Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians/Archive 1

old comments
I thought this was a Wikipedianism for the locally familiar Ramapo Mountain. See Talk:Ephrem the Syrian. --Wetman 14:06, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

This artcile is an exact copy of. Copyright violation?? 6 Mar 2005

Document was rewritten...

ramapough mountain indians
document rewritten on temp page. pls update. this is from home page and permission was granted. The info posted previously was from state site and here is their copyright policy.

"The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise state on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply."

no copyright laws were broken.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.88.71 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2005‎ (UTC)

Copyvio result
The article has been returned to its pre-copyvio state. The discussion from Copyright problems was:


 * Ramapough Mountain Indians From
 * copyright statement-- The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise state on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply. However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws.
 * Also, an earlier version of the article existed that was deleted to make way for the  copy/paste.--Duk 16:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Information from the New Jersey Web site can be incorporated into the article, but should avoid plagiarism. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Information from the Ramapough Lenape Nation
Steve posted this on my talk page;

''The info posted to the temp page is from my website. I am the web admin for the tribal website. If possible, I would like to explain why the info posted is offensive. the info listed is wrong. We do not, nor have we ever spoke Jersey Dutch. Our ancestors spoke Munsee and i'm sure they had to learn English and Dutch to communicate with the European invaders. The part that is really upsetting is many site derive their info from yours and it spreads the lies. In the temp folder is the correct info which is on our website written by our chief. Please, either post the correct info or delete us out of your site altogether. Thank you. Steven '' (User:Ramapoughnative1)

Steve has put some material at Ramapough Mountain Indians/Temp which appears to be from ramapoughlenapenation.org --Duk 16:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just added my endorsement of your comments on his Web page. I must admit that I don't like the reference to "lies", or the claim that errors are offensive (if I took offense at all the mistakes that, for example, many Americans make about the U.K, I'd be in a permanent state of fury...). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed comments..
I won't complain about the removal of those previous comments, they were racist and pejorative. However, the poster did indicate some things that should be discussed, if this article refers to the same people (which it appears to). A mention of the common (considered pejorative?) term "Jackson Whites" and its relation here should be discussed in a NPOV way. I had heard of people referred to by that term, but I did not realize that this article was talking about the same group of people until reading those recent comments. The article at gives a reasonable background and commentary, and many references to other publications. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 06:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article has a sad history of racist vandalism, sometimes thinly veiled with a few valid facts. Some of the reverts removed information that would be acceptable if presented in a balanced  way. --Duk 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a great difference between something being said about a nation as a whole and something said about your family. The information posted saying we were descendents of runaway Hessian soldiers, prostitutes, etc is just wrong. Period. There is no documentation to support this but it gets printed as truth because that's how people want to think of us. Even as hard as Cohen tried to prove the mixed blood thing, he couldn't but I still see it posted on websites. Some sites having nothing to do with Native Americans or geneology have it listed there. Why? It's all politically motivated propaganda to make us look like we're less than human and it had to be corrected. I do appreciate all of the webmasters who have corrected or removed the misinformation. steven


 * After reading the comments by ChrisRuvolo, I added some information about the Jackson White name trying to be as careful as possible to be respectful of the opinion of the tribe regarding the name. I've lived in Suffern, NY and have hiked in the Ramapo mountains, and the name and the legends around it are an important part of the region's history. I hope this helps, if not, feel free to rv. Sysin

Sysin I don't mind the additions so much but can we kill the Cohen part? His book is neither supported nor appreciated by the tribe. If you must mention something with authority, how about the book "Indians in the Ramapos" by Edward J. Lenik? He is a well known anthropologist and has done unbiased research to find the truth. Please understand, just because we're introverted doesn't mean we're ignorant. It's really nobody's business what or who our descendents were. How would you feel to have your history and lineage under a microscope? I understand you have lived in Suffern (The town was founded by my gr gr gr gr grandfather) but are you a Ramapough? Don't we have a say in what's told about us? I guess nothing has changed in the past 250 years. Do you realize the impact you♦r website has? The misinformation posted here before had proliferated to hundreds of sites around the world, and it's still listed on some sites. The Jackson White theory needs to die already.. Let it go... Before 1940's.. African Americans were called the 'N' word by most of society. No one prints that now because that would be ignorant and pejorative. I feel just as strongly about the name "Jackson White". It's not true so why print it?

Steven


 * I'm not familiar with Cohen, but his opinion (if based on scientific research) should not be deleted just because some disagree with it. The proper procedure is to add a paragraph stating that "In his book Indians in the Ramapos, Edward J. Lenik states that ...". This covers both opinions, and provides the reader with a clearer picture of the issue than simply deleting the 'offending theory'. In fact, if you want the "Jackson White" myths to die, the best approach is to state them and rebut them, not to pretend they don't exist. As for the comparison to the N word, in fact wikipedia has a long and informative article on it as well...Sysin

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist. The point is it's a myth made up by some racist many years ago and because no one stepped up to the plate and said he was wrong, it's stuck for all these years. Cohen couldn't prove it, Lenik showed otherwise. (and yes it has be rebutted.) So what do we do? Rebut it on every website that prints it, (I don't have the time nor resources for it) or just ask not to have it printed? All I can say is I hope no one else ever has to go thru this for their family. I'm done. You have already decided what you're going to print whether it's true or false.


 * To answer your question what should we do. You need to rebutt the Cohen reference with Lenik's information. You can also add details about the NY and NJ officially recognizing the Ramapough Lenape Nation. Also, you can add cultural, historical and current information on the tribe. You might be one of the few persons in a position to do this. I've become interested in this topic, and have reverted obvious vandalism in the past. But am otherwise ignorant on the topic, and my library doesn't have a copy of INDIANS IN THE RAMAPOS: SURVIVAL, PERSISTENCE AND PRESENCE, by Edward J. Lenik, North Jersey Highlands Historical Sociey, 1999. I'll see if I can get it on intra-library loan. --Duk 01:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * All of that info is already posted on the tribal website. I will work on the Cohen/Lenik part though. thanks!

Ramapough Mountain People
Once again I come back to find more derogitory info on us. Why do you keep adding more negative info? Do you have something AGAINST us? I have updated your page to include the information from Ed Lenik from the N.J. Highlands Historical Society. Last point i'd like to make is Cohen did not work or even consult with the tribe to write his books. Ed Lenik did. Therefore, Cohens only reference was the one sided stories and myths written about us from the people who wanted nothing more than to steal our land. Their writings of us were less than perfect because they didn't care. ( think of Abramhoff who was hired to lobby FOR the tribes but did the opposite and called them names behind their backs) At this time, it is documented that the white colonials beat, raped, and stole from the indians. When the indians tried to get justice, there was none. This is why the tribes sold their land and moved north and west. They were invited by other tribes to live with them and they feared for their existence if they stayed here.

pokey5945: Thanks for editing the input. I want to bring to your attention that the BIA hasn't recognized any of the 3 state recognized tribe here in New Jersey. As a matter of fact, they have removed a few who were. The BIA is loaded with flaws and will add or remove a tribe based on who's paying. PERIOD. We never wanted recognition for a casino and filed our petition in 1978, years before the casino law was inacted but a powerful person here who owns the casino business assumed we wanted to get in on his business and guess what? He petitioned against us and we didn't get recognized. What ever happened to examining the facts? This event is well documented can be found on the web. We don't need anyone to decide if we are or are not Indian. We know who we are and don't care what anyone else thinks. You adding the part about the BIA decision, a branch of the federal government (who has done nothing to preserve or keep it's treaties with any tribe), doesn't recognize us as Native American adds no merit to the facts. This is the same branch that has members who have been caught lying, stealing tribal funds, and conspiring against all Native Americans. I thought this was suppose to be a factual site. Seems you want to push propaganda. Do you work for the government too?

Steven


 * The federal government's relationship to the group is relevant to this article, regardless of whether one agrees with the govts' decisions or not. If you can document some corruption in the BIA acknowledgment process, that would relevant too, but it would need to be verifiable.Pokey5945 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The proof will be when the Shinnecocks claim about Blumenthau contacting the BIA and tampering with the decision making comes to light. Why is it that legend about the Ramapoughs being descendent of deserter soldiers and slave women (which has NO proof even existed and is considered slander) has to be mentioned here but the fact that there are hundreds of documents and some noted anthropologist such as Roger Josilyn saying we are whom we say but that's not good enough? We didn't get recognition because it wasn't in the governments best interest. If you read the document by the BIA, we failed because we weren't documented before 1870 or after 1950. How does a whole village of people appear out of nowhere overnight? Since I was born in 1958, Why doesn't birth and death records suffice to the existence of the same tribe? Doesn't geneology records have any part in the decision? It's all B.S.

