User talk:Yuchitown

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

	The Original Barnstar
	Meherrin Indian Tribe is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Dahti Tsetso. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Native American contributor
		The Native American Barnstar is given to the users who contribute cited and balanced content toward articles regarding the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Thank you for your contributions! GenQuest "scribble" 04:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you did on Crow Village Sam, I was really bummed that I couldn't find resources to save it at AfD but I just saw how much work you and others put into saving it and it made me really happy. Your works is important and I look forward to seeing more of it here. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to say thank you for all that you do here. You are apperciated. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuchitown,

I'm seeking your expertise regarding the Wikipedia page for Orangeburg County, South Carolina, particularly the section on Native American entities. There have been recurring edits that inaccurately imply that an unrecognized group is a state or federally recognized tribe by association with a state-recognized special interest group. These edits often incorporated unsubstantiating citations. Despite efforts to maintain the integrity of the section, interested users, presumably associated with the Pine Hill Indian Tribe, persist in making edits.

As I know you are involved in Native American-related pages and have significant experience in this area, I would greatly appreciate your help in maintaining the impartiality of the information presented. Additionally, any advice or measures you might suggest to prevent the insertion of misleading content by interested parties would be appreciated. Thanks! Nativecrusader (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) on the talk page. Let's see if that helps at all. Yuchitown (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that users have resumed making edits to the Orangeburg County, South Carolina page, with the unrecognized group being reinserted into the section. The justification for this reversion is stated as follows:

"Edits by Yuchitown are biased and constitute uneducated attempts to create revisionist history to support an anti-Native American agenda. The citations provided are evidence that Yuchitown deliberately ignores, choosing ignorance over education."

However, the provided sources, as before, do not support this narrative and instead denote the entity as unrecognized, with the Development Initiative classified as a non-governmental organization. It is well-documented that the Pine Hill Tribe was denied state recognition as a tribe on February 17, 2005, as confirmed by the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs through documentation available on the official website of the South Carolina Legislature:

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/HouseLegislativeOversightCommittee/AgencyWebpages/MinorityAffairs/CMA_Native_American_Affairs_Documents.PDF

Any thoughts of how to proceed? Nativecrusader (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the source provided and found that it does not state what the editor that added it claims so I removed the statement. I am not opposed to some of the information, if it is due, being re-added or accurate content on this community initiative being added in an appropriate section. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My "agenda" is fact-based information supported by reliable, secondary, published sources. Nothing I've done on this platforms is against Native Americans. I wish there were a standard warning at wp:warn for misrepresenting source material because I've encountered that a lot and have been told that that is a blockable offense, but there's no way to quickly convey that to an administrator. Yuchitown (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to insert disputed assertions about living people as you did in Martha Redbone, I will move this dispute to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added exact quotes from the individual in question diff. What on earth is the problem with that? And shouldn't this conversation take place on the talk page of that article? Yuchitown (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another attempt to push a very specific POV by making threats if you don't remain quiet. Morbidthoughts, "Shut up and sit down or face retribution" is not a very collegial way to edit. --ARoseWolf 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting those contentious categories based on quotes from some children-oriented bio from Carnegie Hall (not a reliable source) is indeed a BLP violation, introducing both original research and disrupting the WP:WEIGHT of how the one reliable source, the newspaper, actually writes about her. You two both participated in the Norby discussion[1] and know fully well how highly contentious these types of edits are. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts, What I see is you pushing a personal point of view that something sourced doesn't belong in an article and making unfounded accusations. How is it OR to include the literal quotes from the source article? You say Yuchitown placed OR in the article which is a complete falsehood and brings your entire position into question. I am beginning to wonder if you even read the source or just immediately reacted by threatening a fellow editor. What is contentious is your position that your opinion matters over fact, not what is written in a source. What you demonstrate is that sources matter unless you deem it not to. From my viewpoint you are to person pushing OR into the article and hiding behind BLP to push your personal POV and then threaten others when challenged. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said what I've said. You can continue to re-dispute these line of edits at the BLP Noticeboard if you wish. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is code for you just fire aspersions and attacks with no regard for discussion. Yeah, you've made your personal views quite clear. Civility and collegial editing be damned. --ARoseWolf 16:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchitown, I'm so sorry that what I wrote sounded like I was addressing you, rather than the "powers that be" meaning administrators and functionaries who are "concerned" about how active/inactive editors and projects are. I'm the first to admit that I'm a terrible writer, and when I get upset (and I'm mad as heck about how Indigenous people and topics are treated here) I lose focus on how I construct sentences and put together words. I'm rapidly losing faith in the encyclopedia at large because of its colonialist/dominant-culture bias. Please forgive me that it sounded like that was directed at you, it was not. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally fine, and I’m relieved that you didn’t think I was disparaging you or anyone else. The person to whom you were responding to was trying to make the point about not being active. It’s challenging to unravel this discussions. Regarding loosing faith, almost every mainstream English-language carries forward Western hegemony, but the platform should at least follow its own policies. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final ruling in the close review pushed me over the line. I truly admire you both and have for a long time and I thank you for standing up and being counted in these discussions. I am so saddened with this outcome. I know there are ones that simply can not understand what the deal is because they don't know or have the experiences of so many Indigenous people who don't have a voice. And let me say, this is not about activism on Wikipedia. As you pointed out and I drew focus to, the activism was done outside Wiki and now Wikipedia needs to catch up but it never will so long as editors can dismiss reliable sources as irrelevant when those sources don't mirror their personal likes and dislikes. --ARoseWolf 16:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admire you too! I guess I am jaded as hell after a lifetime of observing anti-Indigenous policies and practices — and non-Native people who don’t know about Native issues or want to learn but have decided they are an authority. *But* this platform still needs to follow its own policies. Yuchitown (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admire you both very much as well~! I agree that the ruling on capital "I" really pushed me over the edge. How can Indigenous people be lumped in with rocks and plants? And the accusations that support of Native topics/rights is viewed as NPOV or favoritism. That's just ethically corrupt. And the recent Kade Ferris AfD closed as no consensus per lack of P&G is nuts, esp. when one takes into account all the flimsy articles and drafts with poor citations that get approved at AfC and NPP. But the Native press gets "poo-poo'd" that it was "probably written by a friend". IPNA/IPA topics are held to a different standard of "excellence". I'm still livid that Corbie was doxed/outed at ANI and ARBCOM which put her at a serious personal safety risk, and then they blamed her for it! I agree with ARWolf that this has nothing to do with activism. The problem is the blindness to bias. Sorry for ranting, but enough is enough! OK, I'm gonna go for a swim now to cool down. I'm so grateful for you two fellow editors. Netherzone (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corbie being doxxed irked me too and I was upset that my concern, which actually dealt more with Mark, was perceived as calling for Corbie to be desyoped. Nothing could be further from the truth. Corbie and I had disagreements that sometimes boiled over but we were always reasonable about them in the end. The same for IG. I know I can be stubborn about my perspectives. I know who and what I am. But I admired both of them immensely and I never wanted to be a cause for their departure. We needed them here and their voices are missed. I've tried to take a more vocal role, with regard to Native topics, in preserving what they started as much as I could out of respect for them and my own views. The past month with all the media attention, WPO articles, direct anti-Indigenous bias and failures of Wikipedia to even follow it's own policies have simply showed me that Indigenous voices and those of their allies are not welcome here. I have seen the blatant hostility directed towards each of you at various times and experienced the mocking and dismissive indifference myself and it is sickening to me. --ARoseWolf 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that, @ARoseWolf and I probably was being hyper-sensitive in how I read your message at the time about CV because I felt the tension re: disagreements. I don't mean that as an excuse. Forgive me if I have hurt your feelings in the past; I want you to know I respect you and appreciate your work here. Obviously you were not the cause of CV's departure, it was a cluster-f**k that had nothing to do with you. I too can be stubborn and one of my faults is that I can be overly blunt at times. Thankfully we have a strong project here and many awesome colleagues. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, at first it did confuse and hurt but as I thought about it, I understood why you asked, especially in light of the disagreements we had. I even asked her not to comment on my talk page once. But not long after I came back and apologized. I have always had an internal war between opposite natures. One I was simply born with. The other was developed over time and very much necessary because of where I live and the experiences I have had in life. As I said, I know who I am. I was able to feel your sensitivity and the hurt you were feeling at the time based on your words. So I tried to measure my response to not be accusatory but also to emphatically let you know I wanted CV and IG on the encyclopedia and I recognized their importance to the community, to my own editing. The way they were treated was so horrible in my view that it shook my core. While I don't necessarily agree with all that the Mr. Keeler said in his journal, I found no direct evidence that CV was forced out because she was protecting Native topics from colonial views, the fact is that Keeler was right about Wikipedia bias. I think that much is born out in recent discussions. And how or why CV and IG left is really immaterial to that subject. They are a lost reservoir of knowledge and experiences that Wikipedia, and Native topics in particular, needs. All that to say this. I accepted that you were hurt and I set out to be more vocal in my positions to fill in the gap as much as I could in speaking out against the pervasive bias I saw against Indigenous people and the absurd standard that was set for related topics versus others. --ARoseWolf 11:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this will be kind of long. I was starting to narrow down sources for my first woman for this year's editathon and was trying to decide if she had ever been a US citizen. She died in 1909, so it was a real question for me knowing that the Indian Citizenship Act did not pass until 1924. In trying to uncover her status, I ran across a statement in Cherokee Nation (1794–1907) that I think is definitely wrong, "After allotment of lands to households, all the Cherokee were considered state and United States citizens". No idea where else it might be stated either. The source given says nothing like that. So I went hunting. Denson, pp 162-163 says Cherokee allotments were untaxable even after 1908 amendments to allow title transfers for allottees who were less than 1/2 Cherokee. Any student of Native/US history knows "Indians not taxed" weren't eligible for citizenship or representation, and Tennant gives a history from the Articles of Confederation through Dred Scott, that makes it clear that even giving up tribal membership and paying taxes did not make Indigenous persons eligible for citizenship. Their only path was naturalization or treaty per p. 30. Then I found this, p 220, which says 31 Stat at L 1447, chap. 868 of 3 March 1901, gave US citizenship to "every Indian in Indian Territory". Which is also confirmed here on p. 12. When I went at the question from the state level, I found Weeks p. 168 which unequivocally says, "Black men had something additional at the time of statehood that Indian men did not: U.S. citizenship and the right to vote". So, what I am sure of is that allotment/Oklahoma statehood had nothing to do with the US citizenship status of the Cherokee, but the 1901 statute did. I still can't figure out if the Cherokee got Oklahoma citizenship, in 1907. Do you have any access to sources which might make it clearer? I think I should probably change the statement in the Cherokee Nation article. Your thoughts? Thanks for your consideration. I'll be most grateful for any help. SusunW (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is above my paid grade, and it's all so spotty since many Native people were citizens prior to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (for instance, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader at the time, Charles Curtis (Kaw/Osage/Prairie Band Potawatomi). The 1887 Dawes Act promised U.S citizenship to Native people whose land had been allotted, but this was complicated by the 1906 Burke Act; then Native WWI veterans were granted citizenship in 1919. This essay is helpful, especially around page 134. Yuchitown (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Great source and I appreciate it. It confirms the 1901 grant of US citizenship in Indian Territory. Tatro says that the Burke Act didn't apply to "any Indians in the Indian Territory". Lawson pp 52-53 says that in addition to extending the Dawes Act, the Curtis Act gave Native people the right to vote in local elections, but stripped the tribes of the right to determine who were tribal members. It seems likely that Cherokee Nation members who were not "in Indian Territory" did not receive citizenship in 1901 and may have only received it later if they were veterans or when the 1924 act passed, but in any case, the "After allotment of lands to households, all the Cherokee were considered state and United States citizens" statement is clearly not accurate. Based on all of this, I am going to modify the Cherokee Nation statement. I am loathe to say my woman was an American in the lede, as she was only such by force and for the last 8 years of her life, but someone will likely drive by and put that there. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made suggestions to your draft (which, of course, you can take or leave). She has so many relatives with articles, you could just look at those. Trying to write an essay about citizenship issues at the time seems very off-topic, especially since it's an incredible complex subject that neither of us are experts on (I am not a lawyer or a legal expert). Yuchitown (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. And yes, I was merely compiling my thoughts there before I changed the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907) article. I will move that stuff before I finish her. The way my brain works, I have to resolve the conflicts before I can start writing what I am really trying to write about. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Yuchitown (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved most everything and made changes to both the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907) and Indian Citizenship Act articles. Perhaps I should have also looked at the Curtis Act, Burke Act and Dawes articles, but that takes me down a rabbit hole and I'd really rather just work on Bushyhead, so I am going back to her. Again, I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit holes can be fun or edifying. Yuchitown (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True dat. I finished her, updated her dad's article about his kids, added info to Samuel Houston Mayes and Thomas Buffington's articles and linked her to Alice Brown Davis. If you want to edit Quarels, please feel free. SusunW (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Candice Hopkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Inuit religion, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Cheers, Yuchitown (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one was hard, really, really hard. I used none of the speculative genealogy in the article itself, basing it only on historians' accounts. But, I felt I needed to address the unsubstantiated claims and thus used the article from the Clan Grant Society journal to illustrate those claims in notes. Needless to say, that meant for a lot of explanatory notes. I also was not really sure what should be in Wikivoice or not. If you have time or interest, I would appreciate you looking it over. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of these people, so don't know what I can do here. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. SusunW (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know this song?[2] Cash also sung it but I prefer this version. Brings tears to my eyes. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, never heard that song before. That's cool he was trying to educate the public about Native history, even mentioning Mangas Coloradas. Thank you for sharing! Yuchitown (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did like the mention of him. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Native North America, Vol. 1? Also video about the album. Yuchitown (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yuchitown. A little while ago I left a message for ARoseWolf. I now realise from her User page that she has stepped away from Wikipedia for a while. I don't know the circumstances. I had wondered if she would have a look at a draft page for a Cherokee ethno-musicologist. User:Balance person/Charlotte Heth. As you may possibly remember, my own heritage is very different from Heth's so I fear I may have made blunders. I also contacted SusunW as I am a bit short on references too but she also seems away at the moment. I appreciate that you might be extremely busy and ethno-musicologists may not interest you...but if you had the time to have a read of the draft, I would be grateful for a new pair of eyes on it. No hurry of course from my side. Only if you can. Thanks. Balance person (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. On the Tonkawa article you had added the following:

18:20, 30 October 2024 Yuchitown talk contribs 12,667 bytes +525 →Events: Austin-Tonkawa Friendship Day w/ ref

I'm one of the folks that helped write the City of Austin and Travis County proclamation for that day. This has turned into a bit of a mess. A Mr. Bob O'Dell who is working on a documentary (he's a filmmaker, not historian) about the tribe had already met w/ the newspaper, contacted the mayor et.al., invited the tribe to Austin .. but then later met with us. We immediately discovered historical errors in his work about the Tonkawa camping in Austin in 1842-1844. He was able to correct some of it but not before the news articles were published. After we started research for a historical marker, the more we studied the matter, and discussed with our colleagues at Bastrop County Historical Commission, as well as THC, (and we currently have a query out to the tribe) it became clear Mr. O'Dell had made a number of errors, compounded by speculation that is simply not true. So, the news articles are out there, and Friendship Day did indeed take place. We continue to work w/ O'Dell .. the application for a marker about an 1842-1844 camp has been rejected. We're kind of in damage control. So in addition to your event entry, I added a paragraph w/ a citation to our paper on file w/ Travis County Archives. rdenney (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something's not right, just take it out instead of adding a long explanation to the article space. I originally took the event mention out since it's not significant to a short article about the entire tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the mention of the event, but remove the citation to the news article in lieu of our Travis County Archives article. Sadly the Tonkawa do need recognition -- and the proclamation covered other things that this story of an 1842 camp -- but the filmmaker got carried away with a happy ending to the film rather than the due diligence needed to establish fact from fiction. rdenney (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tonkawa are a sovereign nation with numerous successful business enterprises. A poorly researched film is barely a footnote. Yuchitown (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, did you add that or was it someone else? rdenney (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the mention of the tribal museum and cemeteries. Yuchitown (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]