Talk:Cherokee/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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 [1]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 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)

I'm replying at the bottom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:10, 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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)

(continuing above discussion) Ahh, umm, if you were talking about the stuff I put in referenced to Theda Perdue, its in the Record Book of the Cherokee Supreme Court in 1833 (apparently), and the rest comes out of various laws and such, ther references of which you can find in Perdue's paper. The bit about some considering clans anahronistic comes from Cherokee Phoenix, 18 Feb. 1829 (as cited in Perdue). Also, Perdue is a woman. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Murphy, there are tons of books out there written by a spectrum of folks, some are accurate, most are not. You have a Cherokee Indian in your midst. Please take advantage of this fact to vet materials. Many outside views of our culture are wrong or the result of cultural mixing after contact. It's hard to sort it all out. Let me read through the materials again and see if we can do something with it. You have quite eloquently made the case for an article on Cherokee Heritage with all these materials -- and that's where they belong. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the new "moveto" suggestion. Remember that the identity section was proposed as a compromise because some wanted only federally recognized Cherokee to be included, while others thought all notable Cherokee groups should be included (moving all modern Cherokee units, including Cherokee Nation and Southern Cherokee Nation to their own articles was also mentioned). I have no problem moving or removing the identity section, but without it, the whole discussion reverts to that one. That is, without a section explaining why it there might be a section about the Cherokee Nation and another about other Cherokee groups, the old dispute about including the different groups returns unsolved (That isn't to say that the identity section isn't overlong). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. That first section I tagged for movement into the Cherokee Society article is excellent materials and good work on your part. Please read Cherokee Society and integrate these materials there. I commend your work effort on that section. But the main Cherokee article is too big, so please move those materials to that article. I will now go through the remaining sections. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:23, 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought up the BC First Nations' article organization thing without seriously proposing such a structure be followed here, to be clear. It was mainly a reaction to reading the ongoing discussions about federally-recognized Cherokee governments and people with provable Cherokee ancestry vs the larger, vaguer, topic of Cherokee "identity", heritage groups, etc. I probably should have taken a closer look at the already existing articles Cherokee society, Cherokee language, etc. There is already a pretty good sub-article structure. One question I have though -- my interests have always been mainly historical and I know very little about the modern Cherokee Nation and other Cherokee governments. I see there is a page on the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, but links to Cherokee Nation redirect to the main Cherokee article. Perhaps I haven't read close enough, but the info about the 3 Cherokee governments seems to be mainly on the history and misc aspects of recent events and activities. I'd like to know more about the political structure of these governments, not to mention what kind of power is held that US states and regular US citizens do not have. There's a link to Cherokee Nation Constitution, but no article. It would be useful, I think, to have something describing the structure of the 3 governments (akin to describing the US government as having 3 branches, elections by population for the House, by state for the Senate, etc etc etc). You know, something along the lines of Federal government of the United States. Perhaps its here and I missed it? Pfly 05:29, 1 June 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^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia: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)

I still think this is too much detail for the main article. Look at United States#War on Terrorism. We should want to avoid this giving this too much weight relative to the sum of Cherokee history.Proabivouac 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Please do with the tag what you feel is necessary to balance the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do what I can, here and in other areas. However, it may take me awhile to get up to speed and understand the issues which have plagued this article, much of which is a disorganized mess. We should be aiming for a shorter (for now) and more coherent article, which neither glosses over nor dwells on recent controversies and does not appear to take sides.Proabivouac 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I put the material in the freedmen section in the freedmen controversy article, Should we just move the lead (with some citations) from that article into the freedmen section of this article? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:12, 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)

I'm sorry, but this entire section reads like a political debate on a political viewpoints blog. This is an encyclopedia article about Cherokee Indians, not groups fighting for the right to claim the title and the political viewpoints of everyone but the Cherokee's. Please consider moving these materials to the other article. It's starting to get way out there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire Cherokee Identity section is cited to Theda Perdue. Perdue is a professor of history at UNC, and the material is cited to a reputable academic publication. However, the section Historical Cherokee Society Customs, besides its very strange title (Is this the same as "Customs"?), grants seriously undue weight to Perdue (2000), and to racial issues in generally. We can’t just remove well-cited material because we personally think it false (and I am still going through some of the earlie contested removals to evaluate this) - though of course we might find equally reliable material which denies it - but I agree that this anecdote, true or not is of marginal importance.

