Jump to content

Talk:Choctaw/Archives/2020/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Original Research

An authoritative reference must be found for this or else it must be excluded from the article, Etymology: "Choctaw" <= "Autochthon" <= Greek for "Native" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E2A4:13:D15:FF0C:6B34:C3E1 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Just wondering if "occupied by the southeastern United States" is NPOV. Danny—Preceding undated comment added by Danny (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 July 2002 (UTC)

Well, it's quite literally true in the sense of occupying space. Whether that's the intended or likely interpretation, and whether other interpretations are to be considered NPOV, is another question. --Brion VIBBER—Preceding undated comment added by Brion VIBBER (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 July 2002 (UTC)

Funny how everybody who claims descent from any Native American tribe is descended from a "chief" or "leader". Isn't anybody descended from the common run-of-the mill foot soldier? It would be nice to put a name to Meredith's supposed "leader" ancestor. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 July 2002 (UTC)

Heh heh... probably most people are descended from both "leaders" and "common people," somewhere along their family line. --Aaron Walden 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, funny that you're writing about Native American tribes, but don't seem to know much about Native Americans. As a descendent of the Mississippi Band, let me inform you a bit. Leadership in the Choctaw tribe, as in most Native American tribes, was not hereditary but based on skill/ability. With each village having it's own leader and there being many villages, most families probably can trace their lineage back to at least one village leader at some point in time. Also, being descended from native leaders is not the opposite of being descended from "common people" considering the lack of hereditary leadership roles. Most tribes didn't have nobles/commoners as in European society. Even tribes with hereditary leadership would not have expressed the divisions in their societies in that manner, nor would native leaders have looked down on the "common people" as European leaders did. Due to the particularities of native culture, there was very little if any difference (in most tribes) between the standard of living for an average warrior and the chief.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.67.173 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this source, not at all NPOV, the Rogue's Gallery of an integrationist civil rights group, Meredith's "Choctaw" claim came after Meredith endorsed white racist David Duke for Congress and was trying to change his own background in some sad way. In the same speech he said African Americans should be taught English as a Second Language. Source also states that the Mississippi Band of Choctaws is both unassimilated and intact.

Many black people have Indian ancestry, of course, and Meredith says he does too, but this comes from his genealogical research and he says Oprah Winfrey and O.J. Simpson are also Choctaws. Lots of people down South, and elsewhere, claim Indian ancestry.

The web page of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws does not mention any of these notables.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortolan88 (talk) • contribs) 20:21, 28 July 2002 (UTC)

I hope it was not presumptuous of me to strike the last paragraph; it seems that to cite one member is superfluous. Mr. Meredith perhaps belongs on the List of Native Americans page if anyone wishes to restore him.KJ Sam 08:34 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Wondering if this should mention one of the more interesting characteristics of the choctaw language, the presence of different words to indicate "verifiably true" and "second hand/hearsay"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.59.189 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2004 (UTC)

(I've never done this before, I hope this is how it goes)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coilamg (talk) • contribs) 17:07, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

Why does it call them one of "the five civilized tribes"? Are they implying that all of the other American Indian nations are uncivilized, or is it a name that has a story behind it? Did this person mean the Choctaw are one of a main five tribes who were influenced by and/or accepted relations with the invading peoples?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coilamg (talk) • contribs) 17:14, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to remove it and seem too easily offended, but it sounds wrong to me. Besides, who's deciding what's "civilized" anyway? More than likely a nation who's so "civilized" that they take over (and obliterate) other "heathen" nations?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coilamg (talk) • contribs) 18:13, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

I, I am not an it, used the "Five Civilzed Tribes" name because history names the tribes so. I didn't come up with the term. Many tribes intergrated European technology, and many did sucessfully, especially the Cherokee. If it weren't for the State of Georgia's greedy appetite for Cherokee country in the 1800s, there may have well been many advanced Indian Nations on par with Japan, Mexico, Russia, and the U.S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.228.130 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Photo of gravestone shows the named spelled like this : Push-Ma-Ha-Ta - Ted Wilkes 12:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Chocktaw

The article name "Chocktaw" needs to be redirected here. When I entered the actual URL in the Address Bar of the browser, I got a message saying it was not found. Mattderojas 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the name origin. By family mythology. By legend, common in both tribes at one point the Chocktaw and Chickasaw were one people led by two twin brothers Chaca and Chica during the course of there leadership a move to better land was needed and initiated. During the course of the move two attractive alternatives became available and rather than passing on either alternative the tribe decided to split. Half followed Chaca. Half followed Chica. Whether this was mythology in both tribes to explain the closeness of the relationship between the tribes in terms of language and culture, or whether this is a true rendition of an historical event preserved by oral history can probably not be determined at this point. That the legend was present in both tribes (as told to me by my Choctaw grandfather 60,years ago),,plainly indicates that both tribes believed that to be the name origin. 

EdEveridge (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondarily, many common place names have origins in native languages and those that are Choctaw should be mentioned in this article. Specifically, Old man river (grandfather of waters) is Mississippi. EdEveridge (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondarily, many common place names have origins in native languages and those that are Choctaw should be mentioned in this article. Specifically, Old man river (grandfather of waters) is Mississippi. EdEveridge (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Prank

The Choctaw language is spoken of as being related to piglatin. This needs to be fixed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosshe (talk) • contribs) 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

References

We need to get some references for the quotes. I don't know where to begin on some of them (like the Ferguson ones).--Cúchullain t/c 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

In the story about the possum and racoon, the line reads, "There say rd after friendly greetings". That doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what they are trying to imply there. --Royalite—Preceding undated comment added by Royalite (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again on the tracing of lineages to chiefs

I must point out that since, first, chiefdoms were an elected position as far back as even oral histories recount, and second, the size of the tribes are quite small, it is statistically likely that any randomly chosen person of Choctaw lineage will be able to trace their heritage to one or more chiefs. This is the same effect as that in Europe, where after twelve centuries the probability of being descended from Charlemagne is higher than 50%; however, the much lower population of the Choctaw enhances the effect.

