Talk:Lumbee/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment on controversy

What is considered valid in anthropological assessment and physical studies continues to change. DNA provides new kinds of evidence. History is revised as new information is discovered through documents, archaeology, and new lines of research. As noted in the article, some studies or methods in which experts contended they had "proved" Indian descent of Lumbee are no longer considered valid in the academic community. Some of the federally recognized tribes, such as the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), representing 24 tribes, stated they did not believe the Lumbees had historically functioned as a tribe with tribal government. So there is more than one issue here. USET also stated they believed a fair solution was not Congressional recognition and circumvention of administrative process, but amending the 1956 Act so the Lumbee could go through the process at DOI.--Parkwells (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all 24 tribes of USET oppose congressional Lumbee recognition, and none of them oppose Lumbee recognition generally. Senate Hearing 108-336. Jas392 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I'll also add here that all of your stuff above from USET comes from a congressional hearing, and I'll reiterate that testimony from congressional hearings can be politically motivated, but congressional reports are an analysis of the entire scope of the record. Jas392 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you're going to insist on mentioning that the Lumbee should go through the administrative recognition process, I'll also reiterate here that Bud Shapard authored the regulations for the BIA process and he has testified before Congress that the process was not designed to handle a tribe the size of the Lumbee and that there exists "a history of negative bias within the BIA against Lumbees; [there are] extraordinary costs and time it would take to process a petition through the acknowledgement procedures for a group this size, and...that absolutely nothing new will be learned about this group by forcing the tribe to go the regulatory route." Senate Hearing 108-336 (9/17/2003). Also, Senator Byron Dorgan, the current Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee also acknowledges that the BIA recognition system is so flawed for even smaller tribes that "the process just takes too long and is excessively burdensome." Senate Hearing on Recommendations for Improving the Federal Acknowledgment Process (4/24/2008). Jas392 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Also see See United States Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-02-49: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recogntion Process; 11/2001) and Testimonies (GAO-02-415T: More Consistent and Timely Tribal Recognition Process Needed; 2/7/2002)(GAO-02-936T: Basis for BIA's Tribal Recognition Decisions Is Not Always Clear; 9/17/2002)(GAO-05-347T: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition Process Has Improved, but It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions; 2/10/2005). Jas392 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does not have to promote the political goals of the Lumbees. Since some of the federally recognized tribes have passed a resolution suggesting the Lumbees should go through the process, and some of the NC delegation is also opposed to the legislative solution, it is possible to mention that as one side of the current status. It certainly indicates there is controversy within the Native American community. This is not supposed to be a breaking news article or position paper for the Lumbees, but an encyclopedia account that gives more than one view of a question or issue. Citing testimony and GAO reports about problems at BIA seems way beyond the scope of this article. It may be just one of the reasons the tribe has sought a political solution. Why do members of the NC delegation oppose it, or recommend they go through the process. Congress does not necessarily want to be hit with a deluge of Indian recognition cases. Why do a number of federally recognized tribes oppose this course of action? That suggests more issues.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not have to promote the political goals of the Lumbee, however, the article does not have to promote the political goals of opponents to the Lumbee either. Jas392 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you're going to insist on mentioning that the Lumbee should go through the administrative recognition process, the article will also have to mention the well documented reasons why they should not go through the process. Why is it only considered advancing political goals when I have something in response to the politics you brought up? Besides, the 1989 solicitor's opinion makes everything here moot, but you brought it up to advance your cause (which is exactly what again? oh yeah, neutrality...I almost forgot). Somehow my numerous and credible cites to the contrary fell on deaf ears, which only makes the community lose even more faith in your coveted "consensus" here Jas392 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A central Wikipedia policy is that the article should not take sides in a controversy. It is more appropriate to air all sides. The Lumbees' recognition strategy is probably not appropriate for this article, unless there is a good source that weighs the various pros and cons for us. Our own synthesis is verboten, according to Wikipedia policy.Verklempt (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact that if you're going to bring the OFA process into discussion to advance a certain cause, you must also address the other side by pointing out that numerous GAO reports have identified significant flaws in the process? If you are so biased as to not even be able to see that, then we're going to be here forever. Eventually I'll figure this Wikiland out and you will be bypassed. Jas392 (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: How about when you cite a congressional hearing stating that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA, we'll also cite Lumbee leaders from the same congressional hearing expressing why they shouldn't? If you can't agree to that then I most certainly will resort to whatever Wiki authorities there are. Jas392 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jas392, if you really think it necessary, there are a number of venues for resolving disputes which may be sought if discussion here fails to achieve consensus. However, discussion is the first step. And as I've told you before, you will not get very far if you continue to use such accusatory, belligerant language towards other editors. Whatever positive contributions you have to make are likely to fall on deaf ears if you continue to be so confrontational towards those you're working with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that administrators such as yourself are supposed to be neutral and "not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with," so if I seem a bit abrasive after repeating myself with a slew of cites ten times and having some posts here deleted by you, please forgive me. Jas392 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.Jas392 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. I think a discussion of the issues involved in the "OFA v. legislative recognition" question is relevant and appropriate. Both sides make a good argument, and this article is an appropriate place to air it, although not at great length.Verklempt (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article covers quite a number of Lumbee stories of origins and events during the years, as well as what differing scholars have concluded about them. For instance, it addresses changing ideas in physical anthropology about what constitutes valid "proof". I hope we are not going to argue on this page about whether Congressional reports, written at whatever time, somehow trump other work. That's not the point - this is supposed to rely upon valid third-party sources to show what the information is, not to settle controversies. The Lumbee history, along with many others in the United States, shows different pieces of how we address identity and how people have done so in the past. Whether the lead could have improved, the rest of the article presents much of the issues through the years. It is not required to conclude whether it is fair or not that the Lumbee don't have Federal recognition, only what the issues are. --Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying is wrong with If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.? Jas392 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, can someone clarify for me whether Wikipedia cites are restricted to academia? Jas392 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything was wrong with that idea. I said I hoped we weren't continually going to argue on this page about whether Congressional reports are somehow more valid than other sources. We do not have to agree on the sources. As in the invalid land grant issue, there are a number of issues that have already been covered in the article, with sources that identify different points of view. I was not ignoring your cites from GAO reports about BIA problems, simply saying that nonetheless there were people, including NC Congressmen, urging that process be followed.--Parkwells (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. But just to be fair, the NC Congressman you refer to is Heath Shuler from the 11th District and I can provide cites to how much money the Eastern Band contributes to his campaign. Meanwhile, the Lumbee contribute nothing to any NC politicians and congressional recognition bills are the first priority of both Senators of NC, most other NC members of Congress publicly support Lumbee congressional recognition as well as the Governor. From your previous post, I assume you agree with me that this is important stuff to mention? Jas392 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I got into this article from an interest in 18th and 19th social history. Gross' article and others like it attempted to look at how different groups dealt with identity issues, whether you agree with it or not (as you tried to dismiss in other parts of this page). I was not looking for late-breaking news of political alignments and contributions related to passage of legislation for Lumbee recognition. I don't think that material should dominate this article. It might be that a separate article on 20th century identities and battles for federal recognition could be written, with some perspective on changing ideas, as there seems to be plenty of material and you seem to be very knowledgeable about those sources. It might be interesting to find other sources that compare when and how the small tribes in TX chose to seek recognition compared with the Lumbee process.--Parkwells (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2007 three NC representatives, not one, opposed the bill for Lumbee recognition, as did the Cong. from CT; there was also dissension among Indian tribes both inside NC and outside the state. I haven't tried to look at all the voting for 2008. I really don't think the article should go further than noting the dissension. It seems like OR to go looking for newspaper articles or other contemporary material to cite to try to determine why they voted the way they did. Even if you have a cite that says how much money was donated, you're making an assumption that all decisions or voting flowed from contributions from one tribe or another, and then assume those voting for the bill were somehow voting out of a greater sense of fairness or altruism. Yes, they may have different interests, but so do the people who voted for the bill. I think the current politics should not overwhelm this article. If you three think all the current political infighting should be reflected in detail, then you can work on valid third-party sources, but I don't think it's appropriate.--Parkwells (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really want to get into all of this in the article until it kept being mentioned here about the folks that oppose congressional recognition of the Lumbee within NC, both tribal and political. My natural response was simply to give some insight into that by saying that there are actually an overwhelming number of NC members of Congress and the Governor whom support congressional recognition, while the political reality of it all is that the EBC oppose the bill for the widely known reason that their casino market share may be threatened so they have consistently lined the pockets of their guys. It's not even necessary for the article to draw that line so boldly - if you insist on pointing out this dissension, it's really only fair that we talk about the entire political climate of the state (the majority part I just mentioned) and the article should simply link to political contributions and the readers can do with it what they will. In other words, I agree that the article does not need to draw that inference for them specifically saying that these reps only oppose because of EBC and their contributions; that can be figured out by any reasonable person that looks at the entire landscape/climate and sees where the contributions are going. Jas392 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So, here's what I'm asking for: (1) not just the dissent, but the entire political landscape of NC showing who supports and doesn't; and (2) a link to political contributions. Otherwise, I don't think it's fair to only mention the dissent, which is a corrupt minority. We should aspire to include all of the facts, or just avoid it completely for fear of sounding bias to one position. Jas392 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with what you're asking for is that it is Original Research. You already have an idea about what everything means, and you're going to look for sources that back up your ideas. It's absurd to talk about "including all the facts" for an encyclopedia article. Of course choices have to be made. Why stop at the entire political landscape of NC - why not include the entire political landscape of why each House and Senate member is voting as he or she is on this issue? Why does someone from Wyoming or Montana oppose it? Can't remember who. Although how one would determine that is questionable, given all the other deals and negotiations and bills each and every Senator and Rep is involved in. This is overkill. And describing the minority in NC as "corrupt" is definitely POV. This is all contemporary stuff going on, which is the difficulty in trying to find objective third-part sources to use as references. You keep adding more and more requirements. I would recommend no more than a paragraph - say that the Lumbees have made progress in gaining more Congressional support but have not yet achieved it; that some opponents recommend their Act be amended to allow them to pursue the regular process, but they have reasons to prefer the political approach, and be done with it.--Parkwells (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Park for the last sentence above...hate to see you go because you have obviously contributed so well to this discussion and your insight on a balanced parsing will be missed. I agree with your assessment that there should be {{"no more than a paragraph - say that the Lumbees have made progress in gaining more Congressional support but have not yet achieved it; that some opponents recommend their Act be amended to allow them to pursue the [regulatory] process, but they have reasons to prefer the political approach, and be done with it"}}. Out of respect for this discussion, I will address three key questions you raised above: (1) why not national landscape? Well, we could do that (I have the cites for the data), but it would be well longer than a paragraph at that point and unnecessary as it is a local NC issue; (2) my description of the dissent as "corrupt" - I apologize, I never intended that language to be included in the article itself, I just wanted to point out a common understanding for you guys amongst everyone that works on the hill and understands what's the real driving force behind Indians fighting Indians these days; and (3) more and more requirements - all I asked for here was that we not focus solely on the dissent and I prefer keeping this a local NC issue by looking at the NC landscape as a whole, which is really the fairest way to present a neutral piece. Jas392 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits

Okay, I made some edits that I think we have consensus for. It now says the "Lumbee are a Native American tribe of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. Though the Lumbee today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans." Also, the line about census sources identifying them as "free persons of color" has a fact tag; this needs to be cited as it appears to be controversial (at least among editors at this page) what is meant by that designation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heinegg and DeMarce are the obvious sources to cite, although really any of the recent scholarly sources will say the same thing.Verklempt (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cuch, looks like we're making progress, which is pleasing to see. Jas392 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreed also to taking out the last paragraph in the lede.--Parkwells (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm out

Guys, but there are other things that I need and want to work on. I can't spend this much time arguing about so many issues in this article, and as Jas392 pointed out, we have only just begun. I'm out of it for some time; do with it what you want. This is absurd.--Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Park. It will be more difficult without you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments - this article is a learning experience. After a pending move, maybe I can get back to it. I know you all care about covering the topic fairly. Verklempt and others interested in the topic may like to read Ariela Gross, "Of Portuguese Origin": Litigating Identity and Citizenship among the "Little Races" in Nineteenth-Century America, Law and History Review, Vol. 25, No.3, Fall 2007 [1] She compared the strategies and histories of Melungeons, Lumbees and Narragansetts, and has some valuable material on 19th and early 20th c. history, including Dr. Virginia De Marce's work on migration of specific families of Lumbee ancestors from VA to NC in the late 18th c.

