Talk:Cherokee/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Cherokee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

more precisely, "no one else has the right to the privileges provided by the US federal government to Cherokee." I say possibly, as I'm not sure exactly what "had claim to" means. I think I mean that no one else should be able to call themselves "Cherokee," but I'm not one hundred percent sure how different people use these words in this situation, so I might be slightly off. Basically, if the source and statement are strong, of course I'd accept it. But I'm not sure that the statements Jeffrey is using here are strong enough to support keeping all other groups out. On the other hand, I'm not sure what this proposal is trying to say. No one is saying that we should claim that these groups should get the privileges delivered to the Cherokee nation by the US government, just that the notable these groups may be mentioned in a way that conforms to what reliable sources say about them, right? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That proposal is currently marked as "rejected". It can, of course, be considered again, but I would suggest that its proponent attempt to make a logical argument for it that does not include legal threats. It's up to the Wikimedia Foundation's attorneys, not the commentators here, to determine the validity of any legal issues regarding this proposal, so he should take it up with them if there are concerns of that sort. *Dan T.* 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I removed those sections that you had concerns about. I did not intend it to be what you stated. I am a member of a Federally Recognized Tribe. We are not about civil disobediance. And since Brad quit, the Foundation has no attorney right now to look into these issues (though I hear they interviewed one in Amsterdam). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposals by Phaedriel

The way I see it, and after analyzing the discussion, I'll try to sum it up and put it simple as possible. We have two views here:

Jeffrey's position - "Groups that haven't attained Federal Recognition can't assert Indian identity, either at their own articles or by mention/inclusion at articles of Recognized groups." (The main reason for this being potential legal problems)
The view of those who disagree with this - "If their origins can be reliably verified, yes they do."

So far, we've been unable to find a solution to this dilemma. We have a completely general and factual view on one side, and a position that advocates a case-by-case scrutiny on the other, with the additional problem of agreeing on which sources can be deemed reliable at each case. Due to their very nature, it's arguably impossible to reconcile them, or find a middle ground: as the problem lies in whether or not the assertions made at the articles' contents themselves are acceptable in order to avoid legal issues.

My proposal: we have no need to touch the articles' contents, nor debate what a reliable source is regarding the discussion at hand, nor write a new blanket policy to apply to all cases without distinction, which could cause different problems among editors. Jeffrey's major concern is, in fact, making clear that a group is either recognized, or it isn't. The latest list issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on March 22 provides a factual base to determine which groups are Federally Recognized. Hence, my proposal is two folded:

1 - Tagging the articles of each of said Groups with a template that denotes their character as such, and the creation of Category:Federally Recognized Tribes. No need to fiddle with the contents of the articles themselves. With this, we make sure that Wikipedia has a unified, incontestable and impossible to break criteria to identify and showcase which groups are officially considered Native American by the BIA and the Federal Government. No other Tribes or Groups, not even those that have a rich and documented history but have failed to attain recognition will display this template at their entries; for this doesn't deny their cultural identity, but aims at something different: identifying their legal status.

(Template commented out, as it caused Talk:Cherokee to be included in the list of recognized tribes, which is a result that I don't think anyone was after. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC) )

2 - Any group not recognized, can have an article of its own and/or be mentioned/included at articles of Recognized groups, with the following template at the bottom of their articles/sections. The contents of their entries remained untouched as far as this issue is concerned, and good faithed editors can safely improve and work on them at will. Meanwhile, any possible liability towards the Wikimedia Foundation is thus eliminated, and shifts it to the posters of the content if any assertion made violates Federal laws.

I'm open to your opinions and suggestions regarding this proposal, and the wording of the templates above. All the best, Phaedriel - 05:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly and Completey Agree - the proposed tags and categories address all issues. The accurately identify the groups and absolve Wikipedia of any issues with the content or subject of the articles by clearly stating that Federally Unrecognized groups may not participate in the special programs offered by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. Her other points are well thought out. I feel that implementation of her proposal and these tags and categories will remove all of the issues. It's also clear that Federally recognized tribes or sections which contains mateirals about non-recognized groups would be properly tagged so readers reviewing and studying the content will not be mislead (though they should be in separate articles if possible). This is an outstanding and excellent proposal (and very sharp looking templates too). I fully endorse this proposal. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Thank you, Phaedriel.Proabivouac 05:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Seems very reasonable. *Dan T.* 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There are many groups claiming to be tribes of Cherokees, and they sell membership cards and certificates just like the countless diploma mills and credential mills operating on the WWW. The position of the Cherokee National government is that there is only one Cherokee Nation, and all other groups (even the UKB, which has long been Federally recognized) are heritage groups within the larger Nation.--Aaron Walden