Consider the Choctaw population of 1820, just prior to the Removal. There were three chiefs and a population of about 20,000. It is recorded that Pushmataha had five children; let's take that as an average. Therefore your chances of being directly descended from an 1820 chief were about one in 800, never mind earlier chiefs. With each following generation, this probability rises. 3 chiefs x 5 kids x 2 people/couple = 30 people in the first generation whose children could claim 1820 chief lineage. In the second generation, therefore, upwards of a hundred people (statistically speaking) could claim 1820 chief lineage. That rises to several hundred in the next generation, and several thousand in the sixth -- maybe 1 in 20 of the whole of the Choctaw.

And that's just for the three chiefs of 1820. Chiefs changed about once every generation in those days, so every generation is another shot at having a chiefly lineage... and the further back you go, the better the odds get.

So no, being able to trace chiefly lineage is not much of a problem... especially when you take into account the bias that a chiefly lineage is more likely to be remembered in oral tradition than a foot-soldier's. Alba 14:34, 1 December 2006 (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 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanups

19-June-2007: Many Wikipedia articles go unchanged for months; however, other articles (such as "Choctaw") require periodic cleanup to adjust the overall effects of numerous revisions during each period. A common temptation is to substitute "Native Americans" everywhere, but note that the term "Choctaw Indians" is used by the Choctaw people themselves in many publications. The most difficult problems are hidden vandalism, that changes parts of paragraphs or substitutes names in unfamous roles.

  • Spotting problems: To help spot problems, under the "History" tab, use the button "Compare selected versions" to show differences between the top and bottom revision of each page of 50 revisions to check for suspicious edits. Hopefully, cleanups can be done within each 50 edits so that just one top-bottom comparison is needed to find all pertinent changes. However, beware that some botched or axed text can go undetected for months (only found by checking the previous 150 or more revisions).
  • Tag remainder: It is not essential to cleanup the entire article in one day: move the tag "{{cleanup}}" lower in the article, renamed such as tag "{{cleanup-remainder|June 2007}" to indicate progress and enable others to help with the cleanup. -Wikid77 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup June 2007

19-June-2007: During the recent cleanup, I found the following issues (as corrected), comparing with the 14Mar07 revision:

  • under section "Origins" restored intro text from 23Feb07;
  • restored "Choctaw scouts" text from 27Feb07;
  • re-linked various years: 1699, 1876, 1831, 1838;
  • restored code-talker Joseph Oklahombi +source (had become "Josh...");
  • fixed grammar: "will recognized" and "drew" was "draw";
  • fixed new reference: William Bartram, "Travels Through...Country of the Chactaws...", 1791, UNC webpage: UNC-WBartram.
  • added several source footnotes to expanded citation coverage;
  • removed unneeded blank line that scrambled diff-comparison.

After making changes, I moved the tag "{{cleanup}}" lower in the article to become the less-obtrusive tag "{{cleanup-remainder|June 2007}}" as showing some progress. -Wikid77 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

picture?

Ball players by George Catlin

Is this picture with Choctaw? If you are sure, write Category:Choctaw on the picture descripton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.42.148 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The ballplayer on the far left is a Choctaw (Tul-lock-chísh-ko, He Who Drinks the Juice from the Stone) and the far right is a Sioux (Ah-nó-je-nahge, He Who Stands on Both Sides). I'm not sure what tribe the middle player is from, but I'll look it up.Rob (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The middle player is We-chush-ta-do-ta (The Red Man) of the Sioux. George Catlin painted these players (source: Southeastern Indians: Life Portraits, A Catalogue of Pictures 1564-1860). Rob (talk)

Major Revision

During the past few days I have added major sections, corrected errors and inserted images. I will continue to "stream line" the article in a chronological fashion ... please contact me for any issue that needs to be addressed. Rob (talk)

Created Articles

I created sub-articles to condense the main Choctaw article. The size was 75 kilobytes, but now it is down to 59 kb. I moved article specific info to Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma which both were just re-directs to the Choctaw article. I also created a Jena Band of Choctaw Indians and moved info to the MOWA Choctaw article as well.Rob (talk)