• par.80 "Although they probably shared a common "mixed" heritage with Melungeons, and though they were equally concerned to erase all traces of their African heritage, they began to identify not as white but as Indian. As Jim Crow emerged in North Carolina, the Indians of Robeson County sought a third way in a binary system."
• Par.99 "Croatans, on the other hand, remained highly concerned with demonstrating that their community contained no "taint" of black blood and was instead purely Indian. They were supported in their efforts by the North Carolina General Assembly, which in 1921 established a racial screening committee for the Robeson County schools, staffed only by Indians of Robeson County. The group also policed the boundaries of Indian identity in the pages of local newspapers as well as in the courts, so that in 1914, the Robesonian was forced to print a retraction for having referred to Amos Bell of Ten Mile Swamp as a "darky." --Parkwells (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that Lums have historically wanted to associate (and be associated) more with Whites than Blacks, but I doubt the conclusion that Lums created an Indian identity can hold water. I mean, what were they before if they had to create an Indian identity? Black? White? A non-Indian mix? Any assertion that they were not Indian flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of evidence on the subject. Besides, Gross' study was limited to case law, which obviously can be interpreted several different ways otherwise we would have no need for lawyers. I'm okay with Gross except the false assertion that Lumbees created an Indian identity. I'll cite if that's really necessary, but let's just agree not to make this creation story a dominant theme - it can certainly play a role though, as her work should be respected nonetheless. Jas392 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence at all of Indian identity prior to the war. It's clear from all the evidence that these people's social status was "mulatto", or "free people of color".Verklempt (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussions under "Free Persons of Color" and "Self-Identification Prior to 1885." Also see discussions #16, #19, and #23 regarding the NC Tuscarora, whom have the same ancestors as the Lumbee. Jas392 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Free Persons of Color

Currently the Lead says that FPOC indicates "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" without proper citation. Again, I don't disagree with the triracial bit but this assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal. For starters, the census in 1790 didn't have a category for Native American; the census bureau says "the six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions: Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential), free White males under 16 years, free White females, all other free persons (by sex and color), and slaves." See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1790.htm. So, how the current assertion was arrived is too tenuous to be in Lead.

Insight can be gathered from the Lumbee case of State v. William Chavers in 1857 where the court found that FPOC may be "for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood, or persons descended from Negro ancestors beyond the forth degree." On this, Campisi says that "for all intents and purposes, the free population of the state had three categories of race; white - being persons with no known Black or Indian ancestry; free Blacks - individuals with at least 1/16 Black ancestry; and FPOC - who either were of Indian ancestry or less than 1/16 Black." Note: less than 1/16, as in not equal parts. But don't just trust Campisi, Dr. Swanton of the Smithsonian Institution reported to Indian Affairs in 1933 that among FPOC "were to be included principally free Negroes and Indians...[and] would be more likely to contain the Indians." In Pierce's 1912 report to Indian Affairs, he says that "until 1835 they were allowed to vote, owned slaves, built churches and school houses, and lived very comfortably after the manner of their white neighbors. In the year 1835 the state of NC denied the right to vote to all FPOC which of course included the Croatans. Against this very unjust Act the Croatans rebelled continuously, and it was not until 1885 when justice was given them..." There's plenty more, but I'm trying to keep this short and just get to the point that the Lead's assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal.

According to the majority of sources on FPOC and its implications for Lumbee, the practical effect stressed has been that it excluded Lumbee ancestors from the white schools and they refused to send their children to Black schools for 50 years because of this classification until they got Indian schools, which made Lumbee ancestors of this period very uneducated (FYI education is a big deal for the Lumbee). McNickle wrote in 1936 about FPOC that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote about FPOC that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people."

So, (1) we need to get rid of the "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" part, because there is no cite and it carries a false implication that all parts are equal; and (2) if anything, the FPOC should be an accurate reflection of it's implications for the Lumbee as described above. Jas392 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also object to this sentence, but it is easily fixed thusly: "a mixture of African, European, and Native American ancestry of uncertain tribal origins". Any and all of the standard cites will substantiate this version.Verklempt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This reads worse than equal parts; it implies a mixture of African, European, and some Indian, which is patently false. What "standard cites" do you refer to? Are you still betting the farm solely on Heinegg, DeMarce, and Gross? If so, please broaden your scope for the sake of this article and your own credibility. How about: "Native American and a mixture of European and African ancestry." The part about uncertain tribal origins misleads readers to think that because Lumbee ancestry cannot be traced to only one specific historic tribe (but many) that there is some doubt about their Indian heritage while it's certain that they're European and African. You have to see how this misleading. And I'm trying to convince myself that it's not deliberately misleading. I'd like to think we're having a fair discussion here. Jas392 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Nobody knows what the mixture is, and the entire notion of racial "admixture" is based on outdated and discredited pseudoscience anyway. (2) The Euro and African ancestry is well documented. The Indian ancestry is mostly hypothetical. (3) Nearly all of the scholarly cites present the tri-racial hypothesis.Verklempt (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I take the opposite position that Indian ancestry is well documented while European and African ancestry is mostly hypothetical. Sure, the Indian ancestry can't be traced back to only one specific historic tribe, but who ever said you have to trace back to only one historic tribe? In fact, under the OFA's Procedures for Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe, the mandatory criteria are that they "descend from an historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined." See 25 C.F.R. 83.7(e). The assertion that Indian ancestry is more controversial is right on one front - that it's uncertain exactly which tribes the Lumbee descend from - but overall there is no real controversy over whether they are in fact Indian. Your argument above seems to confuse the two. The fact of Indian ancestry has been well established for quite some time. I'll cite because I can, and anticipate the same in reciprocity. In 1885, the State of NC recognized the Lumbee ancestors as Indians. North Carolina General Assembly 1885, chap. 51. In 1890, the feds responded that due to provision constraints they could not provide services for "the Croatans or any other civilized tribes." Letter to W.L. Moore, August 11, 1890; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. In 1912, Pierce concluded that "there are but few full bloods among the Croatans, although one would readily class a large majority as being at least three fourths indian." Charles F. Pierce Report: Record Group 75, Entry 121, Central Classified Files, 23202-1912-Cherokee School-123. In 1914, Special Indian Agent McPherson reported that they are "generally white, showing the Indian mostly in actions and habits." Senate Doc. #677, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, Page #7. In 1924, Henderson wrote that "there are many to be found among them that are full blood Indians." National Archives 93807-1923-Cherokee School-150 (James Henderson Report). In 1933, Swanton wrote that "the evidence available thus seems to indicate that the Indians of Robeson County who have been called Croatan and Cherokee are descended mainly from certain Siouan tribes of which the most prominent were the Cheraw and Keyauwee, but they probably included as well remnants of the Eno, an Shakori, and very likely some of the coastal groups such as the Waccamaw and Cape Fears. It is not improbable that a few families or small groups of Algonquian and Iroquian connection may have cast their lot with this body of people." Dr. J.R. Swanton, Probable Identity of the "Croatan" Indians; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. In 1935, Baker (the guy who just did the EBC rolls right before this assessment) wrote "that they possess Indian blood is beyond question. It is clear that there has also been a large infusion of white blood of English and Scotch extraction principally. Family names indicate to me also an admixture of Spanish blood. It is conceded also by members of the tribe that there has been an infiltration of negro blood also. But this occurred many years ago. During recent years the two races, Indian and negro, have lived rigidly aloof." Baker Report on Siouan, #36208, File # 340, Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs (6/3/1935). In 1936, McNickle wrote "that they are Indians can not be doubted. in a representative crowd of them one will find many individuals who could very easily be placed upon a western reservation and be quite at home so far as appearances go. Others of them are predominantly white and still others decidely negroid." And "intermarriage with the white race has been prohibited since 1854, and undoubtedly there has been a gradual recovery of the Indian strain in most families; likewise, the prohibition against intermarriage with Negroes must be diminishing the degree of that racial mixture." McNickle, Re: Indians of Robeson County; Dept. of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs (4/7/1936).

You should notice that I have not only been very thorough with numerous cites, but I have also been very even-handed in trying to represent any instances of mention of white and black mixes and to what degree. These cites show that it has never been doubted that the Lumbee are Indian first and foremost. Well, maybe Heinegg, DeMarce, or Gross would say something along those lines but it flies in the face of the majority of evidence. Regardless, I'm interested to see what cites you may have from these three showing that African or European ancestry is even as nearly as certain as the numerous accounts above. All of the cites I give support the notion that Indian ancestry is not controversial beyond precise origin. (1) Now, it's your turn to show that it is controversial whether the Lumbee are Indian beyond precise origin. (2) It's also your turn to demonstrate that all parts are equal, because all of the cites above demonstrate that the Lumbee are first and foremost Indian. You have never provided cites for the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) When I use the word "evidence", I refer to primary historical sources, not to secondary publications. There are many authors who present speculations about Lumbee Indian ancestry. I give little credence to speculative works. Heinegg and DeMarce are the gold standard, because their work is based on primary source historical research, not speculation. (2) As I wrote a day or two ago, the concept of racial "admixture" is based on outmoded science. If you want to go down that road, then William Pollitzer is the gold standard, with Carl Setltzer right after him. I think this literature deserves mention, but I don't think it deserves much credence.Verklempt (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) We've been over this. Mr Hurt and I have given numerous specific examples of speculation in Heinegg's constructions.David F Lowry (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Replace the word "evidence" with "source." It makes no difference to me how you phrase it. But it seems you're trying to say that government documents on the particular subject are less of a primary source than when an individual studying something else analyzes other government documents? I think you have the government officials mixed up with the "authors," as the root of this fundamental disconnect. And you have the primary source material that government officials create mixed up with your authors' analysis as secondary sources. I hope you can see the distinction, but I do gather that you agree more with the conclusions formulated by H and D. That does not make them a primary source no matter how convoluted you twist things, and certainly not any more credible than actual primary sources where a slew of them are in general consensus. (2) I like Seltzer - he found 22 half-blood Indians using a high standard while only looking at a small fraction of the population, which is more than most tribes can claim (EBC's rolls were 1/16 and I heard it's down to 1/32 now, and that's the current trend throughout Indian Country). Maybe you will be kind enough to quote/cite me something from Pollitzer that refutes anything I wrote above? Regardless, we all know that there are no perfect test for determining blood quantum, yet at least. I can only invite you to Robeson County and show you the Indian community, then let you tell me whether it's equal parts. Until then, I've cited numerous credible sources to support my position specifically here as well other places of this discussion while no one has refuted them with specific quotes/cites. You need to start answering these sources I supply with your own, or concede to stop bringing in your OR and POV as distractions that we've already been over. Jas392 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between primary and secondary sources makes a difference to historians, and anyone else who is concerned about validity in historical research. Heinegg and DeMarce conducted research among primary sources. There is really no question about this. None of the other sources you cite conducted primary research on this particular question. In fact, most of them are highly politicized documents of the Jim Crow era. They are worthy of study, but they are not useful for determining Lumbee origins.Verklempt (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

