Talk:Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory/Archive 1

To do to improve
CJLippert (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) General copy-edit.
 * 2) Structure of the tribal government.
 * 3) Where NCNOLT is in the Federal recognition process.
 * 4) Title the listed URLs

Speedy Tag
Please see the AfD for this article for an extended discussion of the merits of this article. It is certainly in need of clean-up, but that is not a cause for a speedy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent radical revision
I have removed all the material based on self-published resources, irrelevant information to the subject, material based on unreliable sources ("Cowboys and Indians"?). The "self-published" materials include everything written by the "chief" and taken from the websites of the NCNOTL. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS. Self-published materials do not establish notability.  However, self-published materials are appropriate when the "self" in question is the subject of the article. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Spot checking some sources.


 * Cowboys and Indians seems legit, certainly not self-pub. See google news.
 * We Are Not Yet Conquered: Northern Cherokee Nation, Baker-Northrup. ISBN 1563116731.  Seems legit, turner publishing is not a vanity press (google news).
 * Weird Missouri, Legit, but not exactly the strongest ref.
 * Bell contracting homepage. No good reason to use this link as a ref - it is a company owned by the person, but the article is about the tribe.  I would remove.
 * NCNOLT site. Main site for the subject of the article. Useable as a ref.
 * Itse Dugalu page. District of the subject of the article. No good reason to use this site, if other refs are available (IMHO) (info is covered by other refs).  Same for the other district site.  I would only include them if they provide meaningful information about the organization as a whole that could not otherwise be referenced.
 * Cherokee nation wesite. Legit, I would use as reference specific documents on the site (there seem to be plenty) as references to the position of The Cherokee Nation.
 * List of chiefs. Not reliable source.  Self-published, not the official output of the subject of the article.  Find other sourcing for the information referenced. Remove.
 * The peoples path. I don't see evidence that it is a reliable source. I would remove.
 * The books used in the sources section all look legit - they are not, in fact, self-published.
 * My two cents on the sources. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding you point on NCNOLT's website, according to Wikipedia policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications {emphasis mine}. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#SELF).

I therefore submit that the NCNOLT's website is not a credible source.

Neither is "We Are Not Yet Conquered", written by Beverly Northrup, the purported "chief" of the NCNOLT; among other claims the book makes is that the NCNOLT are descended from Jewish survivors of Masada. The text was not written as a factual anthropological text but as a apologia of the NCNOLT. Northrup holds no degrees, and is not recognized as an expert on Cherokee matters by any established authority. The book is the sole published work to mention or hint at the existence of the group. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

However,

Part of a fair and impartial examination of any topic should include the point of view of the organization in question. This article includes references both from the Northern Cherokee and from other media groups and of course the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has also put a large effort into researching this group and has dedicated time and effort on their own web pages to discuss the Northern Cherokee and other "Cherokee" groups. The Northern Cherokee leader Beverly Baker Northup was extensively interviewed before the book "We Are Not Yet Conquered" written in 2001 by the author of the Trail of Tears in Missouri in 1996 (prior to the We Are Not Yet Conquered's release) and there are included in the "We Are Not Yet Conquered" book numerous references and scanned photographs of documents dealing with the Cherokees living in and around the Boone County area and other parts of Missouri from 1911- present.

The 'claim' concerning Jewish survivors is not a claim but a consideration pointed out by the author. "Whether the Sicarii are our ancestors or not, I cannot say. But, with this information and what others have reported, I believe that we must keep an open mind of the possibilities until it can be proven they are not." page 11 of We are not yet conquered, part of the original publication concerning the topic. This statement has indeed caught the attention of many non-Northern Cherokees which is why they appear in texts written such as "Weird Missouri" and having reached such a level of attention it seems that it is worth knowing something about, hence the wikipedia article. So I believe that most of Natty4bumpo's comments are null and void, as they are presumably coming from a biased and misinformed source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.160.19 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt the sections on the Cherokee in general were adequately researched (of course, there is already an existing article on that, Cherokee), but that does not address the fact that the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" are mentioned nowhere else under that or any similar name nor the fact that every other work dealing with the Western Cherokee marks the migration of the entire band under John Jolly from Arkansas Territory to Indian Territory after the Treaty of Washington in 1828, minus, of course, those who had previously migrated to Tejas in Mexico under The Bowl and Richard Fields in the late 1819.


 * The very fact that the author gives any crediblity to the idea that the Cherokee are descended from surviving defenders of Masada (who did, in fact, all commit suicide), throws the credibility of any claims not supported by other, established experts into serious doubt. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone provide independent verification of the claims made by the group's "chief"? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the uniqueness and notability of the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory", see the following: List of unrecognized tribes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

However,

I think the fact that there are hundreds of groups that self identify as Cherokee already makes for an interesting study. Of all the groups the Northern Cherokee are among the most documented and they open up the study of the controversy of inclusion and exclusion of modern Cherokee peoples. This subject may in fact parallel the Freedmen Issue. The consideration of the Masada being the ancestors in my opinion is a stretch but Wikipedia is not about opinions. When Prentice Robinson (noted linguist of the CNO) published the Cherokee Hymns he also commented on the parallels between the Jewish traditions and that of the Cherokee. He referenced works by the likes of James Adair and his own intimate knowledge of old songs and lyrics that parallel the name of Jehova. Origin stories are common in all groups of people and that has no relevance to whether or not there was a Cherokee government in Missouri. I think that as long as there is a controversy regarding the group that is not limited to the people themselves the wikipedia article is worth having to be worked on by anyone who has researched the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.204.112 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, there probably should be an article devoted to the phenomena of the various unrecognized/"wannabe" so-called "tribes", but the NCNOLT is no more significant than any other such group. The sole article on Wikipedia dedicated to them is just a list.  The NCNOLT is only more "documented" than any other such group because of the self-published book of Beverly Northrup.