15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your well reasoned proposal. I have a question. How do we discuss (if at all) non-federally recognized Cherokee or Cherokee groups outside of clearly "delineatable" sections. For instance, do we not talk about a case like John Rollins Ridge except in sections not marked as Cherokee history? Are we allowed to say that he called his band the Southern Cherokee? I generally oppose connecting his Southern Cherokee to today's Southern Cherokee Nation (a connection which today's Southern Cherokee make, but which I haven't seen any secondary sources corroborate). But I find it a little bit forced to take his story out of the history section and put it under some hybrid section called "History which non-federally recognized groups claim to be as history of their group." The same question holds for mentioning famous Cherokee; do we split any list of famous Cherokee into members of the three bands and people like Louis Owens who have contributed much to Cherokee culture without having membership? <soapbox>It seems that goes against what Owens wanted, which I read (partially) as that the divisions be kept strictly political, and that culturally and personally Cherokee become more accepting of those who may not be members but who are none-the-less a part of a larger Cherokee community</soapbox>. Sorry to put a wrench in the proposal; hopefully this comment is seen as constructive. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would be appropriate to speak of historical factions within an article on the Cherokee Nation. It would likewise be appropriate to mention, within a separate article on the so-called Southern Cherokee Nation, that they claim to be heirs of the earlier faction. NPOV would also indicate that the other side be presented within the article on SCN, as well. This is my opinion.--Aaron Walden

17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Would also include mentioning SCN operated illegal casinos and other activities which brought them under scrutiny from the Federal Government. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "not recognized" template would be better if it read, "Some of the material in this article or section discusses Groups that are currently not recognized by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs," or perhaps a second template with that message would be useful, but maybe I'm going overboard. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The way it is worded is perfect. It matches the language used by the United States in the AIRFA definition of an Indian and removes all doubt about the legal status of such groups and makes Wikipedia extremely precise and accurate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Smmurphy, please don't worry about expressing your thoughts; they are in no way "put a wrench in the proposal", but you make a valid point that is most worthy of clearing. You allude, of course, to may historical issues that don't fall clearly within the scope of the currently Recognized-unrecognized dichotomy. Like Aaron aptly puts it, mentions of historical groups/factions/personalities at the main article are perfectly appropriate. There's no need to make sub-subsections to address historical aspects of said entities in order to clearly separate them from the "official" group, for we're aiming specifically at the points that deal with the present organizational activities and claims of unrecognized groups. In the case of Cherokee, this would mean proper mentions of every relevant historical issue at the History section, and adding the second template specifically at the bottom of a potential subsection dealing with the SCN under the general section "Modern Cherokee Nation".

Let's put another example. We have an article on the Narragansett tribe, which is Federally Recognized. At its "Present history" section, it passingly alludes the Northern Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island, a separate entity that claims relation with the Federally recognized group and is seeking recognition on its own. There's no need to add the second template merely because of this mention. But, if a section is added in the future at this article or an entry is created dealing with this group, then adding it at both places will be in order. The same can be said about extinct groups/tribes: there's no point in adding either, as no current organizations nor activities can take place. I'm open to comments regarding the wording of the template that you proposed. Regards, Phaedriel - 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposed solution, although I think many of the ideas behind it are good (and kudos to Phaedriel for your thoughtful approach to this). Respectfully, I don't see why the templates or category are necessary, and I think they do more harm than good in giving an air of official Wikipedia sanction to the U.S. government's point of view. It's akin to having templates that state whether a particular people or government are officially recognized by the People's Republic of China. If the issue of recognition is relevant to the article, the article can discuss it from a neutral point of view; for example: The Lesser Mekong Delta Band of Quasi-Cherokee claim to be "spiritual descendants" of a long-lost band of Cherokee who they claim crossed the Bering Strait two hundred years ago (citation) but are not recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the federally recognized Cherokee nation (citation). Scholars are generally dubious of the group's claims (citation 1, citation 2). The band has sought recognition for their claims since 1999, when they purchased and began to develop land for a large casino (citation). Such a statement lays out the issue plainly without favoring any viewpoint or trying to persuade the reader to do so; yet it's not likely to mislead somebody into thinking that the LMDBoQC have claim on the treaty rights between the U.S. and the Cherokee nation, or that their claims are generally thought to have merit. The reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions. Plus, if we avoid templates and categories then we avoid difficulties that arise such as those posed by Smmurphy: some articles won't fit exactly into the mold of "article about group X that claims Y" but will still touch upon the issue of tribal identity and recognition. Taking the "full disclosure" approach, if I may call it that, makes this a non-issue since the problem can be solved as is appropriate for each article on a case-by-case basis. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dear Alan, thank you very much for your kind words and for taking the time to analyze this proposal. Of course, I'd like to comment on your thoughts.

The purpose of these templates and category is not to have Wikipedia sanction the U.S. Government's point of view, but simply serves to identify Recognized groups, and I believe the Category is also useful and informative: with 561 recognized Tribal Entities, some way to clearly group them and consult their articles is of great encyclopedic value. You will excuse me, dear, because I sincerely fail to see how that can cause any sort of damage; and please, please forgive me to say this, because I swear I mean it without the slightest form of malice, but the comparison with groups recognized by the government of China is not accurate at all here. The issue of Federal Recognition is a major one for Tribes; whether or not they're recognized has a major impact on any group's development and status.

