does not make it "amply". Quite the contrary, it suggests it is generally not acceptable. As to the rest, please be careful. Through our whole interaction you have repeatedly directed personal slights, accusations, ridicule, dismissals, etc. I have not directed anything at you (except patiently urging you to be civil, hoping to move on). I have merely asked for evidence of preponderance in general works, which I still haven't seen or be shown. In response, you have been rude and insulting. You make a great show on your page of WP:CIVILITY, but have been everything except that. Take your tone to whatever social media cesspools you frequent, and leave it off Wikipedia talk pages. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia, please don't attempt to bully those who are. Walrasiad (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to stop. Saying things like "Take your tone to whatever social media cesspools you frequent" is far, far from civil. Clearly, there is no consensus or even a majority interest in renaming this article. This endless dialogue is not helping. Yuchitown (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Oppose It appears to me those arguments opposing the move are much stronger than the move rationale. I'm also somewhat amused that "pretendian" supposedly has a derogatory usage in some definitions. That very much depends on who is insulted/belittled/oppressed and who is defining it as derogatory/pejorative. That is rarely transparent in online dictionaries. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we please discuss how the proposed change completely ignores Indigenous peoples in Canada? The pretendian problem does not stop at the border. Those of us that oppose the change have brought this up multiple times and I don't believe anyone supporting has responded about how First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples would be erased. Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title change, would then have to be False claims of Native American and First Nations identity which is too verbose, and does not include Meso-American indigenous peoples nor Native Hawaiians. Whereas the term Pretendian, which is indeed in RS's, is concise and in common use, and not solely in indigenous communities. Another point: pretenianism is not just about "playing Indian" or making false claims, it's about committing fraud - pretenidians make false claims to capitalize on opportunities and usurp sources of funding. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of First Nations leaves out Inuit and Metis. Pretendian is the most inclusive, it also covers, as you mentioned Netherzone, Native Hawaiians and Meso-American Indigenous peoples. It feels as though so much is being missed as to what the pretendian phenomena actually entails. It's not it's not playing Indian as in the Order of the Arrow ceremonies, non-Natives dressing up as something they aren't and going to powwow, it's not your average American blood myth passed down in a family. Being a pretendian has evolved into something much more specific. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few different issues here. The first is whether the term is the COMMONNAME at all. The second is whether the use of "Native American" in the title excludes false claims of indigenous identity outside of the United States. The third, which I have not seen any 'oppose' voters address, is whether the current title violates WP:POVTITLE. To take the issues one by one:
- The article currently has 83 references. 13 (~16%) of them use the word 'pretendian' in the title (including one book where 'pretendian' is in a chapter title). Another 3 use the word in text quoted in the references. Of those 16 uses, fully half are either put in quotes or preceded by "so-called". As SnowFire observes, there are no results on Google Ngrams. Yuchitown finds 88 results on Google Scholar, but it seems only one uses the term in the title, and past the first page many of the results are actually for the Spanish verb. None of the book-length sources cited use the term in the title (though one uses it in a chapter title). Many of the times it is used it is immediately followed by a definition, indicating that it is expected to be unfamiliar. In summary, there is no question that the term is found in some reliable sources, but many of those that do distance themselves somewhat from the term, and much more often than not writers choose a different phrase to refer to the topic. These are solid grounds for a non-judgmental descriptive title.
- Our own article on Native Americans is a disambiguation page that points to articles about all indigenous peoples of the Americas. However, granting that "Native Americans" is not the preferred term outside of the United States, I would not object to False claims of Indigenous identity or False claims of Indigenous American identity. buidhe, SnowFire, Walrasiad: how do you feel about these alternatives?
- The article itself admits that the term is a pejorative colloquialism. WP:POVTITLE covers this exact case: Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: ... Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. A good analogy here is Republican In Name Only — an article with a pejorative title which is about the pejorative term itself, not the subject of the term. I wouldn't object to an article called "Pretendian" which is about the term, but that is not primarily what this article is about. Rublov (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think only the section under History of false claims to Indigenous identity should be moved to that proposed article while the rest should stay on the pretendian article if we wanted the article to be about the term only. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False claims of Indigenous identity would not work, the term pretendian does not apply to all Indigenous people. False claims of Indigenous American identity does not cover Canada and Mexico, this is not simply and American phenomena. Native American is almost exclusively used for Indigenous peoples in the United States. Those supporting the move have thus far refused to chime in on this issue. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POVtitle does not apply, as there is no concise alternative term. All suggested alternatives are OR, wordy, and inaccurate. It's not even POV, as every person called a pretendian herein is sourced as such. The extent to which it is pejorative doesn't matter, unless you're also going to challenge all the articles in The pejorative terms for people category. There is no consensus to move even a part of this article anywhere. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that there are six opposes and four supports (including the nominator). There is not and will likely not be a consensus to move. Yuchitown (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

