Talk:Moon-eyed people

William Trexel

We don't use self-published books as sources, and in any case an ophthalmologist is neither a historian nor a reliable sourc efor this. His publishers call him "Mr. Trexel" and say "William L. Traxel has researched the literary, archeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence of pre-Columbian visits and settlements in North America for over 20 years. He graduated from Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University, and has a doctorate degree from the University of Michigan. Mr. Traxel is a direct descendant of Squire Boone, the grandfather of the legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone." But if you look at the acknowledgment page of his book on Amazon he signs himself as 'Dr' and thanks the library at Poplar Bluff, Mo. He's actually an Ophthalmologist unless there's another person with the same name in Poplar Bluff.[1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, these are the Adena

[2]. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a conflict in the article - the lede suggests they were encountered in Ohio and might be the Ohio-centered Adena culture. The Legacy section relates them to stone structures found predominantly in the southern Apps, and specifically to one found in Georgia. This may represent the inherent tension between the scholarly archeo/anthro crowd and the hyperdiffusionists, but if so we need to summarize the scholarly material in the body, not just the lede, and we need a fringe-appropriate mention of the other interpretation in the lede and not just the body. Fundamentally, this needs the anthropological work that has been done on these people - the context of the original mention of them and what scholars have made of the expression. Then we can move on to notable speculation (scholarly and otherwise) about who they were and what sites have been attributed with them. I would make a go at it but I have neither the expertise nor the

time. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These are hardly Adena people. Connecting an 18th-century mention from a tribe in western Tennessee/eastern North Carolina to a 2000-year-old group from Ohio and West Virginia is a huge stretch of imagination, unsubstantiated by any archaeological findings. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

James Mooney

James Mooney's History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees says:

"There is a dim hut persistent tradition of a strange white race preceding the Cherokee, some of the stories even going so far as to locate their former settlements and to identify them as the authors of the ancient works found in the country. The earliest reference appears to be that of Barton in 1797, on the Statement of a gentleman whom he quotes as a valuable authority upon the southern tribes. "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." He seems to consider them an albino race.' Haywood, twenty-six years later, says that the invading Cherokee found "white people" near the head of the Little Tennessee, with forts extending thence down the Tennessee as far as Chickamauga creek. He gives the location of three of these forts. The Cherokee made war against them and drove them to the mouth of Big Chickamauga creek, where they entered into a treaty and agreed to remove if permitted to depart in peace. Permission being granted, they abandoned the country. Else-where he speaks of this extirpated white race as having extended into Kentucky and probably also into western Tennessee, according to the concurrent traditions of different tribes. He describes their houses, on what authority is not stated, as having been small circular structures".

Ok. But Haywood is John Haywood (historian), and the source used by Mooney is The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee (1823), an attempt to prove that the native tribes of Tennessee were descendants of ancient Hebrews. But he doesn't mention moon-eyed people.

Barton is Benjamin Smith Barton and he writes "This was communicated to me by Colonel Leonard Marbury, a very intelligent gentleman, who has given me much important information concerning the southern Indians."

This is apparently the source of the story. The issue is, how seriously do we take this and how do we represent it? Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to summarise what these sources say. Of course they are all second or third hand. Indeed there seem to be no actual direct native interviewees quoted. It would be good to know what the Encyclopedia of Appalachia actually says. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we even know that these sources are referring to the same (hypothetical) tribe? This seems like WP:SYNTH to simply assume that the two sources are referring to the exact same thing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Mooney doesn't say that the two are the same. This whole thing is a mess. Til says that virtually every source calls it a legend, but that simply isn't true. Some reliable sources discuss it without using the word legend - at least one says moon-eyed people is another name for Adena and that native Americans want that to be the 'official name'. We need to be careful that we don't conflate different stories, that we don't go beyond the sources, and probably that we attribute the sources. I'd like some reliably sourced comments on Mooney - I've seen anecdotal evidence Native Americans aren't always happy with him but that doesn't mean much as it hasn't been in reliable sources, and it's easy to find anecdotal stuff for almost anything. I'm not saying he's an unreliable source, Til, don't jump down my throat about this comment, just that I don't know much about him. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Salimfadhley that any attempts to identify who the "Moon-Eyed People" were would be WP:SYNTH or original research. The idea that they were Adena people (whose era ended in 200 BCE) is published in Barbara Alice Mann's essay in "Encyclopedia of American Indian History," so her personal theories could be presented as such in this article, but her essay defies all current archaeological research. Mann, an extremely proific writer, self-identifies as an "Ohio Bear Clan Seneca," which seems like a red flag (apparently it's "community-recognized," but not federally or state recognized. Of course there are two Seneca tribes and of course they have a Bear Clan, but they aren't in Ohio). -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I think what we're dealing with is various, not mutually agreeing snippets about a people who predated the Cherokee in their current area. It is only the Barton quote, which is evidently the earliest mention, that calls the people "moon-eyed" and indicates they couldn't see in the day. It's possible an article could be made for the tradition as a whole, but moon-eyed people probably isn't a great title for it. It's also clear that a lot of the subsequent mentions are heavily influenced by the "Welsh Indians" and Madoc stories and that probably should be mentioned. One variant that Mooney seems to have missed, is John Sevier's letter, currently described in the Madoc article where it's cited to Gwynn A. Williams. That one is attributed to Oconostota but it's very clearly tied to the Welsh Indians myth.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Although "Welsh Indians" currently links here, which I feel is pushing a POV, this isn't the "Welsh Indians" article. We would probably require some source by a scholar explicitly connecting Sevier's letter with the "Moon-eyed people". If no source ever has, that sounds like OR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected Welsh Indians back to Madoc where they're described in much more detail. Williams connects Sevier's account to the supposed Cherokee traditions of an earlier people who predated them, though not (as far as I can recall) to Barton's "moon-eyed people" specifically. That's really a problem with our article rather than the sources; Barton is the only early source using that description though there are obviously several accounts of a mythical preexisting people.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Williams also connects Sevier's account to the Welsh Indians legend (it's explicit in the text itself) and also specifically gives it as an example of the Euro-American legends influencing the Indian tradition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's plausible Williams is referring to some form derived from the same legend, but that's a SYNTH assumption if she doesn't make any claim about the "Moon Eyed people". Does anyone else connect Sevier with the "Moon Eyed People" or claim Sevier mentioned them? And I'm not seeing all the sources referencing Barton. Some do, in support of this being a Cherokee legend, and some others do not mention Barton at all, while still attributing this directly to the Cherokee, including studies on Cherokee oral traditions more recent than Barton's. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few other places that do connect Sevier's account with Barton's "moon-eyed people", but you're not hearing me: Barton's account is just one version, and it's the only early account that uses the phrase "moon-eyed people". Williams does connect Sevier's account to the ostensible Cherokee story. It's our problem that we're using the term for the title of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohio, or "Southern Highlands" ?

