Talk:Cherokee/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lots of unexplained removals by one user

I know nothing much about Cherokee, but I'm puzzled by this uninterrupted series of edits (the overwhelming majority of which don't have edit summaries) by a single user (User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). There are some additions that seem plausible, some deletion of material that looks odd, and deletion of a lot of material that looks plausible and worthwhile. Maybe Jeffrey could explain these. -- Hoary 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The only people who have the right to call themselves Cherokee's are those who are members of the Federally recognized Cherokee tribes. The Wannabees (People who claim Cherokee heritage but cannot prove it) are not Cherokees. Cherokee is not a racial distinction, but a political one, as it always has been. The nature of our relationship with the Federal government is political and not racial in nature. So whether or not someone can claim they are of Cherokee ancestry or not does not qualify them for inclusion in an article about us or our culture. All of these phony groups do not even know our culture, language, and beliefs, just new age huey, and none of them can prove they are Cherokee's, or they would be tribal members of one of the three tribes. That is the first criteria for removal of bogus content about us. False and inaccurate information about what is Cherokee should and must be removed. The next issue has to do with people quoting wild facts without citable sources. If the materials gets tagged, and someone has not corrected it, it should be removed. So that's what has happened with the content. Most of it is false and misleading. There are too many plastic cherokee shamans out there with websites and internet scams using Wikipedia as a link farm to generate hits. These materials fail Wikipedia's standards, and ours as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This explanation is near totally POV. How can being Cherokee be determined by the USA? The people were Cherokee before the USA existed, and will be Cherokee after the USA is relegated to the annals of history. The claim that being Indian/Cherokee is controlled, defined by USA treaty recognition is repulsive to any self-respecting indigenous people. It is self serving for members of a group with such USA treaty recognition to declare themselves the only legitimate Cherokee group. This exclusionary, narrow definition of what defines a Cherokee is unfounded. Certainly some Cherokee people are so recognized by the USA, but that political identity and relationship does not remove from others their genetic or racial Cherokee connection. One may choose to, perhaps accurately, identify oneself as being a Treaty Cherokee to distinguish oneself from those without such Treaty recognition, but you cannot take from others their history and ancestry. Such exclusionary views do not seem to be grounded in traditional Cherokee culture, but rather in the relatively 'new age' philosophy of Cherokee Nationalists who are prone to experiment with the European models of controlling governments. The circular reasoning that "none of them can prove they are Cherokee's, or they would be tribal members of one of the three tribes" is not dispositive. Since by the proffered POV definition of what a 'Cherokee' is that one must be a member of a USA recognized tribe to be a "Cherokee", it goes without saying that these 'would be tribal members of one of the three tribes'. That was pre-determined by creating the definition. And that is why such a definition is wrong. There are Cherokee people, Cherokee descendants who do not have any USA treaty recognition. And since 1871 when the USA congress declared that henceforth no Indian peoples would be recognized as nations for treaty making purposes, that is not likely to change. Defining 'Cherokee' to include those of Cherokee bloodlines is more appropriate, but one must also acknowledge the traditional and historical right of the people to adopt 'outsiders', who are also accepted internally as being 'Cherokee'. Restrictively defining tribal membership either in terms of bloodlines or external political recognition is not what traditional Cherokee were about. Those are European constructs.Qureus1 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then they should leave the United States if they want to support or create fake Cherokee Groups. The US Constitution only vests this power within the Congress of the United States. Section 1, Chapter 8, "Congress shall have the power to regulate trade between the states, with foreign nations, and with the Indian Tribes." Only congress has the power to say which tribes it recognizes and which is does not. Impersonating an Indian under Federal Law in order to gain benefits intended for us is a lot like impersonating a police officer -- its a crime. The real test of whether someone is Cherokee or not is whether they were raised in our culture and speak our language. None of these fake groups can say this or prove it. People of claimed Cherokee ancestry are not Cherokee's unless tribal members. This is our position and always has been. Its also the position of the US Government. Under our Cherokee Tribal Laws of the time in the 1800's, if someone renounced their citizenship in the 1800s to be assimilated, and did not choose to endure the same hardships our people did, we renounced them and all of their descendants under our law -- these so called descendants of the Cherokee come back and claim to be Cherokee but ignore our ancient laws? No. They left our culture long ago and are no longer one of us. This is like a black man raised in the US claiming his Kaswahili when he knows nothing of the culture nor speaks the language (nor can prove he is on paper). The people's kids and grandkids don't get to come back and claim they are one of us. That's why the Cherokee Nation uses the Dawes Rolls -- only those Cherokee who stood with our people and culture and endured the hardships of Cherokee life in the 1900s are eligible for membership.

All of the rest of these people are Wannabees and frauds. It does not matter if someone has Cherokee ancestry -- this is not what makes you Cherokee -- its whether you are part of the Cherokee Culture. That being said, I have no objection to articles being created with proper titles about these groups. i.e. Southern Cherokee Nation (Wannabees) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, There is no such thing as a "State recognized Tribe". States have no authority to recognize Indian Tribes, period. As was previously stated, this power rests solely with the Congress of the United States, and many of these so-called State Tribes are balanced on knifes edge in terms of the law. Many of them are getting prosecuted for illegal casinos (river boat gambling in case of the Southern Cherokee Nation), and their whole "thrust" to call themselves Cherokee is based on greed and misuse of Native Legislation to make money for themselves. Do not believe a word of this huey from these fake groups, and don't let them misuse Wikipedia. If they are not Federally recognized, they are not Cherokee, or any other Indian Tribe. Taking any other position exposes Wikipedia to scrutiny and harms its credibility with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and the US Government. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Using a title like "Southern Cherokee Nation (Wannabees)" is ridiculous. You removed specific links where they stated they were Cherokees and their tribe was not recognized. Using a term like "non-Federally recognized" is acceptable. Your term is YOUR POV and not acceptable. --Kebron 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then if they are not recognized, they belong in their own article, and not one about us. The Cherokee Nation is aggressive in going after these groups, and constantly does, along with the Federal Government. Wikipedia is not about civil disobediance. It also must be accurate. They shoud write their own article. They are not Cherokee's as far as we are concerned. Sounds like I need to propose a policy guideline that bars these fake tribes from inclusion in articles about the real Indian Tribes, to avoid damaging Wikipedia's credibility. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And some people disagree with the so called federal recognition procedure. You cannot unilaterally decide that their claims are invalid. --Kebron 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with the law does not mean they can break it. What if someone claimed to be an ancient Aztec and wanted to practice the Aztec religion and cut out living human hearts. Should this be allowed? What about religious freedom? Should not they be allowed to kidnap beautiful virgins and cut out their hearts on a slab of stone in order to protect their rights of religious freedom? Or do we have laws that say torture and murder are illegal? Federal Law says they are not indians. That is the end of the debate. Federal Law also prescibes criminal penalties for someone to attempt to obtain Federal Funds or Services under the guise they are an Indian when they are not. Should we support this by placing false information into Wikipedia? I do not think we should. The law is the law, and whether you agree with it or not, it should be observed. For no other reason than to protect the credibility and quality of Wikipedia. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are not federally recognized, does not mean their claims are not valid. As this one article explains, http://www.sacredland.org/endangered_sites_pages/supporting/Wintu_AP_05-04.html

"The Winnemem Wintu say they have always been recognized by the government, and their lack of that status now is simply because they were left off a list by mistake.

"It was a clerical error," said Franco, Sisk-Franco's husband."

Comparing clerical errors to your example of Aztec religion is just ludicrous. Being federally recognized is not the end all of being Cherokee. --Kebron 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Only we or the Federal Government can decide who is or is not Cherokee, not you, and not these other groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While you can decide who you want in your group, you can't erase what is the truth. You may try, but the genetic evidence is there. Relir 06:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And absolutely no errors can occur? From either the Nation or the Federal government? Poppycock ! --Kebron 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't even read the whole page and I'm ticked off. Well, I'll tell ya, Mr. Merkey, that in my family, we CAN prove our Heritage, and we are extremely proud of our heritage, yet we CHOOSE to not be recognized by the US Federal Government. Not everyone who refuses to allow the US Government to DICTATE their heritage is a "wannabe". Some of us just don't need what we consider to be a government foreign to our own to tell us that we need THEIR confirmation about who we are. I'm very upset with your superior attitude which, in my opinion, plays right into the attitude of the government who took over our people and our people's lands. To me, a "wannabe" is someone with the same attitude as the oppressive foreign government. I am ashamed that you are one of us.

"WE renounced them and all their descendants"

What do you mean WE?? Were you there? Were you one of the people who made that decision? Were you even born yet? Do you speak for the group? NOOOOOOO. You do not. But, you do like to take credit for other people's decisions. Everything I've read here tells me that you are narcissitic and suffer from a seriously inflated ego. You do NOT speak for all of us.