And just as, if not more important than the number is the quality of the arguments. Notably: there was no support or sourcing for any concise alternative name that would also cover pretenders to Canadian Indigenous identity, who are included in the term 'pretendian', sourced as such, and who make up a substantial part of this article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 14 days since the proposal was made, there's no consensus to move, and discussion has finally faded down. Can a more experienced editor closed this discussion? Yuchitown (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

@Yuchitown: You can formally request closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, however a more likely outcome given the volume of discussion, the closeness of the vote tally, and the breadth and depth of arguments on both sides is that the requested move will be relisted. Rublov (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings: The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fetis

I think the addition of a section on fetis may be beneficial since the fetis are associated with the pretendian issue very closely but do have issues of their own such as land claims. I am heading out of town and will not have wifi access so if anyone would like to jump on the topic that would be great. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It's a huge problem with frauds (or sometimes people who are just ignorant of the actual meanings, and actual Métis communities) trying to say it just means "mixed"... usually meaning, "Non-Native of any type plus a blood myth." There was some discussion and support of these additions up in the discussion about the names list. This link:[2] was suggested, as well. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue-including appropriate definitions of Métis identity and different definitions by Canadian provincial associations, issues with Eastern Métis, has been discussed on the Métis page so be mindful of duplication and redirect to the main Métis page as appropriate. Please check the talk page for the article as well. --Smallison (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Métis article and have edited it in the past. It does not include a section specifically on the Fetis phenomena (though it does discuss the eastern metis), which is pretty darn problematic and has also been in the news as of late because of Bourassa. Do you think that the issue should be expanded more over on Métis rather than here? Either is fine with me. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information about faux Métis should definitely be included here, since it's part of the same phenomenon. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Right now the Fétis content in this article is integrated in with the rest of the text. As far as sourcing goes, the last bunch of sources I added at least touch on Fétis, and some have substantial content. The second footnote in the lede includes a definition. I think I noted in all my edit summaries which sources these are, as well as including quotations in the footnotes (as I knew we had this in mind). I will go with the consensus on whether this should be a separate section. I think a mention in both articles is appropriate. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that this is something to expand. I now think we should have a named, Fétis section in this article, as well as content in Métis, linked to each other. When it's filled out and in good shape, I think we should also change Fétis to redirect to the section here (it currently goes to a bio). It may be a few days before I can work on it much, but I wanted to bring it up again to see if anyone wants to get started. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup here: Métis#Other groups and individuals. That Supreme Court case allegedly cited in the text and blockquote, claiming everyone has "Indian" heritage, needs looking into. I'm really not so sure the citation supports that content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Algonquins of Ontario (AOO)

The Algonquins of Ontario is a corporate body officially formed in 2004, consisting of 10 'communities' only one of them is officially recognized. The Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation is the only status community, with the rest being 'non-status'

