Talk:Mount Tabor Indian Community

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Terran57 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)There are many reference to this band all over Wikipedia from the Cherokee Nation page; Cherokee Treaties; Yowani Choctaws as well as numerous individuals. This is not a fraudulent site a d one look at Google should tell one otherwise. I am new at creating pages, so, although about 10-15 years ago I have done this, I am trying to figure it out on the run, but deleting it is plainly stupid, rude, racist or a host of other reasons. Could I use some assistance, yes!

@Abishe: Mind adding your input? I'm frankly not sure why this counts as a hoax. (Note: I've moved the article to the proper title and tagged the previous title for speedy deletion.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Be advised Terran57 is the founder of this group. See www.facebook.com/Terran57 HistoryMingo (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anon126: I nominated the article earlier for a speedy deletion by considering it as a hoax as the title was mentioned as Starting a new wikipedia page. Now I have withdrawn my decision to consider it as a hoax and I apologise for the mistake. Thanks Abishe (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Be advised editor "TheRealMTICnonRep" is actively vandalizing this page. HistoryMingo (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anon126: It would seem you were closer to the truth then you realized. The most recent information delivered by the chair of this group seems to support the idea of the illegitimacy of the group as it was put forward by the founder. Since the chair made a public address exposing the group this page has been vandalized by members or supporters of the group who are trying to negate the repercussions that may come from the chair's address. All editors need to be mindful and watchful.

Needs in-line citations for sources

There is a list of references, but it is generally impossible to tell where content comes from. At least every paragraph (and every quote) needs an inline citation to a Reliable Source. Parkwells (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There is so much here that needs citation it's hard to know where to start. There is also at least on false claim. The Mount Tabor Indian Community is not recognized as a tribe by the state of Texas. Texas has not legal mechanism to do that. Other states do, but not Texas. Condorman (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Condorman that this article came about most likely as a ploy to gain Federal recognition for this group, however, I believe there is enough in reliable sources that the group passes the encyclopedia's notability requirements which is why it has not been contested (See Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory and the numerous attempts to have it deleted]]). As I stated then and will continue to hold as an opinion, I find these groups to be offensive. I never grew up on a reservation though my Mothers family are registered and I would never take away funds meant to help them. I do fine on my own. These groups infuriate and incense me, however, if they pass Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and someone writes about them then the article should remain. It is expected that editors like myself and you, among others, will keep the contents of the article in line with Wikipedia policy and not allow COI editors to place anything in the article that would not present a NPOV according to the reliable sources provided. To that end, as pointed out by @Yuchitown below, feel free to edit as you see fit. Be bold but make sure it falls in line with policy. Even if we feel this group is a hoax, it is an article about a hoax. The article itself is not a hoax. --ARoseWolf 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's good to share honest, neutral information based on verifiable facts about various organizations identifying as Native American tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Having no dog in this hunt, I've found it interesting that there is bias from several directions on this subject. I would like to address the hoax question in the words of a tribe member in a genealogy group that is wrestling with the same set of questions (that's how this got on my radar; I'm a genealogist unrelated to these families). She said, "Mount Tabor is not a CPAIN, they are a legitimate descendant community but not eligible for Federal acknowledgement as a tribe. Members of CPAIN groups are frauds who have no Native American connections." I've also learned about the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in the past 24-hours. Personally, it sounds like attempted fraud. The Mount Tabor group is not the same thing, but the president of the group listed in the article was also affiliated with Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory according to an NBC News article. The Mount Tabor Community was a real historically verifiable group. There are verifiable historical facts, there is a cemetery, and there is known site where this community was centered. There is a report from a Mexican official in 1835 about a group of Creeks north of Nacogdoches and it appears that Stand Watie's wife was from Mount Tabor (need a source for that though). There is not a question that it's real, but these assertions need to be backed up by references. As far as becoming a tribe, I suggest that the angle the article here should take is to address the question from both sides. There is a group that wants to be a tribe. It's clear that part of the motivation is to get federal funds. That's my opinion, but the article should NPOV. On the other hand, I've read some genuine "dislike" in the press from tribal leaders (Cherokee, Delaware, and Shawnee) that also seems financially motivated. My impression is that everyone involved is fighting for a piece of the Federal $$$ pie. That conflict is real and should be objectively described. That content is easy to reference. The NBC New article already referenced in the article that discusses in significant detail. But, behind all that controversy, is a group of real people that are really descended from a group of native Americans that live in in a five county area in East Texas.

