Category talk:American people of Native American descent

message: If a notable person is enrolled, it should be cited by a WP:RS source. RS sources for enrollment/citizenship are from that Nation itself, such as the tribe's official website or newspaper. If the sourcing looks legit, put them in one of the cats here: Category:Native American people by tribe. If there is no RS source, don't list them as belonging to that Nation. Descendants are a different category than citizens. Put people in one cat or another. The only time we put people in both is in specific cases where the person is well-sourced as being a citizen of one Nation but also having sourced heritage from another (and in that case, the cat should be for that specific Nation, not this one). - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: If someone is an enrolled member of a specific tribe/nation, they don't belong here

message: Then put them in the descendants category for that tribe/nation. If they are just self-identifying with a Nation, but there are no solid names, dates, or other real data for people to check to see if they really are descendants, don't move them to a specific tribe/nation. Put them here. If you're confused about any of this, we've centralized discussion at WP:NDN. Specifically at: Permalink to discussions on sourcing and cats. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: If someone has '''documented''' heritage from a specific tribe/nation, but doesn't meet enrollment criteria

message: Is this category really neccessary? The other categories aren't organized by partial descent. There aren't seperate categories for fullblooded Irish Americans and people who are only part Irish American.  Asarelah 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone may have opened up a can of worms without realizing it. The instructions say that this category is for "American citizens of partial Native American ancestry. For those of full ancestry see :Category:Native American people." Whoa, talk about outdated racial categories! Many Native Americans don't exactly have "full ancestry", but they're Native Americans nonetheless. I understand what the category is trying to get at: "People who have (or claim) Native American ancestry but aren't exactly Indians", so to speak. Do we really need a category for that? —Kevin Myers 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this would be a category for people who aren't actually enrolled in tribes, which isn't the same a blood quantum but is a major legal distinction. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is an appropriate category; not unless the people can prove it. I see tons of people on this list who only have family stories and "belief." Also some actual, enrolled tribal members have been added here for unclear reasons. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Category is necessary as Uyvsdi mentioned it is a category also for those not enrolled. Not all individuals will know what tribe they are descended from but that doesn't discredit their heritage not all are fortunate to have that knowledge in their family for numerous reasons. Category should stay it is not unless.Mcelite (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is appropriate to have a cat for those who have known heritage but cannot or choose not to enroll. That is different from the false claims. If we are to keep the cat, we need to cut all the false claimants from it. - CorbieV☊☼ 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a lot of work over time making sure that people who acknowledge their Native American heritage are in the category. Even getting into a few edit wars because a few editors feel they don't look native enough to claim their own heritage. I honestly think most of those with the category have a citation relating to that individual or family members.Mcelite (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it for deletion awhile back, but it was retained. pbp 23:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We either need to cut people who have no proof or change the name. Right now the name, the description, and the inclusion of those who self-identify with zero proof are at odds. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are a few people that do not have a reliable source listed describing their heritage than the category has be removed. The last time we went through it everyone had a reliable source stating the person's heritage, but that could have changed over the year.Mcelite (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, we have to change the description of the cat to include "claimed" or similar instead of implying it's true. Because right now it's also the pretendian cat, but the blood myths people are right next to actual descendants. We can't keep it this way. Look at the disparities in who is listed. It's a mess.  What would you suggest? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Continuing this discussion at the wikiproject link below. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification Hunt

message: A similar discussion was already in progress, so... - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing criteria again over at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent]] 

message: I suggest that all unverified people be moved to the American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent category and any verified non-enrolled Native descendants be moved to relevant sub-categories. This category could then be containerized. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Making this a container category