Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fall Out

Wasn't she blackballed from Hollywood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.194 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments moved from article

The following discussion 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.

---

Despite the claim here that she is part Mexican, she is, in fact, Native American: part Apache, part Yaqui, part Pueblo and part Caucasian. "Littlefeather" is a name she used professionally, and still uses today. - anon. editor #68.125.225.202, Sep. 15, 2005

The Mexican footnote should be deleted from above. Saying that she is Mexican is like stating one is from the United States or Canada. Like smaller numbers of persons from the U.S. and Canada, many Mexicans are of Native American descent. These borders did not exist to the native peoples and aren't particularly relevant in that context. - anon. editor #132.216.227.219, Sep. 24, 2005

Expanded with birth place and filmography.--Dakota ~ ε ° 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't someone who is Mexican and whose descent is "part Caucasian" not generally considered to be a "Native American," but rather a Mestizo? john k 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst the taboo bubble but "Native Americans" are technically "mestizo" (mixed) too (Chaske Spencer, Tyler Christopher (actor), Kiowa Gordon among others). Reservations accept anyone as long as you got indian blood and identify with it. For example one can only have 25% indian blood and classify as Native American. And FYI "White Americans" are not purely 100% white yet they still identify as white (especially when they look it) and see themselves as such (this includes African-Americans as well) so..... Please stop the double standard ignoramuses.--76.213.233.236 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (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.

Not Native American

While she claim to be White Mountain Apache and Yaqui there is no documentation to back her claims. Neither of these tribes recognize her as citizens, and nobody in her family is ever listed on a census as anything other than Latino. She was an American citizen of immigrant ancestors. 2600:1700:380F:380F:DC75:1E5B:47E5:50CD (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This SF Chronicle piece will need to be carefully considered and included: "But Littlefeather didn’t tell the truth that night. That’s because, according to her biological sisters, Rosalind Cruz and Trudy Orlandi, Littlefeather isn’t Native at all." Keeler, Jacqueline (22 October 2022). "Sacheen Littlefeather was a Native American icon. Her sisters say she was an ethnic fraud". San Francisco Chronicle.. Fences&Windows 13:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow. It's almost like I was right the whole time. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:9814:1097:8D7A:2CAF (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I'm just going to drop WP:CIVIL right here. If you are the editor behind the 2600 IP address, then it must be noted that you did not provide a source for your statement, so there was nothing to be "right" about. Now there is a source, and I agree with Fences&Windows that this information needs to be considered with great care. TNstingray (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 'This information needs to be considered with great care hur dur' Exactly which part? The part where her sisters called her out for being a liar? For misrepresenting her father with a tired (and racist) cliche? Or the part where yet ANOTHER Native American pointed out that her tribes have never heard of her, or her parents, or anyone in their bloodline going back to when Natives were commonly tracked in any paperwork? 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC) WP:CIVIL was the blue link seen above, in case you missed it. Derogatory slang does not help your case at all, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your presence throughout this talk page. The sisters' testimonies are examples of primary sourcing, which may or may not be reliable or independent. To address this, Wikipedia has the policy of using reliable secondary sourcing to help with the analysis and evaluation of certain claims, as it would be inappropriate for us users to do so (original research). You can read more for yourself at WP:SECONDARY. TNstingray (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia: Where if you're the first to tell a lie, idiots will fight hard to defend it. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I provide links to try and help you and give you a chance to recognize the folly in your behavior, even if you are "correct" about the basic premise. Unfortunately, you are not the arbiter of objective truth, and you have not gone about supporting your case in a civil or professional manner per Wikipedia policy. TNstingray (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note There is one part of the collapsed bit above that pertains to the broader discussion, from TNstingray: The sisters' testimonies are examples of primary sourcing, which may or may not be reliable or independent. To address this, Wikipedia has the policy of using reliable secondary sourcing to help with the analysis and evaluation of certain claims, as it would be inappropriate for us users to do so (original research). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The SF Chronicle OpEd, and the derivatives thereof cannot be used as statement of unquestioned fact, per WP:NEWSORG - specifically "... opinion pieces ... written by ... outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up on which RS outlets have gotten up to speed, but... since her death, her family has been speaking up. Her sister in particular is active online now, saying their family is not Native, and that she is very hurt that her sister characterized her father the way she did. I think the family is now speaking to RS media outlets, so, there should be more solid sourcing soon. Jake Tapper from CNN maybe? P.S. Oh, look, the sisters are mentioned above. Sorry, tired and skimming. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In order to include anything on a wikipedia article, especially one about a recently dead person, we need to follow what WP:RS are saying. Her sister is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Well of course, we need WP:RS sources; I never said otherwise. As far as her family goes - It depends on who interviews the family, the fact-checking involved, and then where it is published. I said I assume more RS as in better sources should be coming soon. But where are the RS sources that show she is claimed by the Nations she claims? My understanding is there are none. To prove Native identity they have to show they're claimed. I've stayed out of this one because she's beloved and many don't want to believe it, and I don't have time to argue the 101 right now, but, my understanding is there are zero records connecting her family to any of the Nations. If her family isn't Native, neither is the BLP subject. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If you find errors in the article, you should correct them - reviewing, I see it clearly stated that the claim she is of Apache and Yaqui ancestry attributed to her. Over and over, the article is clear that "she said," in specific claims. I do not see the article making a claim stronger than WP:ABOUTSELF justifies. Any WP:OR about tribes claiming or not claiming her would not be valid for inclusion in this article without a reliable secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

More block evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your understanding is correct; she has zero records connecting her family line (well, really, her father's, since her mom was straight 'white') to any tribe whatsoever. Furthermore, records available place her family nowhere near the tribes she claimed to descend from. She's like a lot of the old military 'stolen valor' people, really. She relied on association with pseudo-Native groups and organizations to bolster her claim. It's really weird how news agencies are avoiding asking, you know, the actual tribes she claims to be descended from. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Hi. This is a problem per WP:BLPTALK, specifically that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Could I ask that you refrain from disparaging the article subject in ways unrelated to improving the article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But the person the article is about is reliable?? Because most of the information contained in this article is from the article's subject. Funny how that logic works. 98.218.148.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to argue for a change in WP:RS, that's certainly possible, but this is not the right place to do it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

More block evasion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'her sister is not a reliable source' How about the tribal records brought up by the author? Or is that 'not a reliable source' either.' 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Tribal records would be a reliable primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, it would almost certainly not be reliable for statements about her ancestry - specifically "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person," with the note that per WP:BDP this almost certainly applies to Ms. Littlefeather, as this material is "... contentious ... material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends." Note also WP:PRIMARY, requiring that you not engage in some sort of original synthesis based on your interpretation of the primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC) So why is her claim, with nothing backing it up but HER word, somehow outweighing BOTH of her sisters' word, exactly. Doesn't make much sense. So, basically, Wikipedia has created a system, seemingly designed to allow Pretendian fraudsters to go unchallenged, not unlike the Liz Warren debacle. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I'm going to ask you again, publically, to stop disparaging the subject of the article. It is, in fact, true that Wikipedia provides extra weight to things stated by reliable sources than it does to OpEds. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC) So THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMANT is a 'RELIABLE SOURCE" because she said it first. You understand this exact thing is why schools teach students that Wikipedia is not a useful source, right. 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia has countless pages of policies to pursue core pillars of reliability, verifiability, and neutrality. Problems arise when certain people want to come in and bypass those guidelines to insert unsourced opinions, hyperbole, or preconceived notions intended to disparage the subject matter and/or fellow editors. Behaving this way does nothing but hurt your case. If you would like to provide reliable sourcing or applicable WP policies/guidelines, feel free. Otherwise, please cease hostilities. TNstingray (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS says opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact". It's doesn't say never reliable. In this case, the author of the SF Chronicle article, Jacqueline Keeler, is a noted researcher on those who pretend to be Indians. The SF Chronicle article is clearly of journalistic quality - Ms. Keeler extensively documents the work she did in determining Littlefeather's past. I personally find it the piece to be compelling because of its detail, and I've added it back to this Wikipedia article as a source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the Independent, she is Not Native American

Ok, so the Independent, which is RS, states that her sisters say that their family is not Native American. They were Mexican. This is combined with investigative work by Jacqueline Keeler that otherwise finds no proof that she is Native American. The only claim contending that she is Native American, is Littlefeather herself. This is clearly relevant to the article and for balance, should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep. It would be farcical to exclude what her sisters now say as unreliable, while including her own claims as "reliable" having been laundered through several decades of the press. We shan't endorse either side, but we've got to include this. Fences&Windows 09:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Just quote exactly what the sisters said. Then there is no editorializing, just recording information. Yuchitown (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

There is no quote in the Independent article provided here. The article claims the sisters were interviewed in a piece for SF Chronicle, but the Independent didn't interview them. Additionally, the Independent article relays evidence that the author of the SF Chronicle was the source of the information that the sisters provided, which is embedded in tweets. From one sister: "That's right we are not native. I just found that out by contacting Jacqueline Keeler." (tweet)

My point being, there's no RS here showing either sister revealed themselves or Littlefeather to not be native, but there does appear to be a primary source (one sister) revealing that the author of the SF Chronicle source is the originator of the claim, not Littlefeather's sisters.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the San Francisco Chronicle piece by Jacqueline Keeler:

"...Littlefeather told The Chronicle that she took the stage at the Oscars because “I spoke my heart, not for me, myself, as an Indian woman but for we and us, for all Indian people … I had to speak the truth. Whether or not it was accepted, it had to be spoken on behalf of Native people.” But Littlefeather didn’t tell the truth that night. That’s because, according to her biological sisters, Rosalind Cruz and Trudy Orlandi, Littlefeather isn’t Native at all. “It’s a lie,” Orlandi told me in an exclusive interview. “My father was who he was. His family came from Mexico. And my dad was born in Oxnard.” “It is a fraud,” Cruz agreed. “It’s disgusting to the heritage of the tribal people. And it’s just … insulting to my parents.” Littlefeather’s sisters both said in separate interviews that they have no known Native American/American Indian ancestry. They identified as “Spanish” on their father’s side and insisted their family had no claims to a tribal identity. “I mean, you’re not gonna be a Mexican American princess,” Orlandi said of her sister’s adoption of a fraudulent identity. “You’re gonna be an American Indian princess. It was more prestigious to be an American Indian than it was to be Hispanic in her mind.” The sisters reached out to tell me their story because..."

