Misplaced Pages

I've still got concerns that I will attempt to condense below in case others share them and feel they merit further discussion. Nevertheless, I recognize that the consensus is heading in a different direction, and I will respect it despite my objections; thus I will not object to anyone closing the mediation with the current consensus despite my remaining misgivings. If others share my concerns and chime in, though, then it might be best to postpone closure. alanyst 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My concerns:

• I'm not convinced that WP is in any legal danger whatsoever, so the use of the proposed templates as a disclaimer is, in my mind, a solution looking for a problem. Have there been any other websites that have gotten in legal trouble over neutral reporting about claims of tribal membership (not making the claims, but reporting on those claims), when those claims have no legal recognition? In essence, is the legal risk merely conjectural or has it already been incurred by someone else in similar circumstances?
• The templates still bug me, though the category does not. The templates seem to me to be analogous with (hypothetical) article templates like "This movie pre-dates the MPAA ratings system, and may contain material that is not suitable for all audiences", or "This religious group is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and its practitioners may not be eligible to participate in certain Roman Catholic sacraments", or "This event has been documented by the Associated Press and is considered noteworthy under its reporting standards", or "This chemical compound contains mercury, which is a known environmental toxin". Do you see where I'm going with this? As a practical matter, despite how it may be intended, the prominence of the template serves as a warning label to the reader, and puts WP in an advocacy position ("Don't get suckered by these fake tribes!") rather than that of a neutral observer. I can't imagine Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, placing prominent notices on their articles about whether a particular group has received official sanction from a particular organization.
• In short, making the issue of federal recognition so prominent has not been shown to be necessary from a legal standpoint, and has the harmful effect of making WP appear to take a non-neutral position. If federal recognition is relevant to the article, discussing it in the article text is sufficient. Summarizing it as part of a summary of other facts in the article (e.g., an infobox) is also acceptable, although I recognize that there may be practical difficulties with implementing such a solution, as Phaedriel has indicated. But prominent templates, in my opinion, result in undue weight and lend an unencyclopedic tone to the articles they appear in.

That pretty much sums up my position. Again, if nobody else agrees with my concerns, then don't let me hold everything up -- please proceed with implementing the consensus. alanyst 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Federally Recognized Cherokee Groups is ok with me, so long as the content is not in the same articles as Federally recognized tribes (unless there is a notable dispute between two such entities which should be in both articles). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an concern which I think is outside the scope of the proposed solution -- it goes back to the issue, raised by others, of whether being Cherokee (or any other variety of native American) is more akin to being a citizen of a country, or, as in the example one used, more like being Jewish by birth. We are all agreed that, in the 1830s, every apparent Cherokee was a Cherokee, because the US government had not yet gotten into the business of defining Cherokees. Our articles quite correctly state that a number of these undisputed Cherokee were not forced onto the Trail of Tears, so never arrived in Oklahoma and were never put onto the rolls. Our articles indicate that this was true of at least 600 Cherokee. Assuming normal reproductive patterns, those people would now have at least tens of thousands of descendents, and probably hundreds of thousands. I know a number of people like that, and while they can never be members of the Cherokee Nation, they are mindful and proud of their heritage, and I don't doubt that they'd appreciate some mention on Misplaced Pages. While there will always be people who try to exploit their (real or fictitious) ethnic identity, I think it's safe to say that people like that are very much the exception, and the remainder don't deserve to be treated as frauds or wannabes, or to simply vanish into nothingness. I would hope that accomodation will be made for those of Cherokee descent who do not belong to either the Cherokee Nation or any other group. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article: the Eastern Band Cherokee, which were spared the Trail of Tears, are indeed federally recognized and are mentioned in the article.

