Talk:Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

NWEC

Can we agree that the New World Encyclopedia is not WP:RS? All it does is selective copy Wikipedia content; thus, it's a pseudo-mirror of wikipedia, which cannot be used as a source. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#New_World_Encyclopedia_is_not_a_reliable_source) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• It must surely do more if the copies are selective. Who does the selecting. Are they independently notable credentialed academic publishers making reasonable use of free for re-use content? Do they accept unsourced content? If no and yes, they are not reliable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia and NWEC are both Creative Commons CC-by-sa Share-alike type Encyclopedias, and are agreeable to using each others work. The NWEC is probably of medium strength as a source from what I can read. The ref. above may be outdated, and sorry for the raw link.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/New_World_Encyclopedia:Creative_Commons_CC-by-sa_3.0 ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did some more research on this and NWEC denies being a "Fork" of the Wikipedia, and wikipedia has classified them as a rival competitor. Also Under (probably outdated due to CC-by-sa) the Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance criteria NWEC was never listed as a mirror/fork. It appears as though a fellow by the name of Ed poor found a single NWEC article that he believed to be a fork and he made that entry back in early 2007, but again things have dramatically changed since mid 2009 with the use CC-by-sa by Wikipedia. Note: Ed also mentions that the NWEC uses PHDs to do their research for Educational purposes.

See also: Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance

~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The NWEC article that Ed poor cites is a clone of an existing WIKI article that gave total credit to Wikipedia, and had broken links (thats why he listed it as a mirror). Notice the difference in the verbiage used then and now:

Ed Poor's mirror article.

1) "All credit for producing the original text goes to the WikiMedia Foundation and its selfless team of volunteer contributors. It was copied here in compliance with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Any changes made to the original text since then create a derivative work which is also GFDL licensed."

The NWEC article "Cherokee" is a hybrid:

2) "New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation."

This does not constitute a mirror, and if you compare both articles you will find that there is no mention of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky in the Wiki article. The NWEC article does dedicate some space to the SCNK because they feel they are notable. In fact, this new information/research could be considered copyrighted by the NWEC, and usable in the context of fair use for Educational purposes, and by the Wikipedia under CC-by-sa when properly cited. The entire NWEC is not a mirror of the Wikipedia, just the one article mentioned in 2007 by Ed Poor is a mirror, and that was way back when. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of a mirror/forking per Wikipedia:

Mirror (computing) - Fork (operating system) ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for a week, sort yourselves out here. It was either that or start blocking people. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a student doing research on the Cherokees, where are the Facts? This article reads like a commentary. 199.250.57.231 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User 199.25.57.231, if you are doing research on the Cherokee and you want to be historically and anthropologically accurate, stick with the three federally-recognized tribes: the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Texas Cherokees of the Mt. Tabor Community are another historically documented group in which you may find interest, once considered part of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (they had a representative on the tribal council until 1975), though they have never tried to gain federal recognition as a separate tribe. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Letters of Recognition

The links to the SCNK's website of photocopies of the letters they claim give them state recognition are working again. The one they claim is from 1893 appears to be a forgery, but in any case neither mention recognition, they both are merely letters of appreciation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the links on their own website do not support the SCNK's claim that they have been recognized by the state of Kentucky. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If Rep. Meeks' third attempt to pass a bill to establish a means of state recognition of Indian tribes by the State of Kentucky and the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is subsequently recognized by the state, I will change the article to reflect that myself. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad about the first letter. It does "regonize" (misspelling in the letter) the Southern Cherokee Nation "as an Indian tribe". However, the authenticity of such a letter a century ago recognizing such a group officially and using a phrase from the late 20th century is a bit questionable. Is there another source that can be referenced, an official record of the correspondence, another copy of the letter in someone else's possession? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The images used as sources indicate that the documents in question are more than merely letters, but an executive letter and a proclamtion issued by two different Governors. There is the misspelling of "recognize" in Gov. Brown's executive letter of 1893, it could have been spelled phonetically, as pronounced in those days, in Southern dialect as reg-o-nize. It could just be a typo as typwriters were relatively new in the 1890s. I am not sure, just something to think about.Stubbornbull (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee

Natty4bumpo, I just wanted to clarify with you that there is a difference between the following groups: (1)Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky(SCNK), (2)Southern Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma(SCNO) and most importantly the (3)Southern Cherokee. They are respectively headed by Mr. Buley, Mr. Light, and finally Mr. Ridge. The last two are based out of Webber Falls, OK and not Henderson, KY. All three groups are rivals and all them claim to be sovereign. The newspaper article citation, A "league of Nations", refers to the Southern Cherokee and states: "Another group, however – the Southern Cherokee Nation, based in Kentucky (SCNK) – disavows any connection to the Oklahoma group calling itself the "Southern Cherokees", and says so plainly on its Web site at www.southerncherokeenation.net". The SCNK web site has a disclaimer found on the bottom of their homepage that states: "NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY OTHER GROUP CALLING THEMSELVES "SOUTHERN CHEROKEE". The "Southern Cherokee" were reportedly selling unauthorized car tabs, and were associated with river boat gambling at one time, and this is the reason for the disclaimer by the SCNK. Please have a look at the Southern Cherokee at http://southerncherokee.com/ The statement at the end of the opening paragraph: "Leaders of the SCNK have said they are not affiliated with the Southern Cherokee Nation, another, similarly named group based out of Weber Falls, Oklahoma" is not an accurate statement. This sentance should read: Leaders of the SCNK have said they are not affiliated with the "Southern Cherokee", another, similarly named group based out of Weber Falls, Oklahoma. This should not be a point of contention for us, as much as we just want accuracy. Please make note that the source article mentioned above refers to the Southern Cherokee and not any other group know as a Southern Cherokee Nation. Stubbornbull (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The opening sentance of the artcle is contentious in nature, the SCNK can not be fairly defined without credible citations. This is how it is reading: "The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is an association of persons, headquartered in Henderson, Kentucky, who claim to be Native Americans descended from the Cherokee people that signed the Treaty of New Echota with the US Government in 1835." In reviewing Governor Fletcher's Proclamation, and the Henderson proclamation this is what can be said: "The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky are ""said"" to have descended from a well known Cherokee culture known to have inhabited the southeastern United States, and to have existed as a separate band of the Cherokee since 1835." This verbage is found between the two proclamations and is citable.Stubbornbull (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Such a proclamation is not evidence of anything except that such a proclamation was made. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding news sources, since the condition which the 2008 news source describes--that Kentucky does not have a process to recognize Indian tribes--still exists, the article is still relevant, especially since the 2010 you reiterates the point, though without the quote which says so explicitly (since Rep. Meeks is trying--again--to pass a law setting up such a process, it can reasonably be assumed that such a process does not exist). The only reason for removing the quote, from a source that is verifiable by Wikipedia's definition, is to obscure that fact. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The only evidence for SCNK's historicity comes from the group itself, including the letter allegedly from Gov. Brown. That is what is known in Wikipedia as "original research". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Separate Band

