# Talk:Great Dismal Swamp maroons

DYK nom Template:Did you know nominations/Great Dismal Swamp maroons

Things I want to come back to:

History section;
Maroons were not the only people who lived there — some occupants had bought their freedom, others were still slaves who lived semi-independently.[12]
They had to use what was readily available in the swamp as leaving made it much more likely they would be recaptured.[14] Little is known of the maroons' day-to-day life. Few non-natural artifacts have been found and they tend to be small,[11][14] and often of Native American origin.
...several thousand lived there by about 1800.[15]
I just want to see if there is better wording after reviewing the sources.  I will check the other sections when time permits. — Ched :  ?  17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Research section;
Even today, the swamp is impenetrable in places; a research group gave up in 2003 because it lost its way so many times.[1] (even today???)
about all I can see - well done, and I'll see if I can tweak those few things soon (unless someone else does) — Ched :  ?  19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the tweaks, killed a bit of passive voice and wordiness (IMHO).  Feel free to re-retweak the retweaks of the tweaks.  Montanabw(talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC) (tweaking...)
'THIS is why I like working with folks on articles!  2, 3, 4 heads are always better than one.  I'm gonna hold off on any more changes til after the DYK is done - but if you guys wanna consider GA after that - I'm game .. I figure PS might appreciate that. :) cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
wait .. wait ... wordiness? ... Are you saying I talk too much? ... lol — Ched :  ?  15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL!  As a member of the club wherein one really feels more comfortable using 10 words when five are sufficient, and particularly one word several more times than needed (the word varies) I'm pretty good at chopping other people's verbosity and passive voice, but suck eggs at doing it to my own work!  LOL!  Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Dismal Swamp maroons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Sorry, Matthew, got caught in an edit conflict so I'm adding my review here. If you want to give a second opinion I'll wait for it before I close this up, though.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
"There was some maroonage in all the Southern states" -> I assume "maroonage" is the escaping of slaves? Perhaps clarify that a little, as "There was some desertion of slaves, or maroonage..."--Fixed with rephrase to more closely reflect nuance -- Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC) "According to Sayers, it is possible that the acidity of the swamp disintegrated the bones." -> Perhaps "any bones" or "the bones which may have been left behind". Just "the bones" reads as though it refers back to bones previously mentioned.--Fixed with soft rephrase to avoid redundant info that which describes Sayers in a later section, see comment to other suggestion below -- Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC) "The difficult conditions also made the swamp an ideal hiding place — not just for escaped slaves but also for free blacks" - An em-dash with spaces either side is to be avoided; either remove the spaces (thus "place—not") or use a spaced en-dash instead (such as "place – not").--dash avoided --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)"The Great Dismal Swamp Landscape Study began in 2002 and was led by Dan Sayers, a historical archaeologist at American University's Department of Anthropology." -> Sayers is mentioned earlier on, in passing, and introduced here in full. Perhaps added "Dan Sayers, a historical archaeologist at American University's Department of Anthropology" to the first mention, and replaced it with "archaeologist Dan Sayers" at this instance.-- Not a big deal, but I think it works better the other way around, as this section focuses on the research effort, hence is the best place for the full vitae, so to speak.  JMO, though, I tweaked it back, but not a big deal either way other than the history section not really benefitting from more tangential material. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
Sourcing looks good to me. The source for ref 1 is a multi-page PDF, which usually would require page numbers, but it's very short and I'm not convinced they're necessary in this case. If you want to make the change you can but I'd not think it's needed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
Overall grand, but that "literary references" heading is a little small. Maybe a very brief summary of both the works mentioned would be useful, just a short sentence for each.
