Talk:Melungeon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Paul Heinegg

"According to the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, a 1950 dissertation by Edward Price, a cultural geographer, documented that Melungeons were families descended from free people of color and mixed-race unions in colonial Virginia.[3] Beginning in 1995, the researcher Paul Heinegg has published extensive documentation of his research into numerous families of free people of color in the Upper South, beginning with those listed in the censuses of 1790-1810 in Virginia and North Carolina, whose descendants migrated into Kentucky and Tennessee. He found that most could be traced to free mixed-race families formed of descendants of unions between white women and African men in colonial Virginia.[4] They migrated along with European American neighbors to frontier areas, where they found less restrictive racial conditions. In some cases, he found that descendants consistently "married white", and had children of increasingly European-American or white appearance. Heinegg has frequently updated his book and online version of data."

Nothing in this mentions Melungeons The sources does not mention Melungeons either so this should be removed. We should only use stuff in a article about melungeons which is directly about Melungeons.

The person who added this attempted to use "free person of color" to mean african american when the law stated Free Person of color was not just african american, it was a catch all term.

"This Court among other things instructs the jury as follows. Persons that are known and recognized by the Constitution and laws of Tennessee, as free persons of color are those who by the act of 1794 section 32 are taken and deemed to be capable in law to be certified in any case what is in, except against each other or in the language of the statute " all Negroes, Indians, Mulattoes, and all persons of mixed blood descended from Negro or Indian ancestors to the third generation inclusive though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person, white bond or free". " Instructions to the Jury Joshua F. PERKINS vs John R. WHITE http://jctcuzins.org/pam/perkins/jury.html

So Free person of color would mean any race that was not pure white. Either way the paragraph should be removed as it does not mention Melungeons at all nor does the sources used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Since the late twentieth century, the researchers Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia DeMarce have conducted additional historic research in censuses, land deeds, court records, etc. to document that many multi-racial groups, later sometimes called tri-racial isolates, who during the nineteenth and early twentieth century were found in frontier areas, were descendants of families of free people of color formed in colonial Virginia. [9] At the time, most colonists were indentured servants from the British Isles. Beginning in the early 17th century, colonists imported African indentured servants and slaves. In the early period, the working classes of indentured servants, slaves and free workers lived and worked closely together, leading to marriages and unions.[4] The historian Ira Berlin has described the first generation of African-descended people in Virginia as the "charter generation." He has noted that some were the multiracial descendants (usually men), who were the children of Portuguese and Spanish men active in the slave trade, and African women in the slave ports. Some of the men arrived as free laborers, having accompanied Europeans. Others were imported as slaves.[10]"

This should be removed as well, as Melungeons have never been found in slave or servant records. This is in a section for the Origins of "Melungeons" yet this section is not discussing "Melungeons". Since Melungeons have never been found in slave records, it makes no sense why this is even in a article on Melungeons. Unless someone can find a slave record for Melungeons then it should be removed and anything pertaining to slaves. This mentions slaves and indentured servant and leads towards African americans, however the original slaves in Virginia was Native Americans, Irish, Portuguesse, people from India, etc etc. Either way it does not pertain to Melungeons as Melungeons was never slaves.

I looked at he Virginia DeMarce source used, only thing is says about Melungeons is they was mixed race, then it discusses indians, then it mentions the Melungeons being Saponi indians. http://www.genpage.com/DeMarce.pdf

So not really sure why the actual Melungeon section of that source was not used and instead something was used in replace of what the source says on the Melungeons. What that sources says is "Saponi, who appeared in Orange county, Virginia, on the lands of Governor Spotswood as late as 1742-43- including the Bowling and Collins names later found among Tennessee Melungeons." This is speaking about the Saponi indians. Then it mentions tri-rcial groups in reference to white, black, and indian mixture in equal portions.

I looked at the Paul Heinegg source, could not find the word Melungeon used at all, so clearly that can't be used as a source to this article. http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/

So clearly this stuff needs to be removed and the Demarce reference needs to be re worded to the "exact" way the source states in relation to Melungeons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I re checked the DeMarce source, I see it says it was a a personal Essay, I do not see anything showing it was published or peer reviewed, or anything of that nature. I am not exactly sure what the website hosting it is other than it says "A Comprehensive Collection of Online Published Articles". On that website that was used as a source is a Article on Melungeons which states "Conclusions Solid genealogical study of Melungeon ancestry overwhelmingly leads to a simple conclusion. The primary genetic makeup of Melungeons - that which gives them their Melungeon physical characteristics - comes from certain Native American tribal genetic lines. Careful genealogical research, working backward from universally accepted Melungeons, shows their ancestral lines go back to Native Americans. The truth may not be as exciting as having an unsolved conundrum but the truth is that Melungeons almost certainly are descendants of the intermarriage of Native Americans with old-world colonists. This isn't an opinion. This is a scientific conclusion. They aren't Portuguese. They aren't Turks. They are Native Americans." The Melungeon Mystery Solved by James S. Elder http://www.theworldthrumyeyes.com/conclusions.html http://www.genpage.com/genealogyDNA.html

