Talk:Cherokee/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

List of notable Cherokee people

The list in the article is too long and hard to read in paragraph form. A separate article/page should be made for this, as has been done for other groups.--Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just went to this talk page to say the same thing. This needs to be a separate article.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think the main problem with that part of the article is that it doesn't appear to have adequate sources. I also think it should probably be limited to those on the tribal rolls rather than merely having some Cherokee descent because it is exteremly common to be of mixed White - Cherokee descent in much of the US. Jon (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the header for Notable people and it should be limited to historically documented Cherokee, and current enrollees, with sources. I posted it for sources. Also established a separate page for List of Self-identified people of Cherokee ancestry, but that's really useles, too. All are posted as needing sources, and soon we may be able to delete the article altogether if no one documents the entries. It's almost meaningless - originally included a lot of models and soap opera people whose pages on wikipedia are also unsourced, so I deleted them from this list.--Parkwells (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree and thank you for doing so. There is no way to fairly judge who could make this claim without documentation. If they are enrolled Cherokee, it's easy to prove with a blue card.Odestiny (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's really common for every white American to be part-Cherokee, maybe to descend from another American Indian tribe somewhere in their genealogical record about 200-500 years ago. The notable fact on there's a large number of Cherokees in the U.S. compared to most tribes (about 565, but only a tenth have over 100,000 registered tribal members) may been a result of their tribal group wasn't eradicated in the Indian wars during the late half of the 19th century. Same would go to a high number of Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek/Muskoghean tribal members in the "protected" Indian territory of present-day Oklahoma, but you would hear the phrase "part-Cherokee" more than any other NA tribe to claim ancestral descendancy from. I really hope it's not just a "trend" for a white American celebrity to have "Cherokee" blood in order to make them look "cool", "trendy" or part of the multicultural diversity our country already has. There are some African-American celebrities of Cherokee and other American Indian descent, in the case of Jimi Hendrix, but how about the "white" cowboy-comedian Will Rogers whose alleged to be the most famous Cherokee Indian? He was born near Oologah, Indian territory (now Oklahoma) in the 1870's to enrolled tribal member parents. + (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It has always puzzled me why whites only claim Cherokee ancestry but never any other tribe which mixed extensively with whites over the last three hundred years, such as the Iroquois, Sioux, Saponi, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, to name a few. It's always the full-blood Cherokee great-grandmother. As for the myriad celebrities who claim Cherokee ancestry, who was the Cherokee forebear in Welsh-born Catherine Zeta-Jones' family? Another curiosity, why do whites just claim descent from Indian females, never males? In the many DNA tests conducted, how much Native American ancestry has actually been detected in the over-all white, American population? Is it confined to certain regions of the country? Most Indian activists, such as Vine Deloria Jr., Suzan Shown Harjo, Russell Means are openly scornful of whites and blacks who claim Native American ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Great comments on the exoticization and feminization of the Cherokee by American whites. I think the section on famous Cherokees should include skepticism and criticism by the activists you mentioned. Though I don't know of any DNA studies about Native American ancestry in American white people, I bet if it was done there would be a lot of genetic mixing. It seems like these tests always show more population mixing than people really acknowledge. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that much mixing occured between whites and Indians, but Cherokees were not the only tribe who intermarried with Europeans. The Metis were an important group of mixed Indian/white people and they certainly did not have Cherokee ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In part because of the massive immigration of Europeans in the late 19th-early 20th c., there really is not much DNA evidence of unions between white and Indians. Only 2.7 percent of European Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent). There were also fewer unions between Native Americans and African Americans than people have lately seemed to find an interesting idea. In his PBS show on the heritage of 19 African Americans (and the recently published book In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past), scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. noted that geneticists have found only about 5 percent of African Americans have as much as 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent) (this data is on pp.20-21). Virtually all African American families had an ancestor here before 1820, and often much earlier (41 percent of the ancestors had arrive by 1750) (p.18).--Parkwells (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Population of Cherokees

"They are one of the tribes referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, they are the largest of the 563 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States"

This need to be looked at in the first paragraph. Who is the "They" being the largest of the 563 Federally Recognzized Tribes? There are 3 Federally Recognized Cherokee Tribes. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Is this a combination of all of them? LightingBug (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A little late for a reply here but for future reference, notice that two of these are "bands". The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma are both part of the Cherokee Nation. Odestiny (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Nation" is a political term and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation are each separate, autonomous political entities. Collectively, their members form the ethnic and cultural group of the Cherokee people. To imply that the EBCN is somehow less or subordinate to the CN is inaccurate and not a little insulting to them. I do wish the Cherokee page would focus on the collective history of the three tribes and the cultural aspect of the Cherokee ethnic group, while creating a separate page for the Cherokee Nation (not the errantly titled "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma"). Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I did not "imply" anything of the sort. Both "bands" chose their own names. If anything the bands may be in a better position politically than the CNO. I was attempting to answer the question that is caused by a confusion of terms in the article. There is a clear distinction between the CNO and the CN. These are not only political terms, they are legal terms.

According to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a band of American Indians is a company of Indians "not necessarily, though often, of the same race or tribe, but united under the same leadership in a common design." According to the Elman Service Model, bands are relatively small patrilineally organized groups.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined a “tribe” as a body of Indians of the same or a similar race, united under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular, although sometimes ill-defined, territory. According to the Elman Service Model, a tribe presents possibilities that are not present in band-level societies.

An Indian “nation” is a large tribe or group of affiliated tribes acting for the time being in concert.

The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians incorporated under the laws of North Carolina in 1889. They are a part of the Cherokee nation.

The U.S. Congress passed the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (OIWA) in 1936 to restore self-governance to Indian tribes in Oklahoma. This Act provided for the reorganization of tribal governments and repealed any disability Congress had imposed from past legislation, but ONLY for tribes who reorganized under the authority of the OIWA.

The United Keetoowah Band is a federally recognized local government governing under a charter obtained through the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. UKB is an inseparable part of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is NOT reorganized under the authority of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act.Odestiny (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"An Indian 'nation' is a large tribe or group of affiliated tribes acting for the time being in concert." Exactly, there you go. How often do the EBCN, UKB and CN act in concert? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Ha ha! Ain't that the truth! But the EBCI and the CNO does have a joint council which together recently passed a resolution saying no other Cherokee tribes exist but them and the Keetoowah. My main objective was to help answer LightingBug's original question, which often arises from these confusing terms. For example, I asked the operator at the EBCI/EBCN this morning what the correct term was (Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation or Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians)since both are on the front page of their website. She said "they're the same". Best regards, Odestiny (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Cherokee population in California was reportedly at 20,000 but other estimates place the figure 5 times than that to above 100,000. Which is the current statistic from either the C.N.O. or the 2000 US Census? The stats only account for C.N.O. tribal members in the state, or the complete number of persons self-identify with Cherokee ancestry? I always have the impression on the Cherokee community in California was high, someone in Wikipedia once placed an entry (now deleted) in this article on about half a million Cherokee may live in California. The demographic phenomena of more self-claimed Cherokee Indians in a state about 3,000 miles from the original homeland in the Appalachians can be a major concentration, most likely as a result of the "dust bowl" era migrations of Cherokee from Oklahoma back in the 1930's. + (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma article

There is now an article at that address, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, not just a redirect to this article. All the material within it came from either this article (the CNO-specific information) or from two or three of the articles on Wikipedia closely related to it. Perhaps the numerous editors of this article would now be amenable to culling out those parts of this article specific to the three federally-recognized Cherokee tribes which each already have their own articles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

As I said above, I have excised the CNO-specific material that is now part of the article Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and I have also reorganized the article so that it has a better flow. I did leave shortened sections of some parts that are gone because they deal with issues that effect all Cherokee, not just the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. I intend in upcoming days to do some more reorganization and fill in the section on the 20th century, as well as adding more info on the changes in government in the early 19th century which are almost completely lacking as of now. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Trail of Tears material