More on the poem added, and a ref with the complete text, also a bit on one painting and the artist. The book is covered by the linked article. If wanted, more could be added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Grand, no issues here.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No problems with this.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images are fine, both are free and used well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not a lot needs seeing to, so I'm going to stick this on hold so it can be fixed. Pretty interesting article. GRAPPLE X 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
All the changes look good. Going to pass this one now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yay! And yes, thank you, Grapple!  Montanabw(talk) 15:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already gone through the article, checked the references etc. so I know the article is a pass overall. I won't bother adding my review.  MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel certain that Maroon is preferable to maroon.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That was discussed, and actually the article was moved, and moved back. It's more a general term like "slaves", not like "Chinese". The sources from the people who researched them say "maroons". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to read the discussion.  Could you give me a link?  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't say more than above, but here, Yomangani, Alarbus, also see the edit notices in the article's history. Yomamgani (who moved) used the term "socio-ethnic group" - but that they are not. Alarbus moved back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I like the look of title case here and favor it, seems like a "Maroon" should be a proper noun, but if the capitalization MOS says it's lower case, I'm not going to go to the mat either way.  Montanabw(talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there's any question but that the title, "Great Dismal Swamp maroons" needs to be changed to "Great Dismal Swamp Maroons".  In other cases it is a little more iffy and possibly up for debate.  See for instance here [1]  where the text speaks of "contemporary Maroons" and "Maroon communities.  This site [2] speaks of Maroon communites as well and uses "Maroon" throughout.  However this site [3] makes this statement:
The English word "maroon" (The authors have chosen to spell "maroon" in lower case when it is used to refer to individuals who escaped from slavery. It is capitalized only when used generically to refer to contemporary peoples or ethnic groups.)....  Reading the article one can see how they did or did not use caps. It may help to read the Creole article as well (which is not to say that it is correct...). Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I won't kick if it's moved back to full title case.  I agree with you, I just am tired of fighting over capitalization issues (long weary sigh).  Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Do we agree that both ways can be used? Then let's not move it, there are two redirects with the capital spelling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the capitalized form is more correct, but I am too tired to argue with people about it.  :-P  Montanabw(talk) 16:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Believe me Montanabw, I understand your position!  But I am new to this article and I'm not too tired at all.   At this point I am not willing to budge on my opinion that at the very least the article title should use caps.  As for the article body, I would think that all caps would be easiest (and not "wrong"), but I am open to discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My position: we had that, we don't have to go back and forth again, it's understandable as it is, let's use our limited time for more important issues, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Err, "we"?  Is this your article or do we all edit Wikipedia?  Since you are not willing to discuss my position I will look elsewhere for guidance. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Gandy, NO ONE REALLY CARES all that much.  Gerda is mostly tired, I am mostly tired and I'm in serious WP:DGAF mode, we both worked on the content.  Move it or don't move it, but quit jawing about it.  If there is someone else who wants to fight with you about the title, them move it and see who salutes.  And please don't attack Gerda, who is just trying to minimize conflict and doesn't need this (for Pete's sake, she's German, Germans LIKE capital letters!  (grinning at Gerda)).  Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless pretty much all the sources capitalise "Maroon", making it a kinda proper-noun thing, then MOS is pretty clear that it should be lower-case.  In Wikipedia, we don't use title case for titles, even though they're titles! Absolutely no point moving it back again, the redirects are perfectly adequate, and I can't see any clear argument at all for capitalising it in this instance. Adding: AFAIK, the only places wqhere titles etc. are title-cased throughout is where the specialist sources / journals etc. do the same thing (and even then, it causes hassles!) I don't know every area myself, but I know the Birds project uses them, because that's what the birdy publications do.   Pesky (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
But birds/Birds can't read - do caps matter? ... Oh my, I used a dash, feel free to edit to hyphen.  All hail the almighty MOS. — Ched :  ?  13:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that the editors of the article are tired of arguments.  I have been in the same position myself wherein I had a long association with an article and knew it inside and out, and just when I thought that I was finally in calmer waters and could sit back and relax a brand new editor shows up and starts going over long since settled issues.  They often just hang around for a few days stirring up trouble and then leave without ever doing a single thing to improve the article.  
Montanabw, you keep saying I should just put-up-or-shut-up.  I have no intention of doing that at all.  If we were three editors arguing about a random article I'd consider myself on equal ground, but considering that Gerda wrote the article I feel that I need to convince her rather than impose my ideas for the article against her wishes.  