BTW, @ARoseWolf, I'm glad to see you jumping into the discussion. You are sharing an important perspective that needs to be part of getting this right. Condorman (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If you've read the sources, please jump in edit. Of course, Original research is completely outside the purview of Wikipedia (not our place to determine anyone's legitimacy), but material from reliable, secondary published sources is completely welcome. Yuchitown (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I've reached out to the original author. I hope to have some interaction with him before starting. I think the first order of business is to collect sources that can be used as references and that I can use to become more fully informed of the subject matter. One of the disadvantages of being unbiased is that it also implies a level of being uninformed. :) Condorman (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I try to remain dispassionate when it comes to articles though it is, admittedly, difficult. We had a recent discussion concerning Marcia Herndon. I have seen a troubling trend on the encyclopedia of not being able to separate ourselves from the feelings we have personally. It's hard to but the encyclopedia demands in some cases that we do just that. Marcia Herndon's life was a hoax, at least as far as we can tell. She not only pretended to be a descendent of a specific American Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, but she put herself forward as an authority of the culture. At the time in which she did this most Native communities had no way of investigating these claims and making sure that these people that attempt to speak for their Nation are actually a part of their Nation. Her actions sicken me yet I see beauty in her life, still, and that causes a lot of turmoil in myself. I also recognize that Wikipedia allows articles on hoax's but the article itself can not be a hoax. In other words, we can have an article on Marcia where we describe her life as it is portrayed in reliable sources and even provide for the fact her life was somewhat to mostly a hoax if we can find that evidence in reliable sources. We can do this because she was a real person, the subject of the article is not a hoax though parts or most of her life may have been. She is notable for the hoax she lived, among other things, because that's what independent observers of Marcia wrote about her.

There is no doubt that this group or community is notable in my mind. Whether they are directly linked to the original community or not and whether or not they are actually descended from the Cherokee is not of import to Wikipedia in regards to notability. It my be to us personally, or it may not depending on your position, but that matters not. All Wikipedia is concerned with is its criteria for inclusion being satisfied. Verifiable sources. Independent sources. Secondary sources. Neutral Point of View. I'm damn well proud of the fact we could separate our feelings about the subject, especially after investigating it ourselves and determining the hoax she lived when combining a little original research with the reliable sources we had. I'm proud that we stuck with improving and pushing the article into main space. All of this along with the fact her lies disgust me and the fact she may have used those lies to further her own career is appalling to say the least. Still, I'd fight for the article's inclusion. I am not saying that is the case here. These people may very well be connected some how as descendants or they may not. What is true is that the group is notable. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with your sentiments. Your discourse reminds me of how I feel about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. It's only meaningful when we apply it to speech that we find hateful or disgusting. I don't have to agree with someone's words to go to the mat for their right to say them without government censorship or other infringements of their rights. Condorman (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Handbook of Texas Online Entry

The Handbook of Texas Online is a good resource, published by the Texas State Historical Association. However, the article in the Handbook of Texas Online article about the Mount Tabor Indian Community is co-authored by the former chairman of the Mount Tabor Indian Community and is not unbiased. I suggest that this article, which is listed as a source, is not suitable for as a Wikipedia source. On a related note, many of the original versions of entries in the Handbook of Texas Online date back to the 1950s. The Handbook of Texas online article was written in 2018 about the same time as this article on Wikipedia. The original author of this article has disappear and is no longer a Wikipedia editor. I suspect that the TSHA handbook entry and this Wikipedia article were parts of the same concerted effort to raise the profile of the Mount Tabor Indian Community as part of pursuit of federal recognition as a tribe. I have no evidence, but I have a suspicious nature.

Having said that, I do concur with the decision not to delete the article. However, it needs some serious review to ensure that the content is unbiased. {Condorman (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)}

Edit away! The challenge here seems to be that the 19th-century Mount Tabor Indian Community and the current nonprofit group using the name are two separate entities, so clarifying that is a challenge with such a verbose article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I concur. No offense to the nonprofit, but this should be about the history, not a legal entity. I haven't seen evidence that the nonprofit is representing the interests of a community as opposed to half a dozen people around a kitchen table in East Texas. Evidence is lacking. Condorman (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Mount Tabor Indian Community itself is not a nonprofit and whoever attached that to the demographics needs to take it down. There is, in fact, the Mount Tabor Indian Heritage Center that is a nonprofit but there is no current wikipage or website on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMTICnonRep (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Inventory of Sources

The purpose of this section is to create an inventory of potential sources for this article and to classify each source based on it's veracity and applicability.