I agree with you that the ideal solution is discussing the matter on a case-by-case basis, with reliable sources (see my comments on top of this subsection). But the problem is, this is such a sensitive matter, so open to interpretations, so heated even on which sources can be considered reliable and so incredibly hard to address in the ideally perfect way that you suggest, that it's exactly because of this that we find ourselves in this process; that view is impossible to reconcile with the completely factual view of "no recognition, no mention". What's better, then, than eliminating the problem with the following criteria: "-Is this group recognized? -No. -Can it have an article/section? -Yes it can. -But be aware that I wish to comment on their alleged relation to Tribe X, which is Federally recognized. -Then do so, but let's clearly identify their legal status based on an entirely objective, incontestable and relevant proof." The discussion on the articles' contents accuracy and NPOV can of course proceed, but we've solved the issue of inclusion, which is the cornerstone of the dispute.

Imho, this solves problems, and I don't see any new ones it could create. You express the concern that some articles won't fit exactly into the mold of "article about group X that claims Y" but will still touch upon the issue of tribal identity and recognition. Much on the contrary: due to the complexity of the Cherokee issue, this is by far the case with the most grey areas, which further eases the proposal. Last, please check my reply to Smmurphy for a deeper explanation on his concerns. Again, thank you for your interest and your input, dear Alan - let's try and work to find a solution to this. Best regards, Phaedriel - 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll back off a little bit: upon further reflection, I think a category might be appropriate (I'd suggest Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States since it's too U.S.-centric to use "federal" to mean the U.S. government) but I still don't like the templates. I can see how it would be useful, as Phaedriel suggests, to have a way to group the recognized tribes via a category to allow quick perusal of their articles. Use of templates as a signpost to the reader seems too much like a seal of approval (or disapproval), particularly since they would appear along with other "official" Wikipedia templates (neutrality, current dispute, spoiler warning, etc.), even though the template wording is phrased as neutrally as possible (and I think Phaedriel's proposed templates are worded quite neutrally). Going back to the China analogy, it would seem to give the People's Republic of China too much deference to create a template for Tibet or Taiwan that says "This political entity is not currently recognized as sovereign by the People's Republic of China and may not be eligible to participate in international events which would require such recognition by the PRC." Phaedriel, you objected to my use of the China analogy, but I think that while it's not perfect, it's nonetheless apropos to this discussion. After all, the issue of sovereignty is just as major for Tibet and Taiwan as federal recognition is for many Native American peoples.

Perhaps, though, there is a less obtrusive way of identifying recognized groups, that would still be a bit more prominent than article text and a category, but less of a "seal of approval". What about a "Native American group" infobox, which includes a "Legal status" field that can contain such values as "Disputed", "Undergoing review by U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs", "Recognized as tribe by United States", "Heritage group not recognized by U.S.", etc.? The infobox could also contain various other useful headings, such as "Estimated population", "Historical territory", "Notable characteristics", or the like. This way, the question of legal recognition by the U.S. is given some prominence but is presented as part of the larger picture of tribal identity. It would also be less U.S.-centric, as Canadian or Mexican legal status could also be mentioned. What do folks here think of that? alanyst ^/talk/ 04:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What has been proposed complies with the framework of clasification used by the BIA and the United States. Its simple and solves the issues, all of the issues. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jeff, but I'm a bit confused at this point what you're referring to as "what has been proposed". Could you clarify whether you're talking about my ideas just above, or else reaffirming your support for Phaedriel's category-and-templates solution? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 06:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alan, sorry for being away from this discussion for the last hours, so I couldn't address your concerns until now. Personally, I have no objection to renaming the Category to your proposed wording; since other countries like Mexico, Brazil or Argentina, to name just three, also have important Indigenous groups whose status is regulated by their Federal Governments, you make a valid point. if nobody objects this, I think it can be done without further ado.

I also understand now your concerns about these templates looking like a rubber-stamp of approval, when you say that "they would appear along with other "official" Wikipedia templates (neutrality, current dispute, spoiler warning, etc.)". Please, relax; Wikipedia official templates must definitely go on top of the page, but these ones, on the contrary, are mean to go on bottom, just like any other templates that serve to categorize or provide additional information. See for, a handy example, Template:Cherokee. In fact, I would have liked to put a list of Recognized Groups at the template itself for easier perusal and navigation, but with 561 Tribes fitting the category, such a template would be impossibly big.