To go on with my argument:  After doing as much research as I could it seems pretty obvious to me that in the case of the name, "Great Dismal Swamp maroons", maroon should be in caps.  I don't agree with Pesky when she says, Unless pretty much all the sources capitalise "Maroon", making it a kinda proper-noun thing, then MOS is pretty clear that it should be lower-case...Absolutely no point moving it back again, the redirects are perfectly adequate, and I can't see any clear argument at all for capitalising it in this instance.  The thing is, in my research they all do use caps when they speak of a colony of maroons.  See for instance the link I provided above from the Smithsonian Institute written by anthropologist Richard Price.  I will paste a paragraph here to show when he does and does not use caps for maroon:
The political system of the great 17th-century Brazilian maroon community of Palmares, for example, which R. K. Kent has characterized as an "African" state, "did not derive from a particular central African model, but from several." In the development of the kinship system of the Ndjuka Maroons of Suriname, writes André Kobben, "undoubtedly their West-African heritage played a part . . . [and] the influence of the matrilineal Akan tribes is unmistakable, but so is that of patrilineal tribes . . . [and there are] significant differences between the Akan and Ndjuka matrilineal systems." Historical research has revealed that the woodcarving of the Suriname Maroons, long considered "an African art in the Americas" on the basis of many formal resemblances, is (in the words of Jean Hurault) in fact a fundamentally new, African American art "for which it would be pointless to seek the origin through direct transmission of any particular African style." And detailed historical investigations--both in museums and in the field--of a range of cultural phenomena among the Saramaka Maroons of Suriname have confirmed the continuing existence of dynamic, creative processes that inspire these societies. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the article??? PumpkinSky wrote the article (see history and top of my talk). He writes: it's like saying "Japanese painters" vice "Japanese Okinawans". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
OK then, let me get this straight.  As far as I can tell I am in a disagreement with two editors.  One says he doesn't give a fuck, and the other gives her only defense of the small "m" as that it's understandable and thus just fine.  To which I say that Louisiana Creole people would be understandable if written "Louisiana creole people", but that is not the way it is done even though "Louisiana Creole people refers to those who are descended from the colonial settlers in Louisiana, especially those of French and Spanish descent."  Really, WTF, unless it is white blood running through your veins does your heritage not deserve a capitol letter?  I am old enough to remember white Southern racists speaking on TV (while Martin Luther King was marching for equality) about the "nee-gras" - in their southern drawl they always stretched out the "nee" sylable because you knew goddamn well that when they were off-mike they used the more familiar term "niggers".  IMO, to not give the  Great Dismal Swamp peoples the dignity of a capitol letter for their small colony of African Americans is racist, plain and simple.  Who knows what they called themselves, perhaps not anything, but since we have named them the moroons, we do need to give them a respectful capitol M.  I believe that my links and the other Moroon articles agree with this point of view as well. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Straight: Would you say "slaves" or "Slaves"? Please also consider the most important sources for this article which have "maroons". Don't forget counting a few thousand readers who didn't speak up. Sorry that you take something personal that shouldn't be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (I will reply to BeCritical in my next post) I would say "slaves".  And I would say "maroons" as well.  I consider the Smithsonian and a noted anthropologist excellent sources and they use an M when speaking of a group of maroons who had formed a community. Perhaps to your way of thinking I should not take what I see as racism personally, but never-the-less I do see it as a personal issue in the same way that I see injustice to any person or group of people as a personal issue, or even any other article that I may edit here as far as that goes.  Once I am proved wrong, I will see it as a personal mistake that I have made, but I have yet to come to that point. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Gandydancer asked me to comment here.  I note that the article Maroon (people) uses the capital to refer to the people as a whole.  Since they are a people, capitalization seems correct, at least more correct than lower case.  At the least, the article Maroon (people) should be changed to lowercase or this article should be changed to uppercase to be consistent.  If I were to choose, I would go with the cap, because 1) otherwise you have to change the Maroon (people) article and 2) because it seems like the safe thing to do to distinguish the people from the color and RS are ambivalent about the thing.  So you have RS coming down equally on both sides of the capital issue, MOS therefore being neutral as well, and you have common sense and convenience coming down on the side of a capital.  Also, people's feelings.  Generally, you disregard people's feelings in writing an encyclopedia, but when all else is totally equal as seems to be the case here, you can let that be a factor.  