The wikipedia article says these people would have lived in Ohio before the Cherokee moved there. Something about this sounds dubious to me, since the Cherokee were never recorded as living in Ohio at any known point in history. The image of the plaque marker, if you zoom in on the text, puts them in the "Southern Highlands". This makes a lot more sense to me, because the Cherokee were indeed historically recorded as living in the Southern Highlands. What is the thought process locating this in Ohio I wonder? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I truly wonder if there has never been in recorded history of Cherokee living in OHIO, then how is it my family lived in Clinton, OH since the MID 1700's .. We are direct Cherokee descendants! My Grandmother Mary Elizabeth PEACEMAKER was born in 1906 in Maine. 75% Cherokee.. My Great Grandparents moved to PA with the rest of their relatives & then my Grandmother moved to the Clinton, Oh. area with her siblings.. In fact, the Peacemakers helped in building the 10 railways that DID ran through Clinton (until here recently) & they also helped build the little village of Clinton, Ohio. In 1972-73 my mother and her husband bought what used to be the Motel. My neighbors to the left of us owned the Whore House & in 1974-75, my Uncle Rodney bought the original train depo/post office that was built in the 1700's.. I was researching Blue eyed Cherokee Native Americans, I was trying to found out where the Blue-eyes that speckled in our family tree,came from when 95% of us are Brown-eyed. (Never heard of the MOON-people, but that does clear a few questions) All this info is easily obtainable on.......... Ancestry just look up Peacemaker. Clinton Oh. user:1crzy8ball

That was my reading of a source quoting Barton. He may be mistaken, or, more likely, I may have misread it. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in footnote 3. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Barbara Mann set some Seneca Iroquois oral traditions down in writing, that were published by the University of Toledo in 2006: "Land of the Three Miamis". In it, she alludes to Cherokee legends of the "Moon-Eyed People" as inhabiting what is now Ohio, and also states that there is disagreement among Cherokee tradition keepers as to whether the Cherokee had killed these people off, or intermarried with them. She says that the term "Moon Eyed People" means (in her words) "astronomers who kept close track of the night sky from their circle and effigy mounds." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mooney maintained Cherokees lived in Ohio, but his theory has not held up to 20th and 21st century archaeology. As mentioned above I strongly question Barbara Mann's credibility, although she is an extremely prolific writer. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I am so relieved to see that we have finally attracted someone who seems to know more about this subject. I agree with you above that the connection between the Adena and the Moon-eyes is shaky and relies on Mann and Johansen, but I was hesitant about making that point. I think Mann has also covered the Fort Mountain angle in some of her works. Some of her work does seem to have citations by peers and be academically published, and in the long run that may be more relevant to our guidelines than her ethnicity, but it would not be too surprising if some sources have indeed challenged her on those grounds. Would you be able to confirm for any skeptics that other major scholars on Cherokee folklore have also included this? I listed them as Barbara Duncan, Barbara Reimensnyder, Vicki Rozema, and Russell Thornton, and have already quoted some of them on this page, which apparently wasn't good enough for reasons not entirely clear to me. This doesn't even include the seemingly hundreds of easily accessible state histories and local histories who also describe this well known "Cherokee legend". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is the original information from Barton and then everyone else referring to and speculating on his original mention. But they are written about enough to establish notability. I'm not seeing the problem with the current article as is (with no wild stories of Welsh Indians). To be perfectly honest, I heard about the Moon-Eyed people from mom (don't worry, I'm not presenting her as a reliable academic source) who said they moved west and were encountered by the Kiowa, but I can't find anything published to verify that. I'll ask her tomorrow what other names, such as Kiowa names, they might be known by, which might yield more sources. This article seems similar to the Si-Te-Cah article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lol. That article was a mess before I looked for sources. Chinese whispers anyone? And that's what seems to have happened here although so far as I can see no one has actually researched and published on this history of the discussion of the moon-eyed people. I don't understand where Mann gets her information from (note she is referring to them as real people, no mention of legend so far as I know). Or the bit about Indians in Ohio wanting the Adena to be called the moon-eyed people, maybe your mom can find out about that? Til's claim about all or virtually all reliable sources calling this a legend fails when you look at the sources - some simply treat them as another group of Indians, others insist they are white/Welsh etc, some call them folklore, some a Cherokee legend. I can't find anything by Johansen by the way, only by Mann in 2 books Johansen edited. Thornton is another writer who does not refer to this as a legend - he calls it a tradition but is basing this on Mooney (who by the way took the Walum Olum to be genuine. Thornton only devotes one sentence to them in The Cherokees: A Population History. I can't find what Barbara Duncan says about them. And why in the world is Til adding Barbara Reimensnyder as though she's a separate source? Barbara Reimensnyder is Barbara Reimensnyder Duncan. You can see why I'm asking Til for details, not just names. Ah, found it. Cherokee heritage trails guidebook - Page 317 Barbara R. Duncan, Brett H. Riggs, Blue Ridge Heritage Initiative ... "Some stories claim that the wall's builders were "moon- eyed people" or even Welshmen led by Prince Modoc, as though the Cherokees lacked the technology for building a"[3]. So does that look as though Barbara Duncan is calling this a legend? Looks to me as though she's throwing cold water on it. Til, please explain why you have Barbara Duncan as a source for this being a legend or whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One problem is you are making up too many rules as you go along in order to "raise the bar impossibly high". Where do you get your authoroty to do so? Any author who is not native can be disqualified by you on grounds of not being native, and you insist on a source that is native. When it turns out some of these authors are native they can be disqualified on grounds that YOU don't understand where they get their information from. When I say the sources call this a Cherokee legend, the key word I am arguing is "Cherokee", not "legend". Some call it a story, a myth, a tradition, or as the original Barton put it, "the Cheerake tell us". They all attribute the tale to the Cherokee but you want to argue originally that the Cherokee really have no such tale, an argument that apparently no scholar in recorded history has ever before made, and part of your reasoning is because even though none of the sources fail to attribute the tale to the Cherokee, not all of them have used the specific word "legend" to describe the tale but rather some other synonym, or simply "the Cheerake tell us". This is a specious and facetious argument, because you are insisting that the source must use the exact word "legend" to deny the fact that they all attribute the tale, narrative, whatever to the Cherokee. And in fact many of them do use the word "legend" but they are still disqualified by you on some other grounds.

I did not realize Barbara Reimensnyder and Barbara Duncan may be the same person, you have indeed uncovered something there I was not aware of. This does not logically change the fact that she is a Cherokee scholar who solidly attributes this tale to the Cherokee, precisely what you are demanding, but predictably, when one is found, your superior knowledge and authority once again over-rules all published material on the subject.

Uyvnsdi, I have collected several academic sources that give alternate native names for the "moon eyed people" that may help your searches. These include authors who say the Moon Eyed people of Cherokee legend are known as the "Nickajackie" and "Yunwi Tsudi" or "Yunwi Tsusdi". Sources disagree on whether the "Yunwi Tsudi / Tsusdi" are the same as the legendary "Moon Eyed people" or have been confused with the "Nunnehi" or "Little people", another legendary race of Cherokee folklore. I don't know if there's any point in arguing any more with people here who want to pretend this isn't an actual Cherokee legend, insinuating that Colonel Marbury was mistaken or lying. I realize the real ulterior motive is because a few sources happen to have mentioned this stuff in the same breath with "Madoc", and anything daring to mention "Madoc" must be tarred and impugned for all time, ignored then laughed at, stabbed with their steely knives and finally dropped in the memory hole as much as humanly possible according to a certain school of thought that enjoys some afficionadoes here. So the real logical error here is "guilt by association". (i.e. Madoc is "guilty" of not existing or not being allowed to be mentioned, therefore anything else that has ever been associated by anyone with Madoc, is likewise guilty in the same way according to the law of damnatio memoriae.) Experience has shown they will pull out all the stops and appeal to their own superior personal wiki-expertise to over-rule as many published academic sources as it takes to achieve this, it's that important to them, although why I'm not sure; the original Cherokee legend may well have had nothing whatsoever to do with the Prince Madoc stuff. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Yunwi Tsudi" appears to be exclusively linked to Little People, which every tribe has accounts of (and is the sort of thing I try to avoid writing about on Wikipedia—plenty of stuff doesn't belong on the internet). -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Did you catch this assertion from an academic source attributing the "moon-eyed people" to "Cherokee tradition"? It also includes a few other tidbits on the version that has the Cherokee being partly descended from them rather than killing them all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cherokee tradition asserts that as the yunwi, the people, approached the "mountains of the rising sun", they encountered on the western slopes of the Appalachian Mountains people called the Chickamauga, or "big spear people". Their rulers were called nickajackie, which means "moon-eyed people" or "they who eye the Moon," or "Moon watchers." After a great drought and war, the yunwi and the chickamauga merged to become the aniyunwiya, "the real people" or "principal people"." Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture Volume XIV, 1999 p. 123, University of Texas Press.

