Talk:Lily Gladstone/Archive 1

Archive 1

cousins

Should she not be described as “fifth cousin, four times removed” of Gladstone? Most recent common ancestor is typically the base number, as it were. The children of my first cousin are my second cousins, once removed.rmacd (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Update Pronouns

Since they identify as on-binary and primarily use they/them pronouns, it would be nice to see that reflected in their bio. 108.160.127.47 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"She/they" according to instagram. If there is WP:RS that confirm they/them is primary, please add. Kire1975 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no source confirming Gladstone uses or prefers they/them as primary pronouns. Most articles continue to use she/her primarily.

A few days ago, People Magazine published this - https://people.com/why-lily-gladstone-uses-both-she-and-they-pronouns-exclusive-8419312 74.108.138.203 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ms. Gladstone uses either female or non-gendered pronouns, the latter because many Native American languages don't gender pronouns. The plural pronouns is a method for decolonizing identity language. Jsgladstone (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what the article says; I posted it in response to the other person regarding whether there was a source for confirmation that Gladstone used they/them as primary pronouns. No such source exists, with most articles and interviews, as well as Gladstone herself, defaulting to she/her. 74.108.138.203 (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lily Gladstone is a Native American actress . Her tribes should be listed ! 141.155.7.157 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Second or first?

Yalitza Aparicio was the first Native American/Indigenous woman to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2018. An inline citation from Time magazine was placed in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. Plenty more can be found, but it was still reverted by an IP account with no other edits in its user contribution history. If this continues, I would ask that this page be protected. Kire1975 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that Native American usually refers to Native Americans in the United States. I've added a footnote because this confusion has generated significant controversy online in the past few days. Kire1975 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fourth, apparently. Kire1975 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To help clear this up, she's the fourth Indigenous actress but the first from the United States. Thus, she is the first Native American actress nominated Academy Award for Best Actress. As cited: The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post. 74.108.138.203 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hate Keeping

@User:JDDJS I have no idea what "hate keeping" means, but being raised on a reservation doesn't make someone Native. Having a Native mother doesn't make you a citizen of a Native tribe either. And where is the evidence that her mother was a citizen of a Native tribe? Please provide the evidence that either her or her mother was enrolled. If she's not enrolled, she may be a descendant, but she's not a Native American. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having checked the article, her father is said to be of Native American heritage. Please provide evidence that HE was enrolled. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@JDDJS If this page is correct, she has a part Blackfoot great-grandparent and a part Nez Perce great-grandparent. Both the Blackfeet and Nez Perce tribes have a BQ of 1/4th. Doubtful she makes the cut if we are talking about a great-great-grandparent or maybe even great-great-great-grandparent. Nor is it clear that her father would either. But either way, there needs to be a reliable source showing either her or her father's enrollment in either tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe prohibits dual enrollment with other tribes, so neither of them could be enrolled with both. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is merely your POV, neither a fact nor an established consensus of any kind anywhere. It's unfounded and quite flawed. It's fraught with the colonialist and colonized view of Indian identity that ultimately, inevitably leads to all Indians disappearing. Example: the CDIB for some folks serves as a certification that their identity is so tenuous and low on blood quantums (128ths) that, if they marry a 32/128 Indian from the rez next door, their kids will never have a such a card (I know families like this). Blood quantum does indeed matter for CDIB eligibility. But not so for Native American identity, which is much more nuanced, complex and at least as unquantifiable as any human relationship. If you keep going down the path of blood quantum, you get to absurd conclusions like a 3/4 is more Indian than a 1/2, and so on and so forth. And BTW, a CDIB trumps personal affinity. If you have such a card but've never been to or plan to ever visit your kin on the rez, you're in and your cousin who's lived there all her life is out cuz her parents were "mixed-bloods"-- 128/128ths Indians but less than 32/128s in any one tribe. Only the lingering racist belief that a CDIB entitles you to a regular cash payment by the gov is what kept Indian identity from being be measured by the blood standard that confronted our African American brothers and sisters, "any parts Black...." Otherwise blood quantum wouldn't have been a thing among Natives, certainly no more so than among, say, Italians, Lithuanians, Mayans, etc. To say blood quantum is fundamental to Native identity, is to misunderstand history and human nature.

