Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Choctaw Nation of Florida


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. I have no doubt that there are Choctaws in Florida. Whether there's valid claims or not - or if such a nation exists is completely unreferenced. Deletion is not intended to be an affront, but recognition that WP:RS is vital in all cases such as this. No RS's have been provided. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Choctaw Nation of Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )



Non-tribal, obscure group. Many of the "references" previously listed in the article do not, in fact, mention this group. Possibly simply self-promotion. Uyvsdi (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Ive checked the remaining references in the article, and none of them mentioned the subject of the article either. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete-Per the above, the only sources that seem to exist for its existence is its own website and mentions on blogs, and other unreliable sources. There seems to be no evidence that they are a tribe of Native American and given the absence of available information, dont seem to be notable either.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep see talk page, also listed as unrecognized tribe in Wiki. See also DOI/BIA records here., listed at 500nations.com, map showing the Choctaw tribe in the Florida panhandle near Destin here, wapedia notes that smaller Choctaw groups are in Florida here, etc. Clearly notable, clearly organized as a tribe - just not a federally recognized one. (GregJackP (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Wapedia is a mirror site of here and doesn't count, neither does it being on the article "List of unrecognized tribes" here at En Wiki. If you go to the 500 nations link, the page has tribes that are debunked elswhere as "Pseudo tribes" and has adverts for Russian mail order brides, so how reliable a source do you think they really are? As for the map, it show the actual Choctaw tribe once controlled parts of extreme western Florida, in proximity to Alabama and Mississippi where the real tribe actually lived, not in the Tampa bay/Marianna, Florida Area. And their petition for Recognition link, how about this one where it shows they were denied because they, as a group and as individuals, could not prove they were Native Americans? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You misread the ruling, which was not on the merits of the case, but on jurisdictional grounds. It doesn't mean what you allege it does - the tribe was asking for land to be put in trust which is not authorized by statute unless the tribe is already federally recognized, and a recent SCOTUS decision limits it even further. Further, the fact that the tribe is contesting various issues with BIA is indicative that they are notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Actually, I didn't, I linked to the wrong document. Here it is where it says this:

"The Decisions responded to two requests made on behalf of Appellant, both of which apparently requested the acquisition of land into trust, and one of which apparently requested “an accounting for previous trust activity and compensation to the beneficial heirs of the Choctaw Nation of Florida.”3 The Regional Director concluded that Appellant and its members did not fall within the definitions of “Tribe” and “individual Indian,” respectively, that are in the trust land acquisition regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 151.2, and Show Cause (OSC), at 2-3, Mar. 31, 2009. Thus, the merits of Appellant’s claims are within the scope of this appeal. See Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, 48 IBIA 259, 265-66 (2009) (distinguishing a failure to take action from taking action that declines to grant the specific relief requested)." Sorry for the confusion. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - read the cited regulation (25 C.F.R. 151.2), which defines "tribe" as having to be federally recognized, and "individual Indian" as being an "enrolled member of a tribe." Thus, without having achieved federal recognition previously, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. They were not making a ruling that they were not Indians, just that they couldn't act because the tribe was federally recognized. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Also, if you look at their entry in the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, it is cited with a link to a list of groups identified as "fraudelent" by the Cherokee Nation.. < This group previously styled themselves as the the "Hunter Tsalagi-Choctaw Tribe", as mentioned in a few of the other links I already provided. Tsalagi is the word the Cherokee use for themselves. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is always controversy of a petition of a tribe to be recognized or not - a mixed tribe is not uncommon, see for example my cousin's tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, which also had recognition problems. It applied for recognition in 1934 (denied), in 1943 (denied), and in 1978 (granted in 1980). The point you make is immaterial to their notability, and the fact that it is listed as a "fraudulent" in facts points to their notability, as a secondary reference. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment. Odawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi are the Three Fires Council - they have been closely related for centuries and Algonquian languages. Choctaw and Cherokee come from two different areas (in the 18th century, the former were in Mississippi and western Alabama; the latter in western Tennessee and northwestern North Carolina) and their languages are completely unrelated. I disagree that all tribes that don't have federal recognition are controversial - the Houma, Yuchi, and Natchez people are widely accepted in Indian Country. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Delete None of the sources cited by GregJackP are reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is a .gov site unreliable?  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which one is a .gov site? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It think it takes more than a failed court petition to be notable, or else we'd have a whole lot more stub BLPs. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem to follow that for a group to be notable, they would have to actually do things. What does this organization do? -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi
 * Comment - that is not the standard. See WP:ORG, which states: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't think anybody has found a source which indicates they have been noticed by media or recognized by any outside organization. The only sources that have been presented are the group's own website and official rejections of its application to be acknowledged as a recognized Native American group. Throw in the lack of any documented historical connection and I don't see any way to justify keeping the article. Zeng8r (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to have Wiki article creation only two sources of my choice were to be posted. However, more than 7 were listed. Those have been deleted But one was an artilce written by Jackson County Times, by Riley editor. The other was"A long hunt: Death of the Buffale East of the Mississippi" by Ted Bleue, which clearly states where the Choctaw Tribe was located which was called Big Springs of Choctawhatchee which is "Marianna" Today and Chipola.

