Talk:United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

Disputed

This article is essentially the sole creation of a single editor. It's great to have, and is apparently written by someone personally knowledgeable about the facts in the article. For a new topic, it's quite well fleshed out.

That said, there is an obvious and strong partisan viewpoint expressed by the article. And many of the characterizations that are most inflammatory are also unaccompanied by any citational support. I think it can be improved to eliminate these issues, but it will take a little attention. But it needs a one (or twice, or thrice) over with a strong mind to NPOV concerns. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, please cite the specific areas of the material you feel are inflamatory or lack sources. Also, considering my review of your editing in numerous articles, I am skeptical about your alleged NPOV abilities, but I am certainly open to be proven wrong. Also, thanks for your wonderful endorsement of my writing prowness. Thanks. Waya sahoni 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite your tendency for confrontation, Waya sahoni, placing the tag makes no claim about my own "editing abilities"... so just spare the insults. That said, it looks like another editor, interestingly named User:UKB Historic Preservation, did a pretty thorough rewrite of the whole article in a manner that seems to satisfy NPOV concerns. So I'm probably OK with taking the tag back off... but I'd like to get another editor's opinion or two. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

While the edits may resolve some of the NPOV controversy, they seem to have 'de-wikified' the page, there are no longer contents etc. I was almost tempted to revert it! --Vryl 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, one thing I like about all this posturing is that in the end, I have a written archive thousands of years old to consult about these topics written in another syllabary. And most of the relevant information is published in reputable sources to confirm it. Regarding your Ward Churchill complaints I submit the following. 25 USC defines that anyone claiming to be an indian must possess a certificate degree of indian blood (CDIB) in order to be granted citizenship (not membership) in a Federally recognized tribe. Churchill was given a tribal card by the UKB when he did not possess a CDIB -- a violation of BIA regulations and United States Code. In the Churchill article, the UKB state they gave him the card in promising to perform services for them. This is bartering membership for goods and services. A violation not only of the law, but Tribal Constitutional provisions of the UKB as well. Waya sahoni 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This fact about "bartering membership for goods and services" may well be true; but it needs a citation. The Churchill article is not a citation for that fact. It may touch on it in a very indirect fashion, but only in the context of a complex dispute with many differing opinions on various sides. The Churchill article certainly does not state that the events are as you describe. Moreover, Churchill's critics are themselves quite vehement in the claim that the GAA does not allow the BIA to set tribal membership rules, which contradicts your claim about "violation of US code". Again, I'm not purporting any particular fact on the matter, just stating the need for citation of claims (and please, please, please spare me a citation to anything in your private library: WP:V demands material that is verifiable by editors in general; naturally, an ISBN or other reference for a book that may exist in your library is fine, just as long as it's a public citation). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good progress

I thought you were the new message board moderator for the SCOX discussion over on the Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey page? Better get back over there before you miss something insightful and important, who knows what they've done to that article snce you've been over here talking to me. :-) Waya sahoni 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you really need to take a few valiums and calm down. I have no idea what you're even referring to with "SCOX discussion" and all that (nor why you think WP is a "message board", apparently), but I can tell the tone is nasty. However, I commend you on your improvements to this page. The POV tone of it has been reduced greatly, citations are getting quite good, and you've added some additional nice information. Keep up the good work here, and just leave the Merkey article alone. I almost surely would have removed the Merkey article from my watchlist already if I hadn't been keeping an eye on your disruption of it; but I suppose I probably will either way since it seems in able hands to fight off the disruption (from what I can see, you seem to have attracted a lot of them who had previously only watched the LKML article, but saw the shennanigans spilling over. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please lets go over the Joe Byrd article next. When I post the photos of Byrd's goons beating up Cherokee Citizens and marching the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Justices out of the Courthouse at gunpoint, you may change your views on POV in that article. Waya sahoni 08:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... that one needs some work. I'm not claiming specifically that any of the facts you purport in it as false, they just need some citation and to be phrased in less emotional terms. I don't doubt that you have personal expreriences that make you feel strongly on the subject, but the article itself still needs to read in an encyclopedic fashion. Still, given the rapid progress of this article (thanks essentially entirely to you... I only fixed a couple minor formatting issues), I have high hopes of Joe Byrd shaping up to a good article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Title 25

"..25 USC defines that anyone claiming to be an indian must possess a certificate degree of indian blood (CDIB).."

While searching TITLE 25—INDIANS USC http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode25/ searches at "Search Title 25 of the US Code" return the following results:

"Your query cdib returned 0 results." "Your query "certificate degree of indian blood" returned 0 results."

Would you comment? Am I missing something?