Oh, you mean only those who weren't intelligent enough to escape their captors deserve to be called Cherokee? You know as well as I do, that weakness is highly frowned upon. A real warrior would have fought the oppressors and protected his family from them. Hunting and protection were the man's only jobs. All else was matriarchal. Those men who did not protect their families are the last people that I want to be associated with. They were punks.

I seriously doubt that you are one of us. We are largely offended by the white man's term "Indian". We are the Aniyunwiya, "the principal people," or the Tsalagi.

I'd like to see YOU try to decide who is and who is NOT Cherokee . . .Oh wait, that's exactly what's going on here!!! You're like the schoolyard Ninny who jumps up and down yelling, the teacher said so, the teacher said so. Are you not man enough to determine truth on your own, so that you must continually throw out the decisions that OTHER people have made, as though they were your own?? What are you, three?

Indeed. I assume that Mr Merkey is aware that by his neo-stalinist purging of what he considers to be "wannabee" or "fake" indian groups, and his near-instantaneous deletion of any comments not in complete agreement with his POV, he is removing valuable and, more to the point, interesting, content from Wikipedia. I have no disagreement with his flagging of non-federally recognised groups and bands as such, but I take exception at the manner in which it is done, the tone of Template:NorthAmNativeUnverified is aggressive and unpleasant, and his proposed policy positively reeks of racism. The instant deletion of articles covering tribes or bands that, according to this proposed policy (created and edited, one will note, by one user only, and rejected by the community) is wholly unacceptable. Please, someone with some punch, revert the worst of his edits. Teseaside 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the practice of negating/alienating Cherokee descendants and federally recognized Cherokee Nation members of African (Congoid/Capoid) extraction

There are many celebrities of Cherokee extraction (Della Reese, one parent was full blooded Cherokee; Salli Richardson; Jimi Hendrix one parent was full blooded Cherokee; Vanessa L. Williams...), but until proof is provided they can not be listed without being deleted. Specifically if the person is of African descent. The list was too loosely defined for the taste of many, but it reflected the actual truth about the Cherokee bloodline and genetic DNA - it is dispersed in various percentages throughout the social races, as well as within the Nation. The criteria for membership into the nation in regards to being of Cherokee extraction has differed for those of Caucasian, Asian or other Amerindian ancestry compared to those of African ancestry. If a person of Caucasian, Asian or other Amerindian ancestry is 1/4 Cherokee with a registered fore parent, they are most likely to be included in the nation as a member, whereas a person of African ancestry of 1/4 Cherokee extraction also having a registered fore mother or father is not. An African descended person of 1/2 Cherokee extraction would equally as likely to be denied recognition.

Afro descendants of Cherokee (and other Amerindian extractions) may not be, or their recent ancestors may not have been, accepted members of the Cherokee or other Amerindian nations due to racist laws and innuendo, however there is a definite/scientifically undeniable genetic tie to the Cherokee and/or other nations.

The Cherokee Nation has evolved to become as racist as the colonialist, imperialists and explorers who slaughtered and raped their fore mothers and fathers, and those of other First Nations in the Western Hemisphere (along with First Nations of all hemispheres). Their practices of member recognition/denial is highly despicable and can be paralleled to how Afro descendants have been denied their right to identify/claim their Caucasian ancestry for many centuries. The practice further contributes to the social barriers in modern America. It's ashame that the sons and daughters of the Nations have to be divided by the politics and social races introduced by the very people who contributed to the genocide of the original people of America - the people we descended from.

Luckily, modern technology now offers different types of genetic DNA/anthropological testing where people descended from the Cherokee (and any other ethnic/racial group) by whatever extraction can further validate their ancestry. However, in many cases it's not that hard to prove, taking examination of inherited blended aesthetic traits of individuals and their recent ancestors.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with the idea of preserving First Nation bloodlines and identity, it's something long deserved as the ancestors where imposed upon. However, this can be done without alienating the sons and daughters of your own blood. Despite the varied percentages we are genetically connected. Perhaps they wouldn't be entitled to some of the federal incentives or perks of full blooded or officially listed members, but at least recognized them. Perhaps have a faction of Cherokee who are not politically affiliated. Native African countries, tribes and ethnic groups started doing this as African First Nations were imposed upon, too. Many of those adopted back into willing African communities/tribes are indeed of mixed ancestry, their genetic DNA is not 100% of their Native, Native fore parents. Many of them have Native American, Caucasian, and other bloodlines, and despite their varied aesthetic variation the native African people have embraced them. And this doesn't make them politically tied to any community or group there.

The gesture acknowledges the struggle and misfortunate fate of many of our ancestors (regardless of their race/ethnicity) and the injustices many of them had to go through.

Relir 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Based upon concensus and discussion with the Wikiproject Indigineous Peoples of North America leaders, addition of any such materials will be immediately removed from this article as failing WP:V and the proposed policy WP:NATIVE because those persons who claim Cherokee ancestry are not members of Federally recognized tribes cannot be verified as being Cherokees. If you have sources that indicate these groups may have a historical context as affiliated with Cherokee culture, a separate article can be created if the materials meet verifiaiblity requirements, but "wannabee" groups do not belong in the same articles as actual verified Indian Tribes. Claims of Cherokee ancestry are not verifiable for any group or individual unless these individuals are members of a Federally recognized Cherokee Nation, Band, or Tribe. This article is about Cherokee Indians, not Cherokee wannabbees, or Cherokee plastic shamans. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU cannot determine if a person's claims are valid or not. YOU claim YOU are Cherokee. Yet what is your proof? Are you prepared to cite YOUR proof for a Wikipedia article. If I claim I have a Micmaq ancestry should I be need to prove it to you to add it to an article or to my Userpage? Why should anyone else? --Kebron 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NATIVE is a proposed policy, not actual Wikipedia policy. There is nowhere near any consensus on the proposed policy talk page, at the very least. Just because the "leaders" of the Indigenous peoples of North America wikiproject support the proposal doesn't mean it automatically carries -- Wikiproject leaders are just editors, like you and I, and have no special powers to override the normal WP consensus process, especially when proposed policy is involved. (BTW, where exactly are these leaders agreeing with you? Not on the WP:IPNA talk page, it seems. A pointer or two would be appreciated.) As a proposed policy, it has no force. Furthermore, Jeffrey, you're the one who has proposed it, wrote it, etc. Writing a proposed policy to support your argument isn't playing fair.
Also, I fail to see where including information about Cherokees (who happen to not be members of a federally recognized Cherokee tribe) in a Wikipedia article is breaking US federal law. Verifiability (in the Wikipedia sense) of Cherokee heritage and ancestry cannot be limited to US federal rules and regulations. One more thing -- how exactly would the presence or absence of US federal recognition affect Canadian First Nations? -- ArglebargleIV 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite all this rant, the inclusion of tribes not registered with the BIA makes them unverifiable under WP:V. Fake Cherokee tribe removed. If and when they become Federally recognized, they can be included. In the mean time they can stop using Wikipedia to spread misinformation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link... a book... anything to PROVE your allegations? --Kebron 01:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be misguided for me to get involved in this debate, but as far as I can tell the Southern Cherokee, which are not federally recognized (only three recognized Cherokee groups- Eastern Band, United Keetoowah Band, and Cherokee Nation Oklahoma), do not claim to be federally recognized. Their website includes claims to Kentucky state recognition and there is also an online petition for federal recognition. Here is the claim to Kentucky recognition [1]. So I must point out that Mr. Merkey's point about their lack of federal recognition is entirely correct, but also that there are no false claims on their website about federal recognition that I can see. As to who deserves to be called Cherokee, I will not dare to venture an opinion. But perhaps further discussion is needed. Is there a reason we couldn't include a fair, brief section on major petitioners seeking recognition under the name Cherokee? The Southern Cherokee and others are both large and have attempted petitions. This controversy could be reviewed, NPOV, in this article or a related one. TriNotch 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet here is the site that claims they are recognized. http://www.southern-cherokee.com/html/historicaloverview.htm

Who is right? I am uncertain. It needs to be reviewed. I agree. BUT Mr Merkey cannot just remove anything he wants at a whim. --Kebron 14:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[2] Here's a good staring point of reference Relir 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, any group of people who can prove their heritage using one of the accepted rolls, who has an acceptable degree of Cherokee blood, can form a group or band. For example, we may not all live on reservations, yet we would like to have interaction with other Cherokee. Therefore, we might have a band in ?Arkansas? , or, I dunno, ?Florida?, where we can meet with other Cherokee, practice our faith, learn of our heritage, be around others who are largely like us, etc. So long as that group is comprised only of persons with the accepted "degree of Indian blood", Cherokee Blood, to be specific, then that group should be fine. It's not like they are trying to start a whole new tribe, they're just a portion of a larger tribe. This is always the way that it was. Different bands roamed around, but they were all part of the larger whole--the Cherokee.