I'm glad you traced down the nickajackie mention - I saw that and asked someone (Steve McCluskie) for the article but he hasn't responded. Who's the author? I wondered if Steve was. Is there any clue where this different version of the story came from? I couldn't find another source for nickajackie but there must be one. Nickajack on the other hand - "generally refers to the rugged Appalachian foothills in eastern Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. In Old Frontiers, John P. Brown states that "Nickajack" is a corruption of the Cherokee ᎠᏂ ᎫᏌᏘ Ᏹ ("Ani-Kusati-yi"), which he says means Coosa Town but more likely means Koasati Town". Vicki Rozema[4] also says it means "Ani-Kusati-yi" which she says means "Creek people place." That's quite a different interpretation which at least for me is confusing.

I'm busy and not reading all the posts here - and will probably take a break soon. I found [5] yesterday - not a reliable source but it quotes an astronomer, John Burgess, who seems to be a RS for Archaeoastronomy, as saying the Cherokee "“have a tribal legend that their ancestors displaced a race of moon-eyed people. “In the Cherokee language, moon-eyed could also be translated as moon watching. If those early Indians were interested in astronomy, they may well have built the wall.”

I have absolutely no reason to suggest that Marbury was mistaken or lying although I guess there is a possiblity that if Marbury was translating Cherokee he got the word wrong. The Madoc thing is a bit of a sideshow and can be dealt with. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee Legend

Nearly every published source ever written about the Cherokee agrees that this is a "Cherokee legend". (Search google books for [Cherokee "moon-eyed"] - a lot of them don't use the string 'moon-eyed people' but rather 'moon-eyed race', etc.) So all the sources including the Cherokee themselves are clearly in agreement that this is a Cherokee tradition. Now we have wikipedians who are openly arguing that it is NOT a Cherokee legend, simply because they can identify the first time it was written down, and they seemingly wish to suggest a novel argument that this means the original report is erroneous and somehow begat all the other mentions of the legend, therefore it is NOT a Cherokee legend. This is typical of what happens on wikipedia. However, let the facts state that there is NO published source whatsoever anywhere making such an argument that this is "NOT a Cherokee legend". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? "nearly every published source about the Cherokee mention "moon-eyed"? That's simply not the case. And how can anyone possibly know that "there is NO published source whatsoever anywhere making such an argument that this is "NOT a Cherokee legend". I searched and although some sources mention moon-eyed people I can't find anyone tracking this down to a Cherokee source for it. Now clearly I might have missed something, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a Cherokee saying it's a legend - but that doesn't make it one. It may be, I simply can't find any evidence yet. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well surely the burden is on you to back up your assertion that it's not a Cherokee legend with a source explicitly making that claim, not OR. And I know these sources include the main books about the Cherokee because I've read most of them. So if no scholar to treat this has ever before hit upon what you're arguing, I say we should not be the place to debut it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up, Til. (OK, to be fair, Doug, it's hard to prove a negative, but show us a definitive Cherokee history where they are NOT mentioned) Where are the peer-reviewed historical studies by respected historians who have studied the Cherokee culture and are experts on the Cherokee people? As far as I can tell, this is just more stuff on the various "white people were here before Columbus" legends that are interesting, but other than Vinland are wholly unproven. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, never mind the search I suggested for Google Books. Let's go another step higher and see if it's on Google Scholar, then see if you're smarter than all these sources. [6]

Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't include the word legend. And even without it, you get "the mule was moon eyed", a book by an opthalmalogist, a book of ghost stories, etc. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So what? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for some unpublishable original research, a Muscogee-Cherokee-Delaware-Natchez cultural historian says they were most likely another tribe that migrated away, could be known as the aniso'i, had "big bug eyes," and not very much else is known about them. —Uyvsdi (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• FYI Mooney, James (1902). Myths of the Cherokee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 22–3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) at Internet Archive 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are aware that this book is already cited in the article? It just mentions the Barton book in a few words. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The question is one of notability, and this is just one more brick in the wall. You are now aware that this was from the official annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And as I commented at the AfD, it was a 1902 report, back when the US Govt was still grave-robbing in the name of research. And it only repeats the original claim. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You just make yourself look foolish with comments like that. If you were aware that's it's alrteady cited (added by me), then there was no need to mention it here is there? And it doesn't add to notability, if it's already there, and we know perfectly well where it came from back in 1902. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I WP:AGF, and would not dignify your needless breach of WP:Civil with further comment. If you added it, you did the article a service. However, the more robust citation that I added helped explain its significance. In any event, the addition was not directed at you, but might call to the attention of other editors a change that they might have overlooked. {:>})> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First scholarly source: What does Southern anthropological society proceedings, Issue 23 say?

Barbara Reimensnyder spent much of her life learning Cherokee traditions firsthand from the Cherokee. In Southern anthropological society proceedings, Issue 23, Univeristy of Georgia Press 1990, she writes of this in her article "Cherokee Sacred Sites in the Appalachians" and mentions many of their traditions as learned firsthand, including the moon-eyed people.

"For thousands of years the Cherokee have lived in the Appalachians. For them the earth was and is alive: water, stones, mist, fire. Everything is alive and everything is sacred. In the mountains, over several thousand years, they found places that were special for spiritual reasons. They found doorways to the spiritual world; they found monsters and moon-eyed people; they found places to avoid, like the Nantahala Gorge; they found the places where sacred plants grew; plants used for healing and ceremonies; and they found places where spirits would..."

No doubt you will argue that this is worthless because "passing mentions don't count for anything" or some such, but really you seem determined to rewrite the scholars and flush Cherokee traditions down the memory hole by any means possible, according to your superior knowledge of the "truth" and your original research expert analysis in judgement of any sources you don;t like. So, we will find more than "passing mentions" in a few other sources, and see if the pattern continues of "raising the bar impossibly high". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I don't know the truth. But yes, this is just a passing mention with no discussion. Seriously, if you can find something that actually shows that shows an origin that isn't Barton's Colonel , great, I'll be happy with it. But so far I can't find any suggestion from reliable sources that it doesn't. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days so I may not be able to take much part in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And to spell it out, despite your claim that "it's hard to find any scholarly book about the Cherokee that DOESN'T call this a "Cherokee legend"" (modified from "all"), your first source doesn't call it a legend or myth. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The words 'legend' or 'myth' might not appear in that selection... but also if you notice, mentioning them in the same breath with "monsters" certainly doesn't help the argument that it is not a 'legend' or 'myth' does it?

Would everyone be careful to sign their posts? Was the one above by Til or Doug??...Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Next Source: Footsteps of the Cherokees

This is an excellent firsthand book of much Cherokee lore, and I have my own copy on my bookshelf. Like several other scholars, Vicky Rozema mentions that there is the Cherokee tradition that the ancient wall at Fort Mountain State Park was built by the "moon eyed people". All of these scholars could not have gotten that detail from the 1797 report that was the first mention of "moon eyed people".

"The origin of the 855-foot-long rock wall that gives this mountain its name is clouded in mystery," she writes [I bet Doug can tell us exactly where it came from, he seems to know everything about everything!] "One local legend says it was built by a fair-skinned, moon-eyed race of people who once inhabited the region. According to Cherokee legend, when the Cherokees moved into the area north of Fort Mountain between the Little Tennessee River and the Chickamauga region, they displaced a pale-skinned, moon-eyed race.

