Talk:Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need better source on tribal members[edit]

What does the state or tribe say its membership is - this number needs a better source than the current one, which is an abstract for a paper that has to do with a survey on revival of Cherokee language. SEE Stacye Hathorn, 'The Echota Cherokee Language: Current Use and Opinions about Revival', in Teaching Indigenous Language, 1997].Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

See The Other Movement: Indian Rights and Civil Rights in the Deep South By Denise E. Bates[] "While the Jena Choctaw had an ongoing relationship with the Mississippi Choctaw, Alabama’s Jacksohttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CRM5blUZjSAC&pg=PA46&dq=Echota+tribe+numbers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixvtHf7urKAhWLbxQKHXGbBg8Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=Echota%20%20&f=falsen County Cherokee—renamed the Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama (CTNA) in 1983—attempted to reconnect with the federally acknowledged Eastern Band of Cherokee after being disconnected from them for more than a century. Remaining nearly undetected in northeast Alabama in the years following Removal, the Jackson County Cherokees officially organized in 1981.22 Other Cherokee groups also found their voices within the Indian movement. The United Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, for example, first organized in Daleville in 1978. Bv 1980, however, disenchanted members of the tribe broke away to form the Echota Cherokee Tribe. With a tribal headquarters in Shelby County, the group represented Cherokees across the state and manv members outside Alabama.23 As the Jackson Count}' Cherokee and the Echota Cherokee populations steadily grew, the considerably smaller Cherokees of Southeast Alabama organized in Houston Count)' in 1982." Probably more in the book. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. 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:

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) 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with POV[edit]

Even the BIA says there are Cherokees outside of the federally recognized groups[1], so,The Echota are not federally recognized as an Indian tribe, nor are they recognized as a tribe by the Cherokee people.The implication being they themselves are not really Cherokee. Remember, according to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and the state of Alabama, they are an Indian tribe. Now, you can disagree with this POV, but you musn't put your own POV in the article. Adam (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I took some initiative and changed it to Cherokee Nation, as I believe that is more accurate. I think the EBCI opposes them too, but I'm not sure. I don't know enough about the UKB to know one way or the other from them. If anyone can add those in there, they'd be great, if you know. Adam (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Well, since some folks see fit to change accurate information, I ask this page be protected. I'm feeling like maybe this dude is a CNO. Adam (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. Cherokee tribes, not heritage groups, not the BIA, are the sources. EBC is also sourced. Claiming in your edit summaries that it's only CNO is a misrepresentation. Feel free to request full page protection. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.doi.gov/tribes/cherokee

Unfair tone compared to other state-recognized tribe articles[edit]

This page has been edited extensively by user/admin CorbieVreccan to advance more or less the viewpoint that the Echota are not a "state-recognized Indian tribe." However, the the Echota Cherokee are not just a heritage group. They meet the legal definition of "state-recognized tribe." This is not a community description, but a description in state law and also the several federal US laws which refer to state recognized tribes. Also they are listed in the Directory of the National Congress of American Indians ( http://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory?letter=E ).

Moreover, it is not fair to single out the Echota for quotations and statements suggesting the entire concept of a state-recognized tribe is illegitimate. For example, the articles for the Waccamaw Siouan of North Carolina, the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation in Vermont (state recognized only a few years ago), and the Piscataway Indian Nation and Tayac Territory of Maryland (also state recognized only a few years ago), for example, are all relatively neutral in tone and show no quotations or negative comments cast towards their right to claim state-recognized status. On the other hand, this article on the Echota is overall demeaning, hardly anything positive or even neutrally informative in it whatsoever, at least when compared to the Wikipedia articles on other state-recognized, non-federally recognized tribes throughout the United States.

With respect to the DOI page cited above, clearly the Echota Cherokee belong to the "Category 4" of Cherokee listed on that page: "Information about Indian ancestry of individuals in this category of Cherokees is more difficult to locate. This is primarily because the federal government has never maintained a list of all the persons of Cherokee Indian descent, indicating their tribal affiliation, degree of Indian blood or other data."

In conclusion this has led me to make a few changes to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsundasi3 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a clear and obvious point of view to promote the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama as being a Native American tribe and likely have an affiliation with the group, which would be a conflict of interest. All the editorial comments you add will be removed. Find published, secondary sources about this group instead and add the information with citations. Yuchitown (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
The POV-pushing IPs and new accounts/socks are back, misrepresenting historical treaties to allege they refer to this completely unrelated, non-Native heritage/hobbyist group. There is no evidence, and never has been, that this is a legitimate tribe. While those who can actually prove any Cherokee heritage are able to enroll in the federally-recognized Cherokee Nation, this group accepts applicants who cannot prove they have Cherokee heritage. The "Echota" accept non-Natives who simply express a belief they are Native. They have taken down the worst of their websites, that used to have made-up clans based on what area of the country their members lived in, and roles like "shaman", but it's still the same group. A U.S. state commission, made up of government officials, often guided by desires to have gaming revenue, is not the authority on what is a continually-existing Indigenous community - members of those Indigenous Nations are - and none of them recognize this group. I am disturbed that some established users are more recently falling for these misrepresentations of sources and data that are an attempt to abuse the 'pedia to promote a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellently and eloquently described CorbieVreccan. My personal feelings don't really matter but I will say, no one here is against hobby groups are those who have genuine interest in learning about any tribe in America. What is bitterly opposed is when a hobby group or other entities/individuals claim to be a tribe or an official part of a tribe and assume their name to receive benefits without having to prove who they are. Its one thing to simply say you are Cherokee, Creek, Sioux or belong to any other American Indian/Native American tribe. There are a lot of people who believe they have Cherokee ancestry. It is a whole different subject when you profit from it or receive a benefit from calling yourself a member without the burden of proof. These organizations are notable, although most are notable for the wrong reasons. It is the responsibility of every editor who reviews these pages to make sure that the information being edited or removed is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I expect that even information an experienced editor adds here would be scrutinized. No one is above making good faith errors, even in the attempt to be constructive. In the cases represented here though, these are sock puppet accounts whose only goal is to disrupt and remove/replace information that may not be flattering to their organization. This should never be tolerated. --ARoseWolf 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

