Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Is an RFC necessary? 2 User: Verklempt 3 problem areas 4 Stealth Editing

[edit] Is an RFC necessary?

User 72.9.70.133 has repeatedly reverted, without comments, to a version that excises sources, and that makes POV and unsourced assertions. This editor's version appears to be a position paper designed to support the group's claim to Indian ancestry. I am proposing that an RFC is called for.Verklempt 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Verklempt

How can you say the source for my National Geographic study does not support the text?

Uuu987 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It says nothing about Pollitzer. It does not say MOWA ancestors crossed the Bering Strait. It quotes a non-expert, and thus does not meet WP:RS.Verklempt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even go to the link? I doubt it because you would see that it says "Chief Long Hair is part of the R1B Haplogroup. His people left Africa and migrated to Asia before heading west to Europe. "The chief's Haplogroup share ancestry with the typical Native American lineages in Central Asia around 40,000 years ago.". Now unless you know another way that they couldve gotten to N. America from Asia without crossing the Bering Strait or you think that the MOWA's elected a non-MOWA as chief then it looks like you are just arguing semantics and in that case it shouldnt be deleted it should be corrected. The fact that it doesnt mention Pollitzer is irrelevant. It seems that you have an affinity for discrediting native american groups on wikipedia. What is your motivation in doing this? Uuu987 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy precludes original research. If it's not in the cite, it has to come out. Please consult WP:OR and WP:RS.Verklempt (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you will agree that it just needs to be edited. If you give me until tomorrow i will have time to edit and correct all the necessary information. Uuu987 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] problem areas

It's been over a week, and still no fixes. Here are the problems:(1)"During the Jim Crow era, this mixed-race population was inaccurately known as "the Cajuns."" The word "inaccurately" is unsourced POV and must come out. (2)"Due to concerns over gaming, leadership from the two neighboring tribes (Poarch Band of Creek Indians and Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians) had petitioned Congress to stop their federal recognition proceedings. Kenneth Carleton, a non-Indian anthropologist employed by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was hired to refute the communities ancestry and used a recycled paper, entitled "Two Racial Islands in Alabama" to attempt to defraud the MOWA Choctaw. This paper has been used time and again over the years by uninformed writers to mislabel the MOWA Choctaw. References for these papers are listed below. Different conclusions concerning the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians can be found by reading the following: They Say the Wind is Red, by Jacqueline Matte with a foreword by renowned Indian author Vine Deloria, Jr., CDIB: Corruption, Deceit, Identity and Bureaucracy in Indian Country, which can be found at www.cdibthebook.com and at the tribes website at www.mowachoctaw.org." This passage requires citations. It is also rife with POV, that either needs to be redacted, or rephrased to make clear who is taking those positions. (3)"However more recent studies referenced above have found conflicting results from Dr. Pollitzers 1977 research." This is unsourced, and must come out.Verklempt (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no response, I've fixed the problems.Verklempt (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the grievances laid out in your above post.Uuu987 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) You've misrepresented the contents of the newspaper article. This is dishonest and cannot remain. (2) You've replicated the argument of a highly POV amateur writer. The Matte book and the tribe's website can be used as sources, but the contents must be presented in compliance with NPOV.Verklempt (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that a news story done by a legitimate Television news station along with genetic testing done by the national geographic society is not a legitimate source. Uuu987 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The tv station itself is legitimate. The first problem is that it quotes a non-expert, who is not a legitimate source. The second problem is that your edit misrepresents what the source reports, and violates WP:RS and WP:OR. The source does not draw the conclusion you attribute to it.Verklempt (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is the non expert that I quote? Because I quote the article and the scientist with the National Geographic Society in the video. Which one is a non expert?Uuu987 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First let's deal with the glaring problem. None of the sources you cite make either of the following conclusions:" test showed that the MOWA Choctaw Indians were in fact a part of the R1B Haplogroup that crossed the Bering Strait from Central Asia 40,000 years ago...This more up to date DNA mapping done by the National Geographic society disproves earlier alleged testing done by Dr. William S. Pollitzer in 1977." Those two sentences must come ut until they can be substantiated.Verklempt (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the problem areas. Now stop nit picking like you seem to do every article thats posted that opposes your viewpoint.Uuu987 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth Editing

User Verklempt has acted in bad faith to remove areas of this article that he previously agreed to leave intact. If further efforts to do so are made I will contact a moderator to address the issue. Uuu987 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That quote must come out. Since the speaker is not named, the speaker's authority is not verifiable.Verklempt (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from reading it, context makes clear that the reporter quotes the genetic report, then gets a personal response from the subject. Are you really reduced to this sort of gotcha politics editing style? ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the quote is unattributed, it is not clear at all who is being quoted, if anybody. For you to infer the speaker's identity would constitute original research. Furthermore, the previous statment indicates that the chief's ancestors went to Europe, not to North America. To leave this crucial fact out is highly POV.Verklempt (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The ability to read for content is not Original Research. Further, I am fully aware of the conflict inherent in the way the two statements juxtapose; and that's a good grounds for inclusion, not exclusion. read it again. His closest ties are 40K years ago in Asia. That discredits the claim of being an indian, not supports it. It's the poor writing of this article, not that report, which needs repair. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the DNA stuff should be in the article at all. The notion that DNA can indicate ethnicity is widely considered to be pseudo-science. My delete of the one sentence was an attempt at compromise, not POV-pushing. Please assume good faith.Verklempt (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Extended edit warring without use of the talk page and absolute hostility when the talk page is used, and i should AGF? really? When you don't even respond to the points made? No,sorry, all out of GF. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with the other guy. Also note that you did not respond to the substantive portion of my comment, and instead engaged in a personal attack. Does that mean I am now justified in assuming a lack of good faith on your part?Verklempt (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)