Wrong. Under Title 25, application for Federal Recognition requires proof of a continuous perpetuation of culture, such as language and traditional burial grounds, historical proof, etc. In other words, you actually have to BE an indian group. Sorry, this statement is bunk. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

You're ignoring the fact that these people ARE tribal members--this is simply a sub-group of the larger Nation. It gives the FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBAL MEMBERS a place to meet which is close to home. Therefore, yes, they have a right to be known. And the reason that I put these links on this page, is not because I care to argue with you or anyone else about something as inconsequential as federal recognition--it's because I want people to be informed, which is the whole idea behind an encylopedia. I want them to know where they can find a local meeting place if they so choose to.AEHarris

You cannot be a tribal member of more than one tribe at a time -- Federal Law and BIA regulations. In other words, for someone to do what you are proposing, they would have to leave one tribe to create another. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you should look up Circular logic. You cannot resolve a controversy about the legitimacy or otherwise of Federal recognition, by citing the rules of federal recognition. The point is the federal recognition is not the be all and end all of who gets to call themselves "Cherokee". Clearly, there are false, newagey type tribes. Equally clearly, there are non-Federally recognised tribes who are most definitely Cherokee. They should be included.

Mr. Merkey, if you wish to have the final say about what to delete, which you seem to wish for, then perhaps you should seek employment with Wikipedia. Until then, we have as much right to our opinions as you do. As others have done, I too, am asking you not to make any more deletions until this discussion is concluded.AEHarris

False and unverifiabile information is subject to removal. Discussion is not required if the information is clearly false. The Southern Cherokee Nation is no such thing, and is not recognized. In fact, the materials posted on their website is blatantly false based on other reliable sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clear links to various recognitions of the Southern Cherokee have been posted in this discussion. It is patently obvious that this is not "false and unverifiabile" (sic) information. I suggest that the revert war is over for this tribe, and that they be included post haste. Lets move on to the other tribes that were controversially deleted, and the cause of the revert war. Who is next on the list? What links do we have supporting each side of the argument?

PROOF

Do you have a link, a source, something that can be verified by any independent source that can confirm or deny any tribe's inclusion as a so called Verifiable/Unverifiable Group --Kebron 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Court order stating that the Echota Cherokee are a Tribe under their corporation. http://www.echotacherokeetribe.homestead.com/Echota_Ruling-Cullman.pdf --Aeharris 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris

Website showing that the Confederated Western Cherokee operate under the 1839 Cherokee Constitution of the Cherokee Nation.--Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris

With most of these groups, a person has to prove not only that they are Federally Recognized Tribal Members, but also that their ancestor had a connection with this particularion band.--Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris

Website showing that the Georgia Tribe is state recognized. It is important to note here, that no Judge in his/her right mind would make a ruling suggesting that a Tribe be state recognized if there were a law which stated that a Tribe must be Federally Recognized in order to exsist. All Judges know that Federal law supercedes State law, and they would not go against that. http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com/history.htm --Aeharris 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris

From the BIA website: "If proof of membership in a particular tribe is desired, inquiry should be made to that particular tribe. The Bureau of Indian Affairs publishes a list of federally recognized Indian tribes in the Federal Register. The latest publication was on October 23, 1997, (60 C.F.R. 55270), which can be obtained from most libraries, or accessed on the Web at www.doi.gov/bia/tribes/entry.html, under the heading "Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 10/23/97"." NOTE: This list has not been updated in TEN years. --Aeharris 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)AEHarris

There is no such thing as a State recognized tribe. See WP:NATIVE. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to communicate that information to Kentucky and other states that have recognized certain tribes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State_Recognized_American_Indian_Tribal_Entities --Kebron 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New section?

I wrote a little section on Indian identity (below), concentrating on Cherokee. Its based mostly on one book, which biases it, but I think that it is a start (I left out other reviews of the book, all of which that I've seen are positive, and are written by people of various backgrounds). My idea is that with this we can agree to talk about various ways of identifying oneself as Cherokee, and the article can show that different concepts exist.Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee identity

The constitution does not define Indian, and there are upwards of 32 separate definitions used in federal legislation as of a 1978 congressional survey (Garroutte 16). The 1994 Federal Legislation AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) defines an Indian as one who belongs to an Indian Tribe, which is a group that "is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians." Many groups have sought recognition by the federal government as Cherokee tribes, but today there are only three groups recognized by the government. Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller has discussed that some groups, which he calls Cherokee heritage groups, are encouraged (Glenn 2006). Others, however, are controversial for their attempts to gain economically through their claims to be Cherokee, a claim which is disputed by the three federally recognized groups, who assert themselves as the only groups having the legal right to present themselves as Cherokee Indian Tribes. The struggle of groups to be identified as Cherokee has lasted a long time. Novelist John Rollins Ridge led a group of delegates to Washington D.C. in the 1860s in an attempt to gain federal recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" which was a faction that was opposed to the leadership of rival faction leader and Chief John Ross (Christiensen 1992).

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. Garroutte categorizes four facets of Indian identity: law, biology, culture, and self-identification. By law, membership in the Cherokee Nation is based in being direct blood descendant of an Dawes Act enrollee. This is in some ways a broader biological acceptance than some tribes, about two thirds of which require a certain "blood quantum" degree of tribal ancestry, with a quarter being the most common minimum (Garroutte 16). The role of blood quanta in the Dawes Act itself seems to be in question (Russell 148). As of Febrary 1996, only 37,420 (21 percent of total tribal enrollment of 175,326) had at least one quarter Cherokee blood or more (Sturm 240).

More recently, researchers discusses the importance of self-identification and cultural tradition on ones identity as an Indian (Garroutte). Although there are various ways in which the nearly 300,000 individuals identified as Cherokee come to be that way, 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." (Garroutte 83) 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 use of self identification in US censuses has changed since 2000 as now people are allowed to check multiple categories. Initially it was thought that this would prevent Jim Crow type customs which kept the offspring of Freedmen "black" (Russell 149). Enrollment in the federally recognized groups is growing as self-identification grows. Hastings Shade, the Cherokee Nation's deputy chief, talks of a Cherokee legend of a white snake that devours Indian land and people. Many generations later, a young Indian learns its ways and drives a stake through its heart. "In the end," the legend concludes, "only Indian blood will be left, and people will be lining up to try to prove they have Indian blood" (Morello 2001).

The 1994 Federal Legislation AIRFA (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) does define who is or is not an Indian, and defines an Indian as,

"(1) the term `Indian' means a member of an Indian tribe;
(2) the term `Indian tribe' means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or 
community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is recognized as eligible for the 
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians;
(3) the term `Indian religion' means any religion­­
(A) which is practiced by Indians, and
(B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within a traditional Indian culture or community; and
(4) the term `State' means any State of the United States, and any political subdivision thereof.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting­­
(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe;
(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indian tribe which exist under treaties, Executive orders, 
and laws of the United States;
(3) the inherent right of Indians to practice their religions; and
(4) the right of Indians to practice their religions under any Federal or State law.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate. ".  ''

The Constitution grants the power solely to Congress to define who is or is not an Indian under Federal Law. In AIRFA, Congress used this power. Since it involves the commerce clause, the compelling government interest standard is invoked, and it since it involves a relationship government-to-government, all First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Ammendment Rights are preempted. The only exception is the 13th Amendment, which does apply, since Congress specifically banned slavery or the vestiges of slavery as an element of Commerce under the Commerce Clause. The compelling interest standard preempts all Constitutional privileges when the commerce clause is involved. The authority to recognize Indian Tribes is contained within the Commerce Clause. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This also means that the United States, by and through the Attorney General, can and does have the constitutional power since treaties with foreign powers are involved, to preempt the first amendment rights of US citizens or enterpises within US jurisdiction. In other words, if a website on the internet is stating a group of people are indians and one of the legitimate groups objects, they can invoke treaty powers, and preempt the first ammendment rights of this website or group to post the materials. That is why this is such a touchy subject and we should think through these issues carefully. I know of many cases where several Indian tribes have invoked this power as well as passed tribal legislation to correct false information on the internet and television, such as the case of Harley Reagan. I think its ok to have a separate article to discuss these other groups, but I also feel it exposes Wikipedia's editors to undesireable scrutiny if we include them in articles about Federally recognized tribes, since most tribes have strong views about their culture being misrepresented. Hope this helps. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So to summarize, the AIRFA defines an Indian as a member of an Indian Tribe, which is any group so recognized by the federal government. I'm not sure if that alone is an encyclopedic statement. Honestly, what you've presented is great, but its mostly primary sources and analysis of past events from memory. If you have some secondary sources that can add to the section, we will be able to avoid original research type pitfalls. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The freedmen may appear in the article as they are or have been or still are Cherokee Citizens. They are therefore classified as Cherokee Indians by the Federal Government. These other groups cannot be verified. Their struggle is certainly noteworthy, and warrant a separate article, but not the article about Federally recognized cherokee tribes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From here we would go on along the lines of:

Modern Cherokee Nation

The Cherokee Nation is the federally recognized group which derives its membership based on the Dawes Act. The modern Cherokee Nation in recent times has excelled and has experienced.... [Continue with what's there]

Other Cherokee groups

The Cherokee Nation itself boasts a membership of about 100,000, with less than 20,000 in the Eastern Band and the United Keetoowah Band. There are some 200,000 people who self identify as Cherokee but are not enrolled in these federally recognized bands (Thornton 2). Some of these are enrolled in bands that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government, while others are those who self identify for other reasons. There are currently about 30 Cherokee groups seeking recognition as Cherokee nations or tribes from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Official Statement of Cherokee Nation, 2000). However, the last group to gain recognition as a Cherokee tribe was the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees more than 50 years ago. In fact, some groups calling themselves Cherokee do not seek recognition, but rather seek to give people with some vague knowledge of Cherokee ancestry a way to learn about and share in that heritage. The afore mentioned Deer Clan and its umbrella organization the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy are an example of this. While some of these groups do try to push their members to show some form of proof of Cherokee heritage, even if it is not in a form accepted by any of the three official groups, others do not.

