Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The clear consensus view is that this is a WP:STALEDRAFT intended to hold in userspace material which was not accepted, for lack of reliable sourcing, in the main encyclopedia article Yamasee. Any further discussion about including it should take place on the talk page of that article. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans
This appears to be a user draft. User started the page in Nov. 2010 after an unsuccessful attempt to include the info and POV in the main article Yamassee. Worked on a little bit by IPs and single purpose accounts (SPAs). I see no content that is salvageable in it. Pigman ☿/talk 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've read through the SPA's contribs, and the histories and talk pages of the real article this one was created to mimic. It is clear that, after other editors reverted this user's attempts to insert inaccurate content and advert text, the SPA wrote a new article with his POV and posted it in userspace. SPA's version exists to promote a dubious heritage club, not the actual Yamassee people. This fake article cannot be sourced to WP:RS standards as none exist. There is some evidence user has misrepresented this page as a real WP article, and at least one non-Wikipedian was fooled by it. This page is in clear violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE - Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the obvious POV, I think there is some interesting info that might be true and can be worded more neutrally with a bit more of research, but that can offer a place to start. Amqui (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not an article but an abandoned draft. We already have an article on the subject at Yamasee so we don't need a place to start. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There also is a redirect called Yamassee Native Americans. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and Dougweller --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Times up. Well more than three months have passed and whatever could have been included in the mainspace article from this draft is already there. Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As it has been my attempt to not make this a POV, it has also been obvious that becasue of past Articles in the name of the Yamassee, there has been a Obvious Bias, outlook, and no further research has been done by those commenting on this tribe. There are plenty of documented fact that this group is who they say they are with, government documents to prove such claim. I do admit I am new to the proper way of posting a Wiki, page, and that may have lead to conclusion of a affiliated position. But it only comes from lack of experience on wiki, and no one seeming willing to help site proper reverences and Concrete PROOF. Thank you!!! If I could reference a Congressional Serial set, Published by the Washington Government Printing Office before the Industrial Commission I would then ask based on the evidence, how can a description as such, not apply to these people? Or shall this be considered a "We choose" to overlook this, and still continue on with the word Extinct. At that point, if that is chosen it becomes obvious this racial by character and truly dishonorable, by those of Authority and WIKI experience.
 * -- 72.185.68.185 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that you are clear that this is not an article and that it doesn't show up in Google. This is in an editor's own userspace. If you want this to be in our existing article on the Yamassee you will have to add it there. And I don't see how a 1901 document tells us anything about 2012. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The points in the draft appear to be 1. The that the Yamasee Indians were in fact Africans, 2. The Yamassee Muscogee Indians did not become extinct in 1715, 3. that Yamassee bloodline still in the St. Augustine, Tallahassee Area, and that 4. the Yamasee Indians are federally acknowledged. For any of that being based on "Wikipedia reliable source" information, it can be added to Yamasee. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. - It looks like some of this was already brought up at Talk:Yamasee. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this draft seems long since abandoned, and its presence on Wikipedia lends it undeserved credibility by association. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment - I don't really know anything about policy and guidelines concerning userspace drafts and such, and don't feel qualified to say keep or delete. But I thought I could comment on the Congressional testimony reference. There is an old claim that the Yamasee were Africans, but it is an extremely fringe view. The view is associated with the "hate group" Nuwaubian Nation but apparently predates that group by some time. There's a website more along the lines of this draft, http://www.yamasseenation.org/ -- I suspect this website is not related to the Nuwaubian Nation except in claiming the Yamasee were African, but I don't really know. The website seems harmless enough but cites as proof of this African origin theory the same 1901 Congressional testimony used in this userspace draft. As described at Talk:Yamasee, this Congressional testimony is certainly a reliable source for what Mr. Harry Hammond said before a Congressional commission in 1901. But Mr. Harry Hammond's opinions are not a reliable source about the Yamasee. Just because he made some claims before Congress does not mean the claims are true. Mr. Hammond was not a historian or an ethnologist. He was a cotton farmer. In his testimony he attributes the idea that the Yamasee were of African origin to "the mayor of Beaufort" who "wrote a book". He doesn't mention the names of the mayor or the book. Furthermore, his claims are not backed up by any modern historian I have come across. On the contrary, they seem to be in conflict with what historians say about the Yamasee and the larger historical context. Historical evidence indicates the Yamasee were mainly Muskogean. Africans were not brought to America in significant numbers until after the Yamasee War. According to Mr. Hammond these "African Yamasee" came to America "before Columbus". I think that counts as a fringe view! Pfly (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A good reason to delete stale drafts is that we want efforts focused on the mainspace article and we want people to come together make decisions on that article based on consensus, especially for disputed issues. WP:POVFORK, which applies to article space but has rationales applicable here, notes (1) resolving disagreement