The Assistant Secretary found that Petitioner satisfied the criteria in § 83.7(b) and (c) for the period 1870-c.1950. However, she stated: "Meeting a criterion for a limited period is not sufficient to meet the criterion overall because of the requirement of continuous existence. No adequate evidence has been submitted to show the continuous existence of a community from first sustained contact with non-Indians until 1870, or from 1950 to the present. http://www.ibiadecisions.com/Ibiadecisions/31ibia/31ibia061.PDF(31 IBIA 67)

POKEY5945: The part you added about COHEN "who conducted extensive genealogical research among the group." is removed because it is a lie. He never did any geological research. His information is based on documents written by John C. Storms in 1936. Roger Josyln who IS a geneologist disputes Cohen and had stated otherwise. Here is Joslyn's credentials.

Roger D. Joslyn, CG, FASG, is a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists (and its immediate past president), The New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, and the Utah Genealogical Association.A full-time genealogist since 1978, he became a Certified Genealogist in 1981. He is a former trustee of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, a founding member and past vice president of the Genealogical Speakers Guild, and a member of the New York Archival Services Advisory Committee (State Archives). Roger is a past president, former trustee, and former Editorial Advisory Board member of the Association of Professional Genealogists, and in 1994 he received that organization’s Grahame Thomas Smallwood, Jr. Award of Merit. He is a frequent speaker and has had many articles published in leading genealogical journals. He was the editor/compiler of the two-volume Vital Records of Charlestown, Massachusetts, and is the author of the Mid-Atlantic state chapters in Ancestry's Red Book.

We are not going to publish our geneology on your website to prove it. I also want to bring to your attention in Cohens book "The Ramapough Mountain People", page 7. He himself states "there is no evidence that this information is related to the origin of the Ramapo mountain People." So he himself disputes the Jackson White theory. So please stop printing misinformation.

P.S. Cohen is a historian NOT an geneologist. They are not the same. David Steven Cohen holds a B.A. in History from Rutgers University, an M.A. in American History from Claremont Graduate School, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in American Civilization from the University of Pennsylvania. He taught History and American Studies at Rutgers University in Newark for nine years, prior to coming to the New Jersey Historical Commission, where he is a Senior Research Associate and Director of the Ethnic History Program.

Steven

This is my email address. Ramapoughnative1@hotmail.com

1-12-06 To whom it may concern: I have made changes to your information. I have also supplied proof of what was written. The BIA document can be found anywhere on the web since it's public knowledge. Can we just leave it alone now? I would like to know why we had to go through so much more to disprove what was written. No other tribe listed here had to go through so much to get their info corrected.

Steven. ramapoughnative1@hotmail.com

1-13-05 Once again I have found errors added to this document. Roger Joslyn is a Geneologist not a Historian. What he found was the blood links to other tribes, not the shared history. There is a difference. The BIA findings did not say we were not an Indian tribe, it says we didn't prove consistant community leadership and that is different. We failed to prove items (B, C,and E), not (A) which states.. (a) The petitioner HAS been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence that the group's character as an Indian entity has from time to time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence to be relied upon in determining a group's Indian identity may include one or a combination of the following, as well as other evidence of identification by other than the petitioner itself or its members.

(1) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal authorities. (2) Relationships with State governments based on identification of the group as Indian. (3) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local government in a relationship based on the group's Indian identity. (4) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists, historians, and/or other scholars. (5) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and books. (6) Identification as an Indian entity in relationships with Indian tribes or with national, regional, or state Indian organizations.

The Federal Government does recognize our Native American status as well as the states of New York and New Jersey. Don't misprint the facts.

P.S. look at this from the Courant.com, "Tribal Nation Files Appeal" dated 1/13

"In its latest ruling, the Interior Department rejected the Schaghticokes because the tribe failed to prove it had a viable, intact community with its own government for decades-long stretches in the 19th and 20th centuries. Tribal leaders say new evidence was ignored."

Look familiar?

Edits of Jan. 21
Chris.. Why did you re-edit my work??!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative1 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello. I reverted the (anonymous) changes to Ramapough Mountain Indians because they removed several requests for citation, and made claims that were disputed by some of the sources listed in the below paragraphs.  That is, the changes violated the neutral point of view and the citation of sources policies.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern.. I have noted and quoted 5 distinguished Historians and Geneologists who have acknowledged the Ramapough Lenape Nation as an Indian tribe. They are all in agreement(see the annotations and read for yourself.)The only one who disagrees is Cohen in this discussion. As per your rules on NPOV, your president, Jimbo Wales states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." So can you please remove the bit about Cohen since he is the minority and since he couldn't prove his claim against 5 others, i'd say he is in the extreme majority.

Steven Ramapoughnative1 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steven, the new citation added, Kraft, says that the origins of the Ramapoughs are "controversial". To change the article to ignore that controversy when it is acknowledged by experts would be illogical.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

via email: Yes he states controversy, but mot on his part. He states "It is clear that we are descended..." In his book, he wrote 2 pages about us. He didn't have a doubt and neither of the other 4 people. the only one who did is Cohen. As Cohen can't back up his claim and the others can, he is clearly in the minority so please remove him. This is by your own rules. If I have to, I will write to the president himself to have it done as this is clearly just another way to ignore the facts and perpetuate the lies about 'Jackson Whites'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative1 (talk • contribs)


 * Steven, please respond here so that we can have a record of the debate. While you have provided several citations approving of the claim of native american ancestry, I don't think anyone has been actively looking for counter-claims.  Counter-claims should be included, this is precisely what NPOV means, that both sides of an argument are included and the reader should be able to make up his/her own mind.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

via email: Chris. Now you want us to prove everything written in here? First of all, we are not going to publish our genealogy on the web from Roger Joslyn. Would you publish your family history if you were asked? I think we're getting a bit petty as I have gone above and beyond for this site. The other things requested are on the web for all to see by just searching. I am not going to find every little detail. I would like to state that I feel we have been treated unfairly. No other Indian tribe you have listed has gone through so much to get you the facts. What is the problem and why are we being treated this way? Just so you are not suprised, I will be contacting the president of this company and making a formal complaint because you don't follow your own rules of business. I read the NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative1 (talk • contribs)


 * If the Joslyn research is not available for public consumption, then it is not a verifyable source. If it has been published as an independent work or in a research journal, please indicate where it can be found.  I don't blame you for not publishing familial details, but you shouldn't use unverifyable claims here.  And yes, everything written here should be verifiable by citing a source.
 * I have not made significant content edits to this article or other Native American articles. Please do not accuse me of things that I have not done.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I understand if you have to remove the info on Joslyn but, the info is posted on the web if searched for. I just don't want to be the one who's responsible for posting it as it should remain private. What about the issue in the NPOV stating the extreme minority should not be listed? Since Cohen is not in the same class or status as the others, why isn't he removed? You can find anyone who will claim anything just to be opposite but considering the credentials of the others, where is his credentials that says he is an authority and deserves a say? Especially since I have given proof with an eyewitness accounting from the 1800's and documentation from before and after Cohens book stating otherwise? I just want a fair shake. If I wrote something about you that was wrong, would you post it as controversial even though it isn't true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view

see this document on NPOV. Other sysops agree with me.

I agree with Iantresman. The main article should be the topic covered. Every POV should not, and can not, be shown in every article. It is true this isn't a paper encyclopedia, but in those the main article only tells what the specific theory/idea/eschatology/etc with a reference to related articles. For instance, the Wikipedia entry for flat earth more closely resembles an encycolpedia entry than the intelligent design article that looks more like a message board debate. (The ID article is particularly ridiculous). For the same reason I wouldn't want to read about democracy (a majority view) in an article about anarchy (a minority view), I don't want to read about opposing POVs from scientists, theologians, etc. glocks out 19:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative1 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steven, I tried searching for the Joslyn paper, but could not find it. Perhaps you could give some better hints?  One interesting thing I did find was the BIA document on why the federal recognition appeal was denied.  I have included quotations from that document to try to bring some NPOV balance to the article.  As for your NPOV discussion quotation, that refers to the example of the cosmology article, which references several articles that discuss different theories.  The argument was that information on each of the different theories should not be included on all the other articles, but that there should be mention of the debate with reference to other articles like the main cosmology article that discusses it.  I don't see how that applies here.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris. This is acceptable. I think we have come to common ground. I wanted to show you these for a personal standpoint. You can look at the Brotherton website forum for your request but don't print or reference it here. Also, here is the link to why we really didn't get recognized.

http://www.colorado.edu/Sewall/ramirez/cashin.htm

Donald Trump has also attempted to interrupt the growth of Indian reservation casinos. On April 30, 1993, he filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey against U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, and Tony Hope, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission, claiming that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is unconstitutional and gives Indians preferential treatment and an unfair advantage in acquiring licenses for setting up legal casinos on their land.[49] [50]

Coincidentally, Trump's three Atlantic City casinos, Trump Castle, Trump Plaza, and Trump Taj Mahal, are feeling the heat from the Mashantucket Pequot's Foxwoods casino in Connecticut and are fearing the possibility of the Ramapough Indians of Northern New Jersey opening a gambling operation near Atlantic City. "Unabashed motor mouth Donald Trump lived up to his reputation on Oct. 5 when he told a congressional hearing that organized crime is rampant on Indian reservations. Trump went on to predict that if the trend toward gaming on Native American land continues, 'this will be the biggest crime problem in this country's history.'"[51] Ramapoughnative1 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Pokey Can't you read? we failed on items b,c,& e. Not a. We were and are a Native American tribe. It had nothing to do with our history. It's all about politics. I submit Trump's lawsuit for proof. As far as i'm concerned, i'm done with this whole thing. Now I have to work against 2 of you. Think what you want as i don't have to defend my family against any of you. That the problem with this country, you people think if it ain't the 'white' way, it ain't the right way.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/tribefederalrecognition.html

I'm done with this website write whatever the hell you want.