 * Attmepts to identify any Cherokee with imaginary survivors of Masada are ridiculous. Adair was neither a linguist nor an anthropologist.  To show the level of documentation and scholarship in her book, one of the points Northrup made in support of the fictitious descent is that "Sicarii" is similar to "Tsaragi".  That one statement along is utterly wrong on at several counts: 1) suggesting descent merely because of a similarity in appearance be the two words in English transliteration; 2) "Tsaragi" is a non-Cherokee word, derived from Muskogean meaning "speakers of another language", and is not what the Cherokee people called themselves; and 3) "Tsaragi", the specific word Northrup uses, is in the former Lower Towns dialect which died out in the 18th century...the two surviving dialects, Upper and Middle, have no "r" and would therefore have said "Tsalagi". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, although I agree, people have a right to be wrong. Oral traditions, like many written traditions, often include best guess work and erroneous conclusions. The Aniyvwiya or Anigiduwa names would have been more accurate to trace the heritage of a people. Of course, no one knows precisely the meaning of the word Tsaragi and if another group were to refer to the Cherokees as the Sicarii with the evolution of the word and a certain amount of metathasis it could theoretically explain the conclusion presented. I discredit it fully in much the same way I discredit the Old Testament (Bible)'s ascertation that the sun rotates around the Earth. Such an error does not justify claiming that the Israelites were not Israelites. And Beverly's presumable error has nothing to do with the existence of Cherokee people in Missouri. Please also note that the Eastern Tribe of Cherokee Indians are the remnants of one migration, the Keetoowah claim to have left behind people in Arkansas and most Indian groups have left citizens behind in old settlements. Beverly's book deals with this issue for nearly 300 pages lined with evidence to support her claims (unlike the Sicarri suggestion) and I think that that is the real issue at hand. The Cherokee people have a documented settlement in Missouri and if we are to think as Anthropologists (for the sake of discussion) then we would say that there were likely Cherokee people who remained in Missouri from that early migration because all Indian groups have been historically divided about removal.

Adair was not an Anthropologist and part of that has to do with the fact that there was no such thing as the science of Anthropology during his lifetime. He did however act very much as a pre-anthropology anthropologist living among the people he studied. Linguistic anthropology is limited in it's findings to studies of neighboring languages and their relationships and does not have any published findings disputing possible relationships between Indian languages and other groups throughout the world. I don't know that I necessarily buy the stance, but it is something that could in theory be proven or disproven and to date has not been either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.72.149 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes Cherokee groups from Missouri different than other groups is the series of laws passed by Missouri to outlaw the existence of certain groups in Missouri. The Mormon's were expelled more or less contemporaneously with the Indian removal period of the 1830's. The expulsion law of Mormons was often attributed to Indians as well and the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri of 1889 further clarified the inclusion of all Indian peoples with this law and clearly defined punishments for Indians even traveling into the state and for people aiding them in any way. Chapter 83 section 5482 defines the punishments of Indians. This unique situation parallels the termination of Indian governments in Oklahoma just more than 10 years later when the Keetoowah people continued their government and practices in secret to prevent the disappearance of Cherokee ways. The Keetoowah were rerecognized shortly afterwards, before the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, as The Cherokee government. The Northern Cherokee claim to have met in secret, like the Keetoowah people, and in 1976 when the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma decided to exclude all Cherokees from their lists that were not descended from the Dawe's Rolls, within a year of when the state of Missouri rescinded the expulsion laws of the Mormons (and presumably the Indians), the Northern Cherokee began petitioning for their own rerecognition.

Many other Cherokee groups that are petitioning for recognition are not from areas where they were, under penalty of the laws of the lands, subject to legal action for their very presence and should therefore be easier to trace and identify as Indian groups as they were not required to hide. I think that this issue makes the study more pertinent to Missourians (Indian and otherwise) and to all Cherokee groups recognized and otherwise.

