Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)