(a) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence that the group's character as an Indian entity has from time to time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence to be relied upon in determining a group's Indian identity may include one or a combination of the following, as well as other evidence of identification by other than the petitioner itself or its members.

(1) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal authorities.

(2) Relationships with State governments based on identification of the group as Indian.

(3) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local government in a relationship based on the group's Indian identity.

(4) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists, historians, and/or other scholars.

(5) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and books.

(6) Identification as an Indian entity in relationships with Indian tribes or with national, regional, or state Indian organizations.

Ramapoughnative1 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Casino?
I'm confused by the recent edits. Have the Ramapoughs stated intentions to open a casino? How are actions of Donald Trump relevant? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason we didn't get resolution is because Trump files a law suit against Secty of interior and others to stop our recognition. He's afraid we would open a casino, when in fact we requested recognition 2 years before casino law was enacted. It's on the web. See Colorado link above. We've never wanted a casino and have stated so many times but it doesn't matter. I also added Joslyn back in because he is listed on the BIA results as having his work as submitted evidence. Will it be a problem now?

68.37.88.71 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Ramapoughnative1 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Trump's three Atlantic City casinos, Trump Castle, Trump Plaza, and Trump Taj Mahal, are feeling the heat from the Mashantucket Pequot's Foxwoods casino in Connecticut and are fearing the possibility of the Ramapough Indians of Northern New Jersey opening a gambling operation near Atlantic City. "Unabashed motor mouth Donald Trump lived up to his reputation on Oct. 5 when he told a congressional hearing that organized crime is rampant on Indian reservations. Trump went on to predict that if the trend toward gaming on Native American land continues, 'this will be the biggest crime problem in this country's history.'"[51]

Re Cohen
It's inaccurate to say that Cohen's viewpoint is so extreme that it should not be mentioned on this page. First, Cohen's book was published by a reputable university press, which means that it has been peer reviewed. Second, the BIA researchers corroborated Cohen's findings, but not the vague claims of the other authors. Finally, I have never seen any comprehensive genealogical linkage of core Ramapough families to ancestral Indians, and they were unable to prove any linkages to the BIA. If there is such evidence, show us the citations in which it can be verified. The only published genealogies I've seen on the Ramapough people is Cohen's.Pokey5945 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Roger Joslyns report mentioned on the BIA list of evidence submitted? Are you going to ignore every other noted person on the list just to show Cohens work? Sound like you are a racist to me... what do have against the Ramapough anyway? Cohen is extreme because his view is outnumbered by professionals who have MORE credentials than he does. And he didn't work with anyone on the tribe to make his book so how can it be accurate? You fail to understand that just because the white man didn't write about us, that doesn't mean there's no proof. We have documents and we had proof. That's what Joslyn's report was about. And before you ask, NO you can't see Joslyn's results.. it's none of YOUR business. Isn't it enough for you to see it's on the BIA list for EVIDENCE OF PROOF?

How can you say Trump's info isn't relevant? That is the sole reason why we didn't get the recognition and everyone knows it. Did you even bother to go the website listed? Don't you think it's funny that the people on the lawsuit were the ones who determined the recognition? You can't be that narrowminded! This isn't hearsay, this is fact but because it proves our point, it's inadmissable to you right? Who the hell do you think you are????? I have had enough of this. I'm going over your head. No one gave you permission to print anything about us anyway and YOU should be sued for slander! Ramapoughnative1 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an article for an encyclopedia. It's not for one-sided propaganda. The article includes a variety of viewpoints, including your characterization of Joslyn. If you can show some substantial linkage between Trump's suit and the BIA's decision, then it might be appropriate to include. But it's not appropriate to place unverifiable conspiracy theories in here.Pokey5945 23:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Joslyn isn't a Geneaologist? If this is suppose to be an encyclopedia than how about printing the truth. It seems you only want to push Cohen and he is ONE source. I have provided other points of view but they are ignored. this isn't about POV this is about truth. This is my family we're talking about. It's because of people like you, that we have to put up with such crap. How would you like it if people labeled you and you had to deal with it your whole life but, it wasn't true? I removed your B.S. statement of the BIA siding with Cohen. They did not. I reiterate this from the BIA document.

(a) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence that the group's character as an Indian entity has from time to time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence to be relied upon in determining a group's Indian identity may include one or a combination of the following, as well as other evidence of identification by other than the petitioner itself or its members.

(1) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal authorities.

(2) Relationships with State governments based on identification of the group as Indian.

(3) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local government in a relationship based on the group's Indian identity.

(4) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists, historians, and/or other scholars.

(5) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and books.

(6) Identification as an Indian entity in relationships with Indian tribes or with national, regional, or state Indian organizations.

We didn't fail this...We failed because no one in our history was fortunate enough to be documented by a white man to prove who we are 200 years later. You are a sad person. Do you get off on being a jerk? Does it give you power? I'd love to meet you sometime. Then YOU can tell me all about MY family, who we are and where we come from...


 * The BIA concurred with Cohen that the petitioners failed to meet criterion e, not criterion a:


 * "The Proposed Finding concluded that the RMI [Ramapough Mountain Indians] did not meet criterion 83.7(e) of the Federal acknowledgment regulations because the petitioner had not presented and BIA staff had not located any evidence that the earliest proven ancestors of the four core families, DeFreese, Van Dunk, Mann, and DeGroat, were Indian, were of Indian descent, or were affiliated with any of the tribes in the New York-New Jersey border area at the time of historic contact."


 * Please stop vandalizing the article just because you don't like contrary opinions. An objective NPOV article should include all relevant positions on the subject. Your personal claim to being an Indian is your business, but it doesn't give you any proprietary right to interpret history.Pokey5945 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Petition (a) states we are indians. Stop trying to spread your hate messages. What is your credentials to say who we are? You are not the authority here. I am. The BIA was very specific on why we failed. It was because they could't link us back to another tribe of the times. We don't work like that. So you think having people like 'Lone Bear' Reavy, 'Touching Leaves', the state of New Jersey, and most importantly, other Delaware tribes such as the Stockbridge Munsee Indians and others don't have any weight? Cohen's report is thoery because he couldn't find definitive proof. He states so in his book! Since his report is purely conjecture, where's your proof? And I have a right to defend myself against anyone who writes lies about me or my family! You are the one who is vandalizing this page. So, who are you? what are your credentials? Tell me what makes you an expert.