Touching your other concerns, a quick address to your example: unlike the case of Tibet and China, we have here hundreds upon hundreds of different Groups; like Pfly aptly puts it below, this is a quick and easy way to identify their legal status. Admittedly, an infobox like the one you suggest would be acceptable too, but that creates other problems in terms of time and work. Let me explain. Last year, I founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and while we were dealing with the organizational aspects of it, we came to the conclusion that the task of creating a suitable infobox was simply too complex, given the huge number of characteristics we had to cover; hence, we opted for the one currently in use by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups, Template:Infobox Ethnic group. Up to this day, we haven't managed to place this infobox at every single article dealing with Tribes or Groups, mostly because finding and sourcing the relevant information to fill the fields you suggest is nigh impossible in hundreds of cases. So you see, albeit your proposal is sensible and well-thought, it has a factual impossibility to be implemented - and I tell you this from my own experience. I hope this explanation helps :) Best regards, Phaedriel - 03:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't thought too hard about this issue, so am reluctant to make a firm agree or disagree statement. I have been reading this discussion though, and it does seem like the templates would be an easy way to make many articles on US Native Americans clearer. Being more interested in history than current events, I've sometimes worked with or looked for articles on tribes that were important during various historical events, and I've sometimes been surprised to find articles about tribes I thought were extinct that have info about their current situation. Some turn out to be federally recognized and the pages say so. Others are not but describe an ongoing attempt to gain federal recognition. But many don't say anything about it one way or the other. Some are apparently state but not federally recognized. It is unclear to me what it means to be "state recognized". From Jeffrey Merkey's comments I've gotten the sense that without federal recognition it is criminal to claim to be Indian and to use terms like tribal nation and so on. Yet it seems that some states do have a process of formal recognition. I don't understand the issue very well, but whatever it means to be state recognized, I think these templates could help make some pages clearer. Here's a few examples of the kind of pages I'm thinking about -- pages about tribes that claim state-recognition or are unclear on just what, if any, legal status they have: Apalachee, Santee tribe, Coharie, Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, Haliwa-Saponi, Houma Tribe, Montaukett.. and many others. Some of these pages are pretty clear, some not at all. Pfly 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pfly, you make a valid point, because the issue of State Recognition is a matter that keeps generating heated debate. Like Jeffrey pointed out, the United States Constitution vests the power to establish direct government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes solely within the Congress of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, "Congress shall have the power (...) to regulate trade between (...) with the Indian Tribes." Therefore, this is an exclusive attribution of the Federal Government. No State Recognized group that isn't also Federally Recognized is eligible for the special programs and services afforded to Indians because of their status as such, under United States Code 25 U.S.C.

For these reasons, and in the context of the discussion at hand, tho, it is Federal Recognition we're trying to identify, as it generates an extensive number of important financial consequences that State Recognition doesn't. I am happy that you find these suggested templates useful in that sense, in terms of helping to clearly identify and classify those groups that have successfully attained this legal status. I hope this solves your doubts, and please let me know if you have any opinions or suggestions I can help you with regarding this proposal. Regards, Phaedriel - 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional discussion

I think this proposal is reasonable, although as Alanyst says, we can be clear about the status without the additional templates and categories. But personally, I like categories and templates. Anyway, I don't know exactly how to present this, and I'm nervous to do so at the risk of seeming disruptive, but I believe Phaedriel has suggested I be bold. Anyway, its about Jeffery's conduct and the types of material this article should be allowed to contain. Basically, I would like to ask for a sort of review of some edits, if I may. I don't know if this is exactly appropriate, but I want to be a little bit more clear about my reservation. In the past, I added some material under a section called "Cherokee identity" (now called, in part, "Cherokee recognition"). I do believe there were many stylistic changes and cuts that are/were necessary to make in this material. I would like to discuss some of the cuts, and get a feel for whether the cuts and their reasons in the edit summary were appropriate. If any of these cuts were stylistic, then please excuse me, this isn't about style, and I didn't get the feeling that the removals were based on stylistic opinion from the summary or the discussion on the talk page. All of the edits are By Jeffrey, and I have linked to the diffs, and a short summary of the edit, and my belief about the material. I feel like I am being borderline disruptive for doing this, but I want to know if Jeffrey stands behind these edits (and which of them and why). I think I would enjoy taking some of my research and making an article on "Cherokee identity," and much of this material would be nice to use there, and so I also want to know if the material is acceptable under this proposal (to avoid the article being another POV fork). The idea here is to try to be clear about my and Jeffery's understandings, so that at least between us we can be clear about the general direction the Cherokee article and other related articles should take. Please feel free to address each diff seperately. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If its not about a Federally recognized tribe, put it in the Cherokee Heritage Groups Article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1) undue weight. Hastings Shade is not a spokesperson for the Cherokee Nation - This edit removes a confusing note which refers to the spike in census numbers for Cherokee (due to people being allowed to check multiple boxes) which is cited to Russell. Growth in Cherokee Nation membership cited to Morello is also mentioned. The Hastings Shade quote used discusses this change. Shades position in the Cherokee Nation gets quite a few ghits.

The membership numbers of the Federally recognized tribes go into the articles about those groups. The numbers about non-recognized groups should go into those articles. What is so hard about that? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposal puts as your "major concern [that it be] clear that a group is either recognized, or it isn't." Your point seems to imply that this article should only be about those federally recognized as Cherokee, and thus that is the only population number that would be relevant. Is this the case? Then should we have an article Cherokee people to discuss all those recognized by any reliable source as Cherokee? This seems to bring us back to the same discussion we are having now. Or is it completely irrelevant that some academics talk about the demographics and culture of both groups at once; comparing, contrasting, etc? Smmurphy^(Talk)

2) undue weight given to these sources - This removes mention of the illegal claims made by the Southern Cherokee Nation cited to Pierpoint, and expresses the (perhaps stretched) parallel to the historic struggles by the Ridge faction. I didn't mean for the parallel to imply an actual cultural-historical connection between the two groups, and I'm not sure that it did.

