Talk:Cherokee - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 30 May 2007 (→Current event). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:05, 30 May 2007 by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk | contribs) (→Current event)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:NorthAmMergeto

Indigenous peoples of North America Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oklahoma Start‑class High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Unassessed

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Pre-European contact History

Why is there no pre-European contact history? Theories about migration should be added if possible, as well as origins. There is some inforation available. Also, the section on Keetoowah Nighthawk Society seems to be out of place. The structure of the article could use some revamping. I am just not sure how would be best for this to be done. I would put all of the history at the beginning and then go off into social concerns such as langauge, customs, and things of that nature. Just a thought.

There's no citable pre-contact history, only oral traditiona which would be WP:OR. So I think we should leave that out. There are origin stories. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While there is very little in the way of recorded history for pre-contact times, there are many theories floating about. Especially about where the Cherokees migrated from. Also, about what cultures they share similar customs and ties to that perhaps indicate that the Cherokees and other groups originally came from the same source. The Cherokess did not just appear in the Southeast and there are theories that should be included here that suggest answers to where they came from. These theories at the least need to be addressed.

I think (but am not sure) that this is part of JMV's contention that academic and journalistic sources are not acceptable for this article. For now, if you can cite information to representatives of the Cherokee Nation governing bodies, I think it is ok. We'll see if we can expand that, based perhaps on the proposal to go through dispute resolution processes above. Smmurphy 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can provide a number of archaeology publications on the precontact Cherokee, which I believe are reputable and so hopefully would counter any WP:V assertions. Would that be desireable? I don't quite feel prepared to write a section on it at the moment, and certainly not when the article has become so contentious. TriNotch 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These sources can be used. I know our pre-contact history, but me knowing it does not circumvent the requirements of WP:OR. So I think that's a catch 22. I can vet the materials and tell you whether or not they are accurate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Creek people page has a tiny bit on pre-contact (and the gray area between the Spanish and later European explorations, an era called "protohistoric" I think). By "tiny bit" I mean a sentence or two. But it does mention the apparently decently-supported theory that east Tennessee was mainly populated by Muskogean speaking people in those early times, rather than Cherokee as later on. The Cherokee, as I understand the theory, lived east of the high mountains (present day North Carolina). But I am just recalling things I may or may not have read, so could be wrong. In any case, more history would be great. If there was enough it could be spun off into an article of its own. I would contribute as I am able. I've several academic peer-reviewed type books on early southeast Indian history. Pfly 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

James Mooney's pre-contact history is very good, BTW. The Cherokee founded the city Keetoowah after migrating there from the Great Lakes Region. Language drift and isolates indicate this happened about 3000 years ago. There were a lot of skirmishes with the Delaware (who were family???). The Muskogee and the moundbuilders were to the west. We occupied the mountainous regions for a long time -- they called us "Cha-la-kee" people of the mountains and caves. Keetoowah is regarded as the mother city, and was the first Cherokee City. Cherokee Clans has some good material related to precontact history. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a brief section on early history. It's all I have time for right now, but could use much more. I'm unsure whether my wording is great, please edit freely! If I get the time later I'll add some more from other sources.

Also, in working on it I remembered I made a Google Earth file a while ago with the locations of a bunch of old Cherokee towns. If anyone is interested, its linked up here. Pfly 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some excellent pre-contact history references at the Eastern Band Museum as well here. http://www.cherokeemuseum.org/ Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation Sleeper Materials

I tagged and attempted to clean up a large amount of materials which appear to have been inserted solely to justify placing the Southern Cherokee Nation back into the article. There were references to them in the materials I removed. I will wait for reliable sources and citiations to verify these marterials to be added before removing the non-Cherokee Nation quotes completely. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Article titles do not include the word "Unverifiable." Stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

??? Perhaps a mirror would be useful here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one would. If you don't have one, I'm sure we can get you one, but only if you promise to use it.