Have you read that piece, or were you only going off The Independent and the aforementioned twitter content? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be included now (Walker Snarling) (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have read it, the SF Chronicle piece is plainly opinion, labeled as such and specifically filed in the outlet's "Open Forum". In describing the Open Forum, SF Chronicle says, "Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership" (emphasis removed). This is visible on the right-hand side of the piece and here is no reason to believe the SF Chronicle piece is anything more than "original insights". It is nowhere close to being a reliable source for this article. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinchme, multiple sources are now reporting what the sisters have said, and Rozalind Cruz is backing up these statements on twitter. Her account is not a blue check, as she's not a celebrity, but she is confirming that they immediately told Keeler they're not Native, not the other way around. Your edits are strongly implying that Keeler has fabricated this; this is inappropriate. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is also an incorrect characterization, as the other sources reporting on the SF Chronicle piece are reporting what's claimed in the piece. The tweet your referring to makes it clear the sister contacted Keeler and Keeler told her Littlefeather was not native. "That's right we're not Native. I just found that out by contacting Jacqueline Keeler." (tweet with screenshot) Until reliable sources independently verify allegations made by Keeler, anything traced to her opinion article should be attributed as such and it is inappropriate not to attribute. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is not the issue, it's the language you used and implications. And it's not just one tweet taken out of context. The wording you cite was confusing and then confused; you need to follow the entire dialogue, and more discussions the sisters are having, not just cherry-pick one thing that was misinterpreted. Actually, leave the tweets out of it; they're not usable. More sources are being published now. I'll add some of them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there some reason you think we should leave out vital primary source info in determining whether the claims in the opinion piece are to be trusted? I did follow the conversation correctly: Cruz claimed Littlefeather was not native ("one of the top ten" of those who allegedly falsely claim to be Native). Someone asks for clarification. Another person interjects that Cruz is Littlefeather's sister. And finally Cruz confirms she's her sister, reasserts the claim ("we are not Native), and then states plainly where she got this allegation (quoted and emphasized above). Until other sources verify or evaluate this opinion article, it is not to be trusted for anything more than as statements made by Keeler. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Cruz claimed to be Apache and later Yaqui. What Apache community? She never said and the claim has never been corroborated by any Apache community. None. You don't simply become Native by declaration yet that claim is supposed to be allowed to stand? Her sisters have not only disputed her supposed indigeneity but the claims that their childhood household was abusive and rooted in abject poverty when that was not the case. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is at issue here is the lack of reliability for the SF Chronicle opinion piece, being used to report a sister's statements about this article's subject. One source, already in this Wikipedia article, reports Littlefeather's Native identity as specifically and White Mountain Apache and Yaqui (source). Another source reports this specific claim as coming from Littlefeather {source). This WP article attributes each claim to Littlefeather herself. I think refuting those is going to take more than an opinion piece that claims to report interviews with the subject's sisters, where there's credible primary evidence showing that the author of the opinion piece was the one to originate the sisters' claims. And, once more I reiterate, Keeler's piece is purely opinion and is not a piece of journalistic writing, so it had no oversight whatsoever with respect to basic facts, background information, corroboration of even things she claims were told to her in interviews, or - crucially - whether or not Keeler herself is the source of Littlefeather's sisters' assertions about her identity. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Keeler is a respected journalist and author. She writes about topics of import in Indian Country. To claim that the Cruz sisters had no idea about their childhood and background is as factitious as their sister's claims at indigeneity. Again self-declaration does not mean you are Native. The White Mountain Apache have never publicly claimed her. With her being such a notable figure one would think they would have had a relationship. They didn't. She participated in so many things, why did she not participate in events at her supposed community? Cruz's claims are all primary source. There is not one instance of any Apache community, let alone White Mountain, affirming her claims. Everything that has been published has been based on her claims alone.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if, in other contexts Keeler has sometimes written as a journalist. In this one context she was not writing as a journalist and her opinion piece did not go through any kind of independent fact checking. This is not in any sense of WP policies a reliable source. Anything within the piece, including supposed statements from the sisters, should be attributed to Keeler, until independently verified by a reputable source. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is, and although its reported in multiple RS, they are all quoting the SF chronicle piece as their source (I double checked all the sources), and we can't use it because of wikipedia rules as its an opinion piece. We need to wait for it to be reported in another secondary source that is RS. And her sisters say their family are mexican, not Native American, but that's in their social media accounts... which we also can't use! IN all odds, she's probably not Native American, but the article can't state that presently. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the cited article source that specifically states Littlefeather's father was of White Mountain Apache and Yaqui descent (the 2012 Indian Country Today opinion piece by Dina Gilio-Whitaker), the author doesn't explain where she got her information from. Do you think she did independent research on Littlefeather's tribal ancestry, or went off what Littlefeather said? Interestingly, Gilio-Whitaker re-tweeted Keeler's bombshell piece yesterday (no rebuttal comments, just a re-tweet). Then she tweeted this about the White Mountain and Yaquis tribes (not sure what that's in reference too), plus this tweet today about about Littlefeather's condition. I wonder what that means. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Dina is stating in her tweet that the White Mountain Apache do not claim her, that she has no connection to them and that she is waiting to hear back from the Yaqui. The Yaqui are going to say the same thing. She never claimed to be a descendant or that she was looking into her ancestry from Mexico because she thought she may have Indigenous ancestors. She made open claims of tribal affiliation when there was none. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

ICT's value as a source has varied extremely over the years, depending on ownership and authorship. At one point, they had non-Native ownership and a largely non-Native writing staff. In those years, terrible misinformation was published, and self-id was the norm. A number of nons were taken at their word and called Native in articles on that site. It got really bad. In more recent years, the site was once again sold, and there was a massive turnover in staff. If you look at the masthead now, writers include their Nation/Tribe. The quality that I've seen is much better. But I still check to see exactly who the author is, and whether or not they're known for checking. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Keeler is a respected journalist." Could you provide some evidence she's employed by a journalistic outlet of repute? Hipocrite (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

She's freelance. You can see where she's been published here [1]https://muckrack.com/jacqueline-keeler Indigenous girl (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time getting to respected from that list. If we exclude the dead vanity outlet, substack, medium, blogs and opinion pieces, we're left with a much smaller count. I'm not denying her opinion is notable, I'm denying it can be written in wikivoice. Hipocrite (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that "multiple sources are now reporting what the sisters have said." Could you provide an example of such a source that does not reference them having said it to the SFC? Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen ?

Is there a meaning of her self-chosen first name Sacheen? Does anybody else carry this name?

At least for an answer to the first question she could be a fine source ; ) Helium4 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Per our article, she says the name means "little bear." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, Sacheen said it means "Little Bear" in the Navajo language. Jacqueline Keeler says it does not. Keeler maintains that "little bear in Navajo is "shush yazh". Sacheen's sisters point out that in their youth they and Sacheen used to make clothes using ribbon and thread from the Sasheen Ribbon Company and suspect that this is how Sacheen derived the name. (I wonder, by the way, if one is going to put the invented surname, "Littlefeather" in English why one doesn't put the invented first name in English as well--or vice versa.) TheScotch (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So I am forced to disagree with Helium4. Sacheen herself would appear to be a somewhat questionable source for the meaaning of her adopted first name. TheScotch (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Credibility?

Before reading this article I knew nothing about Sacheen Littlefeather beyond the Academy incident (and the apology that made me look her up). I hold no particular views on this beyond being a Brando fan. The text though gives a very strong impression of a largely self-invented biography (even before looking at sources and the discussion here). Perhaps that's not the authors' intention. 2A02:AA1:1620:E39E:6C81:95EE:AFA:D65B (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and while I think the negative slant some editors wish to see in the article is not supported by the sources, certain uncontroverted facts about the subject's life kind of lean this way -- her assumption of her name, for instance. I draw no moral conclusion from that, but I do understand your point. If you have suggestions for improving the article, please make them. I would certainly be all ears. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Suppose Brando had declined his award to protest the way Scots have been portrayed in Hollywood. Would it have helped the cause if his surrogate had bounded on the stage dressed in a kilt and brandishing a set of bagpipes? The fake name is one thing; the cosplay is another. TheScotch (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Allegations

@CorbieVreccan revered my edit.[2] Since there's only once source for this allegation at this time we need to be careful per WP:BLP about taking an editorial stance on this subject. Until there's more independent reporting, this should be characterized as an allegation. To that end, the article should say:

Shortly after her death, Littlefeather's biological sisters alleged in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Jacqueline Keeler that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.