Please post actual links that corroborate your assertion, not just your own statements. Thanks. talks_to_birds 05:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

25 USC 1452 is a good start. You can find the rest from there. Stop following me around the site please. Waya sahoni 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of killing an unreasonable number of electrons, here's § 1452. Definitions in its entirety http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode25/usc_sec_25_00001452----000-.html:

§ 1452. Definitions
Release date: 2005-08-18	

For the purpose of this chapter, the term— 

(a) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(b) “Indian” means any person who is a member of any Indian tribe, band, group,
 pueblo, or community which is recognized by the Federal Government as eligible 
for services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and any “Native” as defined in the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.]. 

(c) “Tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, group, pueblo, or community, including 
Native villages and Native groups (including corporations organized by Kenai, 
Juneau, Sitka, and Kodiak) as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
[43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], which is recognized by the Federal Government as 
eligible for services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

(d) “Reservation” includes Indian reservations, public domain Indian allotments, 
former Indian reservations in Oklahoma, and land held by incorporated Native 
groups, regional corporations, and village corporations under the provisions of 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.]. 

(e) “Economic enterprise” means any Indian-owned (as defined by the Secretary of 
the Interior) commercial, industrial, or business activity established or 
organized for the purpose of profit: Provided, That such Indian ownership shall 
constitute not less than 51 per centum of the enterprise. 

(f) “Organization”, unless otherwise specified, shall be the governing body of 
any Indian tribe, as defined in subsection (c) of this section, or entity 
established or recognized by such governing body for the purpose of this chapter. 

(g) “Other organizations” means any non-Indian individual, firm, corporation, 
partnership, or association. 

(h) “Surety” has the same meaning as in section 694a of title 15. 

(i) “Surety Bond” means a bid bond, payment bond, or performance bond as those 
terms are defined in section 694a of title 15.

The only links outward go to "TITLE 43—PUBLIC LANDS § 1601. Congressional findings and declaration of policy" or to "TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE § 694a. Definitions" neither of which seems to have any relevance to the question at hand. talks_to_birds 06:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

CDIB

"Services from the BIA" means genealogy and issuance of CDIB (cerificate degree of indian blood). Next look up tribal orgnization, and its references that only "indians" may be members. An "indian" is someone eligible for services from the BIA.

(b) “Indian” means any person who is a member of any Indian tribe, band, group, pueblo, or community which is recognized by the Federal Government as eligible for services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and any “Native” as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.].

(c) “Tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, group, pueblo, or community, including Native villages and Native groups (including corporations organized by Kenai, Juneau, Sitka, and Kodiak) as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], which is recognized by the Federal Government as eligible for services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Simple. Check tribal organization USC statutes about only "Indians" being members of Federally recognized "Indian" Tribes. (look them up yourself, I am not your research student). Waya sahoni 07:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. You yourself directly cited USC 25 as defining both "certificate of Indian blood" and "CDIB". Why did you cite USC 25 if it's not there? It seems that accurate citations can be an issue for you. Anyway, I think this horse is well an truly dead, as it is *very* obvious you're not going to post a direct answer to my direct question. talks_to_birds 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodnight and good luck. Thanks for the post. Waya sahoni 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Good article. I do have a question,though. Are the, "certificate of blood" and "CDIB" the only definition of Indian? One of the articles that I read stated that the UKB issued Associate Memberships to those who had Cherokee ancestry but did not qualify under the two definitions above. In the 1990's, the Associate Membership was expanded to honorary ones as well. It seems the UKB from its public statements established two levels of membership. This seems in keeping with the assertion of, "self-determination" that I have come across on-line in various Native American communities. Hoosier 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The UKB issued "honorary" or "associate" memberships for only a few months in 1994, to people who couldn't prove the bq. There were objections by the enrolled citizens, and so these memberships were revoked about a month after Ward Churchill got one. It is not clear to me whether there really was a difference between honorary and associate. Either way, they only lasted a very short time and they no longer are in effect. The certificate of blood and CDIB are the same thing. They are required to enroll in most Indian tribes, and to receive federal services. They are not always the only criteria for membership though. This varies from tribe to tribe. The UKB requires a CDIB that proves 1/4 Cherokee ancestry.Pokey5945 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wes Studi Quote

Lulu, I have the quotes from Wes Studi in the Cherokee Phoenix (hard copy) but I note they have taken down the online versions. I am guess Wes wanted to distance himself from the controvesy. I am having trouble locating the quotes from an online source that's not pay or requires an account (they were online last year). Waya sahoni 08:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We can cite offline sources, just as long as we're specific. So if you can type a few words of direct quote from Studi, then cite "Cherokee Phoenix, March 5, 2005, p.13" (or whatever), that's perfectly encyclopedic. Or likewise the press release that's mentioned can be cited using Template:Press release reference. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about I just remove the comment about Wes. If he wants to distance himself, perhaps this is the easiest to do. Removing the material does add to retract much from the rest of the article. The UKB's antics of late and lack of Gadugi for their brothers speaks for itself. Waya sahoni 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Either way. It sounds like an intersting point, but I have no knowledge of the details, or of how important they are. So I'm happy to defer to you. I'd note, however, that you don't need to panic when you see the "citation needed" superscript. It just means that we'd like someone to locate sources, not that the material must be instantly killed... it a "tickler" not a condemnation. If you leave something in with the template there, someone else who has a citation might well add it. Lots of articles have those tags in them for a good while... though the longer one is there, the more concern is raised, I think (but a few days, or even weeks, isn't anything editors get worked up over... unless the claim itself seems unlikely to be supportable, in principle). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Honorary memberships