Moved to Cherokee trail of tears, first, because it fits better there, and second, because go on and on with those giantic quotes was overemphasizing that series of events to the detriment of everything else. Being Cherokee is not all about the Trail of Tears any more than being Jewish is all about the Holocaust; there's more to both than just those events, as tragic and dominating the two were at the time. The material removed is all intact at the site I mentioned. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you had any business moving the Trail of Tears material, nor changing "Cherokee Trail of Tears" to "Cherokee removal". You're having a field day changing all these Cherokee related articles with little discussion. Saying "because it fits better" is only your opinion. Remembering that you're NOT Cherokee, you should note that being Cherokee is A LOT about the Trail of Tears. So are you going to change the article on the Holocaust to "Jewish removal" because "it fits"? If you do, mention that being Jewish is not all about the Holocaust.Odestiny (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The material still exists on Wikipedia, it's now in a more proper place for it. The quotes were extremely long and made this article out of balance. It made the article way too much about the experiences of the Cherokee related to Indian removal to the detriment of anything else about them; the title of the article is "Cherokee", not about "Cherokee experiences during Indian removal". If that's all you think the people to whom you claim to belong are about, I pity you. Given that you were pushing the myths about the spurious "House of Moytoy" and its nonexistent relationship to the Anglo-Irish baronial family Carpenter, I question your judgement about historical accuracy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an article be short. Removing material that is key to an understanding of the people the article is about simply to shorten it is wrong. Again, it is simply your opinion as to whether this article is "out of balance". You continue to make major changes in articles related to a race of people without discussion. You publically claim to be a "social anarchist"[1], but wikipedia is not the place for those tactics. There shold be time for discussion of major changes. You may doubt whether or not I am Cherokee (which I am) but you are clearly not, and you do not understand the effect the Trail of Tears has on the Cherokee even today. You may question my judgement, but you still fail to include sources for your statements, even though it's been brought to your attention several times. Doesn't a polictical science major know to do that?Odestiny (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with those entries. First, they are very large block quotes, not in keeping with the organization of the rest of the article. Second, having more than one quote is too much. Third, this article is about the "Cherokee", not the "Cherokee removal" or "Cherokee trail of tears". Those quotes are also by people who related their own experiences decades after the event, and in one case was not from a person from that time but his fifth generation descendant reporting what he claimed was his great-great-great grandfather's experience, not his own personal experience. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not persuade, argue, or propagandize. Their inclusion in this article constitutes a NPOV violation. As for what I understand, it is that the Trail of Tears is more of an obsession with wannabes than it is with actual Cherokee, who as much as they acknowledge its place in their history realize their hisory does not start or stop there. Since the Burnette quote includes the figure for the dead of four thousand, it is necessarily in error just on that basis; the best sources, Duane King, Emmet Starr, etc., have concluded the number to be more in the vicinity of 424 who died form the start of the roundup to the arrival of the last group at Ft. Smith. The Trail of Tears is now covered adequately and more equitably than before, and the article overall more balanced. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you "understand it" wrong. That's why the Nation has a full page of links about it on their official website[2], why the Heritage Center has a permanent exhibit for it[3]. So, only 424 died? Well, what a wonderful revelation! But it really sounds like what I hear from those who deny the holocaust. You go ahead and write what you want. In the end it's all just words in the sands of wikipedia and won't stand for long. However, some of the opinions you have expressed and statements you have made may not be so easily erased.Odestiny (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did make a mistake; the 424 is the official government figure for those who died; there were also 71 births, 182 disappearances, and 191 accessions according to that source. The figures Duane King, co-founder of the Eastern Band's Journal of Cherokee Studies along with Raymond Evans, gave the number 350 for the total dead, 200 of those in the camps and another 150 along the way. I did check out the CNO's website; they didn't devote near as as much proportionally to their section on the Trail of Tears as this article did before I moved it. And, I repeat, I moved it, I did not remove it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "some of the opinions you have expressed and statements you have made may not be so easily erased"--is that a threat? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get dramatic. You've made a lot of statements on these pages about people, genealogists, (including those from the Cherokee Nation) and more. For example, on this page you said "the Trail of Tears is more of an obsession with wannabes", "Being Cherokee is not all about the Trail of Tears any more than being Jewish is all about the Holocaust". People may not comment here, but they do read it. I have to imagine that you never read genealogy forums or Cherokee blogs if you don't understand the explosive negative feelings you have generated, normally reserved for Chad Smith. I debate with you here because I write here, but the majority express their views elseware and that's not always a good thing. You're treading where people have deep feelings not just about their heritage but about who they are as Cherokee. Consider that what you're telling people is that their father didn't know what he was talking about. Their grandfather lied to them with the stories they heard since a child. The ancestry they and thousands of others have in their family tree and posted on is wrong, and yet no source to say where so much wrong data came from. Even the genealogist they may have hired was a waste. You're also putting out statements that sound like government propaganda to some. Perhaps my adrenalin pumps up over your views on the Moytoy, but it's only momentary. However you've stirred up a hornets nest with some groups by the way you've expressed yourself that is going to take a while to settle down. That's what I meant by that sentence. Personally I feel debate makes people study, and it's good. You're obviously doing a little digging yourself but I wish you would use references, it's a good practice. Best regards - Odestiny (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I may be a tad late for this discussion, but some of the claims that Chuck Hamilton made managed to get me involved.

A. "Since the Burnette quote includes the figure for the dead of four thousand, it is necessarily in error just on that basis; the best sources, Duane King, Emmet Starr, etc., have concluded the number to be more in the vicinity of 424 who died form the start of the roundup to the arrival of the last group at Ft. Smith." i can give you several references that contradict your shockingly low number [4][5][6][7]. It goes on and on, and each one claims roughly 4000 died. So your "experts", as they are, should probably recheck their numbers.
B. I have to agree that, before you decide to change several of these Cherokee related articles, giving "because it fits better" as your explanation, you should discuss it at length in the talk page of the article that you are taking a significant chunk from.
C. While this article is about the Cherokee as a tribal entity, it doesnt warrant the removal of significant historical facts because you believe that the article should only be about the modern Cherokee tribes. The article is not named "Cherokee Tribes" or any variation of that. It is called Cherokee, and thus warrants an adequate coverage of all things within that scope. I agree, however, that it is always good to give a small summary with a redirect to the page that covers that particular event or action when nessecary.
I just wanted to throw my two sense worth into this discussion, as I plan to start working closely with Cherokee related articles again. Once more, sorry for jumping in late on this discussions. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Mexico

Federally-recognized by whom? Certainly not by the U.S. government, which is what "federally recognized" implies in United States usage. Nor, as far as I have been able to discover, by the Mexican federal government. Although the group got a letter of welcome from the governor of the state, that is not the same thing as federal recognition. They seem to be along the lines of the "Southern Cherokee Nation". I am removing it from the image until satisfactory docementation can be provided. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They are recognized by the Mexican government, which is also a federal government. The Mexican government gave land grants to Cherokees before the Trail of Tears in the states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, and many chose to settle there – which is why Sequoyah is buried at the Texas-Mexican border - he died on his journey to reunite the Mexican Cherokees with the rest of the tribe. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

No, they were recognized by the governor of the Mexican state of Coahuila, which is worth the same as recognition by states in this country. In other words, nothing. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow is that insulting to the many legitimate state-recognized tribes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Those are not real tribes, regardless of what states may say. States have no right to grant recognition that has substance; only the federal government has that power. I've had to deal with several such people the past twenty years, and they are mostly white people playing Indian. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Read some California and Michigan Indian history. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I live in the South. Southeast Tennessee, to be specific, in what used to be the town of Opelika in the Chickamauga District of the old Cherokee Nation. We've got "Chickamauga", "Chickmamauga-Cherokee", "Free Cherokee", "Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee" (which happens to be state-recognized by Georgia), "Original Cherokee Nation", "Southern Cherokee Nation", "Chikimaka", etc., coming out of our ears, and not a single one is legitimate. I assume those are the kind of people you are referring to. No, thanks, I'll pass. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Now now, gentlemen (I am assuming), let's keep it civil; There is no need to be so rude. We are all aware of the several unrecognized tribes that claim to be Cherokee. Until they are recognized by the United States federal government, they are not considered legitimate tribes. So, if you have a reference of a newly recognized tribe, then by all means, add it. Until then, however, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

George Guess, aka Sequoyah

A resident of the Lower Towns in the southwest of the Cherokee Nation East, he became a strong advocate of Cherokee emigration westward over the Mississippi River twenty years before the Treaty of New Echota. He himself followed that path in 1822, and it was from the Cherokee Nation West in Arkansas Territory that he published his syllabary. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Worcester v. Georgia

Although important from a legal history standpoint, it gave no relief to the Cherokee and its only substantive decision was that Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler should be released from jail. Thier detention was the only question the case addressed. Furthermore, no Cherokee was a party to the suit; it's called Worcester v. Georgia rather than Ross v. Georgia for a reason. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Georgia law in question was about forbidding whites from living in the Cherokee Nation without license for the State of Georgia, if they were within the claimed territorial boundaries of that state. It was about the authority of the State of Georgia over white men, not the authority of the State of Georgia over the lands of the Cherokee Nation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New section

I'm going to be adding perhaps a section a day or every few days, with citations, until Cherokee history in the article has the same amount of material after the beginning of the French and Indian War that it had before it. Very likely that will mean an article with a greatly increased length, in need of serious trimming. Well, that will happen too. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaties and History

I see that there are several treaties listed. I have cut and pasted the entire section to a new page, cutting the length of the article significantly. Of course, we can add more info about each treaty in the coming weeks. Please offer any objections here. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Given their length of just the brief one-line description, yes, new page was a good idea. But you might want to add a little blurb instead of just a link. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good move to make the new page and the following suggestion. I agree there were too many listed within the article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I reverted several changes that were made this evening by someone who has consistently refused to use the Talk page for discussion, and I will continue to do so with no further explanation after tonight, unless such discussion takes place here, per Wikipedia rules.

First, Sequoyah lived 150 years and while appropriate to an article on the Cherokee is not appropriate to a template with stats and info for the three modern Cherokee tribes. Which is the reason the flags were there in the first place, because the Cherokee did not freeze in time in 1838.