There were also treaties international and domestic listed to show the Choctaw Nation in Florida and relations with the Spainsh Nation and Seminoles and Creeks. Although we are experiencing issues with uneducated individuals with agendas, that does not preclude the Choctaw Nation existence in the locations they are clearly mentioned in every link that has been posted. That would be Florida, Fort Brooks, Port Charlotte, East and West Florida...etc. Some get the names right and some get confused on the name because they did not consult the Choctaws. The Choctaws have experienced theft of customs and culture by those that are complicit and facilate the "Doctrine of Discovery" and violates the laws of the Constitution of United States and failure to give "Equal Treatment" to all Tribal Nations even those which claim by law.

There are federal statutes and Congressional Acts, which were passed in the early 1900's for the Choctaws which live in Florida but the Commission has failed to enforce those laws on the local level. So it has become necessary for us to go to federal level which is the PDF files you have listed. Although we are to be given the highest regard by the BIA. I would like to know who said their no Choctaws in Florida, when there are very many that inhabit our tribal lands. So don't be alarmed we are setting the record strait, because we have the proof and the documents. I have many friends that come from the carribean and they are called Calusa. If you think that is my personal opinion then the same for outside opinions that have been accepted as reliable sources. They can be catogerized as someone's personal thoughts of what they observe while sitting in the bush.

Out of respect for the Cherokees which are on our rolls we added their names to our title, but it was not done in fraud it was done out of love and benelovence for Cherokees which live among the Choctaw Nation of Florida.

The Choctaws which inhabit anywhere in Florida, have signs of preservation by Towns and rivers and mounds location; based on Bernad Romans Concise Natural History; James Bartram travels in the Country of the Choctaws, Cherokee and Creeks; and The Early History of the Creeks and their Neighbors. So deleting the information provided and approved previous was unfair. This hurts the light which needs to shed on the Choctaw experience,Pain and suffering, and harm. Yakoki (Thank you)!67.235.129.179 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC
 * Your "sources" did not mention your "tribe'. They, if they deal with the Choctaw at all, deal with the Choctaw who wre removed to Oklahoma. The did not in one instance mention you specifically. The Calusa are a seperate people, who occupied much of southern Florida, part of the Caloosahatchee culture. The Chatot mentioned in one of your references, are not thought to be Choctaw. If you are able to rewrite and cite this article properly, it may not be deleted. But I've spent the last 2 days looking for references to your "tribe", and have found only what has been posted here, your own website and denials for recognition by the federal government. Wikipedia is not an avenue for you to press your case with the federal govt or to prove your existence as a Native people. We are an encyclopedia. We rely on reliable sourced material. Read our rules and policies, I know links to them have been posted to your talk page. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete–a notable organization should actually do something. This organization has absolutely no documented accomplishments. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Strong delete per above, even taking into concern the IP's tl;dr rant. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You already !voted above, TPH. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Despite many searches by many editors, no link has been found between historical tribes and the current group. The current group in Marianna, FL is clearly non-notable on its on merits. Zeng8r (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that we are losing track of the issue here. It is not whether or not the tribal claim is genuine or factual. It is whether the tribe is notable. I think the following point to notability under WP:ORG:
 * The tribe is mentioned as by the Cherokee Nation on their website - a reliable secondary source.
 * The tribe is mentioned by the U.S. Government, Bureau of Indian Affairs - a reliable primary source.
 * The tribe is mentioned by 500nations.com - a reliable secondary source.