Vicky Rozema is one of the foremost Cherokee historians who has written several books on Cherokee history. Of course, that too can be easily discounted, all we have to do is assume that we are smarter than she is and know more about it, and therefore she is a suspect source. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be following the time tested method of ignoring everything you can't pick apart, pretending you didn't see it, and focusing instead on the ones that are easier for you to pick apart. Am I right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Statements on a tourism marker are hardly going to qualify as RS. And if you look at your "foremost ... historian" argument, it doesn't hold water: She wrote three books, all published by an alternative publisher that admits that they publish works "not of the scholarly nature the press was publishing..." and of a quirky nature. Here, an extraordinary anthropological claim requires extraordinary evidence, and you have yet to provide ANY citations to reliable sources, peer reviewed literature, or anything linking the legend of Madoc to the Cherokee or "white Indian" material. Maybe someone claims a local legend, but even your quote above is "one local legend," hardly a ringing endorsement. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to stoop so low as to attack the publisher and the author just because you, as a wikipedian editor, don't like something she says, you're running out of ideas, take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and get their consensus, and cite some guideline (not an essay), please. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til, this is called WP:RS. You have surely heard of it. Insulting editors for using policy suggests you are running out of ideas. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

State Historical Marker

Here is the State Historical Marker that is already pictured in the article text. It reads:

Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People

While some legends equate the moon-eyed people withe the descendants of Prince Madoc, Cherokee legends tell of the moon-eyed people that inhabited the Southern Highlands before they arrived. These people are said to have been unable to see during certain phases of the moon. During one of these phases, the Creek people annihilated the race. Some believe these moon-eyed people built the fortifications on this mountain.

Other versions of the Cherokee legend tell about people with fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes that occupied the mountain areas until Cherokee invaders finally dispersed them. Some tales said the moon-eyed people could see in the dark, but were nearly blind in daylight. Other legends describe them as albinos.

Delaware Indian legend tells of their migration eastward from the far west and meeting a race of very tall, robust, light-skinned people they called the Allegewi, until they prevailed with the support of the Iroquois, who were also moving eastward. Some surviving Allegewi went to Cherokee territory and stayed with them for a time and are remembered as Tlvni Kula, "moon eyed" people, who were tall, fair-skinned, with light hair and grey eyes, and carried strange weapons and tools.

So, the Park Service Historians who researched the legend for this State Historical Marker, were also familiar with the Cherokee legends. I know, I know, they don't count, because these historians didn't have the benefit of being among the Wise Wikipedians Who Can Discern the Truth of all Things, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So where are these other legends? The marker also says "Legend attributes three stone forts to Prince Madoc's people." So that's a Cherokee legend also? And we can use the plaque as a source for it? Sources for a legend about the "Tlvni Kula"? You said almost all sources mention these moon-eyed people and now y you come up with an old state marker written by - ah, you say a Park historian. I assume you can source this, maybe give us his/her name? And you claimed this wasn't fringe yet this marker is clearly fringe. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Prince Madoc is not stated to be part of the Cherokee legend, and if you read carefully enough, you will not see me nor the source stating it is. Illogical red herring there. But why can't we use the plaque as a source? Oh that's right, anything mentioning "Madoc" is declared to be automatically "fringe" according to Doug Weller's rules, right? If not, could you please elaborate on why any source is automatica lly disqualified and assumed to be "fringe" if and because it mentions "Madoc"? Because I think I must be missing something by failing to see your point of view here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The first line says "Welsh and Cherokee legends coincide here on Fort Mountain." So this bit about the Forts is either being described as a Welsh legend or a Cherokee legend, and so far as I know no one has said there is a Welsh legend about forts here. You know as wel as I do that the paque doesn't meet our criteria for a reliable source to show this is a Cherokee legend, and you are ducking my questions. Ironically, while I simply don't think we should label this a Cherokee myth or legend(and am not trying to add text saying it is not one), you are the one who thinks they know the "truth" and trying to label this a legend or myth. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely a Cherokee legend, because the consensus among scholars is that it is a Cherokee legend, no scholar has ever argued that it is not a bona fide Cherokee legend, and you are the first individual ever AFAICT to insinuate that it is not, or to come up with a novel OR argument to cast aspersions on it being a Cherokee legend. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that the first mention of these people doesn't say it is a legend or myth isn't casting aspersions. So far your scholarly sources are one that mentions it in a list and doesn't call it a legend, a sign in a state park, and Vicky Rozema who I missed. I'll take a look at her later. It's up to you to demonstrate a consensus though, and so far you've come nowhere close. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to be making up all the rules as you go along, you seem to be making them awfully easy on yourself. You aren't required to have any source at all to attack the notion that it is a Cherokee legend. (Obviously there are no sources doing so). All you have to do is stigmatize each and every source that talks about this with your glorious opinion, and your original research theory that it is not a Cherokee legend but was invented by Marbury (something no source has ever stated) is supposed to stick "because you say so". Plus you have several times accused me here and in the "fringe" page of being the one to make up the idea that it is a "Cherokee legend" out of my own head. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did write "You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see" at FTN. Please show me the several times where I'fe accused you of making up the idea it's a Cherokee egend out of your own head. And I really don't understand your lack of interest in finding any Cherokee sources that this is a legend, a myth, part of their folklore, etc. I can't find any reliable sources that give a source other than Mooney or Barton or one derived from them. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On FTN did you not write "Let's see who actually calls it a legend - it isn't called a legend in 1797, so that bit is flat-out wrong, it's a label attached by Til." ??? So that means I am the one making up the idea that this is a "legend"? And the important thing about all these sources is that they all point to the same tribe, namely the "Cherokee", for this story, not whether or not they call it by the exact word "legend" or some other phrase. The 1797 source identifies the Cherokee as the source. The Anthropological journal clearly identifies the Cherokee as the source. What kind of a "Cherokee source" are you looking for, what would it take to satisfy you? It seems everything claiming the Cherokee are the source (i.e. everything ever written on the "Moon eyed people") has already been stigmatized as dubious by your skepticism that the Cherokee are valid to say what their own traditions are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure I wrote that. It was about adding "According to one Cherokee legend first attested in 1797" to Cherokee mythology. It was not attested as a legend in the 1797 source which doesn't use the word legend or myth, etc, that's a lable you added. That's your proof that I "several times accused me here and in the "fringe"? One misrepresented or misunderstood statement by me? Legends are passed down either orally or in writing, right? And where orally, they are written down by researchers who if they are doing their job report where, when, and who. If written down, we have written sources from the people whose legend it is. What's wrong with requiring this standard? Is this something to do with your disagreement with science (although this isn't exactly science) in other fields? Legends are also usually more than just this short report. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still pushing your original research notion that all the copious references to this legend in literature are derived from a single source, not to mention your original research notion that the original source is untrustworthy, and therefore all the experts on the Cherokee who have written about this are wrong and you are right. Please try to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with what you perceive to be my views on science. Clearly we are going to have to pursue some form of mediation or arbitration here: you sir do not get to rewrite Cherokee folklore because you "don't like it." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And I don't want to rewrite anything, I'm interested in the Cherokee sources - if there are any. I don't know if Marbury is trustworthy or untrustworthy - how could I and how could anyone? As I've just written at Talk:Cherokee, I think that oral or written testimony by actual Cherokee is important if we want to discuss a legend or myth. I can't see why you object to that. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since most Cherokee legends would be oral, and would have been part of their oral tradition, there won't be many sources. I recognize that they were the first Native American tribe to have their own written language, but finding that material, if it included discussion about the moon-eyed people, will be problematical at best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was extensive contact between the Cherokee and Europeans in the 18th century, and there are many written accounts of Cherokee culture. If this was an important legend, it likely would have been documented. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Even so, the Cherokee had lots of other legends beside this one, that they never revealed too much about to outsiders, from what I've heard, even some known only to elders and not most Cherokee. And if they did get written down, sometimes there was a historical tendency to repress the accounts from seeing light. So this one is surprisingly well attested, but just not enough to satisfy everyone, it seems. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At the AfD you said whole chapters have been written about this. I asked for sources for these chapters, and you replied "Perhaps you have not google-searched very hard; entire chapters have been written about the moon-eyed people legend. It's more a case of nothing is good enough for you when you're personally determined to see a bit of somebody else's culture disappear from wikipedia-land, although anyone wishing to know about the Moon-eyed people can still find abundant sources from just about anywhere else. Once again, it seems you would rather they get their reliable info on this from elsewhere rather than from us". These personal attacks are tiresome and I don't see why I should have to put up with them, and it seems entirely irresponsible to make claims about sources that you won't produce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That was addressed to Salimfadhley; I didn't realize he was your associate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til, as I have said before, go find the sources. Elsewhere I phrased it "put up or shut up." You have not done so, as noted above, you have produced one book from a publisher that admits it does not do peer-reviewed material and even that material contains a lot of qualifying language. It is you who are pushing the edges of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to fringe levels to promote a POV agenda, which, apparently, is to prove the Madoc legend. Your evidence is insufficient, so far. Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL Trying to prove the Madoc legend? That is the biggest load of nonsense I've seen here yet! Get a grip... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have no interest in proving the so-called Madoc legend or some other thing about white people being there before the Cherokee? I thought that was your agenda, if I was mistaken, my apologies. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. But I have no interest in "proving" anything of the sort, and no agenda but to keep content in line with the sources, free of WP:BIAS, and WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say that this might at one time have been a well known legend. However because it was so well known, it was never really mentioned, except in passing, since it was assumed that people would remember it, but nobody did.--Auric talk 22:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Is this topic even notable? I've reviewed the sources and none of them amount to any significant coverage. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the real question to be asking here. After a pretty considerable amount of time and effort no one has turned up any sources that give more than passing mentions of this legend. It looks to me that it may be a snippet of an authentic 18th-century Cherokee tradition about the people who predated them, that was later influenced by the "Welsh Indians" and Madoc legends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not particularly notable, but since it has made its way onto state historical markers, Wikipedia might as well provide proper sources for the "fact," which is that Barton says the Cherokee had a myth. Perhaps the whole term should just redirect to Barton. I added citations. I also revised and moved a segment from the Fort Mountain page (where all of this probably began) and put it here, as more related to this subject. This was probably a citation before the earlier reference to Barton was found, and may not be needed. I'm just hesitant to go in and delete citations. Moved section:

• Two early histories published after Barton's work mention the term "moon-eyed people." Both Ezekial Sanford's History of the United States Before the Revolution and B.R. Carroll's Historical Collections of South Carolina cite James Adair (historian), perhaps erroneously, in attributing the term "moon-eyed people" to Cherokee tradition. CohuttaBlue (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC) CohuttaBlue (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Sean Mosley - removed again, self-published author of How To Start A Night Club For Under $500

Perhaps it's the chapter in this self-published book that Til was referring to. I've again deleted it = it's a self-published book by 'Booktango'[7] and his other books aren't exactly convincing me he's a reliable source. Besides other ghost books (why would we think a writer of books on ghosts was a reliable source for this?) he's written How To Start A Night Club For Under $500[8], How To Know God: In 5 Easy Chapters, True Erotic Stories: Volume 3, and Sex After Marriage for Christian Women. I am seriously interested in why anyone would think we should use this source.[9] Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a guideline, or perhaps allow the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to consider your verdict? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I found WP:SELFPUB. It's a shame his research is counted worthless because it's self published, because he does so a fine job of distancing this well known legend from that awful Madoc business, it's simply horrid. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We agree about the Madoc business. You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well if you haven't or haven't read it for a long time. Might save some arguments. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Haywood

I think we need to be careful about Mooney's reference to Haywood's work ([10]). The latter is very confusing, drawing all kinds of parallels among Mexicans, Hindus, and Hebrews and jumping around in time and from one tribe to another. However, the specific text in question (p. 234) seems to be referring to a recent Cherokee migration, after 1623, and not an ancient one. Later on the same page he explicitly refers to a French presence. Throughout the book, he uses the phrase "white people" to refer to European-derived colonials and not ancient tribes. Further, he appears to be drawing anthropological similarities among the Cherokees and other groups, including the Hebrews, but not suggesting a group of ancient Hebrew "white people" in America. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mooney does say "The Cherokees found white people near the head of Little Tennessee" (p. 234) as Mooney describes. However, Mooney doesn't get into all that stuff about supposed Hebrew origins, though he does say Mooney cites no authority for his claim that the "white people" lived in round houses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what Haywood says (pp. 233-4):

"The historical fact seems to be established, that the people from the north overran and exterminated the aborigines. Before the year 1690, the Cherokees, who were once settled on the Appomattox river, and in the neighbourhood of Monticello, left their former abodes and came to the west. . . . The probability is, that migration took place about or soon after the year 1623, . . . . They came to New river and made a temporary settlement, and also on the head of Holston. But owing to the enmity of the northern Indians they removed in a short time to the Little Tennessee, to a place now called the middle settlements. . . . The Cherokees found white people near the head of Little Tennessee, who had forts from thence down the Tennessee river to the mouth of Chicamauga. They had a fort at Pumpkintown, one at Fox Taylor's reserve near Hamilton courthouse, and one on Big Chicamauga, about twenty miles above its mouth. The Cherokees waged war against them, and drove them to the mouth of Big Chicamauga, where they entered into a treaty, by which they agreed to depart the country, if the Cherokees would permit them to do so in peace ; which they did. Mr. Brown, a Scotchman, came into the Cherokee nation in the year 1761, and settled on the Hiwassee river, or near it. He saw on the Hiwassee and Tennessee, remains of old forts, about which were hoes, axes, guns, and other metallic utensils. The Indians of that time told him, that the French had formerly been there, and built those forts. When the Cherokees first came to the country, they found no Indians, but great appearance of the country having been once inhabited."