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if adding the material seems disruptive to you, I did so after you refused to go through any further dispute resolution techniques, (including seeking a third opinion, mediation, rfc, and continuing our discussion) and recommended I "edit freely." Admittedly, I knew my edits would force the issue with our dispute, but please see them not as an attempt to pick a fight with you or to make our dispute less cordial. The move was based in the policy at WP:CONSENSUS, and my reversion was an attempt to clarify my previous edit, which I explained in my edit summary. As for you contention about reliable sources and citations, please answer my question at your talk page. Thanks, Smmurphy 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your materials to Cherokee Heritage Groups. Please feel free to enhance the materials there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When a compromise is not reached after some discussion, WP:CONSENSUS mentions the principle of supermajority. Although vaguely defined, the straw poll above and most of our discussion seems to imply that we have a supermajority in this case which says that these materials are verified with reliable sources, and are fit for this article. Although I'd be happy to continue discussing your interpretation of WP:V, I think it is appropriate to have these materials on this page, rather than on your other article. Smmurphy 05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think I understand Merkey's points, and perhaps sympathize, I'm not sure I buy the repeated statement that anyone who is not provably Indian based on federal records is "not Indian". Perhaps it comes down to the semantics of what "Indian" means. And perhaps I am biased based on my own supposed, unprovable, Cherokee ancestors who apparently choose to "become American" and not legally Cherokee. But it seems to me that an article titled simply "Cherokee" need not strictly adhere to federal proof or else one is "not an Indian". The Cherokee Heritage article is a good idea, but the same logic could dictate an article called something like "Federally Proven Cherokees". In short, I understand that there are modern day "unrecognized" Cherokee groups that are in some cases trying to acquire the rights enjoyed by recognized tribes, but there are also many people who have Cherokee roots but whose ancestors chose to be "American", with all the privileges that gave one in the 1800s, instead of Cherokee. The Cherokee history is notable in their deliberate attempts to transform themselves into something acceptable to the United States, perhaps even unto statehood. Along with the high degree of mixed-blood Cherokees, it is not surprising that many chose to "pass" as Americans. Whether this makes them "non-Indians" seems a semantic or legal issue which, while relevant to this article strikes me as a rather stark us-vs-theme position. Perhaps it is hopeless, and the Cherokee Nation will never accept the idea that there are people of strong Cherokee background whose ancestors decided to assimilate or at least not be counted in the federal rolls. I certainly won't edit this article on this topic and am merely expressing an opinion. On the other hand, an ancestral choice to assimilate may means one is "no longer Indian". But then, contrarywise, is an "American" with Irish ancestry not "Irish"? I am not arguing for a particular POV but just offering some thoughts. If anything, my point is that an article titled "Cherokee" should not, it seems to me, be strictly based on present-day legal definition, even though I understand the problem of "fake Indians" trying to get special legal rights. Perhaps this topic would be best addressed in a better history section.

Some of the articles on British Columbian Indian (First Nation) tribes are split into an article about the ethnicity, an article about the present-day political situation, and an article about the language. That seems like a good approach to me.