Thanks Pokey5945 for the nice edits to the section. You added the claim that honorary memberships were granted "for several months" in 1994. The stuff I've seen just mentions when this program was discontinued in 1994, but not when it was started. Do you have a citation that indicates the specific period of granting honorary memberships? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have a single citation on the issue of honorary and associate memberships. The Keetowahs are a small group with limited resources, and they don't spell out every last detail of what they're doing for public consumption. It may be posible to document my assertion by stringing a number of cites together. I know that there are issues here with original research being against policy, but I thought I'd throw it up there to see what other editors thought. Since it's a fairly minor and non-controversial point, I thought it might stick.Pokey5945 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely original research isn't so good. Maybe the editor User:UKB Historic Preservation can provide some citation, since she's an offical historian for the tribe. I don't think we need to take it out, in any event, but we might need to be slightly fuzzier in the language if we're not sure of the details: e.g. "a short period" is less specific that "several months", I think. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Pokey5945's edits are nice in clarifying the discussion, but the subsequent edits by Waya sahoni seem to belabor the Churchill stuff, which is already discussed in much more detail in another article. The long press release statement seems like much more than is appropriate for this article on the UKB as a whole, not just on one minor skirmish about one honorary member. I'm going to edit it to just indicate a pointer back to the quotation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:51, 9 March 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 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Population figures

Since this is a page for an individual tribal entity, and not the tribe as a whole, the "total population" should have the population of that tribe, and not the tribe as a whole (to avoid confusing the reader.) You also need to work on having consistency throughout the articles, as I saw different numbers for each of the articles. I've fixed it so the population of the tribe is at the top, under the flag, as it should be. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Settlers

I’d really like to see evidence that a majority of UKB members are mostly descendants from Old Settlers as opposed to descendants of the Trail of Tears arrivals and Treaty Party arrivals. The Old Settlers are those Cherokees that first immigrated to Arkansas beginning in 1808, and subsequently relocated to Indian Territory in 1828. Land in Arkansas was ceded in 1817 and in the Indian Territory in 1828 to the Cherokee Nation. The Old Settlers would be those Cherokees who were already residing in Indian Territory prior to the Trail of Tears arrivals who arrived in 1838/1839. I have found no evidence that links the founders of the membership of the UKB in the twentieth century exclusively or even mostly as descendants of the Old Settlers. Secondly, there is no evidence that the Old Settlers who started to migrate to Arkansas about 1808 and their descendants continued as a distinct cohesive people separate from the Cherokee Nation from that time until the present,or that the UKB is a continuation of the Old Settlers or even the original Keetoowah Society in the Cherokee Nation that emerged around 1858 or ’59, just prior to the Civil War. All the evidence shows that UKB members as well as Cherokee Nation members as a whole all descend from all three above mentioned groups. --BrokenSpectre (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cherokee Nation (19th century) addresses the historical Cherokee Nation. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I see nothing in the link provided that addresses the issue of the current membership of the UKB being primarily the descendants of Old Settlers.--BrokenSpectre (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean you didn't check their official website? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I did check their official website and I do know that it is the official position of the current administration of the UKB and current Chief George Wickliffe that the UKB mostly descend form Old Settlers. However this is not backed up by any evidence nor is it backed up by reputable Historians. This stance is found mostly in the UKB’s own literature and in its museum, and rehashed by its supporters. It has also been uncritically repeated from press releases and propaganda to the point that many people in the media and elsewhere simply accept these misrepresentations as truth. The information here on Wikipedia is a good example of this as well as the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture website that list Chief George Wickliffe in its bibliography in its article on the United Keetoowah Band. This is the same article used as a reference in this Wikipedia UKB article. This is a position that could enhance the UKB’s political position in regards to the current dispute between the Cherokee Nation and the UKB in regards to jurisdiction. It should also be added that this position in regards to the Old Settlers has only been in circulation for the last ten years or so. The intent of this revisioning of Cherokee history has been to suggest that the UKB were the original and earliest occupiers of the land base that is now the disputed jurisdictional area and occupied it before the Cherokee Nation did.--BrokenSpectre (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifying their claim is not our concern. This Wikipedia article only states that that is what they claim, not that it is true. You have just agreed that that is what they claim. Unless you can provide a reference to a non-CNO source that has made a thorough study of the matter, your statement to the effect does not belong and is clearly your personal opinion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article does not state it in that way. This is how it is stated in the beginning of the article; Its members are mostly descendants of "Old Settlers", Cherokee who migrated to Arkansas and Oklahoma about 1817, before the forced relocation of Cherokee from the Southeast in the 1830s under the Indian Removal Act. Secondly, this is not a personal opinion as most reputable scholars in the field do not agree that the founding membership of the UKB is primarily descended from Old Settlers. Now here are some suggestions of how it could be stated. "The current leadership of the UKB claims...", or "According to the UKB website, they are descended primarily from Old Settlers".--BrokenSpectre (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to directly rebut their claims, you need to supply references and/or citations. I think your last eidt was a good way to handle it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Chuck I think the main problem with this issue is that there is a scarcity of readily available sources on the Internet that relates directly to the subject matter. Also, I think the key to also understanding this issue is to understand the enrollment procedures for both the Cherokee Nation and for the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Both tribes use the exact same base roll for enrollment with that being the Dawes Roll. The only differences being that the United Keetoowah Band requires a one quarter minimum blood quantum while the Cherokee Nation only requires being of lineal descent from the base roll. In other words, they both use the same exact roll, being the Dawes roll which was closed in 1907. Furthermore, many Cherokees currently have dual citizenship in both the UKB and the Cherokee Nation and in some cases switched from one tribe to the other or vice versa. For example former Principle Chief Chad Corntassel Smith was previously enrolled with the UKB before being disenrolled because of a political fallout with the UKB leadership. Also, the current Chief of the UKB George Wickliffe was previously enrolled with the Cherokee Nation and has ran in and lost elections for Cherokee Nation Tribal Council and for the office of Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.--BrokenSpectre (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