None of my cites cite to primary sources because they are primary sources. I don't understand what argument you have left, but you apparently have something to say. Please be more direct. We're talking about my cites as primary sources, and there's really no debate there. Get to the point. Jas392 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) BTW, there's nothing you're going to be able to tell me about being a historian. Go ask your undergrad professor, then we can continue this ridiculous debate about the distinction between primary and secondary sources. [sorry guys, I had to get that out]. Jas392 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain the relevant difference between your early 20th century gov docs, and the sources used by Heinegg and Demarce. Heinegg and Demarce are analyzing 17th and 18th century documents created by or about the people they are researching -- the Lumbee ancestors. None of the sources you cite have done such extensive research in contemporaneous primary sources, and most have done no research at all in contemporaneous sources. There is no question that the Lumbee ancestors of the 17th and 18th centuries had a public social status as FPC. That's what the documents show. None of the scholarly sources disagree with this.Verklempt (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, none of my cites cite to primary sources because they are primary sources (this is going to click for you soon, I'm sure). The census and most other docs you refer to as being used by H & D didn't have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870, and the Lumbee weren't recognized as a tribe until 1885. So I'm not surprised they were labeled as they were, and H & D took these labels at face value then ran with it. Moreover, two secondary sources aren't going to stand up against eight or so primary sources, especially when the secondary sources aren't even on topic. Jas392 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The census categories are not relevant here. There was no federal census in the 17th and 18th centuries, save the 1790. Heinegg's research is mostly in colonial records. What primary sources do you have from the 17th and 18th centuries that label Lumbee ancestors as Indians? What secondary sources do you have that cite 17th and 18th century primary sources labeling Lumbee ancestors as Indians? Is this problem clicking for you yet?Verklempt (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have supplied numerous credible primary sources for my position. H & D are not only in the minority here, they're secondary sources of another topic for all I can tell. Please supply quotes/cites for your position (I've made this valid request several times now). The article is going to be revised, so you need to supply something for your position. I don't think any legit administrator can argue against my forthcoming, even-handed contributions. Yours will need to be substantiated in this space, and you have not even begun the process of doing that yet. Jas392 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what kind of cites you are asking for. There is no dispute in the literature that the Lumbee ancestors were nearly always recorded as FPC, mulatto, not Indian. All of the scholarly sources support this, and they are already in the article. I also don't understand why you think that Heinegg and DeMarce are off-topic. Their work demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees. My understanding is that you are proposing a statement that privileges the Indian component of tri-racial ancestry, based on antique, Jim Crow-era gov docs that are highly politicized. I have no objection to citing those documents in this article. However, the lede should not take sides on an issue that is contested in the scholarly literature.Verklempt (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please quote/cite something for the notion that H & D "demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees." It's amazing that you're still holding on to the notion that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbee. Who brainwashed you, and have you ever even been to Pembroke? Along those lines, I'll point out that Helen Rountree, Pocahontas’s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990) documents the one drop rule. So, if they had one drop of black blood, they were classified/enumerated in all documents as Negro overall. H & D fail to take this into account. Jas392 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't understand your first request. Are you asking for a book review of Heinegg or DeMarce? What's the purpose of that? (2) Your understanding of the "one-drop rule" is weak. It is mostly a creation of the Jim Crow era. It certainly was not pertinent in the 17th and 18th centuries.Verklempt (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really not necessary for me to chase tails with you anymore. H & D are no longer the dominant theme of this article. Jas392 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They never were the dominant theme. But you would still profit by reading them someday.Verklempt (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I read Heinegg because it's available online. He only looked at a few of my ancestors (the ones with tenuous ties to African heritage or slavery both directly and indirectly with Indian and African lumped together under "colored"), ignored all the rest of my ancestors, then apparently concluded that my people invented their Indian ancestry. Needless to say, I wasn't convinced. But the work is appropriately titled, which is why I keep saying that it's off-topic. Moreover, I didn't find it surprising at all that he didn't find any Indians when he wasn't looking for Indians to begin with. That's like not finding any Egyptians on the North Pole, then concluding that aliens must have built the pyramids. Jas392 (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting Heinegg's approach. He is attempting to construct a massive genealogy of all free people of color on the mid-Atlantic coast, including the various non-tribal Indians. He usually stops after 1800, so he's not going to have anyone's complete family tree. It's not his fault that the Lumbee ancestors aren't recorded as Indians in the historical record. If you have colonial-era data that he's missing, send it to him. He'll check it against the cites, and if it checks out he'll put it up.Verklempt (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was totally the aliens. Jas392 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you can react to cognitive dissonance with humor. Most of your predecessors in this space have degenerated into ad hominem when confronted with the historical record.Verklempt (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The dissonance, my friend, is in Heinegg's methodology. You can't cite documents referring to "coloreds" and "mulattos," then put them all under the category of "free African Americans." That's poor scholarship. There's too many holes to reference here (the real debate here has already been settled), but I'll be certain to point them out to appropriate people. Jas392 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with this criticism. The title of Heinegg's book replicates the old one-drop ideology, which still permeates our culture even though law and ethnologists mostly reject the concept. However, I don't think replacing the one-drop conception of blackness with a one-drop conception of Indianness constitutes progress. But that's exactly what the Lumbee origins myth has done. That's why it's such an interesting historical phenomenon. The Lumbees' claim to Indian identity is a holdover from obsolete Jim Crow racialism.Verklempt (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statements in regards to hold over from Jim Crow racism is rediculous and most certainly can't be documented. Can anybody say POV? Jas hit the nail right on the head here; you are making a NON-VERIFIABLE "ASSUMPTION" that free persons of color, other free, or mullato indisputably indicate African heritage when in fact the evidence indicates that it often did not. You can't do that; please show us specifically where it was written that the people were SPECIFICALLY and INDISPUTABLY beyond a shadow of a doubt recorded as being Black before 1885.Bobby Hurt (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-identification Prior to 1885

Seems there was a lively discussion two years ago under the "Disputed Article Tag" regarding Lumbee ancestors' lack of self-identification prior to 1885. I don't think this has any bearing on the current article, but I wanted to point out for future reference that:

McNickle wrote in 1936 that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people." Moreover, Henderson concurred with McLean's conclusion that ""whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..." I'll also draw your attention again to Vine Deloria's statement that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today."

But the point can more aptly be made by asking what instances existed prior to 1885 where the Lumbee ancestors could self-identify? Someone earlier mentioned the Catawba and the Cherokee as being able to self-identify during this time period, so I'm curious how it is that they self-identified. Jas392 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) The received myth on schooling is problematic. Do you know of any public schools in Robeson prior to the Civil War? Public schooling is a post-war development. And after the war, many children of Lumbee ancestors did attend colored schools, according to the census. They didn't segregate out until 1885. (2) Cherokee and Catawba are enumerated as such on the federal census and numerous other official documents and unofficial documents and narratives. The Cherokees even published their own tribal newspaper.Verklempt (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Public Schools After the Civil War - I'll repeat that McPherson said, "Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance." All of the references above to 1835 thru 1885 are from discussions about FPOC, and none of it contradicts the notion that public schools didn't exist prior to the war (I don't know this to be true, but I'll accept it for now as moot). Jas392 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Please see Mr. Lowry's comment and link below regarding the continuous presence of public education in NC since 1840. Jas392 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Numerous credible cites to the absolute contrary cannot be pushed aside by an uncited statement that "many children of Lumbee ancestors did attend colored schools." I'll give you that perhaps a few did, but that's not "many" and it certainly does not refute the numerous credible cites I've offered. If anything, everything I've found indicates that a few actually went to white schools, but never black schools. I don't claim to have done an exhaustive research, but I think I would have come across this by now if it really was "many." (2) I have already supplied numerous cites to official documents and narratives. Sorry there wasn't a newspaper until later on. This argument not only demonstrates your bias but is also moot regardless, as it does not pertain to any part of the article or carry any factual relevance. If you would prefer that it carry some relevance in the article, I welcome that notion, because as you can see I have plenty of credible cites to the contrary. Jas392 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to ad hominem. You've been doing so well up until now. I have been trying to help you learn more about Lumbee history, which is not recorded accurately in the old cites you're always putting up here. I do not know that anyone has gone into print to correct the mythical version of school segregation prior to 1885, but that myth will get revised eventually.Verklempt (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument is moot. I have cites. Numerous cites. You have none. And I get criticized for taking offense when this has been going on for over two years here already. There will be a change here. Promise. You can no longer push aside credible evidence by calling it "mythical" and saying that it "will get revised eventually." Good thing Wikipedia has standards, and I intend to hold you to them. Jas392 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We have no disagreement on what the current consensus in the literature is re pre-1885 school segregation. You're absolutely correct that the article should reflect your cites -- even though they contain erroneous information. However, if you want to know the truth about this issue, I've given you the road map. There are two discussions going on here. One is about how to edit the article, and the other is about the quality of the relevant sources. Usually the two discussion overlap, but sometimes they diverge. Don't take it personally.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to ad hominem. You've been doing so well up until now. I have been trying to help you learn more about Lumbee history,.... This is patronization, carries no information content that is relevant to this article, and is in itself an ad hominem attack on another editor. Please refrain.David F Lowry (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a thread here with a substantive debate going on. You're welcome to join in.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A permanent school fund was established in 1825. On Jan. 7, 1839, a law was passed whereby individual counties could vote yea or nay on publicly funded schools for their county. The law provided for one school per 36 acres per county. The schools were to be funded by local taxation and the permanent fund mentioned above. The establishment of schools reportedly failed only in Rowan, Lincoln, Yancey, Davidson, Edgecombe, Wayne and Columbus counties. Aside from a few years following the war, there has been a continuous presence of public education since 1840. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=h7AHAAAAMAAJ&dq=history+of+public+education+in+North+Carolina David F Lowry (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any public schools in Robeson prior to the Civil War? Public schooling is a post-war development.

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 31, 1871.

GILES LEITCH sworn and examined.

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. POOL.) As this witness was called at the instance of the minority of this committee, Mr. Blair will please commence his examination.

By Mr. BLAIR:

Question. Where do you reside

Answer. I reside at Lumberton, Robeson County, North Carolina.

Question. How long have you resided there?

Answer. I am a native of Robeson county; I was born about twenty-one miles from the county seat, where I now live; I have been living at Lumberton since 1851.

Question. What public positions, if any, have you held in North Carolina

Answer. I was elected county registrar in 1853; in 1856 I was elected a member of the house of commons of the State legislature; and I was elected a State senator in 1862, 1864, and 1865, for three terms. I believe I have held some position in relation to public instruction. I think I was on a committee to examine teachers from about 1857 or 1858 to the close of the war.

By the CHAIRMAN, (Mr POOL:) Question. You mean teachers for our free-schools

Answer. Yes, sir. I do not now recollect that I'have held any other public position.