Materials about a non-Federally recognized tribe can go into articles about that tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But the historical material is not about the SCN, but about a historical event involving those claiming to be Cherokee before and at the time of the 1866 treaty, way before the Dawes Commission. Also, if we are to talk about other groups of Cherokee at all, Pierpoint's article seems to me to be exactly the type of article we should be sure to use in such a discussion. Smmurphy^(Talk)

3) remove self-identifying Cherokee demogrphic "Authorities" - no endorsement by CN or US - This is a removal of the materials discussed at the end of Proabivouac proposal. The full quotes this material is based on are available at the end of that proposal. Also here is removal of the "Cherokee Princess" quote, the idea of which may be offensive (as Jeffrey made clear in talk), but the quote itself refers to how ridiculous one Cherokee social worker finds the notion that people believe they deserve certain privileges just because they claim to be related in some way to a "Cherokee Princess."

Using the phrase "Cherokee Princess" will completely destroy any and all credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of the any legitimate Cherokee. This phrase has a history among Cherokee People and it's inapropriate. Aaron may wish to explain it. I will remove it on sight in any article about the Cherokee Nation or Federally recognized Cherokees. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this quote seeks to dispel the myth of the "Cherokee Princess." It would be a fine alternative to use the same quote, and remove the words "Cherokee Princess," and put something else in brackets (like this [XYZ]). The issue is the use of a quote from a "rank and file" Cherokee rather than a "spokesperson," as you have insisted in the past. Smmurphy^(Talk)

4) remove non-indian wannabee author and false misleading materials about how "I wannabee and indian" story - no evidence author is Native or knows the culture. Spam ref. - This is a removal of the Louis Owens quote. This quote and the Cherokee Princess quote above were meant to give the perspective of Cherokee and non-Cherokee who claim Cherokee heritage on the issue at hand. The material removed here is clear about Owens' status as not a member, the reference (Garroutte) is not "spamy", and the question of Owens authenticity should not, IMHO be in any doubt.

Books written by non-Indians claiming to be indians are inappropriate and unrealiable sources in an article about a Federally recognized tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I have fully expressed the offense that I take at the suggestion that Owen's is a "wannabee indian" (sic), that he is a "non-Indian", etc. As before, I understand if this article is to be solely about the federally recognized tribe, I was under the impression that Phaedriel's proposal took a broader view. Smmurphy^(Talk)

5) aniawi is the Southeastern Cherokee Confedracy? TOTALLY FALSE!!! Where do these people get this stuff. removed - (I don't know what aniawi means, sorry) This edit removes (my tortured English and) the discussion of Garroutte, also coming from the passage at the end of Proabivouac's proposal.

The Deer Clan is simply one of the clans in Cherokee Religion. The information you cited, while it may exist in books written by the ignorant, is not represented accurately, and in fact, is offensive to traditional Cherokee who practice our religion. These particular materials only show the total and utter ignorance of whomever wrote this book about Cherokee History and Culture. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you are misreading the quote of Garroutte above. I'm surprised that you think she is ignorant (if you do indeed feel that way). Smmurphy^(Talk)

6) remove fake tribe "Southern Cherokee Nation" who claim they are Federally Recognied but are not - This is about the "Ridge party" again, and from the edit summary, it seems that it was removed due to the use of this same story in the Southern Cherokee Nation's self-described history. The citation is to Christenson. Sometimes it is hard to know where to sign your comments, so I'm signing again here. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Materials about the Southern Cherokee Nation do not belong in articles about Federally recognized Cherokee Tribes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as in point 2, the historical material is not about the SCN, but about a historical event involving those claiming to be Cherokee before and at the time of the 1866 treaty, way before the Dawes Commission. That they have the same name is not just a coincidence, but is also not essential to who the Ridge party was. I would appreciate a clarification from some of the others about the question I asked in (1) and (2) about the scope of the article. Of course, any other advice or ideas that anyone has would be wonderful. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think historically in our discussion, this is a point where Jeffrey and I have reached an impasse. Does anyone else have any ideas? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not being a specialist in Cherokee history myself, I'm afraid I can't go deeper into the discussion here. But I'd like to comment one thing: if the proposal above reaches consensus to be implemented, I personally see no objection to include a section about the Southern Cherokee Nation, accompanied by Template #2 on bottom of it to identify their legal status, and with a link to "Main article: Southern Cherokee Nation". Jeffrey and Aaron, what do you think? Phaedriel - 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Southern Cherokee Nation meets the requirements of notability for an article on its own merits. I do not feel inclusion of their materials in the article about the Federally recognized Cherokee Tribes is appropriate, to avoid misrepresenting they are somehow affiliated with the Cherokee Nation or the other Federally recognized entities. They can certainly have their own article and I also agree it should be tagged with template #2 to make certain we are as accurate as possible. My only concern for editors here who want to publish such an article is for them to consider the amount of public scrutiny this group may receive if they have an article on Wikipedia -- I have concerns that such an article must be very well sourced and extremely accurate so we avoid misrepresenting this group. Provided the article is properly tagged as proposed, I think Wikipedia and its editors will certainly be protected from any issues should we choose to edit such an article and the tag is present, and we will also be providing the public readers of our project the most accurate and well categorized materials on Native American Tribes around if we follow the proposed solution. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, Phaedriel, that the experts here, that is the people whose expertise is relevant, are the people we cite. I feel like Jeffrey and my job is to point to our sources and say, "see, this source supports my view." Thus, I think any interested editor is qualified to comment on our discussion. The six points above are each examples where outside authors talk about the stories and views of Cherokee who are not federally recognized. Each is cited, and in each case, the source is (IMHO) very well respected. Stylistic issues aside, I feel like my arguments for the inclusion of each is based in the fact that reliable sources discuss the material in their discussion of Cherokee, while Jeffrey's argument for their exclusion is based in his idea of the limited scope of this article. Limited not just in pushing mention of non-federally recognized groups into a subsection, but also in removing any statements in the main body that are not ultimately sourced to official representatives of the CN, the BIA, or other official group. (Note in a case like Perdue's paper, I had to remind Jeffrey that the facts of an issue that he didn't like are cited by Perdue to official 19th century Cherokee sources here). Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation about to close