The creation of this organization was controversial within the community, as many members believed it to be mostly fraudulent. As of 2020, the AOO had a membership of 8,663. In 2021 an investigative discovery was found that 2 common 'root ancestors' were found to not be Algonquin, those ancestors are Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde and his wife, Sophie Emilie Carriere. This pair accounts for nearly 2,000 of their descendants in the AOO, who are all at risk of losing membership. There is also 15 other root ancestors to be removed, who also account for a large portion of AOO's membership. 64.228.144.6 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, source(s) refers to them as pretendians attempting to use forged documents in order to be part of a large land settlement. This could perhaps be a new section? Push to remove 'pretendians' from Algonquin membership rekindled after CBC investigation, Mysterious letter linking 1,000 people to $1B Algonquin treaty likely fake, CBC investigation finds. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant but typical cheap shot

"The claim gained significant attention after being satirized by U.S. President Donald Trump, who has a long history of insulting Native Americans."

What possible relevance does this highly subjective and questionable smear have to the revelation of Elizabeth Warren's admission of fraudulent Native American heritage?

Trump's hilarious and on-target epithet of 'Pocahontas' was aimed solely at Warren's baseless cultural appropriation and Wikipedia knows this.

Come on, Wikipedia. You know this is a cheap shot which should not be included here. 2603:8001:C200:1637:F0C7:F40D:52D6:B39D (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 can hardly see text due to all the syntax marks 2 context did not include complete statement by Warren 3 i have no clue how to sign this wiki post - need simple editor 4 she did not claim Virginia native ancestry, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

The link for "índia pega no laço" should not be placed here. 1. Brazilians who tell that familiy story are not claiming to be indigenous themselves, hypodescent was never practiced in the country, and having an indigenous ancestor does not make one indigenous 2. Unlike in the USA, most Brazilians who self identify as white have indigenous ancestry, since race-mixing was so much more common, therefore it is not a false claim. 60% of white Brazilians maternal ancestry is African or Amerindian. https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/marcas-geneticas-da-miscigenacao/ https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/educacao-e-emprego/noticia/2015/08/analise-genetica-traz-dados-ineditos-sobre-a-miscigenacao-brasileira-4830108.html https://www.dw.com/pt-br/o-brasil-%C3%A9-provavelmente-o-pa%C3%ADs-com-maior-miscigena%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-mundo/a-51733280 Knoterification (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the contemptorary controversies section, it goes over how DNA tests are problematic in claiming Indigenous identity: While Harjo refers to "Native DNA", there is no DNA test that can reliably confirm Native American ancestry, and no DNA test can indicate tribal origin. Attempts by non-Natives to racialize Indigenous identity by DNA tests have been seen by Indigenous people as insensitive at best, often racist, politically and financially motivated, and dangerous to the survival of Indigenous cultures. The links you've included are about DNA and Indigenous identity, so it seems relevant to include índia pega no laço.

Having it in the see also section doesn't mean they are being classified by as "pretendians" since in your edit summaries, you seemed to think that is what was happening, but that's not so. If it was, it would be written directly as such in the article body. Even when I look at the índia pega no laço article, I see statements like "Similarly, Alcida Rita Ramos believes that claiming a distant Indigenous ancestor is a way of claiming an authentic Brazilian identity" that isn't that so much different than what is written in motivating factors in this article. Per MOS:SEEALSO, the see also section is for comparable articles and these are definitely comparable topics, just happening in different countries. oncamera _{(talk page)} 06:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim indigenous ancestry makes one indigenous. But the denial that ancestral groups can be known by genetics is absurd. That is well established science since Cavalli Sforza in the 1990’s and has greatly expanded in the last years. The links are about genetic research done by Brazilian universities.

The links are not about DNA and indigenous identity. They are about DNA and indigenous ancestry. Less than 1% of Brazilian population is indigenous, but most have some degree indigenous ancestry, both pardo (brown) and white.

