Talk:Jacqueline Keeler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Adding resources re: ongoing discourse surrounding Keeler's research methods[edit]

Hello, I believe it is pertinent to add a section, or at minimum, a few sentences re: Keeler's controversy within Indian Country. While I do not dispute that some of her work has been in support of our community, it is important that the broader public (i.e. wiki readers) also be aware of the harms she has/is perpetuating as well. Are there others that would support this idea? If so, I would like to request that the page's protection level be reduced, so that these edits and resources can be included. KMCN43 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions this, so it may be helpful to be more specific about what you'd like to see added. 2600:1014:B1E3:FC98:E5CA:FCB1:2FA0:4254 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a proper edit request with the reliably sourced specific content you wish to include. And indeed, the article does already mention it.  oncamera  (talk page) 04:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the criticism that users have tried to add has been comments/insults by non-notable commentators on twitter and message boards, so not WP:RS; other additions have been pure vandalism. I protected the article due to chronic vandalism of a BLP by SPAs. The page is at the lowest level of protection - only IPs and brand-new accounts can't edit. Wikipedians committed to a sustained, accountable presence on Wikipedia have full access to edit the page. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least removing the line about her having "strong support" in indian country would be great, because thats just absurd. She does have a small number (maybe 5-20ish) of highly committed supporters, but her overall reputation in indian country is overwhelmingly negative. Bangi Gekek (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Keeler's work regarding pretendians[edit]

Red-tailed hawk, pinging you as per your demand. Keeler's work on exposing pretendians with her Alleged Pretendian List is notable and was sourced. I move to keep it in the article. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple enough to include mention of Keeler's work on the "Alleged Pretendian List" with better sourcing:
There are more, but those should suffice. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly fine with including this provided that there is better sourcing (which Vanity Fair and Maclean's Magazine provide, but random substack blogs do not). My issue was with the state of sourcing in the article; we can't (and shouldn't) be using self-published blogposts or opinion pieces to give considerable weight to the claims that involve people besides their author. I have no objection to restoring similar content based upon reliable sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kim TallBear's critique is an exception to the rule as she is a widely-published expert in the field. For instance, though TallBear does not discuss Keeler in this article in the New York Times: "Doubts Over Indigenous Identity in Academia Spark ‘Pretendian’ Claims - Some Canadian universities now require additional proof to back up Indigenous heritage, replacing self-declaration policies", it's essentially the same subject matter and most of the same points. She's considered an expert in the field, so her choosing to post some things to a site she controls is not unusual and falls under the specific exceptions named in the WP:SPS policy:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, self-published sources written by subject-matter experts by would be fine, but WP:BLPSPS is clear that we should never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person with the narrow exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Information on BLPs is held to a higher standard. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the SPS policy itself states that we should [n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in original). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading part of the policy and pretending the exception I cited above isn't the part that applies here. That's WP:WIKILAWYERING and inappropriate. Kim TallBear is a widely-published expert in the field of Native identity issues, and thus cited in that capacity. Unlike the inappropriate sources that were removed, she doesn't publish gossip or entertainment; she writes about tribal identity and genetics, and is widely cited on the topic of DNA. Keeler is used only to note the existence of her own publications; we're not citing Keeler for her opinion about her own work. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't WP:WIKILAWYERING; it's plainly stating that the SPS policy explicitly states that we should never use it as a third-party BLP source even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You're arguing that Kim TallBear is an expert, but in light of the relevant policy, it's quite clear that this still isn't useable. If you'd prefer to talk about this on WP:RSN, I'd be happy to open a conversation there on the question of SPS for BLPs more broadly, but I don't think that there's any reasonable reading of policy where we can use self-published SME sources for facts on living people. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TallBear's Substack is self-published, regardless of TallBear's expertise. WP:SPS policy is explicit when it comes to BLPs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert. The only occasion TallBear's self-published Substack posts might be cited is for limited material about TallBear herself, on TallBear's own article. --Animalparty! (talk)

I apologize for not knowing about the BLP issue excluding the expert exception. Of course, it makes sense. Anyway, I've been waiting for someone else to correct the gibberish in that section, as I'm the one who semi'ed the article, but no one has. At the time, we could have asked at WP:RFPP for protection from another admin, who had never edited here, but it was blatant BLP vandalism/libel in progress and it seemed to me the priority was to stop the barrage of pure vandalism by IPs and SPAs. So, acknowledging here that I pushed the button, even though I occasionally edit the article. That said, I'm going to correct the grammar and add a bit more content, now that there are much better sources. The only self-published source/statement I'm going to leave in is a brief one from Keeler herself about her goals. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Letter and WP:NPOV[edit]

