User talk:Odestiny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cherokee Heritage Groups

I am working on Cherokee Heritage Groups mainly because what's there right now is really about tribes and tribal groups rather than real heritage groups. There are some very important heritage groups in Cherokee history, and much of the controvesy surrounding them shaped that history, so they cannot be left out. However, adding these heritage groups to "Cherokee" would only increase the confusion between the "Cherokee Nation", Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Tribe, Cherokee people, etc. By keeping this separate, and eliminating much of what presently appears under Cherokee Heritage Groups that actually relates to "tribes" it will help to eliminate some confusion about the phoney tribes while spotlighting how those who really sought to keep the culture and "heritage" have evolved.

As of this date, I have not removed the list of non-recognized tribes that are on the page as "heritage groups". They really don't belong there. They call themselves tribes, not heritage groups. Whether they are tribes or not is up to debate, but the fact is, they are not heritage groups. Also notice the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma also has it's own National Historical Society, that maintains a "First Families of the Cherokee Nation". This group includes Cherokee citizens, intermarried whites, whites living under permit, Freedmen, and others. If nothing else, the fact that it includes Freedmen makes it notable.

There is much still to be done here. I have seen this marked for deletion in the past, but I think that targeting this to what it is really supposed to be about will increase it's value to stand alone.

I will soon add the references for each.

[edit] Winfield Scott citations you requested

The majority of the information is directly from wiki articles relating to those persons or places in the paragraph. Since the words are linked, would I still need to cite the wiki article again? For example, in the first paragraph, it is almost word for word from the wiki article on Martin Van Buren. I could put it in quotes and cite the wiki article if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, using Wikipedia article titles as footnotes is rarely accepted. (By accepted I mean for those articles hoping to achieve peer-reviewed status such as Good Article or Featured Article. That's not something I worry about myself, but I like to try to follow the general guidelines of the community.) Since I am not really familiar with this era -- I limit myself to the Civil War -- I can't give you concrete suggestions, except to go to those Wikipedia articles which you are linking to and find the sources that they use. Alternatively, and preferably, you should cite a secondary source biography of Scott. I appreciate your asking the question. The vast majority of times that I request citations I get either indignation or silence (and after about two weeks, I remove the uncited material). I think it is important to have citations particularly for those cases where there are accusations of poor behavior, as with the material you just added. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have added citations and hope they will suffice. If not, I will try to supply better. For the soldier's statement, I added a second reference in the links at the bottom of the page back to the full letter reproduced on the Cherokee Nation website. Having seen some of the craziness added to the wiki page about the Cherokee, I am beginning to understand the importance of the citations now. Thanks again. Odestiny (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I spruced up the footnote format, but there's one that's a problem--the cite for Pvt Burnett (#4) is really obscure. Have you no publication info or web link? It's not worth having a citation if no one can access it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References needed for Jack Burris

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Jack Burris are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am presently awaiting a reply from the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation as well as some archival material before adding more. I originally had an underconstruction on here but somebody took it off. I am inviting some additions from people familiar with this in Pryor, Oklahoma legal and one of the book offers too.

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Odestiny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Okiefromokla complaints 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)