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. It is estimated that more than 200 such groups falsely and fraudulently claim such ties. A group calling themselves the Southern Cherokee Nation was able to claim gaming rights in Oklahoma and South Carolina and was nearly able to get a casino before they were stopped (Pierpoint 2000). Although many groups calling themselves Cherokee are not seeking economic gain through this designation, and rather seek through it education and personal fulfillment, groups such as the Southern Cherokee Nation lead many registered Cherokee deeply distrustful of those who claim to be Cherokee without belonging to the official groups.

(additions to) References

Christensen, P.G., Minority Interaction in John Rollin Ridge's The Life and Adventures of Joaquin Murieta MELUS, Vol. 17, No. 2, Before the Centennial. (Summer, 1991 - Summer, 1992), pp. 61-72.

Garroutte, Eva Marie. Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America. University of California Press, 2003

Glenn, Eddie. "A league of nations?" Tajlequah Daily Press. January 6, 2006 (Accessed May 24, 2007 here).

Morello, Carol. "Native American Roots, Once Hidden, Now Embraced". Washington Post, April 7, 2001

Pierpoint, Mary. Unrecognized Cherokee claims cause problems for nation. Indian Country Today. August 16, 2000 (Accessed May 16, 2007) [3]

Russell, Steve. "Review of Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America" PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. May 2004, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 147-153

Thornton, Russell. The Cherokees: A Population History. University of Nebraska Pres, 1992

Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen. American Indian Quarterly, WInter/Spring 1998, Vol 22. No 1&2 pgs 230-258

Buyer Beware, Only Three Cherokee Groups Recognized Official Statement Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, Monday, November 13, 2000 (Accessed May 21, 2007 here)

Compromise?

This is a lot, so I'm putting it here first. I haven't put in much specific information related to the Dawes Act or the view of this stuff by Smith, some part of this stuff could go into the identity section to make it more rounded. Go ahead and edit it here, and if it is ok (I'm looking for agreement from Kebron and JVM), maybe adding this can help us compromise and find consensus.Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting compromise proposal, which has the virtues of not suppressing verifiable information, presenting the evidence, and allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind. -- ArglebargleIV 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, I have a feeling that a discussion of identity may be seen as too much for an article about a group of people, but in this case it seems appropriate. By the way, I just made a major addition to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy based on Sturm's article. Hopefully JVM can add in Smith's (et al.) perspective if he sees fit. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the Freedmen article. BTW, Kebron is a troll from SCOX here to disrupt and revert my edits. To be honest, he needs to go away and leave the legitimate editors to work on this article in peace. As far a non-recognized Cherokee groups being in this article, the answer is a firm no from me. They are not indians and these groups use our identity to try to make a buck. We are tired of their antics. If and when they are recognized as Cherokees, they can be included. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what I give up. Look at Merkey's record... he is a liar. I give up... y'all deal with this idiot. --Kebron 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Without making a pronouncement on the compromise you're suggesting since I have not taken part in the discussion myself, I wholeheartedly endorse Jeffrey's position regarding unverifiable, non-recognized minor groups being listed. Although not to the same extension, I have experienced the same antics from pseudo-Comanche groups myself. I praise the initiative to discuss and analyze all the evidence brought here and reach an acceptable solution for this article. Regards, Phaedriel - 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Phaedriel's suggestions here. Her suggestions and impartial review of these issues is most welcome. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the effort at compromise- this strikes me as a particularly good sentence from Smmurphy's section "There are some 200,000 people who self identify as Cherokee but are not enrolled in these federally recognized bands (Thornton 2)." I agree that non-recognized Cherokee groups do not belong in this article. I would suggest a section like this with links to other wikipedia articles on this disputed topic, i.e. "Southern Cherokee Nation" or even "Non-Federally-Recognized Cherokee Groups" in which the legal and social implications can be covered more fully. Incidentally, having an article on the CONTROVERSY, rather than the groups, would avoid conflicting with the suggested WP:NATIVE guidelines. I think this topic is important enough to merit its own article, and I also think it should NOT be in the main Cherokee article, exactly because it is such an important dispute. I know that writing these articles will be contentious, but I think it will be better than this present dispute. I have an unrelated concern, however- why isn't there any Cherokee history before the 18th century? The article makes it clear, and I think we all know, that the Cherokee are much older than that. TriNotch 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey, while I appreciate your interesting comments about southeastern prehistory, I am an archaeologist studying the Mississippian culture (the Moundbuilders). I assure you that there is extensive archaeological and recorded oral history data about the Cherokee that could be included without any need for WP:OR. As for your other comments on this, I think I would like to argue with you, or at least hear some more details of your viewpoint- would you care to discuss them in private? TriNotch 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other topic, Non-Federally recognized groups should be approached with caution. If their claims contradict their true status, it may be notable. They should not appear in articles about Federally recognized tribes. They should not use any classification that would imply they are a "Nation, Tribe, or Band" as these terms refer to Federal entities. "Group or Organization" is ok, but they are not "Nations, Tribes, or Bands". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in general, with this. I would assert that the claims of some of these groups are notable in being controversial and prompting concern among the recognized Cherokee Bands and the U.S. Federal Government. What title would you suggest for an article on this that doesn't include the misleading words? Unrecognized Cherokee Groups? Non-Federal Cherokee? Cherokee Recognition Controversy? I kind of like the latter. TriNotch 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Native American Recognition Controversies]]

[[Category:Cherokee Recognition Controversies]] Can also be a title "Cherokee Recognition Controversies"

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with JVM because I'm not sure what this page is about. From the 1800s to today, there has been a federally recognized Cherokee Nation. But I think that for a lot of people being Cherokee does not mean belonging to the nation. I think that the article should mention this and talk a little bit about other contemporary concepts of Cherokee-ness which are notable (such as the Southern Cherokee Nation and the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy).

I think the claim is that Cherokee have always seen themselves as a self defining political group, along with a people sharing culture and history. The problem is there are many people today who disagree, and wish to privilege the culture and history, saying that being Cherokee does not necessarily mean registering. If this page is not to mention groups other than the three, then this view would suggest that this page should be called Cherokee Nation and separated from an article called Cherokee (people).

One thing I'd like to see is today's numbers of enrollees in the three recognized groups, along with the number of people who self-identify as Cherokee. If the two are still within an order of magnitude, then I don't think that the article can be only about the federally recognized groups. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People who are not members of tribes are not Cherokee Indians and cannot prove it, and therefore fail WP:V. Let me explain. The government created rolls of names of american indians. The tribes use these rolls to determine if someone is really an descedant of an Indian. If you cannot show that you are descended from someone on these rolls, you cannot be a tribal member. People who claim they are part indian and cannot prove it on one of these rolls 1) cannot get into the tribe and 2) cannot prove they are actually an indian. In other words, just claiming they are because they believe it or their grandmohter said they were does not statisfy WP:V. If they are not federally recognized or on the rolls of a federal tribe, they cannot prove they are indian and the articles should not exist here. Got it now? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have some very strange ideas about the universal applicability and relevance of definitions under US Law. Once you understand that, you'll be making some progress. Ben-w 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok I put in some easily sourced stuff on the Southern Cherokee, while trying to tie it into broader groups categorizing themselves as such. Sorry that one of my citations isn't complete, due mostly to laziness on my part and partially because I'd rather see it in a newspaper than on a website. I think that there are probably edits in the edit war that can be well cited and brought in in a balanced way, although after a while I stopped reading the edits and started researching myself.