Bo's way of thinking also misinforms the WP reader that somehow (I use this term cuz he hasn't yet (?) cited any source backing his POV) only enrollment in a US recognized tribe entitles someone to say they're Native, when it doesn't even fall within the bounds of the established consensus. It's not even useful as a framework for classifying identity, riven with exceptions, anomalies, and internal contractions. Start with the fact that the US census treats American Indian identity as a race category. The census does go on to also ask about ethnicity, but this is besides the point in this discussion, which is that the general consensus regarding American Indian identity defies Bo's POV requirement of a CDIB. If you're not White, Black, Asian or Hawaiian in the US, you're American Indian. You "self-identify" only if you're going with the odd choice, as in you're actually White and identify as Black. Full-blood Native from Denetah or Brazil? American Indian. What else would you be? By Bo's POV, Natives from, say, Canada or Guatemala who should move to the US are absurdly at once Native and non-Native. Other examples: the thousands of dis-enrolled families who until their fight with their tribal council were full tribal members; also Natives from tribes who straddle an international border and were born and still live on the other side.

This POV also denies decades of learned debate and a broad consensus among hundreds of tribes throughout the Americas, including US "recognized" tribes and the US DOJ and BIA, that colonial govt recognition cannot be the criterion for Native identity. It also mis-casts the conversation about Indian identity in the same terms people use to talk about dog breeds, and it delegates the role of tagging those that make the mark to the govt. Thus contrary to the notion of self-determination, the govt, not Native communities, have power to say x individual is Native cuz their CDIB says they have enough 128ths, but y individual ain't cuz they're short a 128th. Yet this has never been the consensus about Native authenticity and identity, certainly not among Natives. To be sure, I've never read anything about any people anywhere around the world who identify their members in terms of blood quantum. Bo, Yuckie, Wolfe, I stand ready to correct my stance should you cite or otherwise prove a competing consensus, other than of course the other WP pages you've tricked out to quote yourselves.

Meanwhile, Natives keep going the other direction from your POV, as they always have-- as human always do. They recognize their identity in their own way, according to their own history and how life should present it, consistently ignoring blood-quantum as meaningful capital. Which Native elders worry the most about blood quantum? Those from tribes whose rolls are small, not large. I haven't read anywhere that the best strategy for surviving the challenge of a small roll is to restrict membership even further. Wikipedia friends, consider this weekend's article in WAPO about Lily as only the latest affirmation of the consensus that recognition by a Native community in its own fashion, formal or not, is what makes you a Native, not a CDIB. BTW, know that Blackfeet considered doing away with blood quantum altogether in the 1990s, but the US govt argued, as it still does, that a standard other than blood quantum risks loss of recognition. Many have noted this circular and downward spiraling way of thinking . It's a fair question to ask how many tribes would even talk about blood quantum if the US govt didn't impose it, even as it contradicts its own laws and admin policies.

I'm happy the proper moniker (Native American) is still up on this page. Anything short of that would be inaccurate. For it's incorrect to say Lily isn't a Native based on the uninformed (non-scholarly nor publicly vetted) POV above. OK, the Blackfeet have more important things to do than to wade into this geeky fight in WP. But to go on about it misses the point, given this page doesn't claim she's enrolled. The point is her status as a Native American based on her recognition by and longstanding engagement with that Native community. By the standard of the established general consensus of how/who is a Native, which that WAPO article reflects is still in place, Lily's as Native American as they come. It's hateful to put so much effort into trying to push her away from this identity. To argue that she's anything short of a full member of the Native community is a disservice to that community, most especially its youth who stand to benefit the most from having such a strong role model as her.