Be——Critical 21:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If they were a people, capital would be right. But in this article the talk is of a group of a people, see above, and the sources. I saw the conflict to Maroon (people) but didn't want to make changes there, to NOT hurt feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Also a conflict with Jamaican_Maroons, and that's significant because that is another sub-group like the GDSM/m. Be——Critical 21:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Same thing, I saw it but didn't want to hurt feelings by changing there. The sources for THIS article - the scientific research on the people - say maroons. The article follows its sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My brief perusal of several of the sources says you're right.  So how about Gandydancer takes it to a noticeboard or MOS talk page?  We need more and more expert opinions.  Be——Critical 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I like to raise attention for this article :) But if you ask me we could use our time for more important issues. No noticeboard discussion will change the fact that this article is based on its sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand Gerda's statement, "If they were a people, capital would be right. But in this article the talk is of a group of a people".  See for instance the article Gullah - is this a people or a group of people? Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Gerda Arendt means a sub-culture versus a culture. Be——Critical 22:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt.  I have not read all of the sources, but I would expect that a source that studied the maroons in early American history would speak of the "maroons". However, the sources I provided speak specifically of the maroon settlement in the swamp and they are experts in the field of American history - and they do use a capitol M. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Which ones?  These? [4] [5] [6] Be——Critical 22:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
comment Whoa, wait, let's back the firetruck up here a second.  Above it is implied that a "capital letter" (or lack of one) is a sign of "respect" or "disrespect" ... WRONG!!!  A capital letter has absolutely NOTHING to do with "respect", let's please not start down that slippery slope.  This is an encyclopedic project, and one of the fundamental principles here is showing "respect" to our sources that we cite when making claims.  If the sources use "m", then we use "m"; if the sources use "M", then we use "M".  Please folks, let's take a step back and not turn a great article into the next wp:lame wp:battleground on this project over some "m vs. M" debate.  Thanks. — Ched :  ?  23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Gandydancer said above he had sources for the Swamp maroons which used the capital, but I'm not sure what he's referring to.  Be——Critical 23:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
What? It's only 18kb over the single bit difference between "m" and "M". This is what Wikipedians are all about. Alarbus (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict...I'll go ahead and post this) BeCritical, yes those and this one as well from the Smithsonian. [7]  Note that it gives the same rationale as the earlier one I posted re use of M, or m.: (The authors have chosen to spell "maroon" in lower case when it is used to refer to individuals who escaped from slavery. It is capitalized only when used generically to refer to contemporary peoples or ethnic groups.)  I will quote from this article so one can see how they used caps:
In spite of the grim struggle for survival that was part of everyday life in the early days, Maroons were able to create vibrant, distinctive and diverse artistic traditions. These expressive forms--music, dance, verbal arts, foodways, crafts, architecture, personal adornment and others--drew upon the Maroons' African heritage as well as Native American and European resources, but emerged as something new and unique.  So, in this article the use of M seems quite liberal, even using the same somewhat tight restrictions...?   Gandydancer (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think what people are questioning here is that your sources use the capital, but only for the entire Maroon people, not for sub-groups.  The sources for this article use the lowercase for the GDS sub-group.  Is that a correct distinction? Be——Critical 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I slept over this: would you say Great Dismal Swamp people or Great Dismal Swamp People? The research didn't study an ethnic group, but people, with great respect: "These groups are very inspirational. As details unfold, we are increasingly able to show how people have the ability, as individuals and communities, to take control of their lives, even under oppressive conditions." (can't be repeated too often, it's on top of my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
@ BeCritical, actually, I thought that I had established quite the opposite, or at least tried to.  It is my understanding that the word "moroon" translates to "escaped slave", so overall they are moroons.  But I would think that when a large number of moroons form a large community that lasts for many years they would be considered distinct from run-away slaves, but rather a member of a Moroon community with particular language, religion, social customs, and so forth. I took some time to read the article sources and anything else I could find and I have little new to add to my argument.  I think that since I have yet to convince anyone I will drop my argument - it's only fair to the other editors.  @ Gerda, I'd say, "the people of the Great Dismal Swamp" which I guess would tranlate to "Great Dismal Swamp people." Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As the article itself states, the term "maroon" has an unclear historical origin.  In other places, to be "marooned" would be, say, to be cast onto a desert island.  Here, not all escaped/runaway slaves were called "maroons" -- in fact, this article represented the first time I have ever heard the term -- what it DOES refer to are a special subset of escaped slaves who lived, basically in hiding -- "marooned" in a sense similar to the castaways sense, from the rest of civilization.  