Talk:Yamasee

message: Catalek:
I have changed the lead section by adding more to the description. I specifically added how the Yamasee migrated to the Carolinas and how they are well-known for their war.
I added a Location Section so that people can easily see where the Yamasee lived.
I also added a Slavery section because the Yamasee engaged in slave raids which greatly impacted the Yamasee war.
I basically split up the history section into many subsections so that it is easier to see their accomplishments and history. One of the most important changes I made was to add the Yamasee 'prince' section. This shows how the Yamasee did religious relations and engaged with the British.
I have used many different scholarly articles to lead my research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalek (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User:Acroterion recently removed a portion of the ethnic identity section. Unless opposed, I'm going to restore it promptly. It was published both by the South Carolina government and the US Census Bureau, and is not original research or synthesis. I'm wondering if you misread it for my own words when virtually none of it is.WillieP100 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Basing this kind of statement "the Yamasee are described as "one of a small number of isolated tribes, found widely scattered throughout North and South America. Supposed to have been immigrants from Africa prior to the European discovery of America." on a book published in 1894 is not a good idea. There has been plenty of scientific investigation of the peopling of the Americas in the last 130 years that disproves unscientific opining from the 18th century, even if it was published by the US Census. I'd gain consensus here before restoring any of thatHeiro 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Acroterion User:Heironymous Rowe None of it is my statement, it's all a direct quote from the source. It may not sound like it is, but it is. 1894 was in the hey-day of Indian research, since the tribes were actually tribal and in many cases living in their homelands at that time. Recent research largely draws on that old material, and most of the tribes are either extinct or in many cases, particularly in the East, their members are heavily mixed, Westernized, and often have tenuous genetic and cultural relations to their forebears, and little useful material to add to the discourse. As for 'unscientific opining,' the claims were published by an authority, and what hard evidence do you have that the claims are false? The tribe is supposedly extinct, so any scientific (e.g. genetic) studies would be a non-starter since there is no reference population.WillieP100 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are speculating in WIkipedia's voice, apparently stating your own analysis of statistical data and old sources. You can't do that. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is quoting directly from a publication that is speaking explicitly about the tribe in question 'speculating'? Again, which part of any of what I added are you claiming is my own analysis?WillieP100 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, much of what was published then about native Americans, particlarly about the origins of various tribes, is no longer supported by scholars. I am opposed to restoring the passage in question to the article. - Donald Albury 01:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we have a neglected, multi-thousand-year-old field like this, some scrub can come in and undo centuries of knowledge because he 'doesn't support it'? We're dealing with subjects that don't exist 'as tribe' anymore, so much of the material is going to be old. What are your examples (name and link to article/book) of scholars who disagree with the specific passage in question? I'll wait.WillieP100 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We give precedence to modern views on ethnology by scholarly sources. Thousands of years of tradition are rarely accurate or based on anything but legend. The burden is on you as the proposer of the change to provide evidence that current views in ethnology support your assertion. This isn't the Wikipedia of 1894. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your examples (name and link to article/book) of scholars who disagree with the specific passage in question? I'll wait. What if there is no modern scholarship on the question? Then I'm sure it will fall back to that date. One and only one modern scholar I've seen describes the confederation in ethnic terms, as 'multi-ethnic,' which doesn't conflict with my citations.WillieP100 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You can wait all you want. Or you can take it to WP:RSN for a wider community opinion. But the chances a census from 1894 are considered a valid reliable source for ethnographic information for Wikipedias purposes of this sort are somewhere between nil, zilch, and nope. Heiro 02:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked as a sock, FYI. Someone less lazy than I am right now may want to strike their comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Does this mean a lot of the, well lets just say what seems to me to be borderline stuff, that user has been adding to this article over the last 2 weeks should be reverted? Or is any of it usable? I realy haven't had time lately to keep tabs on all the changes they have madeHeiro 02:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been editing in defiance of previous blocks on previous accounts, and I think we all agree on the dubious nature of their contributions. I've reverted to the February version as last good, just before you encountered and confronted their editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Co-signing here. Yes: contribs by a sock evading an indef-block can be undone. And thank you, Acroterion, for collapsing the section that included the sock's wildly ignorant and offensive misinformation about the state of Indian Country - whether in the '70s or now. That was pretty shocking. But it also gave us a stark look at some of his agenda here. Thanks everyone who helped get the sock drawer blocked. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of synthesis 

message: I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but a BBC articles says, "Sometimes, the local Yamassee Native Americans who lived in Georgia and the Carolinas even helped the fugitives[i.e., escaped plack slaves], essentially creating an early Underground Railroad that ran south instead of north."  This would be in the very late 17th possibly through the early 19th century. Source: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-fort-mose-the-first-free-black-town-in-the-us Kdammers (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a vague statement. The relationship of the Yamasee to the English in South Carolina and the Spanish in Florida evolved. In the late 17th century up to the Yamasee War in 1715, many Yamasee were allies of the English and sold people they captured in raids on other Native Americans to the English as slaves, while others moved into or adjacent to Spanish missions. After the Yamasee War, many Yamasees fled to Spanish Florida, but suffered from epidemics and were attacked by the English and their Native American allies, including the Seminoles, and their population was much reduced. I don't regard that BBC article as sufficiently reliable for the topic. I want to see better sources. Donald Albury 18:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  slavery and Spanish