Citable Sources

"Texas Senate Bill 2363". LegiScan. Retrieved 8 June 2022. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
Biesele, Megan. "Leverett's Chapel, TX". Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved 10 June 2022. {Condorman (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}
Clinton, Matilda (1977-07-03). "Leverett's Chapel: An Area Steeped in History". The Kilgore News Herald. Kilgore, Texas. Retrieved 2022-06-10 – via Newspapers.com. Prior to 1850, Leverett's Chapel was a virgin forest where a large Indian village was located. They were Cherokee Indians and they were a friendly tribe.

Citable Sources, with Caveats

I've search through newspapers at The Portal to Texas History and at Newspaper.com. These are all the newspaper references to the community that I have found: Knaupp, C. On the Scene: Family Tree's Roots Grow Deep. (2003, July 11) Tyler Morning Telegraph, Sec. B, p. 1.: Tyler, Texas. (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103428190/on-the-scene-family-trees-roots-grow-d/) Accessed on 8 June 2022.

• Earliest known mention of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in a Smith County, Texas newspaper.

Ballard, L. K. Texas eyes on Oklahoma. (2018, April 7) The Kilgore News Herald, p. 2: Kilgore, Texas. (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103429481/texas-eyes-on-oklahoma/) Accessed on 8 June 2022.

• Earliest known mention of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in a Gregg County, Texas newspaper (excluding meeting announcements that began after the nonprofit was created).

I found no reference to the "Asbury Indian Cemetery" in any newspaper, ever. The cemetery this is referring to is called the Asbury Cemetery. The evidence suggests that the nonprofit is trying to appropriate the Cemetery by adding the name "Indian". No other party has called it that. If it was a named used before 2015, not a single obituary in all the newspapers in East Texas search on two clippings services services has used that name. FindAGrave Wikitree Billion Graves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffery Gentry (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official designation of the cemetery where it is called "Asbury Indian Cemetery". We do have some references stating that there were Cherokee and Choctaw buried there but most of this would be considered Primary sources, even if independent. It's not enough to officially label the cemetery as anything other than by its common name, "Asbury Cemetery". I researched it using both Overton and Wright City as a location. We could just make the change in accordance with WP:UCRN but I prefer adding sources along with it and FindAGrave is not considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed, FindAGrave.com is not a reliable source. Not for genealogists either. Speaking as a genealogist, the headstone often pictured is considered a reliable source. Back in Wikignome mode, we do not need a source to remove an unsourced assertion. If I assert that "Wolf is a lizard alien." in a Wikipedia article, removal doesn't require a source that refutes my assertion. There is no unbiased source to support that "Asbury Cemetery" is called "Asbury Indian Cemetery". No sources are required to remove that assertion. I only became aware of the deception when I tried to find a source to support the assertion. Even thought I know the cemetery, I assumed I would find a reliable source. I did not. The point I want to reinforce here is the track record of deceptive misinformation from a few parties. I've said elsewhere that I'm unbiased on the subject matter; that's true. However, I am biased against misleading information and where there is one attempted deception, there are likely more. That makes me unusually skeptical when looking at the rest of this article.

Addressing your comments on the ancestry of people in that particular cemetery, as a genealogist that grew up in SE Smith County, there is no doubt that there are Native American descendants and probably a few 100% Native Americans buried in that cemetery. Ironically, I randomly picked a Berryhill gravesite in that cemetery to add to Wikitree as part of a project to document at least one gravesite in each cemetery in southeast Smith County, Texas on Wikitree. I picked it because it is the oldest known gravesite in the cemetery. If you are familiar with Creek history, you'll recognize the family name. A Berryhill in Rusk County, Texas in 1853 was of Creek descent. If I had picked the next gravesite to the left, we wouldn't be having this chat. I wish I had. Now I feel obligated to set the record straight.

PS - Wikipedia needs a Discord server. :) Condorman (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman - Actually, it has one. I don't think I've commented on it, other than saying hello, but I joined it a few weeks ago. --ARoseWolf 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Unusable Sources

J. C. Thompson and Patrick Pynes, “Mount Tabor Indian Community,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed June 09, 2022, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mount-tabor-indian-community.

• Content written by biased authors. J. C. Thompson is the former chairman of the nonprofit. Patrick Pynes is a historian, but as a descendent stands to gain if the community is federally recognized; also aligned with the nonprofit and prominently featured on their single-page website. May have some research, but must be independently sourced. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

Inventory of Assertions Requiring Citation

• "It maintains strong connections to three of their traditional cemeteries, the Asbury Indian Cemetery near Overton..." There are two adjoining cemeteries called Asbury Cemetery near Overton. One is a historically black cemetery, the other is historically white. I find no reference to this cemetery as "Asbury Indian Cemetery". Independent source needed. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "600 members" This claim is sourced from the Handbook of Texas Online, a biased source. Independent source needed. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