The web site states: "Since our conception as The Treaty Party in 1835, we've been a nation of mixed bloods." The mayoral proclamation states this: "The Southern Cherokee have existed as a separate band of the Cherokee since 1835." The web site also states: "In 1862, Stand Watie was elected principal chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. After his death in 1871, our Nation fell into peril.......The Southern Cherokee Nation and their constitutional government were thereby effectively reestablished in Henderson, Kentucky. The website & proclamation do not say they were a separate band in 1871, but in 1835. The web site only says that they reestablished their government in Henderson, Ky circa 1871. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglegion (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Treaty Party remained part of the Cherokee Nation; they were never separate from it. That's where Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot were assassinated and where Stand Watie was nearly assassinated. The website does not say the SCNK as the Treaty Party was a separate band, just that they descend from members of the Treaty Party. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most sources say a division occured, and that started the blood feuds between the Ross faction and the Ridge faction of the Cherokee. The website actually goes a step farther claiming to be a Nation. "Since our conception as The Treaty Party in 1835, we've been a "nation" of mixed bloods." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubbornbull (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're reading of the situation then is diametrically opposed to that of every history of the time. Rivalry, yes, but actual separation? No, no way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not my reading of the situation, I merely quoted the website as you do yourself. That aside, all sources I read indicate there was more than a simple rivalry, but a bloody division of political factions of the old Cherokee Nation East that included the National Party (Ross faction) and the Treaty Party (Ridge faction). The Ross faction was against immigration to Indian Territory, while the Ridge faction was for immigration. In December of 1833 Chief William Hicks was elected Chief of the Treaty Party forming a band that sent delegates to Washington, but Washington preferred to negotiate with Major Ridge and Hicks became a figure head. In 1835 the Treaty of New Echota was signed by the Treaty Party, ratified in 1836, and by 1838 the Cherokee were forcibly removed to Indian Territory. The signing event triggered the assassinations of the primary signatories of the treaty, and a bitter civil war ensued. At one point the warring was so bad that Congress proposed dividing the Cherokee into two tribes, but in 1846 a peace treaty was signed by both parties and amnesty was granted to all. However, the 1846 Treaty was only partially successful because the American Civil War reopened old wounds, and an internal civil war resulted that again divided the Cherokee along party lines. The National Party primarily supported the Union, while the Treaty Party primarily supported the Confederacy. The later became known as Southern Cherokee, and according to some sources they were awarded autonomy over their own affairs, after the American Civil War, in the Treaty of 1866. However, this status fell short of a separate Southern Cherokee Nation as hoped for by Confederate BG Stand Watie. Although from what I can read, the Southern Cherokee living in Indian Territory during the Reconstruction Era from 1865-1877 did not have an easy time of it. Stubbornbull (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole fiasco with Hicks collapsed less than two years into its existence, sooner than that I believe. Andrew Ross, John's brother, was one of its chief members. In any case, he was not elected principal chief of the Treaty Party but over those who'd enrolled for emigration and as a result been disenfranchised by the National Council. In October 1835 a National Council with both parties in attendance appointed a group of twenty to negotiate a treaty for removal with the stipulation that the terms be more than $5 million. The twenty included not only John Ross but Treaty Party leaders Elias Boudinot (later replaced by Stand Watie), John Ridge, and Charles Vann, and they were to go to Washington City. The U.S. Commissioner Schermerhorn also called for a meeting to discuss a removal treaty, but meeting instead in New Echota. Another delegation of twenty was chosen to go there, which included Major Ridge and Stand Watie (who was replaced in the Washington delegation by Boudinot). Please note that both these delegations were not sent by the Treaty Party but by the reunited National Council. While Ross and the other delegation were in Washington City, 400 Cherokee from the Upper and Lower Towns converged on New Echota, mostly treaty advocates but some from the National Party also. It was only after meeting with Schermerhorn for a week, presenting the contents of the proposed treaty, and receiving a unanimous vote in favor from all present that the twenty men, delegated by the National Council, signed the treaty. John Ridge and Stand Watie added their own names after a copy of the treaty was delivered to Washington. The terms of the treaty were five million dollars, to be disbursed on a per capita basis, an additional half-million dollars is given for educational funds, title in perpetuity to an equal amount of land in Indian Territory to that given up, and full compensation for all property left in the East. There was also a clause in the treaty as signed allowing Cherokee who so desired to remain and become citizens of the states in which they resided on 160 acres (0.65 km2) of land, but that was stricken out by President Jackson. The idea that the delegation at New Echota was a rogue element of strictly Treaty Party members is a historical myth. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Council meeting prior to the October gathering was held at John Ridge plantation of Running Waters, near the current Calhoun, Georgia. The meeting was with Schermerhorn and Return J. Meigs and included members of both parties, including John Ross. Following that conclave, members of the National Party began murdering members of the Treaty Party at the rate of about one a week. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with most of what you say, other than I found multiple sources that indicated Hicks was elected Chief of the Treaty Party, but as you say it did not go well. I am glad you noted that some National Party members also signed the Treaty of New Echota, but the vast majority were Treaty Party members that were held accountable. John Ross quickly called the treaty fraudulant, and petitioned for non ratification.Stubbornbull (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ross was being a hypocrite. The Council's instructions were to not sign the treaty unless the price was brought up from $4.5 million to $5 million, and they not only got that but more. The assassinations in the Indian Territory did not have as much to do with the Treaty as they did with the Ross party seizing power from the already established Cherokee Nation West, with which the earlier emigrants from the Treaty Party were already integrated. A sizable number of Treaty Party members had stayed until the last moment like the great majority of the Cherokee Nation East and were rounded up for removal along with them. However, they refused to emigrate under Ross and removed separately. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources

This article links to Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky as an inline citation which appears to have nothing to do with Henderson, KY, never mind that it is completely inappropriate as a citation. The link describes some group who bought a piece of land a few hundred miles away in eastern KY, and the people affiliated with it appear to live out of state. Meanwhile, this site presumably represents a group who at least live in Henderson County, KY. This Southern Cherokee stuff has spread to a number of articles, all of it appears to be either the result of individual lobbying, misrepresented sources and unattributed press releases with a decade long directed effort to use wikipedia as a platform to create legitimacy. None of it is WP:RS, and the links represent efforts from different groups who only appear to have a unifying interest in perpetuating fraudulent histories. Kintpuash (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)