As you can clearly see it is on the same website that the Virginia Demarce source was gotten from. However as stated I do not see how Genpage can be used as a reliable wikipedia standard source. So that does need to be reviewed to see if the source can even be used on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"A common myth about the Melungeons of East Tennessee was that they were an indigenous people of Appalachia who lived there before the arrival of the first white settlers. Scholars have documented by a variety of historic records that the earliest Melungeon ancestors migrated from Virginia, as did their Anglo-American neighbors. Paul Heinegg has traced families of free people of color in the censuses of 1790–1810 for Virginia and the Carolinas, and found that most were descended from people of color who were free in Virginia in colonial times. They were the descendants of working-class white women (who were indentured servants or free) and African men (free, indentured servants or slaves). A minority were descended from slaves who had been manumitted, some as early as the seventeenth century.[4]"

Again this is using the same source which never had Melungeon mentioned. Since this source is not saying "Melungeons" then it can not be used in a article about Melungeons or else we could just use anything. This article needs to stick specifically to sources that specifically says "Melungeon". We can not find articles online and then say...I guess this is about the people this article is about and then use it for the article. So clearly this section needs to be removed as well.

"Edward Price noted in an 1951 article that, beginning in the early 1800s, or possibly before, the term Melungeon was applied as a pejorative by others about a group of about 40 families along the Tennessee-Virginia border. At the time, the group did not claim the term; it was applied by outsiders, as were other terms in other places for various mixed-race grups."

I looked at this source and it says "An especially important scholarly work emerged in 1950 in the form of cultural geographer Edward Price's dissertation on "Mixed-Blood Populations of the Eastern United States as to Origins, Localizations, and Persistence." Children of European and free black unions had intermarried with persons of Native American descent. These conclusions have been largely upheld in subsequent scholarly and genealogical studies." and just above that it says "In 1894 the U.S. Department of the Interior, in its Report of Indians Taxed and Not Taxed, noted that the Melungeons in Hawkins County "claim to be Cherokee of mixed blood." http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=888

So this again says they are white, black, AND Native American. Yet the person who added this as a source deliberately left the "Native American" part out. So that sourced section needs to be reworded to show what the source actually says. This source clearly says NOT SLAVES, yet the source was used to show only Whites who mixed with black slaves....defiently needs the actual source worded put in to replace what was added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

" Like Price and Heinegg, the genealogist Roberta Estes and her fellow researchers, reporting in 2012, theorize that the various Melungeon lines likely originated in the unions of black and white indentured servants living in Virginia in the mid-1600s before slavery.[6] They conclude that as laws were put in place to penalize the mixing of races, the family groups could only intermarry with each other. They migrated together from western Virginia through the piedmont frontier of North Carolina before settling primarily in the mountains of East Tennessee.[11]"

As showed earlier....this is NOT what Price stated....price stated "Children of European and free black unions had intermarried with persons of Native American descent." Nothing about indentured servant...nothing about slaves....and Price said Native americans was clearly a equal part of their mixture....so again this needs to be reworded to how the actual source said. Also as noted earlier, Paul Heinegg NEVER mentioned Melungeon so again that defiently needs reworded or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Heinegg traced the Joshua Perkins family of Johnson County, Tennessee and its descendants, finding that successive generations of the family married white or mulatto people, which led to increasingly European-American or white appearance and proportion of ancestry among their descendants.[4]"

This should be removed as it does not pertain to Melungeons. Joshua Perkins was never called a Melungeon. He was suing a guy for calling him a Negro NOT Melungeon. His Perkins male DNA line came back as European also. The court case in full can be found here http://jctcuzins.org/pam/perkins/ As you clearly see this was not about Melungeons and thus should be removed from a article about Melungeons. We need to this article to stick to just the facts not a editor's Theories.

"She and Paul Heinegg have found historical documentation in court records, land deeds and other materials showing that most Melungeon ancestors were free people of color, who were descended from marriages and unions between working-class European-American women (making them free at birth) and men of African descent."

Again should be removed as the Paul Heinegg source did not mention Melungeon.

"The Internet sources on the group suggest that in the hills of East Tennessee is an enclave of people, likely of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern origin, who have been in the area since before the arrival of the first white settlers. But, such romantic fictions find no support among academic historians, genealogists, and the Melungeon DNA Project. The historian Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce, former president of the National Genealogical Society and author of several articles on the Melungeons, said in a 1997 interview with NPR:

"It's not that mysterious once you...do the nitty gritty research one family at a time...basically the answer to the question of where did Tennessee's mysterious Melungeons come from is three words. And the three words are Louisa County, Virginia."[33] "

This again is NOT in the source listed so should be removed.....here is the source used for that and you can clearly see what is stated is NOT on the source. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1007531

The source only says "Most of us probably haven't heard of the Melungeons—but they're a group that lives primarily in the mountains of Tennessee and Virginia. THEY say they're descendend from Portugese sailors—others say they're descended from a lot of different ethnic groups. Wayne Winkler reports from member station WETS in Tennessee about how Melungeons themselves are discovering more about their origins " clearly not what the wikipedia editor said the source stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say 7 days should be plenty enough time for someone to show reason for these to stay in the Melungeon article as this subject has came up numerous other times and so far no one has shown a reason for this stuff to stay in the article. Everytime this comes up the only thing the editors who added this stuff do is they start talking about indian stuff should be removed and draws attention away from this issue. This article has been used for people's personal agendas far too long and it is time we get this article up to a more professional unbiased standard. This article is about Melungeons and it should be strictly Melungeon stuff without any editors personal theories or agendas or irrelevant stuff.

