501:
it's that they were properly not Native
Americans, so they shouldn't have been able to register as American Indians. Or you feel it's material for some other reason. But it's not a relevant issue, inasmuch as the article is not claiming that any particular person was a Native American. The intention of the Knowledge guideline is that within an article, we should not assert that someone is a Native American without a tribal acknowledgement to that effect. Such a claim is not being made in the article, and in particular, it's not being made with regard to any specific person. The claim is that "... documentation in records ... showed their continued identification as being of Native American descent." The claim is not that they were in fact Native Americans, but that right or wrong, the actual birth records showed them as Native Americans.
505:"white" and they didn't want to register as "colored". Until the passage of the Racial Integrity Act, Melungeons were able to be reported on their birth certificates as American Indians. That's not to assert that they were in fact American Indians, but that was the best choice available to them, and until Plecker came along, they were able to have that claim accepted. None of this depended on tribal documentation for the selection of "American Indian" to have the desired effect.
31:
423:, but, in a nutshell, with Native identity when an individual or family claims a Native American identify, we at Knowledge can only verify that that have self-identified. To claim anything beyond that and to make a statement that they actually are of Native American descent would require that a specific Native American tribe claims the individual or family. Census records are primary documents; today they are completely self-identified.
521:
only available choices were "white", "colored", and "American Indian" (setting aside the issue that the rationale for the "self" prefix is a
Knowledge policy about verifiability). But if we were to be consistent, we would have to say that after the Racial Integrity Law became effective, they self-identified as "colored", even though that was the only choice open to them.
460:
reporting how they claim the offspring should be registered. We are not making any claim in the article that a particular individual is in fact indigenous. This is how the birth is registered and how the state recognizes it, thereby determining how that person is treated by the law, even if it is not satisfactory as evidence to support such a claim on WP.
405:, it sounds like you are trying to put forward some prescriptive standardized and well-enforced process, going beyond mere self-reporting of births by those persons directly involved in the birthing process. Can it be recorded as a "tribal birth" only if reported on an "Official Tribal form"? Can you provide a source for this?
520:
Here I am, back again. I can see how people looking at the phrasing in the article may think that "self-identified" is an appropriate term here, yet it provides a pretty specific inference that the person (the parents?) were able to exercise their own free will in the matter, yet the reality is the
504:
So what's my objection to prefixing "identified" with "self"? In this context, "self-identified" would likely be interpreted to mean that they actually considered themselves to be Native
Americans, but we should only infer that they registered their births that way because they couldn't register as
96:
Can the other editors please explain their position on why "western
Virginia" is a better term? In my head, "Southwest Virginia" makes more sense, as "western Virginia" could just as well refer to the counties of the state that border West Virginia. Whereas, the sources in the infobox, and elsewhere
500:
a Native
American. Rather, the claim is that there was a set of persons who had been reported on their birth certificates as American Indian, which had actually provided them with certain advantages as compared to being registered as "colored". I'm perplexed as to where you're coming from, I guess
459:
out of context. That's clearly when, in a WP article, a claim is made that some specific person or persons are indigenous. No such claim is being made (i.e. about a specific individual or individuals) in this instance. Instead, we are describing a generic case of somebody registering a birth and
338:
Au contraire! I am not resistant to any such claim, but the issue is how state officials identified them. Plecker insisted on changing their identification (on existing birth records) from "Indian" to "colored" with the result that subsequent offspring would, by law, be identified as "colored".
296:
are being identified (i.e. as "colored" or native
American), but the issue is "by whom?". Adding "self" makes it seems like they're relying on the documentation as to how they identify themselves, whereas the issue is how they are identified by others who are going by whatever the documentation
524:
This system of classification of race is something that was "done to" these people. They may have had a greater or lesser influence on this, depending on the conditions under which the race was reported. When they had the option, they chose "American Indian" rather than "colored". What they
372:, when it actually affected how they were identified on official state records. In so doing, it also precluded descendants from being identified as "American Indian". Thus, the problem is not how they self-identify, but how they are identified by the state on their birth certificates.
153:
as being in "western
Virginia near Charlottesville." Thus, for this author, western Virginia refers to a huge swath of area, including those northwestern counties of the state. Albemarle County, I think, is decidedly not in the territory associated with Melungeons or in
92:
Hi, coming here to discuss a disagreement as to whether to use "western
Virginia" or "Southwest Virginia" in the infobox. I've explained my position in the edit history, and also linked to a source using the terminology (that was already linked in the infobox).
529:
self-identified as? I don't know, but it wouldn't have been limited to the selections provided on the official forms. I suggest that it would lessen the confusion to replace "identified" with "assigned", "recorded", or something similar.
319:. You appear very resistant to the verifiable truth that in the past certain Melungeon families self-identified as having Native American ancestry. No tribes identified them as such, so falls to self-identification.
196:
163:
113:
386:
But these families are the origin of the identification. The identification is not originating from any Native
American tribe. Make it "self-identify on their official forms" if you want.
176:
Honestly on this particular subject, I couldn't care less. Find decent secondary, published reliable sources and source the edit you want. I'm much more concerned about the
270:
directed the offices to reclassify members of certain families as black, causing the loss for numerous families of documentation in records that showed their continued
200:
167:
117:
195:
Okay, reverting to my edit that used the USA Today article as a source for "Southwest
Virginia," which I made before I was asked to bring it to the talk page.
