Talk:Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky/Archives/2011/January

Untitled
I do not want to see this article deleted, and would now like to have the "orphan" designation deleted. I apologize for all the changes, and deletions. I had to learn rather quickly, by trial and error, since the article was up for deletion I seized the opportunity to salavage it.


 * No reason to apologise - the article is vastly improved by your knowledge of the subject. When it was proposed for deletion it was nothing - even my small input was a considerable improvement. What you have done will guarentee the article is not deleted. Click Here to add your vote to "keep" the article. Mark  Dask 08:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

POV and OR
This article is filled with POV statements and original research. While the Treaty Party and the Treaty of 1866 are extremely well documented, the connections of the Treaty Party and the 19th century Cherokee Nation to this particular state-recognized group are not established by reliable references in this article. This group is definitely not the extact same as the Overhill Cherokee or Chickamauga Cherokee. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uyvsdi,

I found a source in the New World Encyclopedia that ties the Southern Cherokee to The Treaty party. It should be a verifiable source. I have since removed any mention Chickamauga or Over Hill Cherokee. I also put qualifier (they claim) in the opening sentance that initially talks about the Treaty party. Although, the New World Encyclopedia states the Southern Cherokee are descendents. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

POV and OR
I thought I had removed the objectionable sentances, reworded in some cases, and added more citations. What is wrong with the citations, please be specific. Just to say they are not verifible when in fact the sources are from legitimate sources such as journals, published books and PDF files is not making much sense. In some cases documents were referenced that are on file in museums, the Library, etc. I will wait for your response. ~PB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate Article
1) The below listed statement does not imply that The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is actively involved in (NAGPRA, but rather is supportive of this act:

"The Southern Cherokee maintain guardianship over the mounds Pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990."

The fact that the The SCNK protects the mounds is a notable deed. In otherwords, they are advocates of the Act itself (pursuant merely means I/A/W). I can reword that to make it clearer.

2) The CNO clearly states otherwise, so please read. Although, the CNO's appeal does mention Article 5. I will change the article to reflect 7 & 4, as thay are better Articles. The treaty was consistently breached by hostile Pin Cherokee factions (The Ross Faction), and by the U.S. Army's inability to protect the the Southern Cherokee.

"As the following statement from the 1866 Report explains, Congress and the Nation intended Articles 7 and 4 to protect the "Southern Cherokees" who had held slaves, not the former slaves themselves": (and it goes from there) (see my citations), Cause No. 07-5024, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Corrected & Final Initial Brief of Appealant Cherokee Nation, pp. 27 & 28.

http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cherokee-appellant-brief.pdf

3) No veritable connection? Kentucky past Governor John Y. Brown(former CSA Col) welcomed and recognized the Southern Cherokee Nation to the State of Kentucky in 1893.

4) Kentucky is traditional Cherokee territory (provable on maps), and that Cherokee were still living there at the time of the removal in 1838. There were also two waves of Cherokee that came through western Kentucky on the Trail Tears numbering in the thousands. The winter of 1838 was extremely harsh and the Mississippi was frozen over, so they took shelter at Mantle Rock in Livingston Kentucky. A lot of them also took shelter in caves, or just hid out until after the Trail of Tears. Kentucky has one the largest cave systems in the world with a large portion of is contained within the Green River area (Mammoth Cave). The Southern Cherokee Nation arrived in Kentucky from Indian Territory in the winter of 1871. One has to wonder if the Southern Cherokee sought out people linguistcally and culturally the same. I believe it appropriate to point out (in the article) that the Southern Cherokee relocated in an area of Kentucky rich in Native American heritage (Cherokee).

5) Finally, you made mention of Indianz.com, which is hardly an unbiased discussion board. Like Chuck's comments it carries no weight with the unbiased Wikipedia, and causes me to question your motives. However, constructive criticism is always helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I pointed out that Indianz.com was not an acceptable source because it's a discussion board (it's the only thing that came up besides the CNOK's own sites, wikipedia, and wikipedia mirror sites when "NAGPRA" and "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky" are searched online. The Gov. Brown's recognition in 1893 is very interesting... I've tried to find independent sources about it, and it should be included, but some Cherokees migrating to Kentucky in the 1890s are not automatically equal to Confederate soldiers in Indian Territory in 1860s. The 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee should have its own article - it's notable - but it does not connect to a state-recognized group in Kentucky. Early Cherokee people traveled into Kentucky, especially for hunting but your own source, The Kentucky Encyclopedia, has an accurate section about Cherokees, saying "There were no permanent Cherokees settlements in Kentucky at the time of early European contact," and there were hunting camps and raids into Kentucky but Cherokees were "pushed back into the central Appalachians" (181). Just write about your group - not any one else - and stick to secondary, verifiable sources. Check out: Identifying reliable sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * The Article is not about Confederate Soldiers. Governor Browm's Executive letter specifically states "Southern Cherokee Nation", and they do have roots in Indian Territory, Oklahoma, and are now located in Kentucky. The Civil War and Reconstruction is a part of their history. Western Kentucky was pro South and is where Jefferson Davis was spawned. The CSA establihed a state government in western Kentucky as well. In 1871 John Y. Brown, Confederate sympathizer and prior CSA Col, welcomed and recognized the "Southern Cherokee Nation". Why did the Southern Cherokee go to Kentucky? Stand Watie died in 1871 and The U.S. Army deployed to the Texas frontier, so this left them totally defenseless against the Pin Cherokee (Ross Party). John Y. Brown obviously knew of ther plight. I am not going to write all of this into the article, but stop trying to convince me there is no connection between the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky and what was going on in the Canadian District during the reconstruction and post reconstruction period.