The USA is not like Brazil. Different histories different cultures. Marriage of tupi women and Portuguese men was extremely common throughout the colonial period. Knoterification (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People pretending to have Indigenous ancestry, and people actually having indigenous ancestry are not really comparable. Knoterification (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knoterification: as Oncamera told you above, and in edit summaries, MOS:SEEALSO is clear: One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. "Tangentially related". So, anything that might also be of interest, NOT identical. You were blocked for edit-warring with a handful of editors in good standing for insisting on a standard that simply does not exist. The link is absolutely fine to include, and you are really wasting your time, and the time of the community, to keep arguing this. Consensus is clear to include it. It's well past time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parody articles used as source

I've been threatened with a ban by an editor if I don't use the Talk page to discuss this, which I think is totally inappropriate, given that it's literally just a case of someone using an incorrect source and not a case of me disagreeing with the information on the article. I don't think editors should be threatening to ban people for removing sources which are parodies and are being used to support a statement on a Wiki page. There is no way on Earth you can feasibly accuse me of vandalising or of editing an article in bad faith when it's just correcting an error with a source.

Anyway, here we go, on with the incredibly obvious sourcing error on the Wiki page that I'm not allowed to remove without being banned.

One of the articles currently being used as a source to support the inclusion of Rachel Dolezal as a Pretendian, is this article. The person who has included this article as a source obviously thinks that this is a legitimate source, but it isn't - it's a satirical story written by Tiffany Midge, who is an Indigenous writer of comedy essays, imagining a meeting with Dolezal. In the article, Midge writes:

Faith Eagle Nebula was adorned in her pretendian regalia just as she described, her peasant skirt pooling onto the floor and dragging behind her like a bridal train. “I’m Faith.” She said, her eyes sparkling, her cheeks rosy as a postcard sunset. She smelled strongly of spices and wind chimes tinkling in the breeze, that is if wind chimes even had a particular smell. Very strange. She led me to a cozy nest of pillows and we laid down to begin the interview. From my lounging position I scanned the ceiling, taking note that it was plastered with figures from the Zodiac. Faith offered to massage my back, but I managed to politely decline.

My first question to Rachel Dolezal, aka Ms. Eagle Nebula, was how she got her name. I’m sure it was impolite of me to ask, but any investigative journalist worth her salt has to ask the hardline questions. She responded by gesturing dramatically, and then said that her name came to her in a dream. Elaborating further, she said that like many other pretendians she’d carried other names throughout her life too. Her first pretendian name was “Roadkill Squirrel,” a name which she said she couldn’t talk about, because it was too upsetting. Other pretendian names she’d carried in previous lifetimes included “Dances Thru Meadows Womyn,” “Frolics on Freeways,” “Laughs With Salad,” and “Stands With Handcuffs”—the last one, she explained, was given to her during her political activism years. She asked me my own pretendian name, and I humored her and said it was “Dances Through Drive-thrus.” She nodded and mumbled “Aho."

This is very clearly a tongue-in-cheek article which Midge wrote after Dolezal's race faking as a Black woman was revealed. It is not a true account of meeting Dolezal, and it is not a source that should be used to validate Dolezal's inclusion on the list. There are other sources on the Wiki page which are more appropriate, so removing this one doesn't leave the content unsourced, and I don't understand why I've been threatened by a ban for removing a source that just shouldn't be on here. Kyatic (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining Wikipedia policy is not a threat. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring: Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who kept reverting the edit I made which removed the source. Why, as an editor of Wikipedia, did you keep reverting a legitimate edit and then tell me to stop editing? Of course it was a threat, because it's apparently fine for you to keep changing my legitimate correction of a false source, but it's not fine for me to remove the false source in the first place. Kyatic (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were also engaged in edit warring when you decided to keep reverting the legitimate edit I made without any explanation. Kyatic (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can also link to the Wikipedia policy as well.

On exemptions to what counts as edit warring:

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

On what falls under the BLP policy:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.

Given that Dolezal isn't dead, this falls under poorly sourced content about a living person, and should be removed. Kyatic (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, explaining Wikipedia policy is not a threat. And it's good you're bothering you use Wikipedia policy when you're making edits now. That's how things are done around here and it's what you should have used in your original post rationale instead of confusing policy awareness for a threat. oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a legitimate conversation needs to be had about how you and the other editors manage this page, because a lot of sources on it do not meet the Wikipedia standard, but multiple of you keep reverting people's legitimate, accurate edits. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to gatekeep a page in this manner and actively make it less accurate.