First Major Non-European Ethnic Group to Become U.S. Citizens

Can anyone challenge this statement: Under article XIV of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi Choctaws would become the first major non-european ethnic group to become U.S. citizens in 1830-31. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • In 1857, The Dred Scott Decision ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States. It wasn't until 1868 that the 14th amendment granted full U.S. citizenship to African-Americans. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1848, the Mexican-American War, followed by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, extended U.S. control over a wide range of territory once held by Mexico, including the present day states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. The vast majority of Hispanic populations chose to stay and become full US citizens. Rob (talk)
  • In 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed by Congress, was a U.S. law to prevent immigration and naturalization of the Chinese. Legally all ethnic Chinese born in the United States are American citizens as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision. (from wiki article) Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On August 31, 1830 Article 4 of the Treaty with the Chickasaw stated: "The reservations secured under this article, shall be granted in fee simple, to those who choose to remain, and become subject to the laws of the whites." The Chickasaw treaty of 1830 however was NEVER RATIFIED by the U.S. Senate. Rob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Prior to the passage of the act (Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) of June 2, 1924, about two-thirds of the Indians of the United States were already citizens. There were a number of different provisions of law by which or under which Indians became citizens previous to June 2, 1924. Some of the most important ways of their attaining citizenship were as follows:
1. Treaty Provision.—In some of the treaties or agreements with certain tribes of Indians provision was made whereby Indians desiring to become citizens might become such by complying with certain prescribed formalities somewhat similar to those required of aliens ... The above is not intended to be a complete list of the acts of Congress involving the citizenship of Indians, as there are a number of other laws including those affecting particular tribes, but it is believed the foregoing list or statement is sufficient to give a general idea of the main principles or rules that were involved in the determination of whether or not a particular Indian was a citizen prior to the act of June 2, 1924, supra. Source: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol4/html_files/v4p1165.html Rob (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On July 8, 1817 the treaty with the Cherokee was signed and Proclamated on December 26, 1817. Article 8 of said treaty states "and to each and every head of any Indian family residing on the east side of the Mississippi river, on the lands that are now or may hereafter be surrendered to the United States, who may wish to become citizens of the United States ..." Cherokee were most probably the first minority American citizens. Rob (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

GA reviewer thoughts

Well done overall. I'm failing this for now because I think there are too many issues to fix in one week, the period of time recommended for a hold. The main problems were that the referencing was inadequate in some places and there was a little bit of POV wording, which I've discussed below. The suggestions below look like an awful lot, but most of it is very minor stuff that won't be difficult to fix, except for the missing references. Most of it wouldn't stop you from getting GA status, but I noticed it so I figured I'd mention it, since it's stuff you'll have to fix before FAC, which I have no doubt this article can make it through with some work.

A lot of the stuff below I'm not sure about, the things that are phrased as questions may not need fixing in the article, I may just need explanation. Please bear with me on this review, it's my first.

Most of my comments deal with style and prose issues. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't really address accuracy except as a layperson. You may want to approach someone from one of the relevant WikiProjects for another review focusing on content, and/or submit it for a peer review before going for FAC.

Lead

  • The lead has a bunch of sentences that start with "The Choctaw". Can some be reworded to mix it up a little, so it sounds less repetitive?
  • The second to last sentence in the second paragraph of the lead doesn't really fit there. Maybe incorporate it somewhere in the first paragraph?

History

  • Who is Horatio Cushman? How about "Noted historian Horatio Cushman..." or anthropologist, or whatever? Same with Antoine du Pratz and other redlinked or unlinked names. In general, when you first use a name, I recommend that you give a couple words explaining who they were.
  • Should "the gulf shores" be capitalized? Not sure.
  • "The Narváez expedition created a sensation..." Where? In Spain? If so, you might want to switch the second to last and last sentences in this paragraph and alter the wording accordingly.
  • "Soto, convinced of the riches, wanted Cabeza e Vaca to go with him but later declined his offer..." this sentence is a little awkward. Why is riches italicized? And you have a 'him' and a 'his' referring to two different people.
  • is it Soto, De Soto, or de Soto? If it's the latter, I don't know how you'd do that with that at the beginning of a sentence. Hernando De Soto uses 'De Soto' at the beginning of a sentence, but that article's not entirely consistent with the capitalization of the name. Can you check one of your references to see how they do it? The article uses all three, it should be consistent.
  • The wording "aggressively defend" is a little odd, what with the connotation of aggression. Though the meaning is still clear. Maybe just use a similar word to aggressively?
  • Numerical ranges, such as date ranges and page ranges in your references, should have an en dash, not a hyphen.
  • For the sentence beginning, "The Battle of Maubila was a turning point for the De Soto venture..." I assume this battle is the one mentioned in the quote right before it? If it is, you could say something like, "This battle, known as the Battle of Maubila..." If not, could you clarify when & where this battle took place? Are Mabila and Maubila alternate spellings?
  • "The first direct contact recorded between the Choctaw and a European was with Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville in 1699..." I'm confused by this, in the previous paragraph the quote says "Hernando De Soto... made contact with the Choctaws in the year 1540." Were the previous sections discussing contact with the antecedents of the Choctaw? If so, maybe you could say something like, *"The first direct contact recorded between a European and the Choctaw (as opposed to a European and the antecedents of the Choctaw)..." only that wording's kind of clunky.

United States Relations

  • I don't understand the need for this quote: "Ferguson writes, 'nine treaties were signed during a forty-four-year period, from 1786 to 1830. I shall stress the amounts of Choctaw land involved in these treaties, even though they included agreements relating to other matters, because land was the Indians' most valuable resource.'" The first part is a repetition of the previous sentence, and the second is about his own writing. You already quote him a lot, and the article is quite long. Maybe you could briefly paraphrase whatever you need from this quote. There's a lot of quoting in the article, I'd take any opportunity to pare it down.
  • "...warned him that he would fight against those..." another confusing he/him use of
  • "Some sources say Pushmataha was among them, while others disagree" - weasel wording. Just cite sources that argue both sides.
  • "They met with tribal representatives including at Doak's Stand on the Natchez Trace. They met with chiefs, mingos, and headsmen like Colonel Silas Dinsmore and Chief Pushmataha." Repetitive, should be condensed into one sentence.
  • "Jackson finally resorted to threats to pressure the Choctaw to sign a treaty" - This sentence sounds awkward to me, and may have a bit of a POV tint.