From http://books.google.com/books?id=eRQSHcOwU5YC&pg=PA283&dq=giles+leitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by David F Lowry (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read this primary source referenced and linked above by David, you'll notice once again that the Lumbee ancestors were not equal parts Native, Euro, and African. And this comes from a witness that seems to have had a long history with these people and, if anything, a negative bias toward them. Jas392 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Leitch's own family/business/political agenda explains a lot about why he testified the way he did. That requires some original research to tease out, though. I don't think anyone has published on this yet. Evans totally missed it.Verklempt (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the more compelling ideas in Karen Blu's book, The Lumbee Problem, is that if one looks at the intersection of what both the friends and enemies of the Lowry gang said about them, where they agree, it is that they agree they are predominantly Indian. I'll dig up the direct quote when I get a chance.David F Lowry (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So David, how do you think the Lead's second sentence should be revised from "While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans" and the implications that that statement carries with it? I overstand that I have personally made the argument numerous times over with a volume of credible cites that we are not dealing with equal parts here, but I'm curious how you would suggest cleaning up this statement, especially when the current statement takes such a dominant position in the article. It's clear that this statement does not reflect the majority of work done on Lumbee, but I'm having trouble trying to make it more accurate. Maybe you and the other honestly reasonable editors here can help make this statement more accurately reflect the work done on this subject? Jas392 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The jump from documented fpc to free African American or a rather equal mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans is not shared by all scholars. See eg. Rountree, Evans, Wood. I think a more accurate and neutral statement would be "While Lumbees today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources their ancestors were classed as either Indian, FPC, Mulatto." I don't know for a fact all the categories they were listed as. I'd have to look. At least one documented Indian is found under the Bass family in Heinegg's book. I point this out to counter the claim that no Indian ancestors have been found among the Lumbee that were documented before 1885. I have been told there is hard evidence of Brooks on Mattamuskeet but I have not seen it. There is a colonial record of a Kersey ancestor being rewarded for taking scalps in the Rev. War. Did whites and blacks take scalps as well?David F Lowry (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that the taking of scalps was actually a white creation, as in there was a reward for Indian scalps, but I could be wrong. As far as your modification proposal, I agree that it would be more accurate to list documentary source classifications individually as opposed to making limited categorical assertions. I'll look into that as well. Jas392 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping it says that both Indians and Europeans were scalping before contact, but it became more prevalent among Indians as retaliation after there were government bounties offered on their own scalps. Jas392 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tuscarora

Currently, the Lead says that more recently "the Lumbees have claimed to be an offshoot of the Tuscarora and Cheraw." While the Lumbee generally descend from many tribes including the Tuscis and Cheraw, the Tuscis are a separate faction of their own in Robeson and adjoining counties (there are plenty of cites for this if necessary... they have petitioned on their own since the 1980s), and it is more accurate to say that the Lumbee claim to be descendants of the Cheraw. In fact, Cheraw has been the general consensus among historians and anthropologists since at least Mooney and Swanton. Also see McNickel for the evolution of Lumbee origins (he credits Swanton and Mooney for the Cheraw theory and disagrees with the McPherson/McMillan camp about the Croatan bit). All in all, it's just inaccurate to say "more recently" that the Lums claim descent from the Tuscarora, at least without a proper cite. Jas392 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how to fix it: "During the second half of the 20th century, a significant minority faction of the Robeson County Indian population has claimed descent from the Tuscarora Indians, and rejected the Lumbee identity. The Tuscarora and Lumbee factions represent a recent political cleavage among the Robeson County Indians, since members of both factions descend from the same ancestral population."Verklempt (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

i concur, with one modification: "rejected the Lumbee identity for themselves." Otherwise it sounds like the Tuscis are discrediting indian ancestry for the entire tribe, when in fact they just want to be a separate group under what they think is the proper name. I can't cite this, but I grew up in a Tuscarora church with all of my Tuscarora cousins and they would never claim that all of the folks calling themselves Lumbee today are not Indian, it's just the identifier on them that they disagree with. Jas392 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that technically since the Lumbee organization/political body was established in 1953 that Cheraw would inevitably become the only "OFFICIAL" claim put forth by the leaders of this "POLITICAL" institution; I certainly agree here and i also agree that the Lumbee and Tuscarora officially are organized and structured as completely different political entities; and I agree that it is inaccurate to state that the Lumbee (who are politically their own entity with a SEPERATE enrollment than the Tuscaroras) have claimed Tuscarora ties because the Lumbee political body has NEVER gone on record with such a claim. I do have to disagree however that Cheraw has been the general consensus amongst historians. It's true that many sholars have jumped on this bandwagon in recent years but not a one of them has ever documented any connection to the Cheraw whatsoever. In fact Swanton (the first to propose any possible strong Cheraw connection) CLEARLY stated that his position was based SOLELY on the evidence available to him at the time and that it was merely a guess on his part. In all actuality he didn't even believe the Cheraw were the biggest constributers he clearly expressed that he fealt it was more than likely mostly Keyauwee. I'm not being spiteful here but this is historic fact. Given that Swanton cited not one source past Hamilton McMillan...I have no doubt that he would have held a completely different position if he would have been aware of the genealogical record, the 1840 article, and the statements of Lt. Birney, Townsend, Normant, Gorman, and/or McMillans off the record account in the Fayetteville Observer. The closest thing to a documentable Cheraw connection is the fact that there was a Thomas Grooms living near the locklears. It has been speculated that this could have been a Cheraw Indian who took the name of the White Thomas Grooms who bought a piece of their last remaining land on the PeeDee in 1739. That's where the trail ends my friend. there isn't a single incident of anyone in Robeson county ever identifying as Cheraw......it never happened.....and there isn't a single piece of concrete geneology indicating that anyone ever lived where the Cheraws lived.......Tuscarora is the only affiliation proclaimed in the historic record prior to state recognition (there are a total of 6 written verifiable accounts to prove this) with exception to one man who claimed to be Hatteras. Which leads to my next point in regards to Verklempts statement. I agree that POLITICALLY the Tuscarora emerged as an ORGANIZED entity only in the latter half of the 20th century; but you are wrong to infer that this is when they started claiming this. Obviously it was claimed prior to 1885 as evidenced by Townsend, Birney, Gorman, Normant, and even McMillan himself so you can't refute this because its been documented. it was also documented that Kermit Lowrie claimed to be Tuscarora in his application to Seltzer in the 1930s, and its documented in a local newspaper account that even DF Lowrie was known to be a Tuscarora himself in the 1950s. So this claim is DOCMENTABLY not new....In fact on paper it's the oldest tribal affiliation to be claimed by Robco indians that can be found and there are VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTED sources to PROVE it.Bobby Hurt (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't understand why the Tuscarora groups are even concerned with the history of the Lumbee. They need to spend more time convincing the Tuscarora of New York that they are Tuscarora. No one discounts the existence of Tuscarora blood among the Lumbee. However, it is not the only Indian blood. Those that claim to be Tuscarora need to accept this. Yes, many ancestors of the Lumbee migrated from northeastern North Carolina. HOWEVER, please keep in mind that Indians were very mobile during the 18th century. They moved between Virginia and the Carolinas. Because they seem to be migrating south from northeastern NC during a certain period of time does not mean they are from that part of the state. They could have been from South Carolina and returning home. D.F. Lowry claimed to be Lumbee AND Tuscarora. Mary Norment in 1875 in her history of the Henry Berry Lowrie war writes that Lowry was of Tuscarora descent. D.F. Lowry and others, including present-day Tuscarora base their descent from the Tuscarora on this book. Kermit Lowry, like D.F. Lowry probably also read Norment's book. Tuscarora descent is based on the book and not oral traditions of the tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.221.116 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1956

The Lead currently says, "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe." The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition. The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2] Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." I admittedly have certain biases on the subject, but I also have requirements about certain language when we're talking in Indian law. I agree with the overall accuracy of the paragraph as-is, but it's language drastically needs to be cleaned up.

(1) "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe."" For starters, the 1956 Act says nothing about a tribe. It does talk about Indian services, however. And every journal article, textbook, etc that speaks about the 1956 Act specifically all mentions the prohibitions of services, not some tenuous implication that federal government was in denial that they are a tribe. Please see the voluminous congressional record from 1887 to the present wherein the feds never deny that this is a tribe, yet withhold Indian services (we can get into why that is later). I propose: In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act which acknowledged the Native American origin of the Lumbee Tribe but prohibited application of federal Indian statutes to the tribe and further prohibited Indian services to the tribe as well. I don't understand why it's necessary to say "claimed...origin." It seems we all agree here that there is at least some Native American origin, and the feds certainly don't deny it. As for the HR 4656 part, we can cite to that... it's distracting to the reader. And the latter part about Indian statutes and services comes verbatim from the 1956 Act, but I'm willing to shorten it to Indian services if you like.

(2) "The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition." This is actually funny... sorry, I'll explain. The 1956 Act is actually what keeps the Lumbee out of the tortuous OFA regulatory process, where they would be locked up for decades and millions of dollars. It's what keeps them in the legislative process and separates them as unique in that regard. So, it's not really a stumbling block to fed. rec. as much as it is a saving grace in the minds of Lumbee leaders. I move to strike this sentence completely, if not for inaccuracy but for POV.

(3) "The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2]" I'm okay with this statement but in order for it to make sense, it needs to reference the Solicitor's opinion of 1989 stating that the 1956 Act prohibits the federal relationship, which is why this statement is true.

(4) "Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." Okay. The article can discuss further in the body per our previous discussion here about who opposes and why they do.

I have not made changes yet, because I do agree with the overall accuracy of this paragraph, and I will wait for you timely response to the issues I raised here. Jas392 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with this passage. The Lumbee Act essentiallty does recognize the tribe. It just denies federal services. Here's a new draft: {{"In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which recognized the Lumbees as an Indian tribe. However the Act also specifically prohibited the Lumbees from receiving federal services ordinarily provided to tribes through the BIA. Since the 1980s, the Lumbee tribe has repeatedly attempted without success to gain access to BIA services by changing its federal status via Congressional legislation.}}Verklempt (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) 1956 didn't recognize them as a tribe; they were recognized as American Indians though. (2) The Lumbee, not the Lumbees. (3) Actually, they've been petitioning for Indian services since 1888. According to a Congressional Research Service report that examined the period since 1973 alone, they also petitioned in 1974 and 1975, so not just the 1980s, much less what may have happened in the 1960s, 50s, 40s and so forth. (4) "repeatedly" sounds a little POV, don't you think? (5) should read "ordinarily provided to federally recognized tribes" because the Lumbee do qualify for federal services for state-recognized tribes. How about this: {{"In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which recognized the Lumbee as American Indians. However the Act also specifically prohibited the Lumbee from receiving federal services ordinarily provided to federally recognized tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As the only tribe in this circumstance, the Lumbee have sought full federal recognition through congressional legislation.}} Im amiable to removing the language that says "as the only tribe in this circumstance" if you insist. Jas392 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your version is fine with me. I do wonder about how to substantiate the "only tribe" bit.Verklempt (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cites for that. Congressional records as well as law review articles. Jas392 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Congressional records also show that in testimony related to the 1956 Act, Lumbee spokesmen consistently said that they did not want any financial services, that they understood what they were saying, and that they only wanted the recognition as American Indians. You have consistently ignored that when I brought it up before. It is fine to say tribal members changed their minds, but it is a part of the historical record that is distorted by the above account which you are promoting. You suggest that in 1956 the federal government arbitrarily and unfairly decided to deprive the Lumbee of financial services, not that that was a condition of recognition which tribal leaders agreed to. Every generation gets to change its mind; that's what Congress is about, but you may as well tell the whole story.--Parkwells (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it you just read the 110th Senate Report? Well, let me just tell you that that report was doctored to not "tell the whole story." I grant you that one man from the Lumbee testified before Congress in 1956 that they did not want to be "wards" of the federal government. But the doctored implication from this is that the Lumbee did not want federal recognition in 1956 and all they wanted was to be given their name. First of all, the Lumbee people didn't understand the difference between being "given their name" becoming "wards of the feds" and being "federally recognized for Indian services." [This has all led to why I am who I am today.] First of all, you have to understand that these people surely did not want to be wards of the feds, all they wanted was Indian services for their school and later rehabilitation of their farms in the 1930s, then later control of their schools during desegregation. Let's just agree that what they wanted generally was "federal recognition for Indian services." Now, if the Lumbee didn't really want federal recognition for Indian services, then why did 54 tribal members travel all the way to DC in 1888 asking for assistance of their Indian Normal School and the 25 district Indian schools? Why did james Chavis of the Siouan Tribal Council travel to DC in 1935 seeking help from the Indian Rehabilitation and Resettlement Administration to secure farming land for them? See letter from William Zimmerman, Asst. Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Fred A. Baker (6/13/1935). You'll note that this trip led to an assessment of available land in Robeson County as well as very detailed needs of each Lumbee head of households at the time. This also led to Seltzer's 1/2 blood study for purposes of organizing under the Indian Reorganization Act (22 were identified and the IRA only required 10). Unfortunately there was a split in the tribe over what to be called - once again this theme of not being from only one tribe has been the major obstacle to Lumbee federal recognition once you look deeper than side story of African American heritage. Anyway, here are my cites: In 1936, McNickle wrote that "recently they have been split into two factions over the question of their rightful name, but so genuine is their desire to be recognized as Indians that they may be counted upon not to permit a factional dispute to interfere with the task of enrolling them." "Enrollment for these people will mean the first step in the rehabilitation of their dignity as a people... feeling that they have a right to their own destiny, I urge that some method be worked out to meet the legal requirements necessary for recognition of these Indians of Robeson County." A month later, McNickle wrote "it is well to remember that representatives of these Indians have been appealing to the Office of Indian Affairs since 1888. Two requests have been reiterated constantly: educational assistance and recognition as Indians." So, while I agree that that one Lumbee man testified before Congress in 1956 that they did not want to be "wards," this notion alone distorts the "whole story" more so. Besides, several contemporaneous news articles even reported the bill as a recognition bill. Also, there was the "Great Parade of 1956' in Pembroke because all the Lumbee actually thought they were fully recognized. It was a sham during the termination era, but it's not the first time Indian people have been taken advantage of because they didn't know the legal ropes. Jas392 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for waiting for some sort of consensus on this issue before changing the article, Parkwells. I'll wait to get feedback from the others on how to handle this. Jas392 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you had agreed before that they had testified as I stated on that issue in 1956, I misunderstood that you agreed to the change I made. In addition, you said that if I wanted changes that said some Congressional reps urged an amendment to the Act to enable Lumbee to go through the process, the change must also reflect that GAO and other critics said the process was burdensome and subject to delays and backlogs, as well as Lumbee stating they did not want to deal with those delays. That's what I put in. My apologies to everyone. I was not clear that every word had to be agreed to here. I have never been through such a detailed process on an article. In terms of GAO criticism, GAO exists to review and evaluate government programs - and to identify problems. That does not mean that processes with problems are solved by petitioners' seeking direct Congressional action.