Note several things: the people from the north are not the Cherokee, the Cherokee migration and hence their interaction with the white people is placed in the Colonial era, the juxtaposition of Mr. Brown's account with what came before clearly implies that Haywood thought his French were the white people of the prior sentences, that Haywood mentions that the forts were scattered with guns, and other metallic utensils, and that the Cherokees found no Indians. I don't see how this can be construed as representing a race of white Indians, as Mooney has done. I think it best we take this in mind when referring to Mooney's use of Haywood, and either balance it by making it clear that Mooney was not necessarily interpreting Haywood correctly (which may require a certain degree of WP:IAR to pass muster as it relies in part on WP:OR), or else remove the part about Mooney's reference to Haywood entirely. Mooney deserves no better treatment than a modern fringe author misinterpreting a primary source to serve his own alternative history, except that much of the modern writing on Barton and Haywood is filtered through his unreliable intermediary. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought our job as editors was to faithfully represent what sources say, not come up with our own creative counter-rebuttal arguments. That said, I can tell you Haywood's version of Cherokee history above is "out to lunch" compared to what I understand of Cherokee history from reliable sources. There is no record of the Cherokee having lived on either the Appomattox nor at Monticello before 1623 or at any time, and no record of them migrating from anywhere to anywhere else in 1623. The closest we have to information on their whereabouts is De Soto's expedition that in 1541 found the "Chalaque" in fairly close to the area where the Eastern Cherokee still are today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When Haywood says they ran into French with guns, and found no Indians, and Mooney reads this as 'they found a race of white Indians', it is hardly a creative counter-rebuttal to point out this disparity. Our job is to represent what reliable sources say, not just whatever source we happen to like, and particularly not when the source we like is butchering their sources so blatantly. Yes, Haywood's history of the Cherokee is out to lunch, and Mooney's description of Haywood is equally out to lunch. They are both worthless and here we are highlighting Mooney's butchering of Haywood's butchering of history as if it has some special significance in revealing who the moon-eyed people were. Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think you're definitely right. Haywood is obviously talking post-contact. However, I don't know that Mooney is specifying a time frame for the Cherokee encounter with the mystery white people or calling them "white Indians". His purpose in that section is to describe the "early dwelling places" of the Cherokee and their coming into the Apps, which was post-contact. And FWIW Haywood does say directly that the white people built the "forts", and then immediately goes on to describe the mounds and former houses in the area, which at least suggests he may have intended that they built those too. Of course all of this would have been long before the 1790s, so the events would have had plenty of time to enter the tradition and become corrupted into the versions Mooney's two Cherokee informants give. I'm not sure how much he's really misreading.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting possibility (that we could never include in the article unless someone published on it) - that a group of French that the Cherokees had chased out in the 1630s could by the 1790s have been turned into the 'moon-eyed people'. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be here either, per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM... And there wouldn't be any source since there is no indication the French were anywhere near the Cherokee in 1630! That is Haywood's raving which is quite unhistorical. Both the French and the Cherokee would have recorded such an encounter and the Jesuit Relations are a complete record of French exploration; they hadn't even got as far as the Ohio River until ca. 1680. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So Haywood is raving mad, yet you take us to task for discussing the reliability of Mooney, who depended on Haywood? As to the Jesuits, contrary to all the conspiracy theories, they were not an all-pervasive organization, everywhere, keeping "complete records" of everything that happened. A discussion that addresses the verifiability and accuracy of what appears in this page is not a violation of policy, any more than claims of all-seeing, all-knowing Jesuits. Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, please show me where I have said anything about Mooney whatsoever, don't misrepresent me. And everybody who know this subject knows that JR is what we've got as our primary primary source on French exploration in the 17th century. And if you really want to speculate on this, find a blog. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We were talking about the reliability of Mooney. You are taking us to task. Ergo . . . . If you want to talk about the all-seeing Jesuits, why don't you take it to a blog. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you even following the conversation? I have studiously refrained from expressing any opinion on Mooney this way or that to date. I am only "taking you to task" for suggesting a hypothesis involving French-Cherokee contact in the 1630s, which any historian will tell you is quite impossible. I really don't care what anyone's opinion is of the Jesuits, I just know that they happen to be the "go-to" source for historians who research where the French were at any given time, and they disprove your conjectures which would really be better suited to a blog anyway, since with that we have moved way past any actual sourceable material for Moon-eyed people. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you following it? You are making an argument from absence and claiming that it disproves something. For that to be the case, the Jesuits would have to be all-knowing, pervasive and infallible, yet you claim to not care about the Jesuits. Likewise, with one hand you are saying that discussion on the whole subject should not be taking place while with the other you are making arguments as part of that same supposedly inappropriate discussion. Which is it? No, don't answer, it would just continue this pointless exchange. Agricolae (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, if you want to argue a new theory that the French could have visited the Cherokee country in the 1630s, wonderful, but this isn't the place to do it. No historian worth his salt would agree to such a thing. It is well known that no white man ever even saw the Ohio River until La Salle, decades later. No Englishman had even crossed west of the Blue Ridge until 1679. Only the Spanish had ever penetrated that far, from the South, in the mid 1500s. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. I don't want to argue a new theory. You keep arguing against one. Agricolae (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. My only point with that comment is that I don't think Mooney is necessarily misreading Haywood. Haywood can be wrong or totally confusing and still offer an early instance of a tradition, historical or otherwise, that there were mysterious "white people" in the area predating the Cherokee, which is all that Mooney is saying.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, flipping through the work, it does appear that in other cases Haywood describes some "aborigines" as having white skin and being of a different race than the Indians of his day, for instance on p. 191. In others he attributes the building of structures to whites (whether or not he considered this pre- or post-Columbian).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where Haywood "white people" in Tennessee, the specific text quoted by Mooney, he is talking about French. He then goes on to discuss the "former inhabitants" who built the mounds and the round houses, and it is not at all clear he is still talking about the 'white people' driven out, or the mound-builders he had discussed earlier. However on 161 he does have every appearance of believing in a race of white aboriginals since extirpated. The real take-home message is that Haywood is a mess, and Mooney is problematic in his representation of the relationship between the moon-eyed people and the people Haywood is describing as being driven out of Tennessee. It's a house of cards and we need to be very careful in how much credence we give any of it. Agricolae (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like OR central. "Of course all of this would have been long before the 1790s, so the events would have had plenty of time to enter the tradition and become corrupted..." Sources please, not speculations. Why are we doing research here, this isn't wikiversity!? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the rules of Wikipedia that prohibit discussions on the Talk page of the relative reliability (or lack thereof) of a source cited in the article, and the weight that source should be given. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to Haywood, before he mentioned the "people of the north" he had discussed a group of mound-builders. I don't have time to plot it all out and read it through several times, but I came away with the succession of occupants reported in that section as 1) mound-builders; 2) people from the north, who drove out 1 but did not settle; 3) white people, French; 4) Cherokee, who drove out 3, and that after describing the forts of 3, Haywood was returning to his description of 1, but it is certainly confusing enough that this could be wrong. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on Haywood is - he does not mention "moon-eyed people" at all, so we should keep mention of his crackpottery minimal, the only relevance is that this Mr. Mooney connected his spiel with the legend, so that's about all we need to say with as brief a description as possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that WP:NOR specifically says "This policy of no original research does not apply to Talk pages.". Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Doug, do you interpret that to override the pages that DO apply to talk pages such as WP:NOTAFORUM and mean that we are free to indulge in Original research on a talk page to our heart's content? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let it go already. For someone who doesn't want it talked about, you just keep bringing it up. Agricolae (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So a source that uncritically relies on the writings of a crackpot should be reported credulously? Not following the reasoning here. Agricolae (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. A source that uncritically relies on the writings of a crackpot, should be reported minimally. Instead what I see is the crackpot's (Haywood's) opinion being given maximal attention in he article, just what consensus seems to agree we should be on guard against. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except you want us to mention how "Mr. Mooney connected his [Haywood's] spiel with the legend", without a clear picture of what his spiel actually is (or how Mooney's comparison isn't what it appears to be). You can't just have an article say that Scholar1 compared X to Scholar2's Y, without telling the reader what, exactly, Scholar2's Y was. In this case, to say that Mooney compared the moon-eyed story of Barton to Haywood's tale of the Cherokee encountering "white people" who built forts, without making it clear that Haywood was talking (however wrong you may think he was) about colonial-era European forts, is extremely misleading and intellectually dishonest. If Haywood was completely out to lunch, then any comparison to Haywood must also be out to lunch, independent of whether he misunderstood Haywood or not. Conversely, if Mooney merits description, then so does the subject of his comparison. Agricolae (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? Who decided that? And why do you keep speaking up (incorrectly) on behalf of what I want? Personally, I don't make much use of Mooney at all. I can see maybe mentioning him briefly, but not dedicating the entire article to his POV, which we seem to agree gets into flaky territory. I'm also a little tired of you telling me to stop responding to comments made to me, as you just did again above in the thread. If I have anything to say, chances are that I'm going to continue to respond. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I quoted your words'. If they don't express what you want, then we have a problem. I am not telling you not to respond. I am just suggesting that there is an inherent contradiction in saying something shouldn't be talked about, again and again and again, repeatedly. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agricolae, you took my quote out of context. I said that was the "only relevance" of Haywood's quote, not that I "wanted" it mentioned. And I do think this needs to be discussed and hashed out some more, because currently, far too much of the article is dedicated to Haywood's nuttery, which (once again) doesn't even mention "moon-eyed", except through Mooney's lens. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this goes back to the question of what we're actually talking about here. You keep referring to the "moon-eyed people" as a "legend" but Barton appears to be the only early source that uses that phrase. That section of Mooney isn't actually about the "moon-eyed people", it just gives that as just one of several reference to a tradition of mystery white people, which appears to be the actual legend.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I have said repeatedly we should not get hung up on whether it is called specifically a "legend" or some other synonym. Please look at the original incarnation of this article. The author, Doug Coldwell, who has since retired, evidently intended to write an article about "Welsh Indians", but we have purged most of that from article about the "Moon eyed people" legend. It sounds like you also wish to see an article about "white Indians". Perhaps we should just have a separate article for that, so this stuff won;t keep coming up here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want an article on the "Welsh Indians", or else I would have created one already. I think that material is better covered already at Madoc. I honestly don't want this article either, I don't think there's enough material for it. There will be even less if we insist on it being a perma-stub about Barton's reference to "moon-eyed people". I think if this article has to exist in some form, it should be about Cherokee traditions of a preceding race, which includes the "moon-eyed people" line and other variants (and isn't necessarily the same as the Euro-American "Welsh Indians" legend).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoreau

I removed an addition that cites Thoreau citing Lionel Wafer. The text has nothing to do with the Cherokee, but about Indians in the Darien area of Panama. There's some more information about this here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is an entirely different "moon-eyed people" than the Cherokee tradition. The Thoreau cit is also third-hand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't read it the way you do. Very clearly about moon-eyed people, which is the subject of this article You removed it as you claimed it was not about the Cherokee, which is a red herring. Even if it were construed the way you claim, I think the article should err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. Let the reader decide. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you to defend your challenged material on the talk page. Please do not restore that again without establishing consensus for its inclusion.

