Talk:List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

Montaukett?

New York State's Montaukett were terminated in 1918 due to a court case called Pharoah v. Benson.

Pharoah v. Benson wasn't part of the BIA's termination policy from the middle of the 20th century, but it was a tribal termination. The tribe was previously recognized by the federal government; there's a reference to this in a BIA document (which I would need to dig up to show, unfortunately).

There are multiple branches of the tribe (which is why there's a Montauk tribe and a Montaukett tribe listed). But this has to do with claims to leadership.

Is there a reason I'm not seeing for why the Montaukett are on this list, when this list isn't supposed to include terminated tribes? 75.128.218.237 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of tribes supposedly seeking recognition, but not yet recognized by the Federal government or by any state. Both the Montauk Indian Nation (aka Montaukett Indian Nation of New York) and the Montaukett Tribe of Long Island are listed by the BIA as having presented letters of intent to petition for recogniton (see https://web.archive.org/web/20131212091257/https://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc013623.pdf, under New York). - Donald Albury 22:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Late to the conversation but why is seeking recognition a caveat? The groups have to be notable enough for reliable sources but I don't understand why seeking recognition would matter. If it was, many of these groups have long stopped actively seeking recognition since they have been soundly denied. Yuchitown (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

White Bear Clan

A user added the White Bear Clan of North and South Carolina as an unrecognized tribe, without providing any reference. There was/is a White Bear Clan in the Tuscarora tribe, which is attested among the Tuscarora that moved north. The clan apparently was created in the early 18th century for a couple of white women who had been adopted into the tribe. A recent source indicates that at least some Tuscarora regard the White Bear Clan as illegitimate. I gather that some Tuscaroras may have stayed in the Carolinas, but without retaining tribal cohesion. I do not know whether any Tuscarora who remained in the Carolinas belonged to the White Bear Clan. In any case, without any source that the White Bear Clan has any actual existance, I removed the edit. - Donald Albury 01:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Ramapough Mountain Indians/Ramapough Lenape are one of NJ's three state recognized tribes

The entry on the Ramapough is inaccurate and should be removed- they are one of New Jersey's 3 state recognized tribes, (along with the Nanticoke Lenape and the Powhatan Renape). They also continue to have representatives on the state's Commission of American Indian Affairs as a result of that status. (Ramapough Mountain Indians is another name for the same tribal government)

Listing alleged details of their Federal Recognition process while ignoring their New Jersey State Recognition is a misleading non sequitur, since the list is only supposed to contain tribes that have no recognition at all.

There were controversial attempts under Governor Christie to delist all three tribes without due process or consultation with the state's Commission on American Indian Affairs, but the state formally rejected this move and in 2019 NJ Attorney General Gurbir Grewal reaffirmed the other 2 tribes following a major court settlement with the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape to address harms they experienced from Christie's actions. The Ramapough were been acknowledged as having uninterrupted recognition as "American Indian Tribes recognized by the State,” (of New Jersey) since 1980.

Some relevant sources from the New Jersey government and official statements to the press.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases19/pr20190318b.html

https://www.nj.gov/state/njcaia-about.shtml

https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/ramapough-lenape-and-powhatan-renape-nations-of-new-jersey-have-state-recognition-reaffirmed

https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/quad-caucus/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#State

Ciran42 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Material from article

I moved the following material from the article to this talk for discussion:

These tribes can be controversial, and vary greatly in terms of the rigor of their claims to indigeneity. While many of these tribes are considered fraudulent, many still have legitimate claims but are unable to gain recognition due to racial purity laws, which prevented their ancestors from being recorded as Native American, thereby removing the possibility of applying for federal recognition. Tribes originating in states which have both historic racial purity laws, and current policies against recognizing tribes at the state level are in a particularly difficult position, as state recognition is often seen as a pre-requisite to federal recognition.

This statement is misleading since any group can apply for federal recognition; despite Virginia having misleading censuses that did not allow people to identify as being American Indian, Virginia tribes have successfully gained recognition through the formal acknowledgment process (Pamunkey) and through congressional legislation. While some people do mistakenly believe state recognition is somehow related to federal recognition, they are totally independent, since states determine their own processes for recognition; there's no uniformity. While not mentioned in the editorial comment above, the main point of the cited article is that "racial purity specifically requires the demonstrable absence of African-American ancestry." That racist perspective is not part of the criteria for federal recognition (nor is blood quantum unless the tribe itself requires it), and many tribes with significant African-American ancestry have gained federal recognition (including the Pequot, Mashpee Wampanoag, Aquinnah Wampanoag, Shinnecock, and Augustine Cahuilla). Because there is so much misinformation out there, here are the current seven criteria for federal recognition as a Native American tribe:

1. being an American Indian entity since at least 1900
2. a predominant part of the group forms a distinct community and has done so throughout history into the present
3. holding political influence over its members
4. having governing documents including membership criteria
5. members having ancestral descent from historic American Indian tribes
6. not being members of other existing federally recognized tribes
7. not being previously terminated by the U.S. Congress.

Yuchitown (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

This is correct for tribes that apply to the BIA, not so for those who go straight to Congress or the courts to win federal acknowledgement. The tribes you list above include several that skipped the BIA altogether and simply won the votes in Congress necessary to get a law passed that put them on equal footing with all the other federally "recognized" tribes. There's a long list of tribes that went that way, before and after the existence of the BIA. I put the term in quotations because the official term in the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA) of the BIA is acknowledgement, not recognition. OFA goes to great length to explain that what the federal government does is acknowledge a tribe's existence, not create one through an action of recognition. All references to recognition in this talk should be replaced with acknowledgement. The nuance might be too fine for the average reader, but it makes a big difference in the direction of the conversation. For among other things, the term recognition misinforms the reader that the US federal government and, for that matter, states can create an American Indian tribe. Tsideh (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe

While this list should be as inclusive as possible, unfortunately, the group Conestoga-Susquehannock Tribe doesn't appear in any published material, and using its own website as a citation could be viewed as promotional, so I removed them from the list and am mentioning them here in case they appear in a secondary, published source in the near future. Yuchitown (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

References

Rename title?

Might List of Native American heritage groups be a better title? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't there a distinction between Native American heritage groups in a broad sense and groups claiming status identifying as a tribe? For instance, here is a (incomplete) list of organizations that could be regarded as Native American heritage groups, but do not claim identify as having tribal status. - Donald Albury 16:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Edited to use more neutral language. Donald Albury 23:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone made a good suggestion for an alternate name, but I can't remember where. Something along the lines of List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

User:Bohemian Baltimore, have you been able to consider any more accurate titles for this article? List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes is long but accurate. Corporations posing as Indigenous nations does appear in published literature but would likely not be considering NPOV. "Identify" seems most neutral as a verb. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Agree we could use a rename. "Unrecognized tribes" is POV, as it names the groups as tribes, who just lack status. Some might meet some criteria, but many simply do not and never will. Some are blatant scammers. Similarly, some heritage groups consist of people with actual heritage, who do not seek to disrupt tribal sovereignty or change citizenship standards. Other groups that claim heritage have none are very disruptive. We would do best to not lump them all together. Perhaps List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes?

And maybe a separate cat for those who lost recognition? Are there enough legit heritage groups to merit a cat for legit ones? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think trying to distinguish legitimate from non-legitimate groups would get messy in a hurry, with reliable sources being very scarce for judging the legitimacy of many groups. Donald Albury 01:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The goal would be to generate neutral name that encompasses every group on the list based on what can be readily verified, which is that they are all organizations and they all identify as being Native American tribes but are not recognized by the US or any states. Calling all of them “tribes” is a leap of faith that is not verifiable. Yuchitown (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

But reliable sources on legitimacy are not "very scarce". It really isn't "muddy" if you're familiar with the field. There are legal definitions for what constitutes an Indian tribe in the US. Yuchi probably has the links and sources handy. The few that might fall in a legitimately disputed area, we can discuss. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the area. My editing interests within the scope of this project are pre-20th century. Donald Albury 18:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Yuchitown @CorbieVreccan Could something like Corporations self-identifying as Indigenous nations or Organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes work? Does "unrecognized" need to be in the title? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be either "organizations" or "groups" because not all of them are incorporated. I have a slight preference for "that self-identify as" over "self-identifying as" because it lines up a bit better with the format of the other cats we have. I think. But you do more work with cats so I'll go with whatever everyone prefers. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am creating one of these as a redirect but we can still choose whichever we want - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

OK then. How about

• List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes for the article, and, pinging @Bohemian Baltimore: who's been doing great work with cats,
• Category:Groups that self-identify as Native American tribes

We could do "Organizations" but I'm trying to keep it less wordy, and "groups" might be more inclusive of less-formal, unincorporated groups? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Organizations seems much more commonly throughout Wikipedia used for people joining on a project, as opposed to "groups." And there's a WikiProject Organizations. It seems broad enough to encompass every entry on this list. You are right that "that self-identify" is better grammar. And just a general caveat, certain entries on this list are absolutely historic Native American organizations, so the name change is just broadening to accurately include those that are not. Wikipedia has no room for WP:OR.