This is a current NPOV summary of where this issue stands at this point. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I really think what we have is fine as it is. Why do you assume Marie/Sacheen is more credible than her family. These aren't random individuals speaking about a stranger, or even a friend. This is her biological family. They know their own reality and ancestry. They are allowed to say who they are. They can allege that Sacheen fabricated the abuse allegations, but it's their right to say that they and their family are not Native American because they are speaking about themselves. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you assume Marie/Sacheen is more credible than her family. I'm not making an assumption. We have new information from a single source that's from an op-ed. Once there are multiple third-party reports confirming the allegation then the article can reflect those reports. Nemov (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

CBS News published a story where Roger Ebert refered to her as Mexican and a lawyer was involved. It's awaiting a response from Keeler and the sisters, so perhaps that's an article to watch as another source that isn't just repeating all its info from the SFChronicle or using tweets from non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) folks.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you assume Sacheen is less credible than her sisters? Were you aware that someone can both be indigenous and be from Mexico? Were you aware that indigenous nations in Mexico generally don't have membership rolls like they do in Canada and the US? Were you aware that claiming to be 100% spanish is run of the mill assimilationism for mixed race latin americans? Keeler certainly does not seem to have been aware of any of these things. She may turn out to be correct about this regardless, but at the moment it's essentially one source against dozens 173.247.139.141 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be original research on the part of us editors to make those inferences, and so the difficult task remains to plow through sourcing to determine what is reliable, and how to reflect that in the article, whichever way things end up slanting. TNstingray (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, the IP is asking a perfectly valid question (the first sentence), and what you are interpreting as WP:OR strikes me as a persuasive background. I certainly have my suspicions about where things are going to end up, but by my lights, WP:BLP still applies, and we seem to be utterly disregarding every reliable source prior to the Chronicle article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, this article is a pretty big deviation from WP:BLP at the moment. A single opinion piece should not be given this much sway in this article, especially given the actual news piece from Variety that calls into question the opinion piece. I've already been chastised for removing this BLP-violating opinion piece so I won't do it again, but this is a pretty concerning situation at the moment. Reinstating "alleged" would at the very least make it clear this isn't a settled matter. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

For one Sacheen claimed to belong to a tribe she clearly did not belong to. Regardless of if she does have a lot of indigenous ancestry she made claims that are false about her ethnic backround.★Trekker (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that there have been people drawn to this article with some polarizing views. The competting arguments are to mention this issue as a near fact or mention it with sources attacking the author of the op-ed. Given that there's only one source for the allegation, can we find some middle ground?

Shortly after her death, Littlefeather's biological sisters alleged in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Jacqueline Keeler that Littlefeather fabricated her Native American ancestry and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.

This states that the claims are alleged. It mentions it's from an op-ed. This would be a good place to hold it until there's further information. Nemov (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I know my opinion probably isn't very important but I'm 100% good with that. Also, I'll admit, my disparagement of Keeler, while sincere, was premature, provocative, and not really relevant, so I apologise for bringing that into this. 173.247.139.141 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor wording change in the last part of the sentence would be that her father was of "Mexican descent with no tribal ties". The SF source with the allegations against Littlefeather mention that they found no Native tribal connections to her family [3] And the other source that has been provided on her article (Rolling Stone) mentions (though drawing from the SFC allegations) that her father had Mexican familial origins but no ties to the tribal nations there. [4] Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Nemov (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov: - I see some users had put "Spanish-Mexican descent", I'm assuming because the SFC sources mentions that her sisters apparently identify their father as "Spanish". (Quote: They identified as “Spanish” on their father’s side.) I'm still be for simply stating "Mexican descent [with no tribal ties]" because the source doesn't appear to explicitly mention Iberian ancestry (especially recent ones), rather claiming that their father had Mexican family origins and no Native/tribal ancestry.

Plus, "Spanish" in an American context may be somewhat confusing? The source even put "Spanish" in quotation marks. It could refer to someone with ties to Hispanic America (i.e - Mexico, Guatemala, etc), someone from a Spanish-speaking family or someone belonging to the Spanish ethnicity/from Spain for example. And I'm sure there might be other connotations in an American context. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That user has a name and I'm opposed to reducing it simply to Mexican. We should carry over words closer to what was used by the speaker and that's literally the term they used. Raquel Welch on her page has her own quote saying her father was of Spanish ancestry, we're not obliged to go detective mode and trace ancestry to Spain. --Killuminator (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I am not saying I know that there are untruths, but a claim like saying John Wayne had to be physically restrained should probably either be sourced somewhere other than an interview with Littlefeather, or it should be noted that she claims it is true. That should have an independent source if it's going to be stated as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.146.222 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable request. 24.42.183.131 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There's really no other source that doesn't come directly from her.

Much like her claim that her father was Yaqui or Apache, despite Manuel Cruz appearing in neither tribe's rolls.

The reality is that much of what she claimed about her life, the only 'evidence' is her claims and nothing else. For example, there is no evidence that John Wayne (or Clint Eastwood) ever tried to assault her, except for her own words. Every single place where someone told the story, they could find no other account but hers. Her claim that she's Native American? No evidence other than her own words.

For the claim that John Wayne had to be stopped from assaulting her, there is no evidence whatsoever. There wasn't even an article about it in 1973 (the year that the alleged even took place), nor until DECADES later.

Pretty much every claim she's made about herself, from her Native American heritage to her near-encounter with John Wayne, should be taken with a grain of salt. Austinlewis87 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. So far, multiple reliable sources report the incident with John Wayne having to be restrained and kept from harming her as fact. I see no reason to doubt the reliability of these sources, given that no sources which call this event into question has been produced. Lots of secondary sources make determinations about the facts they report by pointing to only one source of info for that fact. This doesn't mean the source is the only one, it's just the only source provided. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Pinchme123 here; the John Wayne claim is now found in several reliable sources, and that is what we need for Wikipedia. But furthermore, for personal edification, Oscars director Marty Pasetta also referred to the incident, as indicated in his obituary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty dishonest take on what Marty Pasetta actually said, but let's be honest; pretty much everyone involved in this page seems dedicated to propping up absurd lies from 'Littlefeather,' like her pretend Native American heritage and her almost being assaulted by John Wayne. Austinlewis87 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

How is that a "dishonest take"? Dumuzid (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Which part? She's not Native American, and there's no evidence, including Marty's obituary, to back it up. And pretty much everyone wanted her pulled off the stage, and Brando punished, for the inanity of his actions.

Let's read what the obituary said: John Wayne "was so angry he wanted to go out and pull her off stage"

Nothing there says he did, or even tried to, pull her off stage. In fact, only Littlefeather has made that claim at any point, ever.

Given her open dishonesty about her Native American heritage (she has no biological connection to any recognized tribe in the US), I'm not inclined to give her 'the benefit of the doubt' in what has become her only real claim to fame. Austinlewis87 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Ms. Littlefeather. But please see this article which quotes Passetta as saying "John Wayne wanted to go out there and physically yank her off the stage. It took six men to hold him back." Again, I know little and don't really care about the underlying politics here, but your statement In fact, only Littlefeather has made that claim at any point, ever appears to me to be untrue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That claim is bullshit, just like her claim to being Native American. She was the Rachel Dolezal of the 1970s. 2601:647:667F:FF68:7C0E:3930:6E9E:772 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This entire article should be rewritten to reflect that she was apparently the Rachel Dolezeal of her era. Her sisters say she was not Native American at all. 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been stated in sections below, Wikipedia records information as presented by reliable sources. This is a developing scenario, and the Wikipedia community will carefully navigate it based on policy and precedent. TNstingray (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should look at how high her cheekbones were. Right?

Nevermind, She's 1/1024th Indian. Lets let the whole history of this scam artist stand as it because... progress. PatentlyObtuse (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Her sisters are saying in October 2022 that it was untrue she was Native American. This entire article may have to be redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

John Wayne was a big guy, but common sense says that "six men to restrain" him is clearly an exaggeration, especially if any of the men were professional bouncers. I have no doubt that this story is at least embellished.TheScotch (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

New source for review (Variety)

[5] is also OpEd, but should be reviewed. Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

[6] is news, not OpEd and has some statements about social media I think merit inclusion - specifically, "Notably, several Native American writers and activists have denounced the Chronicle column on social media, saying that its writer, Jacqueline Keeler, has long-exercised a vendetta against Littlefeather, among other figures she calls “Pretendians.” They also say Littlefeather’s sisters thought they were of Native American ancestry until Keeler informed them they weren’t. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a connection between the writer of the variety article and the person who organized the apology to Sacheen from the academy according to Keeler. And also, why do those tweets matter in the article? Aren't they just opinions? I thought we were trying to avoid using tweets as sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

These are articles published by Variety, not tweets. Your speculation about the author of a reliable source is not relevent to it being reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't change anything that should be covered here. There needs to be a WP:RS that debunks the allegations from Littlefeather's sisters. Speculation about the reporter certainly doesn't need to be discussed on this article. Nemov (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There's really nothing in either Variety article to "debunk" the sisters' comments. Anyone find anything to validate Sacheen's claims? Yet those are strangely used throughout this article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a reliable source that calls into question the sisters' comments. Reliably source comments from the articles subject are valid for inclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't add this again without support. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support inclusion of the Variety article as a caveat to the Chronicle's claims. I suspect it will be sorted out in time, but for now I think we need to represent the tumultuous nature of the discourse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Short of removal of the Chronicle opinion piece (the Chronicle as a news outlet isn't claiming anything) and related information, I too support inclusion of this Variety news article to highlight the contentious nature of the new material. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that 3 editors supporting inclusion and none opposed meets the bar of "with support," and suggest you undo your reversion. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Variety seems off-topic if it's about the journalist and not Sacheen. I'm against it if it's about the journalist. The inclusion of Sacheen's unverified claims of being Apache is contentious but you're not arguing against removing that or asking for better sources. Interesting.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The article in Variety is inherently about our subject, and reflects the unsettled nature of the issue at this point. To my mind, stating things as definitive one way or the other would not currently be WP:NOPV. As I said earlier, I suspect things will shake out in time, but they have not done so yet, and so I think we need to be cautious and reflect the uncertainty and conflicting claims. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to be included at this time is that according to an op-ed her sisters alleged Littlefeather isn't a Native American. Who wrote the op-ed, who speculated about the author of the op-ed, and who tweeted about the op-ed is irreverent. Nemov (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a widely covered claim that I think belongs in the article, but I also think the (thus far) minor pushback belongs in the article. Again, you may well be right in the fullness of time. But I personally believe when things are in flux as they are now, the best WP:NPOV approach is to outline the issue, as it were. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the person or the controversy. So far there's only one source for the allegation. Until there's further information from WP:RS this only deserves a small mention. I understand the political nature of this and the push back is obvious. Unless there's some real reporting that this allegation is false nothing else needs to be added. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how the Variety article is not "real reporting"? Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The article discusses the author of the op-ed and what activists are talking about on Twitter. None of that is a real challenge to the central claim of the original op-ed. It's a story about an article and how it's being talked about on social media. Sure, it's interesting, but not relevant.