One more thing. Cohen's work is incomplete because there's at least 2 generations of geneaology missing due to the fire in Albany, N.Y., when the library burned down in the early 1900's. So, how could he make any absolute family connections and know the truth? Pure fabrication. How do I know the truth? Joslyn worked with us to get the truth. Cohen states the term 'mulatto' in his book. In those days, if you were Black, it would have been labeled as 'N' on the census. White was 'W', and Indians were 'M' for Mulatto. When Cohen wrote this book, he was a employed as a Research Associate at the NJ Historical Commission. You're going to take his word over 2 presidents of Archaelogical consulting firms and a certified Geneaologist? Let's not forget Herbert Kraft who was referred to as "The nation’s foremost scholar of the Lenape Indians and their traditions". But Cohen know more, right?
 * There is no need for you to make personal attacks. The fact that you disagree with Cohen's research does not automatically disqualify it from any mention on Wikipedia. His genealogies may or may not be accurate--I don't know. But they are published by a reputable university press, and his findings were corroborated by the BIA's refusal to acknowledge the group as a federal tribe because of no provable Indian ancestry in the core lines. This makes COhen's findings worthy of mention in the article. Whether you personally agree with Cohen or not is immaterial. Meanwhile, you are citing genealogies that are not verifiable. Wikipedia policy mandates that data in the encyclopedia by verifiable.Pokey5945 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What you have written is not bad but...the other scholars did not take our heritage at 'face value' and I have removed that. The have done extensive studies and have come to their own conclusion. Don't belittle them because Cohen couldn't 'hold the door' open for them. You want to be neutral, then stop trying to downplay the overwhelming evidence from others just to push Cohen theory. I notice you mentioned Cohen many times in this article. Why does he get so much play but the others who prove my side get one? You are not being neutral. Cohen lied. He DID NOT spend a year living amoungst the Ramapough as advertized in his book. Coming up for a day here and there on a weekend is not 'living amongst' anyone. Since this is a lie, then how much else is fabricated? As I stated before, he does not have conclusive evidence who our ancestors are and he states this in his book, so stop trying to say otherwise. Also, not everyone who lives on the Ramapough Mountain are part of the Ramapough Tribe. Manns, Defreeses, and others aren't the only families there. So, lets make this real neutral. Since Cohen is one man with one opinion, he gets one mention, the same as the others. He is not the authority on the Ramapoughs. This way you get your say and I get mine. Let the reader make up their own mind. I also found in the same BIA report referenced that the BIA state they don't know who our ancestors are, meaning they didn't agree with Cohen's theory either. So you never answered my question. What's your qualifications? Why are you so hung up on the pushing negativity about the Ramapough? You act like you're Cohen! Ramapoughnative1 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is why Cohen's work is inconclusive. All of the documents about the Indian transactions in the area were lost due to this fire. http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=87 Ramapoughnative1 03:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am satified with the way it stands now. Can we agree it's ok now? If you add more info about Cohen's findings, i'm going to reject it again because his results were biased and he ignored important data. His book is his opinion, not gospel. Thanks! Ramapoughnative1 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative1 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the 'conspiracy theory' I submitted from Colorado University is from Dr. Karen Ramirez, a Professor that has been teaching there since 2000. I don't think it would be considered a conspiracy considering who posted it and it being listed on a University website.

http://www.colorado.edu/Sewall/bio_ramirez.htm

Ramapoughnative1 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added more info from Herbert C Kraft who states Cohen didn't establish a genealogical link. He's missing the data from 1740 to 1830 and therefore can't prove anything. Cohens claim is based on his findings of colored families sharing the same name in the Hackensack Valley and land being sold in the valley at the same time families with the same name began settling in the Ramapo. This is based on 2 family names. I told you it was a lie.

Ramapoughnative1 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pokey said "Removed the Trump stuff. There is no apparent linkage to topic of this article, beyond the vaguely implied conspiracy theory..)"

I added this back in again now that it has been confirmed by 2 independent sources. It's no longer a theory, it's a proven fact. Ramapoughnative1 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Make that 3 sites: http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/PISCATAWAY.HTML

Again, as with Stereotype #1, the casino stereotype has affected the Indian recognition process in other states as well as Maryland. In New Jersey, for example, there has been vigorous opposition to the Ramapough Mountain Indians' attempt to gain federal recognition. Senator Marge Roukema, Congressman Robert Torricelli, and New Jersey's Attorney General have all been active in their opposition to the Ramapoughs' recognition, because of their casino plans. As in Maryland, the political opposition in New Jersey stems from established gambling interests concerned over potential competition. In New Jersey, Donald Trump and other Atlantic City casino operators have led the fight against the Ramapoughs' recognition petition.

How many more references and citations do you need before you believe it? Cohen is only one reference and you go with that but I give you 3 independent sources and you want more? This is totally out of control. Here is where it shows the date of 12/93. Suprisingly, the docket can't be found on BIA website.

http://www.tolatsga.org/dela.html

Ramapoughnative1 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also found this. We ARE recognized by State of NY. dated Sept 04 in newspaper.

http://yavapai-apache.org/pdf/Sept_2004.pdf

Judge Filkins is a member of the Ramapough Mountain Lenape Tribe, which is recognized by the states of New Jersey and New York. Born in Hillburn, New York, Judge Filkins grew up in New Jersey where he graduated from Newark College of Engineering. Judge Filkins received his law degree from The George Washington University National Law Center, in Washington D. C.

and from http://www.bartlconsult.de/bc/proseminar/literatur/Ramasum.htm

The RMI were recognized as American Indian by resolutions of the New Jersey and New York State legislatures in 1980.

Since the BIA also states this as true, I will remove the other reference.

Ramapoughnative1 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Conflicting reports should stay until definitively correct information becomes avaialable. Replaced.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The broken link belongs to a college university. The site is down temporarily and should be back soon. Looking back at all the revisions, imagining how much you have learned about us. It's good to have corrected the fallacies posted previously.

Ramapoughnative1 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

from the NYS gaming website - "...the Board makes no claims, guarantees or promises about the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of the information provided."

Ramapoughnative1 15:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a standard boilerplate disclaimer. It is not relevant.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me whenever it's something against us, it's relevant.. If they are making no claims of accuracy, then you can't quote them as a fact.

Ramapoughnative1 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to brighten your day! Ever heard of Katonah, NY and do you know it's history?

'Old English documents of the region refer to Chief Katonah as "Sachem,", the Chief of the Confederation of Rampoo Indians..."Within her Majesty's province of New York.", which almost leads us to believe he belonged to the royalty of yesteryear.'

This is from the town website. http://www.katonahny.com/origin.html

68.85.168.102 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Found newspaper articles where Trump opposed Ramapough recognition and sued to block it. "Calculated Gamble; Trump cries foul over Indian casinos," Newsday (May 4, 1993 City Edition): Business Section, p. 41 "Bury His Mouth at Wounded Knee," Business Week (October 18, 1993): p. 42

Ramapoughnative1 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BIA decision

 * I was searching through the census records for the State of New Jersey and found before 1870, Native American ancestry was not an option. The only categories were White, Black (free), or Black(slave) and the Census Taker decided where you fit in. How does the BIA expect us to prove our heritage before 1870 if the documentation isn't accurate? I've attached the link with the census info. Scroll down to New Jersey.

http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/REFERENCE/Hist_Pop_stats.pdf

Ramapoughnative1 17:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious and I dont mean to be ignorant when I'm asking this, is there a significant amount of African-American ancestry in your tribe? I was just looking at your tribe's website and notice some of the members of your tribe that I swore if you didn't tell me I would say they were as African-American as myself. Just curious when I'm asking about and I apologize if you're offended by my question, it's just I've been interested in African-American and American-Indian cultural interactions of the past since our textbooks don't exactly talk too much about it. Holla back, Chris.

Hillburn, NY
Regarding the Evan T. Pritchard article, there is a factual error: Hillburn is in NY, not NJ.Mercurious1 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spreading your disease of hatred
To all you "gentlemen" who think you can try and sway everyone with your racial thoughts by trying to change facts, start your own page and call it something else. This page is written and based on facts that are well supported. Spread your hate somewhere else! Ramapoughnative1 12:41, 16 November 2006‎ (UTC)

Significant POV issues
1) Roger Joslyn is not an unbiased source. He was hired by the tribe to certify their genealogical claims. His findings were rejected by the BIA. Why does this crucial information keep getting removed from the article? Furthermore. Joslyn's genealogy is not public, thus not verifiable. As such, it does not meet WP standards for evidence.

2) The criticism of Cohen's research is misleading. The BIA did not reject Cohen's genealogy. It merely observed that there were missing links, and that it was thus incomplete and inconclusive. This is exactly the same criticism that they made of Joslyn's work.

3) Re the cites to Catalano and Plache: These were lawyers hired by the tribe. The cite in question is an op-ed. It is hardly an unbiased source. If it must be cited to, it should be noted that this source is part of the tribe's own claims, and not an independent and unbiased source. Verklempt 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

you are misguided
1) Rodger Joslyn is a CERTIFIED GENEOLOGIST. That's why he was hired by the tribe to research their geneology. He was a reliable resource to do this. His findings were NOT rejected by the BIA. If you will notice the BIA could not link the Ramapough to a documented name of an indian in New Jerseys history. So, because a white man failed to document our history means we don't exist? Get a life! Joslyn's information will never be made public just as I wouldn't expect you to publish your geneology. Why should it be published? You won't believe it anyway.

2) the BIA did reject Cohens theories on the families of the Ramapough. He results were lacking proof and inconclusive. Also he fails to mention, out of the 7 or 8 core names the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC has for our historical names, he only mentions 4 and tried to draw a conclusion based on speculative evidence. He himself says he is guessing (read the link in the dcoument).

3) the lawyers hired by the tribe have access to the documents which show proof of our lineage so how is this opinioned? You need to stop watching TV and read some books on New Jersey history.

4) the reason the Ramapough lost the petition for Federal Recognition is also well documented. It has nothing to do with our history and everything to do with Trump's lawsuit and worrying if we would be persuing a casino. Funny how Trump files a lawsuit against key people and that same year the petition is rejected. Hummm.. how does that work?