Would Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes work? Or would Unrecognized organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes be better? —Yuchitown (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I suggest leaving "unrecognized" out of the title as slightly shorter and simpler, and link to 'List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States' and 'State-recognized tribes in the United States' at the top of the list. Donald Albury 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

One challenge is that removing "unrecognized" would not distinguish this article from State-recognized tribes. I don't believe anyone wants to broaden the scope of this article to encompass them. Yuchitown (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Although you bring up a good point: does it need to be Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes in the United States or is "United States" implied by "Native American"? Technically, there are unrecognized organizations in Mexico that identify as being Native American tribes (Indigenous peoples from what is now the United States). Yuchitown (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Wouldn't linking to 'State-recognized tribes in the United States' work for excluding them from the list? Maybe leave out "in the United States" from the name. Again, a shorter and simpler name for the list. Details can always be explained in the lead. Something like:

Many organizations self-identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups. For organizations that are recognized by the government of the United States as Native American tribes, see [[List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States]]. For organizations that are recognized by the government of one of the states as Native American tribes, see [[State-recognized tribes in the United States]]. Other organizations that self-identify as Native American that have not been recognized by the government of the United States or by any state government are listed below. Donald Albury 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically sounds good. Slight line edit and compression. I still think we should use "groups" as it includes the less formal orgs. But if the consensus is for "organizations" I'm ok with it.:

Groups that self-identify as Native American Tribes

This is a list of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups, but have not been recognized as tribes by the established Native American tribes, or by the Federal or State governments.

For groups that are recognized by the government of the United States as Native American tribes and tribal nations, see List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. For groups that are recognized by a state government as a Native American tribe, see State-recognized tribes in the United States. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there a way to list groups that have been recognized by established tribes, but not by states or the Federal government? Or could that just be noted in their entries in this list? Donald Albury 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Some tribes are enrolled with larger tribes. But I don't believe there is an official means of established tribes to recognized an unrecognized tribe. The State of California has a list of Native American tribes and organizations with which it consults, which is informed by Native American advisors, but this list is not publicly published. Yuchitown (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

We have articles where we've sourced statements from federally-recognized tribes who have had to form task forces to deal with fraudulent orgs committing identity theft and other crimes. It's acknowledging tribal sovereignty, and that Indigenous people have the final say on who is Native, not the US or State governments. Sometimes state gov'ts give recognition to frauds. Frauds will often say they don't want to enroll, "because they don't trust the US government". But it's the tribes who decide, not members of the non-Native governments. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot that the MoS at MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE advises against using "This is a list ...". That is what I was trying to avoid in my earlier suggestion. Donald Albury 13:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, OK, we'll change that in the next pass. @Donald Albury: which do you prefer, "groups" or "organizations - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer organizations but can definitely live with Groups that self-identify as Native American tribes. The self-identification, I would guess, implies a lack of even state-recognition. Yuchitown (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

OK, so, Donald also used Orgs. If there are no objections I say we move this to Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, and for the header:

Organization that self-identify as Native American Tribes

These organizations self-identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups, but have not been recognized as tribes by the established Native American tribes, or by the Federal or State governments.

For groups that are recognized by the government of the United States as Native American tribes and tribal nations, see List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. For groups that are recognized by a state government as a Native American tribe, see State-recognized tribes in the United States. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wait. If it's a list, should it be List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, it's needed in the cleanup I'm doing at the very bizarre Native American recognition in the United States, so, I'll move it there. If we change our minds, I'll do the cleanup. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional names

I found these names hidden in a note under "Arkansas"; however, several of these don't appear to be from Arkansas. I'm placing them here until they can be cited and entered under the appropriate state. Yuchitown (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown "Accused as "Suspected Fraudulent Organizations" by American Indian Heritage Support Center; check if unrecognized or fraudulent:

• American Metis Aboriginal Association Lodge
  • The Bear Clan Society of Arkansas
  • Wolf Clan Society of Arkansas
• United Lumbee Nation of North Carolina and America, Arkansas Red Wolf American Native Band
• United Metis Tribe"

Ocali Nation is listed as a "pseudo-tribe" here. It is no. 15 under Florida in this list. They seem to be playing off of Ocale, which was last heard of in the 17th century. - Donald Albury 02:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Right on, thank you! I deleted that. And "Turtle Island" is so vague that whatever organization may have used that term will likely be never found, so I deleted that too. Yuchitown (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Exceptions

In the intro, I edited it to say, "Most of these organizations are not accepted as being Native American by established Native American tribes," because there are historic tribes in California who signed treaties that were never ratified, and then while most terminated tribes regained their federal recognition (or at least state-recognition with the Chinook Indian Tribe), quite a few in California have yet to do so. So neighboring tribes do acknowledge these people as being Native American. Yuchitown (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thanks for covering that! - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Groups that have acknowledgment from federally recognized comminutes.

What about groups that have acknowledgement and community from federally recognized tribes? Why are people clumping them with fake heritage groups? If they are recognized by real tribes, I think a distinction should be made next to the tribal group. I added next to the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas that they have been recognized by Apache tribes, like for example, by (at the time) Chairwoman Gwendena Lee of the White Mountain Apache tribe, and Terry Rambler of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and have made community with other Apache tribal leaders who acknowledge them. They were invited and attend the private Apache Alliance Summit meetings as well as ceremony, showing that they have ties and community with federal recognized tribes. Should more texts like those be put next to the tribal group so people can know they aren't fraudulent? Thank you. Madigoosh (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a list for groups that lack federal recognition and state-recognition (and, as discussed at great length above, Texas has no mechanism in place for state recognition and Texas Senate Bill 274 to recognize the Lipan Apache Tribe died in committee in 2021). Quite a few groups, especially historic California tribes are completely accepted as Native communities by federally recognized tribes (for example, the federally recognized Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation who designated several members of the Northern Chumash and Coastal Chumash, who lack recognition, as tribal artisans). Yuchitown (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I'm not talking about state-recognition, I'm talking about how the tribe has acknowledgment and community with tribes who recognize them as Apache and are accepted and considered Apache by Apache tribal leaders. What about them? The fact that they are considered Apache should be known. Madigoosh (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Madigoosh has a valid point. Although factually wrong that a tribe can only be recognized by a state through state law, the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas has also been recognized by established federally recognized tribes in the Apache Alliance and in their membership in the two organizations that include federally recognized tribes: the National Congress of American Indians and the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes. Therefore, it is inaccurate to include the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas in this list whose article description states that it for tribes that “have not been recognized as independent tribes by the established Native American tribes" Fallenacorn (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the parameter "have not been recognized as independent tribes by the established Native American tribes" is not cited and does not apply to every single organization in the list. I struck that and left only the verifiable and objective parameters in the lede: These organizations, located within the United States, self-identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups, but they are not federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes. The goal is to be as neutral and objective as possible. Additional information about a specific group can always be added to that group's article. Yuchitown (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Also, this talk page is an unusual place to make one's fifth ever edit. Yuchitown (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

The removed parameter is found in two other places in the introduction to this wikipage, even if it was struck out from the first sentence. If this is a list of “unrecognize groups claiming to be American Indian tribes”, then the “established Native American tribes,” “recognized Indigenous nations,” or “tribal government” parameter should stay, because federally acknowledged tribes are sovereign nations that can establish their own relationships.  It is relevant if they identify and accept a community of people as being an American Indian tribe. Such a group then does not just self-identify or claim to be an American Indian tribe. Fallenacorn (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How many accounts do you have? Yuchitown (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I have one account.

I suggest engaging in discussion of keeping the third parameter "have not been recognized as independent tribes by the established Native American tribe," in the first sentence of this page and not just in two other places further on in the article. Fallenacorn (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Fallenacorn is right, do you plan on correcting this topic in the wiki next to the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, since you can make valid distinctions for Californian tribes? Madigoosh (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Thank you. Madigoosh (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The parameters you removed for being uncited, which were previously listed, were prior approved by consensus.

Improvements were made with citations for each type of recognition.