By the way, to JVM, Cherokee Clans has some pre-contact history, which is pretty interesting. Also, to TriNotch, those numbers are a bit old (I rounded them all up from the book to make them look closer to the numbers elsewhere in the article), and it would be nice to get fresher numbers for that. I agree that that statement is perhaps the strongest argument that "other groups" should be mentioned. But I agree with JVM and Phaedriel that the claims of the other groups should be discussed with a certain degree of respectful skepticism (respectful because many such groups are healthy members of the greater Indian community, skepticism because many are not). Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Cherokee Clans (and one of my relatives helped from the aniyvwiya) and a lot of of it came from our ancient archives and the Cherokee Nation cultural center in Tahlequah, which now has a lot of this content. Oklahoma Cherokee culture does not resemble our ancient culture hardly at all, except for the ancient stories and the language. The Oklahoma Cherokee adopted the Stomp Dance, which was a Creek dance -- never one of our traditional dances, but it has become one. Most of our ancient dances are radically different then what is practiced today in Oklahoma and North Carolina, but the Eastern Band still performs many of our original dances. Only the ahniyvwiya in performs them the way they were long ago with any degree of original form, song, and dance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Right guys, I've just protected this article for 5 days, the edit warring that has gone on here is completely out of order. Whilst the page is protected, take time to cool down and then thoroughly discuss any future changes to the page - so when the protection expires, you can implement them in a calm, and considerate manor. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this article. I seriously doubt there will be much discussion as the previous editors continue to place unverifiable and false information into the article. I appreciate you taking the interest to protect the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with saying various bands are not Cherokee. Perhaps more anthropologists should post here, but it is currently difficult to encourage other academics to take this place seriously. Speaking correctly, Cherokee is more of an ethnicity than a tribal membership. Mandating that an external authority, and one that has been historically involved in appalling oppression of these ethnic groups, has the final say as to who has the right to say who is and who is not part of this ethnicity is unthinkable. I am interested as to what anthropoligical expertise you have, Jeff. Why do you think that the entity responsible for the appalling suffering of the Trail of Tears should be the final arbitor of who is and who is not Cherokee? This is not an opinion that will garner much respect amongst specialists in this field. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People who are not members of tribes are not Cherokee Indians and cannot prove it, and therefore fail WP:V. Let me explain. The government created rolls of names of american indians. The tribes use these rolls to determine if someone is really an descedant of an Indian. If you cannot show that you are descended from someone on these rolls, you cannot be a tribal member. People who claim they are part indian and cannot prove it on one of these rolls 1) cannot get into the tribe and 2) cannot prove they are actually an indian. In other words, just claiming they are because they believe it or their grandmohter said they were does not statisfy WP:V. If they are not federally recognized or on the rolls of a federal tribe, they cannot prove they are indian and the articles should not exist here. Got it now? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have some very strange ideas about the universal applicability and relevance of definitions under US Law. Once you understand that, you'll be making some progress. Ben-w 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That only follows if one is to accept that the only acceptable verification for Native American identity is the federal government's list.. -- ArglebargleIV 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ArglebargleIV that verifiability is not the issue here. As I said earlier, the argument seems to be between having the article be about Cherokee as ethno-cultural-historical identity and group, and about the three recognized branches and their particular history, ethnicity, and culture. It seems some people believe the article should be about the recognized branches because of the animosity between the recognized groups and groups such as the Southern Cherokee who are seen as taking advantage of the name. However, as COTOG said, from an anthropological standpoint, being Cherokee means more than just belonging to the three groups. This isn't about what Cherokee means to us as individuals, but what people want to learn about when they look for Cherokee. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiality about Indian Tribes

Let me try again. NONE OF YOU, NOT AN ANTHRPOLOGIST OR UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR have the ability to say who is or is not Cherokee. Under US Law, only the Cherokee People or the Federal Government have this power. If someone is of Cherokee ancestry PROVE IT. The only way to PROVE IT is to trace them back to one of the rolls prepared by the government. Groups claiming to be tribes that are not Federally recognized cannot prove it either unless they meet the requirements for recognition. USC 25 defines the requirements to prove a group is an indian tribe, and they have to have 1) Indians Rolls prepared by the US Governement with living descendants 2) a graveyard somewhere with a bunch of dead indians in it 3) speak the language 4) show continuous preservation of culture. There are about 20 other items on the list. View USC 25 as a "Verifiability List". If groups meet the requirements, and Congress approves their request, then they are recognized. Representing a fake indian group fails WP:V because there is no way to verify they are indians. Does not matter what treaties or bunk they post online. There is no way to verify the authenticity of such a group if there are no rolls to verify, and the US has not put the group through its own verification process (i.e. Federal Recognition). Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant. Stop the Wikiality posturing. You cannot make an fake or dubious Indian group "become" Indians by wishing they were are relying on your feelings or opinions. They fail WP:V if they are not Federally recgonized or you cannot trace them on a group of Indian Rolls. I realize everyone wants to say "If they claim Cherokee Ancestry its OK". No it is not, because there is no way to prove it or for you to verify it. If these people or groups are Indians, guess what, they would be listed on one of these rolls. Those persons not listed or who cannot trace their ancestry cannot prove they are Cherokees or Indians. Fails WP:V. Discussion over. Got it now? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have some very strange and entirely mistaken ideas about the universal applicability and relevance of definitions under United States law. Ben-w 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Cite specific examples of where I am "mistaken" about Federal Laws and verifiability of Indian Tribes. Keep in mind I was raised in an Indian culture, I speak an indian language, and I am a member of a Federally recognized Indian Tribe, and I am involved in tribal politics. Your turn ... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The United States government does not have sole right of definition for Native American tribes. Including the Cherokee. -Amarkov moo! 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Read what I actually said, which was about the UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY AND RELEVANCE OF DEFINITIONS UNDER US LAW. Bloody hell, I write one unambiguous sentence and you manage to mangle it, misquote it, and misrepresent it and go off on an irrelevant tangent. Where you are mistaken is in thinking that the U.S. Law's definition is the final word on the matter in every context and treatment of the subject. Yes, there is a definition under U.S. law, we got that already. No-one is disputing that there is a definition under U.S. law, are you clear on that? Where we differ is the universal application of this definition. It's really very clear, you have to work extremely hard to misunderstand it. But you can always be counted on for that. Ben-w 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The law says otherwise. Impersonating an Indian can wind someone up in the same situation as James Mooney and his peyote cult out here in Utah -- 19 fist degree felony counts, including one count for claiming tribal benefits from the US government for impersonating an Indian (claimed to be a Seminole member, when the tribe outed him as a fake, then he claimed he was the hybrid of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Hucholi, and Comanche - based on his fake claims ten tribes got together for some sort of orgy then he was born). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, your mention of James Mooney sheds a bright light on what you wish to achieve here. I understand and sympathize that such a person using their claim of Cherokee heritage to engage in unlawful acts is insulting to anyone who actually has true Cherokee heritage. That being said, I don't recall him ever using WP as his basis for those claims, and don't believe anyone COULD use it in such a manner. Any competent attorney would probably advise that even if they tried, it would take more than just writings on an internet wiki to hold up those claims in a court of law, Cherokee or US. I think you're getting worked up about nothing. You're trying to use WP for you own personal agenda, using threats of withholding imaginary financial support from the Cherokee Nation as some sort of incentive to get everyone to play your way so that you can be the only verification of who is a true Cherokee. This is long past WP:AGF, you're making an ass out of youself for your own agenda, and yourself are an insult to true Cherokee everywhere. You came in here and manufactured an imaginary critical situation that, lo and behold, you are the only one that can save WP from finanical ruin through litigation. Go back to your own Cherokee wiki where the Admins are all the various parts of your multiple personalities and you can always get unanimous decisions in your favor. Jimbo has to realize by now that letting you back in was a big mistake.

Ah, James Mooney. Glad you brought that up. In case any of you missed it, Jeff was involved in the Mooney case, as a witness for the prosecution. Some of his information was the basis for Mooney even being arrested. So that makes his argument extremely biased. Some of the highlights of the internet postings regarding this are the famous "9/11 Peyote" posting on one of the Linux mailing list. But Jeff claimed this wasn't him, that Mooney "hacked" his account. Funny, everytime Jeff does something he later regrets, someone "hacked" his account and did it. He'll probably claim someone hacked his WP account and posted all of this nonsense in his name. I guess having 3 brains and an extra Y-chromosone helps when you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions. It's interesting how a "Chief Scientist" with an IQ of 190 keeps getting hacked. He can't even keep WikiGadugi from being taken over by spammers. Jimbo and the Foundation should ask him to take it down if he's not going to maintain it, it looks bad for WM.