People should study the court cases the Melungeon people have been in, these state and supreme court cases are public information, they explaine why alot of these things in this article do not pertain to Melungeon people. Numerous things put in this article has been thrown out of state and supreme court cases for obvious reasons yet somehow is being added to this article as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Roanoke Lost Colony

The Lost Colony DNA Project is separate from the main article: Roanoke Colony so maybe the Melungeon DNA article should be separate from the main Melungeon article as well. I agree that the current Melungeon DNA article is useless but maybe someone who knows more about DNA and genetics that I do could rewrite it. Risssa (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Gypsies?

The Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups says: "…it has been suggested that the Melungeons of Tennessee may be of Romani ancestry." Historian932 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just like many of the other romantic origins theories, it's pure speculation, with no evidence at all.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark eyes

I wanted to question the description of the Melungeons as having "dark ...eyes." One of the main reasons the Melungeons used to be attributed to any number of odd racial origins (Portuguese, or "Lost" Jamestown colonists, etc.) was blue eyes. Not all, but many Melungeons in the East Tennessee hills, have blue eyes. These "shiny" deep blue eyes were the striking feature that people always noted; their one outstanding feature. How was this important feature changed to "dark" eyes? Jwkinraleigh (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Melungeon DNA Project

This seems to be mainly about Melungeons, not the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I would agree. It's of no real scientific significance that would justify its existence as a separate article, and can easily become a section of this article.20:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey5945 (talk • contribs)

Support. Non-notable project, loaded with information of dubious scientific value. Bms4880 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The Melungeon DNA project certainly relates to the Melungeons, and it's appropriate that the two articles are linked to each other. But one deals with the history of an ethnic group over the last several centuries, whereas the other is about a specific study of that group, using technology that has existed only recently. They're separate topics that warrant separate articles. Furthermore, it's a red herring to talk about the "scientific significance" of the project, because its significance is meant to be historical, not scientific. In other words, it's an application of molecular biology to get historical insight, rather than any attempt to expand the field of molecular biology itself. TypoBoy (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a pseudo-scientific application of DNA techniques to make historical claims that are of dubious and contested validity. In other words, it fits right in with Melungeon studies in general.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Bms4880 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This page has been extensively edited during my illness which resulted in the emphasis on Melungeons instead of Melungeon DNA, the original focus. I do think this page needs to be a stand alone page separate from the Melungeon page. It will take some additions and some subtractions to return to what this page needs to be. Please bear with me. Emuchick 3 February 2014 Emuchick (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Emuchick (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Keep the Melungeon DNA Project separate, but linked. The Melungeon article keeps getting swamped with legends and myths.Parkwells (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The Melungeon article is long enough on its own. Best to keep them linked, but separate. Jgera5 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose These should be kept separate, with a brief section the the DNA article written according to WP:SUMMARY/. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose See reasons listed above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Melungeon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512143936/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512143936/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.3/gross.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions

Article states that all these people are inbred on one hand, products of miscegenation on the other. This seems similar to how "kissing cousins" are "white trash", when nobody would say this of the Habsburgs. If they are racial "degenerates", then they would have been considered trash, by not having "pure blood". Cognitive dissonance much?

The primary sources designated the supposed antecedents of this so-called "Melungeon people" as Portuguese and Moorish Turks aka Muslims, but revisionists have deemed them something else entirely. It is not clear at all that there is anything connecting Mediterranean mariners with the 19th century Jacksonian identity politics of American slave states, particularly Old Southwest Territory aka Tennessee. Jacksonianism was clear in hatred for Indians (Trail of Tears) and Blacks as well as the planter class who owned them and choked out the labor force, demanding universal white male suffrage. Andrew Johnson fit the profile.

The article does not make sense. Who is being discussed here? The article assumes that two different real groups of people are actually all the same, or are they just being lumped together for supposedly not being White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, which the individuals claiming this descent are simultaneously--in reality? The article seems to be documenting mythology and folklore, even validating "original research" on the part of uninformed people making an argument from ignorance. The narrative being peddled here, is the equivalent that everybody is descended from a "Cherokee princess", imitating the rich planter tobacco gentry descendants of Rolfe and Pocahontas, but actually steeping mid 19th-early 20th century WASP nativism against foreigners, since they are claiming aboriginal status and demanding recognition for undisputed rights to the ancestral lands of tribal Oklahomans--whom their own ancestors had evicted since the Dahlonega gold rush in Georgia. The narrative also grants immunity to those whose ancestors held lynchmobs even if they could not afford slaves themselves, resenting Blacks as competition for resources. Many of these people feel that they are ignored and treated like scum on account of the "poor Negro", so attempt to elicit sympathy as being downtrodden by Reconstruction, even if they are the scions of the Ku Klux Klan and voted for George Wallace. How many of them went to Woodstock or San Francisco in the late 60s, early 70s? Perhaps the trailer trash think they'll get Hippie Brownie points for putting flowers in their hair and listening to New Age music or smoking dope? Will their fraud be enough redemption from the scorn associated their existence as the one group universally detested in America: the Americans themselves? If only George Washington could see this day and age when the people he fought for are reduced to these kinds of illusions and groveling for respect in racial role-playing games.