In one place on this page, we are recommended to rely on Congressional Reports; in another told that they were doctored. If this assertion were to be included, it would need its own cites. I think that is why Verklempt was recommending other than political sources. Maybe this is not the article in which to get into every nuance of the Lumbee recognition struggle, as fascinating as it is. To my understanding, neither Verklempt nor I thought or said that African American heritage was any bar to recognition for the Lumbee; rather, we thought (and most scholars support) that early 19th c. history of the Lumbee as a multiracial group was more ambiguous than later accounts suggest and is worthy of coverage in itself, not just in terms of the later 20th c. struggle for recognition and the effort since the later 19th century to have one story. As Gross' article notes, different multiracial groups had different strategies in the 19th c. and since. Like numerous other tribes in the late 20th and 21st c., the Narragansett too have become more restrictive and purged individuals who had previously been members, unlike their earlier positions of saying their nation included anyone with one drop of Indian blood. I was not interested in confining discussion of the Lumbee especially to 20th c. anthropological studies and petitions to Congress. --Parkwells (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will address your concerns in turn. (1) Nobody ever said that "processes with problems are solved by petitioners' seeking direct Congressional action" but when there are only two options - legislative and regulatory - and one of them is clearly unworkable, you tend to take the other. I agree with your point though, and maybe this part of the article would best be clarified by a sentence on the 1989 Solicitor's opinion that bars the Lumbee from the regulatory route anyway. (2) I stand by congressional reports as reliable, even the 110th Senate Report. These reports are generally free of misinformation, and my only concern was that this one piece would distort the "whole story." How I know that this particular report was doctored should not be discussed in this forum. My only hope is that the article reflect the whole story now, but we really didn't have to get into all of this in the article. (3) I never intended my "doctored" assertion be included in the article. I'll tone it down. (4) Again, this is a political entity. To disregard the congressional record would be foolish. (5) I don't think every nuance is necessary either, but you're making it difficult not to include everything when the article only focuses on the little negative bits (i.e. one man's testimony in 1956 that the tribe didn't want to be "wards" for the idea that the Lumbee never really wanted federal recognition or Indian services in the first place). (6) Nobody on the hill will ever say it, but everyone knows that the "one drop of black blood" rule still exists in the minds of some elected officials. If nothing else, African American heritage is a bar to fed. rec. in that this is the root of EBC opposition and they are the ones funding the political opposition, vehemently. Just look at some of the comments in this discussion about how the Lumbee are black and thus not Native American. It persists, but I concur that this article should not only focus on the recognition effort. And (7) the disambiguation you mention should also play a role, however, I doubt that it should take the dominant position that it now enjoys. Jas392 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my apologies to the editors. I had been spending too much time on the Talk page and didn't look closely at the restrictions on the article page. Despite editing experience on numerous articles, I thought Jas392's use of the Templates in red was a personal way of setting out alternatives. We continue to learn. --Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. We've been following the template restriction loosely anyway. Mostly just whenever the main parties to a discussion agree on a middle ground is fine, I think. As for this testimony that has been added to the article with its inaccurate implications, I only see two routes: (1) take it out, or (2) clarify it by putting it in proper perspective of the history of Lumbee efforts for Indian services, both before and after 1956. I'm open to suggestions. I noticed it's under the "Petitioning for Federal Recognition" section anyway, so maybe this would be a good place to recount the history of the recognition effort, at least to list the years more accurately and highlight what they sought specifically each time. I am willing to supply much of the information on that and let you guys rid it of an inaccuracies or POV language you may find. And I would leave what's there substantively unchanged. Jas392 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Position of the KKK story

I totally agree that this should be in a different section rather than under Federal petitioning. I think it should be under its own section header, in terms of the size of the header, not a sub under the other. It follows the 1956 Act in time, but doesn't have anything to do with the larger topic.--Parkwells (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

More revisionist history

Native American? Ha! It's really sad how blacks always claim to be anything other than just black. You really can't blame them, however pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.220.217 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Henderson wrote in 1923 that "there is a common belief among those who have never known these people that they are mainly negro in blood. This is erroneous. There are many to be found among them who to all appearances are full blood Indians. Many of them are very dark from the blood inherited no doubt from the Spanish and Portuguese who amalgamated with them many years ago. The Spanish and South Mediterranean blood crops out in their swiftness to kill when angered. Such a thing as a personal combat with the fist is almost unthought of among them." There's more, but you're not worth it. I think you get the point anyway, which is why you didn't want to be identified. Jas392 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com

I've been trying to figure out a way to clean up the body of this article in an even-handed way. I came across this description of Lumbee "Origins and Legends" from answers.com (they had it listed as the wikipedia article, but it seems like all they did was clean it up to make it even-handed and generally accurate; the only inaccuracy I found was where they say that the 1956 Act recognized the Lumbee as a tribe, which I can forgive because that's a technical Indian law nuance). Anyway, let me know what objections anyone has to changing the "Origins and Legends" section as this:

This is the original. Don't make changes here.

The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made in 1867 when, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter claiming descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History."

In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.

However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.

In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledge the Lumbee as a Native American people. In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators often categorized individuals themselves, thereby determining the race of a particular individual.

Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Taking historic racial classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value, Heinegg and DeMarce have theorized that ancestral Lumbees were the descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans in Virginia, who then migrated south into North Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.[5]

In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6]

This is the Suggested Revision. Make changes here, preferably after some sort of consensus. Jas392 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). (-The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made)- delete . In 1867, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter [repeating local hearsay about] descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History." [These are all repetitions of local hearsay and attempts to classify the Lowries. It doesn't mean the people were accurate in their descriptions.]

In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.

However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.

In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledged the Lumbee as a Native American people.

In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators were [often the ones to categorize] individuals, thereby determining the race of a particular individual. [In small towns, when the census enumerators knew people, they would also know how others thought they were classified.]

Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Using a variety of colonial and early 19th century records, (delete - (taking classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value), Heinegg and DeMarce have been able to [trace some ancestral Lumbees as descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans] in Virginia, who then migrated south into North and South Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.

In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6] Jas392 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an older version lifted from Wikipedia. I think it's fine.Verklempt (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions for this material, but couldn't figure out how best to mark it. Jas must have the original. In relation to the 1867 case, I think the language - "the first attempt to assign a tribal classification" - should be deleted. This is simply the first time there is a record of a person describing the Lumbee as one kind of Indian or another; the pastors were repeating hearsay, not "trying to assign them a classification". Townsend's 1872 book was based on his impressions of what he thought by appearance and by community hearsay - that is part of the "performance" aspect which Gross wrote about.

In terms of the Heinegg-DeMarce portion, people have emphasized their use of census records (which also depended on someone using a combination of appearance and local knowledge to assign people to categories). Heinegg and DeMarce used a variety of records, however: deeds, wills, manumission records, court records, etc. that in differing ways often gave more information about people. I started making changes above. I believe "taking records at face value" should be deleted. They compared many different kinds of records in assessing them and building knowledge about families and individuals. Some of the records were related to actions, for instance, whether a family was liable for tithable taxes. In addition, they didn't just "theorize" about migration of certain individuals; they were able to follow families through land deeds and records. From that, yes, they had theories about the larger movement of populations, but it was based on specifics.--Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't the Lumbee ancestors call themselves Indian in the 1870 or 1880 censuses? Maybe no one told them it was a possible category.--Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually the census enumerator decided on the racial classification, based on personal knowledge, community reputation, appearance, etc. It was not until 1960 that people could consistently self-ID on the census. The few self-IDs I've found by Lumbee ancestors prior to 1885 generally claim FPC, colored, mixed race. I've never found a single Indian claim. The Freedman's Bureau letter from the two pastors is lost. Only one author has ever seen it. It's difficult to interpret a document that no one alive today has ever seen.Verklempt (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that they didn't. This discussion would be a whole lot more efficient if you guys could start using quotes/cites for your position. I've been kind enough to supply a wealth of them for my position, and you still haven't refuted a single one or established why a single one shouldn't take more of a dominant position than your secondary sources. We should aim for accuracy, not agendas.

(1) Accusing these accounts of "repeating local hearsay" is POV. (2) Similarly, I agree that "taking classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value" would also be POV, but I'll try to find something to cite for that notion... that's how I roll with the even-handed accuracy bit and all, you know, cites. (3) It seems apparent that I'm going to have to include all of my primary source quotes/cites in the article, because you seem so committed to ignorance of them and the lauding of these minority secondary sources. Jas392 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could settle (1) and (2) by saying that (1) was based on local hearsay and (2) was based on classifications taken at face value. All of that extra "These are all repetitions of local hearsay and attempts to classify the Lowries. It doesn't mean the people were accurate in their descriptions" is over the top though. Jas392 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"In small towns, when the census enumerators knew people, they would also know how others thought they were classified" seems unnecessary, speculative, POV, and OR. Do we really want to get into a discussion of conjecture here regarding how many times this actually happened, how accurate it was, subjective biases, etc. Let's just let good enough be. And, please, let's all *try* not to let our own biases shine so bright. It will make this much more efficient for all of us, and probably create a better product that will last. Jas392 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We just are not talking about the same thing. One can just say, "In 1867 when investigated.... pastors so and so described people this way: ........". I don't think the qualifying language is appropriate. Similarly, in describing the Heinegg/De Marce work, one can say, [they] "used a variety of colonial and early 19th century records, including court records, tax records, land deeds, and censuses, to identify and trace migrations of early families, finding some were descendants of ....." That's a statement of fact from looking at the material on Heinegg's website - he has cites from the records. Your biases are showing as well, since you seem determined to discount all of their work. It does not have to be discounted or proved. It can simply be presented. I'll add more later.--Parkwells (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Origins and Legends" section needs to also cite the Congressional testimony of Judge Giles Leitch, wherein he describes the Robeson County population in general and the Lumbee ancestors in particular. His testimony begins on p. 283 of the reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=eRQSHcOwU5YC&pg=PA283&dq=giles+leitch

If I do not get a response in a reasonable time from the other editors, I'll take that as consensus and add it myself.David F Lowry (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That should probably be in there. Leitch's POV is already represented in the history section with the cite to Townsend. Leitch appears to have been Townsend' primary informant on this subject. It might be worthwhile to combine the Townsend presentation with Leitch's KKK testimony, since it is the same guy.Verklempt (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Such a synthesis makes good sense and I defer to your greater editorial skills.David F Lowry (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil War

