Talk:Nacoochee Mound

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Several POV concerns with this article

The article makes several claims that are concerning:

1) "One of their characteristic platform mounds is located at the site. A professional archeological excavation revealed a total of 75 human burials, with artifacts that support dating of the site." - Who says this is a characteristic platform mound of the South Appalachian Mississipian Culture? What professional excavation revealed this? Non-sourced comments can be deleted without prejudice. It is not the place of the reviewer to prove the article contains false or factual information. It is the place of the creator and subsequent editors to prove every statement made by in-line citations.

2) "The mound was excavated, but a reconstruction was built. The 19th-century gazebo was added by a European-American owner of the land." - The article provides no sourcing that the private owner of the land is "European-American". While this may be the case as the majority of Americans have some European heritage the claim is unsubstantiated and does not appear in the source provided. It also denotes a POV issue that is a prevailing theme of this article.

3) "Sources differ on the possibility of later habitation at or near the site by Cherokee people; a historical marker on the site claims such habitation, but James B. Langford of The Coosawattee Foundation states that the excavation necessary to confirm this claim has not been performed." - This sentence is not remotely supported by the reference cited. The reference does not mention a historical marker, nor does it say any excavation is necessary. Instead it says "It is possibly the site of Nacoochee or Chota, two Cherokee villages documented for this valley during the 1715 expedition of Colonel George Chicken". Williams (2004) p 29 says evidence of Cherokee occupation is minimal, not non-existent. The Heye et al, has many, many hits about Cherokee. So, quick analysis is there is no evidence in any of the accessible sources that say that. The rest are dead or off-line, so who knows? Better sourcing needs to be provided in order to prove or disprove this statement before it can begin to challenge historical data collected over hundreds of years. (See WP:OR and WP:NPOV)

4) "In the 1870s, the mound site was owned by Captain John H. Nichols, who reported plowing up Mississippian culture stone box graves to the west of the mound. The mound in 1873 was described as being 16 feet (4.9 m) in height, in a report on Native American sites in Georgia, written by Charles C. Jones. In 1890 Captain Nichols removed the top 2 feet (0.61 m) of the mound and built a locally famous gazebo on its new summit." - This statement implies it is supported by evidence yet the source is not provided in the list of references nor in a bibliography and therefore can not be corroborated without having to do additional external research. This violates guidelines per WP:V and WP:RS.

These issues must be corrected for the article to meet all the guidelines required to keep it from being considered facts mixed with POV conjecture.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite a bronze historical marker at the site claiming it is the "ancient Cherokee town of Gauxule, visited by Hernando de Soto in 1540", little to no evidence of Cherokee occupation was found during the 2004 test excavations, and it is doubtful that they ever inhabited the site." Another POV issue that does not remain neutral when presented with the sources cited. While one source does say minimal presence none of them suggest the Cherokee did not occupy or even inhabit the town. Where is this notion coming from as it is not brought forth in the accessible sources? Just throwing a source out there that does not specifically state what is presented is disingenuous. Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: While I respect that you are trying to make edits that seem neutral and I acknowledge the "Good Faith" of your edits, the statement "Sources differ on the possibility of later habitation at or near the site by Cherokee people" is still not backed by references. Langford makes no such claim of difference. He doesn't even hint that the Cherokee were not present. He only states that the villages around the mound have not be excavated to the point that it can be definitively proved one way or the other so we are left with the eyewitness testimony of James Mooney and the archeological expertise of George Gustav Heye and his team along with other sources listed to come to a conclusion. That conclusion is that, based on the data we have, the Cherokee were present at the mound and the immediately surrounding area in a village/town. There is no relevant claim of opposition to the Cherokee occupation provided as a source of difference. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "Citation needed" for the claim that there are differing sources on the presence of other American Indian tribes later in the area's existence and specifically the mound itself. No such claim is made in any source currently provided. The comment has not been removed as a nod to good faith editing and hopefully a reliable source can be found or the statement is removed as the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming to this point.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]