  • Sequoyah didn't live for 150 years ... He is the most significant Cherokee person in their history. The flags are already on their respective organizations article no need to repeat it here. I put Sequoyah pic up last year and no body seemed to mind until natty came by and changed without consulting with the community first. This article is about the people and not about flags.

Second, Worcester v. Georgia had nothing to do with the Cherokee, except as background. They were not party to the suit. The ruling had no effect on the Cherokee Nation East. Contrary to the statement in the paragraph I removed, it is not influential, merely notable, and only then in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, not in its effect on the Cherokee. Again, the plaintiffs were two white men suing for their constitutional rights, not the Cherokee doing anything for Native American rights. The paragraph in question is certainly appropriate to the section on Cherokee removal and/or Trail of Tears, but it is not appropriate to the introduction of this article. I will continue to remove it every time it is place at the beginning of the article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Both these court rulings had everything to do with the Cherokee and certainly belongs in the introduction because of it's significance.
They may be important, but they most certainly dont belong in the opening paragraph. I'm not going to get involved, as you two need to resolve this one yourselves. Ono (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
the cases sure as Hell does ... You're just some guy or gal on RC patrol with no background in Native American history, you have no purview ... Bring an expert on the subject, if you can find one better than me, other than natty.
I currently reside in the Cherokee nation, am a member of the CNO, and consider myself well studied in Cherokee history. I did not disput the fact that it is an important fact. I said that it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, which is an introduction to the article. Ono (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It certainly belongs in the introduction which serves as an outline to the entire article. I realize I'm talking to amateurs in writing and Native American history (which don't surprise me on Wikipedia) ... I will cease improving this article and move on to a different tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that a single court case is so unfathomably important that it belongs in the opening paragraph of an article that covers the history of a people over several hundred years? Perhaps you are the one that is the amateur. And there is no need to be so rude, as we are all trying to make this article better. And, for the record, I am not trying to discourage you from editing this page, I am just trying to get you to talk about your major edits on the talk page, so a consensus can be met before you make them. Sorry your feelings got hurt, and thanks for your work on improving the article, Ono (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that we have some sort of edit war going on, and I am getting drawn into it. I have requested a full page protect until the matter has been resolved. User" continues to remove the flags of the cherokee nation in favor of pictures of a woman and sequoyah. He still hasnt given an adequate explanation to justify this. They are going to watch the page for a while to see if it persists.. Ono (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Ono just removed sourced images and replaced with un-sourced images. Its a picture of the most significant Cherokee and a painting of a full blooded Cherokee woman painted in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the flags of the cherokee tribes, which has been on the main page for over a year. It has already been discussed several times, and those were the images deemed suitable for the opening of this article. Just because you believe that Sequoyah was the most significant cherokee (Several people would disagree, believe that, for example, John Ross, leader of the Cherokee Nation during the trail of tears, was the most significant Cherokee), doesn't give you the right to remove the flags of the tribes to put your pictures in.
a year? ... December 1, 2008 had images of people up ... not flags ... I can easily find an authority to state that Sequoyah is most significant ... not because I say it is. I know the importance of citation ... this is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The flags have been a source of debate for ages, and have been on the page in some for quite some time (I assumed that it was a year in total.) And I can easily find the authority to say that he wasn't. I agree that arguing is poinltess. Ono (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a year in total ... your logic is flawed. I will not continue a argument with illogical Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As i said, I assumed, my sincerest apologies that i did not have the exact amount of time to the exact number of minutes that it has been up there. And I would suggest that you see Wikipedia:Be Civil toward other editors, as you are being overly rude in some of your edits and posts. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the step of contacting representatives of the three tribal governments--actual Cherokee government people not merely self-identified Cherokee--and they all prefer the flags, so the flags are what will remain. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they did say that they would rather have the flags on the page, you wouldn't be able to cite it, as it is OR. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I can just as easily write them and let them know Wikipedia doesn't care what they think, which I'm sure will end with letters or emails of protests, followed ultimately by the return of the flags. This article is supposed to be about a Native American people that still exists in modern tribes, so let's at least pretend to be polite. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't being impolite, I was stating the rules of Wikipedia. Any information that you have gathered from outside sources (e.g. the tribes, people in the tribes etc) cant be cited on wikipedia, per the No Original Research rule. And, I am prefectly aware of what this article is supposed to be about, so why dont we all try not to make incorrect assumptions, hmm? Ono (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now what you are saying is that courtesy is irrelevant, and that all that matters is what Wikipedia determines by looking into its own navel. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying anything about courtesy. I was trying to save you any trouble in contacting several tribal offices spread across numerous states all for something that you cant post on Wikipedia. But you are obviously set on taking whatever I say in a negative manner. So, by all means, waste your time and money getting useless research. Ono (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There only three Cherokee tribes, and and it's not like I've never contacted them before. In fact, I once talked to Arnold General for over two hours, another time for almost an hour. I just wanted their opinion; you are incorrect, I can post what their opinion is on this page all I want. On the article page, no, but here, yes. And, if Wikipedia chooses to replace the flags with patronizing outdated images, I can pass that all too. I have Comcast phone, so long distance costs me nothing extra.

The reason I replaced the picture of Sequoyah and the one of John Ross that were there when this started is because the Cherokee are three modern, multi-faceted legal entities, not just quaint extinct exotics. The person who replaced the flags is a unregistered user who refuses to use the Talk page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you believe that I do not agree with your edits. I reverted the edits that changed the pictures from flags to sequoyah and the painting of the elderly woman. There are only three recognized tribes, this is correct. However, they have offices in several states around the nation.
I just wanted their opinion; you are incorrect, I can post what their opinion is on this page all I want. I didnt dispute your right to post your OR on the talk page, and if you read up, I never said anything about the talk page. I only said that you couln'd post any of your researched information on the main page. So no, I am not incorrect. It would appear that you have finally caught on to that, so that part of the discussion is over.
I have Comcast phone, so long distance costs me nothing extra. Again, you are already set to take whatever I say in a negative manner. Ono (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"It would appear you have finally caught on to that"...nice to know you're not just condescending to Native Americans. I realized that from the outset, which is why I was arguing with you. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you knew from the start that I wasn't referring to the talk page, then what was the point of you drawing out this utterly ridiculous argument for this long? And who are you to make any judgement on my character? I could say something like "You are being snide, rude, and hateful to everyone that disagrees with you" or something along those lines, but I won't. Let's try to work on editing the article instead of bickering over something that, in the long run, will not really matter to the overall article. Ono (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant. You were not being clear about what you meant. What you were trying to say was something I already know, have known. That's why what you were saying made no sense. And since the point was so obvious, it was condescending of you to assume I didn't know that already. An attempt to put me on the defensive. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I be talking about OR on the talk page? I never specified that it wasnt allowed on the talk page. Simple inferrence would tell you, by simply reading what I said you wouldn't be able to cite it, as it is OR, that I was talking about the main page (I said "The Article" several times.) I was clear enough that the average person should be able to pick up on what I meant. And it wasn't condescending, because you said that you didnt know what I was talking about, as you just admitted. Ono (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I put in the article that the three Cherokee tribes preferred the flags as opposed to the historical images? That is exactly what you're "informing" me that what the Cherokee want isn't valid implies. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that what they said it wasnt valid. You enjoy putting words into people's mouths... (doesn't really work when the text is written and everyone can see it.) I said that you wouldnt be able to use whatever they say on the article (as a reference for the flags, which is what I got from reading what you wrote), as it is Original Research. I said nothing else concerning that. If i misread or misinterpreted what you wrote, then I am sorry. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

History Section

I do believe that, when the History section is longer than the rest of the article combined, you know there is a problem. We don't need every detail covered in this article. I would suggest making an article named "History of the Cherokee". Then you can move the majority of the info to that, and leave a small summary that covers the basic history of the Cherokee, such as a section for Cherokee origins, pre-European contact, the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century and today, or something along those lines. There is no chance of this article obtaining GA status when it is so long. They tend to like short, sweet and to the point, while covering what needs to be covered. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA? I know what an FA is, but can't remember what a GA is.
I only added as much information as I did because there was so much of the earlier history until the beginning of the Anglo-Cherokee War and then not much later, leaving it top-heavy. You should have seen the article before I made changes like shifting what amounted to three pages of stuff on the Trail of Tears, most of it in loooooonnnggg blockquotes, to "Cherokee removal". I'm amenable to whatever y'all decide to do, just trim what's there, or do that and add an article on "History of the Cherokee". If you create the article, I'll contibute.
My additions, by the way, were quite restrained for me. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could add more material to the other sections in order to balance it, which, of course, we should do anyway. The UKB in particular are getting the short end of the stick with the amount of space which they are allowed here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous references

Below are references from the article that are not connected to any inline citations. Most likely some of these were used for information in the article, so if anyone can create citations connecting them to article writing, they are available here:

  • Alderman, Pat. Dragging Canoe: Cherokee-Chickamauga War Chief. (Johnson City: Overmountain Press, 1978).
  • Brown, John P. Old Frontiers: The Story of the Cherokee Indians from Earliest Times to the Date of Their Removal to the West, 1838. (Kingsport: Southern Publishers, 1938).
  • Cherokee Nation. here Buyer Beware, Only Three Cherokee Groups Recognized. November 13, 2000 (Accessed May 21, 2007
  • Christensen, P.G., Minority Interaction in John Rollin Ridge's The Life and Adventures of Joaquin Murieta MELUS, Vol. 17, No. 2, Before the Centennial. (Summer, 1991 - Summer, 1992), pp. 61–72.
  • Eckert, Allan W. A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh. (New York: Bantam, 1992).
  • Ehle, John (1988). Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-23954-8.
  • Evans, E. Raymond. "Notable Persons in Cherokee History: Ostenaco". Journal of Cherokee Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 41–54. (Cherokee: Museum of the Cherokee Indian, 1976).
  • Evans, E. Raymond. "Notable Persons in Cherokee History: Bob Benge". Journal of Cherokee Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 98–106. (Cherokee: Museum of the Cherokee Indian, 1976).
  • Garroutte, Eva Marie. Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America. University of California Press, 2003.
  • Haywood, W.H. The Civil and Political History of the State of Tennessee from its Earliest Settlement up to the Year 1796. (Nashville: Methodist Episcopal Publishing House, 1891).
  • Hill, Sarah H. Weaving New Worlds: Southeastern Cherokee Women and Their Basketry. University of North Carolina Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8078-4650-3.
  • Kilpatrick, Jack and Anna Gritts. ‘’ Friends of Thunder: Folktales of the Oklahoma Cherokees .’’ Norman: University of Oklahoma Press , 1995. ISBN 0-8061-2722-8.
  • Klink, Karl, and James Talman, ed. The Journal of Major John Norton. (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1970).
  • Mankiller, Wilma; Wallis, Michael (1999). ‘’Mankiller: A Chief and Her People.’’ St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-20662-3.
  • Meredith, Howard and Mary Ellen. ‘’Reflection on Cherokee Literary Expression.’’ New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7734-6763-7.
  • Moore, John Trotwood and Austin P. Foster. Tennessee, The Volunteer State, 1769-1923, Vol. 1. (Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1923).
  • Ramsey, James Gettys McGregor. The Annals of Tennessee to the End of the Eighteenth Century. (Chattanooga: Judge David Campbell, 1926).
  • Russell, Steve. "Review of Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America" PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. May 2004, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 147–153.
  • Thornton, Russell. The Cherokees: A Population History. University of Nebraska Pres, 1992.
  • Strickland, Rennard (1982). ‘'Fire and the Spirits: Cherokee Law from Clan to Court.‘’ University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-1619-6.
  • Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen. American Indian Quarterly, WInter/Spring 1998, Vol 22. No 1&2 pp. ;230–258.
  • Vickers, Paul T (2005). ‘’Chiefs of Nations First Edition: The Cherokee Nation 1730 to 1839: 109 Years of Political Dialogue and Treaties’’. iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 0-595-36984-7.

-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution to the adding of faux Cherokees

I initially added the "modern" famous Cherokee section since there was way too much emphasis on early history as opposed to living Cherokee people, but I see now this was a mistake. This section can be eliminated and all contemporary notable Cherokee can be listed on the articles for the tribes in which they are enrolled. That would eliminate the opportunity to add non-enrolled, quasi-Cherokee celebrities. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Should there be another page devoted to the history of the Cherokee?

When I first started editing this article, there was a substantial amount of historical material on the Cherokee up through the beginning of the Anglo-Cherokee War, a blurb on removal, and not much else history-wise. I've added material covering that war and subsequent history up through the end of the Chickamauga wars in 1794. Adding more will probably double the size of the article.

Should not the article "Cherokee" focus mostly on the three modern tribes with short summations of their common history? That way the history could be covered more extensively in s separate article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is called "Cherokee", it is meant to encompass the entirety of all things Cherokee, including the history. As you already know, there are individual pages that cover each of the modern tribes, so there is no need to make the Cherokee article solely about them as well. It is never a bad idea, of course, to make a separate page (or pages) that are only about the Historical details of the Cherokee people.
If you believe that you are adding too much information to the history, then you should make a short blurb of what you are adding, and post a link to your newly created page about that history matter. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ono you sound like you're contradicting yourself. You start by saying "No" don't make a separate page and then end the paragraph by saying "it's not a bad idea to make a separate page about the history only"... I don't get it. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still actively editing this page but yes, I think you should create a new History of the Cherokee article. It would follow wikipedia's policy on summary style WP:SS which basically states that once an article becomes too big, it should be split into smaller daughter articles. Another issue is that the table of contents is too long which is not a violation of policy but looked down upon when it comes to Featured article criteria because it becomes overwhelming. Here's an example of why. If the history had it's own article both issues (article length and TOC length) could be resolved. // Gbern3 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article revamp

Since what we're talking about doing is a revamp, I thought the tag would be appropriate. I got the idea from the Muscogee (Creek) article.

By the way, the Indigenous peoples of North America portal is dead, so there's no vehicle for rating articles like this. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much action has taken place on the request to split the article. I could create a Cherokee military history article if that is amenable to people. Other information in the article could be shortened. For instance, the "marriage" entry is long, doesn't say which time period, and has no references. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The complete information about Cherokee warfare (with several additional sections) is up at Cherokee military history. I summarized the information in this article. A lot is can still be trimmed (language, European contact, etc.). Enrollment info can go under the tribes. Once it's trimmed glaring gaps can be filled, such as the need for info about the modern EBCI.-Uyvsdi (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Cherokee history has been created and can be expanded.-Uyvsdi (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrecognized tribes

The number of small, start-up unofficial Cherokee tribal bands are above 200 in the year 2010. There was an article of the so-called Cherokee heritage groups on wikipedia, but on Oct. 2009 the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma made an official statement on they don't appreciate the majority of such tribes (deemed "fraudulent") whom either mock or misrepresent Cherokee culture, others don't have an accurate depiction of Cherokee history or tribal rituals, and a few are involved in serious criminal activities. But, the CNO welcomes all the world's Cherokee descendants whose ancestors not on the Dawes tribal roll (how to qualify for joining the CNO) to legitimately study their Cherokee heritage, and the regrets of the legal inability for them to join the tribe. Only the federal government can recognize an authentic Cherokee tribe such as the CNO, the United Keetoowah Band in Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokees in North Carolina. + (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence in section "18th century history"

When I first read "Overhill Cherokee Nancy Ward, Dragging Canoe's niece" I was very confused. Maybe somebody could change that sentence. Hopefully helpful (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


An anonymous IP editor keeps changing the autonym, so just be explicit: Aniyvwi (ᎠᏂᏴᏫ) means: "People (they are people)." Aniyvwiya (ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ) means "Indian (they are real people)" (see Prentice Robinson's 1996 Cherokee Dictionary, p. 52), and Aniyvwiyaʔi (ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯᎢ) means "Cherokee (they originate truly/they are the Principal People)." The term "Aniyunwiya" has been inserted into the article, but "un" is a folk orthography for "v", the widely accepted transliteration of the nasalized "uh" or "Ꭵ," so this word would be ᎠᏂᏴᏫᏯ or "Indian." -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

From assessment subpage

This article needs a serious re-adjustment before it should be back on the A list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I really agree. Surely the lable "Cherokee" should not be the title of the article but "Tsalagi". The term "Cherokee" should be diverted to "Tsalagi". The reference to Tsalagi should not exist as a footnote to Cherokee. It is derisory. As it stands the article seems quite racist to me. LookingGlass (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The majority of Cherokees use the word "Cherokee" to describe themselves, so I can't see how the use of that word could be construed as being racist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Information on the three Federally recognized tribal entities needs expanded (particularly coverage of the Eastern Band), general editing and organization needed. Aaron Walden

NOTE: I agree with Aaron's assessment of this article, I can add Eastern Band content. Waya sahoni 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC). Also added United Keetoowah Band Info and Article. Waya sahoni 09:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)UPDATE: Cherokee Nation, UKB, and Eastern Band sections broken out and expanded. Waya sahoni 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


The article is too long. Cherokee history and Cherokee military history provide a space for specific historical information; however, after their creation an IP user greatly lengthened the general summaries of history in this article. A great deal of writing remains uncited. The "Acculturation" section should be summarized, with an useful information moved to Cherokee history. The culture section should be a broad overview with specific information moved to Cherokee society (which desperately needs a massive overhaul by someone who is not a New Ager and isn't simply plagiarizing the Cherokee Nation website). Slightly more info about the EBCI and UKB would be good, accompanied by a reduction in info about CN. "Membership controveries" is far too long; perhaps it merits its own article? The Cherokee Freeman section only pertains to the Cherokee Nation, since Cherokee Freedman have not petitioned to join the United Keetoowah Band, so this could be moved to the CN article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 1: Jimi Hendrix