 * The Green River Wilderness document makes mention of Cherokee towns in the Green River Wilderness area. 1n 1540 De Soto was repelled in western Kentucky by a large tribe believed to be the Chickasaw. According to Dr Tankersley, Northern Kentucky University, traces of Cherokee culture are found in SE Kentucky and the Mammoth Cave area. Accordinng to Prof. T.M.N. Lewis: "Yuchi settlements were laid down as far north as the Green River, Kentucky. The Shawnee had a permanent sttlement in the Blue Grass area called "Old Fields". When De Soto came through Kentucky in 1540 they spread diseases that the Kentucky Natives had no immunity against, and their numbers were dramatically reduced. By the time the Scots-Irish and Germans started pouring through Cumberland gap in the late 1700s they met with little resistance, although the Shawnee and Cherokee tried it was too little too late. Daniel Boone and rich land speculators propagated a story that there were no Native American in Kentucky in order to develop the "Meadowland" for European settlement. As a consequence it was written into Kentucky's history books just that way. I am primarily interested in the truth. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I am in no way knowledgeable in the matter but, reading all of the above, it seems to me that the article can reasonably exist if 76.121.154.140 and Uyvsdi continue to collaborate. Mark  Dask 22:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a hoax
I deleted the Hoax tag because by the amount of effort being put into the article by 76.121.154.140 he is clearly not intending to hoax anyone. As for truthfulness, whatever the factual accuracy or the interpretation of events, to say the article is being untruthful implies that 76.121.154.140 is deliberately falsifying the facts. Given the amount of discussion above it is clearly a matter of interpretation, which can be resolved, and not a matter of personal integrity. Mark Dask 08:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The amount of effort a person goes to in order to support a hoax does not make it any less a hoax. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For further reading, I suggest: Do not create hoaxes Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Chuck - I am in awe of your knowledge of Native American history. I read Do not create hoaxes but it seems you won't accept the existence of this group or their claims to Cherokee nationality. You call their claim a hoax, but what 76.121.154.140 is writing is not in itself a hoax - he is writing about a group of people making a claim - that is not a hoax - that is real. Consider this - Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist until eventually he became a celebrated global symbol of peace and reconciliation. I am not comparing or equating the two - I am merely suggesting that your opinion aint the only opinion here. Uyvsdi's opinion is that this article can exist as long as it remains just about the group, and 76.121.154.140 is busy trying to satisfy both his and your views. Calling what he writes a hoax is simply a refusal on your part to accept the groups notability as a minority, and a personal attack. You appear to have taken it upon yourself to censor Wikipedia. Play fair man - I have deleted the hoax tag again, because it is a personal attack against 76.121.154.140. I think the other two tags serve the purpose. Mark  Dask 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the anon IP to stop tweaking on the article to edit it. Yes, this group does exist and has state recognition, but the connections to 19th century tribes have not been established in the article by any reliable secondary sources (and wikipedia must be limited to what is verifiable). This group is listed as a on the Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force: Fraudulent Group List (as of June 23, 2010) (downloadable from here). And the questions of notability and WP:Conflict of interest have not been resolved either. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * What he said. Plus, "Mark" you have also established that the whole purpose of this article is an attempt to confer legitimacy on an organization which does not merit such. The hoax part lies in the author's attempts to tie the relatively recent organization to historical events and suggest that the current group bearing the name is the same as the group allegedly proclaimed by Kentucky's governor. I say "allegedly" because the only proof offered is a link to a Wikipedia clone which mentions it, but without references. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cherokee Nation Task force has every Cherokee state recognized tribe listed on it, so again not very convincing proof. In fact, Any Cherokee tribe that is not Federally recognized is on that list (Again not a very objective source). The definition of a Hoax by Wikipedia is not in the same sense that Chuck is espousing. Chuck has consistently attempted to break communications down by making personal attacks. I have to disregard his imput at this point. Chuck, The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is real, Governor Ernie Fletcher reconfirmed Governor Brown's Executive via Proclamation in 2006, and the City of Henderson did the same in 2009 (pick up the phone and call). The evidence is overwhelming, stop trying to confuse the truth with a lie.