politically charged, but needs more content. UPDATE: NPOV scrubbed by Lulu --Waya sahoni (1 March 06) There have been significant POV issues with the article in the past, and it still has several citation needed tags and virtually lacks citations. Having a "trivia" section is frowned upon by Wikipedia, so the info from there should be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Some of the prose is a bit repetitive or weak (e.g.: "The commission divided large sections of land into tribal allotments in an effort to eliminate the traditional governments of the Cherokee, which at that time were based on a socialist form of government with the lands being controlled by the tribal government.") and much of the statements made in the article (though factual) are phrased in a fairly emotional way. More serious are the claims made about living people (such as Ward Churchill and Chad Smith)--uncited and possibly inflammatory --Miskwito 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. 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/20120512000000/http://www.ok.gov/oiac/documents/2011.FINAL.WEB.pdf to http://www.ok.gov/oiac/documents/2011.FINAL.WEB.pdf

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) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Category question re: Cherokee citizenship

Hi - Apologies for putting this on this page, but I am asking for people knowledgeable about Cherokee citizenship and tribal law to weigh in on a discussion of certain Cherokee categories. I'm not asking you to support my proposal, but just for the discussion to have informed contributions. The discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_30#Category:Cherokee_people Vizjim (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation vs Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

The official name of the largest of the three federally recognized Cherokee groups is "Cherokee Nation". The Cherokee Nation does not refer to itself as the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" except perhaps in a historical perspective. The CNO name is usually only used by people who are engaging in the political disputes between the CN and the UKB. Thus using the CNO title in this article is a reflection of a political debate, and not an impartial view of the two different groups. One only need to look at the website for the CN to see the CNO title does not appear - https://cherokee.org/ . In fact, a search of the official CN website produces no matches for the exact title of "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma". Yes, some people do still use the CNO term, but it is not the official name of the CN, and should not be used in an unbiased article. I, myself, have never been a party to any of the debates between the UKB and the CN. Phil Konstantin (Cherokee Nation citizen) Phil Konstantin (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Further context: in 1839, with the Act of Union, the Old Cherokee Nation (which had just arrived in Indian Territory on the Trail of Tears) and the "Western Cherokees," (including the Old Settlers, who migrated West prior to 1838) combined under the Act of Union and adopted the "Constitution of the Cherokee Nation 1839." Recognition of the tribal government was terminated by the US ca 1907 to allow Oklahoma to become a state. The phrase "of Oklahoma" was added when the reconstituted Cherokee Nation tribal government adopted a Constitution in 1975 titled "Constitution of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" and used that title throughout the text. In 1999, the Tribe adopted a new "Constitution of the Cherokee Nation" that dropped "of Oklahoma." The "of Oklahoma" term was formally in use for ~24 years from 1975-1999 but no longer is. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma received federal recognition in 1950, separate from CN.

I'll take a look at working some of this information into the article, specifically with regard to the Act of Union in 1839 and subsequent history as not much is mentioned between 1838 and 1880, and take a look at the Cherokee Nation article as well. Pyrocatch (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)