Obviously my own ancestry is, unprovably, of this kind, so I am biased. But when reading an article about "Cherokee", it would be nice to be able to learn something other than the present-day strictly legal definition. I might be able to accept the statement that anyone who cannot prove their Indian ancestry is "not Indian", legally; but practically, there are many people with Indian roots who cannot prove it. Just because you cannot prove it does not mean you have no Indian ancestors. Personally, I wish I could find solid evidence of my Cherokee ancestry, but alas, it is ellusive. Then again, this may be why I am more interested in Cherokee history than present-day politics. Perhaps I should get to work on a better history section. Anyway, my point is that notwithstanding the many people falsely claiming to be Cherokee today, there are many people with Cherokee roots, strong roots even, who are unable to prove it to the satifaction of the Cherokee Nation. The repeated claim that those who cannot definitively prove their Cherokee ancestry are not Cherokee at all is hard to swallow. ...just an opinion from a person supposedly as Cherokee as John Ross but whose ancestors chose to assimilate. Pfly 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannot prove it is really the point. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean they don't have federal documentation, but they can take DNA/genetics tests, have their family photos examined, genealogy studied, and get an anthropological take on their heritage. Relir 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems Mr. Merkey has been blocked as disruptive. I think this means that we can include some of the disputed materials. I still advocate some care when mentioning these groups, of course, as their federal status is often going to be relevant. Do we want/need the identity section? Also, to Pfly, can you give some examples of First Nations tribes split like that (like Cree, right?)? It seems like an interesting idea, but I'd suggest that it be done as a way to keep this article from being overlong if/when we get more materials here. Then again, a small flurry of activity could get us there, and maybe such a split would be useful. Best, Smmurphy 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Without arguing the point, an editor being blocked to resolve an issue of disruption being caused by an off-site group of trolls may not be good grounds for replacing materials which may fail the requirements of verifiability. I have asked other reviewers to consider the issues. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will agree this time to mediation over this issue, as Guy suggests. Smmurphy 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy suggested I enlist other editors familiar with Native American content who are project leaders in these areas that are most likely to understand the complex issues. Since there are two articles now, I think we can perhaps resolve this ourselves. That failing, other reviewers are welcome. My position has not changed. Unrecognized groups and those claiming to be Cherokee need to be able to prove they are -- not truth -- verifiably Cherokee -- and not because they say so -- we need a way to verify it, at present, the only way I know of is the Federal Registry of tribes and the rolls of tribes. If there is some other method, I am open to hearing about it, but this is not the place for Alan Mcilwraith to claim he is Cherokee because he believes it or says so -- we have to be able to verify it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great. For now are additions like my recent edit based on Irwin's paper acceptable? That is, are additions having little or nothing to do with the question of who can be called Cherokee acceptable to you (I say little only because all things are somehow connected, though I may not understand how)? Thanks, Smmurphy 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What he says and his papers are verifiable facts, but their content strikes me as his musings on who is or is not an indian. I certainly feel and support the inclusion of any of these heritage issues in the Cherokee Heritage Groups article, since it is excellent material those topical areas. His views are not endorsed by the Cherokee Nation or the United States and strike me as original research and in fact, contradict these groups views. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a usenet forum, tabloid newpaper, or political viewpoint blog, I still feel that materials about Cherokee Indians should go in the Cherokee article and materials about Cherokee Heritage Groups should go in its own article since we are writing an article about Cherokee Indians, not Cherokee Heritage Groups or academic theories about who ir or is not Cherokee. His papers lack the backing of the Cherokee People as accurate and in the abscence of their endorsements, I think the actual content of the materials fail WP:V. Other editors may have other views. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Irwin doesn't talk about these things at all. Nor does Payne, whose work is discussed (and praised) all over cherokee.org . Smmurphy 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the identity materials. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Seminole, possibly has this issue. Category:African-Native American relations. There are afro descended groups of this tribe and Other factions of which I don't know what criteria the division is based. I'll try to go through and find other tribes with similar issues. Also see Category:Multiracial affairs and Category:African-Native American relations. Relir 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anybody have a problem with archiving this page up to the section, Pre-European contact History? Smmurphy 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I elected to be bold and archive the talk page as you suggested. -- MarcoTolo 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I was actually starting to do so myself, and suddenly the archive1 was fixed, and lo, you were faster than me. I think I'll be bold and put back in the identity section... Smmurphy 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the Southern Cherokee Nation materials once more for removal and placement into the Cherokee Heritage Group article. I have also asked other editors in Native American areas of expertise to review the issues and make recommendations. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple paragraphs to the identity section, I hope they are seen as constructive and helpful. Best, Smmurphy 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a citation needed tag for "By law, membership in the Cherokee Nation is based in being direct blood descendant of a Dawes Act enrollee." This is discussed, for example in Garroutte (especially page 21), but I'm not sure the tag isn't spurious, as it sits between two other sentences cited to Garroutte, and the issue is discussed with citation just a few lines above. Smmurphy 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the tag you need. http://www.cherokee.org/home.aspx?section=services&service=Registration&ID=8sRG9ZCF7PE= Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples BC Indian articles