Delegation to Washington City (1824)

  • is the wording "half breed Indians" appropriate?
  • "Apuckshunubbee died in Maysville, Kentucky; and Pushmataha died in Washington. Apuckshunubbee was reported to have died from a broken neck caused by a fall from a hotel balcony." Another two sentences that should be combined into one. There are a few cases with this kind of repetitive wording, e.g. "Washington did this. Washington did that." Maybe you should look over the article to make sure I haven't missed any.

Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830)

  • "A provision in the treaty made removal more palatable. Choctaws who eventually choose to remain in their ancient home country signed up for a collective 500 square miles." This was awkward, but I wasn't quite sure how to fix it.
  • I think you're supposed to avoid wikilinks in quotes. Can you integrate these into another part of the section?
  • "More importantly, the treaty signed away the remaining traditional homelands and open it up for official settlement." Awkward.

Removal era

  • The fact that "The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 25, 1831" is repeated.
  • "For the next ten years they were objects of increasing legal conflict, harassment, and intimidation." Do you need this sentence? How about just stating what happened, as the next sentence does? That way you avoid sounding like you're offerring commentary. Same with "Racism was rampant." I think the quotes are very powerful in getting the points across.

Great Irish Famine aid (1847)

  • "...It was an amazing gesture. By today's standards, it might be a million dollars.' according to Judy Allen..." I don't think you're supposed to have a period here, even if it has one in the original quotation. I think it should be a comma, correct me if I'm wrong.
  • "The Choctaws who were expecting support from the Confederates got little." - this would have a different meaning from "The Choctaws, who were expecting support from the Confederates, got little." Which is the article saying? A subset of Choctaws who were expecting support? Or all of the Chocktaws, who were expecting support, got little?

Civil war

  • "Peter Pitchlynn, who was in Washington City in 1861 when the war started, immediately returned home, hoping to escape the expected strife. He had been there to address national affairs of the Choctaws." I already made some changes to these sentences, but they could be tightened up further if they were combined. But they can only be combined if the cited ref says everything in both sentences.
  • I'm not sure, but I think abbreviations like Brig. Gen. should be avoided.
  • "Their most significant event was not conducted on a battlefield but as a rescue mission. After a disastrous train wreck, referred to as the Chunky Creek Train Wreck of 1863, near Hickory, Mississippi, the Choctaw Battalion, which had been organized days earlier, led rescue and recovery efforts." - Who says that event was the most significant? By what standard is the train wreck deemed disastrous? I think it would be better to just give facts rather than commenting in this way. Also, the second sentence is a bit long.
  • "...one impulse-to Vicksburg! to victory..." This should be an em dash, I think.
  • "Maj. S. G. Spann, Commander of Dabney H. Maury Camp of Meridian, Mississippi," It's good that the article introduces him, but it should do it at the first mention of his name.

Post war era

  • "On June 21, 1964 three civil rights workers disappeared" - Easter egg links should be avoided if possible. Is there a way to rephrase this that makes the name of the linked article more clear? (I changed it a tiny bit, but it's still not clear, and the same link comes shortly after in the same section, which should be avoided).
  • "The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 allowed the Choctaws to become official on April 20, 1945." What does "become official" mean?
  • I don't know if wording like "dire straits" and "plight" are quite neutral. Could you instead just describe what it was they witnessed, or what they said? (The quote by Will Campbell does that well, I think)
  • "The Choctaws, who for 150 years had been neither white nor black, were left where they had always been." This wording doesn't sound neutral to me.
  • " Donna Ladd wrote a Choctaw, now in her 40s, remembers 'as a little girl..." I found this confusing. Maybe "Donna Ladd wrote that a Choctaw..."?
  • "...the charred remains of the murdered Mississippi civil rights worker's station wagon was found..." Did the car belong to one of them, or all of them? If it's one, maybe "the charred remains of one of the murdered Mississippi civil rights workers'..." If all of them, "the charred remains of the murdered Mississippi civil rights workers'..."

Recent history

  • "The 1970s was a crucial and defining decade for the Choctaw." This sounds like it's offerring commentary. At the very least, it should be sourced, but really the article should just say what happened rather than making general comments like this.
  • Similarly, instead of saying "This law revolutionized the relationship between Indian Nations and the federal government," just say what it did and what effects it had, and let the reader decide. There's other wording like this in this section too.

Other sections

  • Culture is pretty sparse, is that really all there is to say on the topic? Is there a main article to link to? What about food, religion, family structure, etc?
  • Under Influential leaders, it would be great to get birth and death dates (or approximate dates, if these aren't known), but if this is way too much work, it's not a big deal.

Images

  • The images are great, they really enhance the article.
  • Image:Pushmataha high resolution.jpg tagged but missing description.
  • Image:ChoctawFlag.png is marked as pd-self, which I don't think is valid, because I doubt the uploader really owns the copyright. I don't think making a reproduction of the flag means that you have the copyright of that reproduction. You may have to do some kind of fair use thing like we do with logos, but you'll have to check with someone more clueful about image stuff.
  • I believe only captions with full sentences need periods, maybe double check the WP:MOS.