Was Jimi Hendrix an enrolled tribal member or was he self-identified? Odestiny (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-identified, but biographers can back the claim of his maternal side was Cherokee and Choctaw Indian. She and her African-American husband (Jimi's father) in the US armed forces moved to Seattle after the outbreak of WWII. + (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Alexander Cumming

Could this gentleman's nationality be changed please? Cumming was in fact Scottish and not English. To put it into context, it's a bit like describing a Cherokee as being Creek. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Man 68 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 3: Tommy Lee Jones

It is stated that Tommy Lee Jones has Cherokee ancestry from his grandmother (even stated in Wikipedia). Why not mentioning him in the list of approved Cherookees in history? (Unsigned comment above by Lil'Jaguar)

The notable people listed in the Cherokee article are people who lived before the current three tribes were established. Anyone alive today should be either listed in the article about the tribe in which they are enrolled, or, if they aren't enrolled, the List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish encountered Mississippian culture

The Spanish in present-day western North Carolina encountered Mississippian culture villages, not Cherokee, so it is inappropriate to include the 16th c. history as if it were Cherokee. The Mississippians were ancestral to the Muskogean Creek and Siouan Catawba in different areas. The Cherokee later used some of the village sites, but they did not build the mounds.Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Several of the places mentioned in the Pardo chronicles may very well have been Cherokee, at least when you get to the areas where western North Carolina is now. The mountainous areas; Kituwa specifically is mentioned in one place. If you want to get really picky, they didn't encounter Muskogee or Catawba either, since neither of those existed as a tribe at the time. Even as late as the 18th century, society in the Southeast was built around the town. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Pisgah Phase? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Scots section

"In contrast, a large portion of the settlers encroaching on their territories and against whom the Cherokee (and other Indians) took most of their actions were Scots-Irish, Irish from Ulster of Scottish descent, a group which also provided the backbone for the forces of the Revolution (a famous example of a Scots-Irishman doing the reverse is Simon Girty). It is a historical irony that those from a group seen as rebels or "Whigs" back home in the Isles became Tories in the Americas while those from a group now considered one of the most "Tory" in regards to the United Kingdom became Whigs in the Americas." - This section is confusing, first of all it was mainly the Tories (the origin of the word is 'Toraidh', an Irish gaelic word meaning rebel) who supported the Stuart (Jacobite) lineage. Second the Tory and Whig labels are confusing because of the American Whig party, which is not exactly the same thing as the United Kingdom's Whig party. Lastly the statement that 'the settlers encroaching on their territories' were Scots Irish (or Ulster Scots) maybe needs some citation, and the sentence could be clarified somewhat. The historical irony part strikes me as particularly POV, particularly as you infer an entire group of people (Scots, as per section header) to be Whigs and Rebels (the Whigs were a Unionist British Parliamentary party) and the Ulster Scots to be Tories (seemingly used here as a byword for British loyalism). (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the latter assertion, that the Ulster Scots were 'Loyalist' in the British Isles, and 'rebels' in the American Revolutionary war, discounting the fact that the Ulster Scots largely fought against the British Crown at the Battle of the Boyne, however the Scots to whom your refer, including the Highlanders, were largely there in service of the British, not as exiles from Culloden etc. I would suggest this sentence, if it must be included, should be moved to the American Revolutionary war article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Cherokee Influence on Formation of Southern American (English) Accent

I have read that the Cherokee language for example has many of the sounds that are now essential to the Southern American (English) Accent (commonly called the "Southern accent" used today by Whites and Blacks in the American South). Cousins of the Cherokee from the other Five Civilized Tribes are also believed to have influenced this non-indian accent.

Remember that during the early times of European settlement in the American South that Native American tribes were equal or superior in influence to European settlers (with lots of intermarriage) and thus may have helped to shape early Southern American dialect and pronunciation.

Later on the massive influx of West African slaves may had added another layer of influence to various Southern American accents especially since "house slaves" (as opposed to slaves who worked in the fields) played a major role in raising white children. This may have also allowed West African languages to influence Southern American pronunciation and even the use of some words and grammar.

This is not to discount the European influences on the formation of various Southern American dialects, but neither should these non-European influences be left out. (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

African influences on South American English is well documented - I've never heard of Native American influences, and frankly I don't see how that would have happened.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to look at the early stages of European settlement when the Native American population was larger than the European--

Also (especially in the South) there was a great deal of intermarriage between early Scottish settlers and Native Americans that went on for generations.

Before Europeans began to outnumber Native Americans, the relations between Whites and Native peoples were completely different, and although sometimes hostile were usually actually very close relationships.

Later when Whites began to outnumber Indians is when the sustained trouble began.

But by then the Southern American accent had become established (with Native American influences) and new European settlers would assimilate into it. (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP can only include info from reliable published sources, ans such information must be verifiable to other readers. You need to be more specific than "I have read that", otherwise it can't be included in the article. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, new sections go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that citations are needed. But you have to mention the issue before citations can be hunted down (I don't have time to do it all myself).

Sorry about posting on the top of the talk page, I forgot about that rule.

Best, (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'll do some of the search for citations too, but the "Five Civilized Tribes" (all originally Southeastern Native American tribes, since forcibly relocated to Oklahoma) are the tribes thought to be early influenceers of the Southern American accent.

These tribes are all related to each other and include the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek (also called Muskogee), Chikisaw and Seminole. (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from one source (again keep in mind that [for about three generations] there was a lot of mixing between Scotts-Irish settlers in the American South and Southern Native Americans, and it was only later that the most serious troubles began once whites started to outnumber Native Americans, but by then the local English accent had been influenced):

"The "Scots-Irish" dialect of southern English mingled with Cherokee and other Native American languages in a band running from western North Carolina to Oklahoma and East Texas, giving rise to the so-called backwoods, or highlands, southern dialect, which is faster and [more] high-pitched than tidewater southern and more nasal than Appalachian English. Some of the phonological features of the backwoods southern dialects undoubtedly come from Cherokee and other Native American languages. The south was the only area in the East where Native Americans mixed significantly with the whites. This occurred mostly with the poorer whites on the frontier. Substrate features include: nasality, tensing of vowels [e] instead of [E] rather than diphthongization as in Tidewater Southern English."

Here is the source (it's from a college course on linguistics, ) obviously not usable for Wikipedia by itself, but it shows that there is University-level linguistics research behind this view. (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a linguist, I found this new information interesting. However, when I visited the link you provided for the source, I read the whole page which seemed to sum up what I already knew about American dialects. There was nothing anywhere that spoke about a Cherokee or Native American Substrate that affected the Southern Dialects. Just the usual information about West African influence. It could be that this page is class-related and we are nearly 9 months following your posting at this point, so the material for the class may have been changed. I will look more into this because it is interesting to me and report back. (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Tom
Uhm, Tom, apparently you have not really read the whole page attentively, only skimmed it. The quoted sentence is still there, only very far down. There's no need to waste your time going through the text, though – I found the passage immediately simply by using the browser's search function. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Related article to explain "Cherokee princess" descent myths

I suggest to jump on the link to the Circassian beauty talk page, but this is more on the lines of WP:OR with further reading on the subject on Circassian beauties married wealthy white American men in the 19th century. I began to feel the myth on the Cherokee princess was actually a person who makes the claim are possibly descendants from a "Circassian beauty". It traces to another myth on Circassian beauties, who were "harem girls" of the Middle East under the Ottoman Empire, not American Indians and how the Cherkess is mistakenly called "Cherokee" to mean something else. The beauties are Circassians or Cherkess people from the Caucasus mountains, captured by the Ottomans or Russians during the Circassian war of the 1850's and somewhat put into the slave trade in Turkey or Arabia, then bought as slaves by Europeans in North or West Africa, for these women to be sent to America and finally bought by male slave owners to be married & to bear children with. [1] They are a very small number to begin with or were mistaken as "Asian" or "African" peoples, despite the evident ethnic origins of the Circassian/Cherkess population are Central Asian. + (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend to read the Penutian languages article (link provided) and read the subsection on the linguistic origins and hypothesises of Penutian and subrelative Hokan languages are distant relatives to both the Uralic-Altaic and Turkic languages. The possibilities of an Arctic-Eurasian ethnolinguistic link between the Cherokee, Hungarians and Turks, the Siberians, the Inuit and who knows with the Basques and Circassians included in the hypothesis, likewise known as the Cal-Ugrian derived from California and Hungarian. There should be more hard evidence from genetic research to proof of Eurasian travels or migrations into pre-Columbian North America, before one can assume the North American Indian race or languages are related to the Hungarian and Turkish languages. Cal-Ugrian is an unusual term to name the majority of indigenous languages: i.e. Hokan, Penutian, Ute-Aztecan, Athapaskan, Siouan, Algonkian, Chocta-Muskoghean and Iroquoian (Cherokee) spoken in North America, to a macrofamily of peoples spanning halfway the globe, from Circassia in Europe to the Chukchi of Asia to the Cherokee in the Americas. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah, attempts to prove such distant relationships linguistically are pretty much hopeless; historical linguistics struggle enough with reconstructions that reach only a couple of millennia back at best. While improved and more rigorous reconstructions of the ancestral languages of known (and usually largely obvious) language families hold some promise for uncovering even older links, or confirming suspected ones, there are definite limits because it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine inherited relationships and those due to borrowing as well as accidental resemblances at such time depths. Check Penutian languages for perspective, and for the "Cal-Ugrian" proposal. Be that as it may, the point you are bringing up is irrelevant anyway for the IP user's suggestion, namely that the "Cherokee princesses" motif originates in a misunderstanding of the suspiciously similar sounding motif of the "Cherkess/Circassian beauties" in the 19th century (certainly with no connection to prehistory), a suggestion which I find quite astute and credible, and which sounds worth pursuing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Cherokee