I am a Ramapough and I know our history. You are NOT Ramapough and have no clue except what the white man has given you. how are you going to tell me who and what I am? Ramapoughnative1 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is well-established WP policy for what constitutes acceptable evidence. If Joslyn's work is not published, then it is not verifiable, and thus outside WP policy.

2) The BIA treated Cohen's genealogy exactly the same way it treated Joslyn's genealogy. It observed that both studies had crucial missing links. Your edits obscure this important fact.

3) Lawyers paid by one side in a contest are biased by definition. I have no problem with citing to them as an official position of the tribe, but there is no way that they can be considered an independent source.

4) Your Trump conspiracy theory is already in the article.

5) Please lay off the ad hominem. That is unproductive, and in violation of WP policy. Verklempt 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article you are trying to add by Ralph is speculative, has no factual content, nor is he qualified to make such accusations. His qualifications as a computer tech and a librarian holds no credit on geneology. This shows in his work. The data is inaccurate and his references are racially biased to say the least. If you are so inclined, Joslyns work is published if you search the web. It happens to be a reference document for another tribes' website. Yes, we have documented, proven by blood, relatives in other tribes in the northeast.

You also fail to mention that the BIA did recognize us as Native Americans just not verifiable as to which tribe we originate,(from your records) even though we had certified letters from other federally recognized tribes such as the Stockbridge Munsees and Six Nations that do acknowledge us as their relatives. They were considered inadmissible to the BIA. Many facts were ignored by the BIA because the results were already bought and paid for. The BIA is not the end all for truth as their job is not to recognize claims but to deny them so the government can deny liability for their actions. If you look at the history of the BIA, you will see where they have taken recognition from verified tribes at their leisure.

The lawyers are working pro bono.. so that's all I have to say about your conclusion on paid lawyers.

The "Trump Conspiracy" as you would like to call it is well documented by many sources who also happen to be white. Trumps lawsuit can be found in Trenton. If you feel so inclined, Order a copy. It's a real eye opener. So I guess it's not a theory, is it?

You really need to wake up. Just because a group of white people get together and say 'you don't exist' does that mean we are not who we say? Who do you think you are and what power do you think you have to do this? This isn't the 1700's. Say and believe what you want, I don't care, but you will not be allowed to spread lies about us. Enough is enough! 69.242.43.132 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, devoted to a non-biased presentation of verifiable data. It is not a platform for your personal ethnic identity manifesto. 1) I have no idea who Ralph is, or why you're referring to him. 2)If Joslyn's work is published, then please provide a citation to it. 3) Whether the tribe's lawyers were working pro bono or not is not the issue. The point is that their op ed presents one side of the controversy, and needs to be identified as such in the encyclopedia article.
 * I don't understand the relevance of your other points to the editing of this article.
 * What needs to be accomplished in this discussion is to arrive at a NPOV version of the Joslyn, Cohen, and lawyers' op ed pieces. What solution do you propose?Verklempt 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is not a platform for your personal ethnic identity manifesto." We are not the ones with the identity crisis, we know who we are. You and your kind have gone out of your way to try and prove we are not who we say. (but you can't!) Why is that? Is it hurting you in some way to acknowledge we exist? Guilt maybe for all the injustices done against our people? Denying who we are somehow makes it easier to sleep at night? Wiki is suppose to be a resource based on truth. The article states nothing but verifiable truth but you seem to think it doesn't. Why? Is it possible your train of thought is wrong? Why is it you have to find something negative, even if it's not fact and feel it your duty to expose it? If the states of NJ and NY, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, and the BIA say we are who we say, why can't you just leave it alone? I have no problem stating a negative side to our story if it were true but the fact of the matter is everything you added was not. As far as Ralph is concerned, you should know who he is, you tried to add a link to his article on netstrider. I can't believe you tried to add a link as a reference, and didn't even read it? His stories are just as much fiction as Cohen who stating he spent a year among the Ramapough to get his story. It's all total B.S. As far as compromise, how can truth be compromised? FACT is FACT. You feel you must add something negative even if it's not fact. The negativity is your opinion and as you stated, has no place here. I could state - Joslyn's work has not been published for the general population but was submitted to the BIA as evident to support our bid for recognition. - Our tribe paid alot for his services. Maybe, if you willing to pay for a copy, call the tribal office and see if you can order it? I will not remove his reference entirely and pretent that it doesn't exist, unless, you will agree to remove Cohens work because he is not a certified geneologist but a historian and his work is speculative at best. I doubt you will accept this because that's the only article any of you will believe. Ramapoughnative1 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You still haven't said who Ralph is. I have not added any link to Ralph or netsrider. It is possible that I RVed to a version that included such, but I have no clue as to what it is about. That is a separate issue.
 * Are you saying that RMI office publishes the Joslyn genealogy and sells it to the public? If so, then it might meet the WP standards for verifiable evidence. Can you provide the necessary info for obtaining this work?
 * Removing Cohen is not an option, because his work was published by a university press, and is a major work on this group whether you agree with his findings or not. Again, this is not a platform for your personal beliefs. It is an encyclopedia that must present all credible sides in an NPOV fashion.
 * Finally, how do you propose to incorporate the lawyers' op ed in an NPOV fashion?Verklempt 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ralph is some guy who wrote a story about the Ramapough. I saw his link added to your changes on the website. He is just someone with an opinion and his work is not published but he peddles his tripe on his website because people want to believe it. Everyone treats us as we are less than human. We have rights like everyone else. Maybe it requires a slander suit to make people like you stop.
 * As far as our geneology is concerned, I said, if you so desire to obtain a copy, call the tribal office and see if you can purchase it. Since the tribe paid thousands of dollars for Joslyn to do his researh, I highly doubt they will just offer his results for free and just to anyone. Also, since it contains the names of adults and children whom are still alive, unless you have a real good reason for it, I doubt you will get their permission to have it.
 * Cohens work.. no one credible believes him as you can see by the links in the articles. It just shows anyone can publish a book and sell it even if you know nothing on the subject. My thoughts on his work is not personal belief, but fact. You forget, I am a Ramapough and I know the truth. I know our history, just as I would expect you to know the truth if someone wrote a book stating your family were Nazi's. What would you do if you were in my mocassins? Would you not defend your family's honor? Let's have a wiki page on your family. We didn't ask for ours.
 * Finally, The lawyers statements are not opinion, you fail to realize they have access to the same information Joslyn does. Their statements are fact. Just because you don't have access to their resources, doesn't mean they are opinion. If you want to see the data for yourself, may I make a few suggestions... 1. Become a lawyer and work pro bono for the tribe. 2. Work for the Smithsonian Institute. 3. Apply for a position with the BIA.
 * What you and everyone seems to forget is this is not just history in general, this is my family's history and it is not available for scrutiny by the public. The privacy act applies to my family also.

Ramapoughnative1 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy:

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Verifiability)

As you can see, Joslyn does not meet this standard, because his work is unpublished. Cohen does meet the standard, because he is published by a university press, and because he was awarded a Ph.D. for this research. This has nothing to do with what you or I believe to be true. Instead, it has to do with WP policy.Verklempt 06:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"As early as 1760, an Indian by the name of John DeFries was listed on the New York State Muster. He was a direct decendant of the Indians that took refuge in the Ramapo Mountains so many years ago. They are now known as the Ramapough Mountain Indians, of the original Lenni-Lenape. There was also an Indian that lived at the foot of the Ramapo Mountains, beside the River, named Mannes. It has been recorded by Geneologist, Roger Joslyn, that the present day Mann family from the Ramapough's are desended from him and his family."

as posted on the state of nj website. http://www.state.nj.us/state/american_indian/mo/ I guess the state of new jersey is a reliable enough source. good enough for you? Ramapoughnative1 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While reading the link you gave on Verifiability for Wiki, I found that the link someone keeps adding for netstrider is not valid. Thank you for that link.

"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 books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Ramapoughnative1 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ANY MORE NPOV ISSUES YOU'D LIKE TO BRING UP?
Haven't heard anything from you today. Ramapoughnative1 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence about your link to the NJ state web page. I don't know if this meets WP standards or not. It's a borderline case, and I think it may require an rfc to sort out. The problem is that there is no author listed and no citations given, and thus no way to assess the authority of the research. It is still unverifiable IMO.


 * Also, I'm still waiting for you to offer an NPOV take on the lawyers' op ed, and on the Cohen summary. I'd like to see a good faith effort on your part before we call an rfc.Verklempt 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a state sanctioned website. If you won't take their word because of no author, then I guess we'll have to drop the BIA info since they didn't post an author either. You're being petty and nitpicky and no other subject here is being held to the same scrutiny.