Unsupported Assertions

Though the following assertions are false of unverifiable, they may be useful in the context of a "Criticisms" section:

• "The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, like Mount Tabor, is recognized only by the state." Mount Tabor is not recognized by the state of Texas. A bill was put forward to that effect in 2019. It was not passed. (https://legiscan.com/TX/drafts/SB2363/2019) The is not legal mechanism in the state of Texas to recognize an Indian tribe. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "Additionally, the band publishes a quarterly newspaper, The Mount Tabor Phoenix, for its nearly 600 citizens." This is an example of the use of the word "citizens" within the article, implying tribal status or biased toward the cause of tribe designation. It's misleading and needs to be changed. Changed to what, I'm not sure. Since there is a 501(c)(3), "member" would imply a member of the legal entity, which may or may not be true. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "Mount Tabor Indian Heritage Center" This 501(c)(3) has been terminated or is no longer active (https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/mount-tabor-indian-heritage-center,472350957/) - {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

These assertions either need to be modified to fit the reality of the situation or they need to be deleted entirely (preferred). Wikipedia can not make assertions that are neither verifiable nor factual based on the evidence from reliable sources.

• If Texas, in fact, has no mechanism to recognize non-federally recognized Native communities then the only way this groups assertion can stay is with that caveat provided and sourced.
• Likewise, we should go with what independent sources call individuals from this group, not what the group calls their own members. If that is member then so be it. If that is citizen then so be it (As much as that pained me to say).
• We can add that the 501(c)(3) has been terminated or is inactive and provide the source for this.--ARoseWolf 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: There are two legal entities related to the Mount Tabor community. One of them IS ACTIVE. Legal Name: MOUNT TABOR INDIAN HERITAGE CENTER. An older one with a nearly identical name is inactive. Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Thee source linked to the page (Cause IQ) is referencing the correct legal entity, but the information is wrong or out-of-date. Condorman (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical Community vs. Non-profit Organization

We need to decide as the Wikipedia community whether this article should be about the Community (Historical) or the Non-profit Organization (formed in 2015). There is no verifiable evidence, as presented, that the two are mutually the same or even that current members/leadership have any connection with the historical community. Most of the content concerning the non-profit was introduced by someone that claimed to be a member of leadership within the non-profit and the sources used are mostly primary and non-independent. We can't proceed with dissecting the article and separating the historical community, which is with out a doubt notable, and the current non-profit that claims to be descendants of the historical community, which may or may not be notable, until we decide which this article should represent. If we decide to go with the historical community then I suggest all information concerning the non-profit be moved to a sandbox and held there until we can decide what, if anything, can go back into the article or if the non-profit is found to be notable then the information can be used to create the article for it.

Note - I will not be creating an article for the non-profit should we choose to separate the two and the latter be deemed the case but the information can be moved to my sandbox to be held if anyone else desires to create the article. I did the same for the NCNOLT of which no one has taken up that offer to this point but the offer remains. --ARoseWolf 13:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The nonprofit is defunct. There is no nonprofit for which to do an article: https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/mount-tabor-indian-heritage-center,472350957/ Condorman (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman As I know you are aware, a subject need not be active nor relevant currently to be notable enough to receive an article on Wikipedia. It needs only significant coverage in reliable sources. If it was notable five, ten or fifty years ago then its notability is secure. Not saying that is the case here but if it is not notable then it never was notable, active or not. Reference WP:NTEMP. --ARoseWolf 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: There are two legal entities related to the Mount Tabor community. One of them IS ACTIVE. Legal Name: MOUNT TABOR INDIAN HERITAGE CENTER. An older one with a nearly identical name is inactive. Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Thee source linked to the page (Cause IQ) is referencing the correct legal entity, but the information is wrong or out-of-date. {Condorman (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}