User:CorbieVreccan has integrated a section I authored entitled "Criticism" into the body of the article (which I am fine with and concede as per a subsection of WP:CRIT, which CorbieVreccan cited.) However, I'm concerned that the following section is impartial language: An open letter with over one-hundred signatures - some of them Native but many of them first names only, with either no tribal affiliation or listing affiliation with unrecognized groups - was posted on the Last Real Indians website denouncing Keeler and the list. Many of the signatories are on the Alleged Pretendians list. In my opinion this strongly implies that the open letter referenced is a means of legitimatizing the latter's Indigenous identity, which is arguably original research. As per WP:EDITORIAL, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists. The wording (some of them Native but many...) also heavily implies that having no tribal affiliation or affiliation with an unrecognized tribe means that one is not Indigenous. While it is the opinion of some commentators, it is also heavily controversial: see, for example, the Muwekma Ohlone -- Smithsonian Magazine argues that federal negligence and anthropologist A.L. Kroeber...caused the federal government to first strip the Muwekma Ohlone of their land, then deny them federal recognition...the lasting damage from his diagnosis meant the very much not-extinct members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe never regained federal recognition. In the spirit of neutrality, I will point out that I (personally) find issue with some of the affiliations claimed by signatories -- for example, claiming Mexica while the descendant communities generally identify as Nahuas -- however, it is not Wikipedia's place to engage in such discussions. I believe my original wording, Indigenous activists and supporters, is sufficiently neutral and agnostic.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's another source that elaborates on the list and says such, we can use that as a source, otherwise it does seem a bit of editorializing is happening.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to suggestions. I ask people to look over the signatories, and the problems with verification therein. I think if we're going to mention the letter at all, it is not appropriate to simply say it's a letter signed by Indigenous people, given the nature of the signatures, and the affiliations, or lack thereof, appended. Many of the signatures are a single name only, and could be anyone; also a number of names appear repeatedly. I only noticed one notable person, though maybe on another read I may find more. I see many people signing, for instance, "Cherokee", but not giving actual tribe. While I agree that the text veers into editorializing, I don't think something that problematic can be mentioned without some kind of caveat. Given the issues with the signatures, maybe it should just be removed. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the letter itself is like an editorial opinion piece and doesn't seem all that reliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL for your stated reasons.  oncamera  (talk page) 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per the guideline you linked, sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. It would not be reliable for claims made specifically about Keeler outside of the context of the opinion of the signatories. But as it stands, the only reference is to those opinions, not the claims made within the open letter. It is not Wikipedia's place to make caveats about the signatories when all the mention is saying that a collection of Indigenous and non-Indigenous supporters signed it. That is editorializing. Calling into question the veracity of signatories, likewise, is WP:NOR. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that the letter is non-neutral, it's about reliability and verifiability - core principles of Wikipedia. It's akin to using a petition that one can see has an abundance of anonymous signatories or obvious aliases. To use an opinion piece about a BLP, the individuals or groups voicing the opinion need to be notable, and their writing needs to be published in a third-party, WP:RS source. The answers to those criteria are, in the overwhelming number of cases of the signatories - no; or - we have no way of knowing, as they're anonymous. As to Chase's site being RS... it's iffy. This is on Chase's site with a disclaimer, rather than a solid news site, making it veer into the the territory of WP:BLPSPS violations, as well as WP:RSEDITORIAL. It seems like, with this many issues, policy is in favor of removing it. We already have two mentions of there being criticism. But for more, I'm sorry but they will have to meet encyclopedic standards. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Violation of Wikipedia Rules in Statement[edit]

I would like to draw your attention to a specific statement in the article on Jacqueline Keeler that raises concerns regarding neutrality and sourcing. The statement in question reads as follows: "Some people have criticized her for 'conducting a witch hunt'. Johnnie Jae, and others, have questioned the research and motives of the list, as well as what they say is anti-Black bias."

This statement appears to have been derived from a section in the Jonnie Jae article:

"That's what is going on here. To the Natives on that lists, I am sorry because you deserve better and I am proud of you for the grace you show, for your commitment to the betterment of NDN country. For those speaking out in solidarity, for calling out the blatant anti-Blackness and refusing to be silent....I am proud of you too because this behavior and harm isn't new. So many don't speak out because of the relentless viciousness. And for those not speaking out because of that very reason, I have your back too." [1]

The author's statement about "blatant anti-Blackness" lacks evidence and appears to be ideologically opposed to Ms. Keeler, thereby failing to demonstrate a neutral point of view (NPOV) on the matter. Furthermore, the statement in the article is not verifiable or sourced from a major, highly rated source, which violates Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing.