The reversion removes all necessary citations from this definition, and removes part of the consensus-created information. Fallenacorn (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I would love for other established editors to join this conversation. This list includes organizations commonly regarded as legitimate and others regarded as fraudulent. What is objectively known, verifiable, and coming from a neutral point of view is that all of these U.S.-based organizations are neither federally nor state-recognized tribes. You are welcome to mention on the organization's article that they attended the Apache Alliance Summit, but attending a meeting doesn't belong here, and in 2021 the Apache Alliance included nine Apache tribes, all federally recognized. You are drawing conclusions that are not reflected in secondary, published literature. Please read up on WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:OR, and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Yuchitown (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

On adding the third parameter back in this first sentence; reliable published sources support this form of recognition by established tribes. Fallenacorn (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Other editors are invited to discuss the proper definition of parameters with citation from appropriate and unbiased sources. Fallenacorn (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe “There are three ways that Native American tribes are acknowledged in the United States: federal recognition, state recognition, or recognition by established tribes” is appropriately defined and cited. Kilnarak (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, context is important if you're claiming a tribe as fraudulent or not recognized by federally recognized tribes. It belongs here if you claim things such as that, and not drawing conclusions as you claim others are. As you also must've not read or seen, the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas attend the meetings annually, and meet up with leaders on a constant basis, showing a clear support for each other. So if you can make distinctions on certain tribes, you should be able to do it for them given the facts provided as no one is claiming they are state or federally recognized, just recognized by acknowledged tribes. Either that, or do not claim the tribes listed are not acknowledged by federal recognized tribes. Madigoosh (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no basis for continuing to force these changes into the article. The NCAI can not be considered an independent and reliable source to make such a claim that they are recognized by established tribes. What would be is if any established tribes directly recognized these heritage groups and self-identifying tribes as such. Thus far that has not been provided. I oppose these changes without verifiable evidence such exists. --ARoseWolf 18:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This conversation is being had at the Lipan Apache people page, so there's no need for a repeat here. I just replied to you over there. Madigoosh (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Beg your pardon but this is a separate issue from that discussion. An acknowledgement that they attended a summit is not acknowledgement they have been recognized by established tribes. Neither source you provided there specifically said this organization's claims are recognized and verified or you would have included that and this issue would have been resolved for that organization. All that can be verified is that they attended the summit. --ARoseWolf 14:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have went through multiple of these and some are recognized by federal tribes you need to remove them please 2601:4C1:100:AB20:FD75:FF8A:B395:CF60 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Who are you talking about and what are you secondary, published citations to substantiate this? Federally recognized tribes can work with whomever they want, but they don't have any legal authority to formally recognize another tribe. (They *could* open their rolls to everyone within the unrecognized organization and enroll into their tribe if they so desired.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Research there history first because a couple are state recognized now and some are recognized by federal tribes 2601:4C1:100:AB20:FD75:FF8A:B395:CF60 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Recognition by a federally recognized tribe is not a criterion for exclusion from this list. As for tribes now recognized by a state, please cite reliable sources. I would add that being named in a resolution proclaimed by some state official or body does not usually amount to official recognition. We are looking for a legislative act, or a ruling from an officially designated state agency or official in charge of recognizing tribes, that established official state recognition of the tribe. Donald Albury 14:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Canada

@User:Yuchitown I just realized there isn't a page or category for self-identifying groups in Canada. Do you think there might be enough content to do that in the future and what page title would you recommend? Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, such a category would be useful. Since the title of this list was changed to reflect the WP:NOR policy, the Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States should probably be changed first to better follow the article title. Perhaps to Category:Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes? A Canadian counterpart would be tricky since it would have to encompass organization identifying as Métis and Inuit governments, not just First Nations. Yuchitown (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown I wanted to create an article about the "Mikinaks" in Quebec. I can't find a Canadian "Federal Register" listing Indigenous tribes. Nor can I find their official website or any non-profit registration info for the "Mikinaks". Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Government of Canada has this index of First Nations. The Mikinak organization doesn't appear on that list. This website appears to list all nonprofits in Canada. Yuchitown (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thank you! Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I also noted there's not a page for groups that identify as Indian tribes who aren't recognized in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, Bolivia, etc. Like Organización Maya K’iche from Massachusetts. I should think you want to consider organizations like these cuz there's lot's more self-individuals in the US that come from them. Tsideh (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alert: Objectivity / an organized group imposing a fringe narrative on minority groups?/ recent significant and broad cluster editing activity / distortions and erasures of group history and bio pages of minoritized ("non-recognized") Native American peoples and notable persons

Re: "There are three ways that Native American tribes are acknowledged in the United States: federal recognition, state recognition, or recognition by established tribes."

Suggested edit: Currently, there are four broadly recognized social-political dynamics defining the internal acknowledgement (i.e. "recognition") of Native American tribal peoples ("Tribes") resourced by the United States government's system of federal acknowledgement and politically positioned within the U.S. "nation-to-nation" relationship with Indigenous peoples and the many independent Indigenous tribal communities who are not formally resourced by the United States, do not have formal nation-to-nation procedures or mechanisms, are, by self-definition, of places and territories occupied by the United States. Recognition of Indigenous peoples in various forms have evolved unevenly under systemic and structural conditions of historical race codifications enacted by multiple colonial European nations and their successor settler colonial governments. Native American tribes and federally non-recognized Indigenous peoples, codified as a binary into the United States' Western legal framework, experience on-going colonizations, differently, resulting in complex intra- and inter-group disparities, inequities and fractious politics enacted by the United States internally and between Indigenous peoples. These categories of recognition relevant to the debates on Indigenous self-identification are, but not limited to: federal recognition, state recognition, recognition by federally recognized tribes, and self-recognition.

Inviting: subject-matter experts on inter-ethnic violence, inter-tribal violence, ethnocide, inter-ethnic cyberwarfare, ethnic nationalism

FactBanquet (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

These issues are important and likely the motivation behind the creation of this page. Fallenacorn (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@FactBanquet, as an editor who has only made one edit, how did you happen to find this talk page discussion out of the millions of articles on WP? Did someone ask you to comment here, or do you have any other accounts? Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, isn't the point of this talk to generate as wide as possible discussion among all the interested parties to ensure a well-informed consensus? Fewer the folks that contribute to it, the greater chance that what stays up in WP is bad information? That I know of, there's only one forum for reaching an informed consensus on this question, and it's not WP: International Indian Treaty Council (IITC). They've been invited to join because what this page contradicts the only broadly-reached consensus on the question of recognition. One of IITC's guiding principles is "...that while sharing much in common, each Indigenous culture is also unique and each struggle reflects diverse historical conditions. Therefore in keeping with the principles of self-determination, the IITC respects the right of each member Nation, community and organization to define and pursue the objectives and strategies best suited to its specific situation, history and culture." https://www.iitc.org/about-iitc/guiding-principles/. The argument that government recognition is the key to a tribe being deemed a fraud or not goes against decades of very thoughtful and learned people from hundreds of tribes, US-based and otherwise, debating this very point in a transparent and inclusive forum where it was concluded that governmental recognition is categorically wrong as a criteria for tribal identity. That the principle of self-determination, which is key to every tribe's identity, ultimately means that all tribes are self-identifying. And the decision to seek or not US recognition is a matter solely of their choosing. This consensus was memorialized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNDRIP.

I haven't tried to edit this page because I think it'll take wholesale re-writing, not just a few corrections, to get "recognition" right. For in its current version, your definition of recognition is an extremely narrow view of the term in the context of Indigenous identity. Maybe what the defenders of this page are saying is that there's an emerging new point of view. OK. Let's start there. Incoming the reader on this emerging new view point on recognition is good to put up on WP. Perhaps a statement at the very top of the page saying something to the effect that, "Although the current definition of recognition of Indian tribes as resolved by the UN in 2007 UNb, there is an emerging new definition put forth by______, that says national government is fundamental for tribal identity.... " Of course, this is going to have to be backed up with a citation from the forum or organization that says it.