What of the fact that individuals from groups other than WASP were present in Virginia during the first wave of settlement? Until some years ago in the last decade, I was not aware that there were any Germans, Italians, much less Poles in the colony--yes, Germans moved into Shenandoah later with the Scotch-Irish and the Tolliver family was once Taliaferro, but Polish? Yes, this challenges perceptions about the origins of the people who founded America as an independent set of states, but it also leads to another fact: John Smith was captured by the Barbary Pirates and he wasn't the only one (this culminated in a conflict called the Barbary Wars), but these events were actually common enough as the headlines today report on violence by Muslims toward tourists. In fact, the activities of these Moors, loosely affiliated with the Turkish Caliphate because of shared Muslim faith, mirrored the maritime activities of the Portuguese, since the time of Prince Henry the Navigator. Who is to say that these people were not really Mediterranean? Most people, like myself, were not aware that Spain had a Jesuit mission in the Chesapeake, which means Florida extended that far northwards. When Sir Walter Raleigh founded Virginia and his Roanoke settlers were lost, Spain had already wiped out a French Huguenot settlement in what's now South Carolina. Maybe people don't remember, but Bermuda was discovered by a Spaniard, at the same latitude as Roanoke, that it was once part of Virginia. South Carolina's economic dependency upon the Triangle Trade turned it into a colony of Barbados, to the point of splitting it from North Carolina--settled by Virginians. The West Indies were originally Hispanic, not the plethora of nationalities like French, Dutch, Danish and English. I had no idea that the Curonians had a colony. Portugal had Brazil, but Sephardic Jews were known to be slave traders, like Aaron Lopez, founding the first synagogues in places like New Amsterdam, Newport and Savannah.

While I can understand that the Melungeon term is probably looking at a mixed social scenario like Jamaica or Louisiana, everything known about WASP racial society in America contradicts this, along with the settlement patterns--Blacks lived in the Tidewater with the English planters, whereas Scotch-Irish lived on the frontier as mountain men with the Indians. More evidence would be appreciated to bury the testimonies of the people who called others Portuguese, Moors and Turks, or at least separate these two groups. One group is clearly Old World and in the colonial period. The other group consists of those with known English or Scotch-Irish names in the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, whose identities were considered racially suspect in a time when scientific classifications of race were being stereotyped in "either, or" terminology. Consider Hitler not being the Nazi ideal, or that the Aryans would have been less European than him. The claims here are just as dubious and were part of the same wave of demographic studies in the age of New Imperialism.

So, a Melungeon is one of three, or any combination of three:

Portuguese, Moor and Turk mariners, smugglers and slavers in the roots of Hispanic/Latin society (primary source claims, based upon what they knew of who their "other" was)

WASP Native American/Know-Nothing, Anglo "Sooner State" Jacksonian types responsible for the Trail of Tears and Ku Klux Klan (what is actually known of the society from standard academic textbooks, but treated like the great white elephant in the room here)

"tri-racial isolates" from illicit affairs between Whites and non-Whites, thereafter perhaps more normative relations between their descendants (to use 20th century pseudoscientific terminology invented by amateur revisionists trying to bring "respectability" to something like cryptozoology)

Major DNA studies recently debunked the "Black Indian" myth, which was claimed because of the Maroons in events like the Seminole Wars involving Andrew Jackson taking Florida by storm. Much like how all the one-drop Blacks are Black, regardless of their ancestry from English planters, with so-called "rape blood" by their forefathers who whipped their relatives while sleeping with their maternal ancestors behind their own White wives' backs, the Indian reservations also became flooded with diluted Indian blood by Scotch-Irish fathers with Indian squaws. So, with both Blacks and Indians actually being hybrids of the male British/American settlers and Black or Indian females, as well as any reverse scenarios with a Black or Indian father with an English or Scotch-Irish mother, most, if not all, were grouped together with these two rather than Whites. In order to maintain the purity of the White race, bastards who might otherwise be White sought kinship with their ties elsewhere or were forced to by hazing rituals. Now, as it has been proved that Blacks don't have Indian blood and Indians don't have Black blood, while they both each have White British/American blood even as White British/Americans don't have either racial background (fakers like Rachel Dolezal, Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren beware), it must be admitted that Americans are as Dutch as they are British, because of how New Netherland was assimilated in 1664, whereas Canadians consist of two separate groups--British and French, supported by an official policy of multiculturalism since 1763. Francis Daniel Pastorius, as recorded in family documents, instructed his children that they were "Anglus natus", i.e. born English or at least Anglicised, because of being in an English society under which their German monarchs ruled over Britain and the dominions. Obviously, the Amish refused to assimilate, but they were the exception to the rule.

So, perhaps the equivalent issue with food is referring to Taco Bell as Mexican food, when it might more appropriately be deemed "Tex-(New) Mex" food, or rather Californian food. It's no different than American pizza having marinara instead of alfredo, when pizza was actually invented in the form of the Greek pita. Mexican illegal alien immigration to the Southwest likewise claims to be aboriginal, when these Latins moved in to supplant the Indian tribes of the Four Corners long before Anglos showed up--they just want to take it back from the Anglos since regretting the loss to the 1848 Marxist gold miners from Europe who replaced Mexican rule, even though they never settled the Mexican territories of the East (Texas), North (Santa Fe/New Mexico) and West (California) outside presidios built to protect Spanish missions from the Indians already resident there. Something is not quite what it seems here, with these sundry and diverse peoples. The truth is that those mentioned or reported in this article were individual cases, not entire cultures or even subcultures. There is no semblance of unity here, other than the claim that these are all mixed race, but then again, that doesn't fit the profile of those claimed as the original Melungeons, from the Latin and Arab world. There is no proven lineage between them, as the revisionists claim here in this article. On the other hand, while proponents of the "tri-racial isolate" amateur science lab myth dismiss the original claims of Mediterraneans, they have yet to explain away DNA results from North Africa and the Middle East found on websites like 23andMe, which are really popular these days for genetic genealogists.

