User talk:Lizmichael

Rome, Maryland

I have placed a proposed deletion notice on your article for Rome, Maryland. Please add some sources to this article, or it may be deleted in five days. I tried to verify it myself, but was unable to find anything with the resources available to me. Thanks Mak (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been long ago verified and cited. Lizmichael (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tuscarora bands

The problem with these Tuscarora Bands in North Carolina is that none of them have any actual proof their ancestors really were Tuscarora.

Furthermore, in order to be Tuscarora Nation you must have an unbroken matrilineal line going back to a female Tuscarora ancestor. This is especially important when dealing with clans.

I have not seen to my satisfaction that any of these groups meet those criteria.

Furthermore they seem to claim membership in clans based on 'feeling' alone and also the bulk of their 'culture' is merely powwow culture of drums, feathers, & frybread. None of which have anything to do with how their real ancestors lived.

Their collective 'tribal' history appears only to date back to the 1960s and 1970s. Prior to that they simply did not exist as 'tribes'.

The Tuscarora Nation in New York and in Canada have an unbroken history and relationship with both the governments of the USA and Canada. Something the groups in North Carolina do not, so how can they be recognised as Tuscarora Bands in the same context as the Tuscarora Nation?

The council fire of the Tuscarora Nation was removed to New York and settled amongst the reservations of the Oneida and Onondaga where the new 'home' of the Tuscarora Nation is.

Those people who chose not to join their relatives in New York simply ceased being members of the Tuscarora Nation, much like people who left Europe to come to America ceased being members of the respective countries that they came from.

Why should any of them suddenly now start trying to be 'Tuscarora' and recapture their 'lost' history when they have their own rich history to look at? They should just be happy being the people that they came from and give up all of this recognition stuff. The only thing their efforts at recognition is going to give them is denial after denial because they do not have the historical background to back it up.

There is only ONE Tuscarora Nation and that is located in New York and Canada. There is no other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clannaoidh (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuscarora tribe and Tuscarora Nation

I understand your political view as to the Tuscarora Nation and what is needed to be a part of it. However, the article is NOT about the Tuscarora Nation as a political entity, but about the Tuscarora tribe. The band in Lewiston, New York carries the name "Tuscarora Nation" and I do not dispute that, and they have a right to that name, and I have not altered any of their data or history. However, they are not the only people who are Tuscarora.

The various groups, bands and organizations in North Carolina actually have substantial evidence that they are of the ancestry of the Tuscarora tribe. So to say that they "claim" ancestry is presumptive and implies they do not actually HAVE the ancestry. The groups in North Carolina are factual. They are not invented. They exist. No, they are not "governments", but they are the descendants of the Tuscarora tribe. I apologize that they seem to make you feel uncomfortable, but I cannot help that. BTW, I am not even on good terms with some of them, especially the Southern Band, and I don't belong to any of the groups listed, but I would be disingenuous if I did not acknowledge them.

There are several solutions to this if you want to go into this route of thinking. You can organize a paragraph defending what you believe is the proper stance, and I or someone else of the NC Tuscarora can submit a paragraph defending our position. Probably at some future point if no one else does, I will create a section which details both trains of thought on the subject. I am quite familiar with what you are saying, and have heard it hundreds of times before, and can probably accurately recite it. I can come up with a name for the controversy, I don't know what yet. However, what is not going to happen is for the account of the Tuscarora to ignore the fact that Tuscarora did remain behind, and for the official records to record that no Tuscarora exist in North Carolina. That's just not going to happen.

If you chose to create a column specifically about the Tuscarora Nation of Lewiston New York, or about the Grand River band, then you do not have to include the NC Tuscarora in that. But as I said, this article that we are talking about here is not about the "Tuscarora Nation", it is about the tribe. That includes everyone, whether they are recognized by Uncle Sugar or not.

I feel the compromise I made concerning division of terminology is appropriate. I even researched whether or not the Canadian government used the word "federal" and determined that they did, usually not concerning First Nations affairs, but they do use it, so I let it stand. Lizmichael (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Band still is'nt correct as there were no such thing as Tuscarora bands or Tribes in multiple terminology. There was one tribe made up of many villiages before white encroachment and the tuscarora wars. What we have in North Carolina are possible descendants of the tuscarora indians that did remain. Very few if any have been able to positively identify a connection historically to the Tuscarora indians in North Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.185.147 (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to let this stand, and I only went into edit mode because your remarks were wrapping the page, but I have to answer this. Many Tuscarora did stay behind. That was factual. There is a theory now being examined that there was really only one tribe of Skarure among the Skarure themselves, but that the English identified the Skarure separately according to their general region. Specifically the theory is that the Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Cheroenhaka were all really Skarure, and if you want to be nitpicky, you would use the term Skarure, because THAT is the name the Tuscarora referred to THEMSELVES by. You're still trying to operate by the dynamic of what Uncle Sugar chooses to call you, and you know what, God bless you if you are insecure enough to need that. We of the NC Tuscarora do not. We have demonstrated it to our own satisfaction, and those are the only people we have to justify it to. Lizmichael (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tuscarora: What facts? What proof?