WP, the existence of this page in its current version and the 2-3 (maybe more) others it props up to suggest that x, y, z tribes are lesser than or fake misinforms the reader by, among other things, telling them that there's not already a well-established consensus on the meaning of recognition. Tsideh (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly see WP:NDNID that was crafted over a period of several years through the process of community consensus. Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not put forward "new" ways of "recognition" as you say. What you did was canvass an outside organization to edit war and influence what is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is its own entity with its own rules and policies. The essay that was linked by Netherzone was long discussed and carefully written by Indigenous voices and those who support these topics on Wikipedia. While we welcome new voices to become involved, others that have been brought to this article from the very canvassing that took place have tried to edit war the non-neutral POV that you, and others, hold into this article. It's not just affecting this article either. It's spreading to others on the encyclopedia. This not the way to get things done here. Consensus of what goes on Wikipedia is not made by anything or anyone off Wikipedia. We do take into consideration anything reliable sources say on the subject but consensus is made on Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors in good standing. Several editors canvassed here have been found to be Sockpuppets and were blocked from editing because of this. Those editors are not in good standing. We also scrutinize editors who come here for the sole purpose of influencing their contentious POV into Wikipedia which is not overwhelmingly supported by current Wikipedia consensus or current reliable sources on the matter. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, admittedly. My general subject matter interests are forensic architecture, source alerts, pseudononymous partisanship, technological modeling of persuasion goals in social media, persuasion theory statistics, citizen decision-makng, expert status, public approval, alert structure variables, platform architecture, algorithm and partisan behaviors, and technological interventions. Following the coding method outlined in Sadiq Muhammed and Saji K. Matthew, article in Int J Data Sci Anal 2022, 13(4): 271-285, I was originally drawn to the keyword "pretendian" in Twitter (2021), that came up in my feed, and its algorithm architecture and characteristics. I migrated to follow the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as much discussed in key rhetoric and linguistic studies on source alerts and disinformation. A few months, back, "pretendian" appeared on my feed again, and I followed it to Wikipedia. This page had a flurry of activity. I'm interested in theories of advanced linguistic forensic analysis and computational detection systems, and more a reader and learner, and here and there, I make attempts to engage. In my free time, in bits here and there, I'm teaching myself Wikipedia editing (as a productive exercise for mTBI), following the guidelines for newbys. I'm not a deep diver. More a social butterfly and fluttering on my path on topics with energetic talk pages. FactBanquet (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

I submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie, and don't want to get into trouble for WP:3RR, but there is no consensus to add the original research. "Recognition by established tribes" is simply not a thing (Google search). Newly invented concepts that push a POV promoting one group does not belong in this or any other articles. Yuchitown (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Indeed, recognition by other tribes is "not a thing" if you're talking about eligibility for US federal government services. But the discussion here seems to be much broader and about recognition as a tribe in general (i.e. by society, WP readers, other tribes, etc).

But take the first question, even the OFA-BIA allows that a tribe may in fact exist without federal or state recognition. The whole point of applying for federal acknowledgement is about proving that pre-existing fact. Consider the circular reasoning that you can't apply for federal acknowledgement unless you're already recognized by the federal government. Recognition/acknowledgement by other tribes is precisely the kind of documentation you would submit to prove criteria 1&2 (historical legacy and identity as a distinct entity).

On the second and much bigger question, consider what's been written on the subject of Indian identity as applied to Canadian tribes. Can anybody truly argue that somebody who's moved to the US from, say, Yellow Knife or Otovalo cannot claim to be an American Indian because, er, they don't have a CDIB? That 1992 Noble Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu, let alone the vast majority of American Indians in the world, are non-Indians who self-identify? Tsideh (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Yuchitown is saying it does not exist as a subject on Google, it has no reliable sources which define it and provide for what parameters define it as a reality. We would need the established tribes to directly state the recognition of these specifically named groups. We don't have that, therefore the main criteria for inclusion in Wiki-voice can not be met, verification. It is therefore WP:OR and can not be included as fact. --ARoseWolf 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That something's on Google is a thing? No scholar will accept that somebody not being able to find something on Google as proof of anything. That said, OFA-BIA comes up on Google just fine. Tsideh (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Wikipedia doesn't care that the OFI-BIA says they can exist. It's not Wikipedia policy that if they can exist we must allow their claims to be stated in Wiki-voice as fact. There must be reliable sources to verify the specific claim for that organization. The source must say "organization x is descended from y tribe", or something to that affect, not may, not we think, not claims to be. The policy is to prevent Wikipedia from being the source legitimizing claims. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. Our readers have to be able to verify what is written on our articles with as much certainty we can give them. I would love to discuss further and give you more understanding of Wikipedia but you are exhibiting classic WP:IDHT behavior as you have been told this very thing multiple times. --ARoseWolf 12:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Brother, I understand Wikipedia's conventions. Note that I've not touched any of your pages yet. I also understand that this whole discussion is about what "exists" means. No? You say it can only mean an org that makes you eligible for a CDIB, which no scholar says BTW (please prove me wrong if I am). That reliable sources have to be those that keep with this thread of thinking, like what scholarly source says recognition by an acknowledged tribe or anything short of BIA recognition is a thing. Others have proffered an extra criteria. Your crew has rejected it and so far is dominating the consensus. I contend there's other, better criteria and that the conversation is entirely askew if it starts from Indian self-determination being delegated to the occupying government (I'm peer-reviewed published on this very subject). So does the UN., among others. Countering that the UN resolution on Indigenous Self-determination is a more appropriate criteria for determining if a tribe is fake or not is fair under WP (and would probably invite a lot more amens from scholars and UN-types), but to pursue it successfully would take tagging your entire page, not just the first paragraph on this one. And I'm not yet ready for that. I first want to understand how far you want to go to attack folks that don't fit your definition of "exists," which I consider to be unfair and divisive and the sole basis for your other page where you attack innocent folks along with some pretendians-- not allowed by WP. List of Wikipedia controversies. Tsideh (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Can anybody truly argue that somebody who's moved to the US from, say, Yellow Knife or Otovalo cannot claim to be an American Indian because, er, they don't have a CDIB? These groups can claim to be tribes all they want but if reliable independent sources can not verify this then Wikipedia can not include it. --ARoseWolf 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

But it's you making the argument that x, y, z tribes are self-identifying because the federal govt hasn't recognized them. Does anybody need proof that the Dene tribe in Denetah isn't recognized by the OFA-BIA? Who doubts this isn't the case. The same for most tribes in the world. Please re-consider your premise, else you're arguing that only US acknowledged tribes are real. Fewer than 4MM CDIBs, more than 40MM Indians in the world, and some of them, approx 4MM of them in the US, which is why the 2020 census says Indian population almost doubled since 2010. Indeed there are pretendians running around. It's a problem. But throwing out baby with bathwater ain't right either. Tsideh (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In other words, the burden of proof is on you to prove that tribes that aren't "recognized" by the BIA are self-identifying, if this recognition is the basis of your claim. Where on Google can I go for that? What scholar argues that? Tsideh (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't take anything I write as any kind of a put down or snark. My feedback is offered in seriousness. And I look forward to your considered reply. It's a healthy conversation Indians should be having. I just hope it elevates past the freshman argument that the only tribes in the world are those acknowledged by the US federal government. This kind of talk went out in the 1970s. Perhaps you and Y should narrow your scope and argue that the only folks who should receive US services as American Indians should be those who have CDIBs. In that circumscribed context, you'd be right that organizations that aren't federally acknowledged are self-identifying. Tsideh (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Every notable organization, that is located wherever in the world it is, that makes a claim to be Indigenous and can only be cited to that organization, meaning there is not an independent reliable source that verifies the claim, can only be self-identifying on Wikipedia. That isn't my rule, Yuchitown's rule, Netherzone's rule, it is Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter what we personally think and we are making no argument for or against their claim. We are ensuring policy is followed and creating multiple accounts to attempt to force something is the wrong approach. --ARoseWolf 12:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will all come to an end soon, but this article is exclusively about organizations within the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