Melungeon DNA Project is a feeding frenzy for very confused and ignorant White Southerners with no living memory of their ancestors leaving Britain, but the notability isn't as established as the ideas of Madame Blavatsky, Edward Cayce, or Guido von List, but is in the same realm of reality as David Icke and Lyndon LaRouche, etc. It's very strange that the people whose national history in that of the British colonies, thereafter providing the social basis for the American states, should be plunged into self-doubt as to just what this means, when it is the most widely known story on Earth, due to the spread of English. How can individuals suffer such a severe disassociation from themselves? Are they not good enough as plain White folks, that they must seek status as a minority, when all the immigrants are seemingly justified and they feel their Confederate history discredits them, or that others will hold this over their heads unless they claim to be racial bastards for the cause of a persecution complex and needs for empathy despite a hostile narrative about the White South? How shall identify fraud be rewarded? If Bruce Jenner and illegal aliens can get away with it, so too can these individuals commit fraud by impersonating others for a social advantage. I see enough people falsify and swindle the system to get a so-called "crazy check" while they pop their pills on welfare. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these "pillbillies" were to identify as "Melungeons".

People pushing this article should have the burden to prove that "Melungeons" are a real category of people that don't fit into White society, but do not fit into Black or Indian society either and actually form any kind of society of their own. This appears to be nothing but a made up term to use for random misfits with nothing in common at all, other than being mutually confused about their roots in a society which is sharply divided on racial lines. This term and its purpose seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, that its activist adherents are making out of thin air. There are other intentional communities far outside the mainstream, like Branch Davidians, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Scientology, Kabbalah, etc. but these are actual organizations. From the articles themselves here, there is no evidence of any actual organization representative of "Melungeons". It seems like these articles are trying to gain recognition for themselves, the same way many other falsified applications for Indian reservation endorsements for government subsidies have been rejected on one hand, or accepted on precarious terms to the point of subsequently being put into probationary status and under government review, due to the dubiousness involved. These types of identity claims aren't much different from Whites demanding tribal membership despite the half-breed Indian tribal leaders rejecting them, or Wiggers trying to be "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" and failing miserably. Self-identified "Melungeons" intentionally position themselves at a place to fall in the cracks of society, lost between normative relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.11.75 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melungeon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003130218/http://heite.org/Invis.indians1.html to http://www.heite.org/Invis.indians1.html

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) 04:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melungeon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510204615/http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Pettiford_Ridley.htm to http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Pettiford_Ridley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727080135/http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=1427106366&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10013 to http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=1427106366&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10013

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) 11:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

Anyone saw that "Further reading" section is too long and needs to be trimmed? Addition every possible chapter has made the list too large. Rzvas (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Start with making sure anything used as a source isn't listed elsewhere, I removed an el that was used as a source. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul Heinegg

There are too many different arguments going on. His research used historic documents to trace back from particular families; he found many of the ancestors of free people of color listed in the VA, NC and SC censuses of 1790-1810, could be traced to the colonial era in VA, and unions of white women with African men. Some descendants of those families moved on into TN And KY and are included in Jack Goins' study - which was for descendants of families for which there was a consensus that these constituted Melungeon surnames, as mentioned in this article. Heinegg's research was in historic documents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No there is no names in Paul Heinegg's books that goes to Melungeon familes, please reply back with the names specifically or where Melungeon is specifically mentioned in the Paul Heinegg's references. The DNA testing in the Melungeon project concluded the Bunch family called Melungeon was unrelated to the Bertie county Bunch family.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.170.68 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 15 February 2013(UTC)

To go further into this, we can use a Federal Cherokee enrollment process as a example, just because a person moved to Oaklahoma does not mean they was Cherokee or related to Cherokee ancestry, a person would have to show where their ancestor was specifically called Cherokee. The same goes for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is prime examples:

Vardeman Collins Unknown Origin R1a1a Valentine Collins, b.@1786, Wilkes Co., NC Unknown Origin E1b1a

That is from the Melungeon dna project....clearly those 2 is not related..clearly not brothers. Vardy collins was specifically named Melungeon, Valentine was never associated with Melngeon people. People claimed he was Vardy's brother and that was why people thought Valentine was a Melungeon. DNA clearly shows this was not the case.

Samuel Bunch, b. ca. 1814, d. June 2, 1865, Sneedville,Tenn Unknown Origin R1b1a2a1a1b4 Henry Bunch, Bertie Co., NC Unknown Origin E1b1a8a

Clearly unrelated also, Samuel Bunch was the named Melungeon of Newman's ridge, Tenn...Originally thought to been descended from Henry Bunch...however again DNA showed they was unrelated.

Here is Paul Heinegg's own words about the Bunch family and that he only used guess work about the Virginia Bunch family having African ancestry and not to use African ancestry as fact: http://www.afrigeneas.com/forum-fpoc/index.cgi/md/read/id/6820/sbj/to-paul-heinegg/

DNA has now confirmed the Bertie county Bunch family and the Melungeon Bunch family was two different unrelated families.