Children's books as sources
This articles uses two children's books--The Trail of Tears Across Missouri, by Joan Gilbert (specifically written at a 5th grade level), and The Journal of Jesse Smoke, by Joseph Bruhac, a young children's book which makes no pretense at being factual. The use of these two as sources on Wikipedia is an embarassment. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Jesse Smoke reference was removed, just not the tagged reference at the end, and the "Trail of Tears Across Missouri" is included because it is an outside source interviewing Beverly Baker Northrup prior to the "We Are Not Yet Conquered." It was published by the University of Missouri, Columbia in 1996 some 5 years prior to Northup's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.72.149 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The nature of state recognition
I think a source is required for the assertion that a gubernatorial proclamation is insufficient to "recognize" an Indian tribe under State law. I fully appreciate that only the Federal government can "recognize" a tribe in such a way as to bestow upon it the various rights etc. accorded tribes under the U.S. Constitution. Be that as it may, a state can - as far as I can tell - "recognize" a tribe for its own purposes if it chooses to do so. There is nothing on this page or at State recognized tribes, however, explaining any exclusive mechanism by which a state may recognize a tribe. In Virginia, the legislature has set out a procedure entailing a subsequent act by the legislature and the governor. See here. Do all states do it that way or is it possible that the subsequent act be undertaken just by the Governor, via executive order or other finding? We've been through several rounds of back-and-forth edits on the point and it warrants discussion. The statement (as it currently stands) that gubernatorial acts "are not the same thing as statutory recognition by those states through a vote of their legislatures" is self-evidently - and trivially - true. The underlying implication is that these acts are inferior in some fashion, and given the lack of clarity on the subject here and at State recognized tribes on the issue, I think it needs a source. Otherwise it's just the assertion of one editor. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I misspoke. The page on State recognized tribes indicates that there are a variety of means by which a tribe may obtain state recognition.  It doesn't go into detail but it likewise does not foreclose the possibility of gubernatorial action.  I am inclined therefore at some point to change the text of this article back to remove the qualifier on gubernatorial recognition, if no sources for the assertion are forthcoming in the next day or so.  Again I invite the comment of all interested editors.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I amended the subject language to soften its absolute (and unsourced) tone. Given the uncertain meaning and legal effect of state recognition, along with the variety of ways that various states have established for accomplishing it, it's an overstatement to state, flatly and without any source, that proclamations are not (cannot) be as effective for these uncertain purposes as other means.  At the same time, as has been pointed out elsewhere, "proclamations" often don't amount to much (see User_talk:Natty4bumpo) and so it fair to note the plain possibility that these proclamations may not amount to "recognition".  JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that I have done a brief bit of checking and can't find anything specific about how Missouri and Arkansas go about recognizing tribes. I did find this 2005 letter from Arkansas Atty General Mike Beebe that seemed to back off of state recognition there but I haven't had the time to figure out how it might fit in with this discussion (well, monologue).  Link here.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found copies of the letters on the NCNOTL website, which appear to be photocopies of the actual documents, and have put links specifically to those. Other than solely the act of "recognizing" the NCNOTL and proclaiming 23 June 1983 as "Northern Cherokee Day" (and not as a recurring event), the proclamations are meaningless. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for revert to previous changes
1. The claims made by the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" in the article and in the book written by their "chief", Beverly Northrup, connecting their history to that of the Western Cherokee are found only in Northrup's book and in no other historical work. According to all other published sources written by established experts, the entire group of Western Cherokee migrated to Indian Territory in 1828, a fact with which this material certainly conflicts. As a self-published work, the book is an unreliable as a sole source of information regarding that purported history, and the information is therefore unencylopedic, and relying on it as such is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

2. The information in the section "Cherokees outside of federal recognition" is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, at Cherokee heritage groups and at Cherokee and does not need to be repeated here as it can be adequately covered under "See also:".

3. The information about the Trail of Tears and Cherokee removal does not need to be replicated here as it can easily be covered under "See also:".

4. The extensive discussion of the internal politics of the NCNOTL and its subsequent split into three splinters of itself is not very encyclopedic and has therefore been abbreviated.

5. The sources for the article included the afore-mentioned text by Northrup, three of the organization's websites (which fall within the definition of "self-published"), one was a fiction book written for 3rd graders (per its entry on Amazon.com), and another was an article written for 5th graders. The first was removed because nothing of its citations remains after removing untrustworthy (not independently verified) material, the other ones because they are not appropriate or reliable sources.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the newspaper reference from the (Missouri) Columbia Daily Tribune Friday August 21, 1908 was a legitimate reference that discussed the existence of the Cherokee group in Missouri. The newspaper documented that the Cherokee group was residing in the area for some time.  According to Chuck Hamilton historical publications state that there were no other Cherokee people outside of Oklahoma and North Carolina.  This is a contradiction that was erased instead of fairly investigated.  The United Keetoowah Band published a book which was also listed as a reference that stated that there were Keetoowah (Cherokees) that remained in Arkansas instead of immigrating to Oklahoma.  The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has also on their own website acknowledged the Cherokee peoples living in states such as Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas and stated that they lost their citizenship with the Western Band of Cherokee (CNO), but that does not disqualify their existence and that reference was also erased.  It is the job of the BIA, not Wikipedia, to determine whether or not the Northern Cherokee are a legitimate government.  Wikipedia should be balanced and not censor true findings

.. These three references that were not from Beverly Baker were removed and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it except that Chuck Hamilton has stated multiple times that he disagrees with Beverly's statement about the Masada. I believe there is a conflict of interest that should be watched on his behalf. For anyone interested in those links I'll replace them here. Also, the relationship between the CNO and the Northern Cherokees (as well as all other Cherokee heritage groups) has been articulated very carefully. The Cherokee Nation has a fraud watch group that has not yet passed judgment on any of the heritage groups. The CNO has been very respectful and cautious in their wording and I suggest that editors be more careful in how they repeat the CNO's dialogue. The CNO is watching groups to make sure they are not fraudulent, they have not yet labeled any group as being fraudulent. Also, there are 3 federally recognized Cherokee groups in the USA and 1 in Mexico so there is no one true Cherokee group.


 * One, that reference isn't verified; two, it was not listed as one of the references. Self-published works are acceptable IF other works verify that material contained therein, which is not the case here.  In any case, what was true a century ago is not relevant to the NCNOTL unless independent verification of a connection can be provided; otherwise it's like saying someone who grew up and still lives in the former Cherokee settlement of Opelika on the upper Chickamauga River (South Chickamauga Creek) is Cherokee simply because of that residence or that the claims of the "Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee" are valid simply because they live nearby Old Chickamauga Town.


 * Contrary to what you say regarding the CNO, their website on fraudulent groups, http://taskforce.cherokee.org/, has a list of 204 groups claiming to be Cherokee tribes, and the NCNOTL is one of those listed. The Task Force has been made aware of both this article and the dispute over its content.


 * Speaking of conflict of interest, since you use Northrup's first name in a manner that clearly indicates that you know her well, I assume you are a member of the NCNOTL and therefore not impartial.


 * The Cherokee Nation of Mexico, though recognized by the state of Coahuila, is not now and never has bee federally-recognized.