That's not clear in your texts. Without that clafification, including one about Indians born in other countries and residing in the US, you're saying that famous folks like Rigoberta Menchu, Gary Farmer and Adam Beach aren't real Indians. Tsideh (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"These organizations, located within the United States, self-identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups, but they are not federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes."} I don't know how much clearer that needs to be. We aren't focused on Canada in this article. And this list mentions no individuals but organizations. The statement is true. These organizations do not receive any recognition, in reliable sources, as to their legitimacy. Therefore Wikipedia saying they self-identify is correct. They make a claim that is not verified in reliable independent sources. We are giving them as much respect as we can within policy and also allowing that it can changed once reliable sources are found that they have such recognition. --ARoseWolf 12:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that you're focused on the US. Me too. What I'm questioning is your logic that US Govt recognition (fed and state) is a sound basis for calling all organizations who don't currently have BIA recognition non-Indian (i.e. self-identify) and likewise their members pretendians. Worse still that you then cite this page to post their names as pretendians. I've looked on that page and, while I agree there are obvious cases of pretendians, self-identify and otherwise (and I could name more than a few you've missed), the requirement of CDIB is destructive, divisive and just plain puts the power of Indian identity in the wrong hands. Respectfully, I offer as an example of the fallacy of your argument, the case of American Indians who're in the US because they've been forced out of their homelands in Latin American, where most Indians in the world come from. Some don't belong to any organization at all. Others have organized simple hometown clubs. No chance of Federal recognition. Not a single CDIB among them. Under your logic, they self-identify and, therefore, their members are subject to be posted on your other page as self-identifiers. Meanwhile there are folks walking around with a CDIB who descend from people who got onto tribal rolls as part of the shoddily implemented Dawes Act but had no Indian blood whatsoever and even hated Indian culture. But under your reasoning, the former are pretend and the latter are real. It's a tragedy that these folks aren't in the discussion. Perhaps I should give up and get off this talk and go straight to your pages and to post WP-proper references to these refugee Indians all over your pages and ask for WP Spanish and Portuguese translation so Indians from around the world (meatpuppets?) can join this conversion You see, you've embarked on a much bigger conversation than'll fit in the US, as there many are more Indians outside the US than inside-- thank God. It's a big and existential conversation that's much bigger than the bickering that's been going on over the 1-2-3 criteria your'e referring to. I invite your meatpuppets to join. This said, would you consider an alternative criteria: UN recognition.? Tsideh (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy not our reasoning? Unless there are reliable sources to state that organizations or individuals are, in fact, Indigenous, Native American, Indian or any other nationality or ethnicity then it will always remain a self-identification. If I became notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia and you were able to see me you might would tell I look like I have some features that appear American Indian and probably less so Jewish. Unless I have proof in reliable sources that I have direct links back to those groups of people then the only Wikipedia could say is I self-identify. That is policy. Just because I say it doesn't make it so. Once again, we rely on reliable independent secondary sources. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Perhaps I should give up and get off this talk and go straight to your pages and to post WP-proper references to these refugee Indians all over your pages and ask for WP Spanish and Portuguese translation so Indians from around the world (meatpuppets?) can join this conversion." I invite your meatpuppets to join. Are you threatening to canvass meatpuppets to ENWP to edit war content in that consensus and policy is saying doesn't belong? All human beings have a right to self-determination. That does not mean anyone is forced to accept their unproven claims of being Indigenous. --ARoseWolf 12:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tsideh, I get what you are trying to say, but your assumptions are wrong as to what this article "should" be. This article is about organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, not organizations that identify as First Nations, nor as MesoAmerican Indigenous, nor Indigenous peoples of Mexico, nor Native Hawaiians, nor the Indigenous peoples of Asia, nor Sami, nor Indigenous Caribbeans, nor Indigenous South Americans, nor any other global Indigenous peoples....it is in fact about organizations that self-identify as Native Americans, meaning it has a U.S. focus. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about Native Americans or People who originated from the Americas, right? I get it that many United Statians simply call themselves American, and that many of these think the rest of the continent and hemisphere is called something else, like Nativia or Old Mexico.

Again, you're mis-informing the WP reader by talking as if your narrow definition of, in this case, Native American is the established thing, when it's not at all. Guess what, Indians call themselves Native in Canada too. In the Spanish and Portuguese part of America, they go with the word that means native in those languages, indígena, Please, please, please cite a credible source that supports your POV that Native Americans are found only in the US and/or govt recognition is fundamental to Indian identity. Also think of what you're saying: first there was the US, then there were Native Americans, and if you happen to come from outside those boundaries, say Denetah, you're not Native American. Of course, in some of these countries, like say Mexico, the govt owns the designation and confer it only on individuals whose primary tongue is their indigenous tongue or who live outside your traditional native village. By the definition many governments south of the US enforce, there are no real United Statian Natives, which is why govt recognition doesn't work in the way you're using it.

I recall sitting in the back seat of a car listening to Micmacs in the front seat arguing with the US border guards that the "Jay Treaty of 1802...says we don't have to declare any nationality but our own....and our nation crosses your border." Then there's the Tohono and Yaqui of Arizona....

Indeed, the nomenclature doesn't align with such an easy demarcation as the US border. You disengage from this border-bound identity whenever you invoke the term Native American. You missed the criticism of the Lipans you're attacking in your other pages that they identify as a Texas tribe, when written history (i.e. Spanish military journals) says the Lipan moved down to Texas from what's today Nebraska, and before that Alberta and Yukon. By your definition, they're not Native American in the first place because they come from a land beyond the northern US border.

I don't make these comments lightly. I do it to point out the fundamental flaw in your argument that Native American tribes cannot legitimately self-determine their status and that they exist solely at the discretion of the colonial government. You may think you're on to something new, but you're not. Your argument was discarded decades ago by Native American leaders who also had United Statian and/or Canadian citizenship. What became obvious to everybody who followed this debate beginning in the mid-1970s was that Indians make Indian tribes, not the current occupying government., Tsideh (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, we are talking about heritage groups and groups claiming to be Native American tribes in the US who have, themselves, filed many times with state and federal authorities seeking US federal and state funding to support their ventures, whatever they may be. That's what this list is. Nothing more, nothing less. If the Lipan tribe of Texas want to file for First Nation recognition they can go through whatever process is required for that. But this list doesn't focus on that. It is very specific about the criteria for which the list was made. If they are a self-identifying Native American tribal nation located within the borders of the United States and there is not a clearly defined state or federal source of recognition by way of official documents then they belong on the list. if they are not located within the borders of the United States or hold federal recognition from another government then they are not on the list. The Mi'kmaq are not on this list. I leave you to figure out why. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, not a threat. And frustration that this conversation has been had at length by official representatives from hundreds of tribes starting in the 1970s and ending in the 2000s, which I've cited numerous times. Ironically one of points of that consensus was that self-identification is the premise on which tribal identity rests. That tribes who don't self-identify aren't real. in other words, self-identification is a virtue you're casting as a vice. Your page is at best incomplete if it doesn't reconcile the meaning it ascribes to the term self-identification with hundreds of Indigenous tribes' position, as stated in UNDRIP, that self-identification is a basic right of all Indigenous peoples.

To be sure, I share your concern that there are organizations/clubs/groups/entities/etc. who say they're tribes when they're neither a tribe nor even a group of Indians. I also know folks with CDIB's who're no more authentic than those groups. They got Indian status as descendants of non-Indians who got on the rolls during the chaos of the Dawes Act implementation, which is well documented. Fraudulent Indian identity is a real problem in our world. I should think that's part of the reality of being occupied.

It's not righteous, however, to delegate to the govt(s) that occupied our land the power to now determine who is/not Native. As an example of US govt being capricious and self-serving on this question, consider the US census bureau's current treatment American Indian identity as a race category. You know, if you're not White, Black, Asian or Hawaiian, then you must be Indian. That said, US govt recognition is tough, whether through the BIA or Congress. State recognition, which you seem to deem easier to attain, is tougher. I trust you're aware that some states, like Texas and California, pursued policies of extermination by violence, which they then burned into their constitutions and subsequent laws, some of which recite as fact that there are no longer any Indians on their territory. In those states, there's no real space for a tribe that survived that onslaught to ever dream of winning a govt-to-govt relationship with "their" state, which is what US govt acknowledgement means.

OK, WP requires independent documentation of recognition? If govt recognition is fundamentally biased and self-serving as a basis for such a claim, then that leaves only other tribes and tribal institutions. You say NCAI can't be it. Why? Does WP say the oldest Native American organization in the world is not a credible recognizer? Does/has NCAI let in fakes? I think these are fair and constructive questions the proponents of this page need to square. WP, please weigh in. Tsideh (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:No Original Research is a foundation policy of Wikipedia. Refrain from trying to use this article to validate your POV.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On top of what @oncamera has stated about your OR it is good to point out Wikipedia is not a forum and not a place for advocacy. Unless you have specific edits to discuss directly related to what is written in the article and not your own analyses of the validity of Wikipedia policies, which is all I've seen from you across multiple articles now, then I think we are done here. --ARoseWolf 14:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is not consensus for the changes that are proposed. Unfortunately, a fleet of sockpuppets and possible meatpuppets have flown in who are trying to push their POV here. Please discontinue canvassing and creating additional user accounts to try to make your arguments, several socks have already lost their editing privileges. If the disruption continues, Page Protection may need to be applied. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's not consensus for your hyper narrow definition of recognition as the basis for legitimacy in the context of Indigenous identity, tribal and individual. You're trying to force it without any demonstrated basis and in contradiction to much much more intensive efforts to reach an informed consensus, like the UNDRIP. I'll consider it if you share your sources. Tsideh (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

citations / npov / incite

greetings Wikipedians, just here to support this page's development, and happy to offer suggestions/questions to improve the page, where and when suggestions can be productive for building consensus.