In the Joshua F. PERKINS vs John R. WHITE court case we learn what Free person of color is:

"Persons that are known and recognized by the Constitution and laws of Tennessee, as free persons of color are those who by the act of 1794 section 32 are taken and deemed to be capable in law to be certified in any case what is in, except against each other or in the language of the statute " all Negroes, Indians, Mulattoes, and all persons of mixed blood descended from Negro or Indian ancestors to the third generation inclusive though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person, white bond or free". The statute includes as examples those only who are either of the Negro or the Indian blood or mixture of both and who a fall within the third generation inclusive. To make one then a free person of color, 1/8 of his or her entire blood must be either of the Negro or of the Indian race or a mixture of the two amounting to 1/8." July 1858 Judge J. M. Welcher

http://jctcuzins.org/pam/perkins/jury.html

Josh Perkins who did lose the above case did not have DNA at the time however now we do have DNA and here is what his DNA results shows, which was included in the Melungeon DNA project: Esther Perkins 1710-1748 Unknown Origin I1

I1 happens to be a European Haplogroup which is also found in Portugal. The Newspaper article on the Jogg article did mention the Perkins vs White court case however it did not also mention Joshua Perkins' DNA was included in the study and had came back as European.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.170.68 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 February 2013(UTC)

Heritage

What ethnic group does Sparks classify as Jah7sparks (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Heinegg

I was wondering about him so did a search. He won the Donald Lines Jacobus given by the American Society of Genealogists each year to a "model genealogical work" for his Free African-Americans of North Carolina and Virginia in 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Appalachianhistory created the sock Annelisegoins and both have been blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Problems with sources

This article has always been plagued with bad sources. Jake Richards is a folk magic practioner[1] and not a reliable source. I'd say the same for Appalachia Bare. I'll take Unmasked History to RSN. The late Donald Ball and James Kessler wrote a book that could be used and is in further reading, but a paper presented to a society fails WP:RS and is much earlier than the book so might have been revised. Shirley Price's article seems to be based on the work by Henry Price published by the Hancock County Drama Assocation, so again not an rs.[2] None of the rootsweb links work, but in any case rootsweb needs to be handled carefully.[3] We should use the original sources. The trivial bit linked to the Nevada State Journal and unsourced doesn't belong and also fails WP:RS. I dubious about the link to Edward T Price's piece but there is this:[4] and I can provide it. "Historical Melungeons" is a blog - not an RS but may host material that we can use in the original. There are almost certainly other problems. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Walter Plecker Citation

I had corrected the Walter Plecker citation and reference only for it to be reverted back to a broken "test" link and a quote from the letter that is not found in the referenced material. This is what I had improved:

In December 1943, Virginia State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Walter Ashby Plecker, sent county officials a letter warning against "colored" families trying to pass as "white" or "Indian" in violation of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. He identified specific surnames by county, including "Lee, Smyth and Wise: Collins, Gibson, (Gipson), Moore, Goins, Ramsey, Delph, Bunch, Freeman, Mise, Barlow, Bolden (Bolin), Mullins, Hawkins (chiefly Tennessee Melungeons)". (Lee County, Virginia borders Hancock County, Tennessee.) He directed the offices to reclassify members of certain families as black, which caused the loss for numerous families of documentation in records that showed their continued identification as Native American. Plecker Letter of December 1943 at Virginia Memory, Library of Virginia

Images of Letter

January 1943

Local Registrars, Physicians, Health Officers, Nurses, School Superintendents, and Clerks of the Courts

Dear Co-workers:

Our December 1942 letter to local registrars, also mailed to the clerks, set forth the determined effort to escape from the negro race of groups of "free issues," or descendants of the "free mulattoes" of early days, so listed prior to 1865 in the United States census and various types of State records, as distin- guished from slave negroes.

Now that these people are playing up the advantages gained by being permitted to give "Indian" as the race of the child's parents on birth certifi- cates, we see the great mistake made in not stopping earlier the organized pro- pagation of this racial falsehood. They have been using the advantage thus gained as an aid to intermarriage into the white race and to attend white schools, and now for some time they have been refusing to register with war draft boards as negroes, as required by the boards which are faithfully performing their duties. Three of these negroes from Caroline County were sentenced to prison on January 12 in the United States Court at Richmond for refusing to obey the draft law unless permitted to classify themselves as "Indian."

Some of these mongrels, finding that they have been able to sneak in their birth certificates unchallenged as Indians are now making a rush to register as white. Upon investigation we find that a few local registrars have been per- mitting such certificates to pass through their hands unquestioned and without warning our office of the fraud. Those attempting this fraud should be warned that they are liable to a penalty of one year in the penitentiary (Section 5099a of the Code). Several clerks have likewise been actually granting them licenses to marry whites, or at least to marry amongst themselves as Indian or white. The danger of this error always confronts the clerk who does not inquire carefully as to the residence of the woman when he does not have positive information. The law is explicit that the license be issued by the clerk of the county or city in which the woman resides.

To aid all of you in determining just which are the mixed families, we have made a list of their surnames by counties and cities, as complete as possible at this time. This list should be preserved by all, even by those in counties and cities not included, as these people are moving around over the State and changing race at the new place. A family has just been investigated which was always recorded as negro around Glade Springs, Washington County, but which changed to white and married as such in Roanoke County. This is going on constantly and can be prevented only by care on the part of local registrars, clerks, doctors, health workers, and school authorities.

