There is some unintended comedy that's mostly internal to Wikipedia in this regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_people https://en.wi

There is some unintended comedy that's mostly internal to Wikipedia in this regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_peopl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_of_Native_American_descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_of_Na... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_who_s... That's right, there are three separate categories just to describe American people's relationship to Indian descent, and there's a clear delineation between people who've "claimed" ancestry vs. people with "substantiated" ancestry, vs. people who are actual members of tribes. There's also a real systemic problem among biographies of African-American people. Of course they are often placed into relevant A-A categories, but there is frequently no mention at all in the article about the person's race/ethnicity. All categories must be substantiated by text in the article that is cited to a reliable source. It is extremely interesting that, often, newspaper and magazine articles covering African-American people do not mention their race, or the race of their parents if they cover their early lives. So sometimes, it is non-trivial to find a reliable source that substantiates a person's A-A identity. Otherwise, those categories need to be removed. Another thing that happens in biographies, is that a person's descent may be documented for a while, and several race/ethnic categories duly added, but then someone removes that documentation and the sources from the article, but not the categories, and so the categories are left, dangling and unsubstantiated, with no record of how they got there except the diffs in history.