Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Whether this tribe exists and is recognized (or not) is not relevant to this Wikipedia deletion discussion. As noted by DGG and others, verifiable, secondary sources discuss this group, and those advocating for deletion have not advanced any argument consistent with deletion policy given the present sourcing. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This page exists solely to support the claims of its fictitious eponymous entity. All claims for its existence are supported by nothing except "original research on the website of the "tribe". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:A lot of good work has gone into this article, by 76.121.154.140, since it was proposed for deletion on 21st December. It is very well researched and mostly well referenced. The Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky are recognised at State and local level, per citations, and qualify as encyclopedic.MarkDask 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the discussion I feel this group is not notable so I'm withdrawing my view to keep. MarkDask 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another reversal - keep as per Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Drmies at bottom of page. MarkDask 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's far from well-researched. The connection to the historical groups mentioned and the current group are not established. The organization is state-recognized but they need to actually do something to merit notability. Clearly the author is involved in the organization, so it's creation is promotional and attempt to confer for validity on the group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

 Question: You say the group is state-recognized. What exactly are they recognized as? Indian tribe? Charity? Club? Political party? NGO? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It's listed as a state-recognized Native American tribe but I can't find anything from the state of Kentucky itself clarifying what they mean by that. I can only find a mention in this article: National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky on the Kentucky Court's website. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
I've searched the Kentucky State Archive website as well. If the nation was recognized by two governors, the last time in 2006, surely something would be available. I don't believe that newsletter counts as a reliable source--I don't believe there is the kind of editorial control one would expect from a reliable source. The article was written by a Family Services Coordinator, and if I had to guess (and we have no other documentation) I'd say that her basis of information was maybe a directory entry somewhere but most of all the SCNK website. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am a secondary author of this article, and not the original author. I stumbled across this article while surfing the net, at he time it was up for deletion. I took an interest in the article because I thought it had historical merit. The article did originally make mention of the Chickamauga Cherokee and other questionable statements, but those sentances have since been extensively deleted or reworded. The citations are all from published books, journals, PDF files and documents previously publish online, and follow the Wikipedia prescribed format. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky does seem to have notability in Kentucky, and the article is informative and objective in nature. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC). I have changed my vote to delete for obvious reasons.[reply]

FYI: Since 76.121.154.140 is not a registered user, 76.121.154.140 doesn't really have a vote. As for the so-called published material which you reference, please see the Wikipedia policy about self-published sources (in short, they are not considered verifiable). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote it is a discussion, and Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). However this does not strike me as in bad faith. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think article is well cited and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubbornbull (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Plese just delete it, you have prooved your point. You have consensus now.[reply]

The "Southern Cherokee Nation" was indeed an idea that Stand Watie had post-Civil War, as a way for him to maintain the position of Principal Chief which he held over the Cherokee Nation after Ross and his partisans fled Indian Territory. However, it was shot down at the conference attended by John Rollin Ridge as Watie's representative. Watie never attempted to establish such an entity and soon returned to the Cherokee Nation. If the governor of Kentucky actually made a proclamation in 1893 and this is not an outright fiction invented by the current entity masquerading by that name, then it was likely also a hoax along the lines of several such hoaxes and exaggerations that popped up with the interest in the Civil War in the 1890's (such as, for example, the fictional "Last Battle of the American Revolution" alleged to have taken place on the foot of Lookout Mountain, a story that was publicly condemned by Teddy Roosevelt himself. It was a hoax by two business men in Chattanooga trying to promote a real estate development. Despite its untruthfulness, the story is still somtimes written about it in local history books and articles as if it were gospel truth. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission Stand Watie was a former Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation (and he was), as he was a Confederate BG, but nowhere does the article mention that he is the Principle Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Although, under article V of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaty the Southern Cherokee residing in the Canadian district under ARTICLE 5., have the following rights:

“The inhabitants electing to reside in the district described in the preceding article (IV) shall have the right to elect all their local officers and judges, and the number of delegates to which by their numbers they may be entitled in any general council to be established in the Indian Territory under the provisions of this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all their local affairs, and to establish all necessary police regulations and rules for the administration of justice in said district, not inconsistent with the constitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided also, That if any such police regulations or rules be adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in said district, or in any other district of the nation, discriminating against the citizens of other districts, are prohibited, and shall be void.”

Additionally, The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma argued that article IV & VII were written for the Southern Cherokee living in the Canadian District. This below link was previously cited, but you persist in your false arguments.

Cause No. 07-5024, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Corrected & Final Initial Brief of Appealant Cherokee Nation, pp. 27 & 28.

http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cherokee-appellant-brief.pdf

The 1893 recognition document is on display at “The Depot” in Henderson, Kentucky and available for public viewing, and was reconfirmed by Governor Fletcher’s proclamation of 2006, and by the City Henderson in 2009. The preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the Southern Cherokee nation of Kentucky. These Cherokee people are obviously known in Henderson, as well as Kentucky, to be who they say they are. Your statements are your own personal opinion (PO) or private point of view (POV). Where are your facts?

Comparing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky to what you believe are hoaxes is a false argument and again deceptive. Whereas, one does not have anthing to do with the other.

You also elect to discredit the article by setting yourself up as a self proclaimed expert of Native American History. I have already seen your comments about other Native American articles written for the Wikipedia, and they are generally negative in nature, and rarely helpful. In some cases you were callous and brutal. You take it upon yourself to single handedly decide who has the right to be represented on the Wikipedia. Purporting yourself to be an expert of Native American History could be construed to be a hoax in of itself. Ask yourself do you have credentials that make you an expert in Native American History? 76.121.154.140 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles I choose to comment on of similar fictitious nature to the one you present here. You do have a right to believe whatever you wish to, but you do not have the right to impose those fantasies on everyone else, nor do the authors of the "articles" on which I commented earlier (I assume you are including my comments about the fictitious Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Proclamations by political figures do not constitute proof of anything, nor do they qualify as verifiable, and in any event for it to be "verifiable" by Wikipedia standards it would have to be published in a written source, one that fits Wikipedia's standards. The one you cite, that the proclamation is on display, amounts to the equivalent of "original researtch". And, simply put, there is no verifiable evidence that the group proclaimed in 2006 has any relation whatsoever to that proclaimed in 1893, if indeed such a thing occured. No newspaper story exists that mentions them, and if the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky were anything more than a local hoax James Mooney would surely have mentioned them in one of his many expert writings on the Cherokee. I submit that the 1893 group was a hoax, and that the current organization calling itself by that name is likewise. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I was not referring to Yahoo Falls, I must have missed that one, as you have many. The 1893 document was previously published by the Kentucky State Government, so therfore not original research. these documents just happen to be on their web site. You obviously have not taken the time to read both documents. Both documents stand alone and support one another. Again more of your rhetoric. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may or may not be such a proclamation hanging on the wall of The Depot, but even if there is it does not constitute publication as Wikipeida understands it, nor does a purely political document such as that constitute "verifiable". By the way, do you realize that removing tags on articles without any discussion or agreement is against Wikipedia policy? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as easly cite the states archives, and will as they were previously published as proclamations. And actually, they are not hanging on a wall, they are in a display case in a museum setting. The administrator previously stated they were genuine, and deleted your tags. You are again just harrassing. There also secondary sources cited, that also recognize these Cherokee people.

National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky By Tara Metts, Family Services Coordinator:

"According to NICWA, there are no federally recognized Native American tribes in Kentucky. However, according to the 2000 US Census, Kentucky has a relatively large urban Native American population; there are about 25,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in the Commonwealth. While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky. The Ridgetop Shawnee was recognized by the State House of the Kentucky General Assembly on February 26, 2009, under HJR-15. The Tribe plans to seek formal recognition in 2010; it is based in Eastern Kentucky." http://courts.ky.gov/aoc/juvenile/recentnewsletter.htm 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned earlier that proclamation by a governor is not the same thing as recognition by the state. The Ridgetop Shawnee, by contrast, were recognized by the Kentucky state legislature. Ms. Metts is a family services counselor, not a lawyer. But she does note that the NICWA only applies to children belonging to or eligible for membership in federally recognized tribes and not to either the "Ridgetop Shawnee" nor to the "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky". Actually, the administrator noticed YOUR deletion of the tags and restored them, with a warning you are about to be in violation of the 3RR rule which will get you blocked from editting any article for 48 hours. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does "recognize two tribes at the state level". The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006." And yes Ms. Metts is not a Lawyer, and she has mis quoted Governor's Brown's letter as a proclamation, when in fact it is actually a Governor's Executive Letter (there is a differenec). Also Notice that Ms. Metts states that the Ridge Top Shawnee will contend for formal recognition later, and does not say that about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, because they were already recognized by Executive Letter in 1893. The legislature did little more than make mention of the Ridge Top Shawnee for protection of Native American grave sites in southeastern KY. They have since incorperated, as they did not get the Governor's recognition. Finally, To be more specific and to the point, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky have formal recognition from the Executive Branch of Kentucky, and that is what the article clearly states. The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission does not recognize tribes within the State of Kentucky, nor does the legislature for that matter (there is no criteria for it). The Kentucky State Governors have been the only ones to do so. The White Cloud Cherokee tribe was also recognized by a Governor, but they are now extinct. Therefore, a precedent does exist for Governors to do so in the State of Kentucky.

As far as the deletions of your tags, the administrator removed them a couple of times already, and you defiantly retagged the article each time. The deletion tag indicates anything below can be edited, I did not know I was in violation. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU, 76.121.154.140, are the one who removed the tags, not some administrator. Throughout this discussion you have been verbally abusive, launched personal attacks, and now you are lying outright. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, 76.121.154.140 is not lying, merely mistaken - it was I who deleted the Hoax tag several times as offensive, but I am not an administrator. MarkDask 15:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have consistently been abrasive from the onset, as indicated on the discusion page, and on this deletion page discussion. I will not take credit for all the deletions. I can agree to be civil, if you can do the same. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a low tolerance for people trying to pass off fiction and fantasy as fact. I have never been disrepectful to you but I am under no obligation to respect your fantasies as truth. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, enough out of both of you. This is an AfD discussion; if you wish to hurl accusations at each other, do it one each other's talk pages--or better yet, don't do it at all. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — exists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seb, where have you found evidence of their existence? I'm trying to read that mess, the reference section, and have yet to find anything useful. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All you have to do is google Cherokee+Kentucky. The article as it is might have a certain POV, or include irrelevant material, but that is not a reason for deletion. After all, we have an article about one man and his boat claiming to be a country. If there are people who doubt the group's legitimacy, then this must certainly be included, with both opposing viewpoints/interpretations of history. If nothing else, you can give it a micronation-infobox. Claiming that this is a "hoax" is outright false: it would be a hoax to say "This is a group which is..." — but that's not what it says. It clearly says "This is a group which claims to be..." By the way, Uyvsdi's !vote strikes me as odd: if they're state-recognized, why would they have to "do" something? Does the state of KY recognize every milk-can that claims to be Indian? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I'll have another look--which is tricky, since the article is a mess. But I'm also asking because of this search, and a book search gives the same result. BTW, I agree, there should be no imperative to "do" anything. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response to Seb: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines would cover any organization, but most federally recognized tribes would pass these with flying colors, since even the smallest of them is mentioned in books, newspapers, and government websites, and they all provide various services to their tribal members. It's more touch and and go with state-recognized tribes, since most don't provide services, own land, own businesses, etc. and most of the internet hits tend to be self-generated (United Houma Nation is one example of a very notable state-recognized tribe; they've been all over the news in the last decade.) Obviously, the SCNK article will stand; however, it needs to be rewritten completely based on verifiable, secondary sources, and it can't be self-promotional. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
*Delete. I believe that there is an organization or a group of people that calls itself "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky." I do not believe that they are notable, based on a few searches. This is one of them. As for one of the references, to The Indian Tribes of North America, not all of that book is online and page 117 certainly is not (currently cited in footnote 20), but this search in that book is telling. Even more telling, perhaps, given some of the claims in the article, is this search on the website of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

This may well be a guy and a boat making a nation, but the difference between Principality of Sealand and this nation is that Sealand generates plenty of reliable hits, and the SCNK has none--not a single one. I don't believe it is a recognized nation, I can't judge the scans of copies of the documents on the organization's website, and it's not notable enough in the press to pass notability guidelines in any other way. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extra, extra: my carefully constructed argument seems to fall apart because of one thing, one hit, this one, on usa.gov--with no information, nothing, only a link to the website. I still don't accept the authority of the nation's website (if only because of its inconsistencies in the historical timeline), but I guess I have no choice but to withdraw my delete vote. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be withdrawing your vote prematurely. I don't know how SCNK got on that page, but it's presence does not constitute government recognition. It may have even been hacked on. The only federal body with authority on tribal recognition is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they recognize three Cherokee tribes as legitimate: the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since all high schools are considered notable per se, all legitmate ethnic groups should be considered notable per se. As far as Native Americans are concerned, those that have state or federal recognition should be notable per se while those that lack recognition should be notable provided that regular notability criteria is met. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had another look at those references and I don't buy any of them. They persistently claim that anything combining 'southern' and 'cherokee' actually add up to 'Southern Cherokee [Nation]', and that doesn't turn out to be correct. In the end, the only thing that is verified is that the USA.gov site lists them. The rest is synthesis: there are no mentions anywhere in the literature of this group. As for Watie and his contemporaries, no connection can be made between them and this group. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudulent groups such as the "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky" are simply that, fraudulent. The SCNK is in no way unique or notable; click on this link and you can get a list of over 200 such groups around the country using some form of Cherokee designation as part of their name: http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/ -- the link is toward the bottom of the page, titled "Fraudulent Groups List". Also, see this: Sovereignty at Risk: Identity Theft, Revisionism, and the Creation of False Tribes (http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/taskforce.cherokee.org/SovereigntyatRisk/tabid/123/Default.aspx). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, yeah, after reading through some stuff, I'm becoming increasingly doubtful as well. We know they exist, we know they make some claims, but... hmm... ponder s'more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foir those who like video: Cherokee Nation: What is a real Indian Nation? What is a fake tribe? http://www.youtube.com/utubecherokee#p/u/0/gp7Z4eiEuaw Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new argument, it was presented earlier in the discussion. The CNO has all Cherokee tribes on their fraud list, including state recognized tribes (it is all inclusive therfore bias). According to the CNO, no one has the right to exist as a Cherokee tribe except the 3 Federally recognized tribes. This discussion has now gone full circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the CNO, according to the federal government. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, The SCNK is recognized as a Cherokee tribe in Kentucky, and therefore is listed on the Federal register as a Tribal entity, along with all the other State and Federally recognized tribes. It does not mean that the SCNK is Federally recognized, or that they hacked the USA Gov web site. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does NOT mean the federal government recognizes it as a legal tribe. The ONLY three federally-recognized tribes I already mentioned. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was never an issue, again you are throwing out "red herrings" trying to divert attention from the fact that the SCNK is recognized by the State of Kentucky. Again the discussion has gone full circle. Nothing new. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "recognition" by any governmental body other than the Congress of the United States or its designated surrogate, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is meaningless. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Wikipedia policy against articles about state recognized tribes. That is not the issue. The issue is limiting the article to information found in reliable, secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
And that is the problem. As far as I can tell, this is the only reliable source for anything, and it says nothing. (I don't have any faith in this.) I've emailed the site, USA.gov, for information; I hope they get back soon. Seriously, an article right now should only say something like "A group calling themselves the Southern Cherokee Nation, Kentucky is listed as a Tribal Government"--and that's based on a primary source. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp, that was my thought also. Make it one or two sentences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chuck, do you want to withdraw this AfD now that the article is manageable, or do you want to wait for someone (God?) to provide proper sources for the two governor statements, and for me to receive an answer (possibly) from USA.gov? Or do you still want this deleted? It doesn't look like you have the votes for that. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for help on this, do not do any more editing until this can be resolved. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'cease or desist' means very little in this forum. Please refrain from re-adding material that a consensus of editors has deemed unverified, unencyclopedic, irrelevant, or otherwise not acceptable. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page, but edit-warring is not a productive way to enforce your will. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments that the article was left with border on slander or worse. I suggest you wait as I have filed a complaint. This more than just about edits. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revert back to an older insert due to the harrassment, slander and ill will I have indured just trying to write a simple article. I want the clean copy back from 2-3 days ago until the dispute resolution folks can take a look at this politcal drama you have you all created. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing clean about that copy. I saw your complaint, and editors there are perfectly capable of going through the history to find 'your' version of the article. In the meantime, it would be wise for you not to undo the work of a number of different editors who have played by the book--Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, for instance. Oh, I don't see what is political here, I don't see harassment, and I don't see slander. If you want to file a real complaint about the behavior of editors, go to WP:ANI--whatever needs resolving might be resolved faster there. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is what it is going to be just blank the page out or delete the page. I'm a retired Army 1sgt with 24 years of military service with a BS degree in Educ and a post grad degree in Equal Opportunity mngt. Thats who I am, and I did not hide behind a handle. I used my IP address for all to see. Please just delete the artcile it has been problamatic from the onset. Thanks! i would like have a clean copy before the editing started about 2 or 3 days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys now have enough "deletes" casted to just delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of principle, I am not going to change my !vote, as I was asked by the IP on my talkpage; it seems s/he is determined to eliminate any potential criticism of the group from the shortened version. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. I didn't do a vote count, but deletion is, in my opinion, prevented by the group's appearance on the USA.gov site. I am not sure about the IP's motivation and don't wish to speculate; I'll put it down to frustration--IP, these things can be difficult to swallow. Please try not to take it personally, though I readily agree that the tone in this AfD has gotten a bit too acerbic at times, and please don't think that your efforts are not welcome: they are. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was 76.121.154.140's initial work that saved this article from the first Afd. I think he is frustrated that all his work has been reduced to three sentences - not that he cant take criticism of the group - to whom I believe he has no allegience. So if the article is kept, it is in some part down to his efforts. MarkDask 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this discussion enlightening: [[1]]. Apparently the Kentucky cabinet denies having any state-recognized tribes in the borders of the state: “The Southern Cherokee do NOT HAVE legislative recognition. They may have a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials but that does not make them legally recognized. The State has NO criteria for recognition.” Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out how that discussion develops--it looks like one editor rehashing and summarizing what others have said, without reference to reliable sources. The article is trimmed and clipped and brought down (almost) to what can be verified, and I think there is at least some consensus on its current content. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I was very frustarted last night, but now realize that my article was an essay, and was not encyclopedic. It would have been better presented in a historical journal with bulletproof references. What is now written is accurate and concise, for the exception of numerous un-encyclopedic comments that were added recently.
  • The below statement is a very misleading statement that is not sourced: "According to the Kentucky state cabinet: “The Southern Cherokee do NOT HAVE legislative recognition. They may have a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials but that does not make them legally recognized. The State has NO criteria for recognition.”[citation needed]"
  • The article is not about "state recognition", it is about the SCNK with some emphasis on recognition from two past Kentucky Governors (actually notable, has it happened before?). Whether the SCNK is legally recognized as a Native American Indian Tribe calls for a legal opinion, and According to the newsletter of the "Kentucky Court of Justice", the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is recognized in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by two past Kentucky Governors. The court must be of the opinion that the SCNK is recognized in the State of Kentucky.
  • Governor John Young Brown's executive letter is not a simple letter of appreciation:
  • It is on Commonwealth letter head and generated from the Executive Department, it is dated December 26, 1893, it has a seal, and it is signed by the Governor himself. The Governor states:
  • "the Commonwealth of Kentucky wishes to welcome the "Southern Cherokee Nation", to our fair state, we recognize the Southern Cherokee Nation as an Indian tribe"
  • The governor speaks for the people of the Commonwealth and recognizes this tribe, and he is not thanking them, for a good deed, as in a letter of appreciation.
  • Governor Ernie Fletcher proclamation of 2006 states:
  • "Whereas, On December 26, 1893 the Southern Cherokee were welcomed to Kentucky and recognized as an Indian tribe by Governor John Y. Brown; and against all odds, the Southern Cherokee have survived, as the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, and have a maintained a nearly extinct culture by continuing to burn their sacred fire in Henderson County"
  • Governor's are far from just public officials, and the Executive Letter and Proclamation are not just letters of appreciation. The way Kentucky chooses to recognize Native American Indian tribes is their prerogative. Respectfully, ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to NICWA, there are no federally recognized Native American tribes in Kentucky. However, according to the 2000 US Census, Kentucky has a relatively large urban Native American population; there are about 25,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in the Commonwealth. While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky. The Ridgetop Shawnee was recognized by the State House of the Kentucky General Assembly on February 26, 2009, under HJR-15. The Tribe plans to seek formal recognition in 2010; it is based in Eastern Kentucky."
  • Chuck is taking information out of context in the below paragraph and applying it to the two tribes mention above that have already been identified as recognized. Both are written by Tara Metts in the same article, but the paragraph below is taking about cultural groups that have not been recognized, while the paragraph above is taking about two tribes that are recognized. Tara metts is actually making a distintion between the two, otherwise they would have all been lumped in one paragraph. Does Chuck do this sort of thing routinely? Please review his recent edits to the article.
  • There are various organizations across the state that observes Native American cultural practices, but none of these organizations have been recognized by the state government. Originally, Kentucky had a rich Native American heritage, comprised of the Shawnee, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Yuchi tribes. However, most Native Americans were forced to leave Kentucky during the Indian Removals of the 1800's. These tribes are not extinct, but they do not live in Kentucky anymore. They were moved to Indian reservations in Oklahoma. Only the descendants of Kentucky Indians who escaped from Removal remain in Kentucky today. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That this is the case is borne out in the fact that Rep. Reginald Meeks, D-Louisville, currently has a bill (HB 44) in the state house to establish a process to grant state recognition to groups claiming to be tribes within the state, filed in November 2010. Rep. Meeks has filed the same bill in the Kentucky house twice before and seen it passed there, only to be shot down in the state Senate."
The statement above is misleading.
  • The Bills in question never went to the floor for a vote in the senate, although they passed the house easly. The verbiage used is "shot down" which is misleading when in fact they just didn't go to the floor for a vote. Kentucky has no legislative criteria to recognize Native American tribes and this remains the case, but past Governor's have done so.
  • The proposed process to recognize tribes in the State of Kentucky:
  • Legislature to pass a bill allowing for recognition of Indian tribes in the State of KY that outlines the criteria for said recognition.
  • Tribes that meet the legislated criteria petition the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission for approval. They vote on the petition to determine if the criteria is met. If a petition is approved by the commission, a recommendation is sent to the Governor to recognize the tribe in queston.
  • If the Governor decides to recognize said tribe, an Executive Letter is cut recognizing the tribe.
  • Note the SCNK already has an Executive Letter of recognition, and the possibility exists they would be grandfathered in.
  • I believe someone is spreading misinformation through the Wikipedia. This person could damage the Wikipedia's reputation. This person is not an expert of Kentucky Native American Politics. Additionally, it is almost like this person is trying to write a politically slanted newspaper article. I believe this person should be stopped from any further edits to the artcle, as all objectivity has been lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE start the new section here. I have blocked IP 76.121.154.140 for disruptive editing. I take no stance on the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author of this article everything I stated is the truth as passed down by my family and you must not want to hear the truth so I am asking you to delete this article!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.154.152 (talk • contribs)
(NOTE: The author posted this at the top of the page, above the headline which screwed it up. If the author of the article wants it deleted, perhaps it should be. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The author of the article probably wants it removed because of the way they are being portrayed in the article. I read what Tara Metts had to say. The Kentucky Justice Department said they were recognized by proclamations, and not by letters of appreciation or by acclamation alone. The definition of proclamation: "A proclamation (Lat. proclamare, to make public by announcement) is an official declaration." On the other hand, "A letter of appreciation, or appreciation letter, is basically a fancy thank you letter, or letter of thanks, that is used for more formal situations such as thanking senior level professionals and/or officials." An "Acclamation" means a loud shout or other demonstration of welcome, goodwill, or approval, but "recognized means" to officially accept that an organization, government, document etc has legal or official authority. The letter I read from Governor Brown acclaimed and recognized. Are these documents from Kentucky Public Relations or The Executive Branch? Are they group or tribe, it says tribe up above. Just shameful. Stubbornbull (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its present form passes WP:V, and is a clear keep, along with all other Indian nations, some of which may also have a somewhat disputed status. The question of its status is discussed in proper NPOV fashion. This is an instance of an editing conflict over ethnicity or nationality resulting in a deletion debate, which is not the way to deal with such. tribes. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that they are not, in fact, a tribe, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is merely one of hundreds of such associations, nearly three hundred of them using some form of Cherokee title alone. Check out State recognized tribes and List of unrecognized tribes if you wish to see what I mean. To give them an article and claim they have notability is akin to saying the East Brainerd Pirates T-ball team is notable and deserves a page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from Chuck - but this article says the Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky are at least acknowledged as existing. You would rather they did not exist - but thats no justification for your desire to censor Wikipedia. MarkDask 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This group never claimed to have state recognition; they only claimed to have been recognized by two past governors. To now say that they are claiming "state recognition based on a couple public relations documents" is a fallacy, or personal opinion where is the proof of that? The newspaper source, The Kentucky Journal, states that they were recognized by Governors Brown & Fletcher and thats it. In fact, none of the sources cited makes that claim. I think it would be fair to say they are seeking formal recognition, if legislation is passed allowing them to do so. However, to say they are claiming state recognition based on a couple of public relations documents is just POV and/or PO, and until a source is cited to back such a statement it goes unsubstantiated begging for a citation. The Govenor's executive recognition was prior to any proposed legislation to recognize NA tribes in Kentucky, and the fact that there is no legislative criteria in Kentucky would still not invalidate recognition from the Executive branch of the government. I did note censoring, particularly of the Tara Metts article posted on the Kentucky Court of Justice web page, that stated the SCNK was state recognized. The Wiki State recognized tribeslist was also edited to exclude the SCNK as a recognized tribe in Kentucky, and then cited as reason to say they are unrecognized: Current revision as of 01:45, 29 January 2011 (edit) (undo) Natty4bumpo (talk | contribs) (→Kentucky) Line 61: Line 61:
Stubbornbull (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they have claimed to be "state-recognized" on numerous occasions and on numerous venues. AAMOF, 76.121.154.145 did so several times above, just to cite the most recent example. If you had read their website before its links became unavailable, you would know that. And have you not seen the article? At the bottom is a link to State recognized tribes placed there by the author; they are no longer listed at the site, however. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Anon above is not noted above as saying any such thing, and an Anon is not the same as a rep of the SCNK, as are broken links. Actually, the Anon only mentioned the Governors recognition without saying they were state recognized. I rechecked the state recognized list, and the last major edit ref KY was by Natty4bumpo. The Journal newspaper article that has been cited makes no claim of state recognition, state recognition is actually disclaimed. That aside, this article needs cleaning up to get rid of a couple of OP/POV statements, and original research. Also a another Wiki article can not be used as citation to prove anything. It would be best, if we just stick to the provable facts.Stubbornbull (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT talking about HERE!!! I'm talking about their official website, several other webpages they have, the official discussion on the previous attempt to have this page elminated. They do and have claimed to be state-recognized. In fact on this page the editor I mentioned refers to the SCNK as sate-recognized on several occasions. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked their web site and they do not say thay are "state recognized". This is what I found on their home page: "In 1893, we were officially welcomed to Kentucky and "Recognized as an Indian tribe" by Governor John Y. Brown. In 2006, Governor Ernie Fletcher paid tribute to the Southern Cherokee Nation for its 114 years of existence in Kentucky." I also checked their chat site and it does not make mention of any type of recognition at all. These are the only two official web sites that they have; they have no control over what others might write. This is an exact quote of one of the sources used to write the article: State Journal Frankfort, KY, February 25, 2009, The city of Henderson, Kentucky has issued a proclamation recognizing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. In Tuesday evening's meeting, the Mayor of Henderson, Thomas E. Davis, read aloud the proclamation which read (in part) "...The Southern Cherokee have existed as a separate tribe since 1835" and "....The Band has contributed to the community....". Further, documentation was shown that "....On December 26th, 1893, the Southern Cherokee were welcomed to Kentucky and recognized as an Indian Tribe by Governor John Y. Brown....". After the reading of the proclamation, the certificate was presented to Michael "Manfox" Buley, the Principal Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. Frankfort's own David L. Fallis, who lives in Springhill Estates, is the Senator and Vice-Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. It is interesting that Kentucky is one of only eight states that does not have a state recognized Indian Tribe. During this Legislative session, their are currently two bills dealing with Native American definition and tribal recognition. Both bills were introduced in the House of Representatives and both were passed overwhelmingly. The bills now rest in the State and Local Government Committee of the Senate. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky continues to live according to tribal culture and currently has over 1,000 members living in several states of the US." There are no claims in this newspaper article about them having claimed state recognition. Actually, their Chief and Vice-Chief are up front about the type of recognition they do have. Again we can not use discussion board info, it is not not reliable, or other Wiki articles as sources. We must always remain impartial, and present a neutral point of view.Stubbornbull (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try their links? If you did, you'd find they no longer work. On several of them they did indeed claim state recognition. One of their members put their name on the list of State recognized tribes. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, in the discussions on a thread of a previous attempt to have this page deleted (a discussion of which I was not a part), several of them claimed in several posts to be state-recognized (see the link above). In its original form, the current page, first written by the "principal chief" of the "tribe", their claim that they are state-recognized was a major argument that they are legitimate. City "recognition" means even less than state "recognition". And yes, since those who have claimed the SCNK is state-recognized here and elsewhere on Wikipedia are members of the SCNK and include "Manfox", we can certainly say that the SCNK claims to be state-recognized. The bill you referred to is Rep. Meeks third attempt; twice before it has passed the state house only to be shot down in the senate, never even making it out of committee. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the old state recognized list dated Mar of 07, and it is just a Wiki discussion, as to who actually placed the SCNK on the old state recognized list is an open question? It may have initially been Swiss Celt, the moderator, based on the proclamations. I have know way of knowing for sure who posted what, or what the links were for, and you don't either. If the SCNK was actually purporting state recognition back in 03/07, they are no longer doing so according to the State Journal Article dtd 2/25/09 that is being used as source for the article. This could be confusing to the reader, if they start comparing the article to what is cited. As of today, the SCNK web site was not alluding to any such thing as state recognition. The thing about Wiki discussion pages is that you don't know who's who, and the info is not verifiable. The 2007 discussion board info is outdated and not useable. The most recent and best source is the State Journal . "The group claims state recognition on the basis of these two public relations proclamations. However, a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials do not make them legally recognized." The foregoing statements are going to require strong inline citations in light of the State Journal article, and the statements are also offering up a legal opinion. Unless you can find a Citation from a verifiable source, it is probably best not to use an old discussion page as a source.Stubbornbull (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a Wikipedia article, my friend, it's a discussion about whether the article should exist. Therefore, talk about "verifiablity" for Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. And for the purposes of this discussion, what was previously discussed is most directly relevant. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can repect what you are saying. However, the article in it's present state can not continue to exist as an impartial encyclopedic work.Stubbornbull (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is notable? Nothing. The group does not merit an article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DGG. That the group does not have a specific form of recognition, but does have another is something that should be dealt with in the text of the article, but is not an absolute determining factor, as nom wishes it to be. We are not an agency of the U.S. Federal government, we can have articles on groups with the Feds don't recognize, but others have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Beyond My Ken. Whether they're Cherokees or whatever, they seem to be there. Peridon (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, nothing. They are no more notable than any of the following: Alabama 1. Cherokee Nation of Alabama, Birmingham, Letter 2/16/99 2. Cherokees of Jackson County, Higdon 3. Cherokees of Northeast Alabama, Birmingham, State Recognized, Letter 9/23/81 4. Cherokees of Northeast Alabama, Collinsville 5. Cherokees of Southeast Alabama, Dothan, State Recognized, Letter, 5/27/88 6. Cherokees of Southeast Alabama, Hoover 7. Cherokee River Indian Community, Moulton, Letter 8/3/00 8. Cherokee Trust, Alexander City 9. Echota Cherokee Nation, Decatur, State Recognized 10. Echota Cherokee Tribe, Birmingham 11. Echota Cherokee of Alabama, Sylacauga 12. Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Maylene 13. Free Cherokees, Eagle Bear Clan, Hamilton 14. Langley Band of Cherokee Indians in the Southeastern United States, Letter 4/15/94, Petitioned 1/11/95 15. North Alabama Cherokees, Creek Path/Willtown District, Scottsboro 16. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Fox Clan, Huntsville 17. United Cherokee Intertribal, Guntersville 18. United Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Daleville 19. United Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Midland City Alaska 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Big Lake 2. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Kenai Arizona 1. Cherokee Family Ties, Mesa Arkansas 1. Arkansas Band of Western Cherokees, Mountain Home, Letter 4/7/98 2. Arkansas River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 3. Buffalo River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 4. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Green Forest 5. Free Cherokees, Helena 6. Free Cherokees, Arkansas Bear Tribe Band, Mountain Home 7. Free Cherokees, Dung Beetle Society, Portland 8. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Band, Hot Springs 9. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas and Missouri, Jonesboro, Letter 2/10/99 10. Neches Tribe-Cherokee Nation, Hot Springs 11. Northern Cherokee Nation, Fayetteville 12. Old Settler Cherokee Nation of Arkansas, Timbo, Letter 9/17/99 13. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri, Melbourne, Letter 10/19/99 14. Western Arkansas Cherokee Tribe, Midway 15. Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Paragould, Letter 5/1/98 16. White River Band of Northern Cherokee Indians, Fayetteville 17. White River band of the Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Waldzon California 1. Ani-Yun-Wiya Society, Bakersfield 2. Cherokees of California, Inc. Marysville 3. Cherokee Seven Clans Council, Bakersfield 4. Free Cherokees, Sutter Creek 5. Running Water Cherokee Indians, Bakersfield 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Buffalo Clan 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Manzanita Band, Redding Colorado 1. Echota Cherokee, Denver Connecticut 1. Free Cherokees, Madison 2. Free Cherokees, Moon Band, Groton 3. Free Cherokees, Snake Band, Oakville Florida 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokees, Bear Clan, DeFuniak Springs 2. E-Chota Cherokee Tribe of Florida, Sneads 3. E-Chota Cherokee Indian Tribe of Florida, DeFuniak Springs 4. Free Cherokees, National Veterans Band, DeLand 5. South Florida Cherokee Band, Bowling Green 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Orlando 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Jacksonville 8. Southeastern Cherokee, Confederacy, Sarasota 9. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sebring 10. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Bear Clan, Orlando 11. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Beaver Clan, Ft. Walton Beach 12. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Blue Clan, Sebring 13. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Crow Band, Ocala 14. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Long Hair Band, Tallahassee 15. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Many Lakes Band, Wachula 16. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Pine Knot Clan, Tarpon 17. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Rattlesnake Band, Bradenton 18. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Turtle Clan, Jacksonville 19. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Wild Potato Clan, Gainesville 20. Southeastern Cherokee and Creek Tribe, Orange Springs 21. Southern Band of Cherokees, Deland 22. Tchlaki Croatan Nation, Pompano 23. Tuscola United Cherokee Tribe of Florida and Alabama, Geneva, Letter 1/19/79, Withdrew 11/24/97 Georgia 1. American Cherokee Confederacy, Leesburg 2. American Cherokee Council, Ochloknee 3. Bird Clan of the Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Albany 4. Cane Break Band of Eastern Cherokees, Dahlonega, Letter 1/9/79, Withdrew 7/16/97 5. Chattahoochee Valley Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 6. Cherokees of Georgia, Hilliard 7. Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council, Scottsdale, State Recognized 8. Cherokee Indians of Georgia, Columbus 9. Cherokee Indians of Georgia Inc., Albany, Letter 8/8/77, Petitioned 6/11/96 10. Chickamauga Cherokee Band of Northwest Georgia, Rossville 11. Dahlonega Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation, Dahlonega 12. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Quitman 13. Free Cherokees, Ball Ground 14. Free Cherokees, Marietta 15. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Band, Cummings 16. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Society, Mableton 17. Free Cherokees, Turtle Clan, Atlanta 18. Free Cherokees of Northwest Georgia, Rossville 19. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Dahlonega, State Recognized, Letter, 1/9/79, Petitioned 2/5/80 20. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Inc., Dawsonville 21. Ossahatchee Creek Band, Etowah District, Southern Cherokee Nation 22. Pearl River Band, Etowah District, Southern Cherokee Nation 23. Southern Band of Cherokees and Creeks, Ellijay 24. Southeast Kituwah Nation, Wayatali Uku, Warner Robins 25. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Adel 26. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Lake Park 27. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Ocklocknee 28. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sylvester 29. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Thomasville 30. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Valdosta 31. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Bird Clan, Waycross 32. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Dear Clan, Quitman 33. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Eagle Clan, Albany 34. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Fire Clan, Macon 35. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Holly Clan, Dearing 36. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Inc., Leesburg, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 37. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Lower Etowah Clan, Rossville 38. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Panther Clan, Bainbridge 39. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Donaldson 40. Southeastern Cherokee Council, Inc., Ochloknee 41. Tugalo Cherokee Tribe, Canton 42. Uganawvkalvgv Kituwah Ayeli, Warner Robbins 43. United Cherokee Nation Idaho 1. Wild Potato Clan of the Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Nampa Indiana 1. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indiana 2. Midwest Cherokee Alliance 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Paint Clan, Rochester Kansas 1. Neosho River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation Kentucky 1. Delilah Whitecloud United Cherokee Indian Tribe of Kentucky 2. Rainbow Cherokees, Frankfort 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Evarts 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Black Wolf and Warrior Society, Wallins Creek Louisiana 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Deer Clan, Farmersville 2. Four Winds Band of Cherokee, State Recognized Maryland 1. Free Cherokees, Mechanicsville 2. Free Cherokee, Bird Clan, Chapitco 3. Free Cherokees, Wild Potato Band, Hollywood Massachusetts 1. Free Cherokees, Eagle Council, Reading 2. Free Cherokees, Wild Potato Band, Feeding Hill Michigan 1. Free Cherokees, National Veterans Band, Holt Mississippi 1. Free Cherokees, Star Hawk Band, Jackson Missouri 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Hannibal, Letter 2/17/95 2. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Deering 3. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Powhatan Clan, Sparta 4. Central Missouri Cherokee Tribe, Centralia 5. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Rockport 6. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Republic, State Recognized 7. Cherokee Nation West, Southern Band of the Eastern Cherokee Indians of Missouri and Arkansas, Seneca, Letter 5/11/98 8. Elk River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 9. Free Cherokees, Dogwood band, Ashland 10. Free Cherokees, Hummingbird Clan, Columbia 11. Missouri River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 12. Northern Cherokee Nation, Independence, State Recognized 13. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians, Columbia, Letter 7/26/85 14. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of Missouri and Arkansas, Clinton 15. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Missouri, Columbia 16. Northern Cherokee Nation of Old Louisiana Territory, Columbia, Letter 2/19/92, Petitioning for State Recognition 17. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri, Alton 18. Sac River and White River Bands of the Chickamauga Indian Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Fair Play, Letter 9/5/91 19. St. Francis River Band of Cherokee Indians 20. Wilderness Tribe of Missouri, Alton, Letter 8/16/99 Nebraska 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Coyote Band, Barnston New Jersey 1. Echota Chickamauga Cherokee Tribe of New Jersey, Irvington 2. Free Cherokees, Osprey Band, Mays Landing New York 1. Free Cherokees, North Hudson 2. Free Cherokees, Deer Council, Brooklyn 3. Free Cherokees, Many Walks Council, Stony Creek 4. Free Cherokees, Wolf Council, Scottsville 5. Mary Trail of Tears Long House, Brooklyn 6. Nuyagi Keetoowah, Inc., New York 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Mastic North Carolina 1. Cherokee Indian Tribe of Robeson and Adjoining Counties, Red Springs, Letter 2/1/79, Ineligible 10/23/89 2. Cherokee Indians of Hoke City, Lumber Bridge, Letter 9/20/83, Ineligible 10/23/89 3. Cherokee-Powhatan Indian Association, Roxboro, Letter 9/7/84 4. Creek-Cherokee Indians, Pine Tree Clan, Cherokee 5. Free Cherokees, Chapel Hill 6. Ridge Band of Cherokees, Ridgecrest 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Cedar Grove 8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Haw River 9. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Silver Cloud Clan, Cedar Grove Ohio 1. Cherokee Delaware Indian Center, Coshocton 2. Cherokee United Intertribal Indian Council 3. Eastern Cherokee Nation, Overhill Band, Columbus 4. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Portsmouth 5. Free Cherokees, Hokshichanklya Band, Creola 6. Ohio Cherokees, West Portsmouth 7. Tallige Cherokee Nation, Fire Clan, Portsmouth, State Recognized Oklahoma 1. Canadian River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 2. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians, Weatherford 3. Northern Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Miami, Letter 9/5/91 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Horse Clan 5. Southern Cherokee Nation, Webber’s Falls Oregon 1. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band of the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Talent, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 2. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Deer Clan, Bend 3. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Paint Clan, Salem 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Medford 5. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Badger Band, Golden Hill 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Paint Band, Salem 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Wolf Band, Phoenix Pennsylvania 1. Inagei Tsalagi, Cherokees of Virginia, Allison Park 2. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy 3. Tsalagi Elohi Cherokee Earth 4. United Cherokee Tribe of West Virginia, Sewickly South Carolina 1. Cherokees of South Carolina, Columbia 2. Free Cherokee-Chickamauga, Chesne Tennessee 1. Cherokees of Lawrence County, Leoma, Letter 9/14/2000 2. Chickamauga Circle of Free Cherokee, Chattanooga 3. Echota Cherokee Tribe 4. Elk Valley Band-Council of Chickamauga Cherokee, Estill 5. Elk Valley Council Band of Free Cherokees, Pigeon Forge 6. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Cleveland, Letter 1/2/91 7. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Pigeon Forge, Letter 12/31/90 8. Faraway Cherokee Association, Memphis 9. Free Cherokees, Grandview 10. Free Cherokees, Chickamaugan Circle, Ooltewah 11. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Society, Grandview 12. Original Cherokee Nation, Chattanooga 13. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Red Clay Inter-Tribal Indian Band, Ooltewah, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 14. Tennessee Band of the Cherokee, Inc., Strawberry Plains 15. Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee, Chickamauga Station 16. Turkeytown Association of the Cherokee, Nashville Texas 1. American Cherokee Tribe of Texas, Lumberton 2. Cherokee Nation of Texas Limited 3. Cherokee Nation of Texas, Tsalagi Nvdagi, Troup 4. Court of the Golden Eagle, His Royal and Imperial Majesty, The Oukah, Emperor of Tsalagi (the Kingdom of Paradise), King of the Upper Cherokees, King of the Middle Cherokees, King of the Lower Cherokees, Keeper of the Ancient Traditions, and Supreme God of the Sun, The Cherokee Nations, Dallas 5. Free Cherokee Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga, Jasper 6. Free Cherokees, Hummingbird Clan, Dallas 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Hawk Clan, Mineral Wells 8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sequoyah Clan, El Paso 9. Southeastern Cherokee Tribe and Associated Bands, Porter 10. Sovereign Cherokee Nation-Tejas, Mesquite, Dallas 11. Texas Band of Cherokee Indians of the Mount Tabor Indian Community 12. Texas Buffalo Bayou Band of Chickamaugan Cherokee, Southern Cherokee Nation 13. Texas Gulf Coast Cherokee and Associated Bands, New Caney Utah 1. Cherokee Indian Descendents Organization of the Ani-Yun-Wiya, Logan 2. Colorado River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 3. Rocky Mountain Band of Cherokee Descendents, Magna Vermont 1. Free Cherokees, Tribal Council, Springfield 2. Green Mountain band of Cherokee, Bristol 3. Sunray Meditation Society, Bristol Virginia 1. Buffalo Ridge Cherokees 2. Cherokees of Virginia, Birdtown 3. Free Cherokees, Spider Clan, Richmond 4. Inagei Tsalagi, Cherokees of Virginia, Rapidan 5. Northern Tsalagi Indian Nation 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Crimora 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Pine Log Clan, Fairfax 8. Turtle Band of Cherokee, Evington 9. United Cherokee Tribe of Virginia, Madison Heights, Letter 8/3/00 West Virginia 1. United Cherokee Tribes of West Virginia Washington 1. Anisahani Blue Clan, Woodland 2. Free Cherokees, Four Directions Council, Toledo 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Haddock/Compton Clan, Vancouver Wisconsin 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the large post, but those of you have been commenting as if this group is in any way legitimate, special, notable, worthy of an article here, or in any way more interesting than a particular group of persons dressing up in Starfleet outfits on the weekends, or a particular group of the Society of Creative Anachronism, or one particular group of "Tolkienists" living the "hobbit" lifestyle in the forests of Kazakhstan, or any one particular group of the recent Jedi religion...need to realize that one particular group of this peculiarly American phenomena is rather inconsequential. However, having their attempts to falsify and steal Cherokee identity validated by Wikipedia is not something inconsequential to the individual citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian, or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Yes, I am an information and truth snob. If something is true, I do not care from whence it comes or whether it tears to bloody shreds any preconceptions I may have about any facet of existence; by contrast, neither I nor Wikipedia are bound to support and uphold the unsupported and untrue fantasies of miniscule groups with pretensions to "being Indian". We have stolen their lands, their cultures, their ways of life; can we not at least leave them their identity? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The truth, the real truth, should be available to everyone, easily accessible, which is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. Too many times, however, persons with agendas not necessarily compatible with the truth have used or attempted to use information in such a way that it misinforms rather than informs. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all interested in the truth here, and that is why we want to write Wikipedia articles in such a way as to be impartial. I can understand your passion for Native Americans, and we must not let our passion for Creator's beautiful people obscure our objectivity. You have a Native heart as I do myself. Maintaining objectivity is a hard thing to do when we are emotionally charged either positive or negative. All that we perceive must be filtered through our personal belief/value system, and that is why we must have a group consensus in anything that we may publish for the Wikipedia. I did some research today, and it seems that the SCNK has a working relationship with three levels of the government. There is the 1) City of Henderson recognition, 2) recognition from two Kentucky State Governors and 3) a listing for them under USA Tribal Governments. I am not sure that the SCNK belongs in the extensive list that has been published above. I do not know who published that list above, or if the list needs to be updated, but sometimes we find sources that that filter nicely through our belief/value system. This is what I found (I did not include the City of Henderson as you already noted the Journal):
  • "Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance Desk Aid". kentucky.gov, 10-20-2010.
  • "Kentucky's Annual Progress and Services Report for FY2010". kentucky.gov.
  • "National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky". kentucky.gov, updated 9-2-2010.
  • USA.GOV "Tribal Governments"
Stubbornbull (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Entry removed by the editor who posted it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • I don't know if I should add anything to the enormous amount of words, most of which not to the point, in this AfD discussion. However, I just received an email from a gsa.gov in response to my query about the inclusion of the 'tribe' on that USA.gov site. Funny--what she had to say about them may have come straight from the wiki article, and the only evidence that verified that the 'tribe' was recognized by the state was the newsletter cited above. She also added that the group was not federally recognized (we knew that already), and that the USA.gov site should be looked at as a portal: "Regarding USA.gov not having information on the tribe, our website is a portal, which helps direct visitors to other websites that they might find useful." In other words, there's no additional info here, and I think it is obvious that inclusion on USA.gov really means nothing--but that train has left the station a long time ago; I merely include this here since I said that I would report back. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the Federal Government places significance, or legal weight to the Kentucky Court of Justice newsletter published by the KY.GOV in 2010, rather than an old newspaper article published by the Kentucky Journal in early in 2008. We may want to think about this.
Stubbornbull (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_Cherokee_Nation_of_Kentucky&oldid=1142609237"