 * Furthermore, my deletions had nothing to do with the dubious claims of descent from nonexistent survivors of the siege of Masada, mostly because those were not part of the article, though the fact that they are part of the book cast the reliability of the whole into doubt. In fact, I was they had been there when I attempted to have the whole article deleted this past week. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have the groups listed by the Cherokee been *found* to be fraudulent, or is that just the way the Cherokee describe them, as a point of advocacy; and if the latter, is it wise for Wikipedia to adopt the Cherokee designation, given that "fraudulent" is a legal determination as well as a common adjective, and may be, you know, overstating things a bit? JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * John it really doesn't matter because I was answering the contention that the CNO had not labelled any group fraudulent, which they indeed have. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, yup, okay - article says "potential", and Cherokee site is unambiguous. JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really John? Did you even look at it (http://taskforce.cherokee.org/)?  The title at the top is Welcome to taskforce.cherokee.org: Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force, and the link at the bottom of the page with the list is titled "Fraudulent Group List". I think the link entitled "Fabricated Tribes Resolution" speaks to that also.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also find the link "Full Paper - Submitted to Sovereignty Symposium 2007 (direct link: http://taskforce.cherokee.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RRHyHM9gfNA%3d&tabid=106&mid=2118)" instructive about the attitude of the CNO toward these organizations. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the declarations from the Governors of Missouri and Arkansas that say in no uncertain terms that the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory is the same Northern Cherokee group that Kit Bond recognized in 1983 are in harmony with the newspaper article from 1908. I think that newspaper article is verifiable. It was in one of the earlier makes. Does the US government have a fraud watch group and are the Northern Cherokee on that list? Also, why isn't there a section open for exploration of fraudulent activity? I think that both sides have a right to voice themselves.
 * Such proclamations are political public relations tools and not legitimate sources of reliable information. The NCNOTL applied for federal recognition 26 July 1985 but have not yet been granted even a hearing on the claim.  Were their application and claims the least bit credible, there would certainly at least have had a hearing. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any information on whether or not the group is applying for federal recognition or were they denied federal recognition?
 * http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/tribesnonrec.html Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Failure of recognition by the State of Missouri
In 1985, a bill recognizing the NCNOTL as a historical Indian tribe was introduced into the House of Representatives but failed to pass, per information from the State Archives of Missouri, 573-526-7333. Perhaps that may constitute "original reasearch", but it is a result that can easily be confirmed with a phone call and proves that the claims of the NCNOTL to be state recognized are fraudulent, meaning that their claims are unreliable and cannot be verified. The NCNOTL is NOT recognized by the State of Missouri. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked around the State of Missouri's website. It seems that the "Northern Cherokee peoples" were acknowledged by the Missouri legislatures, but this is in the similar lines as Vermont acknowledging the Abenakis... the peoples were acknowledged, not the groups/bands/communities. However, most States with some sort of recognition do have a listing somewhere on who or what they acknowledge, and I haven't come across that in any of the Missouri's Statutes/Rules. CJLippert (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I called the state archives office of the Missouri government this morning specifically asking if the NCNOTL was "state recognized" and was told they were not, and there were just a few proclamations of "Northern Cherokee Day". I didn't ask about the rest of the "tribes" which allege they have been recognized by that state. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we begin to see some of the problems with basing articles on original research. Arguments are available to one editor that aren't readily available to all editors; one editor's interpretation of the underlying facts may differ from another's - but we can't know that, because only one editor is in possession of the facts.  It's a morass.  I think any information based on personal phone conversations should be stricken from this article.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the reason I provided the phone number of the Missouri state archives. The part about material (a more accurate word than arguments) "available to one editor that aren't readily available to all" is a bit facetious because no one here has the equivalent of the Library of Congress attached to their house with all sources availabe at their beck and call.  The very line also assumes Wikipedia is a debating society, which it is not.  It is, or should be, about information, ACCURATE information.  Besides, something written down in the states archives in the Missouri government is NOT "original research" since government records are written down.  In fact, usually only one or two editors are in possession of the "facts" in any case, thus the reasons sources are cited and in-line ctiations provided. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what Wikipedia says about original research, which a personal phone call to a state official in Missouri plainly is:
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.


 * If you're arguing that this original research is appropriate as the basis for material included in this article, then you really need to lobby to have the policy amended inasmuch as this clearly prohibits it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing - what were the qualifications of the person to whom you spoke? A State Archivist perhaps can reliably and verifiably inform you of the fate of a particular bill before the Missouri House of Representatives, but are they qualified to opine on whether a particular tribe (or group of persons calling themselves a tribe) have been "recognized" by the state?  Do you *know* that you would get the same answer if you called the Attorney General's office; or the Governor's office, or chief counsel to the legislature?  Might it depend too on the personal sympathies of the person who happened to answer the phone in any of those places?  I can call that number (during U.S. business hours anyhow) and maybe get the same person and maybe get the same answer to the same questions - if I know them.  Or maybe not.  Like I said, it's a morass.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is upon those asserting a positive fact, in this case the assertion of the splinter group NCNOTL that they are state recognized. They offer no proof, just mere proclamations of "Northern Cherokee Day", no laws passed, no executive orders from state governors.  The person I initially spoke to referred me to the head of the archives, someone who knows what they are talking about.  There simply is no official recognition of the NCNOTL or any other splinter group of the Northern Cherokee Nation by the state of Missuori.  What you are basically saying is that anyone can say anything and be free of challenge regardless of how true or untrue unless someone challenging it can prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simple enough to say that the claim of "state recognition" is not based on any reliable, verifiable source, and remove it on that basis. Certainly at least tag it for a missing citation.  It might be one thing if the fact were somehow generally known, or was just common sense but was somehow not properly "sourceable" -- but at least in my own primitive efforts using Google, I haven't been able to find much to substantiate this particular claim.  Not even the gubernatorial proclamations.  Right now the claim really doesn't have much going for it at *all* beyond the tribe's own say-so, does it?  JohnInDC (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I get this right, the argument Chuck is making seems to be that one needs to provide proof that something is true in order to assert it, but not to assert that it is not true. That isn't quite how it works here. Check out WP:V; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that, without published verification saying yes or no either way, we not only can't assert a positive, we can't assert a negative. In fact, without published verification that there's uncertainty, we shouldn't even be discussing the uncertainty in the article.
 * Of course, that's not how things usually go down. This isn't a BLP so people aren't nearly as stringent about enforcing WP:BURDEN, but when it comes to a dispute, we need to go by established policy. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee "fraud" list
I am going to, once again, edit the page to make it clear that the Cherokee "fraudulent list" is not a list of actual frauds. We can't simply take Cherokee's list of "fraudulent" tribes and parrot the designation. Unless the Cherokee list can be traced back to some actual adjudication of fraud on the part of the listed organizations, the *most* that can be said is that the Cherokees "claim" fraud. (Of course if it were to stay in as written, then in keeping with the way that some parts of the NCNOLT history have been annotated here, it should be accompanied a note that the Cherokee make this claim "on their own self-published website without any verifiable evidence to support the claim".)