Having said that, I would prefer working with Uyvsdi as he is at the very least honest, and I believe open minded. Uyvsdi, what do we do to get the tags taken off, and publish? What edits do you have in mind? It is not my intention to hoodwink anyone. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uyvadi, If you edit the article would that not help alleviate any conflict of interest?

The Notability guidlines are:

"Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. I also read that being famous is not the same as notabilty, but is a help. Chuck's definition of "notability" is different from the Wikipedia. He defines the terms to his own liking, and ignores the intent of the Wikipedia (deception), just like his use of the word hoax.

The part that confuses me: The term "original research" refers to "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources". Everything I listed has been previously published, and appears reliable. Who makes that decision? Can just anyone call into question the citations and do a major overhaul on an article, such as self proclaimed experts with no formal education in the subject matter. Is there an appeal process that can be followed?

On the subject of being neutral: A neutral point of view means being fair. When you make mention of a list that has all State recognized tribes listed on it as frauds, how fair is that? When you edit the article can you be fair? Do you have neutral point of view? 76.121.154.140 (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

'''Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.''' 76.121.154.140 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battlegroundPolicy shortcuts: WP:NOTBATTLE WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND WP:NOTFACTIONS

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point to someone with whom you disagree.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia— especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia’s fundamental decision–making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Simplify
Just so others are clear on my position - I think this article should encompass a description of who these people are, what they claim and some historical info on which their claim is based. That much makes it an interesting and informative article for those like me who know little about Native America. I certainly agree this article should not seek to promote the claim - that aint encyclopedic. I am surprised that such a simple article should prove so elusive for three individuals who know the subject. Mark Dask 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am all for that Mark, but can we get the disparaging remarks deleted and discussions about fraud, fake & hoax removed. Also mention of fraud task forces and forums that have hidden political agendas. And the repeated "negative tags" just smack of harassment and bullying. These words do not ring true of neutrality, and are offensive. Even if the article is published, the disparaging remarks go with it. Wado! ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Criteria
Reasons for deletion See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Policy shortcut: WP:DEL#REASON

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

I see no reason for this article to be up for deletion, it did not fit the definition for a hoax as indicated above, or any of the other category for that matter. The article should have never been up for deletion to begin with. The criteria above should have been reviewed, before it was allowed to go up for discussion the 2nd time. I see lousy Wiki articles out there with no citations period, and they are not up for deletion.

Another issue, why is the Southern Cherokee Nation not allowed to have roots. They just didn't drop out of the Sky and land in Kentucky. Let me see, this tribe is not allowed to have roots from Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Georgia. They are not even allowed to have roots from the Southern Appalachians, the original Cherokee homeland. They can't even reside in the Green River wilderness Area. Oh! I know! In 1871, the 101st Airborne Div. flew from kY to the Canadian District in OK, and the Southern Cherokee parachuted into Henderson, Ky., Yelling Geronmo!!

There is clearly something clearly wrong here, when Governor Brown's Executive letter is totally discounted, and Governor Fletcher's proclamation just ignored. I was told to use secondary sources, such as the New World Encyclopedia, and I did making a connection between the Southern Cherokee in the Canadian District and the Southern Cherokee in KY. Suddenly that was not a good source either. Hmm....how neutral is that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty certain this article won't be deleted - there's too much genuine substance. Maybe using many references to the SCNky website counts as self-published stuff - E.G. Reference (2) refers to historical documents, but they are on the SCNky website and therefore likely to be selective - could you delete such references and still have a worthwhile article? Governer Brown's letter and the Proclamation are indisputably sound sources, and entirely relevant, but reliance on the SCNky website may count as self-published where it presents argument promoting the claim. Also, SCNky need to be seen in the context of the other 500 groups who claim native American status of some kind. There's a fine line between writing an informative article and actual promotion of the Claim itself. Mark  Dask 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look at some of the other encyclopedic type artcles on state recognized tribes, and see what the norm is. I will need more time to research and to edit. ~PB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
76.121.154.140 is working on this article continuously, seemingly with a willingness to accommodate others' concerns regarding content. Meanwhile the three tags remain, that are in themselves affrontery. seemingly an unwillingness on others' part to acknowledge PB's good faith. Perhaps if Uyvsdi were to edit the article now it might lead to some convergence. Mark Dask 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No amount of "work" can legitimize a hoax. In fact, the more "work" "He Who Will Not Be Named" puts into it, the less credible the article becomes, since the article as it now stands is nothing more a defense of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky's legitimacy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)