Great to see this subject getting the attention it deserves. Respectfully suggesting WP:INCITE, WP:NPOV for sentence, "Most of these organizations are not accepted as being Native American by established Native American tribes." This claim needs supportive evidence.

Wondering, since this is a U.S.-based context, as noted in above thread, would it be more productive to create consistency (re: definitional meaning of key terms of reference) by replacing "established Native American tribes" with "federally recognized tribes"? It seems the latter terminology would be more precise, re: the U.S.-based identity distinctions being addressed, wherein, the subject's main issue is reliant upon the U.S. government terminology to understand its parameters clearly; which the term "self-identify" is being compared to and shaped by. Changing the terminology would help to satisfy for neutrality and precision. At some future point in time, it could be very useful, as a sub-section, to offer readers opportunities to learn the historicized and contextualized issues that have led to self-identification as a significant socio-political strategies of many federally non-recognized Indigenous peoples of/ undergoing U.S./North American colonization.

Also, if "established Native American tribes" remains, how is this phrase is defined by scholarly subject-matter experts, the U.S. government, and from multitudes of stake holders on both sides of the issue?

FactBanquet (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Cherokee Nation chief is pushing for stronger laws against the hundreds of fake Cherokee organizations.
• Shawnee Chief says hundreds of fake tribes are stealing millions of taxpayer dollars from established tribes.

 oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's only literature contrary to what's being argued on this page. I say the only consensus on the matter is UNDRIP. Yuchie, Wolfe, you got something better? Tsideh (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, I've sat through endless discussions about Native/Indian/tribal identity and heard proponents contort themselves to arrive at a definition that works in all possible cases of Indian identity. Those of us who paid attention long enough to see all attempts to arrive at a unified definition fail saw the wisdom of UNDRIP, which says it's all a matter of self-determination and all tribes are entitled to identify in their own way on the basis of their own unique history, which they know best. It's the same everywhere in the Americas. There's always the Natives and the colonists from other continents. So it's not that some tribes have a govt-to-govt relationship with the federal or state govt while others can only self-identify cuz they don't such govt relationships. It's that all tribes self-identify, and some, not all, achieve a relationship with the feds, states, etc.

My 2 cents for a consensus is turn this page into an explanation of the many points of view on the question of tribal identity and legitimacy. Federal recognition is one narrow POV, not the "God particle." There are others. The last consensus was reached after more than two decades of discussion among many Native American tribes. In the US, some say.... Tsideh (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Go take your original research elsewhere, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

bulleted or numbered lists

I notice that some states have bulleted lists and others have numbered lists. Should we make them consistent? Donald Albury 15:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to standardize the formatting. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I was gradually changing to numbered lists (more information) as I edited. Yuchitown (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! It is not urgent enough to edit just to change that, so I'll leave you to it. Donald Albury 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2024

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 - Editors commenting here did not support the proposed move, primarily on accuracy grounds given that any organisation that is not a tribe would fall within the scope of the proposed title. Arguments based on ChatGPT outputs were not weighted: editors are reminded that Large Language Models lack any actual understanding of the concepts they discuss - their primary function is prediction of the next token in a sequence. Given the lack of any discussion in the last week, no need for a relist. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

---

List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes → List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes – In reviewing the previous discussion on the list title, I noticed significant confusion and disorganization. So to review the previously proposed titles:

• List of Native American heritage groups
• List of unrecognized Indigenous nations
• List of unrecognized Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized tribes in the United States
• List of corporations posing as Indigenous nations
• List of corporations self-identifying as Indigenous nations
• List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes
• List of organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes
• List of unrecognized organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes

In summary, the proposed variations:

• The main noun: groups, nations, tribes, organizations, corporations
• The descriptor: "Indigenous", "Native American", "in the United States"
• The qualifier: "posing as", "identifying as" "self-identifying as", "that self-identify as" "unrecognized", "heritage"

Now the stated purpose of the move was WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE. These principles emphasize that titles should be no longer than necessary yet descriptive and precise enough to convey the topic clearly to those familiar with the subject matter. However, these principles weren't directly addressed in the discussion and appeared only as boilerplate guidance in the move dialog.

Let's evaluate the proposals based on concision and precision:

• Main noun: On the basis of concision, "groups" and "tribes" are the best options. In fact, it was noted that "groups" was less wordy. Yet instead an argument was made based on WP:CONSISTENCY, identifying WikiProject Organizations, which is not even a mainspace page. A search of mainspace shows that both groups and organizations are used, with about 736 group lists vs. 528 organization lists. As such, consistency, to the extent there is any when it is so close to 50/50, agrees with concision in using the shorter choice "groups".
• Descriptor: While calling these groups "tribes" is controversial, labeling them as "self-identified Native American tribes" is also problematic. For example, the Cherokee Nation identifies itself as a tribe, but including it on this list would be inappropriate. Additionally, "Indigenous" raises broader issues related to colonialism. Descriptions limited to "United States" are more neutral, although not without controversy, as seen in discussions on topics like secessionists and the sovereign citizen movement, but currently those positions are considered WP:FRINGE so it seems safe to use.
• Qualifier: "Heritage" is the most concise, as it doesn't require an "as" clause, but it was mentioned that some organizations claim Native American heritage without identifying as having tribal status. A title like "List of United States heritage groups" makes clear that this word does not capture the scope of the desired list. "Unrecognized" is clear and concise - in the previous discussion, it was left out as it made the title "slightly shorter and simpler", but I would argue it is necessary. "Identify" and "self-identify" are not precise enough to distinguish federally recognized tribes from unrecognized tribes. As for "posing", it seems clear it would be a separate list from the current one under discussion. Although, there was the statement that "reliable sources on legitimacy are not 'very scarce'. It really isn't 'muddy' if you're familiar with the field", so perhaps this list will split in the future into "list of legitimate unrecognized tribes" and "list of posers".

So this leaves us with the words "groups", "tribes", "United States", and "unrecognized". Plug those through the title generator and... out comes "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes". This title seems clear, neutral, and concise in adherence with Wikipedia's guidelines. To compare lengths:

• Previous: List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, 48 chars
• Current: List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, 66 chars
• Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States, 60 chars

The proposed title is similar to the previous one but avoids the appearance of potential bias. In a similar discussion, it was determined that the title "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" was necessary over the shorter alternative "List of hate groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center" for clarity and neutrality. And the proposed title here is both more concise and precise than the current option.

Other variations would be:

• List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes, 76 chars
• List of groups the United States does not recognize as tribes, 61 chars
• List of groups unrecognized as tribes by the United States, 58 chars

However, these alternatives are either longer or use awkward phrasing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Opposed -- "Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States" -- There are federally recognized tribes that also do not recognize these groups that self-identify: Tribal leaders urge Congress to protect Native artists from ‘fake tribes’. There is a Wikipedia article about the "fake tribes" their tribal leader mentions, Cherokee heritage groups, but I also don't see any news articles or books that use that term for these self-identifying groups. In fact, the Cherokee tribes often calls these other groups "history and culture clubs" or "fabricated Cherokee groups" per Tribe establishes Cherokee Identity Protection Committee. Anyway, I think the current title is still most neutral.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the issue though? A comprehensive list can easily include notes about recognition by smaller groups than the US. The issue would be if there were groups recognized by federally recognized tribes that are not recognized by the US, which in fact there are, and classifying them as "self-identifying" is somewhat insulting when there are groups that recognize them. Like I said, feel free to create a "list of posers" article, I just don't think that should be this list. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