The slaves who escaped to live in Canada were not maroons, nor were those who took refuge with Native American communities.  And to say "people of the Great Dismal Swamp" is too broad; as though whites in hiding (such as those sought for criminal offenses) might be part of a maroon community, in theory, white people who were not criminals nor escaped slaves would NOT be called maroons even if they lived in the swamp.   So whatever else we do, "maroons" IS a distinct term with a distinct meaning.  If they ARE a distinct ethnic group, such as, say the Cherokee people, then we have grounds to say proper noun and capitalization.  If the term is a "generic" as in "castaway sailors marooned on a desert island" sense, then it's lower case.  As for my comments above, my point is that I don't care which way this goes and am not going to take a position cause I'm tired of this sort of wikipedia discussion.  Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the very fact that it has unclear, historical origin works in our favor. The leniency about a fuzzy issue gives us editorial leeway over the main alternative. If this were the Korean Wikipedia, we have no lowercase letters. There would be no discussion nor disagreement & all sides would lovingly agree with one another. (As an aside, we add "respect" by the suffix "yo" or 요 as an honorific.) Also, is it okay if we invoke WP:IAR here for the sake of forming consensus around a hotly debated issue? I err on the side of political correctness when it comes to race issues, so I'm throwing my support behind GandyDancer until I read a more heartfelt or incontrovertibly compelling counter-argument than those already provided above. 완젬스 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief 젬스|완젬스, I wasn't serious about you actually posting here!  To explain to other editors what is going on here:  I work on the Occupy Wall Street article with this editor and he has been on a quest to delete most of the smaller OWS articles.  I would just as soon keep them all for the time being but am willing, at his insistence, to close some of those that are very small and have apparently had no activity.  But he keeps asking me to read them all and submit those that I would be willing to vote for a "delete" on. Our relationship has been quite "chilly" for some time now.  When he again asked me, on my talk page, to look for articles I'm willing to delete I suggested that he research some of the articles that interest me and turn in a report and then I'd discuss subjects that interest him.  If it was not obvious that I was being sarcastic, I apologize for my use of sarcasm. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Bleedover happens, 젬스|완젬스 and Gandy.  To me, there is only one question:  Do we have a distinct ethnographic group that would mean the title is capitalized, or do we not?  I really am not certain, and there is no need to resort to inflammatory terms like "racism" or "political correctness" to resolve it. ALL the editors on this project wish to treat the people who are the topic of the article with dignity and respect.  I kind of favor capitalization, but I frequently am accused of over-favoring capitalization in general, so I have a bias that I don't want to insert here and so am not going to take a strong position.  The question is if they are of sufficient distinct ethnicity to be a capitalized name per the MOS, like Apache people or Cherokee people. It looks like the source material leans toward lower case, but there are exceptions.  If we did not have the technical term "maroon", we would not, for example, title the article "Great Dismal Swamp People" but rather "Great Dismal Swamp people," right?? Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Montanabw, let's be clear on this - it certainly has not helped the discussion that you have told me to quit jawing about it because, NOBODY REALLY CARES.  On the other hand, I have not called the editors here racists and I don't believe that you are.  But it certainly is possible for anyone one to innocently use racist language, or in this case a small M, even though in their "real life" they wouldn't dream of treating others in a demeaning manner.  As for MOS advice here at WP, I don't find it is much help in this situation.  I don't find the "people" comparison helpful either.  According to the sources I provided and to this article, several thousand maroons lived in the swamp for almost two hundred years.  That they have not yet been well-studied should have little to do with Wikipedia editor's decision about whether or not that constitutes a distinct community.  We need to look to how other better known communities use the capitol issue and they all have capitol M's.  For Gerda to say the other articles are wrong is, IMO, not a very well thought out argument. Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say they are wrong. I appealed on your talk to keep this discussion factual. I see good reason to have Maroons when a specific group is meant, and maroons, if it is a synonym for people, such as Coromantee people and Sierra Leone Creole people below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Re the Coromantee people, one would say when speaking of them "The Coromantee people" or simply "The Coromantins" in the same manner that if speaking of "The American people", one could also say, "The Americans".  Re the Sierra Leone Creole people, one would say, "The Sierra Leone Creoles", or perhaps "The Creoles of Sierra Leone".  Note that at that article it states, "The Creoles speak English and a distinctive creole language, called Krio, based on a blend of European languages, primarily English but also including French, Spanish and Portuguese."  If one looks at the creole language article one finds that "creole" means a language that contains a mix of language backgrounds, but when speaking of a particular mix used by a group, one would say, for instance, Afro-Seminole Creole.  In the same manner one would use "maroons" when speaking of escaped slaves, but when speaking of a community formed by maroons, one would say, for instance, "Afro-Seminole Maroons".