That kind of gratuitous comment attached to any claim by *either* the NCNOLT or the Cherokees is POV commentary that just leads to an unattractive, unencyclopedic escalation of still more such edits, and I am going to undo them where I see them. It is enough to say that this group or that group "claims" something, and leave it at that. The very word "claims", without anything in support of it, gets the point across. If my edits are reverted again I will seek the input of other editors. JohnInDC (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had put the name of the CNO's list in quotation marks indicating that it is their name for the list without necessarily giving credit to that claim. One of the meanings of "fraud" is "imposter", which in this case is what the CNO means.  You are asking that the CNO prove these people are not Cherokee (to prove a negative) when the burden of proof is on the members of the NCNOTL to prove that they are, which they have not done. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Request for editor assistance here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the suggestion at WP:EAR, I posted a request for additional eyes here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest to you, Chuck, that you be careful with placing words in quotes. If there's a question as to the usage of a term, it should not be left ambiguous with "scare quotes", but explained in appropriate detail. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to do what you suggest is equivalent to putting words in the mouth of the Cherokee Nation. Readers of Wikipedia who are curious can click on the link and decide for themselves.  The subject of this article is the unquestionably inauthentic and fraudulent, in the criminal sense, Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, not the "Fraudulent Group List". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pot calling kettle black
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=861.0 Here Northrup denounces a breakaway clique for trying to "steal away our identify and history", quite ironic considering what her group has been perpetrating against real Cherokee for over twenty years going back to the original establishment of the original pseudo-Cherokee club. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a biased comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.198.194 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask exactly what that article has to do with improving this article. And... quite frankly, Chuck, I would ask that you not use an article's talk page as a soapbox to complain about this subject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partly it has to do with the discussion on "fraudulent", because fraud committed by the NCNOTL is clearly discussed on that page. Besides, I've never seen discussion pages censored in what they could discuss.


 * Are you an administrator? I've checked you user page and can't find any reference but thought I should ask. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPG, the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article, not make statements about the subject itself. And in any case, WP:SOAP, being a policy, is pretty widely enforceable. But that's a moot point- I see what you mean in terms of the article's relevance, even if I don't think it's particularly useful at this point. And in response to your question, I am not an administrator- I'm sorry if I implied that at any point. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article shouldn't exist at all. The NCNOTL is one of hundreds of wannabe groups around the USA, not one of the more notable, and one of the more faudulent.  I've tried to have it deleted, but on Wikipedia, "concensus" outranks such middling concerns as accuracy, precision, and fact. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to let the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Government determine the facts regarding Indian affairs. If you'd like to voice your opinions regarding the Northern Cherokee or any other group I suggest another forum. If you'd like to argue with Wikipedia policy I think you should take that up directly with the administrators or a different forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles F Ross (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They already have. Any group not recognized by the federal government (via BIA or act of Congress) is not a tribe. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, I find your characterization of Wikipedia processes quite disturbing. It was already determined via almost unanimous consensus at WP:AFD that this article should be kept, and the arguments made there are just as valid now as they were when they were made less than a month ago. If you want to try another AfD, you certainly can, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were speedily closed. Being a "wannabe group" or being "fraudulent" are never valid reasons to delete an article.
 * And, indeed: at Wikipedia consensus is king. If you read our page on how policies and guidelines are made, you'll note that they're defined by observation of general practices within the community, and not on what a group of editors feels is "right". Thus we have WP:V, which provides accuracy and precision, and also establishes that Wikipedia doesn't care about facts, rather it cares about what was said.
 * Anyway, I hope that helps explain things better. I'd like to note that continuing to bash the subject of the article as you're doing is not only unproductive, it can be considered disruption. If you have genuine sources which call NCNOLT fraudulent or a "wannabe group" then fine, I think it would be great to cover it in the article. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why Wikipedia has zero credibility as a reliable source; concensus triumphs over actual facts. If this were five hundred years ago, the article on Earth would read that it is flat.  In this case, the concensus was made by ill-informed, unknowledgable persons with no experience with actual Indians or with fraudulent groups such as this one. It's akin to a group of obviously white people claiming to be black and demanding reparations, or at least that's how actual Indians see them. However, given the concensus, rather than repeatedly put the article up for deletion I've limited myself to ensuring that only independently verified material remains.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are not Indian, Chuck, and your education is unrelated to Indian policies. If you're going to defend the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and its policies you need to do a better job of sorting truth from opinion. These people are likely mixed Indian and White heritage. It's not like they're in Italy claiming to be a group of 6,000 immigrant Cherokees. They're in areas that were at one point or another documented Cherokee settlements, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and Texas. They're all relatively close to the modern Cherokee settlements in Oklahoma. If they were trend seekers they'd have likely claimed to be Osage, or tried to explain some sort of connection to the Head dress wearing teepee dwelling glam-Indians of western films. They aren't doing that. However the real discussion is not the ethnicity of these people even though you keep trying to equate the two topics. The discussion that is being explored is the validity of the government that the NCNOTOLT claim. If their government doesn't match BIA requirements then they won't be recognized as a government, regardless of race. That doesn't make them fraudulent regarding their heritage which they have a right to claim. Stick to the politics because that is a perfectly valid area for argument.