I don’t agree that the section "Cherokee identity" should be removed, but it is certainly too long.

Arguing from the other side is the section "Other Cherokee groups": it is almost totally unsourced, and is palpably POV: "This situation has caused a great deal of stress and pain for the Cherokee Nation. Groups claiming to be Cherokee often attempt to solicit money, open Native themed stores, or even run casinos." That doesn't sound like an encyclopedia talking.Proabivouac 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am vetting the materials and going through it slowly, to make certain I understand it, and yes, the inflamatory Cherokee Nation political rhetoric is totally inappropriate and disgraceful. I am working my way down to it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Cherokee society article (suggested merge location) is about classic Cherokee society, (covering the stuff I added today referenced to Irwin). I think a better solution is to put the whole thing into a new article, as it is getting overlong. The topic of the article would be "the story of what it is to be called Cherokee," and might be close to the idea of the article ivoirité (although unsourced allegations of xenophobia would be avoided, I hope). The title could be Cherokee identity. A short summary could remain in this article, as what it means to be Cherokee (for all 900,000 of them) is relevant to an article called Cherokee, but I'm not sure. This reopens the initial dispute, which we can take care of by including the section on "other Cherokee groups" (which I threw together based on what had been added before and the Pierpoint article, sorry if it isn't well written). The size of that section should be kept small, and a new article should be created which lists all notable Cherokee groups, linking to articles where relevant, or (perhaps) just providing a one line synapses where an article does not yet exist. This goes with my proposal of moving Cherokee Heritage Groups, as I think the list should include the three federally recognized groups, and makes that title seem odd. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

endorsment by CN or US

Some of the recent edits have been a bit confusing. First, I'm not sure I understand this summary, "I think I agree with this materials. It is the Cherokee People who decide who is or is not Cherokee" which went with this edit, removing a merge proposal. I'm uncomfortable bringing this up, but I think you propose merges when you think material fits better elsewhere, not when you disagree with it.

More importantly, a pair of changes were made with a summary about statements lacking endorsement by the Cherokee Nation or the US [2]. I'm not sure if such endorsement is a necessary or sufficient condition for inclusion of material. The materials removed were,

"Cherokee/Choktaw author Louis Owens tells us that he is not a real Indian because he's not enrolled. "Because growing up in different times, I naively thought that Indian was something we were, not something we did or had or were required to prove on demand. Listening to my mother's stories about Oklahoma, about brutally hard lives and dreams that cut across the fabric of every experience, I thought I was Indian." Opening with this quote, Eva Marie Garroutte discusses the issue of Cherokee identity in her book, 'Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America."

"Cherokee demographer Russel Thornton reminds us that "common to all Cherokees is an identity as Cherokee...[all Cherokees mentioned in the 1980 census] identified themselves as Cherokee. So they are" (Thronton 1993, 175). The Deer Clan (not to be confused with the historic Deer Clan of traditional Cherokee society), whose umbrella organization the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy was denied federal recognition, is an example of a Indian group embracing the idea of self-identification as a primal indicator of Indian identity, even more than cultural identity (Garroutte 83). Garroutte identifies some practical problems with self-identification as a policy, quoting the struggles of Indian service providers who deal with many people who had ancestors, some steps removed, who were "Cherokee Princesses." She quotes the social worker, "Hell, if all that was real, there are more Cherokees in the world than there are Chinese." " .