I did not violate Wikipedia policy in removing a parody source. Nowhere does it say that in order to remove a false source, you need to put it on the Talk page. You violated it by starting an edit war with me when you decided to revert it for no reason. You also violated the policy when you did not give an explanation in your multiple reverts; I clearly explained that the source was false when I edited it, and you just reverted it with no reason given. Wikipedia policy clearly states that one should give a reason when editing a page. I did this. You did not.

It is frustrating that, due to your still unexplained decision to revert a legitimate edit, I now have to wait 24 hours until I can correct it again, at which point I can only assume that you or your friend who kept reverting it last time will just put the false source back on, due to how you've decided to make this page your personal project and prevent people from editing it in legitimate, accurate ways that you personally disagree with. Kyatic (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP kept deleting Rachel Dolezal repeatedly, so I provided additional sources, since this was all over the news. Time to move on. Yuchitown (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

The sources you've provided are actually still not valid as one of them is just a gossip blog and the others don't provide any evidence for the claim, but I've left those in and only removed the one which is blatantly wrong. I am keen to move on and have the false source removed. I don't understand the controversy this has generated. If even one of you had checked the source when I first removed it, rather than continually reverting it and then accusing me of being disruptive, you would have immediately realised your mistake and it would have been a lot easier. Kyatic (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least you've stopped deleting Rachel Dolezal, so that's progress. Yes, newspapers reporting on her claims are sufficient citations for the claims. The controversy is that you kept deleting Rachel Dolezal repeatedly, which, yes, is disruptive, and are still not letting this all go. Please, yes, do move on. Yuchitown (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

They've stopped because they're blocked. They're the same user who was already temporarily blocked for edit-warring under the two IPs. The new edits are a block evasion. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

😳 Dear God. Yuchitown (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Heather Rae

Should Heather Rae be added as a notable example? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. News sources such as the Guardian are reporting on it now. oncamera _{(talk page)} 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since the news has been picked up by multiple publications now. Despite its informal name the Indianz.com story by Acee Agoyo is probably the more reliable and informed source. Yet another example that if people claim to be "Cherokee" or "Apache" but can't name any specific tribes, they probably aren't. Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

They're not a recognized tribe so it really doesn't matter on Wikipedia. See WP:CHEROKEEPRINCESS. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim

I have great respect for User:Oncamera, but I have to agree with the IP stating that "if used without evidence could be considered defamatory" is an unsourced claim. While people may claim that statement that someone is not Native is libel, no court cases have addressed this and no laws uphold anyone's right to claim Indigenous identity without question. Certainly, numerous people have threatened legal action (See Jonelle Romero's threats) but they never follow through, since a court case would allow the defendant to request a wide variety of documents. In Indian County, to enroll in a tribe, apply for tribal benefits, or exhibit your artwork as a tribal member, you have to show proof (CBID cards or tribal citizenship cards). The burden of proof rests solely with the claimant. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Agreed. I remember when this was put in. If someone can source it, fine. But without sourcing, I think it's better to pull it for now than have it flagged in the lede. I'm going to pull it for now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of the so-called Pretendian list is an example of how it can be defamatory since real Natives have been called and attacked as a Pretendian. oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's folks (so called "defendians") who call the work of "Pretendian hunters" harmful, that it targets innocent people so that should be noted somehow that it can be abused to hurt someone's reputation when it's not sourced. Doesn't matter if there's a court case to say so. oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the Twitter slang terms make me cringe since they reduce a very real existential threat to tribal sovereignty and self-representation to a petty squabble. Perhaps there is a term that doesn't have legal implications and does have a neutral citation? IRL very occasionally I've observed actual Native Americans being falsely accused of being a fraud, and it's never amounted to much. They just prove that they are, and everyone moves on. I cannot think of an example of someone's reputation being damaged in a meaningful way, and definitely haven't read a published, secondary source on the matter. Yuchitown (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I have friends who are lineal descendants but can't get enrolled because they don't have the BQ, who work within their communities. There's folks who use the term Pretendian to insult them and attempt to direct the funding they receive for their work away from them. It's sad to see good people get gossiped about. Just an example of how it's been misused and I just think the lead can express the defamation or criticism in some way, acknowledge it exists without making it overbearing in the lead. The deleted text I thought summed it up in a precise manner without going into every nuance about Native identities, which I don't want in the lead either. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, numerous direct descendants can't enroll but still are tribal employees and participate in ceremonies. Kim Tallbear has done a great job of distinguishing descendants from identity frauds. Of course, you can be full blood and get gossiped about (existing in Indian Country means you will get gossiped about); that's way outside this article's preview. If someone is open about being unenrolled, they are being totally honest and saying they are not tribal citizens. Such a person might be critiqued by some for not being a tribal citizen, but that would hinge on the critic's definition of Native American; It would not be accusing "without evidence [that] could be considered defamatory" since the evidence supports that person is not enrolled. People also do falsely claim to be descendants when they are not (Gina Adams and Erika T. Wurth being prime examples), so that would fall under identity fraud. I'm open to published examples and a term that doesn't imply legal action. Yuchitown (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Was thinking that the article needed to distinguish between Indigenous identity frauds and unenrolled descendants, but the article already states: "Tallbear stresses that people who fabricate fraudulent claims are in no way the same as disconnected and reconnecting descendants who have real heritage, such as victims of government programs that scooped Indigenous children from their families." Perhaps this distinction needs to be highlighted in its own section? Yuchitown (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I just don't want any flags in the lede. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the article and Jacqueline Keeler's list

Block evasion by SoCal IPs

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The list of 190 persons thought to be falsifying Native American Indian ancestry has expanded to include Professor Jace Weaver, Jerry Ellis (author) & Louis Owens, they were all part of the college academic scholar scene for decades and should be included in the article, but the list is lengthy when it has 36 persons out of 190. 2603:8001:2601:F351:E494:1C48:C5B2:6490 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user-generated Google spreadsheet is not wp:verifiable, secondary published content. Read wp:cite to learn more about what constitutes acceptable citation material on this platform. Yuchitown (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

The article previously listed Vianne Timmons who was proven to not have any Conne River (Newfoundland) Mi'kmaq ancestry, it needs to be restored on the article's examples listing. On the recent news, author Art Coulson was discovered to not have a supposed Cherokee grandmother nor her family on any of the rolls of the 3 federally recognized Cherokee tribes. then there's Kali Reis is not of Wampanaog, Nipmuc and Cherokee ancestry, regardless of belonging to an unrecognized tribe in Mass. and R.I., there are federally recognized Wampanaog and Nipmuc tribes across lower New England don't claim Kali Reis as a descendant. And the state of Vermont rethinking of no longer recognizing 4 state tribes of Abenaki whose membership have no ancestral connection to their recognized counterparts in Canada (Odanak and Wôlinak First Nations in Quebec) even though there are some Odanak and Wolinak descendants in upper New England. 2603:8001:2601:F351:E9C7:1862:8D49:AAC4 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for your claims about Kali Reis? --ARose Wolf 11:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribal Alliance of Frauds reported their findings on Kali Reis' genealogy on a number of social mediasites and that she's only Cape Verdean (Portuguese-West African) and African American. The org already posted their investigations and over a dozen cases of self-evident pretendians. 2603:8001:2601:F351:E9C7:1862:8D49:AAC4 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Dr Debbie Reese announced what she discovered about Art Coulson has no Cherokee family (he gave out the name of his supposed grandmother on a Youtube video promoting a book written in English and Cherokee about a boy's grandmother), she already exposed Rebecca Roanhorse on her disrespect for Navajo traditions and taboos that proves not only Roanhorse has no Pueblo ancestry, she doesn't understand nor willing to colloborate with the Navajo Nation in writing literature about American Indians because she isn't one. https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2023/11/my-thoughts-on-claims-to-cherokee.html 2603:8001:2601:F351:E9C7:1862:8D49:AAC4 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parent category?