And the whole Earth is flat statement seems to be better for arguing the Northern Cherokee standpoint, seeing as how the CNO has a larger voice than the NCNOTOLT. You're also not a martyr. You stated earlier that you went out of your way to confirm that the Cherokee "Fraud Task Force" was notified about this article and if they really care about this issue then they will be helping you, not relying on you. I don't think that it's inappropriate for you to have a biased stance on the argument, but calling anyone to task for how they self identify racially is another matter, that's where you cross the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.197.163 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to you, Chuck, if you want to discuss the credibility of Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you find another forum to do so, such as the village pump or WT:V. Arguing over whether policy is right here will not change the fact that it is policy. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was germaine to this article as it stood when I recommended deletion, but all the material now is verified and credible, and more documented, with esasily checked online resources (from the BIA, for example), but you're right. And thanks for the links. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Position
I think that the political position of the NCNOTOLT is relatively unique to them and worthy of mention. I also think that there are some obvious connections between these policies and their leader's self identification as being both Cherokee and Christian which is worth pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.160.129 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's so many POV problems with those statements that going into them would exceed the limit for how big this discussion page is supposed to be. Essentially what you are saying is that what you want to do is promote their point-of-view. Besides, nearly all the groups which have sent in letters of petition to the BIA have said the exact same thing, so it's not unique.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is about the Northern Cherokee and it was recommended for deletion but it was decided to be kept. Information about policies belong on its Wikipedia page.  To promote their point of view I would have to agree with it and I don't.  The freedmen issue and the Cherokee fraud declarations are on the CNO page and every organization has room for information regarding its policies and current issues.  I merely pointed out how they're doing things.  There are several Cherokee groups that are filing law suits against the government and most of them are promoting illegal drug use and gambling to some degree or other (see the CNO discussion page on Wikipedia).  Since you and I disagree about whether this point is worth publishing I recommend additional opinions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.78.116 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this point of view is not entirely run-of-the-mill, if it somehow sets NCNOLT a bit apart from other groups, then I think its inclusion is appropriate. I am sure the tone could be made more descriptive, but that's a problem of editing, not inclusion.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case John, I'm sure you'd like to let the Church of Scientology edit Wikipedia articles again and allow it to promote its POV about itself. You clearly know nothing about these groups. The stance that "99.195.160.129/69.29.78.166" (clearly the same individual, is common to all of them. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get your point, Chuck. If you are saying that members of an organization should be forbidden to enter self-serving unverifiable POV material about their organization, I agree with you.  I would also agree that if certain editors can't abide by those rules, they should be banned, by name, from editing particular articles.  That's what they did here.  On the other hand, however, I don't have any trouble with members of an organization, Scientologists included, editing articles about organizations to which they belong to explain what's notable or unique about the organization, if the edits are consistent with Wikipedia policies.  (I am assuming that you don't literally mean that Scientologists are forbidden to edit Scientology articles.  How would one police that?)  Here, now, we have one editor - an anonymous IP editor, to be sure - asserting that these practices set NCNOLT apart in some fashion.  And we have you asserting that they don't, and reverting the edits on sight.  Neither the pro nor the con positions have been sourced.  If you are interested in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and you have an interest in this area, and you don't trust the IP editor to make NPOV edits, then why don't you actually look into the matter and try to make the edit, rather than simply reverting it?  Or if  you already know the answer, share with the rest of us the source of your knowledge.  I mean, suppose - just for the sake of discussion - that only 3 of 199 groups seeking federal recognition have formally eschewed any interest in opening casinos, etc. - that would certainly merit mention.  You could just state it in passing in the intro.  And if the claim is demonstrably false, then it should be easy enough to find a source or two to the effect.  Will you try it?  JohnInDC (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note as well that this add-and-revert cycle is turning into an edit war, if it isn't one already, and that a good faith effort to edit and compromise on the disputed text would avoid the 3RR violations that appear to be looming. JohnInDC (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Letters of petition for recognition by groups such as the Northern Cherokee Nation went from a handful to scores per year when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act first began making its way thru Congress. The NCNOTL is a splinter group of the above group.  Such statements as 99.195.160.129/69.29.78.166/69.29.78.116 is attempting to have enshrined as gospel truth are little more than a rhetorical attempt to legitimize themselves by claiming to deny that is their ultimate goal.  It is thus self-serving and not a neutral POV, just like the changes Scientology kept making to the articles here referring to it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, Chuck, if this is all true it has been summarized by someone elsewhere on the entire internet and you can direct us to it so we can better understand the issues. Otherwise I find myself asking questions like, if this group is a splinter group, why did they splinter?  Maybe on this issue.  Maybe they're making this statement to set their application apart from the others, whose intent *is* to open casinos.  I can't tell.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a list of 'tribes' and their web pages and I believe that will verify that no other group is openly stating that it will not seek gambling, land retributions, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.78.116 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true, 99.195.160.129/69.29.78.166/69.29.78.116. The webpages of nearly every pseudo-Indian "tribe" makes similar statements, your fellow splinters of the NCN, the Free Cherokee, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, and every other tribe that has petitioned for recognition (the great majority, like the NCNOTL, offering no corrobrating evidence). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict - this directed to the IP editor): What you should try to do, if it is possible to do so fairly and accurately, is to show how this policy somehow uniquely characterizes the organization or otherwise sets it apart.  Not in some kind of self-congratulatory tone, but as a simple matter of fact.  I freely admit that I don't know really anything at all about the terrain here - what kinds of claims, assertions, maybe even PR gimmicks that different tribes may engage in or adopt - so I don't know if what I'm suggesting is remotely feasible.  I'm just saying, I guess, that to the extent that this particular point of view can be fairly cast as a belief, or broad policy of the organization, versus e.g. just kind of a marketing tool in order to facilitate Federal recognition, that'll make its inclusion more encyclopedic, and therefore more acceptable.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just posted 3RR warnings at User talk:Natty4bumpo and User talk:69.29.78.116. The only reason I didn't post at other IPs is because the number moves around too much. You folks can't keep reverting each other back and forth. Please pursue some kind of dispute resolution. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * *Or*. Draft something that is cleaner, better sourced, and as lacking in a point of view as possible.  I don't think that a good faith effort at compromise would be, in its first instance, simply more of the same edit warring.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any input on the subject except that if they are the same as other groups or different than other groups either way more content is better than less content, so long as it is verifiable.Charles F Ross (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A member of the NCNOTL saying that his/her group has no interest in casinos is as meaningless as saying the group has no interest in cultivating marijuana or engaging in human trafficking since at this time the NCNOTL has no legal capacity to operate one and it would therefore be just as illegal for them to do so as to engage in the other two activities. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * http://arkansascherokees.com/index.html
 * http://www.northern-cherokee-nation.com/
 * http://southerncherokeeok.com/evidence.html
 * http://www.amonsoquathbandofcherokee.com/;
 * www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com
 * http://cherokee-indians-of-ga-inc.0pi.com/index.html
 * www.echotacherokeewolfclan.com
 * www.native-american-online.org/cherokee-northeast-alabama.htm
 * www.southerncherokeenationky.com
 * www.cherokeetribeofkentucky.org
 * www.powersource.com/cocinc
 * http://www.cherokeesofcalifornia.com/