I'd leave it like this:

Shortly after her death, Littlefeather's biological sisters alleged in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.

That's neutral and it doesn't take a stance on the story. IT's a summary of what is covered. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also false - the sisters did not write the OpEd. The OpEd needs be attributed, per WP:RSOPINION Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It may not seem relevant to you, but apparently it was relevant to Variety, which is a fairly major publication in the entertainment world. On that basis, I still believe a brief mention is worthwhile. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't cite every single source just because a site like Variety reported on it. I have laid out a my case for why it doesn't deserve inclusion. You disagree, that's fine, but Wikipedia editors decide what's relevant for Wikipedia, not Variety. Nemov (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree entirely (which is why I couched my position as "I still believe"). We shall see which way consensus goes; at this time I am not seeing a clear one in any particular direction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's imperitive that if we include Keeler's article in this article, we also include the caveat published by Variety in their news section - specifically, I dipsute the following reversion: [7]. This article currently violates NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Back to this quote from Nemov: "Who wrote the op-ed, who speculated about the author of the op-ed, and who tweeted about the op-ed is irrelevant". It's completely a non-NPOV to even speculate that the journalist had a "vendetta" or anything else of the nature. Even to say "According to Variety" is pushing non-NPOV about the journalist because it's basically a bunch of tweets from some people who aren't all that notably by Wikipedia standards. That suggested edit is filled with WP:WEASEL words and other language to avoid.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That's just a flat violation - per WP:RSOPINION- "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." That's why we need to note the claims are made by Keeler. Regardless, [8] appears to be a reliable source. If it says things, those things can, and if given due weight should, be included in the article, even if you don't like them. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oncamera, WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. As such, it strikes me that it is the exclusion of the Variety piece that would be contrary to this policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nemove, saying the sisters "allege" their family is not Native American is... awkward when they're not Native and have never claimed to be. They have stated on the record who they are and are not. None of tribes their sister claimed have ever claimed any of their family. We can just say they said it. FWIW, I agree that tweets and other tangents about Keeler don't belong in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree they belong in this article. They could go on Pretendian or her own page as they seem to address a larger issue besides Sacheen.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I made a terrible typo. I was actually agreeing with you, and mistyped. The tweets and tangents DO NOT belong here. I immediately edited to correct my mistake. All apologies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

oh, I replied before the edit to correct your statement, CorbieVreccan. My comments still stand, they can go on other page but even then, referencing her list has been discussed on her own page so that can be discussed further there.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Again, agree :) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

See new section below. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources that support an excluded viewpoint

• [9] - "Keeler has become controversial for her methods; she has reportedly mistakenly included true Native Americans on the list, questioned the heritage of at least one figure legitimately enrolled in a federally recognized tribe, and has included information on the list that resembles doxxing, per PowWows.com." "Some social media users have raised alarms about Keeler’s reporting, pointing to Rosalind Cruz’s Twitter account as a factor in their disbelief. (Cruz’s account is unverified, but Keeler’s account—also unverified—has retweeted and responded to its posts.) In some posts, Cruz seemingly admits that she believed Littlefeather’s claims about their heritage until Keeler told them otherwise. An apparent history of bad blood between the sisters also seems to cast doubt upon their claims."
• [10] - "Notably, several Native American writers and activists have denounced the Chronicle column on social media, saying that its writer, Jacqueline Keeler, has long-exercised a vendetta against Littlefeather, among other figures she calls “Pretendians.” They also say Littlefeather’s sisters thought they were of Native American ancestry until Keeler informed them they weren’t."

Without including this viewpoint, in two non-opinion reliable sources, stated in their own words, this article violates NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. There is no need to start a new section and pretend this is new material just because AV Club reposted it. So now you do want to include stuff based on tweets and message board posts, and things based on the powwows.com board you argued to have removed? If you're so interested in now using social media as a source (which we are not going to do) see where Keeler responds to Variety that they never even contacted her for comment. Again, I'm not saying her list is not controversial - of course it is - but your continual pushing to trash her based on social media flurries is rather over the top. And you are continuing to misrepresent the miscommunication by one of the sisters. They approached Keeler; they always knew they aren't Native. One tweet out of context got misinterpreted. You already know this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the general thrust here, we would not be using social media as a source, but rather Variety -- while that is obviously underpinning that source, Variety is entitled to make a call that it fits their strictures for reporting and we are entitled to make the call that Variety is reliable (or not!) and rely on the article premised on social media. I certainly don't advocate trashing anyone, but I think a brief mention of the article in a sort of "there was pushback" frame would be appropriate. As ever, reasonable minds can differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

AV Club is using powwows.com as their source, which most of us agree is not usable. The Variety pieces are already being discussed in the section above. Hipocrite wants to selectively remove pieces critical of Cruz/Littlefeather that quote social media, but use ones that rely on social media that are critical of the sisters and/or Keeler. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You lack an understand of how WP:RS works. When Variety say something, a reliable source has said it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPRS. From my understanding, the mere inclusion in one reliable source might not be enough. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Just throwing that out there, for what it's worth. TNstingray (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that BLPRS rejects including exclupatory claims about the article subject in two articles from the news section of reliable publications, but supports inclusion of deragotry claims about the article subject from the opinion section of reliable publications and quotes of that self-same article from red-tagged publications (Rolling Stone is not-RS for post 2011 politics and society - WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Hipocrite (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm saying it is an applicable policy to consider. TNstingray (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, this is simply a continuation of the New source for review (Variety) discussion above. Can the user withdraw this or fold it into the other discussion you started? Your question is likely to get lost and confuse other editors. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to refactor the talk page. I think it's imperitive that when I added the NPOV tag I explained why clearly. Hipocrite (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Variety and AVClub sources seem rather cherry-picked, considering that there are now various other RS which cover Keeler's revelations without giving room to these "violent vendetta" accusations her; instead, several of them add further doubts about Littlefeather's (rather than Keeler's) credibility. For example:

• CBS (which highlights that Roger Ebert had already written in 2004 that "Littlefeather was later [i.e. after the Oscar speech] identified as Maria Cruz, an actress who was not an Indian")
• The Guardian
• Vanity Fair (mentioning "that film historian Farran Smith Nehme has gone to great efforts to debunk" Littlefeather's claims about John Wayne)
• Deadline which examines Littlefeather's credibility based on a lengthy interview she had given Jacqueline Stewart shortly before her death (where she made some "some startling claims" and admitted that she had not actually seen the Wayne incident but rather "heard a commotion backstage"), and highlights that she was "by her own account, a diagnosed schizophrenic"
• Entertainment Weekly

Back to Hipocrite's Variety and AVClub sources: I think it's possible that these "vendetta" accusations against Keeler might be adequate to mention in the Jacqueline Keeler article, with due consideration of NPOV and BLP of course. In this article about Littlefeather they seem to be offtopic.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, and I think that's the important point; we're veering off topic. We can't reasonably have an article about Sacheen Littlefeather without stipulating that she claimed to be Indian and we can't reasonably stipulate that she claimed to be Indian without adding that various sources maintain she was not. We can and should, however, leave it at that. If the subject of article were the controversy, rather than the person, then the back-and-forth could be extended, but the subject of the article is not the controversy; the subject is the person. TheScotch (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Married?

Is it known if she was ever actually married? Considering her lawyer's comment in the letter to Ebert? ★Trekker (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@StarTrekker: Her Washington Post obituary says "By the time of her Oscars speech, she was married to Michael Rubio, an engineer. She later married Charles Koshiway Johnston, her partner of 32 years, who died in 2021." Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: Ah, thanks! Probably worth adding somewhere to her personal life section.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant to add marriage info. It's what we generally do on bios, and the names of the spouses are particularly relevant due to the weird claim in the lawyer's letter. There's also some bio data I'm not seeing in the article, from a California paper around the time of the Oscars incident. That also had people who knew her discussing her origins and not being Native. I don't think any of that has been included. I think the clipping is available on one of the newspapers archives sites, but I'll have to see if I can find out which one. Or if someone else could check those sites, that would be good. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Good work, all. This is a big improvement. Thanks. TheScotch (talk)

POV Tag

The POV tag should be removed from the article. I have a few nitpicky issues with some of the wording, but I wouldn't characterize the article as taking sides are not being neutral. There's plenty of good discussion here and overall the article is in good shape. Can we remove the tag now? Nemov (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support this. I'm sure the wording can be further improved but it doesn't seem to me there are any neutrality issues. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I also support removing the tag, I see now POV pushing information in the article really, there is some dispite but most of it is contained on the talk page.★Trekker (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, removed tag. Nemov (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Roger Ebert banned from this article?

So, Roger Ebert questioned Littlefeather's ethnicity back in 2003. Funnily, Ebert is cited by Wikipedia multiple thousands of times. But Dumuzid just excised this little note, under the "Ancestry Dispute" heading at the bottom of the entry, sourced to the Chicago Sun-Times

Roger Ebert had already disputed Littlefeather's Native American ethnicity in 2003.

Now, Dumuzuid argues Ebert can't be cited because he appends a legal note at the bottom. But you see, Ebert's assertion that Littlefeather was not an Indian is not contingent on the note.