I just watched a video about Cherokee people and noticed they pronounced Cherokee like "Churkey" (rhymes with turkey). Could a pronunciation note be added to the article (IPA), as it is with most non-English names? (e.g.ós) I'm sure that's a valuable piece of information for many people. (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (lKj)

I'm sad to see no-one cared to add the pronunciation. Here's another message in hopes that it'll be considered. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Part of why it wasn't added is there no source for the pronunciation. "A video" isn't sufficient for other users to verify it, nor would a single video be sufficient for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
While it's true that we say "Churkey", that's not really a pronunciation. It's like people in the south saying "worsh" instead of "wash". You wouldn't want to tell someone "worsh" was the right pronunciation, even though that's how it's said. Odestiny (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Odestiny, your point makes sense and is mostly true. However, just to be fair, "Churkey" is indeed a pronunciation, lol. I am NOT the original poster, I am just pointing it out. I think the OP has a valid point anyways. Why couldn't it be added as just ONE of the ways the word is said? It is relevant information. Sometimes I get really sick of the Wikipedia source garbage. It always seems like when someone finds a source, it is never good enough. Is a Cherokee Tribe member not a good enough source? Are several Cherokee Tribe members not good enough? What if a group of people are being oppressed and no publications in their area will ever write about them? They will never have sources for anything. So is it ok to just pretend they don't exist or have a valid history or information? It really is one of the BIG problems I have with Wikipedia, it just seems like something is never good enough, unless the Mods or their Pets post it. TheCyndicate-com (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I only just saw this – thank you for pointing this out! How utterly fascinating in light of the above section, to which I just added a comment. If "Churkey" is a popular/dialectal pronunciation of Cherokee (it might well be old, old enough to have been around in the 19th century at least), it is even easier to imagine a confusion of Cherkess and Cherokee(s).
The idea that "worsh" isn't "right" is silly from a descriptive linguistic point of view – it's a dialectal pronunciation, nonstandard certainly, but while it may not be accepted in the standard, it is "correct" in certain varieties of Southern American English. In fact, the pronunciation "worsh" has been around for quite a while, not just a few decades, see Appalachian English, which is believed to be a fairly archaic dialect preserving many old features of Southern American English. This "corrupted" pronunciation could have a venerable pedigree. Who knows, "Churkey" might be quite old, as well, and the "right" pronunciation may actually be a more recent spelling pronunciation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments

The introduction and the "Early culture" section sound a little repetitive in the way they describe the Cherokee's migration to the South. I wonder if there is a better way to rephrase the idea.

In the "Trail of Tears" section, the passage "In 1827, Sequoyah led a delegation of Old Settlers to Washington, D.C. to negotiate for the exchange of Arkansas land for land in Indian Territory." is out of time with respect to the previous section that talks about 1839. This should be fixed.

I would be interested to read more about the Constitutions of the Cherokee nations. I believe it would be a good idea to create an article for that a link it to the "Government" section.

ICE77 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A wide span of 12 years to have the Trail of Tears to build up and occurred by the Cherokee Nation's loss in the US Supreme Court case against the state of Georgia. The Cherokee were moving westward to Arkansas in the 1820's, Texas when it was under Mexican rule (1821-36) and small bands moved north or east across the USA in the 1830's out of concern by forced relocation was a possibility. The comment by ICE77 on the Cherokee shown their acceptance of voluntary relocation into Arkansas (as well into southern Missouri and western Kentucky) is correct. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis shows a relatively large difference between Cherokee and the northern Iroquoian languages. Scholars posit a split between the groups in the distant past, perhaps 3500–3800 years ago.[...] Glottochronology studies suggest the split occurred between about 1,500 and 1,800 BCE.[...]

That's a bit redundant, isn't it? "3500–3800 years ago" and "between about 1,500 and 1,800 BCE" is usually taken to refer to exactly the same period. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable Cherokee case 2: Joaquin Murieta

Same goes to Californio bandit Joaquin Murieta except he has grandparents whose genealogical roots are in Florida (then under Spanish rule) migrated to Chile in the mid 1700's and intermarried with the local population of Spanish origins. Murieta arrived in Hermosillo, Sonora in Mexico in the 1830s in part of his land ownership in Mexican California before the gold rush and the US annexation occurred in 1848 and 1850 respectively. Murieta searched far and wide for his Cherokee Indian roots whom had scattered southward to flee the approaching American settlement in the turn of the 19th century. Even Chiriqui, Panama; and Chile is said to be inhabited by different peoples of "possible" Iroquoian genetic ancestry, perhaps from an ancient migration of nomadic tribes in the Americas had boat ride the shores of the Caribbean sea and Pacific coasts, might resulted in strangely similar name-sounding places "Chiriqui" and "Chile" (Chil-ro-que?), but these tribes were conquered by the Maya, Chibcha and Incas over the course of time. + (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What was written here is a myth, a theory and most of all, the tendency among South American nations to explore their ethnocultural origins. Chileans and Argentines had studied tall tales of their peoples are descendants of Visigoths whom settled northern Spain in the European dark ages, but failed to understand why the Gothic not the Latin element, was never dominant in Castilian or Spanish ethnography. The North Americans in Chile article discussed Anglo-American settlement in the Southern cone of South America, while the main indigenous populations of Chile or Argentina were the Mapuche cannot be identified to have Iroquoian genes and too far removed from any ethnological relationship with Siouan languages. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Only a theory, on the Chilean-Cherokee peoples connection not yet proven and validated by the experts in the field of anthropology. The Aztecs conquered many peoples in central and southern Mexico, while the Olmec and Toltec are the ancestral founding peoples of the Mayan civilizations. Unless the so-called "Lost" descendants in locations too far from the Cherokees' traditional and modern homelands are claiming to be Cherokees without any shred of evidence, they are committing "culture theft" and the 3 federally recognized Cherokee tribes in the U.S. are suspicious of new claims of any Cherokee descent are likely frauds, fallacies and make-believe. "Culture theft" may also be by those whom were erroneously told of part-Cherokee/part-Indian ancestry. In fact, some African-Americans in the Southeast, then some Asian-Americans (the Chinese or Japanese) in the west coast, and post-1850 Irish and Chilean miners in California, Colorado and the Appalachias had to invent that they're Cherokee based on their lighter-skinned ethnic appearance to avoid racial or xenophobic attacks. (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest tribe

Why does both this article and Navajo people claim the title of largest federally recognized tribe? It has to be one or the other, correct? Onopearls (t/c) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Navajo Nation is back to being the single, largest federally recognized tribe, with Cherokee Nation back to being second, but when you add all three Cherokee tribes together they are the largest collective tribe in the US. So maybe the claim should be pulled from this article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
See the 2010 census[2].
First figure is Tribal grouping American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Second figure is two or more tribal groupings reporte
Third figure is American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races and one tribal grouping
Fourth figure the same but more than one tribal grouping
The fifth is a total
Cherokee 284,247 16,216 468,082 50,560 819,105
Navajo 286,731 8,285 32,918 4,195 332,129

Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation response to fake Cherokee/Indian tribes on Youtube

Cherokee Nation: What is a real Indian Nation? What is a fake tribe?

The old but evergrowing problem of fake unrecognized Cherokee tribes have made the CNO produce a video on YT to send a message they don't appreciate non-Cherokees invent fraudulent tribes without a claim of authenticity and have misrepresented real Cherokee culture. + Mike D 26 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee Picture

Doesn't that picture seem to be a misrepresentation of the Cherokee people? Most of those people are mixed at best. The girl at bottom left and the guy at top left look 100% European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Cherokees

Cherokees who live farther north towards Canada were escapees of the "trail of tears" forced marches, and they sought refuge under the British Canadian customs checkpoints. There isn't an exact statistical count of Canadians of Cherokee ancestry, but are thought to be over 100,000. Like Mexico and South America (i.e. Chile), there was speculation of Cherokee descendants in Canada with the US state of Michigan across the Great Lakes or Detroit river separating Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. + (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are literately hundreds of different groups claiming to be "Lost Cherokees" from the Trail of Tears. Without reliable references, it is difficult to take these claims seriously. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
True, the problem lies in the 1813 Cherokee constitution, declared anyone who has at least one Cherokee ancestor is, an official ethnic Cherokee or eligible to join their tribe in word and by law. This is changed after the Trail of Tears migration and the is an organization representing the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians whom want to unite all the world's Cherokee population back to the tribe of their ancestors. The US government has done a disservice to many hundreds and thousands of Cherokee descendants whom have a self-identify and cultural identification being a Cherokee, except it is best to avoid fraudulent cases and speculation of who is a Cherokee. + (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of information, numerous stories and folklore on persons of the Blackfoot-Cherokee admixture of the two tribes whom lived in opposite ends of the country (USA with the Blackfoot partially located in Canada). Either the Blackfoot moved into the Southeastern USA from the Upper Plains or the Cherokee moved farther west or northward, it is known the Blackfoot Cherokee are a chapter in the story of two tribal nations when they supposedly met in the late 18th or 19th century. (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, much more likely, these are two of the best known names for tribes and popular to claim by non-Indians, ala Jamake Highwater -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Moon Eyed People

I'm failing to see how certain wikipedians are so authoritative that all they have to do is assert that something they don't like and don't want mentioned is a "fringe theory", and presto, it automatically becomes a "fringe theory", despite the fact that it's hard to find any scholarly book about the Cherokee that DOESN'T call this a "Cherokee legend", and it's apparently impossible to find any source (other than these same wikipedians) disputing that it is a Cherokee legend. Just how many scholarly sources would it take to convince you? Well since you are no doubt right, it means that no matter how many scholarly sources I come up with, they are all wrong because you know better than anyone else, right? So in other words there is no source anywhere that could convince you. Do you really want to go through this process again or can we please get mediation? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't believe that your claim that all scholarly books (a claim you've made on other pages) mention these moon-eyed people, or even most. I'm looking for sources that show that there are other origins to this story than Barton's colonel's short mention in 1797. I'm also arguing that the brief mentions of this story mean that it is WP:UNDUE here. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely there are, and these are being added to Talk:Moon-eyed people. But even if you could somehow demonstrate without OR that Barton's source is the only origin for all of these, it seems you are still the first person ever to challenge the consensus of scholars that this is a Cherokee legend. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
What is OR is your consensus. You've provided a source that barely mentions it without calling it a legend, an old sign at a state park, and another source I need to look at and doesn't claim a consensus. You added it to Cherokee mythology without sources - surely you know what a myth is? Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you've seen just as well as I have that all the experts who have written about Cherokee folklore have called the "moon eyed people" a bona fide Cherokee legend, including Barbara Mann, Barbara Duncan, Barbara Reimensnyder, Vicki Rozema, Russell Thornton, and Bruce Johansen. You have not got a single solitary source making claims even remotely similar to the Original research arguments you are making, or disputing that it is a bona fide Cherokee legend. You aren't really arguing against me, you are arguing against all the sources. Yet you seem determined to paint this as if I am the one making all this up. I am fully prepared to take this to the next stage of mediation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you'd be expected to give details of your sources there, how about providing them now - you might convince me. Hopefully some of them have recorded oral reports or written Cherokee ones. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
How about instead of setting up yourself as sole judge and jury over the sources, you provide any kind of source backing up even the slightest of your assertions and see if you can convince me? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should this be here at all? A sampling of similar pages shows that this normally isn't included. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I said that above but Til hasn't responded to that. On the legend issue I'm not asserting anything other than that the original source seems to be the 1797 one and that I cannot find any other actual sources in the sense I describe above. Til seems to disagree that oral or written testimony by actual Cherokee might be important if we want to discuss a legend or myth. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several attested variants of the Cherokee legend. The oldest, the 1797 source, only mentions the barest of details. More recent sources by Cherokee studies authors give much more details, attributed to the Cherokee, of several of these variants. One variant has the "moon eyed people" specifically in the area of Fort Mountain, Georgia. That detail cannot be traced to the 1797 mention. Another variant says the "moon eyed people" were located in Ohio, also not traceable to the 1797 mention. Barbara Mann claims this latter version is also supported by a Seneca oral tradition that she was the first to set in writing. There are still other variants, and the scholars who reported on them are all people who studied the Cherokee (I don't know if they include ethnic Cherokee or if that is even relevant but I woud assume so) and they all point to the Cherokee as the source, not to Marbury, or not just to Marbury if they do mention Marbury in support of the existence of the legend. Nobody in academic literature has ever questioned that the Cherokee have such a legend, but Doug is questioning it by using Original research arguments,and no amount of sources will convince him. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually you are getting closer. I'd still like sources I can check. I would like to know what they say and whether what they say should be attributed. I don't understand how the Moon-eyed people who may be the Adena according to one reliable source can be in Georgia at the same time. There are sources that write about the Adena as though they were a real people, not legendary. And this is on the wrong page, it doesn't belong in this article so far as I can tell and you are the only one so far that says it does. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
After the information was deleted from here, I added a link to the article Moon-eyed people as a See Also, so it would not be a total orphan. It also deserves a mention from Cherokee mythology considering anyone researching Cherokee mythology outside of wikipedia will come across this, and it seems heavy handed to insist that no source on the subject attributing this to the Cherokee is good enough for wikipedia when it's in the books about Cherokee mythology. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Til, put up or shut up. Full bibliographic citations, page, chapter, publisher, etc. for all these "experts" you claim exist. Preferably with links to at least an abstract or OCLC listing to prove they are at least real. Until you have that, please stop arguing and wasting bandwidth here. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean now you're arguing that these experts don't exist unless I can "prove" it to you? Are you serious? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is this conversation happening on this article? It's not included in the article, and is just a "see also" link, which seems perfectly acceptable. Bartram's mention of the Moon-Eyed people links it to Cherokee people.—Uyvsdi (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I agree. This conversation belongs at the other article. I'm happy with the see also link. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with moving the conversation over there; Uyvsdi, just so you know, this started, when Til added the link and some narrative to the body text on the origins of the Cherokee, and Doug and I opposed it as a fringe theory. I can live with the see also, though as a fringe theory, and not sure how far down that rabbit hole to go. Montanabw(talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. The article I encountered was cleaned up, so the current versions seem fine. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"William Penn"?

The mustached fellow in the centre of the bottom row is listed as William Penn, linked to the article for the famous Quaker. Given that he died over a century before modern photography, had no Cherokee blood, and looked nothing like that, I'm going to guess it's a different man with the same name? If I had any idea who he was I'd fix the link, but unfortunately I do not. (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the link. God, I truly hate ethnic group photomontages. Apparently whomever put that together didn't actually know who the individuals were. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange theories on the Cherokee tribe's origin

Not the first time I came across web sites claimed to uncover the real origins of the Cherokee. This one states the Cherokee might descended from Indians from India, Phoenicians and biblical Hebrews. The Cherokee are thought to been descendants of ancient aliens, "Atlanteans" from Atlantis, Solutreans or pre-Roman Europeans, east Asians via Mexico after landing in the Pacific coast and west Africans (the Moors from around Morocco, Mauritania and Senegeal). (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


I thought the largest Cherokee population by ethnicity or ancestry was in California, unless the article strictly wants to be relevant in tribal membership of the 3 federally recognized tribes of the Cherokee people. An estimated 600,000 to a million Californians could be or have Cherokee origins, the so-called "Cherokee American" to denote a people with a nationality attached to their self-hyphenated term. (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sticking to enrolled tribal members isn't particularly strict; it's common sense. Self-identification on the US census doesn't really mean anything in terms of Native American heritage. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I agree. Does that help solve the question of which is the largest tribe? Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Eight "Cherokee Communities" associations in CA with an additional two in Oregon are arms of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Cherokee Communities are found in CA's largest cities and metro areas. (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Mexico

I recall a wiki article on them (was since deleted) on the Cherokee Nation of Mexico, but was it verified before on their existence? Here's a web site of them Someone examine them closely and any connections they have with the CNO in the USA. Unless the "discovery" was a downright fraud of some kind, I have no information really on a declaration of the CNM are "fake" Indians. (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article had no sources. This is interesting: [3] so it appears that they have recognition in Mexico but definitely not in the US. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
They have "recognition" by proclmation of the governor of the Mexican state, not legislative recognition by its legislaturem that is all. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take on this project, a good approach might be like the Texas Cherokees article, where the focus is the historical settlement of in Cherokees in Mexico. Several northern Mexican states did provide land grants to Cherokees in the early 19th century and Emmet Starr mentions their land claims. Sequoyah did actually die on the quest to encourage the Mexican Cherokees to reunite with the main group in Indian Territory. (The history I've read doesn't jibe with what's written on the CNM website at all). From their website, no one from the Cherokee Nation of Mexico actually seems to be from Mexico, so they could just be briefly mentioned at the end of the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Once a red link of "Cherokee Mexican American" was on Wikipedia, which was removed because no article was ever written. I'm not surprised there are Mexican-Americans claiming Cherokee descent, such as Selena is a Texan of some Cherokee roots. The subject can be examined before anyone can propose an article on the given subject. (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee indians

All cherokee did not shave their head that was particular a symbol worn by warriors. The Cherokee had long hair down to the ground .The longhair clan took pride in their hair.The cherokee were also dark brown , tan, and olive complexion , the statement on the cherokee page is bias and was recorded among a group of cherokee not all.According to the spanish meeting the cherokee in 1540 they claim we were from negro black to fair complexion all different shades. They also mentioned we looked more middle eastern or east indian.John haywood an amerixan painter in 1800s depicted us with brown , tan ,& olive complexions. To bring it to a hault i would like to say the added description listed on the cherokee wiki would be misleading to our people learning their history or someone from china doing research......cherokee pride our history culture family is all we have left..we need our history to be accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Historicfuture12: Accuracy on Wikipedia is measured, in large part, by the verifiability of the information. What reliable sources do you have both for your information and to contest the sources currently cited in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

my relieable source are from the cherokee nation page timeline which states year 1540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

the first Europeans who encountered the Cherokee were Spaniards their description is skin color ranges from negro black to fair ...this is located on the offical cherokee nations page circa 1540 a.d

here is also another reference this is factual history this description can be found every where.[1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The site does not appear to be a reliable source. At best, it is just copying information from the Cherokee Community of Central California's website. At worst, it's a personal website without editorial review or fact-checking. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
We need to see academic discussion of the original Spanish sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement on the cherokee page is false, as a cherokee member i know my history and the statement clearly states the aniyunwiya/cherokee were just olive, we were tan , dark brown , olive, and lighter. It also falsely claims that all cherokee shaved their heads accept one lock of hair ,Thats false ; the cherokee seen hair as scared especially among the long hair clan which wore their hair down their backs with my different hair styles. Shaving the head and leaving a patch was found among warriors who were freely to do whatever the wanted with their hair this shaving your head thing was not mandortory it was a choice of style. They were also 30 to 50 different cherokee villages and henry timberlake only visited one. heres actual history about the clans on the NCcherokee clans. [8] Historicfuture12 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "I know my history" is, at best, original research. Sources used in articles must be from published reliable sources. As for what's in the article, yes, it's just one source; if there's academic discussion of the Spanish sources as there is of Timberlake's writing, then we can include their observations as well. Also, bear in mind that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources of primary, and the EBCI's tourism website ( is definitely a primary source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, according to Tiberlake's article, his "...Memoirs remains one of the best contemporary accounts of the 18th-century Cherokee." You need to distinguish if you're alleging that his observations were false or if they were limited. If you're saying they are false, provide sources that discredit Timberlake. If you're saying they're limited then we need other academic sources to provide alternate descriptions. --NeilN talk to me 00:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You must have not read the Cherokee NC page which is a primary source which states the Cherokee clans, and proves that Cherokee did not all shave their heads as you see the long hair clan took pride in the hair ...Yes Henry Timberlake's observation is false as he claims (the Cherokee) meaning all shave their heads leaving a patch left. He did not say some Cherokee he said all as well as he said they are olive and middle statue, if you see from Pardo and Moyano Spanish expedition they claim the Cherokee range in many different hues you can also see from famous English-American painter George Catlin which depicts the Cherokee many different shades. I'm floored that you mentioned a primary source isn't valid, that's not a good scholarship or analyses. In any research a " primary source " is the best evidence and you are discrediting facts from the owners of our own history, as im now concerned Wikipedia is not a reliable source which i thought it was. I will definitely make sure I let many people know of the falsehood of many wiki editors as this situation is unacceptable as you can bare witness to the flaws of the statement also with (primary evidence which is a scholars best find) you would know this is you went to a university and you still are debating what is a reference or not. Historicfuture12 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Cherokee NC page is precisely that it is a primary source. There is a risk that a subject will describe itself in a flattering light; that's why primary sources are allowed in limited circumstances. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Too long a quote in the Lead

Aside from the template for block quotes discussion the quote in the Lead is too long, as the Lead is supposed to cover a larger scope of content. That belongs in the body of the article together with other appropriate chronological material.Parkwells (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Stylistically and visually, it's too long a quote for the lede. And as a single account, it's undue weight to give it that much prominence. I think we should move it down to the sections about early contact. - CorbieV 17:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Ignoring the obvious copyright violation, [4] the source flatly says the theory was rejected. Per WP:FRINGE, it has little place in the article. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

it says the theory was rejected because of the Iroquoian theory. as you see i said theory and if it is not such a theory then why is there more then one listed. the same people who believes in the iroquoin theory rejects the theory that we have always been in the the southeast and the same goes for the theory from john haywood that was rejected. the major thing here is to show the varies theories of origin. They are more then 1 ..and as i say again just because it says rejected does not mean all cherokee and others rejects it ,many rejected the iroquoan theory but its still valid in history.Historicfuture12 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Historicfuture12: You had, "In some cases it is stated that John Haywoods' conclusion is rejected...". Do you have sources that indicate any modern scholar accepts Haywoods' theory? --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a Cherokee scholar and studied my culture & history since birth being raised in a Cherokee home i always had a sense of self I begin my journey on my major studies for over 15 years now and i have seen many anthropologist and scholars come up with many theories that inst listed such as migrating from mexico, coming from Atlantis, south America, etc. they are many scholars and anthropologist who also say south and north Asians along with north Africans moors came to ancient America. many Cherokees subscribe to John Haywood's theory also with their own studies what ever they believe to be accurate, I have heard many outlandish ones my self, the thing is John Haywoods theory and study is documented history and holds its place in theory as i say again ( any where in history or modern times if you believe in one theory you reject all others. Yes I said his info was rejected as the others listed on the Cherokee page have been rejected by the next scholar who does his advanced studies. all Cherokee theories have been rejected Historicfuture12 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Historicfuture12: We've been through this before. Your personal knowledge and experiences are not relevant for article content. Articles rely on information previously published in scholarly sources. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand you need a source instead of my own scholarship, but i can show you a post of anthropologist and scholars saying the cherokee migrated from from mexico, so i guess i will post that then...But what im trying to get to you is that all theories of our origin are rejected in order to believe another. You and others are quick to cling on the fact it says it is it was rejected ,even the ones on the page is rejected as well so rejection does not mean its a theory. Juts as Einstein had theories not complete 100 percent fact.Historicfuture12 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The theories that should be presented in the article are those that are the most widely-held by scholars. So, not only would we need to cite the actual theory, but we'd also need to site some journals or similar scholarly sources to show that the theories are (still) widely accepted in the scholarly community. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

show me all these scholars who believe the theories present on the page. (especially that we lived in the great lakes region) man ycherokee dont believe that. show me all these scholars expects for james mooney hes the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicfuture12 (talkcontribs) 22:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicfuture12, look at the other sources in the articles, the way they are put together, and read the links on basic editing we've provided. Read them instead of deleting them. Bare URLs are not proper citations. The fringe opinions you're trying to include are the stuff of fringe websites by those with no connection to the People; they are not the stories preserved by the Elders on the Boundary, CNO or UKB. If you actually have contact with any Elders, you need to go and listen to them. We have Elders looking at this page and commenting privately. - CorbieV 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting. I see we've been given a week's break from Historicfuture12. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Two weeks for this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2014

  • references to Cherokees should be changed to Cherokee as it is both singular and plural.* (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do you have a source that says that 'Cherokees' should not be used? Looking at the official website of the Cherokee nation, they are okay with using it. Cannolis (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors in Cherokee Nation Flag Image--Please Correct or Remove

The image for the Cherokee Nation flag immediately under "Modern Cherokee Tribes" contains an error in the syllabary. As a language-speaker from Tahlequah pointed out to me, "the syllabary says Tsa-ta-gi-hi A-ye-tla (ᏣᏔᎩᎯ ᎠᏰᏝ -- error) instead of Tsa-la-gi-hi A-ye-li (ᏣᎳᎩᎯ ᎠᏰᎵ -- correct)." Consultation of the official Cherokee Nation website confirms this error. This image routinely comes up as the first "hit" for the flag on Google image searches and thus disseminates incorrect representations of Cherokee Nation sovereignty. Recommend removing this image until a correct one can be substituted, either from an open source file or by requesting that image compilers Aaron Walden and jdcollins13 re-compile a correct version of the flag. This applies to the flag and seal on the "Cherokee Nation" page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The original sign for the Tzalagi was the Coiled Asp. Within a consideration of sociological & cultural contexts, it's simple to actually discern that the Cherokee Tribe got slandered terribly during the arrival of what are now referenced the invaders' descendants, or Americans. What is currently referenced as the State of Oklahoma was land apportioned to Tribes of various particular cultures & heritages, & in 1889 the invaders' descendants initiated the Land Run. Separately distinct the context, within the book titled "Myths & Traditions of the Cherokee", it's suggested that the Cherokee had a inter-tribal war, & various of the Tribe separated of their cousins. Truly, there's not a single American Tribe that's actually "Indian", not at all. The invaders' descendants referenced Northern Mayan Tribes were "Indian" of the fact that upon the first arrival of the invaders' descendants, they were lost & thought the land they had arrived to was actually "India". These various historical detriments as well have detrimented global cultural contexts. It's like the Northern Mayans suggest, "Oh well, Gaians. Oh well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunalugi (talkcontribs) 03:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)