There need to be alot more sources for this section. I have a source that clearly states the Lumbee tribe being on the Union side only. I will add it later, but it stating them on the Confederacy must be cited as well.Mcelite (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NO THE LUMBER RIVER WAS ORIGINALLY CALLED THE LUMBEE RIVER AND WHEN THE EUROPEANS CAME THEY CALLED IT THE DROWNING CREEK WHICH WAS LATER NAMED THE LUMBEE RIVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.50.10.46 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citations and improper source citation

Much new material has been introduced without the editors' using inline citations, which are preferred by Wikipedia. In addition, there is material without any sources, which can be removed if valid third-party reliable sources are not provided. Some editors seem to be relying heavily on dated (1930s and earlier research) that has been superseded by more recent scholarly work. This gives undue weight to earlier accounts of Lumbee origins which did not make adequate use of historical documentation.--Parkwells (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article was in a fairly good state some time back; perhaps we should just revert to that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to pick up the best version.--Parkwells (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Legends - number of tribes in NC

The section notes there are/were five recognized tribes in North Carolina, and one of them is Smilings. These are indicators this is based on dated text, as the state recognizes more tribes in 2009, and none goes by the name of Smilings.--Parkwells (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

In the quest to match citations with references and limit superfluous media listings, I'm moving the list of "Further Reading" here. If any of these are particularly significant or cited in the article, please feel free to restore those publications to the article. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uncited texts

• The Amerindian (American Indian Review). "Lumbee Indians put Klansmen to rout in ‘uprising’." 6.3 (January-February 1958): [1]-2.
• Anderson, Benedict . Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso; Revised edition, 1991.
• Anderson, Ryan K. "Lumbee Kinship, Community, and the Success of the Red Banks Mutual Association," American Indian Quarterly 23 (Spring 1999): pp. 39–58.
• Barth, Fredrik, ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969.
• Barton, Lewis Randolf. The Most Ironic Story in American History. Charlotte: Associated Printing Corporation, 1967.
• Beaulieu, David L. "Curly Hair and Big Feet: Physical Anthropology and the Implementation of Land Allotment on the White Earth Chippewa Reservation." American Indian Quarterly 7: pp. 281–313.
• Berry, Brewton. Almost White: A Study of Certain Racial Hybrids in the Eastern United States. New York: MacMillan Company, 1963.
• Blu, Karen I. “Lumbee.” Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 14, Southeast. Ed. Raymond D. Fogelson. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2004. pp. 319–327.
• Blu, Karen I. "'Reading Back' to Find Community: Lumbee Ethnohistory." In North American Indian Anthropology: Essays on Society and Culture, ed. by Raymond DeMallie and Alfonso Ortiz. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. pp. 278–295.
• Blu, Karen I. '"Where Do You Stay At?" Home Place and Community Among the Lumbee." In Senses of Place, ed. by Steven Feld and Keith Basso. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1996. pp.197-227.
• Boyce, Douglas W. "Iroquoian Tribes of the Virginia-North Carolina Coastal Plain," in Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant, vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978. pp. 282–289.
• Brownwell, Margo S. "Note: Who Is An Indian? Searching For An Answer To the Question at the Core of Federal Indian Law." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 34 (Fall-Winter 2001-2002): pp. 275–320.
• Davis, Dave D. "A Case of Identity: Ethnogenesis of the New Houma Indians," Ethnohistory 48 (Summer 2001): pp. 473–494.
• Dial, Adolph L. ‘’The Lumbee (Indians of North America book series).’’ New York: Chelsea House Publications, 1993.
• Craven, Charles. "The Robeson County Indian Uprising Against the KKK," The South Atlantic Quarterly LVII (1958): pp. 433–442.
• Feest, Christian F. "North Carolina Algonquians," in Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant, vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978: pp. 277–278.
• Forbes, Jack D. Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
• Galloway, Patricia K. Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.
• Garoutte, Eva M. Real Indian: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
• Greensboro Daily News, "The Lumbees Ride Again." January 20, 1958: 4A.
• Hariot, Thomas, John White and John Lawson (1999). A Vocabulary of Roanoke. Evolution Publishing: Merchantville, NJ. ISBN 1-889758-81-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hobsbawm, Eric. Bandits. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.
• Hudson, Charles M. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976.
• Magdol, Edward S. "Against the Gentry: An Inquiry into a Southern Lower-Class Community and Culture, 1865-1870," Journal of Social History 6 (Spring 1973), pp. 259–283
• Maynor, Malinda, “Native American Identity in the Segregated South: The Indians of Robeson County, North Carolina, 1872-1956,” ‘’PhD Dissertation’’. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2005.
• McCulloch, Anne M. and David E. Wilkins. '"Constructing' Nations Within States: The Quest for Federal Recognition by the Catawba and Lumbee Tribes." American Indian Quarterly 19 (Summer 1995): pp. 361–389.
• McKinnon, Henry A. Jr. Historical Sketches of Robeson County. N.P.: Historic Robeson, Inc., 2001.
• Merrell, James H. The Indians' New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
• Merrell, James H. to Charlie Rose, October 18, 1989, in “U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources,” ‘’Report Together with Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 334, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, October 14, 1993, House Report 290.
• Miller, Bruce G. Invisible Indigenes: The Politics of Nonrecognition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.
• Morrison, Julian. "Sheriff Seeks Klan Leader's Indictment: Cole Accused of Inciting Riot Involving Indians and Ku Klux." Greensboro Daily News, January 20, 1958: A1-3.
• Nagel, Joane. "American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and the Resurgence of Identity." American Sociological Review 60 (December 1995): pp. 947–965.
• New York Times, “Raid by 500 Indians balks North Carolina Klan rally.” January 19, 1958, p. 1.
• Newsweek, "North Carolina: Indian raid." 51 (January 27, 1958: p. 27.
• Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth-Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June 1996): pp. 44–69.
• Perdue, Theda. "Mixed Blood" Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2003.
• Pierce, Julian, J. Hunt-Locklear, Jack Campisi, and Wesley White, ‘’The Lumbee Petition’’, Pembroke, NC: Lumbee River Legal Services, 1987.
• Price, Edward T. "A Geographic Analysis of White-Negro-Indian Racial Mixtures in Eastern United States." The Association of American Geographers. Annals 43 (June 1953): pp. 138–155.
• Price, Edward T. "Mixed-blood Populations of Eastern United States as to Origins, Localization and Persistence. (Ph.D. dissertation) University of California, Berkeley, 1950.
• Redding, Kent. Making Race, Making Power: North Carolina's Road to Disenfranchisement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003.
• Robesonian, "‘The Law’ Treads Lightly to Avert Maxton Violence." January 20, 1958: 1.
• Ryan, Ethel. Greensboro Record, "Indians who crushed rally were mature tribesmen." January 21, 1958: A1.
• Saunt, Claudio. A New Order of Things : Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Saunt, Claudio. Black, White, and Indian : Race and the Unmaking of an American Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Seib, Rebecca S. Settlement Pattern Study of the Indians of Robeson County, NC, 1735-1787. Pembroke, NC: Lumbee Regional Development Association, 1983.
• Seib, Rebecca S. Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Seib, Rebecca S. "Lumbee Indian Cultural Nationalism and Ethnogenesis," Dialectical Anthropology 1 (January 1975): pp. 161–172.
• Seib, Rebecca S. “The walls came tumbling up: The production of culture, class and Native American societies.” Australian journal of anthropology 17.3 (December 2006): pp. 276–290.
• Seltzer, Carl C. "A Report on the Racial Status of Certain People in Robeson County, North Carolina." June 30, 1936. [NARA. RG 75, Entry 616, Box 13-15, North Carolina].
• Smith, Martin T. Archeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1987.
• Stilling, Glenn Ellen Starr. "Lumbee Indians." Encyclopedia of North Carolina. Ed. William S. Powell. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. pp. 699–703. available online
• Swanton, John R. "Probable Identity of the 'Croatan' Indians." National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. MS 4126
• Torbert, Benjamin. "Tracing Native American Language History through Consonant Cluster Reduction: The Case of Lumbee English" American Speech 76 (Winter 2001): pp. 361–387.
• U.S. Bureau of the Census, ‘’2000 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics: North Carolina’’ Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002
• U.S. Congress, Senate. Recognition as Siouan Indians of Lumber River of certain Indians in North Carolina. 73rd Congress, 2d session, January 23, 1934. Senate Report 204.
• U.S. Congress, Senate. Relating to Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. 84th Congress, 2nd session, May 16, 1956. Senate Report 2012.
• Usner, Daniel H. Jr. American Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Social and Economic Histories. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.
• Usner, Daniel H. Jr. Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy : The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
• Wilkins, David E. "Breaking Into the Intergovernmental Matrix: The Lumbee Tribe's Efforts to Secure Federal Acknowledgment." Publius 23 (Fall 1993): pp. 123–142. available online

Legends - References

Neither Hawks nor Lawson are llisted among the references or further readings, although they are cited in this section (incompletely).--Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The text says early white settlers of Robeson Co. recorded mixed-race Indians, but there is no cite.--Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Oxendine, Milling and Rights are referenced as authors in this section, their books or articles are not identified in either of the reference lists, nor are inline citations given. It's difficult to know what authors and books are being referenced.--Parkwells (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the reference information for Hawks, Lawson, Oxendine, Milling and Rights. I couldn't find reference information for DeMarce or Heinegg. Holloman and Pierce have been cited but these could refer to several different publications.-Uyvsdi (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

More background information needs to be provided on the Cheraw and Tuscarora Sections

There is an abbundance of information available on both of these nations respective histories. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a little more about what the historic record indicates happened to each of them. In other words: are there enough unnaccounted for individuals from either one to have been able to have made a significant contribution?

Bobby Hurt (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I'm going to restore this article to the name Lumbee because there absolutely no discussion of a name change. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Legend creep and other issues

The legends section keeps growing, but without sources. Unsourced assertions have been deleted from other sections. The article is getting very circular as people keep restating the same info in different areas.Parkwells (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Legends not substantiated

There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were African Americans free iin colonial Virginia. A few may have had other than northern European ancestry for the European portion, but most were northern European and African, as documented by Paul Heinegg and cited in the article. People want to believe the exotic myths rather than the interesting reality of colonial Virginia. Please don't keep adding such unsourced mythology as above. No one is saying the Tuscarora, Powhatan or Cherokee came from European or Turkic immigrants - their origin as Native American indigenous peoples is documented via archeology, linguistics and genetics.Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were referenced as Mullato not as Free African Americans (I've read Heineggs work and it is fact that this and the term "free person of color" are in use 90% of the time). There is also a law dating back to 1705 (see Dr. Jack D. Forbes' published work) passed in Virginia defining a Mullato as "an Indian, the child of an Indian, the grandchild of an Indian, the child therof OR of a Negro." So Heinegg didn't substantiate a thing in regards to exact racial makeup of the families in question. The individuals he traced to Virginia (about 1/3 he substantiated) "could" have been a number of things in a racial sense. There is no objection to the presentation of his arguments. It is your own personal interpretations of them that are inappropriate (POV). He proposes a theory; just as others (which you have removed) have proposed theories. As I stated below; neutrality is lacking in your recent edits to this page.Bobby Hurt (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent unsourced edits

Could someone much more familiar with Lumbee history fact check the recent unsourced edits by User:Poprobeson, User:SittingDeer, User:Cherokeeblood, and User:MntBuffalo, who appear to all be the same user. Obviously this person has a POV against Lumbees. I removed a completely POV opinion from the article and issued a warning against adding unsourced information. Not sure if all the edits should be reverted or if there is some merit to some of them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A mess

Sourced material related to historical research, rather than myths of origin, have been removed. The article needs to be reconstructed, as it is incomplete and inaccurate.Parkwells (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted

There is no justification for deleting content related to Paul Heinegg's major work on free people of color in the Upper South. He did extensive, award-winning research in a great variety of colonial and early federal records to trace numerous families found in the frontier areas.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Add cited content if you wish. But there is no justification for removing other cited content in the process. Paul Heinegg should be mentioned; but so should things like the published statements of Hamilton McMillan (which you removed). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The fact that they were written and cited is all that matters here. Neutrality is lacking in your latest edits.Bobby Hurt (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

McMillan's statements are not research, but anecdote.Parkwells (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tuscarora bands in North Carolina

Per the article on the Tuscarora people and their sources, some bands have organized in Robeson County under various names including Tuscarora in the title. After splits in the 1960s, in 2010 they created a united, interim government called the Tuscarora Nation One Fire Council at Robeson County. They keep separate membership from the Lumbee, and have not achieved state recognition as a tribe. Given their independence, it seems inappropriate to label so much of the historic material here as "Lumbee/Tuscarora" ancestors, as one editor had added. This article is about the Lumbee; another article is about the Tuscarora. Yes, both people point to descent from the Tuscarora as part of their claim to Native American identity, but this article should not confuse the issue further.Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to Lost Colony theory (OR)

There is undue weight being given to early legends of Lumbee origin, and discussing them as if this article were the place to distinguish among them - this is Original Research. Editors are supposed to rely on valid, third-party sources for assessments. Much contemporary documentation by recognized researchers has disposed of the Lost Colony legend.--Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn`t be so sure about that..go to the website [ http://www.lost-colony.com ] read the articles and make your own conclusions..I will most likely rewrite the Roanoke Colony article eventually..I don`t have time to do it now..all I can tell you is there has been a lot of new research done vie ECU and I don`t understand why it`s taking so long for the information to get out but I guess people are unable to accept anything new..I have no idea where the Lumbees came from but there is one thing I`m pretty sure of and that`s the colonist did not starve to death on Roanoke Island..as much seafood that's available out there no one`s that stupid.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One published source that may deserve some mention on this topic is Robert C. Lawrence's 1939 book; "The State of Robeson"

On page 112 Lawrence states in part:

"....the colonists were not only to go to Croatan, but FIFTY MILES UNTO THE MAINLAND. This would locate them between Pamlico and Neuse Rivers, and there in 1660 Rev. Morgan Jones found among the Tuscarora a tribe known as "Doegs," light of complexion and who could understand the Welsh speech--proving beyond a peradventure some earlier association with the whites...............French emigrants as early as 1690 settled between the Pamlico and Neuse rivers, and here the first settlers found a native race to whom they gave the name "Malange," meaning "Mixed." At the earliest coming of the white settlers into what is now Robeson county, there was found along the waters of the lumber a tribe of Indians SPEAKING ENGLISH,owning slaves,and practicing many of the arts of civilization, who call themselves "Malungeans." I doubt not these were descendants of the mixed race above reffered to, who had moved from Neuse and Pamlico to other hunting grounds in the valley of the Lumber....."

An equally important piece of published material that I don't see present in the main Lumbee page is an article printed on February 12, 1885 in the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper. The article read in part:

“ …They say that their traditions say that the people we call the Croatan Indians (though they do not recognize that name as that of a tribe, but only a village, and that they were Tuscaroras), were always friendly to the whites; and finding them destitute and despairing of ever receiving aid from England, persuaded them to leave the Island, and go to the mainland.…They gradually drifted away from their original seats, and at length settled in Robeson, about the center of the county.”

I agree that the published material available doesn't even come close to substantiating this "Lost Colony" theory as it is portrayed in the main article but I do feel that enough evidence exists as not to rule it out entirely; thus making it worthy of mention. Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A major rewrite is needed

A lot of uncited editorializing and just generally clunky writing now mars this article. I propose a major rewrite.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And shortening to relevant, cited information! It's so long, it's difficult to clean out the persistant POV commentary and vandalism. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lumbee content removal.

I reverted your good faith edits on Lumbee because they were not constructive. If you want to see content moved to another section, then you should just go ahead and move it instead of deleting it. If you find that some claims are not supported by references, you should tag those statements so that other editors can perhaps provide the references. This content should not be deleted either. Only content that clearly and unequivocally fails WP:NPOV should be deleted, and then it is best practice to bring it up on the talk page before deleting. Feel free to reply here as I will be watching this page and will reply as needed. I am also watching Lumbee if you would prefer to discuss this on the talk page there. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yours is not the only opinion as to what changes are constructive. I have worked on this article for a long time over years to try to have it reflect scholarship rather than myth. The article is marred by new arguments being inserted in areas that should be based in fact, and controversies need to be more clearly identified in separate sections. For instance, the section on archeology needs to be cleaned up and toned down. It suggests that because archeological artifacts show diverse cultures, this somehow strengthens the case for Lumbee tribal claims, jumping into controversy rather than stating the facts of archeology. One does not lead to the other. I moved the current Culture section from within the History section, as it is confusing to jump from history to discussions of current culture. It should not interrupt the History section. Deleting unsourced content does not have to be discussed on the Talk page, but may be.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the Culture section has current references, or early 20th century references, so should be in the appropriate place chronologically.Parkwells (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, you are clearly ahead of me in knowledge of the topic, and I appreciate that. Whether the edit was constructive is clearly only my opinion, and unfortunately I didn't convey that well. I can also see that my wording was less than skillful on the removal of content, you're right discussion is not required. But it's still a good idea (IMO). The content you said you were moving was simply removed from the version of the page I stumbled onto, I can see now that it was returned. I can see you have worked hard on this article (and countless others) and I appreciate that. However I still believe that if the only problem with content is that it is unsourced, then we should tag it or source it before deleting it. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an error; have moved some content that is historical (related to 19th c. recognition and state politics) to the History section, rather than keeping with Hamilton Macmillan's Lost Colony of Roanoke theory, as it was not related to that.Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

History section

Content on archeology has been added, so a new sub-header, Archeology, has been added. In this section, I have reduced the arguments embedded in the first paragraph to stick to facts, make it more neutral in tone, and to attribute Knick's conclusion or theory to him by name, as his conclusions are not necessarily supported by other scholars. He proposes that archeological evidence of diverse cultural interaction somehow supports that diverse groups made up a historical Lumbee tribe, according to what is here. (Have to try to read the original source.) Parkwells (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:
Archeological evidence shows that Native American cultures have long occupied present-day Robeson County. Artifacts have been collected from Paleo-Indian times through early, middle, and late Archaic, early, middle, and late Woodland times, and into the historic period; in short, Indian peoples have long occupied the land which is now considered Robeson County. According to Stanley Knick, the evidence of diverse cultural influences in prehistory of the region is a characteristic of the region, and repeated among Indians of diverse cultural influences during the historical period after European colonization. Parkwells (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I support your proposed changes.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Melungeons

Are the Lumbee people related to the Melungeons? The descriptions are very similar. And, should there be a See Also reference to Melungeon? Risssa (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

HBL section non-encyclopedic

The HBL section is riddled with florid mythology and factual errors. I propose a major rewrite of the HBL section.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil War section

This is anachronistic, inaccurate and largely undocumented. "Lumbees" as such did not exist at that time. Some Lumbee ancestors did serve in the Confederate army.Pokey5945 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Origins theories

I propose the origins theories section be moved up to the beginning. I see no reason for it to be so near the end.Pokey5945 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Extreme Bloat

I have been mulling over what to do with this article for some time now. The article is very bloated with tons of unsourced material, crumby sources, highly contested "facts", and probably contains lots of misinformation. My proposal would be to begin removing all blocks of information lacking solid citation and trimming this article down to sourced material only. Even if we cut out some "correct" information, the current state of the article completely overwhelms anything useful with worthless uncited information. Jcmcc450 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree, although you might want to get some opinions at WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or a similar Wikiproject. There are several Lumbee related articles that need sourcing. Maybe some type of merger would be in order. This is not a nationally recognized tribe, but in some states (such as NC) Lumbees are well known. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that info on indigenous people in general is often from sources that look borderline from the WP:RS viewpoint (and some "scholarly" stuff that looks RS is actually crap), I would be careful about deleting much. A cursory glance indicates the sourcing is acceptable. What are the specific problems you are having? Can you put tags where info is dubious or where lack of sourcing is a big deal (and not a WP:POPE problem)? I've worked on a lot of GA and FA-class articles and am in WP:IPNA, so I think I can probably give a sense of what is OK or not... Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree some caution is needed, but if you look at the editing history of the article, you'll see unsourced or poorly sourced information that has been added, deleted, restored etc. I think a good start would be to chip away at the information that already has cn tags or global unsourced templates. Then take a closer look at what is already sourced to see how reliable the sources seem. Again I would suggest seeking opinions from a Wikiproject related to indigenous peoples. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I AM here due to the ping at the Indigenous people of North America (IPNA for short) wikiproject! My take is that articles on Native people generally tend to have been edited by a combination of people who know the culture but don't know wiki (so their sources look kind of iffy even if they aren't atoo bad, really) and then people who are clueless about Native cultures generally (save that they think they had an "indian ancestor" somewhere...) but have some notion of what kinds of sources to use, though the sources may not actually be very good. This is why I suggest not axing half the article but rather to analyze it section by section, look at the source material, and then fix what needs fixing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

One May Not Claim That Someone Murdered Someone Here without Any Evidence, no Citations at All

I deleted a paragraph which made assertions about killings and even murder without even a shred of evidence nor one source, reliable or not! (EnochBethany (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC))

@EnochBethany: - I see you didn't check at all to see whether this could be sourced. See Henry Berry Lowrie but particularly Lowry War. I'm hoping you will do the right thing by our guidelines and restore the information with the sources you want. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Do the right thing? If someone thinks that a murder was done by someone or some group, that thinker is responsible to prove it before he posts it. Otherwise, it may be libel. Libel should not be allowed to stand in hopes that someone may eventually prove it true. This is more than Wiki-lawyering. This is real law. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

This is Wikipedia, we actually expect people to use commonsense and check for sources. It isn't libel, it's actual history. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We expect whoever wishes to make a claim to back it up with reliable sources. We recognize that the burden is on the claimer. We have the common sense that this work belongs to the claimer, not to someone who notices derogatory statements that lack sources. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

Who is 'we'? We actually have an editing policy that says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research."

But you didn't do that. You didn't even add a citation tag. The Lowry gang and its killings are well known to people interested in the Lumbees and the Civil War. It was very easily sourced. You could have fixed it, but instead deleted it. That's against policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Party here. This argument is fairly frivolous. @EnochBethany: was being Bold but not Assuming Good Faith. Keep in mind @Dougweller: that policy dictates that any unsourced content can be challenged and removed (though its generally better to attempt to find a source first). One last point I would like to make is that this does not constitute as "libel of a living person" because the Lowery Gang members are no longer alive. Even if some might still be alive, they are not being called out. Oh, and please don't use "we" none of us speak for all of us. Using Argumentum ad populum usually just annoys users who don't agree and stacks things against you. Unless there is more to discuss that could improve the article or our editing methods, I recommend you both drop this and leave it be. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jcmcc you are of course more or less correct in the thrust of your comment, but WP:Removal is an essay, not policy, whereas WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is in fact policy. Interestingly enough, there are US states where libel laws can apply to the dead. I was a bit careless in using we, by which I meant not some generalised 'we' but our policy. I admit that editors removing easily sourced material irritate me and that probably shows. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Group discussed as to its origin is yet in existence. Just up & stating that someone or some group did murder, should not be allowed to stand for a moment without proof. If someone writes, "The moon is made of green cheese," or "John Pillsbury murdered a mother in Chicago in 1918, I am not about to go and do that person's research for him. Whoever claimed Pillsbury murdered a mother is the one to do his own homework. I am glad to see that the passage was revised with citations. I have no dog in any fight. I had never heard of this group before and find it interesting; but I strongly object to just up and saying that someone did murder without citations. The issue of assuming good faith, is irrelevant. I do not assume that all men are sinners and prone to be judgmental, I recognize it as an observable fact. And I don't just assume that it is improper to accuse anyone of murder without a shred of evidence; I acknowledge the fact. I commend the fixer for adding the citations. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

Roanoke Again

From the article: "The Roanoke colony disappeared during a difficult winter, but reportedly left the word "Croatoan" cut into a tree. This account is considered legend and not supported by any mainstream historians. The scholarly consensus is that the colonists died of starvation on the island."