And if you wanted to dive into the legal note, which I do not recommend, it has the little gem that Littlefeather was married (according to her lawyers or people who say are her lawyers) and that Littlefeather's husband bore the Cruz last name. But again, I do not think the legal note has any importance nor any bearing into Ebert's simple assertion, and I don't see why the presence of the note should be a gag on Ebert's assertion.XavierItzm (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I neither had nor have any intention of banning Roger Ebert (R.I.P.) from anything! And I agree, the legal notice is, to put it mildly, dodgy. But Ebert included it himself and refers to it as a "clarification." I have no doubt that was to avoid legal tsuris, but that's what he did. That makes it kind of crucial to the piece. It would be rather like running a fact from a news story which was later corrected, and not mentioning the correction. Of course, if the weight of consensus is against me, that's fine, but I think we have to take this source (like any other!) as we find it, and can't simply ignore the bit that doesn't suit us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Given your penchant towards trolling and offensive commentary about people's identities (see [11] and [12] [13]) I think you should avoid this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Hey Oncamera, as you can see above, my issue is not with the notability of Roger Ebert, it's with his appended "clarification" that we need to ignore in order to cite the article as we currently are. Any thoughts would be appreciated here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the note on the article applies at all to including it on Wikipedia as it was written. Is there some policy related reason? Otherwise, it's a reliably sourced statement by an important figure and it's censorship to not include it per WP:NOTCENSORED.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to include, but the lawyer's letter also needs to be mentioned to give the full picture. I have gone ahead and made this addition. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2022 (

It seems to me that as the article currently stands, mention of the legal note just muddies the waters. The legal note says that Cruz is Littlefeather's married name. As I understand it, however, Littlefeather's birth name is no longer a matter of dispute. She was named Marie Cruz at birth. If she did not actually marry a man named Cruz, the legal note is blatantly lying. If she did actually marry a man named Cruz, it is obfuscating. If we're going to include mention of the legal note, we need to point out immediately after that her birth name was Marie Cruz, and we need to say immediately after whether or not she really did marry a man named Cruz, otherwise we're being deliberately misleading. TheScotch (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you -- the legal note is not to be trusted. The problem is that Ebert presented it as if it were. It's all one source given that Ebert calls it a "clarification" and does not inherently contradict it. As I have said elsewhere, I think it's easy to understand why it wound up as it did, but I do not think we're entitled to chop up a source this way to take only the parts with which we agree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to "chop it up" to put it in proper perspective, but we can't just leave it as it is and expect the casual Wikipedia reader not to be deeply confused. Here's my reconstruction: Ebert discovered that this person's name was really Marie (or Maria, as he thought) Cruz, concluded that she wasn't really an Indian. and published his conclusion. The person in question dishonestly had her lawyer write Ebert to say Cruz was her married name. Ebert innocently added the false information. The question I have about the marriage is NOT rhetorical. The article needs to say whether she was married and if so, who she was married to. TheScotch (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you pretty much all the way, but your explanation (which is also mine!) is complete original research and/or synthesis. That's the chopping up I mean. And I agree that it is a source of confusion. That's why I think it's best to leave the source out entirely, as it basically says two diametrically opposed things at the same time. Dumuzid (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that my reconstruction, as I called it, should go directly into the article. It's just for clarification. It seems to me, based on what I've read here, that this is probably what happened with Ebert. We can't say so, as such, in the article, but we can give the reader the tools to draw his own reasonable inference. If we omit mention of Ebert altogether, we are suggesting that Keeler is the only person ever to have doubted Littlefeather, and that would be misleading. TheScotch (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I just don't think we can (or should) use this source in this way. I might feel differently if Ebert had made some effort at distinguishing the letter (like "I received this letter, which I present without comment...."), but instead he says it is a "clarification," meaning, in essence, that he is adopting its reasoning. Again, I completely agree with your reconstruction, but you are using that reconstruction to argue that we should misrepresent a source (no offense intended, I don't doubt your good faith and don't mean this accusatorily). To say that the source simply says she was "not an Indian" is just not accurate, by my lights. Of course, I have turned out to be on the wrong side of consensus here quite a bit! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say put quotation marks around exactly what's written in the letter and note that it's claimed by the lawyer's letter, as that's how CBS News presented it as well. Her authorized website responded directly to Ebert and says she was born Maria Cruz, so another sentence could be added that notes that official website response contradicts the letter. The comparison of these two are made in the CBS News report so it's not original research to present it as it was reported by them. They are a reliable secondary source, it's not us Wikipedia editors pointing this out nor are we the ones linking the two primary sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 21:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That actually solves my problem pretty well; I'd say leave out Ebert entirely as a primary source and just use the CBS article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say include a ref to the original Ebert story which contains the full letter, a ref to her website and then a ref to the CBS News report that compares the information and connects it, if possible. That way, the primary and secondary sources can be properly used, we're not doing original research as Wikipedia editors and that we're also not censoring information.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 21:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't really mind that, but I still think the superior course is simply to link to the CBS article. If choosing not use a source is censorship, then the battle is already completely lost and Wikipedia is the most censored place in the universe! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The solution proposed by Oncamera at 21:47 is ideal and should be the one in the article. Thank you all for patiently elucidating in detail what is clearly the fairest, most comprehensive solution. XavierItzm (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan please can you explain why you reverted my edit? I simply added reference to the statement on the official website, per the CBS source. I don't think it's appropriate for us to say that the lawyer's letter had "blatant untruths"; all we can do is say what the lawyer's letter said and what the official website said. If I have misunderstood the discussion above, though, no doubt someone can add the content that was intended. Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, the lawyer's letter claimed her married name was Cruz, which was false. We also know now that the tribal claims are false. Ebert included the letter, but reading it now it's clearly the equivalent of an "internet sue you" letter/threat. I thought the argument was to include the source, but not to give weight to the threats / falsehoods as Chocmilk did here:[14]. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC) `

Ah, I think I understand your view now, thank you for clarifying. :) My thinking was that Wikipedia could say something along the lines of "the lawyer said X and her official website said Y". I wouldn't however say something like "the lawyer said X which was a lie and her official website said Y". There could of course be other explanations for the lawyer's statement (eg the lawyer could have misunderstood Littlefeather's instructions); I don't think it's necessarily the case that it is a lie. However, if others think we shouldn't even say "the lawyer said X", then that's fine by me. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see what I missed and have tweaked the text. Some of what you wrote was a bit confusing to me and seemed to be just duplicating what was already in the paragraph. You were just highlighting what the website did and did not confirm. Look at what I just put in and see what you think. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was erring on the side of caution and not wanting to place a value judgment on the statements that had been made (eg not wanting to say, the lawyer said X but this is clearly wrong). Your edits seem good to me in terms of clarifying the situation for the reader but without suggesting a particular viewpoint. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm much happier with how the section currently reads. Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Place of birth

The "early life" section currently states that Littlefeather was born in Salinas Ca., in 1946. It also states that her parents moved to Salinas and opened their business "by 1949". This creates some confusion--was her mother just visiting in Salinas in 1946 when she gave birth to Littlefeather, or had the parents moved there, but their business cannot be confirmed to have been open prior to 1949? One of the linked sources implies that Littlefeather's mother travelled to be with Littlefeather's maternal grandparents, who were living in Salinas, during the pregnancy, and thus gave birth in Salinas. If this is the case (or at least the facts as Littlefeather gave them), perhaps the section could be updated to explain the journey of Littlefeather's parents from Arizona to California. Readers would also be curious to know what brought Manuel Cruz to Arizona in the 1940s (if not before), and if he had any contact with Native American tribal members (or any presence on tribal reservations)--I believe Sacheen claimed at some point in at least one interview to have spent some time on an Arizona reservation as a very small child. I know her interviews were not always consistent with regards to the facts of her childhood, so she could have multiple conflicting accounts of her parents' time in Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.196.213 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

She could and probably did. At this point I think everything that comes direstly from "Sacheen Littlefeather" and cannot be corroborated by a source independent of her should be explicitly and specifically qualified in the article with something like "according to Littlefeather...." TheScotch (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by IPs and new accounts

Should we semi the article? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources from lede

AirshipJungleman29 removed all the sources from the lede in this edit. Per policy the lede does not have to be sourced (since all the content is sourced in the body of the article). However, all one has to do is look here on talk, or at the edit history of the article, to see why we heavily sourced it. I'm not personally attached so have not reverted.

But, I am saving the diff here in the event that we get hit with blanking, flagging for citations from readers who haven't read the full article, or anything else that makes it seem best to just put the citations back in. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it might be helpful to include the sources to prevent editwarring over things that have already been discussed on the talkpage by new editors to the page. The multiple sources can be bundled into one ref link per H:CITEMERGE instead of 4-5 ref links showing up after a sentence. I don't see why that isn't done instead of deleting them.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Whichever way we do it, I think the disruptive edits made since the sources were removed confirm we need the extensive sourcing in the lede. Plenty of articles just have a series of cites. Or the other way would be fine, too. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:VOICE