For others, we need a reliable source which establishes the existence of these Cherokee descendants. As you see above, I agree in principle that such material is allowable; however a careful examination of the sources showed no authority actually saying, "these guys over here are descended from Cherokees," much less "these guys over here are Cherokees."Proabivouac 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per Trail of Tears, for example, around 400 of those did form the Eastern Band, but several hundred more are mentioned and go unaccounted for. And, again, I'm not talking about groups, so "this group is Cherokee" shouldn't be an issue. I'm just thinking of the fairly large population in the southeastern US who are part Cherokee(/Choctaw/Creek/etc.) who are not members of any group. A page on "Cherokee Heritage" (as distinct from "Groups") might be nice.

With individuals, verification is problematic. When it comes to someone like, say, Jimi Hendrix, his father's mother identified as Cherokee, and had a last name (Moore) which is common on the rolls. But I know of no proof that she was Cherokee. I have also never heard that the Cherokee Nation (or anyone else) contested Hendrix's family background. In non-controversial cases such as this, I see no harm in mentioning (if it can be well sourced) that the subject of an article has reason to believe that they're part Cherokee (or any other ethnicity). We'd do the same if someone identified as Welsh, despite the fact that their ancestry might be unproven, and Wales doesn't issue its own passports or have its own citizens. In the handful of contested cases, their ancestry should be noted as disputed, and appropriate sources given. That would seem to me to be NPOV, and would avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any support for making separate the articles on Cherokee history, Cherokee people, Cherokee identity, the Cherokee Nation, and possibly some other groups? By the way, I just noticed Sturm has a book out about Cherokee identity as well, it might be interesting to look through. Best, Smmurphy 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One way of managing it would be to split Cherokee history into events which occurred before some date representing pre-federal recognition Cherokee, and after. The date itself would be supplied by the works of Cherokee historians - there would have to be a citeable reason to pick the date - but 1866 or 1887 would be obvious choices. The material after the date would likely be 95% involving the federally recognized tribes, as much of what historians consider "recent history of Cherokee" probably focuses on these groups. Anything that didn't but was notable enough for inclusion would, of course, be clearly noted as involving something else. Using (a) separate history article(s) allows any Cherokee article (Cherokee Nation, United Keetoowah Band, Cherokee People) to link to an article about the history of Cherokee.

Splitting off the Cherokee identity and Cherokee people sections would be a way to address the scope of the article (Cherokee Heritage Groups still seems to me like a POV fork; a change of title and broadening of scope away from being what I am talking about). To me it is not important whether the article on the Cherokee Nation is called "Cherokee" or "Cherokee Nation," so long as it is clear that it is about the group that has the US right to claim a sort of governance, and belonging to it or the other two groups is not the only way one ends up being called (or calling oneself) Cherokee. If Cherokee redirects to this article, then I think being clear about the scope of the article does entail putting the little italicized disclaimer about how one might be interested in a broader meaning for Cherokee, and to find information about that meaning, go to a different article. Smmurphy 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "Cherokee" refers to three Federally recognized tribes of Native Americans. The term does not apply to people who cannot prove they are Cherokee or groups who cannot prove it, or author of book on Cherokee identity. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the implications of that. To take one article as an example, the Ani-kutani page would have to be cut down to the opening two sentences which cite a quote from Wilma Mankiller, because James Mooney was not Cherokee, we have no proof that the descendants of Sequoyah are legally Cherokee (most of them are not US citizens), and there is no evidence that the people at the Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious Organization are legally Cherokee. So that policy would reduce that article to a stub, and there are quite a few articles like that. Surely there must be a better way. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jeffrey, what do you mean that the term "Cherokee" does not apply to "author of book on Cherokee identity?" Are you saying that by writing their books, Thornton and Garoutte (et. al.) are somehow no longer Cherokee? What are you talking about? Smmurphy 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ani-kutani have a verifiable history and are a religious organization, not a tribe. Your other statements about them are completely inaccurate. What I am referring to is this incessant dialouge that wannabee's are Cherokee, and that people claiming to be Cherokee descendants can misuse the title "Cherokee". The debate has been solved. The name "Cherokee" refers to the Cherokee tribes, not articles about unverifiable groups claiming to be Cherokee. The Ani-kutani are labeled as the Ani-kutani, not as Cherokee. Also, this group is comprised of members of the three Cherokee tribes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think when readers are told, in the opening sentence, that the Ani-kutani are "the ancient priesthood of the Cherokee," they are going to believe that the Ani-kutani are, in fact, Cherokee. The article does nothing to say that they aren't, yet almost all of the article rests on the authority of people who cannot be proven to be members of any federally recognized Cherokee group.