The first bit is stylistic, and I agree that it is superfluous. It was there from when it was the start of the section, and comes from the influence of schoolboy essay writing where you are supposed to start everything with a "cathy quote" or something. The second bit is more substantive, it is cited, and it provides an insight into the viewpoint of Cherokee and those with Cherokee heritage into the situation, which is appropriate for the section (although the section might not be appropriate for the article). Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Deer Clan (but not the Deer Clan). What? Cherokee Princess? What? We have one reference which contradicts itself in the same breath and another with an unverifiable pov statement. A European may have perceived some local custom was honoring a woman as a "princess" and it may have just been a wedding or other simple ceremony. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Deer Clan and the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy are examples of Cherokee groups not in conflict with the Cherokee Nation (they might be called "Cherokee Heritage Groups"). They may not be very large, but they are citable to Garroutte. I didn't find many other such groups in journals, news sources might have some, but they are less respectable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, could we get a citation for, "...the Cherokee People viewed their self-identity as a political rather than racial distinction. Going far back into antiquity based upon existing social and historical evidence as well as oral traditions among the Cherokee themselves, the Cherokee Society was best described as an Indian Republic." Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me look that up for you. I think you and I have hit the crux of the real issue. This will resolve this for you. It's case law from Native American rights cases where non-indians tried to claim status and rights as Native Americans and were denied. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are misreading or I miswrote. The Cherokee Princess stuff is slightly different than I think you understand it. The book discusses a social worker who was charged with providing services to people who were of Cherokee heritage. The social worker was deriding a situation in which there were many people who claimed to be related to "Cherokee Princesses." No one is saying that Cherokee Princesses existed, except the people trying to take advantage of the social service department where the social worker worked. The line is saying that many Cherokee are frustrated by people who claim to be descendants of Cherokee Princesses. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This story about the African women who was accepted into a clan as a Cherokee wife rings true. This African women must have been an exceptional woman to gain such acceptance. Our women are fierce leaders and known for their unyielding viewpoints and standards. If she was accepted, she was in charge of the household and in charge of him. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me. If you don't have access to the sources I'm using, let me know, and I can send you excerpts or we can arrange something. If you have material along those lines that you think is encyclopedic, go ahead and add it (or suggest it). But I'd like to think that my edits (and the reading they have required) thus far here have earned me enough respect that you wouldn't think I need such lecturing. Sorry for being defensive, but I'm not sure that some of your comments add to the article much. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if spoke too directly. I apologize if there was any offense. I placed those citations you requested. I also added materials from recent case law and precedence on the matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Recognition

I have reviewed all of the materials and added additional citations in hopes of closing the on-going debate. I also have fleshed out the Cherokee Heritage Groups article. After adding all of this material I hope the other editors can gather a useful perspective from the citiation 1) Who is considered verifiably Indian and who is not 2) the issues for the credibility of our content with the public and scrutiny of others under WP:RS 3) the potential exposure for groups who claim to be Cherokee and are not under WP:V 4) The United States views on misinformation about Native American Tribes WP:RS 5) The experiences of groups or individuals who claim to be indian who are not federally recognized and the reaction of the United States. The requirements of WP:V, WP:ASR. Please note that this position regarding the verifiability of content was previously addressed in WP:NATIVE as well. I strongly believe any Cherokee Heritage Groups can be included provided they are not engaged in any activities which would indicate they are not actual heritage groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it appears that you wrote WP:NATIVE, and it was (rightly or wrongly) rejected by the community, I can't see that appealing to it will be of much use.

Not knowing too much about this quite yet, it strikes me as obvious that in the main, the continuation of the Cherokee nation and people is as you say it is, the federally recognized Cherokee Nation. However, Certainly, I'd agree that the article shouldn't be weighed down with mountains of hand-wringing about "who is a Cherokee?" However, this must be applied in both directions. We don't want long blocs of text driving home the notion that all these other fellows are phonies: that's giving this issue undue weight as well, but with a different POV.

