Talk:Piscataway Indian Nation and Tayac Territory

message: Francis Jennings in his book the "Ambiguous Iroquois" denies that the Susquehannock were defeated. In fact he says that the Susquehannock defeated the Iroquois. BradMajors (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "after the defeat of the Susquehannock by the Haudenosaunee"

message: The name of the article is "Piscataway Indian Nation", but there are two other different competing groups as well, each claiming exclusive Piscataway ancestry and denying the claims of the others in regards to Piscataway ancestry.  The "Piscataway Indian Nation" is the tribal group headed by Billy Redwing Tayac, and the title does not reflect the existence of the "Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland" and the "Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians".
In short, I am creating a Piscataway article detailing the tribe's history to the modern day, and a separate section will be created to list the three groups claiming Piscataway ancestry, detailing specifics on those tribal organizations.  This page could remain to detail the specifics for the Piscataway Indian Nation specifically (as seems was the original intent), and if sufficient information about the other tribal organizations exists separate pages can be created as well.
This organization would be in line with the approach with other historical tribes separated into different modern tribal nations.  For example, the Cherokee article addresses the Cherokees as a whole, and separate articles detail the United Keetowah Band, the Eastern Band of Cherokees, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
:sure (but provide reliable sources for your statements) Tedickey (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources for the other groups I put in the Piscataway article if you need to see them.  The articles themselves are linked to the sentences they refer to (and are under References), and the pages for the different Piscataway groups are in the external links section.  I haven't touched the Piscataway Indian Nation article yet to reflect the redundancy issue because I'm still trying to figure out how to approach it.  --RaptorEmperor (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piscataway article should reflect existence of "Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland" and "Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians", suggest creating separate "Piscataway" article. 

message: It is confusing to have a general article on the Piscataway (tribe) and this one be so close.  I would suggest that this one focus only on the 20th century revitalization of the tribe and organization of the Piscataway Indian Nation (as well as mention the other two organizations), issues of state and federal recognition, records, gaming, etc.  The general colonial and early federal history of the overall tribe should be on the Piscataway (tribe) page.  Otherwise it will be impossible to keep them straight, as new information is being added.--Parkwells (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I decided to make the Piscataway (tribe) article to cover all three Piscataway groups, it did pass my mind to structure the two articles like you said, to have the Piscataway (tribe) article go over a general history and the Piscataway Indian Nation article detail that specific group's history.  However, the issue is that the three existing groups pretty much had the same history until a split around the 1970s.  There isn't much information to work off of, especially recent news, to necessitate a separate article for the Piscataway Indian Nation.  Most recent articles I've seen generally involve state recognition, or the beef between the different Piscataway groups going tit-for-tat denying that the other is really Piscataway, or denying that they're really Indian.  Since the three groups split so recently, there isn't much of an individual history for each group, and not enough information specific to the Piscataway Indian Nation to necessitate a separate article for them.  To be honest, this article might be a candidate for deletion now, since all the relevant information is now in the Piscataway (tribe) article.
--RaptorEmperor (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with the general sentiment in favor of merging this article with the existing Piscataway article. So much of this article is unsourced anyway, and full of dubious or contested allegations. This article is about a revival group, and so the colonial history is not relevant.Pokey5945 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Piscataway (tribe)]]

message: There's no source given, reliable or otherwise, for the recent renaming of this topic.  TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the name of the unrecognized Maryland organization that this article is primarily about. The Piscataway tribe the entire ethnic group of Piscataway. What should this article be focused on (and probably renamed), if not the one Maryland group? -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no reliable source, then comments referring to the "official" name are unjustified TEDickey (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source: <http://www.piscatawaynation.org/> -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reliable source for that statement? TEDickey (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I went looking for that, didn't find the page.  I did find "MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 38, ISSUE 18, FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2011", which discusses the "Piscataway Conoy Tribe", on http://www.dsd.state.md.us/, but it didn't mention 501C3 there.  However, the comments in the Register don't agree much with your comments. TEDickey (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: this is less rigorous, but carries much of the sense of the Register comments (the Register content is a dynamic url, which makes it impossible to link here, however the interested reader can find the content given the provided information). TEDickey (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: That was a dynamic url, the reader should supply the search terms.   By the way, you've not provided anything to support the initial assertions in this section.  TEDickey (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and Tayac Territory 

message: There is a link on all of the pages relating to Piscataway people this ethnic group of committing fraud.  Fraud is a criminal allegation.  There are not civil or criminal charges pending in the courts pertaining to fraud of the Piscataway people.  The eskimo.com link takes viewers to a page entitled Tayac Fraud.  Unless there is legal case and conviction, this is not a neutral use of the term.  Therefore, the link should be removed. Notchos (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, this is not a place to make threats. TEDickey (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, here's a relevant problem: most of the content of this topic is unsourced, apparently due to a few anonymous editors who are using the topic to promote their own interests.  You're stating that an article which cites many sources is fraudulent, and you are making threats.  TEDickey (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Do reread your comments, and recall that other people can read them as well TEDickey (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: There's more than one definition of "fraudulent".  By focusing on the legal aspect and stating that it is a criminal allegation you are making a threat.  For what it's worth, the first hit from google found both commonly-used senses, where a typical reader might consider that the page in question matches the second sense:
fraud·u·lent/ˈfrôjələnt/
Adjective:	
   1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
   2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
TEDickey (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

text: So - you are claiming that anyone who uses the term is accusing someone of being a criminal.  That's disregarding common usage, as well as differing from the sense that the website you wish to remove is using.  (By the way, read WP:AGF) TEDickey (talk)
There has not been any threat of litigation. Calling an ethnic group a fraud, on the other hand, assumes no good faith.  The current families organized into Piscataway organizations all genealogically trace their identities to families identified by nineteenth century ethnographers and church records as Piscataway remnants (see the Catholic Encyclopedia citation, for one source).  While there may be a self-published paper disputing the actuality of their connection to the historic Piscataway, the families themselves have believed themselves to be Piscataway Indians for over 100 years.  There has been no fraud committed or knowing deception by this unique ethnic community. Notchos (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, the source that you're attacking is noted in several places.  This is an example TEDickey (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Here is another TEDickey (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: This for instance TEDickey (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Another TEDickey (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Another TEDickey (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: One of the things that undermines your position is that I'm not finding anyplace where Tayac and Sims are mentioned together which has a response based on facts rather than personal attacks from the former.  Sims is a source that's apparently well-known enough to cite.  So focusing on scholarly sources which disagree would be a good way to proceed, adding those for balance rather than eliminating those with which you disagree. TEDickey (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Allegations