Referencing

  • Cite needed tags: In 1959, the Choctaw Termination Act was passed.[citation needed] Unless repealed by the federal government, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma would effectively be terminated as a sovereign nation as of August 25, 1970.[citation needed] I also added a couple myself. Not trying to be a jerk, just thought it would be easier than bringing it up here. All quotations need citations, as do all statistics (e.g. 500 warriors). Also, for some statements, e.g. the 'reading between the lines' one, it wasn't clear whether this has been written somewhere or whether the article's author is inferring it, so I marked them as cn. If it's the latter, these statements should be removed. The inadequate referencing is really the only serious deal breaker for this GA.
  • You might want to fix the dates in the refs so they read February 28, 2008, not Feb 28, 2008. Some of the refs have the date format as "Retrieved on 2007-09-20", I recommend choosing one and having it consistent.
  • Some of the refs need to be fleshed out, e.g. with author, publisher, publication date, and access date for web refs, and books preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.
  • I recommend not having a space between punctuation and references, as does the Guide for nominating good articles. I started on some of these.
  • Entirely unsourced sections include Post Columbian era, Choctaw#Le Moyne d'Iberville (1699), Impact of Old World diseases Territory transition to statehood (1889), and Influential leaders. I would recommend including, at the very least, one source for these sections. If it's the same source as for the next section, I would recommend putting that reference again at the end of the last sentence to indicate that. If it's a summary, you can use the {{main}} template.

General

  • Dependent clauses should be separated by commas, I may have gotten all of these, but maybe check.
  • There was a fair amount of redundant wording throughout the article, you can look at my edits for an idea of what I'm talking about (e.g. "in the year of 1828", year of is unnecessary). I'd recommend a copyediting with a view toward removing redundancy. You can check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy for help.
  • There should be a non breaking space between numbers and units (e.g. 8,000&nbsp;km, not 8,000 km)
  • Problems with flow: Sometimes sections seem to move kind of abruptly from one to the next. How about adding a transitional sentence onto the end of the section to prepare the reader for the next paragraph? The last sentence in Impact of Old World diseases is good; even though there's a gap in time, it prepares the reader for the next section.
  • I'm probably not the best to judge, but I don't know if all the detail is necessary, e.g. on the explorers under Post Columbian era. That was only tangentially related to the antecedents of the Choctaw, not the Choctaw themselves. Maybe this could be combined into one section and pared down. Paring would be good, since the article is quite long.
  • Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone.

Most of the stuff I've mentioned here isn't that vital to GA status, but together some of the awkward wording creates a problem for well-writtenness (how's that for a well written sentence? XD). The main problems that I'm failing it on are the lack of referencing and the occasional use of wording that sounds POV, which I've discussed. In addition, there are some problems with flow and excessive or inadequate detail, which I've also mentioned.

I'm sorry to be so picky with the article, it really is quite good. It was obviously written by someone who knows a ton about the subject and worked very hard on it. I think you'll be able to address these things without much problem, definitely let me know if you need more clarification or help. delldot talk 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review ... I will address these points, but it will take some time as you have pointed out. This is the first time I have heavily contributed to a Wikipedia article ... This explains my lack of nuance and technical understandings for getting a article up to GA status. Thanks again. Rob (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, you've done fine so far, take your time. Drop me a note if you need anything. delldot talk 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Choctaw Bell painting and other visuals

WOW! great job with the visuals.

I am 1/2 Native American and I loved looking at all these pics, etc. They have realistic skin tones, etc. And the photos are good too. --- Noleeya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.77.180 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-submitted article

I have resubmitted, after working on the recommendation from Delldot, this article for GA status. Rob (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Choctaw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I will review this article. Please be patient; it'll take a while. I will probably report back in segments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the early sections.

  • Lead
    • First sentence has two facts: the Choctaw originate from the south-eastern states, and they are of the Muskogean linguistic group. Punctuation is necessary to separate these.
    • "..may have derived from.." would be better: "may derive from"
    • "…meaning wineglass or flat" reads very oddly, when the terms are so unrelated. I suggest a comma after "chato", then: "which can mean 'wineglass', or alternatively, 'flat'"
    • "it is widely believed…" by whom? Citation required
    • "are believed to have encountered.." Ditto
    • First sentence of para 2 is clumsily worded and the grammar is wrong. Also, independence was from the British Crown, not the British Empire – "empire" is a collective term for the colonies. I’d simplify: "During the American Revolution most Choctaws supported the thirteen colonies' bid for independence from the British Crown". Unless this is cited later in the article this statement should be cited here.
    • Next sentence is incomprehensible. What were these treaties, when were they signed, what was their purpose? How come we now have Choctaw "exiles"? Also, even with the link I think Jackson should be referred to as "President Andrew Jackson".
    • The last sentence of the lead is confusing, and probably violates WP:Lead: "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them".
  • New World antiquity
    • Paleo-indians appears with and without hyphen. Which is correct?
    • The first "the" in the opening sentence is superfluous. Also, "in what today is referred to as the South" is Americo-centric. Suggest: "in what today, in the US, is referred to as the South".
    • What is a "fairly generalized" hunter-gatherer?
    • This sentence needs a comma after "animals", and the word "soon”" is superfluous
    • In the following sentence, need to clarify that "they" refers to the Choctaw, not the mammoths
    • "Cushman writes:" requires a colon rather than a comma, same where you have "Cushman continues:" However, this quote from Cushman is pretty dreadful in terms of sentence construction and punctuation. I can't work out who/what the various theys and thems are. I'd chuck the quote – it lowers the tone of the article.


  • Origin tradition
    • This section needs to be made into a more coherent entity.
    • I can't understand why the sentence beginning “Despite…” – is a “despite” sentence.
    • Give dates of Romans and Catlin quotes, and integrate them into the narrative
    • Nanih Waiya needs explaining, as well as the link (the link should be to provide more information, but the term should be defined or explained)
    • Moundville and Plaquemine should be followed by commas, not semi-colons.

