Talk:Five Civilized Tribes

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Broustay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Colonists' slavery customs

many Western customs (including the ownership of plantations and slaves)

Actually slavery was not a custom of most of the western people. There were no slavery in most parts of Europe. Western people in America were an exeption to have slavery. 193.65.112.51 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Indians had slaves long before the arrival of Europeans, but it was Western Europeans who instituted black slavery in the Americas. OKtag 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I changed it to "black slaves".

Oklahoma Land Run

The Oklahma land run was on october 22, 1992!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!hahaha! The people that went in before the run were called "Sooners" the Oklahoma University name for its sports teams. I do not know whether the run opened up the whole state of Oklahoma or just the northern part which was called Oklahoma Territory. The southern part was called Indian Territory. Russ Singleton An Okie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.255.201 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

social exclusion

the relocation is a notorious naked social exclusion. any other similar cases? Jackzhp 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya

"Cherokee" should redirect to Anivuia. It seems discriminatory to refer to some group as "a people" rather than "a nation" or "tribe" also.

To me it would read: The Anivuia, known by their neighbors as Chilukibi or "Cherokee", were a people with a well-developed world-view which included an integrated account of religion and society.

This has the advantage of representing a people without immediate reference to the forced placement of the historically "white" representation of indigenous people. This article is rife with such things, as are many of the articles on indigenous groups in the so-called "Americas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euanthes (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it probably should, but not a lot of people know the name Anivuia, while the word Cherokee is almost universally recognized. Wiki appeals to the masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.21.87 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on the article about Five Civilized Tribes

I have (and have had ever since I first encountered the article six months ago) several problems with the first paragraph, which I have attempted to remedy, and have had both attempts reverted completely within 12 hours of my attempt to fix them. My probems are as follows: A)the term "Native American" as that term refers to anyone born in America, not just the aboriginal Americans (not to mention I know several people of aboriginal descent who find that term offensive), but I have left this alone to focus on my next problem. B) The way "civilized" is defined in this paragraph, it reads more like a political speech than an encyclopedia article. Civilized, in its most basic form, means that the culture resides in clusters that can be called cities, and because they know how to farm, not all the members are needed to procure food, as is often the case in hunter-gatherer tribes, some people are free to pursue other pursuits to advance knowledge of the whole group. This is what a civilization is, and because these five tribes, among many others throughout the Americas (hence why they are also called The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, but since I couldn't find a quick source for this, I'll let this one go), met this basic criteria, they were deemed civilized. Lastly, C) I have a problem with the term "white settlers" since not all the first immigrants were "white" per se. I offered two links, one to a site from a university that had a basic explanation of what civilization was, and one to the homepage for the intertribal council's homepage, and the explanation offered with the reversion (as far as I could understand) was that these were inapproprate citations, and I don't understand why. Yes, I am new, but I would like to see articles here be as accurate as possible. Many of the facts I know I don't know how to cite because they are text referances, not web ones, and I am not sure how to cite these sources, or if they would be acceptable. Can someone please help me fix my problems with the article, and let me know what I have done wrong and how I could improve? Swatfoot (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I can address all your questions at once, so I'll limit my initial response to what I had proplems with.

First, "Native Americans" is the current accepted term for what used to be called "American Indians". This usage is explained in the article Native Americans in the United States. Any person born in the USA is a "native American", but not a "Native American"! Given the USA's constant changing of terms for ethnic groups, especially in the age of Political Correctness, there will propbably be a new term for this people group at some point in the near future. For the long term, trying to get a term widely used in Wikipedia changed in one article is a very inefficient way to accomplish your goal, as so many other articles use the term. If you have a problem with "Native Americans"'s usage, I suggest you take up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This way, any decisions or changes taken there will affect a wide range of articles on Wikipedia, not just one.

Second, the "The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma" seems to me to be a misleading term, especially since, if I recall correctly, they were called "The Five Civilized Tribes" while still in the southeastern USA (an area I have lived in at various times). I have no problem with the term being applied to the group after they moved to Oklahoma, but it seems silly to call them that when the lived in Georgia, Tennessee, and so on.