440:
You need to sign your comment below. But you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families, hence "self-identification.
419:
I am attempting to accomodate you while keeping the article truthful. You do not appear to be familiar with Native American topics. You can try reading
231:
I agree- the citation reference book Other Souths is not properly cited in this article, nor is it relevant. I believe it should be removed.
131:
has made many improvements to the article recently, so let's wait for their comments. But don't revert again without a consensus here.
101:
area and specify that the part of the state we're talking about here is where Virginia meets Kentucky and Tennessee, i.e. its
402:
263:
127:
My major concern at this point is the frequent reverting without discussion, which is why I asked you to discuss here.
38:
72:
67:
59:
236:
218:
535:
510:
465:
410:
377:
344:
302:
232:
214:
136:
531:
506:
461:
406:
373:
340:
298:
549:
493:
wrote: "... you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families."
445:
428:
391:
358:
324:
185:
159:
368:
Your change represents that changing the designation on birth certificates affected how they
177:
150:
132:
456:
420:
545:
490:
441:
424:
387:
354:
320:
257:
210:
181:
128:
106:
98:
47:
17:
149:, used a source that specifically uses the term "western Virginia" also refers to
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
145:
Understandable, thanks. Would like to add to my previous comment that the book
553:
539:
514:
449:
432:
414:
395:
381:
362:
348:
328:
306:
240:
222:
204:
189:
171:
155:
140:
121:
105:
west. Furthermore, why not link to the Southwest Virginia page but link to
158:. Thus, I think this book actually lends more credence to using the term
496:
I am missing something. This is not dependent on any specific person
112:
Appreciate the work done on this article to remove fringe theories.
544:
Yes, feel free to add "self-identify" to "colored" or "white."
316:
25:
278:
I'm trying to parse this change. The reclassification of
274:
identification as being of Native American descent.
180:theories creeping in and self-published sources.
8:
213:The article right now is a huge WP:REDFLAG
282:caused the loss of documentation of their
280:certain people of native American descent
97:in the article, link Melungeons to the
88:Southwest Virginia vs. Western Virginia
264:your revision of 15:17, 26 August 2023
197:2601:18D:4600:A610:D12D:DE57:B8A4:C487
164:2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134
114:2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
403:your edit adding "on official forms"
401:Regarding the above statement and
24:
29:
288:as native Americans to be lost.
1:
554:16:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
241:02:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
223:02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
455:You are attempting to apply
251:loss of self-identification?
540:21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
515:00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
450:22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
433:15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
415:03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
396:22:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
382:22:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
363:22:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
349:21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
329:19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
307:19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
573:
205:16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
190:23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
172:18:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
141:17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
122:17:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
353:Then what's the problem?
468:) 20:32, 27 August 2023
315:is capitalized as per
162:to be more specific.
42:of past discussions.
160:Southwest Virginia
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
564:
261:
151:Albemarle County
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
572:
571:
567:
566:
565:
563:
562:
561:
370:self-identified
313:Native American
255:
253:
90:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
570:
568:
560:
559:
558:
557:
522:
498:actually being
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
333:
332:
286:identification
276:
275:
252:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
209:I agree with @
107:East Tennessee
99:Cumberland Gap
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
18:Talk:Melungeon
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
569:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
528:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
502:
499:
494:
492:
467:
463:
458:
454:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
290:
289:
285:
281:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:, it states:
265:
259:
250:
242:
238:
234:
233:StephanieTree
230:
224:
220:
216:
215:StephanieTree
212:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
115:
110:
108:
104:
100:
94:
87:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
526:
503:
497:
495:
489:
369:
312:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
277:
271:
254:
147:Other Souths
146:
111:
102:
95:
91:
78:
43:
37:
532:Fabrickator
507:Fabrickator
462:Fabrickator
407:Fabrickator
374:Fabrickator
341:Fabrickator
299:Fabrickator
133:Sundayclose
36:This is an
452:Yuchitown
435:Yuchitown
398:Yuchitown
365:Yuchitown
294:themselves
192:Yuchitown
156:Appalachia
556:Yuchitown
546:Yuchitown
491:Yuchitown
442:Yuchitown
425:Yuchitown
388:Yuchitown
355:Yuchitown
331:Yuchitown
321:Yuchitown
258:Yuchitown
211:Yuchitown
182:Yuchitown
178:wp:fringe
129:Yuchitown
79:ArchiveĀ 6
73:ArchiveĀ 5
68:ArchiveĀ 4
60:ArchiveĀ 1
527:actually
457:WP:NDNID
421:WP:NDNID
297:states.
292:So they
39:archive
284:self-
272:self-
103:south
16:<
550:talk
536:talk
511:talk
466:talk
446:talk
429:talk
411:talk
392:talk
378:talk
359:talk
345:talk
325:talk
303:talk
262:Per
237:talk
219:talk
201:talk
186:talk
168:talk
137:talk
118:talk
317:MOS
552:)
538:)
513:)
448:)
431:)
413:)
394:)
380:)
361:)
347:)
327:)
305:)
239:)
221:)
203:)
188:)
170:)
139:)
120:)
109:?
64:ā
548:(
534:(
509:(
464:(
444:(
427:(
409:(
390:(
376:(
357:(
343:(
323:(
301:(
260::
256:@
235:(
217:(
199:(
184:(
166:(
135:(
116:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.