It seems that what you are really talking about are reliable sources. You are saying that the US government and other Indians (as defined by the BIA, etc) are the only reliable sources for defining who is an Indian. This argument is interesting, but I don't think it is ever correct that a government (US, Cherokee Nation, UN, whatever) is the only reliable source for most any type of information. For instance, Eva Marie Garroutte's book is a reliable source: it was published by a reliable publishing house, University of California Press, she's an enrolled Cherokee, she's a tenured prof at Boston College, she received her degree from Princeton, etc [4]. If her book talks about other groups being Cherokee, then there are reliable sources by which we can verify that other groups are calling themselves Cherokee. We have a reliable source to talk about why they are doing so, and what they are doing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are on the right track. Come up with some other method to verify these people or groups and I will agree with you. I see no other way than the rolls and the BIA at present, but I could be wrong. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now the proposed text has Pierpoint in an Indian Country Today article talking about the Southern Cherokee, which given the context I think is perfectly reliable, and Garroutte talking about the Deer Clan and the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, which I claim is also reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While my social racial identity may be Afro/Hispanic-American, no one can deny me the right of claiming all my ancestries. With their organization and grand political power, not even the Cherokee Nation can deny me the right. They can deny me membership into their organization, yes, but they don't have the right to rule my claim invalid. I know who I came from. So, not being a member doesn't mean you're not of Cherokee extraction, you're just not part of the 'clique'. It's funny, most African-Americans deeply rooted in American do not speak the languages of any of their African ancestors, have been pretty much Anglo-culture, yet are considered African-American by the average person based on aesthetics. The criteria that needs to be met for being a Cherokee Nation member is highly superficial. Relir 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your ancestry does not entitle you to possess eagle feathers, sell peyote, or get billions of dollars from the Federal Government, setup casinos, etc. since there are no loopholes that expose Wikipedia to Criminal sanctions or damages if you misrepresent yourself as a mexican. People claiming to be indians when they are not is different. Sorry, Your opinions and wikiality do not meet the requirements of WP:V. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if what I say here is something that I find offensive, I understand that you take this very personally, but I really do have a question that I hope you can answer. How might someone claiming on Wikipedia that they are Cherokee when they do not have the legal authority to so open up anyone to any sort of legal or civil action? From my understanding there is no way to purchase eagle feathers through Wikipedia. --Zenten 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Southern Cherokee Nation is no such thing, and are unverified. I will remove any content about them placed into this article under WP:V. They are not indians, they are not Cherokee, and they make false claims they are Federally recognized. They may have their own article titled "Southern Cherokee Wannabees" or "Southern Cherokee Fake Tribe who claim they are Federally Recognized are are not" or some other title that drops the Federal BIA desgination "Nation" as unverified. Wikiality does not work with unverified materials. Sorry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I fully respect your Cherokee ancestry, and your current tribal membership. I understand that you believe that you are doing the right thing, and I respect that.

I just think that you are too close to the action here. You should step back and let a consensus form, as that is the wikipedia way. Your "my way or the highway" style is very confrontational, and highly POV. The majority of posters here think that the Southern Cherokee and other tribes have a legitimate claim to Cherokee ethinicity. And it is certainly scientifically provable that they do. Anthropoligically, they are Cherokee. Science is not interested in what laws a government passes. It is interested in what can be shown to be true. I think you should have some time out from this article, and let is develop naturally. Your point of view can perhaps be incorporated, as you have a point regarding Federal recognition, but that is not the end of the argument. There are other criteria. You must respect that. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This account showed up when I returned to Wikipedia almost the same day, and has been ghosting my edits at several articles. Can someone check if this is a sockpuppet of a possible banned SCOX troll account?

Responding to the points raised, here it is in a nutshell. Tribes are sovereign. They have their own courts and legal systems. If any one of these tribes gets their fill of wikiality "fake tribes" on Wikipedia in any area that is an attack on their sovereignty or violates BIA laws or regulations, they can bring an action, criminal or civil in tribal court and the Federal Court will just rubber stamp their orders. There are some cases where they have jurisdiction over non-indians -- attacks on their sovereignty and identity to violate the law is one of them. Next they can potentially void the Foundations non-profit status by claiming its a CCE or affiliated with one and/or impose severe civil or criminal sanctions -- The CDA DOES NOT apply. The 1st Ammendment DOES NOT APPLY. These legal exemptions do not apply because tribes are sovereigns with their own laws and treaties with the US that preempt all of these elborate internet website exemptions. Sticking to the rules on Federally recognied tribes completely eliminates these liabilities, and improves Wikipedia. It's more than just the legal risks, its a credibility issue with the project as a whole. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument, Mr Merkey. Nobody is arguing that federally unverified tribes, clans or groups should be identified as having any kind of federal recognition. What's being said here, something that you seem unwilling to accept as even being a valid view, is that those groups claim to have cherokee lineage (in many cases, having verifiable documented evidence to that effect), and as such, they should be figured on the cherokee page, not simply expunged from wikipedia because they don't fall within the very narrow rules defined by the very government that has historically persecuted them. If nothing else, they should be included to highlight the controversy that their claim to being cherokee engenders. Legally, they may not be recognised cherokees, but anthropologically they are. Removing non federally recognised groups on the basis of some imagined legal threat would seem to be ridiculous; this is intended, after all, to be an encyclopedia, and thus, encyclopedic. What it's not intended to be is a vanity publishing service, and to remove all reference to non-recognised tribes and the controversy surrounding them would, in my view at least, turn this article into just that. It certainly wouldn't, as you imply, improve Wikipedia. Teseaside 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking a good faith editor to withdraw isnt an argument, SqueakBox 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: How does all this relate to historical figures who predate the various rolls and federal recognition systems? For example, is it acceptable or not to say "John Norton was Cherokee"? Pfly 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:NATIVE, extinct tribes and deceased persons with verifiable history may have articles and mention as native. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that work with the template being "rejected by the community" when you follow the WP:NATIVE link? DuskyCowhand 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked up what a sockpuppet is and I'm not a sockpuppet. Please stop calling me a sockpuppet Mr Merkey. Does this mean you can't answer my question above? DuskyCowhand 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, its a good point. If that proposed policy has been rejected, then your answer is moot. --129.79.35.118 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, why are you letting this person (Merkey) sully the reputation of your editiors and your wikipedia? Lay the law down here and let him have his "Cherokee Nation" page and have other editors work on a "Cherokee" page. The two are clearly not the same thing, despite what Merkey imagines they are. All that outsiders see here are the constant flames by Merkey when someone disagrees with him. Docrailgun 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey's assertion that the First Amendment doesn't apply to writing about Indian tribes is unmitigated bullshit. All Federal actions are constrained by the Constitution. The part of the Constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes is the same part that also lets them regulate interstate and international commerce, but nobody claims that the First Amendment doesn't apply to that. Rather, the First Amendment was added, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, to constrain the government in its exercise of powers that might otherwise be construed as granted by other parts of the Constitution. *Dan T.* 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I like about you Dan, you fly off the handle and do not know what you are saying. Thanks to your fine efforts the Brandt affair, which should have been a small blip on the radar, but instead turned into a blood feud involving all of wikipedia thanks to comments like the above. The compelling interest standard preempts first ammendment and CDA exemptions if one of these tribes goes and gets an order from the Federal Courts. Go read about "compelling interest standard" and how it trumps inidvidual rights. The US will rubber stamp it if misrepresetnation about being indian occurrs and there's asociated criminal activity. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Population Figures

The population figures for Cherokee Indians according to the U.S. Census is 921,000+. These are not false numbers as someone stated while they were editing the population figures, they are the 2005 U.S. Census figures for Cherokee Indians in combination with another ancestry or alone. These numbers are used on other Native American tribal pages as well as other nationality pages such as Filipino American's. Mrsmith93309 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 census is (I believe), an estimate. This link has the 2000 census numbers (in pdf) and lists it as 729,533 with 281,069 listing only as Cherokee [5]. I see 309,459 listed as the number in the 2005 smaller survey as claiming only Cherokee, but I don't see any good links for a citation there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These are figures of people claiming unverified Cherokee ancestry, not members of Federal tribes who have been verified as indians. These figured fail WP:V since they are not what they purport to be. They are not numbers of Cherokee Indians, but numbers of people claiming Cherokee ancestry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect any less from your return to en.wp. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, Jeff. unsigned comment posted by possible sock of blocked SCOX troll Vyrl from australia.

Here's the 2005 link for the 921,127 number [6]. Bleh, I hate these long URLs. I guess JVM removed this earlier in favor of the number registered in the Cherokee Nation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can get the verified numbers from the Federal Tribes. These are more germain to this article. I guess an article about Cherokee Ancestry could use these other census numbers, but its not accurate in this article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribal Politics

I am worried by this comment of Jeff Merkey's: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACherokee&diff=131407875&oldid=131407132 "I am involved in tribal politics".

This comment purports to violate the Wikimedia Foundation non-Discrimination Policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this is the genesis of what is happening here. It seems to be a political thing between the tribes, those that have federal recognition, and all the benefits that flow from it, and those who are disenfranchised by decree. Mr Merkey does not seem to be editing in "good faith" but having a highly POV viewpoint and trying to bring the political battle here to wikipedia. The tribes should be restored to the page, and section on federal recognition put in.