The proposed solutions stage has been open for a week now, with the debate largely stalled in the last days due to the fact that virtually every part has agreed on the solution to be implemented regarding the matter of inclusion of unrecognized Native American tribal entities at Wikipedia, either by independent articles and/or sections into articles of Federally Recognized Tribes (when relevant and given proper tagging by means of the newly created templates). So far, just a single involved editor disagrees with said solution; and although consensus in favor of its adoption appears to be clear at this point, I believe that it's just proper manners and courtesy to give him the chance to comment on it before proceeding. For this reason, I will leave this stage open for a little longer, before closing it and concluding this Mediation attempt. Needless to say, if the comments and/or reply made by Alanyst before that make it necessary to extend the closing time, I will be happy to do so.

I take note that other issues regarding certain specifics of the Cherokee article itself have also appeared, in particular those commented by Smmurphy. While this Mediation dealt with a more ample subject that directly affects not only this, but many other articles, said discussion will also continue afterwards, outside the original scope of this process, and I'll be happy to help there as well. Best regards, Phaedriel - 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for all of your help, but I'm not sure what the result of mediation has been, exactly. Templates are a nice way to make it clear that this article is about the tribe, but does that give us a place to talk about non-federally recognized groups? For instance, Louis Owens has insight on the culture of people with Cherokee heritage who are not recognized. If that doesn't go here, does it go into Cherokee society? What place do the 600,000 (900,000 self-identify - 300,000 registered) have in Wikipedia? Do we rename Cherokee Heritage Groups to a title of an article that can address this? The original edit war on this page between Kebron and Jeffrey is very similar to the one that Alanyst and Jeffrey are having. The long discussion that Jeffrey and I have been having here about the scope of this page (which was my focus my summary of the dispute) is also not resolved. Is mediation not to bring our issues to a close? So in closing this mediation, do I take it to mean that Kebron, Alanyst, and I are being politely asked to step back from editing this article the way we have advocated? Is there a place in the Cherokee articles on WP that we are invited to contribute? I'm sorry to ask for a direct answer, and as I've said in the past, I can accept such a decision. But I wanted to make it clear if/that this is the decision being proposed. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Smmurphy, as I said above, the main issue being discussed was whether or not the inclusion of unrecognized groups at Wikipedia, either at individual articles and sections of articles of Federally Recognized Tribes when relevant was acceptable. An agreement has been reached, prima facie; therefore, the particular solutions for each case must be adapted from the general principle we've established. These general lines, like I said when proposing them, basically allow us to include any relevant and sourced fact, because we're now able to disclaim their legal situation. It is also a dynamic solution, not set in stone: we can build this, or any other article about a Federally Recognized tribe, with mentions and sections for other unrecognized, related groups; but how we do that, depends on each case.

To sum it up, applying the proposed solution to this particular case: yes, the inclusion of the material you comment on, properly sourced, is OK. Yes, a broader definition as you commented on your summary is now acceptable. Yes, the inclusion of a section delaing with Non-Federally Recognized Cherokee Groups seems appropriate now, with the appropriate disclaimer and linking to the main article on them. All this, because Jeffrey's main objection to all this prior to this process (and I quote, "I have no problem with Heritage Groups being listed. But listing them in articles about Federally Recognized Tribes implies they are affiliated with these groups.") is now adressesed with objective disclaimers. That is the spirit and the goal of the proposal, in case I didn't make myself clear when explaining it: to bury the discussion regarding inclusion, with all the practical consequences in the Cherokee case that I've just detailed. And although the viability of renaming the Cherokee Heritage Groups article has not been brought up so far (and knowing you have objections to this designation), its renaming to i.e. Non-Federally Recognized Cherokee Groups appears as a clear possibility now, precisely because of the adoption of said criteria.

As you see, the discussion dealt exactly with the doubts you're commenting on, through general principles to be observed at other articles as well, at least until future discussions; perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that we've been meta-discussing it by also reaching other cases that present similarities. I frankly believe that the most heated points that led us here have been satisfactorily solved, because although Jeffrey has been reluctant to accept the inclusion of articles/sections, he has expressed satisfaction of his concerns through the proposed mechanisms.

