Talk:Circe Sturm

Privacy

This page is about me and I would like to have my birthdate and age removed because I was not aware of it being public and I am concerned about identity theft given how unusual my given name is. Also, I am a dual national of the US and Italy. Thank you. 3Accurso3 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources and BLP

There was a previous arbitration decision about the need for proper sourcing when making claims about BLPs in this subject area here. As a result, I have removed material which was poorly sourced. Two of the sources were WP:SPS (Tallbear's Substack and Sturm's response to TAAF), and one is at least a primary source and possibly also an SPS (TAAF), depending on how you categorise campaign groups' own websites. Sturm's letter appears to be hosted at a university website, but there's no indication it's a formal letter from them or that it underwent any editorial process, so it appears to be WP:LINKSINACHAIN. They all appear to lack "independence".

As a result, none of these meet the standard needed for the material we included, not least because this is a BLP article and so extra care is required. We should be sourcing claims like these to reliable secondary sources and following WP:BESTSOURCES. Whether someone is an expert or not, SPSes aren't best sources for making potentially contentious claims about BLPs.

If the person's heritage is in dispute and there is no reliable evidence to support it either way, then we should just remove it as poorly sourced in the first place and be done with it. That avoids the risk of BLP violations altogether. Lewisguile (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What's your rationale for deleting Sturm's quote from her own book published by University of California Press about her own identity? It is published in a reliable source and was clearly cited as a quotation rather than being placed in Wikivoice. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Her statement about her own understanding of her heritage is not even negative. Yuchitown (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is that information notable in the first place? We don't generally include in-depth discussions about people's grandparents' (and great grandparents') heritage. Per your quote, it should be "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". If it's something several reliable sources have commented on, and given significant attention to, then we might consider including it with due WP:WEIGHT.

However, the claim to Choctaw heritage is also broadly covered by the current text indicating how she describes her heritage; she later stopped mentioning the Cherokee heritage, so that part seems less relevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If we want to go further than what's currently there, such as detailing her grandparents' and great-grandparents' ancestry, we should show that such details are well represented in independent, reliable sources, and that they are proportional to the other subjects we cover in the section and the rest of the article. I don't see many sources talking about her grandparents (or their parents), but I'm happy to read them if you have them.

In the previous version of the section, there was significantly more text dedicated to her grandparents' and great-grandparents' heritage than any other background information, so there would still be issues with weighting, even if the information were well sourced. Lewisguile (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just remove everything after her being born in Houston. That seems less contentious, and her birthplace is more readily attested in sources anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Responding to: Why is that information notable in the first place?: Indigenous identity is why Sturm is notable and has an article in the first place. Her first book Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma discusses Cherokee Nation identity and frequently mentions her then-stated identity as an unenrolled Cherokee descendant. Her later book Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century covers unrecognized organizations identifying as Cherokee tribes and frequently mentions her stated identity as an unenrolled Choctaw descendant. Both of these books are published by university presses; exploring Indigenous identity is a sociological and anthropological inquiry, one that Sturm focuses on. This article is a stub, so it could be expanded in many other directions. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not censored. Yuchitown (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Her first book Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma discusses Cherokee Nation identity and frequently mentions her then-stated identity as an unenrolled Cherokee descendant.

Since there are other sources (by the same author) retracting the claim of Cherokee heritage, why would we include it when no other reliable sources support this as notable anyway? It becomes an unverifiable statement and, in turn, renders the source saying it unreliable in the first place (at least for this particular issue). Besides TAAF and the Substack, is there anyone else who mentions it? Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't need to include every detail that we might consider interesting or relevant if scholarly sources don't take an interest. "She once said x, but then said it didn't matter anymore" isn't really encyclopaedic material.

Her later book Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century covers unrecognized organizations identifying as Cherokee tribes and frequently mentions her stated identity as an unenrolled Choctaw descendant.