 * None of these groups is stating that they are not pushing for gambling rights, etc, and the third from the top openly seems to be saying that they are pushing for gambling rights. This is just a sample of all the active groups that I could find.  The NCNOTOLT is apparently unique among them in this instance.


 * www.blnz.com/news/2009/06/03/Indian_tribe_eyes_Belmont_Park_4290.html
 * www.somdnews.com/stories/02182009/indymor180650_32236.shtml
 * www.nativenashville.com/recognition_news.htm
 * http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Gaming-Tribal-Sovereignty-Compromise/dp/0700614060#reader


 * These are news mentions (and a book dedicated to the topic) of tribes seeking recognition for the rights to build casinos. They also discuss the controversy that building casinos brings.  ::The book goes in to detail about why people get nervous when people who self identify as Indians seek recognition, and that is equated with gambling and illegal activity.


 * http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/house-approves-virginia-indians-federal-recognition-bill


 * This article on the VA tribes points out that they are stating that they will not institute casinos and are the one example of a tribe (that I could find) besides the NCNOTOLT that have openly declared that they are pursuing federal recognition and are not interested in gambling rights. VA tribes, by the way, are not Cherokees for anyone who is not familiar with Indian politics.  I again repeat that I believe that the stance of the NCNOTOLT against gambling is unique enough and important enough to consider having on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.198.37 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a link showing NCNOLT's position (or did I miss it somewhere up there)? JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's meaningless NCNOTL propaganda, and as propanganda has no place in a Wikipedia article. I repeat: it would be illegal for the NCNOTL to operate a casino, just as it would be illegal for them to cultivate marijuana or coca, or to take part in human trafficking, therefore the only point in the NCNOTL saying it is not interested in casinos is in anticipation of the accusation or because they have been accused to that in the past. The only purpose of making the statement is a way of saying, "Look at us, we're not like the 'others', we're pure and good and innocent, therefore you should grant us recognition", regardless of the fact we have provided not one shred of evidence to substantiate our claims."  Of course, once the NCNOTL had recognition, they could do anything they want.
 * John, you are clearly unqualified to make any kind of judgement on wannabes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not about now but about later. if the NCNOLT is granted federal recognition, they'll have the right to run a casino. So their (apparent) offer to forego that right, in that future case, is pertinent. The other examples you offer up are wholly beside the point, unless you are suggesting that, along with federal recognition Indian tribes also gain the right to engage in human trafficking and to grow coca. Is that your claim?

Additionally. I am not making judgments on tribal "wannabes" (a subject about which I am, as you have noted, almost wholly ignorant) but on verifiable facts that may or may not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia articles. I don't pass myself off as an expert in that field either but I certainly have some experience at it. This is wholly in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia:


 * On the other hand, Wikipedia is "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and it does not make a distinction between editors based on their expertise. Wikipedia has no formal structure to determine which editors are experts or not (and on which subjects), nor is there the intention to develop such a structure. Nor does Wikipedia grant users privileges or respect based on subject-matter expertise. Quite the contrary, many in Wikipedia view experts with suspicion if not outright contempt.