Especially off key is the stuff about Mooney's felony indictment. Pretty minor stuff in Cherokee history. People are talking about WP:COI, since you played a direct role in these legal matters. What bugs me about it isn't COI, exactly, but the spirit of BLP - the blow-by-blow of Mooney's misfortune (deserved or not) doesn't belong in this main article. I take it you are very, very opposed to what he was doing, which is right and fine, but perhaps it has distorted your sense of perspective here.

This treatment is too long, and I hope to have a chance to look it over (and encourage others to do so) and summarize accordingly, but as I've not had the chance just yet, I shall remove only this unecessary Mooney material.Proabivouac 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would propose you scrub those sections you feel may be too POV. I added the citations to address the discussions about the background history of AIRFA. I realize its a charged issue, however, I think the verifiablity issues of posting fake tribes in articles is in the right perspective with all the available information. Wikipedia is not doing itself or anyone else any favors by allowing "hand-wringing who is Cherokee?" debates any longer. These groups can come under serious scrutiny if Wikipedia allows these flimsy sources to define this topic which fail WP:V. These two areas need to be balanced. You seem to be level headed, and its not all on my shoulders. If you feel a better approach to the presentation, by all means. The materials meet every condition of WP:V but the presentation may require POV scrub. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This looks pretty good. Right now I have a couple issues. One, I think the John Rollin Ridge material should go back in, but probably as an expansion of the 19th century history section. It was removed here with a reason given as "undue weight given to these sources".

I agree that Blood quantum isn't relevant to this article (although maybe to a Cherokee identity article), but I just wanted to note that Ward Churchill is not a reference, and it is merely mentioned in a footnote that Russell refutes him (see this summary). I don't think anything needs to be changed, though.

Mooney is mentioned more than John Ross, which is horrible. Surely the Mooney case can be summarized in fewer words.

And I still feel that the Louis Owen's quote (and possibly the Cherokee Princess quote, although others could be found) add something important, that is the perspective of people who are not officials, with the social worker representing a Cherokee and Owens representing people of Cherokee heritage. I understand that their views are not official Cherokee policy, but they are somehow important, no.

Lastly, I think that both numbers of Cherokee should be mentioned, 950,000-ish and 300,000-ish. I'll look at it again tomorrow, but I'm pretty happy with how things are going. Sorry that I took some offense earlier. I appreciate your personal perspective on the talk page, and I didn't mean to reprimand you more than slightly. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Mooney materials and left the citiations. I think this avoids WP:COI. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Irwin sourced statements removed

JMV, can you explain the recent removal of Irwin sourced edits here? I understand that you don't like the word shaman, which was based on Irwin's usage, but now the one statement is unsourced and less informative. I think we should revert that change, and replace shaman with another word. The other change is necessary (about the bias of Payne's work) to put the Payne citation into context, although it could go into the references. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, lets discuss those edits in that article. Firstly, please review these materials here Harley Reagan and here plastic shaman. Cherokee Law prohibits the use of the word "Shaman" to refer to a Cherokee Religious or Social Leader. It will ruffle a lot of feathers if this word is associated with Cherokees. The second quote makes claims the Cherokee are of Hebrew ancestry. I think both of us know this statement is clearly unverifiable, and DNA analysis indicates it is not accurate. I leave it to you how to restructure it, and most of my major edits to this article are completed since the Federal Recognition debates have been solved. IAW with Wikipedia policies, I removed those statements from the main article because they fail WP:V. You are free to try to restructure, but please be diligent and review these sources I pointed you to to avoid any future problems or potential controversies over certain content. I am really starting to enjoy working with you, BTW. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me try to say this again. According to Irwin, the Payne papers are prejudiced because Payne was interested in showing that the Cherokee religion is related to the Jewish and Christian religion. Irwin doesn't say that the religions are related, nor does the line from the article. All it says is that the Payne papers have been criticized because of Paynes bias due to Paynes religious beliefs. Any time you talk about a source that is not completely reliable for some reason, you should state what that reason is. I think what Irwin was saying is that Payne is not completely reliable because part of his project was to convince Cherokee that their traditional religion was fundamentally related to Christianity (therefor they should convert). That doesn't mean that academics (and wikipedia) shouldn't use Payne as a source, no source is perfect, after all. Rather, we should temper our use of him with a mention of his issues, and avoid using him where those issues are especially relevant.