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another portion:-

  • Post Columbian
    • As with Nanih Waiya, "Mississippian culture" needs a brief explanation in the text, rather than just the link. "The Mississippian mound-building culture" might do.
    • The word "that" is superfluous in the second sentence
    • General readers may wonder what "the gulf shores”" means. Which gulf?
    • "The political centres of the Mississippians" needs explaining
  • Panfilo de Narvaez: Is this subsection necessary? Insofar as this information relates to the Choctaw, it could be reduced to a single linking sentence.

RESOLVED TO THIS POINT

  • Hernando De Soto
    • Who was he? He should be properly introduced.
    • "were known by the antecedents" might be better as "became known to the…"
  • Impact of Old World Diseases: Basically, this subsection says that there's no evidence for something. So why mention it at all? I can't see a need for it. Also, the last two sentences are not related to the subsection, and the last is uncited opinion.
  • Le Moyne d’Iberville
    • Re first direct contact with a European…what about the Choctaws who feasted and danced with De Soto?
      • The Choctaw were not known as the Choctaw when they came into contact with DeSoto.
    • Link Louisiana
    • "Illegal fur trading may have led to…" Sentence needs a citation
    • The scenario that follows must also be cited.
  • United States relations
    • Henry Knox – who he?
    • Since he is writing about Washington rather than Jackson, I suggest that Remini becomes merely "noted historian.
    • Why are civilize and presents italicized?
    • "bided with" (meaning "went along with") sounds very archaic in BritEng – perhaps it's a popular term in AmEng? Otherwise, try "accepted"
    • Comma needed after "during the war".
    • Introduce Tecumseh
  • Hopewell
    • Taboca – who is he?
    • friendship is one word. If it’s two words in the quote, write (sic) after.
  • War of 1812
    • Tecumseh came where?
    • Introduce Pushmataha (I know he’s in the lead image, but that was a long time ago, and I’ve forgotten)
    • "Kantachi, or Econochaca" suggests uncertainty as to place. "Kantachi, otherwise called…" would clarify
    • "Many of them departed…." Who departed, what did they depart from?

More later

Third instalment: This will take us to about half way. I will pause until I get some response from the editors.

  • Treaty of Dancing Rabbit
    • Who is General Leflore (or LeFlore)?
    • You must not introduce phrases like "where the rabbits go to dance" in an encyclopaedia article.
    • You need to sort out grammar and tenses in the sentence which begins "The treaty signed away…"
    • Italicized emphasis is unnecessary on "first", in a neutral encyclopaedia article
  • Removal era
    • Sort out the Joseph Cobb quote. Which parts of the sentence did he actually say? What do you think is the meaning of the odd phrase: "the red man’s superior in every way"?
      • everything he said is in quotes. I'm not sure what the phrase means. The point the sentence is trying to make is Choctaw are inferior. Rob (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, over to you for a reaction. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No reaction yet from you. This is the remaider of my review. Please leave a note on my talkpage when you are ready to engage.

  • Territory transition: After the very detailed history you have previously provided, this very brief section is all there is, covering a 50-year period up to 1914. This seems strange; did nothing else of note happen in that time?
  • World War II
    • "they did not have the amenities that other citizens had". What were they lacking?
    • A Second Lieutenant and Sgt? How come? Also, comma required after “Infantry Division”
      • Done
  • Post-war era: The prose in this section is muddled. First sentence is ungrammatical.
    • Introduce Philip Martin in text, not just in caption
    • Who is Will Campbell, and where does his quote end?
    • Phrases like "were left where they had always been" are too vague and informal for an encyclopedia article.
  • Recent history: This section is unbalanced by far too much information about the casino project.

I’ll look at the minor sections at the end later. At this point, I have to say that the article is a long way from being of good article standard. Many of the points raised above are minor, and can be fixed quickly, but some are indicative of more serious faults. The main problems are: your repeated failure to introduce people other than by links; serious in-line citation omissions, as noted; generally poor prose which is often difficult to read; over-detailing in some areas and scant detail in others. Please leave me a note when you have had the chance to deal with the specific matters I have raised.

Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I attended a seminar for the last two weeks and now I'm ready to edit once again ... Thanks for the article review. I need time to go through it as it is, once again, a long list. Rob (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You obviously have time problems, so to help out, I've fixed most of the minor points myself - see above. It reduces the list a bit. If you are likely to have real problems in dealing with the outstanding issues within the next few days, please leave me a note here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the lead ... does it make more sense to you? Rob (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, looking better. More to come? Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
New World antiquity section completed. I'll address all sections that need to be improved. Rob (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has now been on review for nine days, with much still to do. There must be a time limit. I propose to close the review on 24 June; let me know without delay if this is a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I'll have time this weekend to review it. Rob (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You might want to close the review. I can't finish the article today. In the mean time I'll continue to enhance the aritcle. Rob (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It pains me to close, but I think I have no choice; the review has been open for two weeks and there is still a raft of issues outstanding, and it is likely to be some time before they are settled. This is basically a thoroughly worthwhile article which will easily make it through GA when you can finally give it the time it needs. I hope you will bring it back soon.