Again, whether or not the claim is genuine is not germane to notability. They have been noted several places. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Three mentions, two of which say the organization is disingenuous, do not constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources." The Cherokee Nation mention is a list of 204 groups on an Excel spreadspread – not a published article focusing on this group. None of the citations you mentioned were listed in the previous versions of the article, anyway. This group is not "national or international in scale" nor have they "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment. I'm not sure whether the group's claim is accurate or fraudulent, but I agree that that's really beside the point. Even a notable fraudulent claim would be notable, and would merit inclusion if we had sources to show that notability. I'm not sold on this one, as there are indeed problems with sourcing as noted above. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not that I'm advocating a CU or anything of the sort but this definately passes the duck test for WP:COI. Removing all of the non reliable sources or sources that don't do anything more than mention that the organization exists and there's not enough there to pass notability guidelines.  I wish i could add some great analysis that hasn't already been added by Uyvsdi or Heironymous Rowe.   Nefariousski (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I restored a basic source that had been removed--whether it refers to the group being discussed in the article I cannot determine, but it needs to be at least considered.  (there are other references also in the earlier versions, and I think it appropriate for those    commenting here to take them into account also).  I have no opinion about keeping or deleting the article, but I have examined the history of the article, and I am not comfortable with the process of removing all references and then urging deletion as unreferenced.  The people   at the AfD can determine the relevance.    DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, the refs are still there in the history. YOU go check each one of them to see if they contained the information they were supposed to cite, and if they mention the subject of the article without a major stretch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Then come back and give us your opinion of the references and their removal. They were removed for a reason, but I dont want you to take my word for it, please investigate if for yourself. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I removed the William Bartram reference. No page number was provided and his writings have no mentions of a Choctaw Nation of Florida. By the way, the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast make no mention of Choctaws in Florida either. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Also, I've just followed the reinserted link, and downloaded the pdf for "Choctaw Citizenship Litigation", a book published May 1916, written by P. J. Hurley, National Attorney for the Choctaw Nation as a report to Major Victor M. Locke Jr., Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation. As the entire book is close to 900 pages of generally legaleese, court prodeedings, and etc, I skimmed around, read a few pages here and there, but the first 8 or 9 pages seem to give a general summary. It discusses the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek(this article contains a map of the land being ceded in Miss. by the treaty) and the process by which land was divided amongst the Choctaw in Oklahoma, the left over land and what to do with the proceeds of such land, and the main focus of the book, did Choctaw who had elected to stay in Mississippi in 1830 and not remove to Oklahoma, and are therefore not on the rolls, have a standing and right to the proceeds of the leftover land. It then seems to go into the many court cases, petitions to congress, frauds committed by unscrupulous whites trying to get ahold of the proceeds, etc. It does not seem to mention Florida at all. Mr Hurleys legal arguments seem to be that those who stayed in Mississippi accepted citizenship there and of the U.S. and were not entitled to have the rolls reopened and be distributed land in Oklahoma. So, unless some undocumented group of Choctaw in Mississippi, moved to Florida, and began eventually calling themselves the Florida Choctaw, I dont see how this book or a link to it can have any relevance to this "tribe" or in proving their notability? The link was included by the original author for the aforementioned  SYNTH and OR and to beef up there cites. Now, I encourage anyone who doubts to follow this link, download the pdf and verify what I've said. In fact, I'd like anyone who isn't comfortable with my removing of spuriously sourced material and references to check those references and let the rest of us know if their removal was correct or not, and if they weren't, why. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Having had a look at the older references, I see that many do not mention this group of Choctaw at all, or peripherally. I can find no evidence that the current 'Choctaw Nation of Florida' is recognised as a entity by reliable sources. Although the Choctaw were originally in the area now known as Florida, I can find no evidence of the notability of the current 'Nation'. At best, this might merit a one-sentence entry on the main Choctaw article, but certainly not an article of its own. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for woefully inadequate sourcing. Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable references from reliable sources.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with UltraExactZZ that the issue here isn't whether this tribe does or doesn't have a legitimate claim, but whether there is evidence of notability in reliable sources.  I find no such evidence.  There have been some proceedings involving this organization and the BIA.  But no substantial coverage of these proceedings in newspapers, magazines, books, or any other third-party media has been produced, and I couldn't find any either, under the name "Choctaw Nation of Florida" or under the alternative name "Hunter-Tsalagi".  I would analyze this as we would any other piece of litigation about which someone wanted to write an article: notability is not established by governmental rulings and other primary sources, but only by evidence that reliable third party sources are paying attention.  And, it seems, they aren't.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete At this point, I have read a little of the reference I reinserted, but enough to make it likely that it may not actually be relevant, and I accept  Heironymous Rowe's more knowledgeable opinion on my talk p. that he has read much of it also, and thinks the same.  It  seems that there are no reliable sources. I apologize, btw, for any implication of other than improper motives--I may have become too sensitized by discussions on some other subjects at afd.    DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.