Third, I couldn't tell you exactly why the other editor reverted your sources, other than to say the sources were probably not considered reliable, objective, or neutral. One major requirement on Wikipeida is that all sources be from verifiable, reliable published sources. "Published" in this context meaning having some sort of editorial control, but it can be print or internet. The main page regarding these policies is WP:Attribution. Please take a look at it and the other pages referenced there. If you still have questions at that point, feel free to ask, and we'll try to point you to an answer. - BillCJ (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Native American is a widly accepted (if inaccurate) term for the aboriginal Americans (one that is already changing, incidentally), which is why I've left this alone in my attempts to edit. Secondly, since I couldn't confirm or refute what I had learned back in my Oklahoma History class quickly, I dropped the part about them being "of Oklahoma." All I found was the homepage of the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, where one can see that at least some of the tribes have added the appelation "of Oklahoma" to their tribe name.

The main problem I want to see fixed is the problem with the apparent mis-understanding of why these tribes are called "civilized." As I have stated before, the way it is defined on the page makes the first paragraph look like a political soapbox for some aboriginal Americans, but yet Wikapedia is a source many people trust for the truth (hence how I accidentally came across this article initially. I was at the library in a foreign country, and I was asking if they had any children's books with stories from or about one or more of the five civilized tribes, and they handed me a printout of that article so I could 'learn' about the tribes). There is a good explanation of what a civilization is at the University of Richmond. The pages were originally created by students for a course they were in, and are maintained by a professer there. Although it talks about Greek and Roman civilization primarily, the definition still applies (Afterall, the word 'civilization' comes from the latin civis meaning citizen, or person who lives in a town). Some definitions I have seen state that the development of writing is an important criteria in being considered 'civilized,' but not all definitions include this, including the definition provided at Encarta. Any one of the definitions found there could be used to describe these tribes. The one singularly uniting criteria that most of the definitions I have encountered have is the fact that the people are organized into towns, ergo they are setteled down primarily into one place, ergo they need a reliable means to procure food, which would quickly run out if they just went out to hunt and gather what was available on the landscape, ergo they know how to farm. I could go into a detailed explanation of how the tribes learned to farm while they were still hunter-gatherers, but I don't think that is necessary. I am a bit cautious to attempt to correct the gross inaccuracy in the article (and there are others in later paragraphs, but minor in comparison to this one, IMNSHO) as I am not convinced it is likely to stay fixed. It has been wrong for at least six months, afterall. Thank you for your quick reply to my initial inquiry. They were helpful, and I will look into how and what to cite in more detail. I still do not completely understand how to even include external links into articles, as they do not appear as I expect when I type what I think the help screen said was the proper way to do it. If you could help me organize the information I have gathered into an "acceptable" way to improve this article, I would also be most grateful. I made an edit on another article on here, and when I went back to check the next day, it too had been modified, but only to make it mesh into the article more smoothly. That delighted me, and I am not sure how to effect that here (to create something that gets smoothed over, rather than getting yanked out in its entirety) Swatfoot (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous post. I found an explanation of what civilization is here on Wikapaedia. I would like to point out that that page states, among other things, that "civilization" was not used to mean "not savage" until the 18th century, which I believe (though haven't verrified yet) is after these tribes were deemed "The Five Civilized Tribes" if they were indeed called that before their removal to Oklahoma. Even if they weren't, they likely would have been labeled as civilized or not by the people who first encountered them before this revision in the definition, and therefore became the "Five Civilized Tribes" simpily because they were the five tribes involved in the Trail of Tears. Swatfoot (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans refer to the original people of North America at the year of discovery: 1492. Native American is highly accurate as is the term Europen American accurately discribes the former term white American (i.e. European Americans like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, JFK, Marilyn Monroe, Donald Trump, Pat Tillman, Dolly Parton, Walt Disney, Don Johnson etc...) Native American is not used to describe European Americans whether born or emmigrated on/in North America or any other emmigrated race from the old world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.197.54 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted change

I reverted the change to: The Chickasaws were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes" who sold their country to be moved to the Indian Territory from The Chickasaws were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes" who were forcibly removed to the Indian Territory

The top version seems controversial; needs citations. It's pretty widely acknowledged that the removal to Indian Territory was under duress. -- phoebe / (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All deracinations are under duress; however, compared to the Cherokee and Seminole removals there were no armies sent to forcibly remove the Chickasaw. The Chickasaw moved at their own cognizance. There was no great loss of life by their removal because of their competence. Rob (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated link, was nativeamericans.com, now nps.gov

I replaced the dead link www.nativeamericans.com/FiveCivilizedTribes.htm (see Wayback Machine snapshot) with www.nps.gov/archive/ocmu/Tribes.htm which was probably its source. It has the same text and pictures. The NPS link is itself an archive of some articles once under the Ocmulgee National Monument site, which no longer has the same kind of articles: www.nps.gov/ocmu/historyculture/. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil War