groups recognized by federally recognized tribes that are not recognized by the US. Would you care to share an example of what you are talking about? Yuchitown (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It was more of a hypothetical situation, but, for example, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation seems to be on speaking terms with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash. It is rare though, the federally recognized tribe is more likely to absorb the smaller group if there is a legitimate claim and they are close by, and then if they are far away there's no reason to make a statement at all. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, different groups communicate and sometimes work with each other, but that isn't "recognizing" them in any legal sense. Federally recognized tribes do not absorb smaller groups. Back in the 18th century, smaller tribes merged into larger tribes, but that doesn't happen now. A couple of organizations listed here petitioned for independent federal recognition but were denied. One of the seven current criteria for federal recognition is "not being members of other existing federally recognized tribes". The only way that's happened in the recent past is through congressional legislation. Yuchitown (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was from another case, [1]. To quote: "In 2014, a group purporting to be the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes of Oregon introduced federal legislation to 'restore' their existence as a federally recognized Tribe. The leader of this group was recently enrolled as a test case as a member of the Siletz Tribe, mooting out the group’s efforts to achieve separate federal recognition. The legislation has not been reintroduced." In that sense one could say the Siletz Tribe has absorbed the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes of Oregon. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, at this point the Siletz Tribe has enrolled "many [...] Clatsop, Nehalem and Tillamook people". [2] Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yea, as you learn about the history of different federally recognized tribes, you’ll find they seldom only have one ethnic group. The upheavals of the 18th and 19th centuries were massive: disease, war, forced removals, refugees, slavery of Indians, etc. The current confederated tribes in Washington and Oregon can contain dozens of historic ethnic groups, while the Pomo are enrolled in about 20 different federally recognized tribes today. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well in this case it is the Clatsop I am interested in. They were an unrecognized group, they asked for federal recognition, it was denied, and then essentially all of the members relocated and were enrolled in the Siletz recognized tribe. To me that's strong evidence that in most cases, a federally recognized tribe will absorb nearby groups. Hence the lack of federally-recognized tribes recognizing unrecognized tribes - there are simply no tribes to recognize, because they've been absorbed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of groups that are not recognized by the United States as tribes. Many of them also don't self-identify as tribes. Some of them are not in the United States, but are clearly tribes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  True, but for most groups, there are no reliable sources documenting that they are not recognized by the US as tribes, because there was no question to begin with as to whether the US would recognize them - neither the group nor the US had any intent for recognition as a tribe. In that sense, it is actually a pretty narrow scope. If for whatever reason, a group outside the United States got a lot of press attention in its quest to be recognized as a Native American tribe by the US - then yeah, I would certainly revise the inclusion criteria and include it on this list. Maybe that's a better title, "List of groups not recognized as Native American tribes by the United States", but I think "Native American" is implied by "tribe", and the list's lead makes that clear. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This list also excludes tribes officially recognized by state governments but not by the US. That would require something like Lists of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States or by individual states., 82 chars, which is definitely getting unwieldy. Donald Albury 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Girl Scouts of the USA is not recognized as a tribe. Neither is The Rolling Stones or the League of Women Voters. It seems like the concept of self-identification is missing in the suggested title. Something like List of groups self-identifying as Native American tribes without U.S. government recognition or List of self-identified Native American tribes without U.S. government recognition or List of groups self-identifying as Native American tribes without government recognition in the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"The US" can also include the states - federalism is quite weird in that some "US" laws are technically state laws that have passed in all 50 states. Like the drinking age in the United States, for example - technically, the federal law is only a federal highway funding bill, it is the individual state laws one would be prosecuted under. So a state recognition of tribes is essentially a "partial" recognition by the United States (1/50), hence is excluded by the proposed title. But again the lead makes this clear. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion. First, I must say I appreciate the detailed analysis laid out here. Why not "List of unrecognized Native American tribes"? This would seem to better satisfy WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. It avoids using two "main nouns" ("group" and "tribe"). It is unambiguous or at least would be clear to anyone with passing familiarity with "recognized" as applied to "Native American tribes." And I know this is me being obtuse, but I had the same initial reaction as BarrelProof. Virtually all conceivable "groups" are "not recognized by the US as tribes." It's an infinite set. I also prefer "Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" which you offered as an alternative but dismissed. I find this and my suggestion less awkward than what is proposed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. User:BarrelProof eloquently sums up why the proposed title won't work. Many "heritage groups" exist that don't self-identify as tribes; for instance, there are Kiowa groups in Los Angeles and Albuquerque who regularly meet, have potlucks, and share culture. Similar groups meet in other cities, especially in destinations in the termination era. "Organization" implies some structure, as opposed to a casual get-together. "List of unrecognized Native American tribes" makes the unsubstantiated claim that all these groups are tribes, which are political entities. Under U.S. law, Native American tribes are distinct, independent political communities.[3] The current title is the most comprehensive, neutral, and accurate. Yuchitown (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  You and BarrelProof missed the point I made above, which is that there must be reliable sources documenting the lack of recognition. When I Google Girl Scouts I don't get any sources discussing their recognition. In contrast when I Google Cherokee Tribe of California sources that mention their non-recognition are all I get. Now in this case the sources for the Cherokee Tribe of California don't seem too reliable, but it should be clear that as soon as the sources meet the basic threshold of reliability they would be worthy of inclusion. As far as self-identification, they only identify as a "tribal organization", not specifically Native American, so the current title is overprecise and not at all comprehensive or accurate. And neutral... I have already stated why some would consider inclusion on this list to be insulting, given its title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  There’s federally recognized tribes (well-documented) and state-recognized tribes (surprising nebulous but the states are the authority and provide sources, often state bills). Everyone else goes here, included terminated tribes who have not regained their recognition. Yuchitown (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, with federally recognized, state recognized, it also seems inconsistent to suddenly have self-identified rather than unrecognized. In fact many pages that link here still use the "unrecognized" wording. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The articles are List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States. Then there's Indian termination policy. As another user pointed in one of these recent, endless discussions Indian law is complex and the concepts being dealt with are complex, so they aren't going have neat, cookie-cutter titles. Nothing is "sudden" here. Yuchitown (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...there must be reliable sources documenting the lack of recognition. That has it backwards. "Reliable sources" documenting lack of recognition are rare. Most of the organizations on this list are here because they have applied for government recognition or have otherwise claimed to be Native American tribes, but have not been recognized by any government. It is the lack of reliable sources documenting government recognition that puts them here. - Donald Albury 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Petition for federal recognition, as are most of the documents here, are certainly reliable evidence that the organization is not currently federally recognized. They are, though, primary, self-published sources. It would be even better if there were independent secondary sources documenting the lack of recognition. As far as "a lack of reliable sources documenting government recognition", that can't be verified - even if one conducted a search, there could always be some source that one missed that documents government recognition, perhaps an old newspaper mentioning some obscure provision of state legislation or something. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose / Comment - As others have explained more eloquently than I could, I think the proposed alternative is poor. It's both logically imprecise while being practically confusing. That said, I do agree with OP's concerns, and would support "List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" instead. It's long, yes, but I think it would be better to be clear and precise than overly terse, in this instance. Garnet Moss (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  You would then have the challenge that state-recognized tribes are only recognized by a particular state, not necessarily "the United States." Then you would have to prove with citations that every group listed is of Native American descent. The organizations run the gamut from the Nevada City Rancheria and Sandy Lake Band of Mississippi Chippewa to the Kaweah Indian Nation and the Moorish Science Temple of America. With terminated tribes, you might have to add "currently" to the title, since the United States previously recognized them. Yuchitown (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose changing the category name. The current category is accurate, neutral and descriptive. That some would feel the term self-identifying is some sort of negative thing or "somewhat insulting" totally flummoxes me. It is accurate for groups who are neither federally or state recognized, as the group itself identifies as a tribe - it's very clear. Netherzone (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The phrase "self-identified" suggests that the tribe lacks legitimacy or is merely claiming an identity without a cultural or historical basis. Most Native American tribes, recognized or not, see their identity as rooted deeply in history, not something that can be decided or "self-identified". Federal or state recognition status is an administrative label, not a judgment of a tribe's cultural legitimacy, and many tribes that are unrecognized by the US government nonetheless have extensive documentation of their historical continuity. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Continuing to insist that self-identification lacks legitimacy, or is solely negative or somewhat insulting does not make it so; it is not productive and is a personal opinion. Not all Native American groups view self-identification as a negative, but rather as a source of pride and belonging. The clearest example of this is that the largest federally recognized tribe, the Navajo, self-identify as Diné (meaning "the people"). Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't my personal opinion, it is a linguistic opinion formed on the basis of correlations between words and identifying their connotations. To wit, I asked ChatGPT which was more insulting, calling a tribe self-identified or calling it unrecognized, and ChatGPT said by far that self-identified is more insulting. I tried various permutations and prompt variations and so on, but in each case the answer was the same. If you have stronger evidence than a Large Language Model on the connotations of words, by all means bring it up. But this generally seems consistent, but e.g. you can see in the documents I have linked above where those opposed to the tribe use the phrasing "purporting to be", which is grammatically only a small step away from "self-identifying as", whereas those supporting the tribe use more direct phrasing such as "I am Clatsop", rather than something like "I self-identify as Clatsop".