Given that this statement is inflammatory in nature, it may also be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on undue weight (UNDUE). In my view, better sourcing is required for this statement, and leaving it in its current form would be a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

I request a review of the statement to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and undue weight. 2604:3D08:8384:ECE0:82C:36B9:5848:96AE (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a reliable source for stating something like Jacqueline Keeler is blatantly anti-black and refuses to be silent on the matter. It is, however, a reliable source for Jonnie Jae's opinions on the matter, which is what the article uses it for. Jonnie Jae has questioned the research and motives of the list, and Jae has accused Keeler of "blatant anti-Blackness". See WP:RSOPINION, which states that [s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact [...] 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.
I will say that it is an awkwardly-worded sentence because another source was deemed low-quality and removed and should probably be revised. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the sources around left a direct quote unattributed. The additional sources - one mostly relied on nn tweets, the other is an opinion piece that was ruled out in talk at the Sacheen Littlefeather talk page. The text as we have it now was arrived at by consensus. Seek consensus if you want to alter it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a newer article out from the Independent where she talks about the Alleged Pretendian List, consequences and damages of folks speaking out about pretendians in Academia, how they're called racist for doing so and that pretendians take up position of gatekeeping. She also brings up other damages pretendians do such as skew data about cancer studies, racist mascot issues etc.  oncamera  (talk page) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware it was ruled out in the Sacheen Littlefeather talk page, I hadn't seen it before. I would say that while the Remezcla did rely on tweets, that kind of comes with the territory of covering a Google Sheets page and the general contours of media these days...I'll concede the consensus part though, which I of course participated in. I don't have a major problem with the sentence as it stands but I do think it reads awkwardly, but to be quite honest most of the page does. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Edit[edit]

@CorbieVreccan Hope you’re doing well! I wanted to bring this to the talk page since I saw you reverted my edit. My issue with the current reference to that article is that it’s an inaccurate summary of the information that is actually in the article. At no point in the article do native leaders say that Keeler has strong support in the native community. Actually, the writer of the article asserts that Keeler has strong support in native circles as a segue to quote the personal opinions of some native leaders. But the quotations clearly speak to the leaders’ personal opinion. They aren't claiming to speak for the community or offering insight into how the community as a whole feels. So the current wording is inaccurate and misleading. My edit clarified that while certain individual leaders expressed their approval of Keeler’s work, those are individual opinions. There is I nothing in the article that suggest Keeler has strong community-wide support. For that reason, I think the edit needs to be restored. Thanks in advance for any discussion, I appreciate it! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is "But she has strong support in Native circles." Then they interview Native leaders. Calling support "personal opinion" is really nitpicking here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a minor change. It literally has no agenda. It’s not like I’m trying to make Keeler look bad with this change. It’s still ultimately about her support. I clicked on the citation and felt the wording could be improved to better represent the article. Tbh, it’s just awkwardly written as is and unintentionally misleading. Right now, the wiki page says that in this article, Native leaders say she has strong support in the community. No native leader actually says that in the article. If I’m wrong, please show me where a Native leader says she has strong support in the community, I may have misread. What they do say is why they feel Keeler’s work is important, etc. So I just made what is ultimately minor edit to clarify it. My edit is more succinct and accurate but is in no way anti Keeler. Aquamarine9719 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree with both of you. The article doesn't say that native leaders say it, it just says it's true. So we should either say "VOA says..." or say it in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that VOA says it strikes me as being succinct and accurate so I’m fine with that! Good suggestion @LokiTheLiar and thanks for the discussion! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023[edit]

Add "Keeler has also faced significant backlash for what is colloquially known as "The List" since 2015, which consists of figures that Keeler believes have lied about their Indigenous ancestry. Because Keeler's "list" targets people who identify as both Black and Indigenous, she and her "list" are largely received as anti-Black and racist in nature. Keeler has also received backlash for working with David Cornsilk, who has been accused of sexual misconduct as well as leaking the vital information of a Cherokee Nation citizen by posting their blood quantum information on Facebook.[1] Keeler's critics believe her aggression stems from deep insecurity.[2] Keeler, herself, is descended from white painter Thomas Sully, father of colonel Alfred Sully, "who massacred over 400 Dakota and Lakota at Whitestone Hill in 1862."[3] Keeler's methods have also been criticized for her frequently incongruous positions on the issue of blood quantum. Multiple pieces she has written state that she both supports and does not support it, for reasons that are stated by former colleague Frances Danger as "as convoluted as it is hypocritical."[4] In a thread on X, formerly known as Twitter, Frances Danger stated of Keeler's methods and motivations, "So, to recap, when it comes to the list enrollment & blood quantum are not being used, descendency is acceptable except when it isn't, enrolled & reconnecting is acceptable except when it isn't, 'lived experience' is paramount unless you can enroll... It's almost as if there was no real methodology at all."[5] Livebobbiereaction (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per WP:RSP, blogs on medium dot com are not acceptable sources. Random tweets are also not acceptable sources. Your edit request also contains WP:OR which is not acceptable here.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cherokeephoenix.org/news/complaint-alleges-breach-of-confidential-information/article_fba37b81-adac-5a22-a356-2f3939c37256.html
  2. ^ https://voshart.medium.com/the-crashing-of-sacheens-funeral-a3c3a7bec173
  3. ^ https://voshart.medium.com/the-crashing-of-sacheens-funeral-a3c3a7bec173
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/FrancesMFDanger/status/1406082115847036929
  5. ^ https://twitter.com/FrancesMFDanger/status/1406082115847036929
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacqueline_Keeler&oldid=1215811191"