Now that this matter is put to rest, I am aware of the points you listed above. A few of them, like the inclusion of a mention to the Southern Cherokee Nation can be solved through the disclaimers. Other more specific and detailed points deal with certain facts and the reliability of some sources. I encourage this later particular discusion to continue, and I'll help there in any way I can; but it was my intention to solve the greater part of the dispute, which goes far beyond this single article (as commented by Jeffrey at his proposed guideline) in a manner acceptable to everyone involved before going into other specific points. Hope this clarification helps. Best regards, Phaedriel - 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

My concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrow Scope?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hardly find any mention about Cherokee settlement in the Western U.S. that boosted the number of Cherokee Heritage groups. Many thousands of Cherokee, Choctaw and Creek Indian pioneers ventured out to California in the late 19th century and perhaps tens of thousands of Cherokee descendants in the Rocky Mountain states. Other than a group of 1,000 Cherokee miners involved in the 1848 California Gold Rush, the story of Cherokee settlement in parts of the Northwest and Southwest states hasn't been completed in the article. You find Cherokee descendants in western Canada (i.e. Alberta) and Mexico (esp. Baja California) came from those migratory patterns, since the Cherokee became widely dispersed as the result of the forced removal (the Trail of Tears) in the 1830s and many Cherokees had migrated northward to the Midwestern and Eastern US in smaller but well-documented numbers. As a result, one may find Cherokee descendants living in and heritage groups in Illinois, Indiana, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. +71.102.53.48 (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Cherokee Heritage Groups. However, a unrecognized tribe is not a heritage group, and calling them that only adds to the confusion. What will help most for this article on wikipedia is to clearly state facts and definitons. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is undergoing a crisis right now, not simply because of the Freeman controversy, but in fact a deeper problem based on their own legality as a tribe. It is a problem not faced by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, even though they are called part of the Cherokee nation. This is not the place to decide legal matters, but as things continue to develop on both these fronts, keeping the article clear and precise will help the readers as the learn of this news.

When considering the efforts by some groups to call themselves Cherokee Tribes, it should be remembered that Congress, in an effort eliminate the Cherokee Tribe (or however you want to describe it) froze citizenship in the Cherokee nation with the Dawes Act. People on those rolls are citizens, but everyone else is a "descendant of a citizen" and are "enrolled". They vote to "popularly select" a chief, based on the 1970 Principal Chiefs Act, but not in legal terms "elect" a chief, because they are not citizens. An "election" denotes a political act of a sovereign people to govern themselves, something Congress did not intend by the 1970 PCA. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 permits a tribe to reorganize and remove any disabilities they may have suffered through congressional action. The Keetoowah did this. The CNO has not done this, and now is at the mercy of congress as they wade through the Freedmen problems, and the challenges of outside "tribes". The Eastern Band, which is a state corporation, does not have this problem. In addition, the Nation went before congress to disuade them from adding any language to legislation that would recognize a "Cherokee person" rather than a Cherokee tribe.^[1] In doing so they attempted to block any route a person of Cherokee blood would have to be recognized for their heritage, knowing that a great many full blooded Cherokee avoided the Dawes commission for legitimate reasons. The disparity is that many of those who hold office in the Nation, are of much less Cherokee blood than a multitude of those locked out. That has set the stage for many of these tribal groups to attempt to assemble and gain recognition. I say this, even though I myself am a CNO tribal member, a descendant of Trail of Tears survivors, the Moytoys, Nancy Ward and Old Hop. I am very proud to be Cherokee, and my children and grand children reap the benefits. However, the truth about the people gets clouded by agendas on three sides; the federal government, the golddigger phoneys, and those in power in the CNO. I believe the wikipedia article should use carefully defined terms, avoid generalized statements, and use the best possible references. For example, the definition of a "tribe". Odestiny (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Test Edits

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

Moved as The Cherokee Nation

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

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

seeing as how the article is specifically about the cherokee nation(s), the title "cherokee" is much too broad. there are numerous cities named cherokee, as well as stores, restaurants, etc. leaving it as cherokee would hinder any efforts to type in just cherokee, and be redirected to, say, Cherokee, N.C. my view stands. best wishes, Onopearls 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is already a disambiguation page on Cherokee. Cherokee historically refers to a tribe of Indians. The other uses can be (and should be) disambiguated from this term. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cherokee Nationl Youth Choir

Should the Choir be mentioned at all on this page? it is fairly popular and is preserving the language of the principal people. It is also praised often, and will be on national television in the macy's day parade, if i am not mistaken. does anyone objest? Onopearls 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a wonderful suggestion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad Smith

Is there a reason why Chad Smith is criticized numerous times, and some of the things said are definitely just speculation. Onopearls 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not add any of those materials, however, I do agree they appear to be given undue weight. You may remove uncited materials if you feel strongly about it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

before you go deleting something, you might want to check the references again. thanks, Onopearls 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that is in reference to the deletion of the paragraph on HR2824, I had inadvertently included a reference to a former HR2824 (the numbers get reused, there was an HR2824 in the 108th Congress, the 109th Congress, and the current one, in the 110th Congress). The second reference I included was to the correct HR2824. Sorry about the screwup on the first reference, it has been corrected. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These long quotes in Freedmen section are full of redundant rhetoric, and should be summarized. I have done this for Watson, and the same should be done with the two Chad Smith quotes. Incidentally, we shouldn't be using a politicians press release as a source for funding totals; hence I have removed this detail.Proabivouac 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Chief Smith as a "disgraced and disgruntled Keetowah" seems, um, to have a POV issue. -- Charlie (Colorado) 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Can someone familiar with Cherokee history help us out on the "Knoxville Tennessee" history article? Specifically, I'm not sure if we're representing the Treaty of Holston correctly.