This article is about the (supposed) Cherokee tradition, not about every reference to "moon-eyed" people anywhere in the world. The Wafer material is explicitly about "albino" Indians in Panama, it has nothing to do with the Cherokee tradition. Beyond that, citing Thoreau citing Wafer is pointless.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really confused here. The only original source we have for these people is, I still believe, Marbury as quote by Barton. Now Barton says "Possibly, the moon-eyed-people driven away by the Cheerake, were the ancestors of the Albinos who inhabited the Isthmus of Darien, and of whom Lionel Wafer has given us an account." Why does he suggest this? Because Wafer says ""They seldom go abroad in the daytime, the sun being disagreeable to them, and causing their eyes, which are weak and poring, to water, especially if it shines towards them; yet they see very well by moonlight, from which we call them moon-eyed." He also describes the skin color of these people. The Cuna Indians do in fact have a high degree of albinism, Wafer doesn't make that up[11]. The point is that Barton appears to be linking the inability to see well in daylight with just one trait that Wafer mentions, their eyesight, which led Wafer to call them moon-eyed. If we are going to mention Wafer as we do, then surely we should show Wafer's explanation for calling this unrelated group moon-eyed? Explain Barton's suggestion? As a side issue, I'm also interested in the possibility that the Cherokee word may have more than one translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially my reading as well. I think it's pretty evident that Barton thought these people were connected to Wafer's actual albinos because of their eyesight. However I think we're veering into OR territory getting into all that. Mooney doesn't even bother to explain the Wafer link other than to say that Barton "seems to consider them an albino race". Presumably this is just to make the link between the skin color, as the various later accounts describe them as white-skinned. I think that's all we need to say; so far as I can tell, it was only Barton who tried to connect the Cherokee tradition to the Darien Indians, no more recent source gets into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that it's only Barton who makes this genealogical connection, my point in adding that was that we know that Barton never suggested that these moon-eyed people were white, pale, or bluish (yes,I've seen the Barton quote with "bluish skinned" interpolated), and that the link he is making is to do with their eyesight, a known trait of albinism. We could I guess just point out that albinos frequently have trouble seeing in daylight. Without that, a lot of readers who only link albinism with pale skin will likely jump to a conclusion that Barton didn't make. I think this is likely the source of the claim that this group was white. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's one way to read Barton, but I think it's just as likely that he did think the "Cherokee mystery race" had white skin, though there's no indication his source of information had said that. The idea of "white Indians" had been kicking around for a long time already, and people were reading that into the Cherokee story as early as Sevier in 1810. I think the "Welsh Indians" legend is as likely an explanation for the "whiteness" of the mystery race as any. Of course it's also possible that the Cherokee tradition actually did include white-skinned people. Unfortunately it's all speculation at this point since our secondary sources on the subject are pretty limited, despite these repeated claims that whole chapters have been written on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why Mr. Barton writing second hand about a Cherokee legend in 1797 is considered "the only original source" by the know-it-all wikipedia editors who fancy themselves competent to judge over everything that's ever been published on every subject, but scholar Barbara Mann in 2006 transcribing what she reports is a Seneca oral tradition involving the Moon Eyed people is deemed worthless by these same wikipedia editors? You made a big point of insisting on native sources claiming it to be a native legend. When one is found, you predictably go for the jugular, insisting that the transcription of an oral legend by a native scholar is invalid because quote "You don't know where it came from". You asked me to find such a source, and I have, not to mention additional academic material identifying the moon-eyed people published by U of Texas, which was roundly ignored. So if these sources are not "good enough" for you, no source ever will be. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Til, could you give us more information on that U Texas source? What's the article name and who is the author, etc.?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cúchullain is wrong about the burden of persuasion and the status quo ante. In any event, it appears that Cúchullain is WP:edit warring, is at least now aware of the WP:3rr, and its application here. Please wait for the consensus to be reached. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Information that had only been in the article for 4 hours hardly qualifies as status quo ante. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

7&6, you are the one restoring challenged material, the burden is on you to defend it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect, we provided a reliable in line source. Indeed, it is a primary source for the proposition that Henry David Thoreau wrote about the subject. Whether he "got it right" or not does not change the fact that he wrote it. This is the difference between a statement of independent significance and hearsay,but is of no moment here. It is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. To the extent there is a question of whether this myth existed and circulated, its repetition by Mr. Thoreau is both probative and relevant. Evidently you misunderstand WP:BURDEN, as I've already surpassed my burden. Your bleating to the contrary (and I assume you are WP:AGF in your protests) does not change the facts. You are wrong. 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (emphasis theirs). You're restoring challenged material, you must defend it. You haven't bothered explaining how this material is connected to the actual subject of the article, how it's significant even if it were connected, or how citing Thoreau citing a pirate could possibly be reliable source for this. At any rate, I've rewritten the material with superior wording and a secondary source that will do in a pinch, so we don't need to go on about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained how it is relevant and what it proves. I am sending and you are not receiving. 10-4? 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How would Henry David Thoreau, citing the authority of a 17th-century pirate in Panama, on the subject of Panamanian Indians, be a reliable source for a Cherokee tradition? No part of that is reliable for the subject at hand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Mann