Where are these facts you're talking about? Are you referring to various genealogical accounts? How does that prove a particular ancestor was a Tuscarora? As far as I've seen people with Indian ancestry were generally referred to in public records as Mulatto or Coloured. None of this gives any proof of tribal identity.

Also, are the people's genealogies well documented? Can someone else take one and verify the information presented in it?

I challenge anyone from Virginia and North Carolina (not including people whose ancestors appear on Cherokee rolls) to successfully prove that their ancestor descends from a particular tribe. I doubt the actual paperwork is there.

I'm not questioning the possibility of Tuscarora ancestry. There were obviously those people who decided to stay behind and cast their lot amongst the settlers but they gave up any association with the Tuscarora Nation when they did that.

Also as I stated before, Tuscarora Nation Membership is passed on ONLY through the mother's line as is the clan. You cannot say because you descend from Mr. (Tuscarora) Smith, you are a Tuscarora. It's his wife to whom your nation membership comes from and then his daughter and her daughter and so on. Not his sons.

All of this pseudo-Indian political garbage is pointless. Why don't they just embrace the culture that they grew up in, that their real ancestors practiced and lived? Stop pretending to be something your not by putting on powwows and wearing 'traditional' clothing. Your ancestors didn't live this way. Nobody is questioning whether or not you actually have Indian ancestry, just your ways of expressing it by trying to get the U.S. Government to recognise you as a separate nation.

Your ancestors did what they did 200 years ago to survive and also to give their children better lives. They formed communities and took care of themselves. They didn't need any kind of official recognition for this. They knew and cared for one another in their own communities and were proud of the lives they lived. Why undo all of that by forsaking their ways of life for all of this artificial stuff?

Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clannaoidh (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuscarora: You assume a lot

You assume a lot about me that you don't even know.

First of all, I am Tuscarora through unbroken matrilinear descent. It seems to me that you hardcores like to bring that up, but choose to ignore it when it suits your arguments, not honest at all.

Second of all, I don't even attend powwows, beat drums, wear feathers, or do any of these things you ascribe to "trying to be Indian". I don't actually belong to any of the groups I listed. I'm merely an ancestral researcher trying to document accurately what appears to be the case, and what appears to be the case is that a number of Tuscarora still exist in North Carolina. You can reason this away by calling us "niggers" and some such, but the people in question all believe they are Tuscarora, and short of an exact DNA profile which specifies the Tuscarora and no other tribe, I don't know how you prove or disprove someone is or is not matrilinear Tuscarora. When that DNA profile becomes perfected, y'all get back to me, m'kay?

As I said, when I have the time, I am willing to document both sides of the disagreement. But I get the impression that some of you all wish that some of we all would just fuck off and die. That ain't happenin'.

As for federal recognition, if it were up to me, I'd do away with federal or state recognition completely, turn over any reservation lands to the organized tribes, and get the feds and state out of the question entirely. So don't get personal with this and think that I am representing a viewpoint in the article. I am not. I am just documenting accurate history. I personally don't need Uncle Sugar to tell me I'm an Indian, nor do I need his documents. Maybe you are insecure enough to need that. If so, God bless you. Lizmichael (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tuscorara: I haven't assumed anything

I merely state facts. Facts which of course can be verified by reliable sources.

You say you are Tuscarora through an unbroken matrilineal descent but can you prove it? Would you be willing to submit to an MTDNA test? If the results come back showing that you are part of a group like Haplogroup H which is a common European group would you be willing to share that?

You see, you might sit here and tell us that you are indeed Tuscarora but I know darn well by reading your website and other materials that you are not from the Tuscarora Nation so I know you probably haven't got all the facts on how Tuscarora Nation Membership is determined.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, it's not 'Uncle Sugar' who determines who is and is not Tuscarora. It's the Tuscarora Nation that does that.

Being Federally recognised is not something the White Man uses to define who is and is not Indian. It is a means to promote Nation to Nation relationships. I know that not everything has been fair in those relationships but the Tuscarora Nation has survived and exists as a sovereign entity to this day. This is something the North Carolina groups can never lay claim to.

I've never questioned the possibility that many people in North Carolina could have Tuscarora ancestry, just that they are not members of the Tuscarora Nation.

It's likely that probably 90% of those people running around saying 'I'm Tuscarora, hear me roar!' in North Carolina cannot meet the Matrilineal Descent requirements and of the probable 10% that can, I say again, their ancestors chose not to join their relatives in New York and therefore effectively left the Tuscarora Nation much like French immigrants left France when coming to America. Are we to recognise French descendants in America as being French or Americans?

Why is it that whenever a 'Tuscarora Tribe' organises in North Carolina they always go after the same thing, Federal or State Recognition? I have yet to see one that doesn't try to make some kind of noise, whether it be a protest or to spew hateful rhetoric at the Tuscarora Nation or to try and submit some kind of bill to either the government of North Carolina or to the U.S. government requesting some kind of recognition. Recognition which has to this day been repeatedly denied.