You walk this world as how it sees and takes you, Indian, Black, White, left-hander, whatever. A govt ID won't change that. As a dark-skinned Native man once told me about his run in with group of White kids taunting him outside a bar in OK: "I said, hey, I'm half White. Did it work? No, cuz they said I couldn't prove it. And they were right." Tsideh (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking

Cerebral726, please clearly define how wiki-linking the same subjects in two adjoining paragraphs is helpful to readers. I could see if the article was very long but we are talking paragraphs of no more than three or four sentences side-by-side in the article. In my opinion this is classic overlinking. Her heritage is properly outlined in both the lead and article now. This doesn't appear to be a reasonable revert. --ARoseWolf 20:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion! As I mentioned in my comment (which I'll reproduce here for others to weigh in), WP:OVERLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in [...] the first occurrence in a section." Given the fact that not many people are aware of these tribes, and the importance her upbringing has to this article as has been established on the talk page, I thought it was worth linking. I totally understand that they are rather close to each other, but it feels like a minimal-to-no downside for a large amount of convenience, as I imagine that many readers will want to click on that link in particular when reading about her upbringing, and it still follows the MOS. However, if other people also disagree, I understand that perspective as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect. (emphasis mine) We shouldn't be overlinking to bring special attention to these subjects any more than we do on other articles. And we shouldn't be overlinking as a means to show respect to this subject any more than we would other subjects. As I said, if the article were really long I could see placing other wiki-links as a courtesy which I am all for. I don't believe this case follows MOS and the justification for it is clearly not founded in policy. I don't see the convenience outweighing our need to be consistent. --ARoseWolf 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about respect, nor do I mean it as emphasis. By the phrase "the importance her upbringing has to this article", I mean that her upbringing has a significant bearing on a readers understanding of the subject. Especially since the word "Native American" is not used in the sentence (though not exclusively for that reason), understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context. I don't want to retain the links for emphasis or respect, I want it to clarify, as you quoted above. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is trying to bring emphasis to those two subjects because you think it is needed for context which is why it expressly says not to. It is a circumvention of standards and a consolation for the RFC not going the way initially wanted. If you believe Native American belongs in the article then state that above and stick to it. Don't try to come up with ways to circumvent consensus. Our readers are smart. They will figure out that a blue link in an article will take them to the subject spoken about and the article isn't so long that they will lose any context. Wikipedia isn't about trying to find ways to skirt policies or give out consolation prizes when discussions don't go the way of a particular side of the discussion. The fact that you had to say that it was a reason at all speaks volumes not to mention clarifying it as not exclusively why. This is not how we improve the encyclopedia or this article. "understanding who the Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce are is key to that section having any context" We can say that about almost every subject so I tend to think this move is more about trying to compensate for something you feel should be in the article but isn't. It's what you would like to make the emphasis for understanding what makes the subject who she is. Even the way you added the wiki-links in your response says a lot. Why? We do not have to link every time we mention the Piegan Blackfeet or the Nez Perce any more than we should for the Crow, or Cherokee, or Seneca. In my opinion it's trying to confer special treatment and ignoring what the actual policy states. I am not saying you are doing it in bad faith. I think you have every intention of good faith throughout this entire discussion. But this is why the policy against "righting wrong's" was written. We shouldn't be trying to force what we think will aid a reader in context or what they should understand about an article. Link once, and if the article a really long I can see linking again in another section further in the article. --ARoseWolf 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see this as a path to circumvent policies, and I'm not handing out "consolation prizes". My suggestion in the RFC actually seems to be the direction we will be going, so it's quite a strange and accusatory thing to say. My reasons are the ones I've given in good faith, that linking the tribes one additional time is useful for clarity as they are of higher-than-average importance for that section to make sense. The implication that linking them in the above comment is somehow betraying an ulterior motive is also an odd thing to say, and is contradictory with you saying you are Assuming Good Faith. I simply think the links are useful and meet the requirements of WP:OVERLINK: To clarify the first instance in a section. I'd be interested in other people's opinion. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw this pop up on my watchlist. I see no problem with linking the names twice. It is useful and helpful to our global, international community of readers who may not be familiar with these peoples and their cultures. So in effect, I think there is pedagogical value in doing so; it encourages our readership to deepen their knowledge. It seems that WP:IAR is appropriate in this case. Overlinking is sometimes used for disruption (and even vandalism) but that is certainly not the case here which seems like a misunderstanding between two good faith editors.Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)