As I said, the lawyers statements are based on the evidence they have seen. This is the same evidence the BIA had access to. This is not speculation or opinion, this is fact. As far as cohen is concerned, he himself invalidates his own work. Read the links. Still can't believe the facts [or don't want to]? So sad, no matter how hard you try to deny it, the results will still be the same. Ramapoughnative1 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My question to you is why do you and your people cling so tightly to Cohen's work even though many other noted scholars disagree with him? I gave 4 or 5 resources that denies Cohen, yet no one wants to believe them. I suppose you assume we paid them off too. Funny how the tribe has lowest standard of living in North Jersey, yet we can pay all these people off. Amazing! Ramapoughnative1 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that the BIA research is verifiable, in that they cite their sources. We also know that the BIA researchers are professionals whose entire career revolves around assessing such petitions. They are recognized authorities. We also know their names, even if they didn't sign their names to the govt report. Furthermore, the BIA publications have policy significance, in that they drive federal govt decisions.
 * OTOH, the NJ link you gave appears to be a product of the state Indian commission. These are typically made up of unpaid citizens who are members of the local tribes. Usually they are not professional researchers.
 * Finally, I am not "clinging" to Cohen. Your continual ad hominem is not getting us anywhere. My only goal here is to get an NPOV presentation of Cohen's work. I am asking you once again to attempt an NPOV draft of the contested passages and present it here. You've seen my draft, and you've reverted it. So please, come up with an alternative that meets the NPOV policy. Show some good faith and at least try to write some NPOV.Verklempt 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, you are wrong. The NJ State Commission of Indian Affairs does include professionals and/or historians and almost all of them have been part of the commission since it's inception in 1995. Just because you don't recognize them doesn't mean their work is any less valid. This commission covers all of the indian tribes in N.J. Does this mean you suspecting the entire existence of indians in N.J.? Enough on this already.
 * On Cohen ... again. How can their be a NPOV on work that is flawed? I agree with him on how he spelled our name. I agree with him on the source of the family names. But he fails to acknowledge that many of the prominent natives took english names because the colonists couldn't pronounce thir indian names correctly. This is well documented yet he ignores that fact. He does not link any one person on the mountain with any one family in the valley, with proof. Since he failed to do this, how can there be a NPOV? You can't just link people by their last name and say they're related. If that were the case, I would be related to Richard Burton.(who knows, maybe I am but I have no proof. Maybe i'll write a book and people will believe me.)
 * I can't understand how you can expect NPOV on facts. Everything in the document is based on fact with references and has been gone over by many people. You are not the first and i'm sure you won't be last. I don't understand what you expect to achieve here. Do you expect us to say we are not indian and except for cohen, everything written by all the experts is a lie? It doesn't make sense. We are who we say and there is nothing anyone can do to prove otherwise.
 * I've already compromised information with others to get the document to this point. There is nothing left to compromise without removing fact and i'm not willing to do that. Just out of curiosity... what's your qualifications to question my work?

Ramapoughnative1 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"The difference here is that the BIA research is verifiable." According to the final determination of the BIA, they do acknowlege us as Native American, contrary to Cohen's claim.

83.7(a) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.

Therefore, we find that the petitioner has met criterion 83.7(a) since 1900, under the reduced burden of proof standard required by the 1994 revision of the regulations.

83.7(b) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present.

The petitioner has not documented that the RMI and their antecedent group, the RMP, have existed as a continuous community from the time non-Indians first established themselves in the New York-New Jersey area to 1870. It remains the conclusion of the AS-IA that the RMI's ancestors have not been shown to have formed a distinct community in the Ramapo Mountains until about 1870. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated community before 1870, the group does not meet criteria 83.7(b) or 83.7(c) prior to 1870. Also, very little acceptable evidence was presented to show that the current members of the RMI have continued to maintain a social community from 1950 to the present. We conclude that under the 1994 revised 25 CFR Part 83, the petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(b) prior to 1870 or from 1950 to the present. Therefore, the petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(b).

Ok. Since we didn't have a written language and it's a well known fact most New England Indians were nomadic, and there was a bounty on all indians at that time, how is it our fault a colonial didn't write down out tribal affiliation? Also, where did we go after 1950? I seem to remember family gatherings in the late 1950's- early 60's in Hillburn, NY. Were those people ghosts?

83.7(c) The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present.

Since the AS-IA has concluded that the RMP community antecedent to the RMI met criterion 83.7(b) at the high level of evidence from 1870 to 1950, they therefore met 83.7(c) for the same period. The evidence supporting this conclusion is discussed in detail in the technical report that accompanies this final determination. The RMI petition did not present evidence that the RMP maintained any political influence or authority from historical times (from the time of first sustained contact with non-Indians) to 1870. The petition also did not present evidence that established a reasonable likelihood that the RMI had maintained political authority from 1950 to the present.

Once again...see number 2 above...

83.7(d) A copy of the group's present governing document, including its membership criteria. In the absence of a written document, the petitioner must provide a statement describing in full its membership criteria and current governing procedures

Summary Conclusion under Criterion 83.7(d). The conclusion of the Proposed Finding that the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(d) stands.

83.7(e) The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.

Summary Conclusion under Criterion 83.7(e). In conclusion, the origins and parentage of the earliest genealogically proven ancestors of the petitioner are not known. Therefore, the Proposed Finding that the RMI had not documented descent from a historical tribe stands. The Final Determination concludes that the petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(e).

Again.. read number 2. Summary... We are considered indians from 1870 to 1950 but not before or afterwards. How does that work? Explain to me how we can be recognized as a tribe but because WE have no documented proof by a white man before 1870, documenting of which tribe we come from (even though there were letters from other Fed Rec tribes establishing who we were), we are not considered indian? There is a term for this travesty of justice... it's called a "whitewash", and the name fits. The lawyers have access to all the evidence submitted to the BIA, hence their statements. Their statements are not op-ed, they are fact and they stand as they are. Ramapoughnative1 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't even begin to address the NPOV issues at hand here. Again, please focus on how to rewrite these passages in an NPOV fashion.Verklempt 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have showed you that there is no NPOV issues here. These are the facts. Case closed. We are done here. Ramapoughnative1 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like we'll need an rfc for sure. I'll do it when I have time, or you can go ahead and call it if you're so inclined.Verklempt 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ths is from the NPOV policy "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."
 * For more than the past 100 years, people have written so many bad things about us that when the truth is presented, they don't want to believe it. What gets me so much is why do you or anyone else care who or what we are? It's almost like all of you think you know something we don't and we're too stupid or we're children and can't figure it out. Thanks but no thanks. I've had enough of people like you telling me who you think I am.

Ramapoughnative1 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This link is not allowed to be posted but it has some of Joslyns' report. http://www.network54.com/Forum/285990/message/1092530499/The+DeGroats+from+New+Jersey

You also mentioned Joslyns report was rejected by the BIA, got proof of that? I have not found that stated anywhere. Also, Cohen's phd is in history, not genealogy. They are not the same and he is NOT qualified. Joslyn is a past president of the Assoc. of Professional Genealogists. Ramapoughnative1 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the BIA's Final Determination, which deep-sixes the Ramapough petition. The relevant language is quoted in this WP article. The petitioners could not document a link between their proven ancestors and any Indians in previous generations. Joslyn was the tribe's genealogist, the one who failed to adequately document the Indian ancestry claims.Verklempt 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is where you are wrong. The BIA stated we couldn't prove our tribal affiliation to a documented tribe. It doesn not say we are not indian. Read 83.7 (a) again. You can't twist the facts. We do have documented ancestors whom were indians but there were no tribal affiliations written down and this was the BIA's loophole to deny us. Wanna know whom our tribal affiliations were? The Pomptons, the Hackensack, the Tappans, the Minisink, and the Ramapoo, all were related. (Yes, I said the Ramapoo. Here was a well documented tribe and their Chief, Katonah's wife was a Pompton.) We know who our family is and they know us. Only your kind require it been observed and written down to prove it. Ben Lossing wrote about observing the "ancient Ramapoughs" in 1850. Guess where he saw them? The same place we are now but I guess that has no bearing either, right? Wait, isn't that before 1870? oh, I forgot, we weren't suppose to be recognized. In your courts of law, some people have been called murderers and persecuted over less evidence. See - Leonard Peltier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier.

Ramapoughnative1 13:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

about Chief Dwaine Perry...
Sorry Chris, but not every part of our tribal business will be verifiable on this website. Dwaine Perry was voted in as the new Chief. You will have to take my word for it.

69.242.43.132 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, the article should only contain verifiable information. If the information about the chief is accurate, it should be kept, but the fact template is used to indicate that we need a reference for this information eventually.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did find a reference in a newspaper article. Added... Ramapoughnative1

Stereotypes
Why is there no mention of the many stereotypes about these people? 1. Inbred 2. Small core group of albinos 3. Hostility towards outsiders 4. Mutations as a result of the constant inbreeding 5. Clinton Road!