Thanks, --128.231.88.7 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Federally-recognized tribe template

Since this article is no longer in the location "Cherokee Nation," it seems to be giving the new template a problem. The template now has as its text, "Cherokee is one of the 561 Indian Tribal Entities within the contiguous 48 States recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs included in the latest list issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior of the United States on March 22, 2007." Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Hack the template to allow for this (apparently unique) deviation in article name? Change the primary article name back to "Cherokee Nation," or make a new article about the tribal entity that is the Cherokee Nation? Other? Poindexter Propellerhead 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still wondering, why is this a single article?

I remain confused about why there is no treatment of the Cherokee Nation as a legal, tribal entity, aside from my little article on the name The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. I find it bothersome in significant ways, as when people need to link to an article about the tribal organization, as well as in little ways, like when it breaks the Federally-recognized tribe template. The Navajo, Ojibwa, and most of the other largest tribes have articles on their various tribal entities, and the UKB and Eastern Cherokee have articles as well. Why not the Cherokee Nation? I would be interested in splitting this article if it doesn't run against consensus. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this was covered in the mediation above. Particularly, note Proabivouac's withdrawn proposal, and his statement that he doesn't see the contemporary existence of a Cherokee people as having seperate usage from the Cherokee Nation[1]. You remember, the exact scope of the article was discussed in the subsection, "Narrow Scope?", which ended when the mediators did not comment, and I was asked by JzG to stop [2]. A later attempt to move this page to "Cherokee Nation" was undone and briefly discussed.

Now that Jeffrey is not allowed to edit for a while, the main proponent for not splitting is gone, but JzG's comment to me seemed to imply that there was consensus against it. I support Poindexter Propellerhead that perhaps this should be further discussed, but I'd like to wait a bit to give some other editors a chance to chime in before the article is split. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from some other editors, too... anyone? Poindexter Propellerhead 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see it as TWO separate articles. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is the largest and the most influential of the three recognized Cherokee Tribes. I find the merge of these two topics "Cheroke" with "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" as an attempt by anti-Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma types to minimize the size and influence of the CNoO. Also, someone placed a category in this article that is something like tribes of Alabama. Yes, the Cherokee once lived in Alabama, just like they once lived in Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, but those places are NOT the dominant places of residence today. I don't see the need for the category at all, but if there must be a category acccording to concensus then Oklahoma and North Carolina are the states that should be mentioned. It is just like this group running around calling themselves the "Texas Cherokees". I live in Texas, but I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, I am not a member of the tribe called the "Texas Cherokee". I am a Cherokee that lives in Texas. Period.--Getaway 12:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wife of Attacullaculla, mother of Dragging Canoe

While working on the Natchez people people I came across the claim that Attacullaculla married a Natchez woman, who became the mother of Dragging Canoe. And lived in Natsi-yi, or "Natchey Town", on present-day Notchy Creek, TN, near the old Overhill Cherokee town of Chota. Dragging Canoe is said to have been born at this Natchey Town, and Attacullaculla lived there in his old age.

I found this info in John P. Brown's 1938 book "Old Frontiers, The Story of the Cherokee Indians from Earliest Times to the Date of Their Removal to the West, 1838". My question is, does anyone know if this info is true or not?

The WP page on Dragging Canoe agrees, but provides no references. The WP page on Attacullaculla says he married Nionne Ollie, a daughter of Oconostota, that she was of the Paint Clan and was the mother of Dragging Canoe. That doesn't sound like a Natchez refugee woman.

Finally, the dates are suspicious. The Natchez diaspora occurred in the 1730s. Brown says that Dragging Canoe's birthplace of Natchey Town dates to "about 1740". The Dragging Canoe page on WP says he was born "ca. 1738". This suggests that Attacullaculla married a Natchez refugee who had only just arrived among the Cherokee, if "Old Frontiers" is correct.

So I thought I'd post this question, did Brown get this wrong in "Old Frontiers"? The book seems pretty good on many points, and is often cited by other books. Thanks! Pfly 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work on your research. I don't know the answer to your question, but there are certainly grounds for skepticism. A good way to handle this, in the absence of more reliable information, would be to write that "according to one historian" (assuming that the others are just copying John P. Brown), Attakullakulla's (or is it Atagulkalv?) mother was Natchez. I don't suppose Brown uses footnotes in his book? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On some matters like this it's nearly impossible to separate history and tradition. Some modern scholars are no longer certain whether Dragging Canoe and Attakullakulla were actually father and son. In the American National Biography entry on Dragging Canoe, historian John Sugden (who questions undocumented tales more often than the average writer of American Indian history) says that Dragging Canoe was the son of White Owl. In the entry on Attakullakulla, James C. Kelly writes merely that Dragging Canoe is "said to be Attakullakulla's son." About Brown's book, Sugden writes: "The most conscientious study of Dragging Canoe is in John P. Brown, Old Frontiers (1938), although some of the details are unreliable." So my guess is that Brown is passing along an unverifiable tradition, which may or may not be true. Hope that helps. —Kevin Myers 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)