Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stormshadows00 (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 10 July 2007 (Changes made to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal opinions. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal opinions at the Reference desk.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Creation of this page

I created this page on the basis that there is little knowledge about this subject anywhere. All material pertaining to this issue weems to have a POV attached to it and therefore anybody who is looking for answers and not persuation should try and find it here. I do need help though filling out this page. Please help me do so, not only for me, but for the Cherokee people who need to make up their own minds and not be persuaded by political and tribal factions.Iwasmad 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

David Cornsilk

I think the paragraph about him at the end could probably go into its own article. Smmurphy 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

move

Does anyone mind if this is moved to (or merged with the old version) of Cherokee Freedmen, which is currently a redirect? If not, at least a good deal of the history could go over there. Smmurphy 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A general article about all Freedmen is a better candidate. There are freedmen from all five tribes and they all were placed onto a single roll -- the Freedmen Roll. There were no "Cherokee Freedmen" as such recognized by the Dawes Commission as all Freedmen from the five civilized tribes were lumped together. The Cherokee Freedmen are in fact all of the freedmen listed on the Freedmen rolls from all five tribes, so its not particularly just a "Cherokee" issue. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This goes again to the dispute over whether people of Cherokee heritage not on the right rolls can be called Cherokee. There is an article freedman, and I just linked this from there. Putting this material into that article would imbalance that article, but would be an option. Smmurphy 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot more here you may not be aware of. The freedmen issue is not strictly confined to the Cherokee. The Seminole Nation also disenrolled thier freedmen members. What would make more sense is an article titled "Oklahoma Freedmen" or "Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes", the latter of which is far more accurate. Remember, these Freedmen spoke a native language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue summary section

The section called "The Issue" came from an old version of Cherokee Freedmen that was brought here when Cherokee Freedmen became a redirect (at least I think I remember that being the case). The section was a bit POV, and a bit redundant with the history section. The section has now been renamed "Issue summary," which seems to be less POV (and much better cited), but still a bit redundant with other sections. However, I think that the redundancy is ok, but it should be in the lead section, rather than the issue summary section. Thus, I think that the old section (if/where it was citable and NPOV), the rewrite, and the lead should all be merged into a new lead. Best, Smmurphy 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would really like it if you would stop placing garbage about the Cherokee Nation into Misplaced Pages. You do not seem to have the accurate materials about what's going on in the Cherokee Nation, or related to any of these controversies. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, J. Chill. A new user made some edits to the issue summary section, and I thought that the issue summary should be merged with lead. The last time I made any substantial edits here was May 15 , which I think you looked through, and were happy with . Stormshadows00 is a new user, I don't think their edits need be removed, nor the census facts about slaves. The material about recent events does need to be paired down, but I don't think cutting all of it at once was helpful either. I'll hold off on reverting you myself (but I'd support someone else to do it) given the issues between us, but don't take issues you have with me out on a new user. Best, Smmurphy 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy

My first issue with the page is that the "Issue" section, which had information that has NEVER been stated in any media or information in the Freedmen situation. Chief Smith has never stated that he did the election for the Cherokee who are of African slave descent and it's been known to people who have been following the case that there hasn't been anything that even alluded to that before and after the March 3rd ruling and the federal case announcement (and I even put up his actual words from the announcement of the election). That right there is not in accordance to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which I read before I made ANY changes.

As far as the "Diversity" pictures go, the Cherokee Nation recently made those ads in response to the allegations of racism. Putting those ads up with no indication of their origin and what the ads were for is definetely not contributing to the article.

Another issue is the issue of the census information and other recent information about the Freedmen controversy that has been completely removed from the page. Now the original claim in the revision before mine is that "unsourced material" was removed, but all of my statements were cited with links and information backing up my statements unlike the previous revison. I find it funny that my information was removed yet the information that was replaced had nothing backing that statement up.

The recent changes I made was an update with recent information (once again sourced) with the action that has happened after the loss of citizenship (which was again removed by the previous edit and recent edit) and announcement of Bill HR 2824, additions to the previous statements that were missing from the previous edit, information about Cherokee slavery and lawsuits, and the merge of my previous edit to the header per the suggestion of ssmurphy. Even though I followed the guidelines, they were removed and the previous article was replaced. My concern with this article is that there is misinformation, ommited infomation, and the neutrality is definitely in question. If this keeps going on with each edit, there's no point in putting up accurate information.

Stormshadows0Stormshadows00 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Peer review requests not specifying archive