@OncameraI want to confirm that you understand WP:VOICE and my invocation of it. In your reversion you say "WP:Voice says Wikipedia describes disputes, nothing about censoring them due to them being either opinion or fact" however I was not attempting to censor lightfoots sisters, my reference to WP:VOICE was to its first subsection; "avoid stating opinions as facts". I would also like to make it clear that stating an opinion or argument uncontested in wikivoice is not describing a dispute. Cheers - Googleguy007 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Googleguy007. Stating opinions or allegations as fact in Wikipedia's voice runs afoul of WP:NPOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not a statement of fact, however she's referenced as a Pretendian by numerous people quoted in this article. Perhaps include quotation marks around it and include the references where qualified experts made the statement about her. It's censorship to not include it in the lead when it's mentioned so much in the body, imo.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I like the way we currently have it -- the lead sticks to the facts, while the "pretendian" language is explicitly attributed and laid out in the body. Also, oncamera, please be mindful of WP:3RR. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not violating the 3RR and I like the recent edit by Googleguy007 who attributed the word to the researchers etc and readded it to the lead. It was an issue of neutral phrasing and it's been resolved imo.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I prefer it the way we had it, but if consensus is against me, that's fine. I did not say you had violated 3RR, but by my count, you're at 3. I just wanted to offer a reminder. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:Edit warring: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. Both of us were using policy in making changes and once I saw his changes were sourced, I didn't revert. I don't consider either one of us edit warring. I was only enforcing consensus on the page about her name as it was discussed.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly not trying to badger you, but I find this is often misunderstood. Those "certain overriding policies" include things like obvious vandalism; a good faith dispute with another editor does not excuse breaching 3RR. Also, I hate that it's called "three reverts," because the definition there is different than our usual usage. From WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It need not be an undo, or the like. Again, I don't think you've violated the policy, just wanted to offer a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've been accompanying the new edits. In response to Googleguy007 saying on the revision history page at 23:24, 14 March 2023‎ (UTC) "Article additionally should not take it as fact and state in wikivoice that she is not native american, the most ive found is RS *reporting on her sisters claims*, will take that to talk page when I have time." : it's not just been the sisters claims; the "claims" have been independently verified by academics and journalists, so they're not claims anymore: they're now the facts, backed by evidence. So, I agree with oncamera saying on the talk page here at 01:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC) that "It's censorship to not include it [that she is a Pretendian] in the lead when it's mentioned so much in the body." - I will add that it's mentioned in the body and sourced by multiple parties. And it's not enough to just say "she was accused by family members of being a pretendian." as the current revision says - the first stage of the case was her being accused by family members of being a pretendian, yes, but that has evolved to that being independently verified by other parties.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but the fact that Googleguy007 said "the most ive found is RS *reporting on her sisters claims*", shows to me that he hasn't read the Wikipedia article in full or accompanied the world news (and research and investigations of academics and journalists) into it, because the journalism and academic research of it is explained and sourced in the Wikipedia article (or at least used to be up until a few days ago).

One general example that comes from Wikipedia itself: Wikipedia rules on, for example, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." applies to living persons. And, even though this is a case of a deceased person, the ancestry story here could not even be "contentious material" or anything like it, because there are sources, multiple sources, and investigations that have gone into it. As per the definition of pretendian on its own Wikipedia page "if used without evidence could be considered defamatory" - this is not the case at all, because there is evidence, so it can morally be used without being defamation.

Her sisters accused her of lying, yes. Those were just claims at that point, yes, and should not be trusted alone. But that (and much more) has been verified by multiple neutral parties that should be trusted (academics, journalists). So the ancestry dispute and exposure is now the truth, the best we know it so far, and that should be presented in the Wikipedia page as such. Period. Not doing it would be censorship, like some have mentioned, and it would be distrusting the investigative journalism and academic research that has gone into this case.

Also: the way the pretendian statement on the first paragraph used to be like (", later discovered to be a pretendian"), used to be sourced; someone removed the multiple sources I had put there. Feel free to check this on the revision history.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I apologize for the long text or if I've offended anyone's work (that is, the edits) here - it is not my goal, but this is a case where sources and news material and the reputable sources it is coming from should be trusted and not censored. Independent journalism's job and academic research's job is to do just this: to take claims (like the sisters claims) and verify them or not (they were verified), and usually while adding much more information and background to it (and it did). Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you for reading. One More Scientist (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any RS stating that she was faking being native american, taking the word of researchers when it has not been reported as fact by RS. It is a NPOV violation to state allegations like that in wikivoice, and is tantamount to original research. Feel free to correct me if im wrong. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Researchers *are* academics. Academic and journalist Dina Gilio-Whitaker is one of them. She has investigated Littlefeather's story and came to the evidence showed Littlefeather did not tell the truth. Please see what Dina Gilio-Whitaker discovered further down in the article (and its sources). One More Scientist (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I never claimed that journalists are not academics, or even use the word "academic", I dont know where you got that from.

2. Reading Dina's article, it was entirely on exploring pretendianism, not proving sacheen was a fraud. In fact, it acknowledges that the evidence against sacheen was not conclusive. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You said "I never claimed that journalists are not academics" - I'm sorry, but I never said the opposite myself. You are confusing two (or three) different things: journalists, academics, and researchers. I did *not* say journalists are academics, but your sentence makes it sound that I did. I said that researchers are academics in response to your comment of 12:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC), that is, that researchers can be used as a synonym of academics. In the case of Dina Gilio-Whitaker she is both an academic and journalist (which, independently, are 2 different things). One More Scientist (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I mistyped. I still don’t see how academics are relevant to this, and why you framed that as a correction, as I never used the term “academics”. I also don’t understand why you brought that up when my objection was based on a lack of RS stating that Sacheen was a fraud. Based on my interactions you are really lacking the knowledge of Wikipedia policy needed for discussions like this and would recommend that you review policy. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"I still don’t see how academics are relevant to this"

Because there's been investigations/research/work done on Littlefeather's life done by *academics*.

"I also don’t understand why you brought that up when my objection was based on a lack of RS stating that Sacheen was a fraud."

There is *research* (or *RS*) done on it: by Dina Gilio-Whitaker, by Jacqueline Keeler and by Liza Black.

"and why you framed that as a correction"

Because you previously said "I was not sure if researchers was the proper term" so I clarified that researchers are academics.

Your last sentence is insulting to me. As shown above, I was working with arguments and examples. One More Scientist (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In response to your item 2: this Wikipedia article is obviously controversial, but you are not basing your arguments in all the facts. I joined Wikipedia to state the facts clearly and have been basing my arguments in the facts.

Please know that it was not just the work done by Dina Gilio-Whitaker. There is also the work done by Jacqueline Keeler and Liza Black (further below in the article), and that is research (or RS) even though you've been saying there is no RS.

If you are just going to continue to discredit anything I say, even by discouraging me from continuing this work on Wikipedia as you did below, when I myself have been basing this conversation from the start on arguments and only on actions that I saw from your edits that were repeated and on the work done by those academics/researchers/journalists/news articles, then there is no point in continuing this conversation, especially until an administrator gets here. One More Scientist (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

... RS means Reliable Sources, not Research. It refers to reliable sources (the media) and the principle that anything wikipedia says needs to be just restating what RS say. Wikipedia cannot cover or interpret the research ourselves, only repeat what other RS have said. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@One More Scientist I strongly recommend reading this and this. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, sorry but I don't understand why Googleguy007 edited the page at ‎01:43, 15 March 2023 with the edit summary "Partial self RV, removed language that was stilted and likely somewhat inaccurate, feel free to re-add with improved phrasing, if not I will eventually" when all he did was change:

"she was accused by family members and researchers of being a "[[pretendian]]"."

to

"she was accused by family members of being a "pretendian"."

All he did was remove "and researchers". How can removing "and researchers" be described as "Partial self RV, removed language that was stilted and likely somewhat inaccurate, feel free to re-add with improved phrasing, if not I will eventually". It's not...

Academic researchers (and journalists) have investigated the ancestry of this person and came to the conclusion that what she advertised was incorrect.

It would be helpful if maybe an administrator can intervene here because this seems like censorship and trying to occult the academic research and journalism has gone into it.

Thank you. One More Scientist (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link to Googleguy007's edit at ‎01:43, 15 March 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacheen_Littlefeather&diff=prev&oldid=1144689749 One More Scientist (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Because I was not sure if researchers was the proper term and the grammar sounded wrong to me. I added that language, I hardly suspect that I would be censoring myself. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I really think an administrator should intervene here, because it didn't seem that just weren't "sure if researchers was the proper term", because you simply deleted the term without substituting it for another. Your change, effectively, makes it sound that it was just her sisters saying it, when clearly it wasn't.

And you say "and the grammar sounded wrong to me" - there was no grammar involved in your edit. You simply removed "and researchers". Period.

An administrator should intervene here because I found other instances where you changed the language to completely omit the work of journalists and academics to simply make it look like it was just her sisters. Sorry we have to do this. One More Scientist (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was tired. It was a sentence I had added. I clearly stated I had no issues with someone re-adding it if I was wrong. I was not sure if researchers was the correct term. The phrasing was stilted. I got onto wikipedia today with the intention of rephrasing the sentence and including researchers. You are showing a remarkable lack of ability to assume good faith, a lack of understanding of RS and NPOV policies, and an apparent desire to right great wrongs, I would recommend reviewing wikipedia policy and guidlines before you continue editing. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Googleguy007, I'm sorry to read your message and sorry to read it especially because I'm new to Wikipedia and I feel a bit discouraged to continue now because of your comment. I am sorry, but you are accusing me of things that I did not do.

It was not just "a sentence". And "the phrasing was" not "stilted": it said "and researchers". There are investigations done by journalists and researchers (which are explained further below in the article). So, the fact that the sentence said "and researchers" does not resemble anything stilted.

As I said here in my first comment at 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC), "I've been accompanying the new edits." - so I did give you the benefit of the doubt and did "assume good faith" as you said, because I saw the first edits and said nothing; it was only when I noticed the same thing happening over and over again that I decided to write here. You repeatedly deleted and changed wording that was making reference to academics and journalists to only make reference to her sisters. That's a repeated act and that seems to attempt to hide the journalism and research. Because I noticed it, to not say anything would be turning a blind eye to it. Also, you are the one who said in the edits summary a few times that you intended to continue some parts; so it was crucial for someone to give this alert at this time.

I think we should wait for an administrator as I said before. I will put here the other instances where I noticed inconsistencies as examples. One More Scientist (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Take me to ANI over a partial-self revert dealing with phrasing issues. Make my day. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It was not just a "partial-self revert dealing". It's been multiple edits changing the content of the sentences.

"Make my day." It is just sentences like that that show that you are actually exhibiting the type of behavior you've been accusing me of. I've been talking about the facts: you changed wording on multiple instances that was previously making refence to the work done by academics and journalists to now only make reference to her sisters. One More Scientist (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but Wikipedia is sort of famous for being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Ergo, it is okay to edit Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the patronizing tone.