This is all part of the folklore of these mountain people and should definitely be mentioned. Not just white Jersey citizens, but most citizens discuss the legends of these mysterious people. Weird NJ attributes many accounts of aggression these people give to tourists. Sure, I'm sure most of this is bunk, but seriously, the legend itself is as important as the truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.143.130 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2007‎ (UTC)

How would you feel about these things said about you? These things are false and were made up by the locals because of ignorance and prejudice. This is a fact based site and those things have no factual basis.(except for the hostility. If I called you an ass, whould you welcome me with open arms?). Just by you mentioning "Weird NJ", shows what you think about us. Why not show us who's asking this? No signature on this request? What a coward! It's time for the B.S. to come to an end. You will have to find another minority group to have fun with. We are done being fodder for your amusement.

Ramapoughnative1 13:10, 4 June 2007‎ (UTC)

User: Ramapoughnative1

 * Please review the WP Conflict of Interest policy, as well as the NPOV policy.Verklempt 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, would you just go away! Unless you want to post your qualifications to make these false statements, I suggest you leave it alone. This has nothing to do with NPOV or Conflict of interest. It have everything to do with prejudice and stereotyping. It is what it is. Folklore not fact! We are done discussing. Ramapoughnative1


 * I would ask you to also review the WP policies on good faith, negotiation, etc.Verklempt 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where was the 'good faith' and 'negotiations' when this page was 1st started? Everyone had a field day spewing their hatred towards us. No more rolling over for the sake of peace. If it isn't a fact, it's not going to be posted here. This is my family we're talking about and I know the truth better than anyone here. Ramapoughnative1


 * The issue here is that your behavior seems to me to be in violation of numerous WP policies. You delete sources you don't agree with. You include sources that cannot be verified. You rarely assume good faith and instead launch personal attacks on other editors as a matter of habit. You refuse to negotiate in good faith on many occasions. You have a blatant conflict of interest. I am asking you one more time to review the relevant policies, and to try to abide by them. The only other option is to call an RFC.Verklempt 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Call in whomever you like. There is nothing on this page that isn't documented or validated. Your opinion in in the minority. You want to add folklore, lies, and speculation. When you attack my family or my knowledge of my people, my behavior towards you is justified. There is no good faith on lies. I have posted and continue to post only the truth. What bothers you so much that we ARE indians? And why do you care so much as to whom we are? I have read the policies... have you? Once again I ask.. WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS THAT MAKES YOU AN AUTHORITY?

"Why is there no mention of the many stereotypes about these people? 1. Inbred 2. Small core group of albinos 3. Hostility towards outsiders 4. Mutations as a result of the constant inbreeding 5. Clinton Road!"

You see nothing wrong with the request posted above?! You have issues.. Ramapoughnative1

You have some nerve! I have read your talk page and it seems you get a kick out of messing with other peoples work. You seem to be hostile to almost everyone there. My problem is only with you. Lay off and leave my work alone. You have nothing to contribute that hasn't already been discussed. Ramapoughnative1
 * Here are links to a few of the relevant WP pages:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
 * Verklempt 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the Good faith rules.. Let me quote it for you.

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence."

Everything I have contributed has a link and has been validated. I am one of the tribal historians. I read and research my history everyday. You cannot make the same claim. Despite your attempts to carry on this conversation, we are done. Ramapoughnative1

Ramapough Indians

 * moved from User talk:ChrisRuvolo

Are you still interested in this article? It's been taken over by an unabashed POV warrior. I think an RFC is needed. Would appreciate your taking a look if you feel inclined.Verklempt 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have time right now to contribute to Wikipedia or an RFC, but I think that the changes you made are not wholly acceptable. The removal of the referenced name of the tribal chief is inappropriate.  You claim it is POV, but who else would be the authoritative source of who the tribal chief is, if not the tribe themselves?   has acted appropriately in my estimation, after he became familiar with Wikipedia policy.  Many positions that the tribe does not advocate are mentioned in the article, and Ramapoughnative1 has accepted their presence in support of policy.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Chris!

Ramapoughnative1


 * There may some miscommunication here. I have not been involved in editing or discussing anything involving the name of the tribal chief. I'm not sure who you are referring to.Verklempt 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your edit here which was your last edit about NPOV.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see now. I was reverting to the NPOV version of Joslyn, and not paying attention to the "chief" section, which someone else had edited. I would also point out that while your characterization of Ramapoughnative is accurate during the latter portion of your editing in this article, he has since experienced some backsliding. He has excised perfectly acceptable sources (e.g., Cohen, the netrider bibliography) because he disagrees with some statements in them. He has entered sources that are not verifiable (Joslyn). These are the issues that will require resolution.Verklempt 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cohens statements ARE included. Joslyns statements are ALSO included. Both have reference links that ARE verifiable. What are you talking about? There isn't any backsliding. Are you upset because your opinion is in the minority and I have more links to the contrary? Tell me what you think is missing.

The Netstrider doc on the web is not published and the author is degreed in Computer Science. Where is his qualifications to write on us? His paper was written based on his personal experience (highly doubtful), which makes it opinion, not fact. Let me bring this to your attention.

"You still haven't said who Ralph is. I have not added any link to Ralph or netsrider. It is possible that I RVed to a version that included such, but I have no clue as to what it is about. That is a separate issue. Are you saying that RMI office publishes the Joslyn genealogy and sells it to the public? If so, then it might meet the WP standards for verifiable evidence. Can you provide the necessary info for obtaining this work? Removing Cohen is not an option, because his work was published by a university press, and is a major work on this group whether you agree with his findings or not. Again, this is not a platform for your personal beliefs. It is an encyclopedia that must present all credible sides in an NPOV fashion. Finally, how do you propose to incorporate the lawyers' op ed in an NPOV fashion?Verklempt 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"

Here you say you have no knowledge of this doc and don't know how it was linked and now you bring it up. Sounds like someone is lying. Your credibility as well as your knowledge of our history is nonexistant.

Ramapoughnative1


 * Accusing someone of lying is not exactly a demonstration of good faith or civility, is it? Once again, I would ask you to review Wikipedia policy, and try to behave in a decent, collegial manner. To answer your ad hominem, I was not aware of netrider until you brought it up. Now, since you brought it to my attention, I am aware of it. There is no disgrace in acquiring new knowledge, nor is that indication of "lying." Please be civil.
 * Second, the article does not cite to Joslyn. It cites to an op-ed by tribal lawyers. This is a verifiable cite for characterizing the position of tribal reps, but it is not verifiable for checking the content of Joslyn's works.
 * Third, you are correct that Cohen is mentioned in the article, but that para is not even close to NPOV. This is the problem.Verklempt 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Netstriders work .. Read this about verifiable resources.

Self-published sources (online and paper) 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 books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field.

Computer science has nothing to do with Geneology. And as far as Cohen, his work is flawed and he says so himself in his own book. Read the references. His professor also said the same thing. Have you bothered to read any of the resources linked here? Why am I wasting my time with you.

Stop telling me to read wiki's policy. You are the last one to be saying this. Here's something from your own talk page. YOU need to read the policies!

Will Beback had the courtesy to move the "factionalization" section into a draft page, so that we could discuss and re-edit. I object to your mulish and aggravated refusal to cooperate with these efforts, and consider same to be a violation of Wikipedia good faith policies. --Black Flag 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a bullshit complaint. You have refused to negotiate for five days, have never offered a single substantive criticism, alternative edit, or new piece of evidence for this subsection. I authored most of the draft section. You have yet to propose or make a single edit to it. I submit that you are the one who is refusing to cooperate in good faith.Verklempt 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative1


 * First, IIRC< the netrider biblio was an external link. Wikipedia policy has a different standard for such links. This one meets the standard for inclusion because it lists books and other sources that are verifiable, etc.
 * Second, the discourse on my Talk page is irrelevant to this discussion. FYI, both of my critics on the Talk page have had their accounts suspended more than once for their habitual violations of Wikipedia policy. Editors cannot get away with such behavior forever without facing sanctions.Verklempt 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Second, the article does not cite to Joslyn. It cites to an op-ed by tribal lawyers. This is a verifiable cite for characterizing the position of tribal reps, but it is not verifiable for checking the content of Joslyn's works"

I gave a link from the BIA stating they have a copy of Joslyn's work. You will not be able to see it. Why? Because it contains personal information on people who are still alive. No one should be expected to post their personal information, just so you could reference it. The federal government has a copy of it and it's verifiable that they do, that should be good enough.

Ramapoughnative1


 * If is is a private document, then it does not meet the WP standards for verifiability, does it? Because no one can check it.Verklempt 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the BIA document is a federal document. All info included is a matter of public record. If you want to check Joslyn's work, I suggest you contact the BIA for a copy of it. But it won't be posted on the web.