And the current text mentions this already, in as much detail as is necessary and due based on the sources currently provided. As for her grandparents and great-grandparents, they're even less relevant to the article. We follow what reliable sources say is notable about a subject. We don't decide to highlight certain information because it seems relevant to us based on our interpretation of the texts—that's cherrypicking. We follow what the scholars say is notable and what they choose to focus on. It has nothing to do with censorship, but your assumption that it is suggests you don't really understand the problem here.

As I said before, if you have other independent, reliable sources that focus on these details and therefore establish notability, then let's discuss them here. You haven't raised them yet, so I'm assuming they're not yet readily available? Otherwise, I'm sure we could seek clarity at WP:BLPN, but I don't think you'd get a different answer from the one given by arbitration on this matter. When it comes to BLPs, we are more cautious than we otherwise would be, so "it's probably fine to include this" isn't usually good enough. Lewisguile (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A publish quote by her about her heritage is ascribed to her; it's not placed in Wikivoice. What is verified is that she made a statement and it has been published. Quotations are not our interpretation. Yuchitown (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation is the matter of whether it's notable or not. Not everything a person says (whether about themselves or not) is necessarily notable. That's why we rely on coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

In this case, it's also information the subject no longer considers important about themselves, and they appear to be the only RS mentioning it. So the person we do have saying this is now saying "this is not notable", with no one else that's reliable contradicting her.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for independent RSes other than the author (who self-retracted the statement) that make clear this information is notable. Otherwise, we are listing information (about distant relatives) only to immediately say it's not relevant in the article. That is not encyclopaedic and is not to the standard we should uphold for a BLP. Lewisguile (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

the subject no longer considers important about themselves, you have a published source for this statement? You have published statements by Circe Strum saying "This is not notable"? If so, definitely share them; that would be helpful. I'm going to reinsert the text and citation I'm discussed, just so it's crystal clear what is being discussed here. Yuchitown (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

She says in her response letter that she no longer claims that heritage, meaning our article now technically includes an explicit inaccuracy. However, we're now going around in circles, so I'll leave it as it is. As a compromise, one extra line seems fine to me; it was mostly the additional detail about her grandparents and their heritage I objected to, and this keeps it brief.

I've changed "identifies" back to "describes" again, because it's awkward in that context. You can identify yourself as something, or you can identify someone as in pointing them out, but it's nonstandard to say that a person identifies someone else as a specific identity. E.g., I wouldn't say "I identify her as American", because that's weird; it's up to the subject of the sentence to identify herself as that or not. Lewisguile (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I restored specifically her writing from her two published books. You're now talking about information from her response letter, which you previously said you did not consider to be an acceptable source in this context. Yuchitown (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This feels like we are in WP:BATTLEGROUND territory right now, but I'll try to explain the policy here, since it seems you're still unsure of it.

In general, there is a higher standard for inclusion of material than there is for excluding it, per WP:ONUS and just about every guideline on reliable sourcing. Regardless of which, excluding information does not require using a weak citation in the article (obviously) because we don't cite absent material. That's the opposite to using a weak source to include information.

I have maintained since the beginning that there's no supporting evidence of notability—which you have continually refused to provide—for the material that has been cut (including the material you have restored). One source is not, on its own, evidence of notability. Furthermore if the author of a source later retracts a statement—even if in a WP:SPS—that means the statement in the earlier source is no longer objectively "verifiable", doesn't it? We don't need to cite the reply in the article to exclude the original, now invalidated information—we just don't include the non-verifiable information.