You are assuming that I'm talking about you personally when I refer to powwow culture but I'm speaking of the movement in general where people who have a common ancestry which is Indian seem to want to forsake the rich cultural heritage they grew up in for an artificial one because in their eyes it makes them more legitimately Indian.

Also, where you said that we'd just wish you all would just f*** off and die, no that's not true. I find it rather amusing to see what you are going to say next. What further 'proof' you are going to present to this 'argument'. I have stated the facts. I can only beat a dead horse but so much. I'm not insecure in any of this because the facts speak for themselves.

Oh, and one more thing. People in the Tuscarora Nation do not need to prove that they are Tuscarora. They were born that way. If as some people say, Indians are the only people who have to prove their existence then every Tuscarora there would have to constantly dredge up their genealogical records to tell you they are Tuscarora. Not true.

This 'proving' business is simply the non-status person's means to try and gain some kind of official recognition. I'd like to ask for what reason do they need this?

If there wasn't some kind of proof required, then anyone and everyone can come out and say 'I'm an Indian and I'm part of such and such Nation and you better give me some land and money'.

But, as I've seen from your website you have a history of promoting the ideas of rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clannaoidh (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuscarora: It's not about me

Again, this is not about me. You mention Haplogroup H, but that really means nothing, as there is no Haplogroup yet specific to the Tuscarora, and even if I proved to be a Native American, y'all would merely state that I belonged to one of 500 other tribes. This particular column is not about my website either. But it should prove to you that I don't exactly go around and obsess over Native American identity issues.

By the way, I say that I am Tuscarora because that is what my grandmother and my family tells me I am. If you are calling me a liar, you have to call all of them liars as well. And I have no evidence that they are lying.

Other than that we are talking past one another. I suppose if you all really felt strongly about it, you could sue the groups in NC who use the term "Tuscarora" if you really feel that only the New York Tuscarora have the right to use the term. And you also miss the point, the Wikipedia article is not about your little dispute with the NC Tuscarora. If hundreds of activists didn't exist in North Carolina, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as I, looking to place historical accuracy on the table, would have nothing to report. But since Tuscarora groups in NC have actively sought federal and state recognition, it's a little bit presumptuous for me to say they don't exist. And your argument might have more merit if the Tuscarora groups did not still live in their traditional homelands.

So your complaint is duly noted and registered, and maybe one of these days when I get around to it, I'll document this dirty laundry if no one else chooses to, in the article, trying to present both sides fairly.Lizmichael (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The New Confederacy

I have nominated The New Confederacy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Confederacy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I merely submitted background on this as the organizer of New Confederacy, simply because, and only because, someone else created an empty link in, I believe, the artcle concerning "Neo-Confederates" or something related to it. I did a fairly exhaustive search of this term, and discovered the person who created the empty link to us meant us and not someone else. Then I submitted a brief article describing what New Confederacy was. Otherwise, I would not have gone through the trouble of submitting the article. I still haven't yet even submitted a link in New Confederacy for myself, as I do not believe it is proper for an article to be originated by the subject person of the article.

Should this be determined to NOT be appropriate for Wiki, I will not contest it, HOWEVER, I would request that if the article is deleted then ALL LINKS in Wiki to our organization also be deleted as well. We never asked to be counted as "Neo-Confederates" and frankly, I don't believe we belong in a grouping of people the author of THAT article is determining to automatically be racist, which most pro-Confederacy people are not. Lizmichael (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing articles

Hi LM, I just wanted to let you know that you are free to edit any article you think needs it. So if there is an innacurate description you can certainly change it (make sure you include an explanation in your edit summary). If it's disputed (reverted) you might explain your reasons on the article's talk page. Try to be patient. The best way to support contribution and deletions is with good sources from reliable media. Maybe you already knew all that, but I just wanted to offer it up as a suggestion. Everyone is free to edit articles as they deem fit and while it isn't always easy, we try to collaborate. If you have any questions or issues I might be able to help with you are welcome to post them here. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Child of Midnight. Upon contemplation I concur that New Confederacy should be deleted and will go to the page to assent to that as soon as I can find it. The link to it in Neo-Confederate has already been deleted. Lizmichael (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think it's on its way to deletion anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. Let me know if there's anything else I can offer my two cents on. :) You can use colons to indent your responses to people. One colon indents once, two twice, etc. Also asterisks make bullet points, and they also can be doubled tripled etc. up. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neo Confederate

I removed a section for WP:UNDUE violations. Please voice your opinion on the talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur and supported its removal. Lizmichael (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Notorious B.I.G.

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to The Notorious B.I.G.. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The only addition I made was inclusion in a list of "Murdered African Americans", and I frankly had no idea that that would be considered "controversial", and believed it to be evident on its face. If someone else made other changes on BIG it wasn't me. Lizmichael (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed of this page

A clean up of this particular page was required, and I reordered things as needed, but I retained all persons' comments as they were and made no censorship or deletions. Just letting folks know. Lizmichael (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lizmichael. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lizmichael. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)