by consensus and (2) all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. Seems clear that this draft is interfering with resolution by consensus on the above noted issues by allowing points of view to be treated within Wikipedia outside of the one article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to your statements is that whether Old or new it should still be looked at as Valid, how do you change the validation of DNA as a Claim, when asked in the Congressional records " is it a fact?" it was clearly answered it was a FACT! How was Mr. Hammond able to make this statement and put it in a congress record as a fact? And lets make note as you said he was not a Ethnologist, but he gave the statement of FACT from information that was made by a ACTUAL ethnologist, how could YOU over look this? He did Not make a claim or assumption, of the matter, he stated for congress under the LAWS of PERJURY that it was a Fact. Also your point of the time frame of this incident being 1901 is not relevant as schools use Out dated information dated all the way back to Rome and the likes in HISTORY books that teach Children that live in 2012 TODAY, these things seems obvious there is a Problem, CLAIMING "NEGROES" as Indians. Also the website you said www.yamasseenation.org has made a clear distinction to any association with the Hate group of Nuwaubians or any other group. Lastly it has been proven Mr. Hammond gave another FACT verifiable by other scientific documents, that they were here before Columbus, and Desoto stated that fact as he was here before Columbus as well, another well know Fact. Again I only want the people to have a fair opportunity to be seen for whom they are, and that is obviously not extinct. Wikipedia as ALL of you know sometimes determine the outlook of people Views, and when OBVIOUS Contradictions are over looked, someone has to step forward, and give proper references, so people can have a viable source. I feel these people deserve their story told the proper way, and not always met with Critics, whom Obviously WOULD OVERLOOK the Facts, as such their are 100 of books in GOOGLE BY HUNDREDS or WHITE AUTHORS, That SAY THE SAME THING, as to their description, just google in books. OR is it the Intentions of our White Community to keep these people extinct, even when PROOF shows, if they were "Negros" or "African" they could never been eliminated as we know these same titles exist today!(72.185.68.185 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Historian)
 * Keep Comment I see once again the obvious attempt to over look at the facts of the congressional record, And I See how this could in turn allow people to make racial statements when it comes to their position of the rights as Black or negro. You gave valid points to a lot of issues but over looked certain key words. I quote you as saying above ""There is an old claim that the Yamasee were Africans, but it is an extremely fringe view.The view is associated with the "hate group" Nuwaubian Nation but apparently predates that group by some time." "The website seems harmless enough but cites as proof of this African origin theory the same 1901 Congressional testimony used in this userspace draft. As described at Talk:Yamasee, this Congressional testimony is certainly a reliable source for what Mr. Harry Hammond said before a Congressional commission in 1901. But Mr. Harry Hammond's opinions are not a reliable source about the Yamasee. Just because he made some claims before Congress does not mean the claims are true. Mr. Hammond was not a historian or an ethnologist.""
 * Comment A decision whether or not to keep this userspace page will be based on our policies and guidelines for such pages. I repeat, this is not an article, and your arguments aren't relevant here as we are not, or rather shouldn't be, discussing its content but whether its existence meets our policies and guidelines. Arguments about content belong at Talk:Yamasee. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay simplicity then. "They as a Organized obvious entity should have a post outlying them, as remnants of a historical native american Tribe, with all of the statements to support that fact, and allowing them a place in WIKI, like any organization such as the KLU KLUX KLAN, DR. DRE, etc...". THEY EXIST. "Given by my Attorney when I discussed this matter. (72.185.68.185 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 201 (UTC))
 * Comment And I repeat, this is not a 'post', it is not an article, it is not seen by the public when they look up Yamasee. We already have an article on them and you appear to wish it to say they are not extinct but still exist. To do that you have to change the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I will note, that you did not mention others obvious arguments but mine, as the bases for saying " NOW" Wiki policies for it being on here. That statement should have been made when others were pointing out the same thing. I will refer to council in this matter, to see any other options, and views. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.68.185 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My statement obviously applies to everyone. I've asked on your talk page what 'refer to council' means. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The U.S. Congressional Record is a transcription of what is said on the floor of Congress. There is no fact-checking against which the document is later edited, so the source has WP:RS issues for the statement that it is presented to support. Also, those Congress members speaking on the floor of Congress have immunity from many laws, including perjury. they can (or at least used to be able to) beat each other. Remember when Brooks caned Sumner on the floor of Congress" Southern Chivalry.jpg? Further on your comments, WP:NPOV is for all significant views, not all views. But see, 1. 2.  3. Peggy Peterman's October 8, 1991 article noting "Francisco Menendez, a West African Mandingo, was captain of the Fort Mose militia. He had escaped to St. Augustine with the help of the Yamassee Indians, who were affiliated with the Creek Indians" Menendez joined the Yamassee Indians in a revolt against their former masters, making the Yamassee West African at least via one member. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Move cited information and delete - Yamasee is a perfectly acceptable place for this information. It seems the User made this draft to keep Hir Approved and Preferred Version. If there is cited information not featured at Yamasee, move it over. Otherwise, it's just a draft with no clear evidence of improvement. Achowat (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.