Besides which, a quick check of Google Scholar shows that when Sturm is described by herself and others, the sources rarely mention any Native ancestry. When they do, the sources only talk about "Mississippi Choctaw heritage", and not "distant Cherokee heritage". For example:

• Circe Sturm, an interdisciplinary anthropologist with Sicilian, German, and Mississippi Choctaw ancestry, is quick to state that she was not raised on tribal land or in tribal community.
• Circe Sturm (Mississippi Choctaw descendant)
• Circe Sturm, herself a Mississippi Choctaw descendant

So, to summarise, we do not include every piece of information about a person (even if it is verifiable), and we definitely shouldn't include such information if we're unable to verify it in the first place, and if the majority of sources don't see fit to mention it at all. Lewisguile (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This feels like we are in WP:BATTLEGROUND territory right now, but I'll try to explain the policy here, since it seems you're still unsure of it. I'm been trying to simplify the conversation and move forward and believe we are coming to a solution. No need to condescend; I am well-versed on WP:BLP policy. The two books are completely reliable sources. The retraction letter is more of a gray area since it's just a letter on a professor's page on university website; it could go either way. WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources can be used when the author is writing about themselves. I'm flexible either way; use it or don't; however, if it is used as a source, then all of it can be used. Then, by using exact quotations, nothing is being said in Wikivoice, which is important here. It's a simply, verifiable fact that she wrote and published these statements. No private information is being shared (like her birth date which was appropriately retracted). Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. It was not my intention to be condescending, so I apologise if that's how it came across. Text is not always very good at articulating tone. I agree it feels like we're coming to a consensus.

however, if it is used as a source, then all of it can be used

Not necessarily. Most sources are a mix of notable and non-notable information, just as they may include a mix of primary, secondary and/or tertiary material. For example, Sturm's book would be a secondary source for US census data, since that was originally published by the government and she uses such data to make her argument about increasing numbers of people race shifting. In referencing that data, she is helping establish its notability to the topic of race shifting, so we might include that demographic data in an article on the subject of race shifting—at least to show the changing numbers according to Sturm.

She would, however, be a primary source for her original opinions in the same book. If lots of sources refer to Sturm's opinions, that's evidence that those particular opinions are notable, and we could summarise them in context. Ideally, we would summarise what the secondary sources say about Sturm's work to give that context, but Sturm herself could certainly be quoted.

But if some of the opinions or statements in the book aren't commented on by others, that would indicate they're not particularly notable, so focusing on those rather than things that other sources do comment on would give an impression of undue weight. In Blood Politics, immediately after the text we've quoted from (it's on pp. 5–6 in the version I'm using), for example, Sturm goes on to talk about Choctaw heritage but doesn't mention any claims to Cherokee identity again. Meaning it's just a passing mention, and therefore likely not particularly relevant compared to the rest. She doesn't give it much weight, so neither should we.

That's why we generally seek multiple RSes to support each statement in an article, since it addresses any potential concerns about notability and due weighting. For any statement that's liable to be challenged or seen as undue, it's best practice to have multiple citations, with a preference for secondary over primary sources.

In general, we should also try to keep quotations to a minimum and summarise them in our WP:OWNWORDS where we can. Hence, the statement that she says her parents have x descent is sufficient, especially when the quotation repeats the same information, only in slightly more detail, but adds information that is less well supported by other sources. It also doesn't commit to saying her parents are a particular thing; it just says that's how she describes them (neutral and noncommittal). That seems balanced to me.

I could also see the argument for removing the sentence about her parents' descent as well, as so few sources engage with it in any detail (the three I linked above all only mention it in passing), but I can equally see the argument that she at least gives a few pages to the Choctaw part, so mentioning that seems less of a problem. But I think we can leave it as it is for now, with the corollary that if we can find a better way to summarise this information in future, or find a better direct quote, we can return to it later on. How does that sound?

Similarly, the quote about her career isn't really needed because multiple sources are available to indicate she is known for her writing on race shifting (although we should probably add those other sources to avoid any doubt). That would also mean we don't need to attribute it, which can give the impression of WP:SCAREQUOTES. We could probably remove "extensively", if that's your worry—it's enough to say "Sturm writes about race shifting" or similar. We don't even need to define it, as we have a blue link in the article.