I can't imagine where this came from. I have read five or six books on the Roanoke Colony none of which dispute the story about "Croatoan" and "Cro" being carved on the post and the tree. Also, the colonists packed up their belongings, including the materials they used to build their houses, and took them somewhere -- hardly the behavior of people dying of starvation. (Perhaps the author has confused Roanoke with Jamestown?). Furthermore, had the colonists died on Roanoke, evidence of their graves would still be there and no one has ever found anything like that. Risssa (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "legend" refers not to the existence of the colonay or its disappearance, but to the assumption that Lumbees are their descendant. I agree that it could be reworded for clarity.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus is that the colonists died of starvation on the island."

This statement is not correct..no one knows what happened to the Roanoke colony and all the primary sources reference Croatoan Whether they refer to the people or the place is the question..there is no way they could have starved..anyone could live off the land there at the time..seafood was abundant. 75.130.204.174 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is probably why the claim was removed. Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

The "Mulatto Descent" section [2] is missing a bunch of spaces following periods and commas, so it needs to have them added. I apologize for not being more specific, but the entire section needs to be proofed and have the aforementioned spaces added. In summary; the missing spaces should be very apparent to whomever processes this request. 73.188.226.109 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - and have also reworded slightly, so hopefully it makes more sense. - Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are more grammatical problems with this section. In sentence 2, there is no reason to capitalize Primary, nor Mulatto (a common noun or adjective, not a 'proper name'). The next sentence is a bit complex, but the comma seems just to have been thrown in because its length. It is dividing the verb phrase, breaking the link between the verb and its complement ('migration . . . to Robinson County' is a single grammatical unit), and should be removed or the whole sentence rephrased to avoid the problem. 50.37.124.19 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This request was completed. If you have another request, please put in a new edit request. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheraw

In the article it says the Lumbee have abandoned claim of Cheraw descent. I have no idea where that came from, the tribe says all the time they are Cheraw. Even their official website says they're descended from Cheraw. I'm half Lumbee and I hear this from other Lumbee a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.234.171 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- I removed the dubious, uncited claims. Thanks for pointing that out! You should make an account. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this comment had referred to the Lumbee formal documentation for their official petition for federal recognition as a tribe with full benefits, which they were seeking to gain in the early 21st century (and have not given up). What people talk about may be different than the historic documentation they are required to provide; at one time the people now identified as Lumbee said they were descended from Croatans, at another from the Cherokee (the latter claim is disputed by the Cherokee Nation). I believe that the official petition does not claim direct descent from the historic Cheraw tribe, in the sense of seeking to be legal successors to that tribe. Their membership rules, for instance, are based on direct descent from certain persons listed in the 1900 census.Parkwells (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lumbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929192631/http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/indian/lowry.htm to http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/indian/lowry.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/state_national/a_steadfast_few
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831013044/http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/ to http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Can we talk about how wealthy lumbee people are. Especially juxtaposing against most welfarized native Americans --Ninja247 (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.28 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We can if verified by a reliable source. David Spector (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert unsourced changes

Editors have made major changes to the Lede which are in poor English, first of all, unsourced, incorrect and POV. They are not appropriate replacements for what was there. The article needs to be edited substantially.Parkwells (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What`s a Lede?

A lede is a variant spelling for lead, the first and summary paragraph of an article. David Spector (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What's with all the "quotes"

There seems to be a lot of "quotes" around "words" like "facts" and "Western". It is really stupid. Either the statements need to back up by a referenced source or they shouldn't be included. Putting "quotes" around "words" serves "no purpose".19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)75.145.77.17 (talk)

These kind of articles are a hopeless cause. It's impossible to keep them free of bias and opinion. No one should ever cite Wikipedia as a reliable source.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, "extra" quotation marks around "words" are not "grammatical." David Spector (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

history of lumbee tribe

i live in baltimore city there are many people in my are who say they are lumbee indian but and plaese done;t take this wrong they look like vey light skinned black people they talk like black people and they well they have a bad very bad crime rate at least on my street they call black people the n word and the black people say you are just as black as me, they really look like very light skinned black people are they just "passing' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.130.201 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancestors of the current Lumbee tribe were considered "free people of color" until 1885. There is no confirmed evidence of any Lumbee ancestor self-identifying as a tribal Indian prior to 1885 (although a few claimed in court cases not to be black due to having some degree of white or Indian ancestry, in order to avoid prosecution). However, many of the Robeson County people self-ID as Indians since 1885, even though they can't agree on what tribe they are. Given that ethnicity is a social construction, it's reasonable to consider them Indians today, even if their ancestors were not. That's why the history section of this article is confusing and contentious.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that a community that was admittedly not of Native American ancestry would work so hard (and eventually be successful) at being recognized by the Federal government as an Indian Tribe. Native American tribes are traditionally defined in terms of their ancestry as being truly Native American. David Spector (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambugiation change

I changed the link Lumbe because it directs to the village in eastern Nepal and discussed another village in Angola in Africa. I have serious doubts on the two villages are related to the history and presence of Lumbees, whom are a mixed-race population of American Indians, African-Americans and white Europeans. It may have to do with numerous theories on the origins of Lumbees, Tuscaroras, Powhatans and even the Cherokees came from early settlement of the region from indentured servants and stranded seafarers of inter-racial origins (i.e. Latin Americans, Moors or North Africans, Turks or Turkic peoples, South Asians, East Asians and Malays) in the 17th and 18th century American colonies. There are speculation mythology of Lumbees are descendants of the lost colonies (Raleigh Colony) and the terms "Croatan" for the Croatan Indians in the area might descended from Croats sailors originally in the Balkans from what was then Ottoman Turkey (now the nation of Croatia along with former Yugoslavia) employed by Spanish, Italian, French and British seafaring companies employed in fishing boats way back in the 16th century on the Atlantic coasts of North America, included Basques and the Portuguese or Galizans, might already settled down with Amerindians in the Outer Banks and Sea Islands. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see this Croatian etymology for "Croatan" added to the article if a reliable source can be found. David Spector (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@David Spector: not sure why you're responding to old posts, but this was just a name chosen by the a member of the legislature, as the article says - here's a source.[3] The name comes from the name given to the Indians who lived on Croatan Island, now Hatteras Island, a name given to the island by the English colonists. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

DNA

Why not add information to the article about what DNA gesting has revealed about the Lumbee people's genetic heritage? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Are you talking about the Lumbee DNA project? All I've seen is the Y-line tested (that is, no mtDNA), and from what I understand, since it was only of people that claimed Lumbee heritage, not members of the tribe. That said, I don't know the proper protocol for why we should include it or not. Best just to hold off, I think. Adam (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523052824/http://www.redheart213.com/thelumbeestorybydeanchavis.html to http://www.redheart213.com/thelumbeestorybydeanchavis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603193654/http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/Miscellaneous/lumv.html to http://linux.library.appstate.edu/lumbee/Miscellaneous/lumv.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://0-muse.jhu.edu.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/journals/native_south/v003/3.locklear.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910040722/http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/item.aspx?id=mcs to http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/item.aspx?id=mcs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116175826/http://www.strikeatthewind.com/index.html to http://www.strikeatthewind.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515012444/http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/colls/themes/november.html to http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/colls/themes/november.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328024825/http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc07_mcintyre/lumbee.shtml to http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc07_mcintyre/lumbee.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001055811/http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/25/881196/time-runs-out-for-lumbee-tribal.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/25/881196/time-runs-out-for-lumbee-tribal.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615063856/http://www.lumbeetribe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132&Itemid=97 to http://www.lumbeetribe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132&Itemid=97

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article: the etymology of the word "Lumbee." 173.88.241.33 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

First 3 paragraphs of "Early historical references" section

Why are these allowed to be published?

• The earliest European document referring to Indian communities in the area of the Lumber River is a map prepared in 1725 by John Herbert, the English commissioner of Indian trade for the Wineau Factory on the Black River. Herbert identifies the four Siouan-speaking communities as the Saraw, Pee Dee, Scavano, and Wacoma. Modern-day Lumbees claim connection to those settlements, but none of the four tribes is located within the boundaries of present-day Robeson County.

• When this area was first surveyed by the English in the 1750s, they reported that "No Indians" lived in Bladen County, which then included parts of present-day Robeson County. Colonial Welsh timber survey parties of the same areas also reported, "No Hostile Indians, in fact No Indians to be found at all."[citation needed] The adjacent Anson County was identified as "a frontier to the Indians."[citation needed]

• In 1754, colonial authorities organized the territory: everything north of the Lumber River was made part of Bladen County, and everything south of the Lumber River was made part of Anson County. Anson County's border stretched west to known Cherokee territory. Historical records are unclear as to which parts of Anson County were occupied by Indians in the early colonial period.[citation needed]

They certainly include detail that seems plausible, but have not cited any sources. Could be 100% made up for all we know, but I'm sure thousands of people have read the article and assumed this is all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.184.207 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Federal Recognition

The White House just announced support for the Lumbee Recognition Act of the 116th Congress. Since that means they're likely to receive federal recognition should I put it in the article yet or wait until it passes? AngryZinogre (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AngryZinogre: New sections go at the bottom of the talk page, so I moved it. Thanks for this information. The addition would require a reliable source. Where did you get the information? There's a big difference in White House support and final passage of a bill by Congress. If the bill isn't passed by Congress it's questionable whether it's notable enough to include. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Lowery and how to cite

@Sundayclose: The Washington Post article I cited notes that Lowery is a Lumbee. Thus, when I modified Doug Weller's edit, you will see that I still left mention that Lowery was a Lumbee, but removed the emory bio cite, since it is unnecessary and doesn't support any of the other information in the paragraph. If splicing was simply an "stylistic issue", then there would be no such things as proper inline citations and all of the refs would be dumped at the end of every paragraph on every article, thus making verification harder. I see no evidence that Doug disagreed with my edit (since I left in the material part of his addition, that Lowery is a Lumbee, did you notice?), so your claim that two editors oppose my work is spurious. You apparently did not understand my edit summaries or my edits.-Indy beetle (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's my major point: There is no need to remove the statement "a member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina", regardless of how it is cited. That is more precise (and relevant) than "Lumbee historian". Someone could be considered a "Lumbee historian" but not a member of the Lumbee tribe. That distinction is important. And there's no harm in two citations. Citing two sources at the end of one sentence is quite common on Wikipedia. I actually preferred it in the original place, but you objected to "splicing", so I moved it. Feel free to move it back. Thanks. Pinging Doug Weller. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It should be specific and two cites aren’t at all unusual. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I see some merit in the clarification, and it is not quite clear what the WashPost meant (a historian who specializes in Lumbee history, or a historian who is also a Lumbee, both are applicable for Lowery). That said, bring in outside sources to add biographical info on an academic being quoted leans towards potentially problematic SYNTH, especially where we're using their ethnic status as some sort of qualification, whereby we would get things like "According to agronomist John Smith, who is black,[ref 3] the farmers of this region...[ref 4]", or, at its worst, Jew-Tagging. I won't push too hard since this is offering clarity on the ambiguous connection made by the WashPost, but generally I think bringing in a source not germane to the rest of the info (and by that I mean Lowry's biography isn't immediately relevant to a broader discussion about the origins of the Lumbee tribe) to make assertions about someone's personal characteristics when they're being used for their professional opinion is, well, problematic. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH. And we are not claiming specifically that ethnic status gives her any more "qualification", but that doesn't mean ethnic status is irrelevant, just as identifying Martin Luther King Jr. as African American is relevant to his life's work. We're not telling readers what, if anything, to conclude from her ethnic status. We're just informing them. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be a problem. It’s not synth in any way and is useful context. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)