The Wikipedia article "Native Americans in the American Civil War" states that the Muscogee/Creek fought on the Confederate side, and that many Seminoles did as well. This article says the opposite. Anybody have any info on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Five Civilized Tribes by census

Where I can ge this info?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five Civilized Tribes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141112052916/http://anpa.ualr.edu:80/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm to http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Title

The title isn't "Five 'Civilized' Tribes", so why is civilized in scare quotes in the lede? 216.8.186.81 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fear of being labeled "culturally insensitive" (politically incorrect) run amok. 2600:1006:B10B:A99E:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The scare quotes have been removed per WP:SCAREQUOTES.--JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Civilized Tribes. 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/20120213170748/http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm to http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm

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) 09:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Copy problem

The text at this page on the Univeristy of Arkansas Library Research Guides is almost word for word the same as the Terminology and usage section of this article (and includes text that was recently removed from that section). The Wayback Machine does not show any history for the U of Ark page, so I cannot tell how old it is. The U of Ark page does not acknowledge Wikipedia. The Terminology and usage section in its current form has been in the article for more than four years, and the core of the third paragraph has been there for more than 10 years, so I think the U of Ark page is copied from Wikipedia. Does anyone see anything different? - Donald Albury 18:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

We think alike. I noticed the same thing, and checked the webarchive as you did; there is now 1 capture that I added to the archive, but it's dated today, of course. I've spoken by phone to staff at UARK, and am waiting for a reply to my email explaining the situation and possible copyvio issues. I, too, suspect the UARK page is copied from Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I received this rather terse reply from a person at UARK:

"If you would check you will notice that the page is no longer available. I wrote that material in the late 1990s while working on my history masters. I only have a paper copy and have no idea where it is at this time. I don’t have the time or the interest in pursuing this."

The page has been taken down, but the respondent seems to have the misimpression that because it's no longer online, there is no copyvio problem. As far as I can see, since she's effectively washing her hands of the issue, we must remove the Terminology and usage section. Carlstak (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As that person is claiming authorship of the material, I agree that we should remove it. - Donald Albury 17:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted the section, but now I'm wondering if I should revdel yet, which would involve going back ten years to remove all of it. I suspect there may be objections to the deletion. In any case, someone may wish to rewrite the section using the recently added citations. - Donald Albury 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Donald. It looks like I'll have some time for the next day or two, I'll see what I can come up with. Carlstak (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've listed this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 30 for some input on revdel. - Donald Albury 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, I've restored the "Terminology and usage" section with rewritten text and the same sources, with a cite of the UARK page at the end, attributed to "staff". I hope it is suitable. I saw right after I published the edit that Old Person had pinged us minutes before. Carlstak (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture

Now I can address what first attracted my attention. The last sentence of the Terminology and usage section is, "An alternative term in use is the Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture." I wondered where that phrase came from. There are several extant tribes besides the five that once were part of the Mississippian culture (the five tribes are primarily descended from people who lived in the area of the South Appalachian Mississippian culture). The Mississippian culture is conventionally said to have ended about 1600, so I'm not sure it is proper to say that the five tribes are of that culture. I've been looking for a reliable source for usage of that term. I think we can eliminate the U of Ark page as a source, as they seem to have gotten it from Wikipedia. So far, the only other mention of the "Five Tribes of the Mississippian" that I have found is this, a recent announcement of an exhibit of works by artists of the five tribes. There is at least the possibility that the term was innovated in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 22:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh. I searched high and low and came to the same conclusion. Carlstak (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury and Carlstak: Allow an oldperson to interject their two cents. The term Five Civilized tribes, dates back to the mid 19th Century as I recall. It refers to the tribes that made peace with the white settlers, gave up their land, took up farming and practices that the whites felt non threatening. The South, especially in the Mississippi valley was awash with various tribes, most of whom perished from the diseases brought by the whites, starting with DeSoto and his expedition. Regions like Southern Arkanas and Northern Louisiana were depopulated before white settlers drifted in The same is true of Virginia. Those that did survive, eventually adopted white man ways and thus were considered Civilized, more appropriately would be the term Anglo-Christianized, which did not save them from the avariciousness of the white, not even adopting white man dress, plantations, printing press and slaves would save them.