Could there be a parent category for this and related articles? Maybe Category:Self-identification as Indigenous or something similar. Such a category could include subcats like the American and Canadian self-ID categories and the category for self-identifying groups. I'm also wondering about social groups like the Melungeons, Chestnut Ridge people, Brass Ankles, etc that have claimed unproven or disproved Native ancestry. There is a category called "Groups claiming Jewish descent" for non-Jewish groups that claim to be Jews or of Jewish ancestry. Could there be something similar like Groups self-identifying as being of Native American descent? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of Kelsey Asbille Chow

I think it's probably more accurate to say that Kelsey Asbille Chow is of Taiwanese rather than Chinese heritage (I believe her father is of Taiwanese heritage). 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Rebecca Roanhorse?

Should we add Rebecca Roanhorse to this list? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before doing so, please read up on Wikipedia's policies, especially regarding original research and citations. Genealogical research is original research and not admissible here — until it has been vetted and published as a secondary source, as opposed to being self-published. A few news articles discuss Rebecca Roanhorse's Indigenous identify fraud, so she could probably be added (I thought she had been in the past), but only based on those published, secondary sources – not self-published material, forums, or social media. Yuchitown (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Proof as to how Sacheen is not indigenous?

Multiple East Fork Apaches have claimed her and recognized she is part of the East Fork Apache community, she also has records of her ancestry showing her ancestors baptism records that she is indeed Yaqui? Madigoosh (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. Editors use the reliable sources which go over her claims. You should bring any reliable sources to her talkpage for discussion. oncamera _{(talk page)} 16:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

@Oncamera Thank you for reverting my edit to the short description of this article. [3] I replaced the current 75-character-long short description with "One who falsely claims Native identity" (38 chars), which is below the 40-character limit suggested at WP:SDLENGTH. While the 40-character cap isn't policy, short descriptions longer than 40 characters are not as useful and will often not be fully visible to readers. For example, the current short description could appear to readers on mobile devices as "Person who falsely claims a Native Ameri..." (40 chars), while on my laptop I see "Person who falsely claims a Native American or Indige..." (54 chars). You can try this yourself by typing "Pretendian" into the Wikipedia search bar on your device.

Having the word "identity" as the very last word, which is basically never visible, means that the short description is incomprehensible to readers. I understand the concern with using "Native", "Indigenous", or any other abbreviation. However, the current short description is inadequate. I see two solutions:

We reword it so that even without seeing the end of the shortdesc, the meaning is clear. Example: "One who falsely claims to be Native American or Indigenous Canadian"
We keep the current form of "Person who falsely claims a ____ identity", but replace the blank with an abbreviation of "Native American or Indigenous Canadian" to fit the character count limit. This, reasonably, would be unacceptable to some editors.

Please let me know what you think best, or if you have another solution. Toadspike [Talk] 12:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera Since you have continued editing elsewhere without responding to this, I will change the short description to the first option above. This is a fairly small change and retains "Native American or Indigenous Canadian", but should be understandable to readers who cannot see the full shortdesc (which is basically all of them). Toadspike [Talk] 07:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted originally because you didn't include the terminology that is more common in Canada. I'm fine with your new edit now that is included. oncamera _{(talk page)} 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for confirming that the current wording is alright with you. Toadspike [Talk] 08:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ousley

A paragraph about Ian Ousley was added to the article a couple of weeks ago by an IP editor using an address with little edit history. Apparently, Ousley is a member of an unrecognized tribe, i.e., the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, but is not a member of a federally recognized tribe. It does not seem clear to me that this rises to the level of Ousley being asserted to be a "Pretendian", and the cited article does not use that term. Should this paragraph remain in the article? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Settler Colonial Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yakvilleresident (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vrooomy (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]