Against the GA crieria:-

  • Well-written: Still more work to do - marginal Fail
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: Important citations missing - Fail
  • Broad coverage: Pass
  • Neutral: Pass
  • Stable: Pass
  • Images: Pass
  • Overall: Reluctant Fail

Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Line of succession to the Choctaw throne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The subject of the new article Line of succession to the Choctaw throne is not notable enough to stand on its own. To avoid sending this to Articles for Deletion, I'm recommending merging it into this article. I wanted to get a feel from editors of this article first though. Do you think the article should stand on its own? Do you think it should be merged here? Merged elsewhere? Be deleted? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any references that say Jack Thomas Whitener is head of the Chotctow household, can any of the people listed be found in published genealogies, are there any references for the succession laws. If not I would say the article should be deleted. The user (David James Cathers?) who created the article has only in addition edited the UK line of succession article, and those edits have rightly been removed so I am suspicious as to the truthfulness of the Line of succession to the Choctaw throne ‎article. - dwc lr (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familar with a "line of succession" in Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma; however, the LeFlores were a notable family in Mississippi. I'll need to do some research before I can give a recommendation on what to do within the next week so that I go through my sources. 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)~
Hi. Line of succession to the Choctaw throne is clearly AfD material, on several grounds: 1. Original research; 2. No sources are given to support the genealogy nor its completeness; 3. the sources given suggest that the office of chief was at least partly elective, and so a line of speculative succession based on heredity seems pretty pointless. Cheers, Doops | talk 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest deletion. There is nothing about Choctaw "royalty." Sounds like a Mardis Gras "thing" to me (http://www.kreweofchoctaw.com). Only info I found was about Thomas Leflore, a cousin to Greenwood Leflore. Info about Thomas Leflore can be found here: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v017/v017p007.html Rob (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If it doesn't get properly sourced by the 12th, I'm going to gut it then propose its deletion. I figure if the original author doesn't improve it by then he won't deprod it. If he does, that's what AfD is for. On the other hand, if he does source not only the genealogy but that this was intended to be a dynastic office, then it should stay or be merged here. I'd much prefer a merger than a stand-alone article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prod for Line of succession to the Choctaw throne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The author made some minor changes earlier this week. He may or may not come back in time to de-prod it, but he can request it be ressurrected later. If it's de-prodded or comes back without being improved I plan on sending it to WP:AfD for deletion. If you can improve the article, now is the time. If you plan on participating in future AfD discussions, now is the time to watchlist the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It got deprodded quickly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD for Line of succession to the Choctaw throne

The article is now up for AfD (discuss). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-submitted article for a third review

I have submitted this article for the third time for GA review. Rob (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

de Soto

Wasn't sure where to add this, saw it mentioned above, but didn't want to insert it into the middle of other comments. It should be Hernando de Soto. If occuring in the middle of a sentence without the first name, it is de Soto. The "d" should only be capitalized if it begins a sentence such as De Soto did this or that. Hope that helps. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Same should prolly be done to Ponce de Leon as well. Actually, any name such as Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, which has a d', or de, or du, should all be the same (d'Ibervilles is correct already). I believe they all mean of, such as Ponce of Leon, etc. Not proper name, just a descriptive. Article's looking good tho. Nice work. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for the barnstar! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Headers with years

To help people who don't have a firm grasp on history, it would be useful to have headers such as Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction (1865-1877) include spans of years, rather than just the starting year. Also, there is no adequate way to express the period following Reconstruction to WWI except to name it, or perhaps call it late 19th century, or have years, such as 1880-1900. This may also help strengthen the article by relating issues in Choctaw history to the larger US history when it affected the people - for instance, some of the problems the Mississippi Choctaws encountered were not because of federal government policy, but because they were minority citizens living in a state that imposed racial segregation in the late 19th century, and disfranchised all minority and many poor whites. The Democrats created a white supremacist, one-party state government that lasted for decades into the 20th century. The complexity should be addressed. I made such changes to headers yesterday and someone put back only the starting years of multi-year events.--Parkwells (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Year spans are usually expressed in the paragraph, I see no need to address them in headers ... this is a minor point and I can agree to such recommended changes. Rob (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede - Deracinate vs. remove

In the second paragraph, an editor has written "the treaties were intended to deracinate the Choctaw west of the Missisippi River." I would argue for using "remove Choctaws to the west of the Mississippi" instead, as the verb "remove" is more commonly associated with the Indian Removal. Wikipedia is supposed to be for general readers. Also, I think it's useful to be clear they were being moved to the west of the Mississippi River, so people don't think this was about choctaws already living west of the Mississippi. Merriam-Websters' Dictionary notes deracinate means: "to remove or separate from a native environment or culture  ; especially : to remove the racial or ethnic characteristics or influences from". For this use in the lede, I think "remove" is more accurate.--Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Deracinate is a better word choice. Deracinate implies the complexity of U.S./Choctaw relations in regards to assimilation, land exchange, population transfer, and all the other terms discussed in the three treaties. OK
Deracinate means to "pull up by the roots; uproot; extirpate; eradicate" or "to isolate or alienate (a person) from a native or customary culture or environment." The last definition is especially true for those who didn't remove west of the Mississippi River. The coerced Choctaws were isolated from Mississippi society environment.
The lede seems to suggest deracination happened to the ones who did move west, and doesn't really address effects on those who stayed in MS.--Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Even Wikipedia defines deracination as: "Forced migration (also called deracination) refers to the coerced movement of a person or persons away from their home or home region. It often connotes violent coercion, and is used interchangeably with the terms "displacement" or forced displacement. A specific form of forced migration is population transfer, which is a coherent policy to move unwanted persons, perhaps as an attempt at "ethnic cleansing". Someone who has experienced forced migration is a "forced migrant" or "displaced person".
Deracinate is the exactly what happened to the Choctaw; they didn't simply just "remove." Rob (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought "remove" in this case implied all the effects, not that it was supposed to be simple. --Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes

Lots of direct quotes are unsourced all over the article. These should be removed. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, sourced if possible. No need to remove valid info if it can be citedHeironymous Rowe (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Romans quotation, and Post-Reorganization section

I have replaced the modern "f" character that was used as Romans' 18th century archaic long-s character form with the modern, equivalent "s", in order to avoid confusing readers. It sounds much better now.