About the only thing being "civilized" spared them was from annhilation.

As regards Copyvio. It seems that the University of Arkansas did indeed copy info from Wikipedia and not vice versa. I have experience with that. Many years ago I put up information on the internet, readily accessible to all, and that was my purpose. No intention of copyright as I wanted everyone to have access. Well this info has been copied many times and seems to be a popular source for family blogs, etc. So much so that when I posted some of it on WP it looked like I was engaged in copying (if not copyvio) but copying other information.

My final comment is this. The article is important and fulfills the need of an Encylopedia, as providing a source of valid and viable information to the general public. That after all is the purpose of an encylopedia, not an instrument tuned to the needs of Academia, scientists and researchers. Good information for all to access. I am personally repulsed by the need of persons, living, who seek to use WP to promote their own personality and/or financial interests, such as politicians, artists, musicians, athletes and the like. My opinion is that this article is indeed a worthy article, more worthy than say some article about a living individual who might be notable or notorious today, but gone like the will of the wisp in a few years. And as far as copy vio goes, which came first the chicken or the egg? Is the world a better place with this article accessible to students and the general public? Yes. Will WP be sued for copyvio? Apparently not.

Oh and the reason that there are only Five Civilized tribes. Well intentional an unintentional genocide took care of that, With tribes like the Saponi of SW Virginia, and for that matter the many tribes of the Cheseake Bay going the way of the Dodo bird. If I recall correctly the only tribe that has survived in the Chesapeake Bay area is the Nansemond, and that is because they early on became Christianized and intermarried with the English settlersOldperson (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Ping only works at the time you sign the post. When you edited the above ping it didn't do anything because you didn't sign the post again. I removed the Terminology and usage section because someone had claimed authorship (and therefore, copyright) of the material, whether on not I thought that valid. I remain convinced that the material originated in Wikipedia, but copyright infringement cases can be messy, and it was easier to remove the material, especially as Carlstak has created a new version of the section. My original concern was with the phrase "Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture", which appears to be a neologism, not supported by reliable sources, and in any case, an anachronism and a misrepresentation of the extent of the Mississippian Culture. As to appropriation of copyrighted material on the Internet, I release everything in my blogs and web site under a Creative Commons license so that it can be freely copied (with attribution, I hope), but I delete material without a free license that has been copied into Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 13:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The term Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture is historically wrong and is not supported by sources. Read more about the Mississippian culture at its article and sources. It influenced peoples throughout the Midwest and South, before most of the historic tribes in question had coalesced. While it was extensive, and there were Mississippian culture chiefdoms throughout the South, its major center was at Cahokia, east of the Mississippi River in southwest Illinois. Today the Choctaw are believed most likely to be descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Mississippian culture in this area. The Cherokee by their own oral history migrated into the South from northern areas; they are an Iroquoian-speaking people, related more to the Iroquoian tribes of south of the Great Lakes, than to the Muskogean-language tribes of the Southeast. The Seminole emerged in a process of ethnogenesis in the late eighteenth century, based in part on Creek members but developing their own culture.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Five Civilized Tribes (make a new topic)

Am exercising the ability to edit my own point- I was trying to get a better idea of what our intentions are in this article. Each of the tribes' own histories is quite complex, both before and after Removal.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm an eighth Cherokee, a small part Choctaw, and a smattering of others, or so I understand. I know that American Indians don't love it when white people try to speak on their behalf and tell everyone what's what about Native peoples, or what they should be called. For example, not all Indians want to be called "Native Americans", and resent it when zealots of other groups try to enforce what they consider politically incorrect—to these American Indians it's just more of the neocolonialist "white man knows best" mentality. Academia may consider the term "Five Civilized Tribes" outdated and offensive, as well as some tribal members, but the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes is still active, and just had a quarterly meeting on October 6–8, 2021, so an article about the term and its history is not inappropriate. To be clear, I rewrote the Five Civilized Tribes#Terminology and usage section, so I am capable of adhering to a neutral-point-of-view concerning the matter.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point. From the Oklahoma Historical Atlas article, it's not clear that there is a consensus about "Civilized" being ethnocentric as applied to those five tribes anyway. Maybe he was just trying to suggest that now at least European Americans have officially recognized that all the tribes had their cultures and civilization, even if it differed from theirs. We can decide how we want to use that cite. Your point of noting the Inter-Tribal Council using "Five Civilized Tribes" is a good one. It's up to them to decide what terms they want to use. I'm interested in learning more about what they have worked on together. Parkwells (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been aware of the lack of consensus among American Indians about using the term "Native American". Additionally, my subscription to Indian Country Today since at least 2016, has taught me their practice of indicating a person's tribal affiliation (if they are enrolled), in parentheses immediately after their names. Is this one you agree with? Also have worked to identify specific indigenous languages and nations in WP articles, if known, rather than the general "Native American"... So, working on it.Parkwells (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Other issues about Chickasaw