If it is good enough for the library of congress, then it should be good enough for us. http://www.lib.odu.edu/anss/sbacquestions/indtribes.html

You still have to verify that any of these groups are actually the groups referred to in the Library of Congress. You have to show that the people claiming to be the Southern Cherokee Nation are actually the same group. Without rolls or Federal approval, good luck. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

That the Southern Cherokee be included in the article as a Cherokee Tribe

FOR

• SeparateReality 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Enough evidence has been posted in the article. Federal recognition is important, but not the only criteria.
• Well, not just the southern Cherokee, but all those that were removed. The criteria used to delete them is unreasonable. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I mirror the comment made by ChurchOfTheOtherGods Teseaside 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I question the validity if these accounts voting since they are all most probably SCOX troll accounts or sockpuppets of blocked accounts here to disrupt Wikipedia and harrass me. See http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/SCOX?action=q&board=SCOX for evidence. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Much as it may disappoint you, Mr Merkey, I am not a troll, nor am I a "sockpuppet", whatever that might be. I came to Wikipedia to get some research info into my own cherokee lineage (which, as you may be able to guess, does not trace back to anyone on the Dawes Roll), and found you embarking on a political crusage to remove the very information that I was seeking. Hence my registration. Teseaside 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For a new user, you show a surprising knowledge of editing style and familiarity with MediaWiki. It's also a little odd for a new user to jump right into a straw poll, including following me from article to article just to disrupt. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've used Wikipedia before, it's true, and I am largely familiar with the policies here. Who hasn't, and who isn't? Highlighting and linking and other "editing style"? Provided by the javascript toolbar at the top of the edit box, and by judicious coopying of other edits. Not hard, really. Prior to this point, I have never edited content on Wikipedia, merely treating it as one of the first hits for research materials; it was your wanton destruction of content that prompted me to register. As for "following you around to disrupt", I have only edited on this page and your personal talk page to ask a couple of questions, which you obligingly deleted as being edits by a "disruptive troll". This can be verified by looking at Special:Contributions/Teseaside. I don't, of course, expect my voice, as that of a largely non-contributing member, to carry much weight. Teseaside 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AGAINST

---

Have all the straw polls you want. I will remove any materials from this article about the Southern Cherokee Nation as failing WP:V and if necessary, take the issue up the chain. If I am overrulled fine. I'll just sit and wait for one of these tribes to shut down this nonsense the Foundation level, which they will, because several of them are close to being pushed to do it. How about we focus on quality content instead of argung about it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike anyone else that this latest statement from Mr. Merkey is pushing the ragged edge of WP:THREAT? Either do it my way, or the tribes will sue. --Jerry (Talk) 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation receives a large number of complaints by telephone related to the subjects of articles, including subjects of biographies. I also know they receive complaints and phone calls from companies and groups related to the same issues. It's always better to reduce the volume of these calls by removing false and unverifiable information. Regarding tribes, all one has to do is read IndianCountry or Indianz, and even Wikipedia articles like Harley Reagan to determine that some of these groups take false information placed into Wikipeida by disruptive trolls as a serious matter in order to understand the eventual outcome of some of these issues. If anything, it is better to air the issues for discussions rather then avoid them out of fear of controversy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that I am for or against the Southern Cherokee Nation being included in this article as a Cherokee tribe. They are clearly not a tribe in the sense of being federally recognized. There seems to be examples of fraudulent activity involving the group. They and other groups often have claim to being a group of people biologically and/or in some way culturally descendant from Cherokee "of the past". These facts (in as much as they can be cited) can (and often should) be included in any in depth discussion of Cherokee. And where a group such as the Southern Cherokee are discussed, it should be done in a way that is clear about their federal recognition status (as well as any relevant state statuses).

As contentious as this issue is, I don't think I am misunderstanding the situation when I say that the claims in this article need to be treated with all the care afforded to claims in a biography about a living person (generally a good idea anyway). However, as has been said, and as other editors have argued, it seems that one can be an ethnic Cherokee without belonging to one of the three federally recognized groups. Again, this idea is something we can cite to reliable sources. The Southern Cherokee Nation and other such groups are in some ways minor compared with the Cherokee Nation, so mention of them should not make them seem more important than they are. There has been some support for the compromise section on identity, and possibly for mentioning the other groups with what I've called "respectful skepticism". I think that most of the constructive edits in this discussion have supported this idea.

I haven't seen much of a sense of compromise between the editors involved in the edit war (unless leaving is the same as compromise). On the other hand, it seems that WP policies are going to win the argument anyway. Even without a precise resolution, I think that JVM's vehement request that what is here be verifiable, and the related needs of edits to be from reliable sources, and that personal biases not be too overt (even through giving something undue weight) can be agreed to.

In the next couple days, I plan on trying to implement/support the implementation of the compromise I proposed, which is that a section on Cherokee identity (describing different concepts of what it is to be Cherokee) be added, as well as a section on non verified tribes (written with "respectful skepticism" where appropriate). If anyone feels that one or both of these tracks are wrongheaded, let me know, and we can continue the discussion. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is not subject to compromise. They are either Cherokee Indians are not. Unless you can show 1) They are descendants on verifiable government rolls as Indians 2) they are verifiably the same group described historically, addition of any non-Federally recognized tribe cannot be verified. You are free to create a Southern Cherokee Nation article provided a big flashing neon tag says "not federally recognized". Wikipedia is not a place for fake groups. If they become recognized then certainly they deserve mention. I mean, think about this. The US government gives out billions of dollars to tribes. The have 20+ criteria to determine if a group of people are really a historical tribe of Native Americans are what they use before they give federal funding. Why should Wikipedia use a standard inferior to this one for article based on a Wikiality standard of "how you feel about ethnic issues." As I said before, whether someone claims to be Cherokee or not has to be verified. If they have no rolls to be traced from, you cannot prove they are, and someone's claims are subject to WP:V. In other words, if they are not members of a Federally recognied tribe, there is no way to tie whether the current group claiming to be Cherokee's really are or not. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Identity Materials

The material in the proposed compromise section on, "Cherokee identity" and "Other Cherokee groups," is cited and satisfies the letter and spirit of WP:V, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." I'm beginning to feel that the denial of this constitutes original research, in that it "advances a position" and because you haven't given any citations of published sources saying that they are not Cherokee (whereas Garroutte, Pierpoint, Russell, and Thornton all write about both recognized and non-recognized peoples being Cherokee). As I said before, including this does not advance a position because none of it is uncited, and there isn't a sense (IMO) that their mention is done in a way that goes beyond what is factual. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of fairness and curiosity, I would like to review these materials. But as I said, a non-indian writing a book about his wikiality feelings about who is or is not Cherokee does not satisfy WP:V in my opinion. I do not care how many books you cite written by non-indians. You have to show these groups are Cherokees or the materials are subject to removal for failing WP:V. Not every book is a valid reference. At present, only members of the Federally recognized Cherokee tribes are Cherokee Indians. I'll take this issue all the way to the ARBCOM if necessary to get some sort of policy barring these fake groups from misrepresenting Native Culture. Too many fake wannabees and scam artists out there playing indian for a buck may require such a policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Russell isn't Cherokee enough to talk about what Cherokee is? And we already discussed Garroutte, who is also a registered Cherokee. I'm not sure it is necessary to look up the "status" of the others, but the credentials of each are very good (Thornton, Pierpoint (Indian Country Today), Sturm, Christenson). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Post what you are proposing adding to the talk page and allow me to go through it and see if I can help with this touchy subject in finding references. I am quite knowledgable of Native references and I might be able to work with you to craft something that will satisfy the issues without misrepresenting tribal identity. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been there for a week, scroll on up. Its the section labeled Cherokee Identity, as well as the section labeled Other Cherokee Groups. The section Labeled Modern Cherokee Nation refers to whats already in the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting link disambiguation

There's a link in this article to American Indian that needs to be converted to American Indian, so that it's not pointing at a disambiguation page. Could someone with edit priviliges please make this change? Thank you. CSWarren 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The BIA Just Disapproved the 1999 Cherokee Nation Constitution