Such typographical correction of quotations, when dealing with characters not present in the modern English language, is permitted. MOS:Quotations

Further I don't think the last paragraph in the Civil Rights Era contributes to the article. Two Choctaws served as witnesses in a Civil Rights murder. I don't think that rises to the level of significance necessary to justify inclusion in an article encompassing the entire history of the Choctaw people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page, so as to keep the discussion on this page in chronological order. I agree with the changes of the archaic "f" for the modern "s". Although I will keep out of the discussion concerning the civil rights ers. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Choctaw/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LEAD, the article's lead section should be no more than 4 paragraphs
  • The article is quite long, and contains many (inconsistently formatted) blockquotes, some of which should be removed or better incorporated
  • There are a number of citation-needed tags
  • References are inconsistently formatted, and some consistent only of bare URLs - see WP:CITE
  • Please see WP:NPOV - article should be more neutrally worded

For these reasons, I'm going to decline to list the article at this time. I would encourage you to renominate once the above issues have been addressed. You might also consider seeking peer review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Flatheads

Kinda ridiculous to have a people so well-known for their head-flattening that they're named for the practice (even in a region where others like the Attacapa performed it,) and not even mention it in the article or link to the main page. I know there's a separate Choctaw culture page, but there should be more treatment here. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  • A sentence was added about head flatening in the culture section ... I don't think they are well-known for head-flattening except to historians ... many Choctaw tribal members are not aware of the fact nor does the general public know. Rob (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Chahta is not the choctaw word for flat, head or Flathead. Please Edit and remove.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.229.192 (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Half-breed

I believe the statement "Peter Pitchlynn was a half-breed Choctaw who is buried in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C., 1834, Smithsonian American Art Museum" should be reviewed or discussed since half-breed is an offensive term to many Native Americans. The term is actually refered as offensive in ethnic slurs and it's main article page. cReep (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've switched use of the term for the more neutral "mixed race". You are right, there is no especial need to use such a term when the more technical and neutral definition is available. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed - Someone Please Fix It

A citation needed tag is on with reference to the Irish President's address to the Choctaw Nation (Pre-Civil War 1840 section of the article). I tried to insert a cite, but w/o success - it kept returning a 404. If someone can fix it, I'd appreciate it. No point in my posting it here, because my link obviously fails in some respect - but, if you click the link that is ref 13 - and from that page click the link, in upper left corner to 'Gift to Ireland Page', there one will find a link to the needed cite. Thanks. Irish Melkite (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, it would be great if someone could get the text of the plaque on Dublin's Mansion House that acknowledges the contribution. It reads, in part ... "Their humanity calls us to remember the millions of human beings throughout our world today who die of hunger and hunger-related illness in a world of plenty." Irish Melkite (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to fix the cite, but decided to check it first, got this [1], a message that no such page exists, so reverted to before your attempts to add the cite. Find a working cite and it can be added. Maybe you misspelled something when you copyied out the web address? Heiro 03:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Go to reference #13 of the entry & click its link - and then from that page click the Gift to Ireland Page link in upper left', On the Gift to Ireland Page there are 3 links - one of them specifically references the Irish President's comments to the Choctaw Nation - click it and you'll be at the page which provides the needed citation. Sorry to be so round-about, but it's the only way that I can get to it - pasting any of the intervening links here for you will only result in you getting another 404 when you click on them. Irish Melkite (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Got it, go check and make sure it works for you, it seems to be from here. As for the cite you tried to add, you didnt seem to be putting <ref> and </ref> on either end of the cite, which is the coding that makes it show up in the reflist. See here for examples of how to do citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)#How to use and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference. Cheers, Heiro 08:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it and for the link Irish Melkite (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Nanih Waiya.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nanih Waiya.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nanih Waiya.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Choctaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choctaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Choctaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Choctaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggest restructuring by standard format

Many of the articles for Native American tribes, such as for the Cherokee, have one for the historic people and their ancestors, and one for each of the federally recognized tribes and state-recognized tribes that formed after Indian Removal, relocation to reservations, or other major changes. As this article is very long, I think it might benefit from being split into an article about the historic Choctaw people (before Indian Removal in the 1830s), and the tribes that are recognized in Oklahoma and elsewhere. What do people think?Parkwells (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a great idea. Heiro 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Choctaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Roles of Women

I am working on an update to this page focusing on women's roles and contributions in the Choctaw Tribe and how they were redefined along the years. Kingsley114 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Tocqueville quotes

Hello, i am uncertain about the Tocqueville quote, I don't think it comes from Democracy in America : here it is the part about the Choctaws : Democracy in America I, part two p.147 there is no mention about the Tocqueville's question and the Choctaw's answer "to be free".

We can find this quote here : Civil Society in Comparative by Bernard Enjolras who is quoting a Tocqueville's letter to his mother, fund in Tocqueville in America by Geogre Wilson Pierson.

If you are agree, can you change the source ? I am french and a beginner on Wikipedia, and I don't want to edit english articles for the moment.

--Fiselenn (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Contact Era

Referring to the period in which the Choctaw encountered Europeans as simply the "Contact Era" expresses a Eurocentric view of Choctaw history. In fact, the Choctaw had contact with other peoples and nations prior to Europeans. Perhaps consider slightly altering the language to reflect that contact occurred with Europeans Marylecesne (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Choctaw/Archives/2020/October&oldid=1234178972"