Much of it is based on publications by the Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious Organization (AhNiYvWiYa Inc.), a corporation run by "Chief" Paul White Eagle, whose legal status as a Cherokee is disputed: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cherokeendn/message/28570 Unless I misunderstand, you would have editors consider such persons to be non-authoritative on matters Cherokee. And if his tribal status were not disputed, but simply uncertain, what then? Would editors have to make phone calls to the offices of up to three tribal nations in order to determine whether a given citation could be used? Finding out about Paul White Eagle took me half an hour of Googling, but in that amount of time I could determine nothing about the tribal status of the authors of Beginning Cherokee, the sole reference used in Sequoyah. Editors would face the same dilemma when it came to biographies of anyone in the post-Dawes period who was said to be of Cherokee ancestry. Almost all Cherokees, legal or not, would fall into the very time consuming limbo of "unproven but undisputed."

Every day I have to make hundreds of decisions about whether to revert changes, and every example which is difficult to evaluate means that blatant instances of vandalism will slip by while I'm tied up trying to reach a conclusion. Even if I were convinced that the only acceptable authorities on a category of people were those who had proof of US government sanctioned membership in that group, I would still be concerned about the day-to-day feasibility of such a policy. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Narrow Scope?

There is no "incessant dialouge about wannabee's," whatever that means. And I don't think debates are "solved," and in my mind, this one is still ongoing. In my summary above, I asked that the issue of scope be addressed. Phaedriel's proposal, which most have agreed to, is unclear about the scope of the article. She writes, Any group not recognized, can have an article of its own and/or be mentioned/included at articles of Recognized groups, with the following template at the bottom of their articles/sections... Jeffrey, your comments since then have implied that you continue to advocate a much narrower scope for this article; for instance, Materials about a non-Federally recognized tribe can go into articles about that tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC). I am requesting that the scope of this article be clearly laid out here on the talk page, and if a narrow scope is chosen, that the article reflect that, and we agree on an article where the broader scope would be acceptable. Right now, the lead reads:

The Cherokee ( ah-ni-yv-wi-ya {Unicode: ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ} in the Cherokee language) are a people from North America, who at the time of European contact in the 1600s, inhabited what is now the Eastern and Southeastern United States. Most were forcibly moved westward to the Ozark Plateau. They were one of the tribes referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, they are the most numerous of the 563 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States.

For Jeffrey's narrower scope, this should be changed to something like:

Cherokee ( ah-ni-yv-wi-ya {Unicode: ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ} in the Cherokee language) refers to a group of Indian nations descendant from a people from North America, who at the time of European contact in the 1600s, inhabited what is now the Eastern and Southeastern United States. Most were forcibly moved westward to the Ozark Plateau, and many of these have been recognized by the United States Federal government by the title, the Cherokee Nation. Another group, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, descend from those who moved to Oklahoma shortly before the forced march. The third and final group of Cherokee which are federally recognized are the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, descend from Cherokee who did not make the march. The Cherokee were one of the tribes referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, they are the most numerous of the 563 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States.