Smmurphy, looking for example First Nation article split the way I described, it seems to be more complex than I remembered But here are a few examples in that direction (some of the pages are stubby short). The terms are confusingly different from US usage. I think "nation" (as in First Nation) usually means a "people" not a government/polity. A "band" is, I think, closer to the US meaning of "tribe". A government (in the sense that the Cherokee Nation is a government) seems to usually be called "Tribal Council", although "Nation" seems to be used too. "Bands" seem to be listed as governments as well. I definitely don't understand it all. Seems quite complex. Examples:

The Secwepemc nation/people, the Shuswap language, and the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, one of two "governments" of the Secwepemc. The Shuswap Indian Band is listed as one of the "member governments" of the council. That page even has a template for Secwepemc First Nation governments. Then there is the Sḵwxwú7mesh people/nation, Sḵwxwú7mesh language, and Squamish Nation (government). The St'at'imc nation, St'at'imcets language, and Lillooet Tribal Council. The Kwakwaka'wakw nation/people, Kwak'wala language, and Kwakiutl District Council. The Nuu-chah-nulth nation, Nuu-chah-nulth language, and Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Nisga'a nation, Nisga'a language, Nisga'a Tribal Council. The Stóːlō, Halkomelem language, and Stó:lō Nation.

Some of these pages are just stubs, but are fun to browse if only for the very strange spellings! Pfly 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some of those are impressive. I think that Squamish people is a good model, perhaps. I think splitting the article like that makes a lot of sense, but I hesitate to do it myself, as I think it was suggested in the recent controversy, and I don’t know how well it was supported (and don't want to make such major changes without checking on talk first). By the way, right now the WP Cherokee universe is very unorganized (Cherokee Nation is a redirect, Cherokee Language needs some work, Cherokee Freedmen redirects but Cherokee Freedmen Controversy covers most of the material that would go there, and Cherokee Heritage Groups is at afd). Smmurphy 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Afd has been withdrawn on Cherokee Heritage Groups. What work do you feel is needed on Cherokee Language may I inquire. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm shy to bring it up there, as I've never had any linguistics training, but by looking, I'd say that it could use more on its history, etymology, and dialects. Also, its dominated by a language drift table, which could be transwikied to wiki-source. Best, Smmurphy 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to convert the drift table into wikisource. I compiled the table from the works of Dr. Durban Feeling. I agree a lot of material should be added to the Cherokee Language article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an addition to the table on Cherokee alphabet would be appropriate? This doesn't presently shows the Otali values where they differ.Proabivouac 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm triply in over my head. I don't know Cherokee, I don't know linguistics, and I am horrible at making aesthetically pleasing things (evidence my user page). ; ) Smmurphy 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Current event

Why does this article have the current event tag?Proabivouac 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Freedmen Controversy, but it probably doesn't need it. Smmurphy 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. If someone wants to put it back, feel free to do so.

I can't see how Cherokee is a current event…of course things related to Cherokee happen all the time, but if these mean constant changes to the article, it's probably a sign that we're covering something in too much detail; see Misplaced Pages:Recentism.

What do you think?Proabivouac 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The freedmen issue and the conflict between the BIA and the Cherokee Nation over the Freedmen is a major recent event with national coverage. It's also still on-going. That's why I placed the tag in the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tagged the section.Proabivouac 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Princess

Hey smmurphy, could you please take out the "Cherokee Princess" materials? Please? And the Deer Clan stuff -- its totally false. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: