Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

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)

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):

Note the original says:"His people left Africa and migrated to Asia BEFORE HEADING WEST TO EUROPE...They share ancestry with typical Native American lineages in Central Asia around 40,000 years ago." (emphasis mine). But the fact his people headed west to Europe instead of east to northeast Asia, means they split off from typical Native American lineage 40,000 years ago. They went to Europe and became part of the European Haplogroup, NOT the typical Native American haplogroups. They migrated to North America from the east, not from the west. There were 40,000 years of differentiation between them and the Native American ancestors. Uuu987 did not appear to comprehend the full meaning of the quote. Also, of course the MOWA chief can have MOWA culture without being a MOWA pureblood. Those are two different issues in the US. There have also been other 19th and 20th c. Native American leaders who had European ancestry, some with majority of that. But they grew up in the Native American culture and identified with that. This MOWA chief clearly has some direct-line male European ancestor or ancestors.--Parkwells (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (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)

That quote is misleading - do note that it says 40,000 years ago they shared ancestry. Chief Long Hair's ancestors split from those Native American progenitors 40,000 years ago and made their way to Europe. R1b is concentrated in the British Isles and Europe. It may appear among mixed-race descendants who have other Native American ties, but it is not a haplotype associated with Native Americans before European contact.--Parkwells (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

@ Uuu987 - If nit picking is ensuring an article is factual and not supposition then I'm all for it. Verklempt is absolutely correct. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

@ Verklempt - You had me until you said, "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." That is supposition itself! Whether you believe it or not, it is considered by many a true science. Have a problem with it? Then make an additional statement with citations that says its pseudo-science and let the reader decide for himself. You are not practicing what you're preaching here. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Issues unidentified

An editor has posted numerous banners on the article as of Nov 2009, but has not identified specific issues in the existing article. Much of the talk page discussion refers to issues outstanding before May 2008. The article has been edited since May 2008, and the inaccuracy about the chief's ancestry has been corrected. Numerous citations from valid sources have been added, and the article presents facts about some members' DNA heritage. It also notes the well-documented position that ethnic identity is formed from social interaction, not just bloodlines. It's unclear what the objections are about. It is not up to us to decide if the Choctaw deserve federal recognition, but to note what the issues are, from valid sources. Matte's article is lengthy and anyone attempting to edit this article should read it, as she has much substantive information. There are numerous historical sources that document for decades the presence of people perceived as Choctaw by the majority community. Whether they can satisfy federal standards of showing they acted as an organized community is a different issue affecting federal recognition.--Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues at the stake - The Cajuns of Alabama now called the Mowas (a new term since the tribal leadership decided to attempt to unite the tribal familes under one name - Mobile-Washington County aka MoWa) are not actually of a single tribe and are not all Choctaw. Yes, the people represented are largely of Indian descent but of not just a single tribe but actually of a few tribes. A large part of the pureest Indian lines are from a handful of families who also happen to have intermarried for generations. The sources cited fail to note that all these families of people of Indian descent have been segregated for years and generations. The "Weaver School for Indians" on the "Patillo Road" is listed as one of the earliest examples of a school for the Indian children. Later at the same site, Calcedeaver School was designated for the Indian Children. In the 1970's, the high-school aged Indian children from Calcedeaver were required to attend Citronelle High School. Calcedeaver became an elementary school at or about that time. I am not sure why people now want to say that the Indians are no longer Indians today when they have been segregated and racially denied for generation previously (other than an apparent issue about gaming - and the two tribes that are federally recognized having an issue with the biggest city between them having a more local source of casinos - to the extent they'd hire a corrupt Jack A. to use politics as a tool to deny their sister-tribe of their heritage). I'd wonder which 324 Mowas were examined. Do we need to submit the other 5000+ people who claim descent? It seems the whole tribe is being judged on the account of at least one person and maybe a percentage of the people. Would it service the best interest of the everyone concerned to see the faces of the people people are arbitrarily calling "White" or "Black" or "Mixed"? The fact is there are a few such families who have members much greater than 324 souls that are very much undeniable. The people now calling themselves Mowas have for generations lived outside of both the white and the black nearby communities... after all their race was at issue and they were neither white nor black... They were never treated as either before and yet since federal recognition might bring the idea of casinos with it... other nearby tribes (either of which has members I'd contest as being even near as much as Indian as the Mowa band) have more money and thus are are able to contest their brethren baased on their ability to hire corrupt lobbyists. Darby Weaver (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone contest the fact that the MOWA Choctaw are of indian descent? No. That seems to never have been the issue. Most of the Mowa actually have the physical attributes of their ancestors from the 17th/18th/19th centuries. One of the pictures above posted could very easily be mistaken for a picture of my own father. The issue is and has been that there appears to have been insufficient data/records that were allowed to be presented when the tribe requested Federal Recognition. Now if we talk about blood or even color, the matter becomes more interesting when other tribes of Indians (some of whom seem to be a little pale enough to say fairly that they are just a little diluted from a pure bloodline themselves) have financial interests at stake. If gaming were removed from the table as an issue, there would likely be little to no discrimination of one tribe versus the other. Maybe the bigger issue should be to ban gaming from Indian Reservations altogether. Money can be such a powerful motivator, we might even think to call it evil...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darby Weaver (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV and advertisement tags. Now, a year later, the preceding "comments" still don't address what about the article isn't neutral (it seems to have a fairly NPOV, although I recognize that the "Genetics" seems to be the area of contention for whatever reason). It definitely isn't written in a manner that suggests it as advertisement for the tribe. Altairisfar (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Darby - While I understand what you are trying to say, it just does not wash. You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact. Prove what you're saying and then we can call it a day. The not-so-understood ancestry can be addressed in the article if there is anything which says this, but you have not cited a thing. The only numbers we can attest to, that I can find which are considered to be legitimate are the US Census records of 2000 (2010 doesn't seem to have it... yet), which I mention below in another comment under Title: 3600? Are we sure about that? That Census has a documented number. That Census record tells us 3 things:

1. The federal government (feds) recognizes the MOWA.
2. The feds consider MOWA a branch (or "band") of the Choctaw.
3. The feds are taking into account what the people of MOWA call themselves and your 5k people calling themselves MOWA is way off. In fact, the numbers are actually so much lower that it's rather disconcerting.

I think we can safely remove the personal politics from the subject. Gaming and all of that is only what you believe and again, is not backed up by facts from you. This is not a forum to preach your beliefs. It is a forum about encyclopedic information. If you do have citations then by all means, let's use them. Let's just stop the supposition and restrict ourselves to sourced facts. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 13:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians/Comments

The following was moved by Altairisfar (talk) from Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians/Comments on 4 Oct 2011: According to Proving Your Native American Heritage, the "single most common male haplogroup among current Cherokee tribal members who have tested is R1b". And because of all of the interracial unions between Native American and Caucasians, it's shouldn't be any surprise that white ancestry should show up in the Haplogroup, especially when the Haplogroup test looks at the Y-chromosome which doesn't deviate from among male descendants and it's more likely that Caucasian men married Native Americans woman than the other way around due to the racial attitude that European women were too pure and refined to be 'soiled' by the 'savages'. All it means that Longhair Taylor's Y-chromosomes originated with a white male ancestor. In fact, it's possible for a person 15/16 white and 1/16 Native American to test in the Native American haplogroup if his great-great grandfather was Native American and he had a clear line of male descendants branching out of his lineage.CrossoverManiac (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

European men married into the Cherokee and other Southeastern tribes early on; generally fur traders wanted to strengthen their alliance with a particular tribe and would marry a high status woman. Similarly, the Cherokee and Creek people thought such alliances were strategic for their purposes. Some of their leaders wanted alliances with the Europeans (including English and Scots traders, who were men of capital) and were willing for their daughters to marry them. The children were part of the mother's clan in the matrilineal system, so they had social status in the tribe and would be mentored by their mother's brother(s). As there were prominent Cherokee and Creek chiefs of European paternal ancestry by the early nineteenth century, their descendants became well-established in the tribe. The traders were often the European male ancestors whose DNA shows up in current testing.Parkwells (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to be very biased against the MOWA bands heritage claims. 70% White and 30% Black would leave no room for Indian blood. Besides that, the study was done in the 1970s. It seems unlikely someone would just make up a tribe. Could we get some updated information? Thanks 74.253.4.163 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the Lead

The BIA does not require or use evidence from DNA testing in evaluating petitions from groups seeking recognition as a Native American tribe. One man's DNA testing would not affect tribal recognition. There appears to be confusion about how people identify ethnically and culturally who are of mixed race; they may still identify as culturally Native American, as the MOWA Choctaw claim.Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comments about this article should be placed at Talk:MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Last edited at 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 22:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Are there more than one Cresnay maps?

The article states that the Cresnay map was in 1732. Are we sure about that? From what I've read, it was 1733 and so then the statement which says, "The Choctaw Nation of Indians which were originally discovered..." is called into question since it claims that it happened in 1732. It could simply be a typo or I may be wrong. I just wanted to mention it here for those who understand the material better. Also, is there no copy on Wikimedia of the Cresnay map? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 12:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

3600? Are we sure about that?

This article's infobox says that the total population is 3,600 then has in parenthesis 10k+. Then it says its reference is the Census. Really? What Census? That is not an appropriate reference. When referencing a Census you have to define it such as 2010 United States Federal Census or whatever other census it is. That said, I decided to look up the numbers. I see no record of any census saying there are 3,600. In fact, the 2010 Census does not (that I can find, anyway) even mention the nations one by one. The 2000 US Census says that there are a total of 1,796 MOWA which even includes mixed races. The only reference I can find that lists 3,600 is here and it does not cite where its number comes from. It only cites two sources for the entirety of its article. Should this be fixed or does anyone know where this number originated from? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 12:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yuchitown and ARoseWolf:, do we want to just include the self-id notice, or just remove it altogether? I removed it from Echota. The account is spamming and most likely COI. If it's turning up chronically, we can flag it as unreliable at the notice board as well. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any of the stats. Yes, please be bold and remove spurious content. I'll try to get this article closer attention when I have the time. Thank you, Yuchitown (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Boldly removed the content from the article. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)