As for the first issue, I have no problem with removing the word shaman, as it is almost a neologism academics have used to describe spiritual leaders of many different cultures (as plastic shaman mentions). However I don't see any reason to remove Irwin as a source and to change the meaning of the sentence so much, unless you have a source for the new meaning.

P.S. thanks for the links, I hadn't seen the Reagan article, although Garroutte mentions him (and she's a citation in that article, btw). Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I want to try to avoid causing offense to any of the readers of our work or other contributors, so I will try to say this as politely as I can. If the source of materials has statements attributed to them that their work contains bias one way or the other regarding origins, I am not convinced that such a controversy belongs in an article on the subject. Arguments between sources or sources calling into question the research bias or findings of other papers in areas not related to the subject of an article probably are unworthy of mention and may be undue weight in a particular area. The debate on whether the Cherokee are the Nephites (I have seen sources making these claims about us since we are a fair appearing Indian People and had advanced writing systems, even before Sequoyah) or whether we are of Hebrew origins are significant areas of controversy and debate in other areas. The current citation seems to lead credence to these views in that it was deemed worthy of mention by one particular researcher as a foundation for bias. The controversy between sources is not notable in this case. It would be notable had it been part of Cherokee History. As it turns out based upon the sources of your materials, it was an observation by another source who challenges the results of a previous study. The way you worded the quote makes it sounds like there is a debate as to whether or not Cherokee People are Hebrew. DNA evidence and our oral traditions do not provide any verifable evidence of these statements. I am certain I can find reputable verified sources the world is flat written before the time of Columbus, but we do not say that in the article about Earth because more modern sources have shown this belief was inaccurate and was contrary to verified evidence. On that basis I feel the quote about Hebrew connections has undue weight and confuses and creates a non-existent debate and controversy in the mind of the reader. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I put a modified version of the line in at the Payne article here. Let me know if it reads how it should and if it makes sense in that context. How about the first issue (the sentence about the early chapbooks has lost pronoun agreement after your edit anyway). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Shaman" is a descriptor used by antropologists and other social scientists for various members of many different cultures. (See http://anthropology.buffalo.edu/Faculty/tedlock/womanbook.htm for one example specifically mentioning North America).

I would be interested to see a cite of the Cherokee Law that you mention and understand their reasons for finding the term offensive. Regardless of their sensitivities to the word, it does not make it incorrect, or even necessarily offensive. The words "cult" and "sect" are not used by many religous groups to refer to themselves, but other do, and do so correctly, depending on circumstance. People using these words are not prohibited from doing so by any legal doctrine, or fear of defamation, or of political incorrectness.

James Mooney (1891) uses the word "Shaman" to refer to what you call "Religious or Social Leaders": http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/cher/sfoc/index.htm

I would have to say, the term appears in wide use, and seems apropos. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really a big deal, as we can use other words instead, if the issue is the word. What I'm talking about is more the general removal of cited facts without a proper defense except that he'd prefer to disassociate the word shaman with the Cherokee, (an issue I'm not interested in one way or another). Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the basis for the objection, but at the same time academic points of view enjoy a certain privilege here by design, certainly relative to the political decisions of any government, or the subjective opinions of the described. This is a very common type of dilemma in ethnography.

"Tribal leadership" is vague, and tosses the intended meaning overboard with the purportedly offensive content. What is the Cherokee term for what anthropologists call shamans?Proabivouac 05:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"didanvwisgi" - means "traditional healer" or "Medicine man", not shaman. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. They should really have their own article. I suppose when more Cherokees join Wikipedia, the might. For now, look how I've addressed your objection without destroying cited material.Proabivouac 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As regarding how big a deal it is for an encyclopedia to use widely used and widely understood terms that are both as scientific as they are popular, others can say.