  Regarding your statement, "the Navajo self-identify as Diné", this is quite interesting. There is one result for "the Navajo self-identify", which states "the Navajo self-identify to be of Siberian descent", whereas the article itself states "[scientists] are slowly erasing our cultural identity". The standard phrasing seems to be "call themselves Diné" or "are known among themselves as Diné". There is actually this one statement [4] "If you're not Navajo, call us Navajo. It's our preferred term for foreign relations. Your question is akin to, 'Can I call you sweety?'". According to this statement, then, your statement is false - a Navajo would rarely, if ever, self-identify themselves as Diné to an outsider - they would introduce themselves as Navajo.

  All along here I am making a distinction between the act of self-identification and the use of the phrase "self-identifies as". It is true that identifying oneself is often a source of pride and belonging. But use of the phrase "self-identifies as" is, so far as I can tell, primarily to mock and call this identification into question. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you will look at the discussion a year-and-a-half ago in #Rename title? above, you will see that several of us worked very hard to agree on a neutral title for the article. To claim that, ... the phrase "self-identifies as" is, so far as I can tell, primarily to mock and call this identification into question. is to cast aspersions on everybody who participated in that discussion. Donald Albury 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathnerd314159, ChatGPT and other large language models are not reliable sources for the encyclopedia. Nor is your link to a Reddit thread a reliable source nor is the link to the "Discuss Mormonism" online forum of user-submitted content. But this is a reliable source from the Department of the Interior: [[5]]. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, this statement: Navajo would rarely, if ever, self-identify themselves as Diné to an outsider - they would introduce themselves as Navajo is untrue. I live half-the-year in a geographic region of the country where many Navajo (Diné), Puebloan, Ute, and Apache live. Most of the Navajo people I know, or have met professionally, call themselves Diné, yet I am not Diné myself. Diné is used widely, for example: [6], [7] for example. That may be different in your geographic region, but the kind of blanket statements you are making does not show an attitude of good faith and is disrespectful to the Indigenous editors here as well as allies and members of IPNA. The hypothetical situations, personal opinions and aspersions you are bringing forward are not the same as reliable sources, which is what is required per WP guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll note your personal statement is WP:OR and would also not be considered reliable. Fortunately, the standard for article titles is simply consensus - there is no requirement that the evidence used in article discussions be reliable, verifiable, or even objective - those requirements only apply to the article itself. I think you took my statement out of context - I simply stated that some people find "self-identification" offensive, and some people do not professionally call themselves Diné. If you and your associates are happy to use these terms in the relevant contexts, that doesn't negate the views of others.

  That being said, despite the claim that consensus is not a vote, it seems clear that those who prefer the current article title substantially outnumber Myceteae's tentative suggestion for a slight variation on mine, and none have shown any inclination to change their mind, so there seems to be no point in further discussion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not OR, which is why I included the links to reliable sources using the term Diné outside of the Diné community. Here are some additional sources referring to Navajo people by the self-identified term, Diné: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Netherzone (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I didn't see the ninja edit of those extra sources you added (apparently the comment box alerts on new comments but not edited comments). I would agree that those sources are reliable sources that show that some Navajo people professionally identify themselves as Diné. Past that, as I have said, reliability is not a factor in this discussion. I have no doubts of the veracity of your personal statements regarding your experiences with the Navajo people. But I also have no doubts of the veracity of the Reddit comment I linked. And apparently it's a whole complex political issue, with these attempts to rename the Navajo Nation, [13]. So based on that, I think there are proponents and opponents so it's one-sided to state that the use of the term Diné is appropriate or not. But clearly, based on this bill not passing, it is not correct to state that the Navajo Nation self-identifies as the Diné Nation - otherwise, the bill would have passed. So there you go. A reliable source, a contextual inference. (technically it is WP:SYNTH, but it is also synthesis to take isolated examples of usage and make claims about usage in general).

  So far we have only been discussing one claim of self-identification. Hopefully you can see how complicated it's gotten with regard to sources and definitions and scope and so on. You've even said you've found the blanket use of terms to be disrespectful, echoing my point that the use of the term "self-identify" is harmful - maybe it is not directly disrespectful, but it certainly leads to discussions which cause hurt feelings. Getting back to this list, there are hundreds of organizations. IMO, to properly vet this list, it would probably take thousands of pages of discussion, just to iron out what some of these organizations even are. Like maybe their leader submitted the petition, but one of their members disagrees and has a completely alternate geneology for the tribe, and they had a huge fight, and this disagreement was what led to an incomplete application being submitted to BIA. I don't know, I'm sure there are interesting stories to be uncovered. But these kinds of questions do call into question the identity of the organization, and consequently any assertions of what it identifies as. In contrast, verifying that an organization is not recognized by the US takes precisely one source, that states that. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think most of us have been aware of the status of these diverse groups for years, if not decades. Perhaps you aren't seeing the logic behind the current name, but there has been no votes to support your proposed move; only opposes. Speculating and generating hypotheticals isn't helpful, but there is a wealth of published literature available to you to read about Native American tribal recognition in the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Countless groups aren't recognised as tribes by the United States Government. The overwhelming majority have absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I wrote under Barrelproof, the overwhelming majority have no reliable sources documenting that they aren't recognized as tribes by the US (federal government or states). The ones that do have reliable sources are relatively few and seem worth noting. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  People have explained repeatedly, the US has 574 federally recognized tribes, who are easily cited by the annual list on the Federal Register. Then there are state-recognized tribes, then there are all the other organizations. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any confusion about this. Yuchitown (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just want to follow up to your statement User:Necrothesp that some organizations here obviously are composed of Native Americans, like the Yuchi Tribal Organization and Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Oklahoma groups because their members are almost completely enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation; however, the Muscogee Nation would be the first to explain that these two organizations are not themselves federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  People are, of course, missing my point entirely. "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes" would cover any group/organisation in the world not recognised by the United States as a tribe! The wording is appalling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I was referring to by providing the examples of the Girl Scouts of the USA, The Rolling Stones and the League of Women Voters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support rename. A variation would be preferable, such as a "List of unrecognized Native American tribes and groups," along with the creation of a separate list for those included on this page who do not have reliable sources supporting their identification as Native American.

(SOURCES FOR USE OF "UNRECOGNIZED TRIBES" BELOW, MOST COMMON IN ACADEMIA)

Further: Per WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."

The groups listed as "self-identifying" lack verifiable reliable sources. Assuming that these groups self-identify because they are not recognized by federal or state law constitutes WP:OR and WP:POV when no sources support that assertion. Therefore the more commonly used academic title Unrecognized Tribes appears more concise and accurate.

• "Native American and Indigenous Studies: Southeastern U.S. Nations"
• "In Search of Lost Tribes: Anthropology and the Federal Acknowledgment Process"
• "Acknowledging the Repatriation Claims of Unacknowledged California Tribes"
• "NAGPRA's Politics of Recognition Repatriation Struggles of a Terminated Tribe"
• "Complicities and Collaborations: Anthropologists and the “Unacknowledged Tribes” of California"
• "The United Tribe of Shawnee Indians: The Battle for Recognition"
• "Tribal acknowledgment and memory sites of Native Americans"

-- Bcbc24 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you refer to something as being a "blue car", you're saying it is a car. If you refer to a group as an "unrecognized tribe", you're saying it is a tribe. It is just a tribe that is lacking in recognition. That may involve an assumption of validity of a claim that is not desirable here. Some of the mentioned sources may also be focusing on groups with valid claims rather than considering potentially incorrect claims. Note that titles can be chosen as descriptive titles per WP:NDESC. Such a title doesn't need to be explicitly using a phrase extracted from sources. I don't think it is really feasible to try to make conclusions here to say that some list of particular identified groups don't "have reliable sources supporting their identification" while those in some other list do have such sources. That would just be inviting perpetual disputes here. Wikipedia is about providing information that is available in sources, not drawing conclusions about whose claims are valid and whose or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Unrecognized Tribe," which is more commonly used in academia, is still preferable over self-identifying organizations since some groups on this list include WP:BLPGROUPs, where the self-identifying label then extends to every member of the group, even when RS does not support this self-identification. Tribes and other Native American groups can lack recognition without being self-identifying. Secondary RS also supports that the state can recognize them without formal recognition under state law. Additionally, the groups can verifiably be known as Native American people of a particular Indigenous descent without either federal or state recognition. Extra care should be taken when labeling living people. Bcbc24 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As explained above there's a wide diversity of organizations listed including ones who included citizens of federally recognized tribes so conjection/extrapolation like would be incorrect. These organizations are identifying as tribes. WP:BLPGROUP states "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies"; these are mainly incorporated as 501(c)(3), including some as churches, but the crux is the organizations are what is being listed, not individual members of the organization. For instance, Cecile Hansen, a leader of the Duwamish Tribe is a citizen of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation.[14] —Yuchitown (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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.