What about when those edits are made to delete the content that showed that research and investigation had gone into it, to only say that it was her sisters, which was wrong or, at the very least, incomplete. That is not neutral, and similar instances occurred several times.

Goodbye. One More Scientist (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, it's a better tone than you deserve. This is a standard editorial disagreement. Show your sources or go away and stop badgering people trying to improve the encyclopedia. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Really? Did you read my texts? I did show sources. You have been personally accusing me, when I just showed concern for the turning the article was taking. Wow, just wow. Edit the article all you want.

That user (Googleguy007) even deleted others' edits (e.g., of‎ Oncamera) which were based on sources and on Wikipedia rules.

Very disappointed at the personal attacks here done by you and Googleguy007. One More Scientist (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned people. Can you point us to specific works (whether online or off) and what changes you think those works would support in this article? Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned people. If you read the Sacheen Littlefeather's Wikipedia article in full, you will see that those same people are already mentioned there, together with their works.

What Googleguy007 has been doing was to effectively change the tone and the content of the introduction (the part that appears before "early life") to, as I've said multiple times, make it sound that it was just the sisters and that nothing else backed the claims (which is wrong). Looking at the revision history, but in detail, this is clear.

As I've also said before, I posted here about this not immediately after Googleguy007 made the first edit, but only after he had made multiple edits in that way, as well as because he expressed that he was going to continue, so an alert (backed by arguments and evidence) was warranted.

You keep trying to discredit me and saying things (or asking a question such as this) about which I have already spoken about before if you read my long comments, and I always did so mentioning arguments and examples. I previously said I would put here more inconsistencies I noticed from Googleguy007; I simply won't anymore, even though I have them in a Word document, because you keep attacking me and discrediting (and taking a mocking tone) with anything I say.

Very disappointed to experience this type of behavior on Wikipedia when I was just going into detail about something seriously harming to independent writing and journalism and research.

As such, I will not be replying further. Goodbye. One More Scientist (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One More Scientist -- welcome to Wikipedia! And it's a shame if you feel discouraged because of accusations, but what exactly do you think you have been up to if not making accusations? Simply put, this is not how any of this works. We're discussing a basic editorial content disagreement with no behavioral issues. This is a standard decision made on Wikipedia by consensus. While I don't think Googleguy007 has shown any bias at all, even if he had, one is allowed to have a viewpoint as long as one stays within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is nothing here that so much as approaches a violation of any of those. As Googleguy has pointed out several times, this was a self-revert. If you think the article should look a different way, then give it a go and we can all follow WP:BRD. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dumuzid,

It was not just a self-revert. Edits omitting the independent research happened multiple times.

I made accusations? Yes, accusations of changing the content in such a way (e.g., omitting research to make it sound that it was just the sisters); please note that I did not make personal accusations, yet that other user did.

Goodbye. One More Scientist (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

So what you are saying is he edited the article? The horror! Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet you continue to use a patronizing tone to me.

Yes, he did *edit*, but they were edits omitting the independent research, which effectively seemed like censoring and hiding the academic research and journalism has gone into it. You are clearly not reading my arguments or choosing to ignore them.

Edit articles censoring and hiding content all you want then. It seems you do not value people who pay attention to details and who notice such things. Instead you have chosen to personally attack and mock me. Goodbye. One More Scientist (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment She should not be called a Native American when that fact is very clearly disputed, we don't call Rachel Dolezal "an African American civil rights activist" because the only person that supported her claim is herself, much like Littlefeather.★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Editors new to this article and talk page should not be making changes to the article unless they have read the previous discussions and thoroughly absorbed them. This is rehashing things about which we already have recent consensus. Forcing editors in good standing to go through all of this again is not good wikiquette. I suggest reinstating the sources in the lead, and the stable phrasing from before the recent disruptions, and slapping those who are disregarding all the work that's been done here with a fish. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to continue using her self-created name?

I feel uncomfortable with this entry continuing to use her self-created name. The article very clearly indicates that she was not indigenous,but it constantly uses the name she created instead of her birth name. Obviously if the indigenous community accepted her as part of an indigenous group, then eliminating her settler name would be fine. By continuing to refer to her as Sacheen Littlefeather, Wikipedia is perpetuating the fabrications she created. 76.69.89.195 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a WP:COMMONNAME policy that we should used what she's known best as and there's examples of others who don't have their birth or "official" names as the title of their article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and also worth noting WP:NICKNAME:

The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not the person's "real" name, and even if it appears to pass judgement on the person (as with Alfred the Great).

Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See also the discussion above under #Name - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

More sources

Dina Gilio Whitaker has just published "Sacheen Littlefeather and ethnic fraud – why the truth is crucial, even it it means losing an American Indian hero". She interviewed Sacheen in response to a request to "ghostwrite a memoir" and confirms that the subject never gave her any tribal info or names for her to confirm that she was Native. It's possible Gilio-Whitaker's inquiries about tribal affiliation led Sacheen to cancel the project. She also writes, "I reviewed Keeler’s documentation before it was published, and in my opinion it is solid research." A number of things that cite current content here, with some possible brief additions.

And, not sure if we want to use the New York Post (I know), but Rozalind Cruz has now spoken to them: Sacheen Littlefeather ‘lied’ about being Apache to work in Hollywood: sister I know NYP is far from ideal, but they did give her a platform and she clears up some of the misinformation that's been spread on social media. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times just came out with an article [15] on this matter that seems to slightly contradict our previous understanding. In it, we learn that Littlefeather's sisters had initially believed her claims to some degree, with one of them even applying to join the White Mountain Apache Tribe. It would seem that they only came to the conclusion that Littlefeather had invented Indigenous ancestry after reading Keeler's research. So we have a situation not where Littlefeather's sisters independently contradicted her claims using their own family knowledge, but have merely agreed with recently available research. This of course does not change their contradiction of Littlefeather's stories about her parents and childhood (which would be based on firsthand knowledge) but it seems that, so long as we deem that article accurate, it would no longer be fully accurate to imply that they already knew Littlefeather was inventing connections and went public about their knowledge after her death. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The NY Post article from the previous comment is a direct interview with one of the sisters who says they tried to go to Oprah with their story 15 years ago. And numerous other times. This is directly from the sister. Not some tweets likely taken out of context and other social media misinformation.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Welp, in that case I guess we can't deem the Times article fully accurate after all. Never mind then. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The New York Post is red at WP:RSP while the New York Times is not only green, it's one of the most reliable sources out there.

As such, it's Wikipedia policy to not source claims, especially BLP claims like this one, to the Post. But they can be sourced to the Times, so the Times chronology gets in. Loki (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

But... The NYT doesn't fact check the way they used to. As discussed previously, they've made some serious errors, especially when covering Native American issues. For instance when they listed Kelsey Asbille Chow as Native without doing any fact-checking, in an article about casting non-Natives in Native roles. They've also made serious mistakes (wrong names of people, and corrections never issued) when covering LGBT issues. They are no longer "the paper of record" and have to be taken on a case by case basis and fact checked in these cases. This was an exception to the rule where the usually-unusuable Post was the more accurate one. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, your personal opinions on the reliability of these papers simply doesn't override the community's. Loki (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is no need to legally change name. I suggest that this edit is disruptive, perhaps by accident, and ask that the editor who made the change revert it. @Korny O'Near: Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Common name applies to the title of the article itself, which is still Sacheen Littlefeather. The people examples there all have the legal name first in bold on their pages. No need to revert as they did not move the article to her legal name.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Googleguy007: You've reverted two of us now without discussion. This is the relevant policy that dictates that her legal name should go first: MOS:PSEUDONYM:

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

*Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens

Hence: Maria Louise Cruz[1] (November 14, 1946 – October 2, 2022), better known as Sacheen Littlefeather[2][3]

We might even consider: Maria Louise Cruz[1] (November 14, 1946 – October 2, 2022), better known by her chosen name, Sacheen Littlefeather[2][3] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

PBS and AV Club say she changed her name. Ive read the policy. Googleguy007 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Googleguy007 - can you point me to a source which says she changed her name legally? Everything I find is maddeningly ambiguous, saying she "took" the name or "changed" it without specifying any legal steps. I'm with Corbie and oncamera here unless I can find something definitive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats my bad, I interpreted interpreted "changed" as "legally changed" under the assumption that was what was implied, but looking at more sources the fact that the most used language is not "changed" implies that its inconclusive at best. Personally I still find it very likely that she legally changed her name, but im not an RS. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring to insert that Sacheen Littlefeather was her "adopted name". In this case it is POV language that could falsely imply she was adopted by Native people. She chose the name herself, but gave conflicting stories over the years about how she got it. While in some BLPs, where the origin story is solid and uncontested, that phrasing would be fine. But in this case it could too easily be misinterpreted to advance a fiction. I don't know if your repeated edit-warring to re-insert is simply out of ignorance or a POV push, but it's disruptive. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to use "adopted name" here, the original phrasing is better.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I cant believe i have to say this to an admin, but if you have an issue than create a topic and address it, instead of pettily sniping at me in the replies to an unrelated comment. Googleguy007 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"in reality"

oncamera recently added the clause about the subject's father that while she claimed he had native ancestry, while in reality he had Mexican ancestry with no tribal identity. That "in reality" strikes me as too strong and smacking of unnecessary editorializing. The academic researchers make no such claim, rather saying they can find no evidence (proving a negative is a tough thing to do!). Keeler, for instance, says My review of her father's side of the family tree, where she claimed her Native heritage, found no documented ties between his extended family and any extant Native American nations in the United States. I think we should retain the sentence in question, but in a more neutral phrasing -- the article exists no more to bury the subject than it does to defend her. Would like to hear others' thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You can rephrase it in another way, but I attempted to neutralize what was deleted by Googleguy007 diff who stated it should be deleted entirely because it's "content that does not fit in early life" which we both disagree with.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain how information about little feathers claims of her fathers heritage belong in "early life" not "ancestry dispute", not every mention of him needs to talk about her alleged deception, and this feels like simply a POV push. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Her claims about her father's ancestry in the early life was stated as fact prior to her sisters coming out: old version. The second sentence in the old lead straight up talked about her heritage, but now we should erase her claims about her father entirely? It's censorship to delete it or to claim it doesn't fit into her early life section when she spent many years claiming to be Native American and in the process made up a childhood about her father's family to fit her narrative. It's not punitive or a "POV push" to simply point out how those claims have changed/challenged after her death by her sisters and researchers/journalists.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