Over the freedmen issue. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this has been ongoing, the BIA rejected it in 1999 and has notably withheld acceptance in several dealings, including after the 2003 referendum. The basis of Smith's statement (I believe) is the 2003 JAT ruling, mention of which would be appropriate as well. If Smith is referring to something else, let me know, otherwise here is a possible source for the JAT ruling. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We voted for this during the 2003 elections. I have seen the letters the BIA sent, and there have been several. The latest letter is posted somewhere at [[7]] because someone poached it from Chad's office (or legal) and circulated it on the internet. The last letter was pretty nasty, and said that the Freedmen Issue was not going to be tolerated. The BIA basically stated the Freedmen WERE Indians and they wanted them allowed to vote. Chad has fought this to the end -- mostly due to a lot of African-Cherokee citizens who do not want the freedmen in the tribe. A lot of other Cherokee's agree. In our ancient culture, if the majority decided on a certain issue a certain way, the rest of us ARE REQUIRED to support the decision. That's the case here. The Cherokee People have spoken and that ends the matter as far as Cherokee Citizens like me are concerned. That being said, the BIA and the Fed's have other ideas. Marilynn Vann is certainly Cherokee based on her appearance -- she looks Cherokee and she speaks Cherokeeand she acts like a Cherokee Woman -- a born leader with a great deal of courage and resolve, but she and the other Freedmen were not listed with a degree of blood. It's a complex issue and I have to remain neutral. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, I was just saying that your quote seems incomplete if the case Chad is talking about isn't referenced. By the way, please be careful putting in things you know to be true that don't have citations. Also, some editors are not comfortable with press releases as main sources as they are examples of self-publishing with little editorial oversight, oversight which forces editors to included multiple angles on issues where relevant. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I may be too close to this event, how about you take a stab at reworking the sections I just added for a POV scrub and citation scrub. If its cultural issues or history/language I think I can handle that. This type of stuff really needs a third party to look it over to make certain I am being neutral. Take s tab at it, if you feel comfortable with it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

6 Cherokees?

When starting to look for basic copyedits to do here, I quickly found this confusing sentence: Several Cherokee Nations and Bands recognized by the U.S. government and representing 6 Cherokees have headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma (the Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians) and at Cherokee, North Carolina (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians).

The confusing words in particular are "representing 6 Cherokees". I assume that isn't referring to 6 individual Cherokees? In any case, I can't figure out what is meant. Can someone clarify? Pfly 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Got it. Left over from when I removed the fake Cherokee groups claiming to be Federally recognized Tribes. No kidding, there were 3 of these fake groups listed at one time. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Mexico?

Look at this link of people claiming to be a Cherokee Nation in Mexico. http://www.cherokeenationmexico.com/history.html Are these guys legit? They seem to put a lot of myth into their history, but are they truly Cherokee and if so shouldn't they be included here?

They were talking about this above. I'm not sure if a decision was made. Is that identity section going to go in? Because if it is, this is an article with lots of information on different "heritage groups" and why they aren't called tribes, nations, or bands.

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/cnhi/tahlequahdailypress/features/local_story_006134311.html?keyword=secondarystory

The Cherokee Nation of Mexico (as well as maybe some Canadian groups) are a third set of cherokee (US groups recognized by US, US groups not recognized by US, non-US groups recognized by other country) which suggests a fourth (non-US groups not recognized by other country).

"They claim to have found the Tomb of Sequoyah", that's out there. Couple of things. 1) They do not appear to be recognized by the government of Mexico 2) Their website is in English. If they are Cherokee living on Mexico it should be in Spanish or Cherokee 3) Looks like they are targeting Americans (to market in the US perhaps?). Sounds fishy. There was a group of Cherokee who went to Mexico. There is also a legitimate group down there of native speakers. If they put up a website in our language since they claim to be "carrying on the work of Sequoyah" perhaps they will sound credible. Looks like another phony website tribe we cannot verify. I will investigate further but without some sort of recognition by the US or Mexico, we have no way of verfying these people are indeed Cherokee Indians. The lack of a native language website and in English no less coming from Mexico seems to fail WP:V. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can probably put the identity section and other Cherokee groups section in. Both could be expanded quite a bit (as could the Cherokee Nation section). The article anon found has a pretty good quote:

"There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation (the one based here in Tahlequah, at the W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex).

"Only three are federally recognized, but the other groups run the gamut of intent. Some are basically heritage groups – people who have family with Cherokee heritage who are interested in the language and culture, and we certainly encourage that," said Miller. "But the problem is when you have groups that call themselves ‘nation,’ or ‘band,’ or ‘tribe,’ because that implies governance."

Still, this is a critical view of these groups, and the views of the groups will need to be represented as well. In any case, this distinction between a group claiming governance and a group mainly sharing their heritage is a nice way to look at the distinction. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is excellent. If you use Mike Millers statement, we may be able to do this, but still they must go in another article. You need to separate these groups and use Miller's statement as the verification. If Mike is willing to conceded this, then I am bound as a member of our society to observe it, he represents our government to the press. They may not use the term "nation", "tribe", or "band" as these categories imply a sovereign government. They are still subject to WP:V. I will create an article grouping now. It's Cherokee Heritage Groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Created. Have at it. Sounds like a fun project. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Miller's statement isn't the verification, its the newspaper's publication of the statement that is the verification. And putting such groups in a separate article doesn't help us decide how we talk about people who claim to be Cherokee (read: claim Cherokee heritage) in this article. I don't think we can completely avoid mentioning them, as some have histories that are tied to the history of the Cherokee Nation. And I think we all agree that when speaking about other groups that it should be made clear that only the three are recognized by the federal government as having the privileges and rights of an Indian tribe. But the anon had a good question, can we talk about different concepts of identity in Cherokees in this article, or will you remove it (regardless of citation) so long as it mentions Cherokee describing anything that isn't one of the three groups? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to sleep on it. My first reaction is to remove it, because they are not Cherokee Indians. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking over some of your (JMV) previous comments, it seems we have a disagreement on the meaning of WP:V and WP:RS. I believe that the federal government, members of the Cherokee Nation, and members of the other federally recognized groups are not the only reliable sources which can provide verifiable information for an article on modern Cherokee. Do you agree? Who do you feel can provide this information? Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the Cherokee People or the United States can say who is or is not Cherokee. Not because we are special, but because we have rolls that can verify whether or not someone really is of Cherokee ancestry. These other groups fail WP:V because you cannot verify their claims. They can be mentioned in that other series of articles related to unverifiable Cherokee Heritage Groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the Cherokee Nation did and the other Cherokee tribes. They used land rolls from Dawes and the Baker Rolls taken on NC. CN (Dawes), UKB(Dawes), and EB(Baker). These rolls list the Cherokee's from the Trail fo Tears and who remained in NC. All these other folks are from former Cherokees who renounced their citizenship by leaving the culture to be assimilated. The problem here is if they are not on the roles, or can be traced from historial sources, you cannot prove they are indians. One good example is Gayle Ross, descednant of John Ross and Cherokee Linguist and Storyteller. Gayle is a Cherokee Nation member, but even if she were not, she can show ancestry from historical documents to John Ross apart from the Dawes Rolls since John Ross is famous and was well known in his day as a Cherokee Chief. As it turns out, she has Dawes Roll ancestors through Ross, so she is eligible and verifiable as Cherokee. She is one of the rare exceptions where she could be mentioned, whether a tribal member or not because it can be verified through other sources. As it turns out, she is verifiable and a tribal member as well. That's an example of what meets the requirements outside of verificcation against the Federal Rolls of Cherokee's. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my understanding of Wikipedia policy is a bit different. Although WP:NPOV would make it appropriate to mention wherever other Cherokee groups are mentioned that they are not federally recognized nor recognized by Cherokee Nation Members, I read WP:RS and WP:V as saying that any reputable published source talking about Cherokee is eligible to be a source for this article, whether the activity described is legal or not. This is because there isn't consensus that the word Cherokee refers only to federally recognized bands, but rather there are some who believe that it refers to people who self-identify as Cherokee as well. Garroutte is a reference that mentions this view. I'm not sure how to resolve this difference. Here's what I'm reading:

Reliable Source: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Verification:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Those are the key sections from the relevant guideline and policy. Let me know if you see in those lines or elsewhere in the policy articles something that supports your view. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest in regard to the Cherokee Nation of Mexico; First, according to this line from the website:

"The Cherokee Nation of Mexico is officially recognized by the Republic of Mexico, one of three countries - Canada, the United States and Mexico, which make up all of North America."

The thing to do would be to contact the webmaster and ask for them to submit verification of their status in accordance with the Mexican government or to furnish tribal rolls documenting ancestry. Secondly, there should be an effort to contact the Mexican aurthorities on the issue.

Now, the issue really becomes what is the criterion for proof for Cherokee groups in other countries. Clearly one can be Cherokee and part of a band that moved there, even if that band does not have a systematic government. It is bloodlines, not government that determines what is "Cherokee". At the least their needs to be a mention of groups claiming cherokee ancestry even if it is unverifiable.

Again, federal sources aren't the only qualified sources for verification. A self-published website is not sufficient, but anything published by a reputable news source, book publisher, or journal should be fine by my interpretation. Right now we don't have anything of that sort for the Cherokee Nation of Mexico, so they shouldn't be mentioned. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Verification with Reliable Sources

Moved discussion to talk page: User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)