Please report all known or suspicious cases to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, giving names, ages, parents, and as much other information as possible. All certificates of these people showing "Indian" or "white" are now being rejected and returned to the physician or midwife, but local registrars hereafter must not permit them to pass their hands uncorrected or unchallenged and without a note of warning to us. One hundred and fifty thousand other mulattoes in Virginia are watching eagerly the attempt of their pseudo-Indian brethren, ready to follow in a rush when the first have made a break in the dike.

Very truly yours,

W. A. Plecker, M.D. State Registrar of Vital Statistics

Page 2

SURNAMES, BY COUNTIES AND CITIES, OF MIXED NEGROID VIRGINIA FAMILIES STRIVING TO PASS AS "INDIAN" OR WHITE.

Albemarle: Moon, Powell, Kidd, Pumphrey. Amherst (Migrants to Alleghany and Campbell): Adcock (Adcox), Beverly (this family is now trying to evade the situation by adopting the name of Burch or Birch, which was the name of the white mother of the present adult generation), Branham, Duff, Floyd, Hamilton, Hartless, Hicks, Johns, Lawless, Nuckles (Knuckles), Painter, Ramsey, Redcross, Roberts, Southards (Suthards, Southerds, Southers), Sorrells, Terry, Tyree, Willis, Clark, Cash, Wood. Bedford: McVey, Maxey, Branham, Burley. (See Amherst County) Rockbridge (Migrants to Augusta): Cash, Clark, Coleman, Duff, Floyd, Hartless, Hicks, Mason, Mayse (Mays), Painters, Pultz, Ramsey, Southerds (Southers, Southards, Suthards), Sorrells, Terry, Tyree, Wood, Johns. Charles City: Collins, Dennis, Bradby, Howell, Langston, Stewart, Wynn, Adkins. King William: Collins, Dennis, Bradby, Howell, Langston, Stewart, Wynn, Custalow (Custaloe), Dungoe, Holmes, Miles, Page, Allmond, Adams, Hawkes, Suprlock, Doggett. New Kent: Collins, Bradby, Stewart, Wynn, Adkins, Langston. Henrico and Richmond City: See Charles City, New Kent, and King William. Caroline: Byrd, Fortune, Nelson. (See Essex) Essex and King and Queen: Nelson, Fortune, Byrd, Cooper, Tate, Hammond, Brooks, Boughton, Prince, Mitchell, Robinson. Elizabeth City & Newport News: Stewart (descendants of the Charles City families). Halifax: Epps (Eppes), Stewart (Stuart), Coleman, Johnson, Martin, Talley, Sheppard (Shepard), Young. Norfolk County & Portsmouth: Sawyer, Bass, Weaver, Locklear (Locklair), King, Bright, Porter, Ingram. Westmoreland: Sorrells, Worlds (or Worrell), Atwells, Gutridge, Oliff. Greene: Shifflett, Shiflet. Prince William: Tyson, Segar. (See Fauquier) Fauquier: Hoffman (Huffman), Riley, Colvin, Phillips. (See Prince William) Lancaster: Dorsey (Dawson). Washington: Beverly, Barlow, Thomas, Hughes, Lethcoe, Worley. Roanoke County: Beverly. (See Washington) Lee and Smyth: Collins, Gibson (Gipson), Moore, Goins, Ramsey, Delph, Bunch, Freeman, Mise, Barlow, Bolden (Bolin), Mullins, Hawkins. -- Chiefly Tennessee "Melungeons." Scott: Dingus. (See Lee County) Russell: Keith, Castell, Stillwell, Meade, Proffitt. (See Lee & Tazewell) Tazewell: Hammed, Duncan. (See Russell) Wise: See Lee, Smyth, Scott, and Russell Counties Plecker, Walter A. "Surnames, by Counties and Cities, of Mixed Negroid Virginia Families Striving to Pass as "Indian" or White". Encyclopedia Virginia: Virginia Humanities. Library of Virginia. Retrieved 12 June 2023.

The actual list was erased and the bad citation was also kept. Thus, no improvements, just vandalism. StephanieTree (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Page protected

Rather than blocking specific editors, I have protected the page for 3 days so that discussion can continue on the talk page. Follow WP:BRD and get a WP:CONSENSUS before making any further changes regarding the disputed content. Continued edit warring after the protection has expired is likely to result in editors being blocked to prevent further disruption to the page, which can hopefully be avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

okay I am new here as an editor. I thought I "took it to talk" and when the other user involved reverted their changes, I thought I was free to continue to make some improvements. This is presently an opinion article on a racist epithet rather than facts about the history and term of the word. Some inappropriate sources include links to promotional materials, personal DNA projects, and bad links and source citations to otherwise good resources that can be used. I hope we can improve it together, I may have not "taken it talk" properly and for that, I apologize. StephanieTree (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by you and you alone posting your opinions on the talk page. I have repeatedly asked you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, which you obviously haven't done. Sundayclose (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I did, and did not break any rules by improving the resources, definition of the term and removed an opinion and promotional material, which is always allowed. I "took it to talk" as an additional step as you suggested, to get to collaborating with you but so far, it hasn't been very collaborative, and you are actually not observing the consensus rules by reverting my improvements without reason as WP:CONSENSUS is based on the five pillars and I really do think you could afford to be a bit more gracious and collaborative- this combativeness is really unnecessary. Let's resolve this together, politely if possible! StephanieTree (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You restored the very material that is in dispute, with no opinions about it on this talk page except your own. AGAIN, read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I'm finished here unless someone else comments. Sundayclose (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What do have a dispute with? Where is your issue with the change? It's not opinion at all; and since you replied to me when I was talking to "someone else" why, again, are you going with these one off comments and then saying "I'm finished here"- I think that is the third time today you have gotten my attention only to say that. That is not very collaborative. But since we are both found ourselves here, what is your dispute about it? I will consider your points if you care to engage. StephanieTree (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Please precisely define the word "Melungeons" without biased third party materials and replace with a verifiable and acceptable resource:

X: Melungeons (/məˈlʌndʒənz/ mə-LUN-jənz) are an ethnicity from the Southeastern United States who descend from Europeans, Native American, and sub-Saharan Africans brought to America as indentured servants and later as slaves. Historically, the Melungeons were associated with settlements in the Cumberland Gap area of central Appalachia, which includes portions of East Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, and eastern Kentucky.

Tri-racial describes populations who claim to be of mixed European, African and Native American ancestry. Although there is no consensus on how many such groups exist, estimates range as high as 200,000.

Y: Melungeon (/məˈlʌnən/ mə-LUN-jən) is a term which is used in reference to Native American peoples of mixed ancestry who lived on Newman Ridge as well as along the Blue Ridge Mountains, which includes portions of East Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. StephanieTree (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Dumpster fire

What happened to this article? It's a train wreck! It wasn’t this filled with redundancies and speculation a year ago. Anyway, I'm moving a fringe theory of the etymology here if anyone want to do anything with it. Yuchitown (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Kennedy (1994) speculates that the word derives from the Turkish melun can (from Arabic mal`un jinn ملعون جنّ), which purportedly means "damned soul." He suggests that at the time, that was a term used by Turks for Muslims who had been captured and enslaved aboard Spanish galleons.

I'm moving this theory here as well, since it's equally wp:fringe and the linked article doesn't discuss Melungeons. Yuchitown (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

An alternative hypothesis is that it comes from malungu (or malungo), a Luso-African word from Angola, meaning "shipmate" and derived from the Kimbundu word ma'luno, meaning "companion" or "friend." The word, spelled as Melungo and Mulungo, has been found in numerous Portuguese records. It is said to be a derogatory word that was used by Africans for people of Portuguese or other white ancestry.

References

Issues With Sources

Please provide good sources regarding the term Melungeon. Any studies, articles, dissertations, and the like belong in the popular culture section. Too many researchers are using this space as a way to legitimize their studies and beliefs and this is not the place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieTree (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The article relies almost exclusively on only one source, a study by Roberta Estes, that was extremely limited in its reach. It only looked at the Melungeons of one or two very small communities in Eastern Tennessee and did not look at the genetics of Melungeons outside of those communities. Further, Estes herself has said they did in fact find one Melungeon family, the Sizemores, who did have Indigenous American ancestry. Not that many actual genetic studies have been done on these people and the only one that is being cited was 1. very limited in its scope and 2. does not support the statement that was in the article that no Melungeons have Indigenous American ancestry. I made some changes to the article to reflect upon this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:441F:920E:AA03:340 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Please provide links to other published studies. All the unsourced conjecture needs to go. Yuchitown (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Sundayclose I believe that the citations 1, 2, and 3

1. Holloway, Pippa (2008). Other Souths: Diversity and Difference in the U.S. South, Reconstruction to Present. Athens: University of Georgia Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780820330525.
2. "DNA study seeks origin of Melungeons". Tampa Bay Times. AP. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
3. Neal (June 24, 2015). "Melungeons explore mysterious mixed-race origins". USA Today. Retrieved 7 July 2023.

violate wikipedia standards When Not to Cite

• WP:REPEATCITE

and are also ambiguous opinion newspaper articles in a collection of articles and cannot be verified and are not specific to the quotes cited. Opinions? Can I get a WP:Consensus ? StephanieTree (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree; irrelevant sources based in opinion be deleted and original resources for the quotes and claims written and cited in those places. StephanieTree (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

In this dif, User:Chalahbai15 introduced wp:self-published sources, but they also misrepresented published sources. For instance, they were trying to use Jill E. Rowe’s Invisible in Plain Sight: Self-Determination Strategies of Free Blacks in the Old Northwest to back up the statement that Melguneons have "roots in the Atlantic Creole communities of Portuguese, Spanish, and Sephardi Jewish lançado descent." The books only briefly mentions "Melungeons of East Tennessee" in a list of other groups. "The rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in Western Africa, 1300–1589" does not substantiate this statement either. Yuchitown (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I agree; you have consensus to delete. StephanieTree (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous References

@Sundayclose I believe that the citations 1, 2, and 3

1. Holloway, Pippa (2008). Other Souths: Diversity and Difference in the U.S. South, Reconstruction to Present. Athens: University of Georgia Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780820330525.
2. "DNA study seeks origin of Melungeons". Tampa Bay Times. AP. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
3. Neal (June 24, 2015). "Melungeons explore mysterious mixed-race origins". USA Today. Retrieved 7 July 2023.

violate wikipedia standards When Not to Cite

• WP:REPEATCITE

and are also ambiguous opinion newspaper articles in a collection of articles and cannot be verified and are not specific to the quotes cited. Opinions? Can I get a WP:Consensus ?

What do you think, are these citations relevant or verifiable as it is on the Wikipedia page currently?

StephanieTree (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)