Either way, I am happy to go off and find some relevant sources to back up the statement that she's well cited in this subject area first—it shouldn't be hard, and I don't think either of us would find it controversial to say she's considered a subject matter expert in this area (of course, that isn't to say she's the expert, either). It seems the issue was more with "extensively" and perhaps with how we summarise "race shifting", which we can avoid by simply leaving those papers out. This part is not urgent, though. Lewisguile (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

A quote about herself used as a quote from a published book by her published by a university press is absolutely a reliable source. A scholar uses primary sources and created secondary sources, which are then eligible to be here, a tertiary source. WP:OWNWORDS talks about plagiarism, which is not an issue here. We can definite date the quote and add quote from Becoming Cherokee. Calls for censorship are not substantiated by Wikipedia policy. Yuchitown (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a matter of what's WP:DUE more than censorship. Not all verifiable information is due for inclusion, per WP:VNOT. It's also not nearly as simple as "it's in a scholarly book, so it's secondary". That's a very surface-level approach to identifying sources. See WP:ALLPRIMARY:

Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth... More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material... An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but they might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material).

So a statement about her own personal life and experiences is primary material, even if the book is otherwise a secondary source. That would be okay if multiple RSes talk about it, because it would indicate it's an important subject independently of the primary source. Where secondary sources don't mention it (and the primary source barely mentions it), there is an issue of weight, which can lead to POV issues.

In the case of WP:OWNWORDS, you're right that it covers plagiarism, but it also says: "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible". Choosing what to quote can itself be an issue of proper weighting. WP:QUOTATION also says: "Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source." Intentions are as important as the surface-level reading of a quote; in that particular section of the book, Sturm is talking about a) having been raised primarily as Sicilian and Texan, and b) increasingly embracing a Choctaw heritage, and not a Cherokee one, at university.

Based on this, I actually think a better paragraph would be:

Circe Dawn Sturm was born in Houston, Texas. She describes her father as being of Mississippi Choctaw descent and her mother as being Italian American. In Blood Politics, Sturm wrote that she grew up with a primarily Sicilian and Texan identity, but came to place greater emphasis on her Choctaw descent while at university.

While this has the same issue of relying on a single primary source—which I think someone will probably raise as an issue again at some point, even if we both move past it today—at least it matches the weighting Sturm gives this subject in her own book. That makes it somewhat more defensible. It also covers the issue of her changing identity more directly, which the current quote only intimates (and thus, I don't think this wording can be described as censorship, either).

As for the "Career" paragraph, I'd probably go for:

Sturm writes about Cherokee identity politics and race shifting. Blood Politics (2002) presents results of her ethnographic fieldwork in the Cherokee Nation from 1995 to 1998. Becoming Indian (2011) discusses the concept of race shifting in more detail. Sturm has been interviewed on issues relating to Cherokee identity, such as the Cherokee Freedmen controversy and Elizabeth Warren's claims to Cherokee ancestry.

That keeps it simple and avoids any wording that might seem to editorialise.

However, while I do think the current text isn't perfect, I am also willing to just keep both sections as they currently are for the sake of moving forward. As I said before, we can always reopen the discussion if we find more/better sources that deal with these subjects. Lewisguile (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Background

One sentence is does not present a WP:DUE problem. WP:NOT states direct quotations must be accompanied by inline citations, which is it. This is an instance were the quotation is the information and should not be summarized. But I'm totally fine with an additional quote of her only identifying as a Choctaw descendant or a summarization that she subsequently primarily identified as a Choctaw descendant. I'm going to add a date to the quote. Yuchitown (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Career

Your suggested paragraph for "career" is fine with me. Yuchitown (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I've only just seen this, but have made the change to "career" and left the "background" text as is for now. My reading of that part of her book is that she identified more with her Choctaw heritage than before, rather than primarily identifying with it. Hence why I worded it the way I did. So it's probably best to leave it as it is for now, unless there's a more specific suggestion we're both happy with. Lewisguile (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)