As I've stated, this change is problematic, and perhaps the article should be titled "Cherokee Nation," as there are already separate articles about two of the three nations. Any more general article on the Cherokee must be clear about whether officially recognized groups are being discussed or not per Phaedriel's proposal, but is seems to me that there are plenty of reliable sources talking about Cherokee in a general way (but "Cherokee Heritage Groups" are, and wikipedia might discuss them as well. An article titled "Cherokee Heritage Groups" doesn't fit the bill, as no reliable sources talk about such things (notice that gets almost no hits at google). I would make articles at Cherokee people and Cherokee identity, but without an ok from people here, it would be a POV fork, and it would be against the spirit of this mediation. I'm sorry for going on so long, but, Jeffrey, I really feel like you aren't understanding why I am continuing this dialog. I hope I am clearer here. Thank you. Smmurphy 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the scope should be narrow and precise. This is exactly why Cherokee refers to the three recognized tribes and not individuals or groups who cannot prove they are of this ancestry. There is only one Cherokee Nation and we call ourselves Cherokee. The way the article is seems to satisfy these issues. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that we can make the lead more precise about the scope? For instance, in the lead, Cherokee are described as a tribe and as a people. The tribe article doesn't use tribe in the way Miller meant it in his "nation, band, or tribe" quote we discussed earlier. That is, from the lead, there is nothing that tells the reader this article is about the Cherokee Nation in particular. Or are you saying that you don't think the lead needs to change to be clear to readers. Thanks, Smmurphy 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you mean do I think you should reinsert all the materials about non-recognized Cherokee groups, I believe this discussion has been resolved. There is a Cherokee Heritage Groups article where views about Cherokee's who cannot prove their ancestry have a place in Misplaced Pages. It does not belong in this article. This article is about Federally recognized tribes and those who can prove their ancestry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Did you look at the proposed lead changes? This isn't about your POV fork at all, this is an attempt to implement your ideas up front, so that future editors will understand the purpose of the article. This is to allow for a stable editing environment, which is something we should seek for our best articles, and can help prevent edit wars. Smmurphy 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No I understand very well. This is one of yet another attempts to hijack the term "Cherokee" and apply it to things not Cherokee and people and groups not Cherokee. Your proposed edits are to detach the term "Cherokee" from the Federally recognized tribes and cubbyhole the true Cherokee people in a corner for a POV fork of the term so the non-Cherokee can simply continue contending on a previously solved debate and pushing this agenda. I do not care how weasel worded the proposal is, this is what is being proposed. The Cherokee People (embodied in the three Federally Recognized Tribes -- one of which is a Nation (There can only be one Nation for any group of Indians, check BIA regulations)) hold the title as "Cherokee" and no one else. Materials about unverified Cherokee Groups have their own article now, please focus on that article with these unverifiable materials and views. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to argue too much, but I'm not sure Jeffrey and I are interpreting the result of the mediation the same. I didn't see Phadriel's proposal as being as broad as to cover the issue of the scope of the article itself, just how the article deals with the two "categories," and I was trying to deal with the scope. Sorry, Jeffrey, if I seemed disruptive. From an outside suggestion, I'll step away from the article for a while. Best, Smmurphy 16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. I think I know how you feel about this, and I completely understand. I too am passionate about this topic. I do not like having to be so stern on this, but there have just been too many fake groups and charlatans trading on the goodwill of the Cherokee People with phony claims and misinformation. I realize that there are a lot of folks who believe they are of Cherokee ancestry, but Misplaced Pages is not the battleground for Federal Recognition. These groups need to take these debates to Congress and the BIA, and not misuse Misplaced Pages. The laws dealing with Native Tribes are exceptionally serious, and because of all the abuse out there, these issues have started to get a lot of public attention and scrutiny by the United States. An encyclopedia should report and publish accurate materials. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Test Edits

I went ahead and pasted the templates into template space and placed the proposed template at the bottom of Cherokee to see how it looks. It looks great! Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved as The Cherokee Nation

19-June-2007: Today, the article "Cherokee" was moved to become "The Cherokee Nation" causing a bunch of hindered redirection links. There are at least 5 common redirects that should be fixed, if the new name is to be kept: Cherokees (fixed), Cherokee Indian, Cherokee Indians, Cherokee Nation, etc. By far, the most common reference was the original "Cherokee" but less than 10 unique redirects must be changed to keep new title "The Cherokee Nation" (either way, I have no preference). -Wikid77 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a conroversial move should be discussed first. Reverted. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)