Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=B|listas=Littlefeather, Sacheen|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=low}}

{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America|importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)

| archive = Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 2

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 1

}}

"new research"

I'm not sure if [https://www.thedailybeast.com/sacheen-littlefeather-heritage-fight-takes-a-new-twist this source] can be included of Keeler's quote and other info per WP:DAILYBEAST, but it speaks to the "newly discovered" research that was added to the article:

{{TQ|Keeler told Sun that the record in question “describes [Seam] as being born on Yaqui land with the Spanish words ‘criollo de la tierra,’ and the location ‘de yaqui,’” going on to explain that “the historian we consulted pointed out that criollos de la tierra refers to migrants from somewhere else.” She contrasted that with the baptism record below of a Native child who was Apache. In this case, the location is not “de Apache” and the child is described as “Apache hijo,” or “Apache son.” Citing the historian, Keeler wondered why Littlefeather’s ancestor’s baptism was missing the words “yacqui hijo.”}}

{{TQ|There are other interpretations of the record in question. Prof. Brian Haley of State University of New York at Oneonta told The Daily Beast that while it could indicate that Littlefeather had a Yaqui ancestor, he stressed further confirmation is needed since errors do occur in parish records. He wrote to me via email that “one record alone is not enough to confirm Native ancestry, and that there is no evidence of a Yaqui community claiming any family members as their own in this or subsequent records.”}} oncamera _{(talk page)} 01:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think a back-and-forth on this is particularly helpful; for my money, as long as we make clear that this is a "maybe" and don't give it too much weight, I think a brief mention suffices. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

::I think it's very helpful. There is no loss in being clear here.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:::That's fair, but I fear that by giving this too much space, we make it look like a bigger deal than the blip it actually is. Combine that with Professor Haley's opinion, which essentially says "maybe, maybe not" and all we're left with is a claim that perhaps the subject was 1/16th Yaqui. If consensus is against me, I certainly won't complain, but I think brevity is the soul of wit on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)