While I tend to agree we need to make mention of the issue early on, claiming a standard editorial dispute is "censorship" is unhelpful and devalues your argument. Dumuzid (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy on Wikipedia and using policy in discussions/arugments on talkpage is appropriate, thus it does not devalue my argument to mention it. I warned you once on your talkpage about WP:No personal attacks and having better WP:Etiquette on this talkpage, therefore refrain from telling me my statements are unhelpful or lacking in values just because you disagree with the policy I mention.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, that would fit better under ancestry dispute not early life, and the general facts are already covered in the lede. I don’t disagree at all with seriously covering the allegations and how they don’t match her statements, what I don’t see is why that makes it relevant under early life. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Also. WP:CENSOR generally deals with issues of good taste vs accuracy, not whether you are being censored over editors disagreeing with you, it’s a fair mistake as it seems to be the #1 most misinterpreted policy (I’ve only ever actually seen it applied properly in discussions of religion). Googleguy007 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, my issue with the content isn’t its inclusion, feel free to move it to discuss moving it to the intro, or move it to ancestry dispute, my issue is solely over the location of the content in the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

oncamera, WP:NOTCENSORED is certainly a policy, but it has precisely zero application when we're discussing where within an article certain information belongs. You indeed warned me earlier (and somewhat fairly, I think), but you can warn me as many times as you like and I will still comment on the arguments you or any other editor make. I have not personally attacked you, and by my lights, have been pretty solicitous. If you feel otherwise, feel free to do what you think you must. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sister contradiction.

The article heavily implies that Sachsens sisters always knew they were not Native American, and that they revealed that information to the researcher. However multiple sources describe how they believed they had native heritage until the researcher told them they didn’t. Obviously this is a contradiction that must be addressed, and on a page so serious about misinterpretation as not to use the phrase “adopted name” we can’t allow such easily misinterpreted information to remain unchanged. My first instinct was to edit the article to make it clear that the sisters did not know they weren’t native and that their interviews didn’t reveal any new information, but I imagine that would be controversial here, what should we do? Googleguy007 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source are you using as proof for your claim?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article says the sister never heard any family tales of being Native American but believed she must be because of the extent her sister claimed it was true. She knew she had Spanish and Mexican heritage her whole life though. She even applied to become a member of the White Mountain Apache tribe because she thought her sister was telling the truth. But saw the genealogy to show her sister had lied entirely about it and they weren't going to support her lies any longer. They never supported her claims they grew up in an abusive home either. I don't see the contradiction because they knew they didn't grow up as Native Americans, they thought their sister had found out something they didn't know.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we phrase it like this:

Following Littlefeather's death, Navajo author Jacqueline Keeler interviewed Littlefeather's biological sisters Rosalind Cruz and Trudy Orlandi, who say their family did not have Native American ancestry. Keeler writes that the sisters state that their father, who was born in Oxnard, California, was of Mexican descent and had no tribal ties, nor was he related to the Yaqui tribes of Northern Mexico.

It's not true that the sisters said it to Keeler. Keeler said it to the sisters, who believed her. The ultimate source of the dispute here is Keeler's genealogical research, not the sisters. Loki (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I've always argued in the edit summaries to include that the claims are also made by journalists such as Keeler. Other editors such as Googleguy007 have deleted it numerous times or others edited so that the claims are made by only the sisters. Keeler isn't the "ultimate source", she just did research into public record sources and started her journalistic investigation from there.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

She is literally the ultimate source of the allegations, she is the cause of all the allegations, and it’s dishonest to even imply that she isn’t (like the page tends to now) Googleguy007 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Keeler's not really a journalist, she's an activist. Loki (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

She's literally an investigative journalist. The sources are genealogy records, she just did the research per her job to investigate fraudulent behaviors.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We describe her in her own article as a "writer and activist". Loki (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And this article used to describe Sacheen as Native American.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's... not an argument? Loki (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It actually is. If you read all the statements by the sisters, their history with this issue was not accurately represented in NYT article. It was a confusing and painful family situation for them. They grew up non-Native. When their sister fabricated the Native persona, they wondered if they might have some distant ancestry, and asked the relevant tribes about it. They eventually chose to contact Keeler because they knew she was investigating these types of cases. When they contacted Keeler they told her that they were pretty certain they didn't have any distant heritage, but because the sisters hadn't yet checked every single distant line of their ancestry, the NYT (as usual, being crap on Native issues) made it sound like they knew nothing about their heritage. But the fact never changed that they knew they weren't Native, as in, they were not raised in any Native community, nor with ties to any Native community. They were totally shocked and surprised by what their sister did. Native identity is not something nebulous and confusing the way many non-Natives assume. This is why, even though the Post is usually unusable, many of us thought that in this case we should make an exception. One of the sisters has also clarified this in her twitter posts, but her account isn't blue-checked. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

P!ease dont use wikipedia to right great wrongs. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And again, page up. We've already been over all of this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already read the history of the page, and I'm well aware of the dispute between the NYT and other sources on this. The problem is that the NYT is, in general, a very reliable source, and so when it says something it takes some very strong sourcing to contradict it. I don't really think we have that here. We have a column by Keeler herself (who of course has a COI in this situation), a short Rolling Stone article which says it's just repeating the info in Keeler's original column, the New York Post (which is trash as a general rule), and some social media posts, which are also not generally reliable.

It's very possible that the NYT did some kind of additional research that those other sources did not, like asking for the original emails. Until we can exclude that possibility, we should at least say "Keeler says X but the NYT says Y". Loki (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you say Keeler has COI? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Because she is directly involved in the issue at hand, and the way that issue is viewed can directly impact her personal credibility, social standing, and funding. If i asked someone to give a blatant example of COI for new users and they responded with that it would be laughed off as too on the nose Googleguy007 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Because she's an activist in the area of "Pretendians", whose livelihood is closely tied to her activism to the point of selling books about it, and she made the original claim, she personally benefits from us citing her as proof of that claim. It's IMO no different from citing a plaintiff in a court case as proof that the defendant was guilty. Loki (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

By your rationale any working journalist with a field of expertise or specialization has COI. That's not a credible argument. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; this is not a matter of COI, though I would say we should use her akin to a strongly opinionated source. Definitely usable, by my lights, but helpful to keep in mind that she has a distinct viewpoint. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not assume any extra research on the NYT's part. They have been lacking even the most basic fact-checking in recent years. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have issues with NYT you should take it to perennial sources, because NYT is generally reliable, and in general is respected as one of, if not the most reliable sources. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop in briefly to say that I don't think we need to defer to the Times nor examine its reliability to say that the per contra opinion represented deserves at least some mention; the question for me is how best to include that. And that's something I will have to sleep on. Perhaps for multiple nights. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Does "adopted name" imply that she was adopted as native american?

IMHO the term "adopted name" does not imply that she was a adopted by native americans who gave her the name, it clearly means that it is a name she adopted herself. I am also somewhat disturbed at the general point of view of most of this articles primary editors, regarding this article, they seem to be intent to the point of paranoia on weeding out any slightly pro-sacheen POV while creating and allowing blatant NPOV violations which depict her negatively, to be clear I think that the allegations against her are serious and should be included promenantly, but they should not be treated as facts, and especially not used as justification for NPOV violations. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not common at all to write a WP:PSEUDONYM as if it's an adopted name. Show me other articles where that's the proper way to do it. Most say "better known as" or "professionally known as".  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to use "adopted name". Its not NPOV to use a neutral "better known as".★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed above in #Name. It's disruptive of you to start another section just to repeat yourself, and WP:BADGER other editors into repeating ourselves, perhaps because you don't like the consensus that we should leave "adopted" out of it. As I said above:

Stop edit-warring to insert that Sacheen Littlefeather was her "adopted name". In this case it is POV language that could falsely imply she was adopted by Native people. She chose the name herself, but gave conflicting stories over the years about how she got it. While in some BLPs, where the origin story is solid and uncontested, that phrasing would be fine. But in this case it could too easily be misinterpreted to advance a fiction. I don't know if your repeated edit-warring to re-insert is simply out of ignorance or a POV push, but it's disruptive.

You are clearly on a slow and determined POV push here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Your absolutely correct, all of the blatant NPOV violations Ive removed (which you left in) show a clear anti-POV POV. Given your concerns here I think you should take a look at a policy called "NPOV", I imagine you would have some issues with it aswell. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If I might humbly suggest that we all take a breath here, from my vantage point, I think you are both editing in good faith. Googleguy, appropriate compromise really is possible here, I promise. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Ill personally commit to bringing up any possibly controversial edits on talk (for at least a few hours in advance) before making them. I reread that and it does NOT follow my personal standards. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oscar apology came from fellow Pretendian

Possibly worth mentioning? ★Trekker (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not from the Post, but possibly, though I think keeping the coverage more specific is probably appropriate--my thought would be let's see where it goes from here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Role of Heather Rae in brokering the Academy's apology

Maybe we should mention the role of Hollywood producer Heather Rae, who specializes in Native American-themed films and claims to be half Cherokee (but who has recently been alleged to be a pretendian) in brokering the Academy's apology to Littlefeather. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I am a maybe on this, but I lean against it for the moment. I would like to see a more direct link to the article subject -- say, previous discussion between Littlefeather and Rae or the like. But I can see an argument for it now. We shall see where consensus goes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)