I believe the term is almost certainly correctly used in this context, and has wide support, is easily understood, and has a lot of historical use. If another term is used, it should at the very least, satisfy those sort of conditions. It seems silly to invent another term because of the supposed sensitivities of a particular ethnic group. If the term was widely understood to be offensive, then there could be no objection to its substitution for a less perjoritive term. I have not seen any good evidence of this. If some was forthcoming, my opinion would of course be moderated by that. Unfortunately, I am going away for the long weekend, and I will have to continue this conversation at a later date. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrggg! Still has that word "hebrew" in it.  :-). Some food for thought and why these people thought this?

Cherokee/Hebrew/English Entymology

Cherokee	Hebrew	Mormonese	Cherokee Meaning	Hebrew Meaning	Mormon Meaning
E-lo-hi	E-lo-him	E-lo-him	The Living Earth	God	Father of God
yv-wi	ya-weh	ya-weh	God's spark in all things (sentient being)	God	Father of God

There are Cherokee words which resemble in sounds and meanings Hebrew words. I have no explanation for this.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what are you saying? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that there are similarities between words, and I am familiar with the hebrew origins debates. The entymology of the words and how they are derived in each language is not the same. It's just a coincidence they are similar. Putting in the word "hebrew origins" or implying it as a theory fails WP:V. It's original research with no verifiable evidence. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that in the 19th century, and even more recently, people interested in Cherokee sometimes thought that there was a connection between their culture and Hebrew culture is notable and verifiable. While this might be extraneous in an article about Cherokee, it is certainly relevant in an article about the people who had the idea. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This hypothesis, still advanced by one well-known religion, is of course sheer quackery, and not worth mentioning in this article, though it might make for amusing trivia on Cherokee language, and as you say, Smmurphy, is perfectly relevent on articles about people known for promoting this idea.Proabivouac 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can tell some feathers are getting ruffled here since alanyst left a page long discourse about WP:V on my talk page. I agree, the Mormom Hebrew origins theories should not be in this article. Smmurphy, can you remove the word "hebrew" from the text please. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I left it out, and it isn't in this article (I think) - that diff was from the article on Payne, and I think it is ok there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you wrote, "None of these very concise and well thought out arguments can allow us to enshrine materials in any article that cannot be verified, no matter how many people believe such materials." Alanyst is quite correct in his representation of verifiability as this term is used in WP policy: it doesn't mean that we evaluate it and prove it true, only that we verify that someone is saying it. Those who claim this will not be considered reliable sources in linguistics, and so cannot be used to support the finding of fact. They are however reliable sources for their own views, as might be a reliable third party stating that they hold such views. We cannot purge the material from Wikipedia on the ground that we (perhaps rightly) think it wrong.

Though as I've stated above, and as I imagine most of us here will concur, it is of marginal significance to the topic Cherokee language, really just trivia, and even more marginal here.

The reason I think it's important to make the policy clear is because some of the Southern Cherokee stuff is similarly verifiable, and significantly more topical than the Hebrew nonsense. In both cases, we're not deciding whether it is verifiable, which is already established, but how much weight to accord it.Proabivouac 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I would tend to not lend much weight to materials which other sources verify as inaccurate. I have also created a good framework for groups like the Southern Cherokee Nation to be mentioned, but not in this article as there claims and the evidence indicates the materials should be given no weight in this article. There is an entirely new section where this groups dubious claims can be enshrined within a framework of disclaimers that avoid the pitfalls of unreliable sources. And any verified source which has other sources that call into question its accurracy can be considered an unreliable source. And conversely, unreliable sources should be given no weight. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent.] Proabivouac, you have nailed it; I agree entirely. I too think the Hebrew stuff is of marginal notability for the article, and very likely deserves no mention at all. The Southern Cherokee and similar claims, as you say, may be notable enough for some minor mention but should not be given undue weight. But my chief concern is making sure that Jeff realizes that verifiability means something different than he's been using it for. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)