That from the first couple of paragraphs of EXPERT. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here for the purpose of context and discussion are two recent articles in the Washington Post, noting the progress of several Virginia and North Carolina tribes toward Federal recognition directly by Congressional enactment, rather than through BIA. Wash. Post 1 and Wash Post 2.  The articles note that under the terms of the bill, the tribes would not have the right to run casinos.  I wonder whether that was their idea, or Congress's?  (Another article, which I can't find again now, suggests that such restrictions may be unconstitutional.  Still *another* article - pardon my creeping senility - observed that this was an example of how State recognition can assist in Federal recognition, as the tribes had been recognized in Va. for quite some time.)   I don't know how these articles might affect this one - it suggests that the NCNOLT idea is floating around out there pretty commonly, on the one hand; but on the other, it's an idea that's getting some attention in and of itself, and perhaps bears mention here.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably has to do with Virginia stte law. The casino at Qualla Boundary is limited to video machines is for that reason, except that the state is North Carolina.  Yes. there's some allowance for sovereignty, but even federally recognized the tribes are subject to state law.  And if the Cherokee Nation maintains its stance that it has the right to disenfranchise the Cherokee Freedmen, they'll find out just how subject to federal law they are.
 * State recognition can be a step of sorts, but it is not part of the BIA process one way of another. The only way to bypass the BIA is by act of Congress. If you look at the online BIA sources, you'll find that although the NCNOTL has submitted a letter of petition, it has not submitted any documentation at all, a trait it shares with the great majority of wannabe tribes of the past 30 years, since Indian gaming first became an issue. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As was first written before deletion the reference is www.itsedugalu.com/national_news and states in no uncertain terms that the NCNOTOLT will not, if federally recognized, participate in gambling, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.204.214 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A rather meaningless statement since at the moment the NCNOTL doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being recognized, particularly given its utter lack of attempt to provide documentation. Therefore, what the NCNOTL says it would do in that case means squat.  The statement is mere propaganda. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you won't mind it being posted on Wikipedia. I doubt "snowball's chance in hell" is encyclopedic but NCNOTOLT's intentions constitute information that the public is interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.26.176 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is self-serving propaganda and has no place on Wikipedia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting political point, for sure. I'll say this, it would be best if that position were repeated in observations by secondary sources independent of NCNOLT. Even so, it being propaganda doesn't mean it's unacceptable for inclusion- who are we to determine that propaganda doesn't merit discussion? The only policy-bound objections I would have to the statement would be WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS, but even then, by qualifying it with "The NCNOLT have stated..." massively alleviates the concern of us just repeating some bull.
 * I'd also like to warn both Chuck and the other editor here against edit warring- it doesn't matter that the three revert rule isn't being broken, you will find yourselves temporarily blocked from editing and/or this article protected from editing should you persist. If you continue to disagree here, I suggest you call for involvement of the greater WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America in this specific dispute. That way a binding consensus may be established. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to include them. I reentered the information so that someone besides Chuck could see the information before it was deleted. At one point someone said there was no reference and so I reentered it with the reference. Isn't there an "innocent until proven guilty" guideline for erasing information? My name's Mitch by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.30.178 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much question about NCNOLT's stated position. It also appears to be somewhat (though not altogether) outside the norm.   What would help is some indication, other than our own compilation and tallying of sources, that indicated that this bit of information was notworthy in some way.   Some kind of coverage by a disinterested third party, for example.  Part of the problem with this article is that it's heavily weighted toward two classes of source - what NCNOLT says about itself, and where the Cherokees dispute it all.  I am not troubled by "restating propaganda" - if a group's belief system is established and noteworthy, then Wikipedia should not shy from describing it.  My problem is that, right now, it just doesn't seem particularly material to anything; it's just a stray fact.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be politically relevent only to those interested in the topic. Besides NCNOLT and other Cherokees who else would constitute as an interested third party?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.78.181 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any publication that fits the bill of a reliable source as described in WP:RS. To copy the "nutshell" description from that page, "Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources". This ideally means peer-reviewed publications (which works best for academic topics), but pretty much any major publication should be valid. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins
On top of the political position of this group, I also think that information concerning where they claim to come from is valid. Judeo Christians often source Adam and Eve even though it is not provable and even though oral tradition is not Wikipedia appropriate it is if it is published (Northup's book counts in this regard). I know Chuck has an opinion on the matter, does anyone else have any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.78.181 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as valid as the similar ideas of the Mormons, the British Israelists, and Christian Identity, meaning no, not at all. You need to do further research into what Wikipedia considers valid; a self-published work such as Northrtup's book does not meet Wikipedia's definition, regardless of what you and the rest of the handful of Northrup's followers pretend.  To begin with, all the defenders at Masada died by suicide, which was preferrable to what the Romans would have done to them, such as crucifixion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A self-published work certainly does not establish the facts underlying a group's origins, but there is probably no better source for what the group claims or believes its origins to be. Given the paucity of 3d party material on this organization, I'm not sure its origins theory bears mentioning; but if it does, then this work is certainly sufficient support for the claim under Wikipedia's standards.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Chuck, I am Mormon and the "Moron" joke isn't well received —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.78.181 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, never considered the possibility of a typo (which is what it was), did you, before flinging around potentially actionable accusations? Someone's taking themselves WAY too seriously. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is "actionable" about taking offense at a common, and commonly intentional, insulting play on words. I'm glad it was a typo but that being the case, a simple and sincere apology would have gone further, I think, toward tempering the unfortunate harsh discourse that has risen up around this article.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it was a mistake, I'm sorry that I misjudged your intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.242.179 (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can understand the mistake given the tenor of these ongoing exchanges. I'm an atheist, but I'm always friendly when LDS missionaries come to my door and I always take the time to talk to them, out of respect for the two year commitment to do that.  Also, I've never met any that were at all pushy, just enthusiastic. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

recognition revisited
Having taken some time to research the article I made some adjustments to the recognition section of the page and added a section presenting a condensed explanation of their relationship with the actual Federally Recognized Tribes. I included the factoid concerning "self identified" Cherokees so that the reader can be aware of why the Federally Recognized Tribes are concerned with these groups claiming Cherokee heritage. The statements regarding the process of recognition are included because I couldn't find a Wikipedia link to connect to and I think they help to explain why there is so much confusion concerning the NCNOLT's "state recognition." If I made any mistakes in the editing please let me know and we can adjust them as per Wikipedia guidelines. Charles F Ross (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)