Re keeping the discussion factual, I was referring to the discussion in which you replied to BeCritical that the Maroon and the Jamaican Maroon articles were not correct but you did not want to make changes because you wanted to avoid hurting the feelings of other editors. Perhaps I misunderstood you? Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Understanding seems to be difficult: I didn't say "not correct", I said I saw a conflict. The article Maroon (people) says Maroons where I would say maroons. Both is justified, it should not be "decided" one or the other. (How many more times?) This article goes by its sources, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Maroon (people), Cattawood Springs, Cockpit Country, Colin Jackson, Coromantee people, Cotterwood, Cudjoe, First Maroon War, Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Jamaican Maroons, Jamaican Maroons in Sierra Leone, Maroon Town, Sierra Leone, Nanny Town, St. John's Maroon Church, Sierra Leone Creole people, and Second Maroon War use a capital "M" when referring to Maroons. Great Dismal Swamp maroons is all capitalized, but each instance is either at the beginning of a sentence or in a title. Accompong, Nanny of the Maroons, and Major Jarrett use both capital and lowercase (that should probably be decided one way or another). Great Dismal Swamp is the only article I can find that uses exclusively lowercase for "maroons." In the interest of consistency, Maroon should be capitalized. Terms like "Creek Indians," "Seminoles," or "Neutral Nation" did not initially refer to ethnic groups but over the years evolved to refer to very specific groups of people, and these terms are all capitalized. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Gandy, I said what I said because I WAS NOT ARGUING WITH YOU, I basically told you to move it if you want and see if anyone really is upset about it; I won't be, it's already been moved back and forth once, and my own view is that I'm sick of capitalization fights in general.  Gerda is just trying to arrive at a proper decision, whichever way it goes, and was engaging in good faith discussion, because if it IS moved and someone is unhappy, it is wise to show that a consensus was reached.  You are creating all the drama here, including now your condescension about how maybe we are unconscious racists.  Uyvsdi has made some appropriate commentary (though the Creek article is now Muscogee people LOL) and if there is adequate consensus that we have a distinct ethnic group, then enough already, someone just move the name (again) and let's all go on to do something else.  Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree, a move has no consensus and would need a formal move request and a discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No decision is a decision! No consensus has been achieved; therefore no moves will be made, and this conversation can now come to a close. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I agree.  There is no consensus and it is long past time for this conversation to come to a close. Montanabw(talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Evening all.
I noticed an edit linking this community to the "Ethnic Qarsherskiyans". I Googled it, and I saw that it was a micronation.
Now, my understanding was that most micronations were basically made up, so I removed it. I was not logged at the time, because I thought this was a minor thing. I believe I was reverting vandalism.
Someone then reverted my edit accusing me of being "a genocide denier from Stormfront". Oddly specific. I'm transgender and autistic and a communist. I'm not the person who posts on Stormfront.
Looking it up further, there's no sources on this people that aren't linked to people who already self-ID as "Qarsherskiyan".
Oh, and an anonymous user did this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:8000:7E01:9C8A:94FA:8E14:A77A:8B15
The article on the Ben-Ishmael Tribe seems very relevant...
SpaceboundRocket (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)User:SpaceboundRocket

It looks like BlueFire7337 has been blocked for promoting their micronation [8]. DervotNum4 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)