I don't know about anyone else, but the threads seems to be getting confused, with the same topic covered in several sections. We have one editor who is very dubious about her, another who thinks she may be right - I'd like to know more about this "Seneca oral tradition involving the Moon Eyed people". Til originally wrote "Apparently Barbara Mann set some Seneca Iroquois oral traditions down in writing, that were published by the University of Toledo in 2006: "Land of the Three Miamis". In it, she alludes to Cherokee legends of the "Moon-Eyed People" which I didn't understand to mean Seneca traditions about the moon-eyed people. She does however attribute some astronomy to them, as does the 'Texas' source (Archaeoastronomy). As does Burgess. Hm, maybe that deserves a separate section. I was originally just asking about these Seneca stories. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the title of the Mann reference I gave; are you having trouble finding it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's at [12] evidently in its entirety. What I can see is a statement that this is Seneca tradition, not Mann reporting a Cherokee tradition. And note that this is yet another source not calling it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But your edit summary says the exact opposite: "can't see where Mann says this is Seneca rather than a report of a Cherokee tradition". I'm getting confused about what you are arguing, can you please clarify? Aside from returning to the fallacy of getting hung up over whether or not the actual word "legend" is used for the tale, narrative, or story, rather than one of its synonyms. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary reflects what I was trying to say but I wrote 'can' instead of 'can't'. You could have responded to my edit summary. As for synonyms, we probably disagree on what is a synonym for legend, but Mann doesn't label the story about the moon-eyed people, although she does say the Cherokee " kept the tradition of marrying the Moon-Eyed people and continuing their mound-building culture." Are you saying that everything in this text is Seneca oral tradition, that she hasn't added anything from her knowledge outside of that oral tradition? Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying anything, figuring she probably speaks for herself pretty well... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you've been reticent and awkward about sources why change? She doesn't claim this to be a Seneca tradition, so we can't either. Above you wrote ""Apparently Barbara Mann set some Seneca Iroquois oral traditions down in writing," and I take it from your refusal to answer me that you no longer want to maintain that position. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your candid assessment of my treatment of the sources, I prefer the term "cautious". She definitely did set some Seneca oral traditions in writing. And I think it's fair to say that in so doing, she also divulges some information about the Cherokee tradition, and about it being in agreement with the Seneca oral tradition. In fact, I think your suggestion of a section on all the various sources we've uncovered that associate the MEP with astronomy is useful, and deserves more discussion. Another feature to note is that some sources like this credit the MEP as part of the Cherokee traditional ethnography so to speak, whereas other variants are that they were either driven off or exterminated, and some sources note the existence of more than one variant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This has come up in several different threads of discussion here. Is this article about 1) Barton's moon-eyed people; 2) any moon-eyed people (including Wafer's); 3) Mooney's white race (that appears to be based, in part, on a serious misreading of Haywood)? Currently the Description section is more like 3, but I think I would prefer it to focus first on Barton, and only then introduce Mooney as one interpreter of Barton, more like 1. Agricolae (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's the question. I rewrote the "description" section based on where I thought the article was going, which is (ostensible) Cherokee traditions about the people who preceded them, the first mention of which is Barton. I used Mooney and the Gwen Williams, who has interesting things to say about Cherokee tradition but does not mention Barton's "moon-eyed people" so far as I remember. I highly doubt there's enough material for an independent article on 1) by itself, considering the sparsity of what we've found so far. We should avoid 2), the connection is totally artificial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should be about the Moon-eyed people, not really anything else and WP:SYNTH is quite clear, so if a source doesn't mention the legend or tradition of Moon-eyed people or moon-eyed race, we can't assume sources like Williams not mentioning them but talking about generic "White Indians" are the same legend or have anything to do with this. Remember there are several other known Cherokee mythological races and species distinct from this one, such as the Nun-ehi people. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't synthesis just because they don't use the same words the creator of this article arbitrarily used. Even the sources that specifically call the mystery race "moon eyed" rely on elements that Barton doesn't include, but which appear in versions that don't mention the term, like Sevier. Specifically, they usually say the "moon eyed people" had white skin, and built the local structures. This doesn't appear directly in Barton. Mooney explicitly ties Barton's "moon eyed people" to several of those accounts. Williams is commenting on a variant of the same tradition. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't know for certain if Williams' assertions refer to the same legend at all, or some perversion of it, or what; we can't assume it is the same without the source explicitly making this claim per the very clear wording at WP:SYNTH, that is only your assumption that they are the same. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem with the whole page. The only thing we know refers to Barton's "moon-eyed people" is Barton, and that doesn't make for much of an article. As soon as we go beyond Barton, we enter a quagmire of unreliable speculation. While in theory this topic has the makings of an article, in practice it has the makings of an unmitigated mess. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If we stick to our job as harmless drudges, no article is a mess... If any sources have something to say specifically on the "Moon eye people" tradition, we simply report what information they give faithfully; that approach obviates the need to psychoanalyse and critique the thinking behind each of the scholars' writings, see if we can guess what they "really meant", or what it all "really means" put together, or any of that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/

Just the opposite. The world is full of 'information', covering the range from verifiable to completely ridiculous. If all that is done here is reporting everything without weighing it, as drudges, then Wikipedia could be replaced by a Google search. Agricolae (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing what we've seen so far, the progression appears to go like this:

• 1. Barton briefly mentions "moon-eyed people" who predated the Cherokee in their homeland and were expelled. He does not say they built any ruins and only tangentially suggests they had white skin.
• 2. No other early source includes the term "moon-eyed people" (except in direct reference to Barton). However, we have several other 19th accounts of this pre-Cherokee mystery race; these accounts give such details as: they built the structures, had white skin, and they went west when they were expelled.
• 3. In much more recent times - evidently no earlier than the 20th century - some secondary sources use the term "moon-eyed people", but give them traits not found in 1, but only in 2.

If we restrict the entire article only to sources that explicitly use the phrase "moon-eyed people", we'd only be able to talk about the Barton quote, and then some 20th-century sources that rely on elements of the "mystery race" tradition that are from sources besides Barton, but which we restrict ourselves from talking about. We wouldn't even be able to use Mooney, since that section isn't really about the "moon-eyed people". It's about "a dim but persistent tradition of a strange white race preceding the Cherokee", to which Barton's "moon-eyed people" line is just the earliest reference. This seems like an artificial and restrictive way to write the article, and one that ensures it never actually gets expanded. As Agrocolae says, the article would just be a slightly more selective version of a Google search for the phrase "moon-eyed people".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"20th century sources... but which we restrict ourselves from talking about." Gotta love it. Yeah, you're right, I don't know why we're being so exceptionally restrictive of sources that discuss "moon eyed people", in the article "moon eyed people". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is only called "moon-eyed people" because the original editor arbitrarily called it that when he indiscriminately threw the article together. If it was called "Cherokee traditions of a preceding race" or something like that, it could discuss Barton, the various other early versions that are clearly talking about the same thing, and the later secondary sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.. If you called the article that it could also include work on Cherokee traditions of other pre-existing races too, like the Nunehi people, Little people, Yunwi Tsunsdi, and perhaps others... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a major rewrite for NPOV and separation of sources, to address some of the issues mentioned; not confident I really achieved it. It till needs work, more sources, and someone to doublecheck me. CohuttaBlue (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nickajackie

I think this warrants a separate section, so copying my post: I'm glad you traced down the nickajackie mention - I saw that and asked someone (Steve McCluskie) for the article but he hasn't responded. Who's the author? I wondered if Steve was. Is there any clue where this different version of the story came from? I couldn't find another source for nickajackie but there must be one. Nickajack on the other hand - "generally refers to the rugged Appalachian foothills in eastern Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. In Old Frontiers, John P. Brown states that "Nickajack" is a corruption of the Cherokee ᎠᏂ ᎫᏌᏘ Ᏹ ("Ani-Kusati-yi"), which he says means Coosa Town but more likely means Koasati Town". Vicki Rozema[4] also says it means "Ani-Kusati-yi" which she says means "Creek people place." That's quite a different interpretation which at least for me is confusing. Dougweller (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Koasati town and people were one of several dozen that comprised the Creek Nation, before forced removal in the late 1830s. So 19th-century Koasati people were also Creek, in roughly the same way that Tennesseans were also American.

But note that according to the glossary in James Mooney's Myths of the Cherokees, the Creek people as a whole are Ani-Kusa "Coosa people" in Cherokee. Coosa is another Creek town, one of the principal towns of the majority Muscogee people.

It's not hard to see how Ani-Kusa-yi might have been corrupted to Ani-Kusati-yi in a fairly short time. But this is pure speculation, so feel free to ignore it. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 04:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Makavians" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Makavians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Makavians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Rafinesque, C S

Rafinesque states that these people were a primitive tribe of Negros and Albinos in his early anthropological writing on the topic 2603:6010:AA02:D296:8D88:59E6:A965:6548 (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source. Eg "Among his theories were that ancestors of Native Americans had migrated by the Bering Sea from Asia to North America, and that the Americas were populated by black indigenous peoples at the time of European contact." He wasn't always wrong of course, but enough so we can't use him here. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source

I find it amazing that Everytime the Negro is put in position of indigenous, you guys always find a way to discredit. C S Rafinesque states that these people where NEGRO. Before Barton ever published a thing. He was the leading anthropologists at the time, but bc his FACTS don’t fit the agenda, he’s been blackballed. This is MENTAL. Why would all this work be released by HARVARD if there where no TRUTH.2603:6010:AA02:D296:8D88:59E6:A965:6548 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Very funny. You're suggesting it's racist to argue that "Negro", an obsolete term with racist overtones -- well anyway you seem to think it's racist to argue that Blacks were indigenous to the Americas? Wow. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What work published by Harvard? If you are still talking about Rafinesque, every university published material in the 19th century that has been shown to be wrong today. Ah, here's something from Harvard commenting on him.A flawed Genius Doug Weller talk 14:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Negro and Black are the same word, buddy. 2 different languages. If one is racist, both are. Do more research into yourself. We Know who we are. The first indigenous ppl enslaved on this land were classified Negro. PROVE ME WRONG

Nope, no need to prove you wrong. That's not the purpose of this talk page. Negro and Black are both English, both mean the same thing, yet one has been considered racist and one not. There are other words that mean Black that are more racist than negro, and I was unfortunate enough to hear those too many times, especially when marching with Martin Luther King. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)