Carlstak, I did not have the chance to add more sources to the material about the Chickasaw and their language, and the French & Indian War before you reverted my additions. If we are going to write about the cultures and languages of these tribes, which should probably be basic to each section, I think we should state their traditional languages before noting that some members also spoke French or English. Yes, they learned other languages as they were trading with colonists who spoke those. In addition, while the Chickasaw tribal website may credit them with helping the US become an English-speaking country (after helping the British gain victory in the French & Indian War), for readers of this article, some expanded explanation of Britain's victory and French cessions, and effect on future US might be useful. That's all I was trying to do.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you rewrtiting portions of the text, Parkwells, as you generally seem to know your stuff, but you shouldn't change it so that it no longer aligns with given sources, without removing those sources and replacing them with ones that support your own text. You've been on WP for quite awhile, so surely you know that asserted facts should be reliably sourced, and if they aren't, that they may be challenged and removed. Other editors shouldn't have to do the work required to back up your changes. Carlstak (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right and I did not mean to be so hasty.Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I know you do good work.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes on sources

• In terms of sources, I wanted to recommend that editors identify Opinion pieces, such as Alaina Roberts' article cited in the Lead, as this is not the same as reporting. (I identified it as Opinion in the title.)
• Also, while a tribal website may seem an appealing source, the Chickasaw one lacked any footnotes or references to sources it had used, which limits the reader's ability to follow up and learn more than is summarized on the site. For instance, it said "Some historians credit the Chickasaw..." - what historians? Do they have articles/books that readers can go to so they can learn more, or compare them to others who might have different opinions? Editors are encouraged to use Reliable Sources as defined by WP, for example, academic works that document their facts.
• The main articles in WP on these five tribes include numerous sources that reflect contemporary revisions in historians' approaches to Native American history.Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Common topics?

Maybe editors should decide if they want to organize tribal summaries by having common topics: e.g., languages, culture, & kinship systems noted (I think each had matrilineal kinship) before discussing etymologies or different histories.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Slaveholding - These tribes bought and held more enslaved African Americans than did others, and some of their major leaders, such as LeFlore, personally owned thousands of acres of plantation land and took up the planter's life even before staying in MS. I think this needs to be discussed in more detail before the Removal section. As noted in the Ryan P. Smith article cited in the Lead, the tribes took their slaves with them, and reconstituted the institution in Indian Territory. Some blacks had freely lived near them in Florida and elsewhere as free people of color, but the tribes also held many slaves. The article is really light on this. Ryan P. Smith's 2018 article for Smithsonian Magazine, cited in the Lead, includes discussion of a contemporary exhibit called Americans at the National Museum of the American Indian that explored this contentious history and a symposium titled Finding Common Ground. I don't think the topic of slaveholding by the tribes can all be delayed until later discussion of Freedmen controversies near the end of the article.Parkwells (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely, and if you have the time and the energy, which I'm sure you do, please go for it. What you suggest will improve the article, adding more nuance to its discussion of the subject. I will be happy to assist in whatever way I can, as time allows. I'm always overcommited.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Seminoles held black slaves in more relaxed conditions than did other peoples of the Southeast. Seminoles did not have plantations, but rather allowed their slaves to live in their own villages, and required only a share of the crops they raised. Some authors have compared their condition to that of sharecroppers. I have seen statements that Seminoles held black slaves mainly because they saw the practice as a prestige symbol among whites. Some contemporary whites observed that escape to Florida was attractive to plantation slaves because the Seminoles treated their slaves so leniently. The Alachua Seminoles had Yamassee captives as servants (called "slaves" by some authors) when William Bartram visited them in the 1774. How should we cover the practice of holding captives from other peoples? - Donald Albury 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the article should cover this information as it's part of the history of the subject. A straightforward accounting drawn from academic sources will tamp down any potential negative emotional reactions by romantics.;-)

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the changes made in March 2021 at User:Broustay/Five Civilized Tribes, incorporate what is useful, blank the user page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 12:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)