This photo was recently added of an individual with the name and caption indicating it was of the "Echota Cherokee Tribe, 2020". There is no indication the depicted individual is a member of this group, and one person is not "a tribe". If the photo was taken at a Pow Wow held by this group, it could be any attendee. Without more data there is no reason to assume it's a member of this group. More data/sourcing is needed if a photo like this is to be used for this purpose. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It only took an image search to discover the identity of the person in the photo (not a member of this group) and that the upload was a blatant WP:COPYVIO, taken from a newspaper. The uploader - Commons WP:SPA account ᏣᎳᎩᎠᏂᏩᏯ (only contribs deleted) - claimed on the upload form that it was their own work, but then refused to engage when asked if they had obtained the rights to the photo. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection?[edit]

This page is a perennial target for disruptive editing by IPs and brand-new, Single Purpose Accounts. As the edits are usually identical, it's sometimes clear the IPs and SPAs are the same user or small group of users, and WP:SOCK policies can be used to stop the disruption (blanking of sourced content, and insertion of unsourced and inaccurate content). Would it be easier for the workload of the editors in good standing to just semi-protect the article? I am asking instead of just doing it as I also edit here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic. Yuchitown (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Done. Semi'ed for 6 months this time. I assume problems will resume when it expires, then we can up it to indef. Per usual on pages I've also edited, if anyone has concerns, ping me or WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CorbieVreccan. --ARoseWolf 13:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As disruption immediately resumed, indeffed. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Fathertyme74, will you explain the purpose of this list? It added nearly 4,000 bytes to the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information so this list must have some notable significance in order to remain in the article. What is it the demographics of? Are you saying that this group claims 57,543 enrollees? The list is confusing at best and I don't understand its purpose in this article. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Do you have a connection with this group? --ARoseWolf 14:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources they added do not source the content. It's OR, and prob COI. I strongly suggest full reversion and that the protection be reinstated. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the list, and the misrepresented sources (a free genealogy site that doesn't mention this group, etc), were so blatant as to practically be vandalism so I reverted. I think protection is a nobrainer here, so, per usual, since I've edited, if anyone has an issue with this being put back on semi, feel free to bring it up here, or at WP:RFPP. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently it is still semi'ed. Our new user just did other edits to get up to autoconfirmed (they have a dozen deleted contribs). Hmmm.... - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Corbie. I think the edits were invalidated anyway as they very obviously have a close COI with this group. I figured the source they provided wouldn't reflect the content they were trying to add. Thanks for reverting. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block these editors from vandalism[edit]

The following users keep vandalizing wiki pages that are about tribes that are currently at war with their tribes!

CorbieVreccan YuchiTown Arosewolf

Please Block them from editing this page

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Abuse/Misuse of user warning template.
You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) to be blocked from further editing. Although blocks may be issued at any time, depending on circumstances, typically, before seeking a block there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (easily remembered by the shortcut WP:WARN). Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.

107.181.11.198 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello again. I will certainly continue to investigate vandalism and block disruptive users as necessary. While it's nice that you've finally engaged on talk, this is not really how one goes about it. However, your odd and disruptive edits here, and elsewhere with this IP, give a strong indication of which user you are and how to proceed. FWIW, edits count per user, not per named account or IP (see WP:LOUTSOCK). - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Instead of trying to rally people to report editors for vandalism, it would be good to read up on Wikipedia's requirement for sources and what constitutes a reliable source. Sources should be "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The secondary sources should be independent, and should not be self-published. "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable." Yuchitown (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Echota Cherokee narrative[edit]

@User:Yuchitown If you haven't read the Echota's narrative, it can be found here/here. Amazing stuff. Do you know if there are any sources that critically evaluate these claims? Claims such as people "simply walking away" from an optional Trail of Tears, people "hiding in the mountains" and hollows, the idea that Cherokee people in the 1830s were apparently all so white-skinned and assimilated that they could hide their identity just by wearing hats so they didn't get a tan? This is ridiculous stuff, obviously. But material that discusses/debunks these absurd claims would be useful, especially since a lot of fraudulent Cherokee groups and individuals use this sort of rhetoric. While I'm at it, Allison Hedge Coke and MariJo Moore (and I'm sure others) claim that their "Cherokee" ancestor simply opted out of being listed on the Dawes Rolls as a noble act of protest. I think these specific claims should be addressed in articles like Pretendian, Cherokee ancestry, etc. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read their story (or other self-published material since it can't be used here anyway). You're probably familiar Circe Strum's Becoming Indian: The Struggle Over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century, yes? That would probably be a good source for this article. As far as opting out of the Dawes, Chitto Harjo (and so many others) literately fought battles against the US government over allotment and went to prison protesting it, yes he's enrolled. Yuchitown (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

@User:CorbieVreccan, I see now that you have added a bit about the idea that enrollment was optional to the article on the Dawes Rolls. I recently created an article on the Baker Roll, maybe something could be mentioned there too. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Echota_Cherokee_Tribe_of_Alabama&oldid=1196364931"