As far as netstrider goes.. i repeat the policy of wiki. "Self-published sources (online and paper)

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 books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field."

I repeat... geneology is not relevant to computer Science. His work is a matter of opinion and he adds references to make it look valid. His work does not meet Wiki policy. I have better things to do than school you on this stuff. I am the authority on my family and our history so find someone else's work to screw up. Ramapoughnative1

incorrect info
this tribe is not the jackson whites


 * I think you are incorrect. "Jackson Whites" is a nickname formerly used to describe this group. If not this group, then who do you think the term refers to?Verklempt 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is a matter of conjecture. Not everyone who lives among the Ramapoughs is a Ramapough Indian. Calling a Ramapough Indian, "Jackson White" would be the same as calling someone who is black the "N" word but for some reason, people still persist in using it. Was there some vandalism happening on this page over the weekend?

Ramapoughnative1

Thanks for bringing up the question on the term 'Jackson White'. This term is only a little over 100 years old and was used as a dehumanizing word for us. Racism has a hand in keeping that word alive today. Ramapoughnative1

BIA info under the FOIA
I added more information showing the corruption that was happening in the BIA during our determination review. This information is available from the Dept of Interior as a matter of public record. All you have to do is call them and request it. There is a cost associated. Reading how much overwhelming evidence was not taken under consideration, I can't understand why this wasn't investigated sooner. Ramapoughnative1


 * moved from User talk:ChrisRuvolo

Hey Chris! The changes you made, I have the documentation proving it if you would like a copy. I got it from the Dept of Interior under the Freedom of Information Act. It is stated as you see it on the doc. ACR3031 is the NJ Legislation from 1980 that recognizes the Ramapough as an Indian tribe. Thanks!

Ramapoughnative1

Chris I posted the supporting docs here. http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2613/doc1at4.jpg http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7759/doc2xv4.jpg http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6523/doc3gr1.jpg http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6900/doc4uh5.jpg

Ramapoughnative1 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven. This is interesting, it seems like this is a supporting document from the BIA application.  This was the result of a FOIA request?  Is there some document reference number associated with it?  Some way to specify this particular document?  Having some way to reference it would go a long way to meet the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines.
 * Also, regarding the NJ recognition, what do you think of the following text?


 * As a response to the publication of David Cohen's 1974 The Ramapo Mountain People, which disputes the Native American origins of the Ramapoughs, the tribe approached New Jersey Assembly member Cary Edwards, asking for state recognition. After several months of research, Edwards and Assemblyman Kern introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 3031 (ACR3031) on May 21, 1979.  ACR3031 passed in the Assembly on January 3, 1980 and in the Senate on January 7, 1980.  Edwards later stated that much of the debate in the vote for recognition revolved around the validity of the Cohen book, stating, "it was necessary to prove to individual legislators that Cohen's book was without factual foundation."  ACR3031 called for Federal recognition of the Ramapoughs, but is non-binding in that regard.


 * It would be great to use this FOIA document as a reference to the above, we just need a way to refer to it so that people know what to ask for when making a request. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting stuff, but incorporating it in the article would appear to violate Wikipedia's proscription against original research.Verklempt 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is no more original research than any other summarization based on a source. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the summary you wrote. It looks accurate. But verifiable sources are supposed to be published works by an authority. What you have made is an analysis of a primary source.Verklempt 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not an analysis, it is a summary without interpretation. As such, it does not violate policy. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this Chris. There isn't a doc number associated but this is found on CD 2 of 6. I'll get the file number for you when I get back home. I'll be in the hospital for a little bit, trying to get better. Thanks.

It seems my original signin of Ramapoughnative1 was deleted. I had to create a new logon of Ramapoughnative. Ramapoughnative 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Added link to Wiki page about the Quinnipiacs and the quiripi dialect spoken by the Ramapough. Ramapoughnative 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
What is everyones obsession with vandalizing the wiki page? Everyone get a big kick out of this while being anonymous so noone knows who you are? It does log your ip addys..grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
What is everyones obsession with vandalizing the wiki page? Everyone get a big kick out of this while being anonymous so noone knows who you are? It does log your ip addys..grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cohen Statements
To Verklempt: The statements are facts found in the BIA findings. This isn't opinion, there is no NPOV! These are facts and I have a copy of it. Unless you can disprove the facts, I suggest you leave it alone. Ramapoughnative 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Cohen's work was discredited by two of the foremost Genealogists in the United States, Alcon Pierce and Roger Joslyn. "Cohen is the only person who has ever concluded the Ramapough Mountain Indian Tribal members do not have indian heritage". When Cohen was contacted by Roger Joslyn and WWOR-TV in 1995 to discuss his claims, he refused [15]."

1) The POV terms in here are "discredited" and "foremost." 2)Cohen's non-comment to the media is irrelevant. 3) WP:RS requires verifiable sources. WP:OR requires published sources. The BIA finding does not meet these standards.Verklempt 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. discredited and foremost are direct quotes from the document, therefore are allowed. 2. Cohen not defending his work is also a direct quote and supports the fact that his lone theory is flawed. If he was so confident in his work, why not defend it? Roger Joslyn accepted the offer and did go on TV. Even though Cohen's work is discredited, (I have a list of all his mistakes and assumptions, you want a copy?)I have left Cohen's false claims in for people like you to cling to. 3. The info is verifiable. Everyone has access to them. Write the BIA and request the documents under "Freedom of Information Act" and pay the fee. Nothing stated in the rules saying it has to be accessible on the web.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.[Cohen is the only author that disputes our Indian Heritage]

NPOV: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Cohen is clearly in the minority. He is the only person out of hundreds of scholars and eyewitnesses, all published, verifiable resources. Ramapoughnative 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions of POV
tis interesting that the person made it a point to try and demean me by saying my work was "high school" yet uses a anonymous IP to post. It seems someone doesn't like the facts presented and wants them to be changed to suit their taste. Unfortunately, everything here is presented with supporting facts. As far as being called "jackson white", yes i find that highly offensive. I am a Ramapough and calling me that to my face would get a response they may not like. I consider that a fact. For the things you have tagged, communicate with me on them and i will resolve but i will not justify or modify facts for a coward who can't even use his real name to reply back to. Ramapoughnative (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts Link Requests
I have fulfilled your request for links to verifiable resources. This is not an original research article. This is all based on verifible facts. Like it or not.. this is how it is so please leave it alone. Before I took over this page 2 years ago, it was full of lies and unverifiable statements. Where were you then when the bigots wrote all those bad things about us?


 * That is EXACTLY the problem. You admit it it too.  You "took over" the page, to the exclusion of other Wikipedia users.  You have done a fine job citing SOME things, while simply stating your uncitable opinion for a great deal of material.  Opinion mixed with fact does not make for a good encyclopedia.  Good faith users such as myself are here to IMPROVE Wikipedia for everyone, not engage in edit wars.--99.132.129.26 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars
It appears that two users, Ramapoughnative and an IP, are engaged in an edit war. Please cease reverting each other and discuss your edits on the talk page before making them. Further edit waring may result in one or both of you being blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the edit warring report here. One side seems to jump from one IP to the next, which makes it hard to communicate with him. Both parties are urged to settle down, since both have broken the 3RR rule in the last two days. It is better to patiently discuss sources than to abuse one another. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk about an injustice. I have been researching our history with the available historical documents and posting the facts here. For this I get questions like "how do you find being a descendent of runaway soldiers and postitutes offensive?" ( see above) I don't you realize how many sites base their information on what is written here. So for my efforts to making your website as accurate as possible, i get blocked for a week. You leave me no choice but to allow others to write whatever they want without proof. All I can say is if we find anything deemed as slanderous, it will be referred to our attorney, Catalano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.43.243 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Made minor change to new data added. I removed the part on BIA recognition which I think is redundant since it's in more detail later on.

69.242.43.243 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a quote that was published in Evan Prichard's book that was removed. It was reinstated as it is relevant to the subject. 69.242.43.243 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To Terrifictriffid on the reversion of 69.242.43.243 edits
In the interest of good faith, I checked up on my recent (relatively) edit which was reverted by editor 69.242.43.243, who also signs her/himself as editor ramapoughnative1, and it appears that you, Terrifictriffid, reverted for the very same reason that I had originally...the addition of "known," which was not supported by a cite. Just a simple strong word can change a meaning, and it must be cited. I'd just like to point out that there are so many Wiki folk like you that actually follow the rules around here that I now don't feel bad for my insistence for good Wiki form. Beware Terrifictriffid...if you read above, our editor in question is an avid "owner" of the page and actively reverts assertions when he/she feels the courage to do so because he/she feels everyone possesses the internal knowledge and/or opinions he/she does. Although this is not permissible, if you are a persistent editor or administrator I am sure that is not going to be a concern. Happy editing, --Noopinonada (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)