My perspective is separate the nonprofit from the historical community and this article should represent the historical community. I also have no interest in the nonprofit, but I don't believe that it is notable. I've help create three nonprofits over the past 10 years, all of them more notable than this entity. None of those three are sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article. Based on my research, some bad actors affiliated with the nonprofit used the notability of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in an attempt to make the legal entity notable. For instance, the same group of people that wrote this article originally also wrote the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA) article. They then used that TSHA article as a source to back up assertions such as having 600 "members" which they then described misleadingly as "citizens" or "enrollees." I suspect (no evidence, just following the pattern) that the leadership of the nonprofit then went to the Texas State Senator for the area where this community is located and said something like, "Hey Mr. Senator, we represent 600 of your constituents. We love you. Let me tell you about us. Here is a TSHA article and the Wikipedia article about us. Did I mention that we are all voters in your district? 600 voters. How about a congratulatory resolution recognizing our contribution to the community? I happen to have a draft of a resolution for you here." This happens all the time and usually passes unanimously. I could probably get one congratulating my Dad for turning 80. These resolutions are not notable. Then the group uses the resolution to update the Wikipedia article, making it look more notable and begin to claim that the state of Texas recognizes them as a tribe. And so it goes. At the same time, they tried to appropriate the name of a local cemetery - Asbury Cemetery - by starting to call it the Asbury Indian Cemetery. It's never been called that name. I searched through newspapers in two archives across all three counties back to the 1880s. Not one single reference to "Asbury Indian Cemetery" since the 1880s until they started calling it that in their event announcements after the nonprofit was created in 2015. So why am I sharing this? Sadly, this nonprofit group has propagated so much misinformation, and done it quite well I might add, to manufacture notability standing on the shoulders of a legitimate and important historical community that now I find myself meticulously questioning every assertion to sift the misinformation out from the true history of a great group of people that are an integral part of the history of East Texas. In closing my diatribe, I think that a few bad actors (who themselves may have had some good motives) have had a negative impact on the image of a truly historically notable community. So my perspective: The nonprofit is not notable; it never was notable; they deceptively put on the air of notability but the cat is out of the bag now. Nonprofit is not notable; never was notable. Postscript: As mentioned before, I'm a genealogist. This whole issue got on my radar from that context, seeing this article as a citation to backup questionable genealogical claims. Just happens that I'm also a Wikipedia editor. While I'm working on this article, I'm also working on genealogical issues related to the same information that has infiltrated Wikitree. If some of the research mentioned seems a bit much for Wikipedia (like searching newspaper archives), yes, it absolutely is. BUT, it's routine for genealogists and it's useful to share what I've learned from that perspective as well. Condorman (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman, I appreciate your interest in the article and welcome the discussions. We are making fine progress in explaining the issues with the article. Unfortunately, the majority of a lot of what we are doing here so far is WP:OR. We need something backing up what the claims made. We may assume bad actors created all this as an elaborate ruse to gain federal recognition but we then have to prove what we assert. We also may assume that the resolutions passed by state legislatures are not official but where is that proof? But a state resolution can not be verifiably reliable for notability of these entities. State resolutions would be considered primary and are not independent precisely because of the scenario you gave above. The solution I am offering is that we either remove the information pertaining to the non-profit and leave it in a sandbox for potential further use or we split the two articles. After that we can have a discussion about the notability of each and whether they belong. Once the non-profit is separated from the historical community we may find that the only source for notability is this Texas state resolution. As I have already stated, those are primary and non-independent so they cant be solely used to verify notability. By splitting or separating them we can also get a clearer picture of the historical community in a stand alone article and begin to parse away what is fact or fiction based on reliable sources thereby improving the article and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 18:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - Concerned with sourcing the article, not the Talk page; prioritizing misinformation over unsourced assertions; propose we give original author some time to participate (I value his input).

I hear ya, but I'm not on the article, I'm on the Talk page sharing hypotheses and background. If someone comes along and says, "Hey Condorman, that's not true", I'll be happy to bring the receipts. To be blunt, I'm not going to spend more time citing sources in Talk than has been done on the article. Energy needs to focus on article content; that's what needs to be sourced. Yes, I'm in favor of splitting the nonprofit from the historical community. However, right now, personally, I'm in a holding pattern. I'd like to give the original author time to respond and participate. He may have a different perspective now than a few years ago and he probably knows a great deal about the subject matter. He may even have new sources. I assume he has, and had, good intentions. I do not want to exclude him unless we just don't hear from him. In the meantime, I'm happy to spend some time editing out misinformation. So if we separate out misinformation from unsourced assertions, I plan to focus on misinformation until the author has an opportunity to weigh in or sufficient time has passed that we decide he may not have feedback in a timely manner. If you want to separate the legal entity from the historical community before then, I have no objection because I don't see it as notable. If, for example, the author shows up with a reliably sourced, credible picture of 600 people at a MTIC event sponsored by the nonprofit, my perspective will change on the spot. I'd even favor keeping the two things together. BTW, this is bigger than just a few people around a kitchen table. Here is a link of a visit to the cemetery at the old community site, including the Vice Chairman of the Rusk County Historical Commission. This was back in 2005, ten years before the nonprofit was created. I'm impressed by the people that re-found and documented this cemetery. There is also some decent sourcing on this website. It's worth a read. Condorman (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncited, COI content

Problems with this article were brought in this conflict of interest discussion. The organization's late leader Terran57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created this page in violation of WP:BIO, WP:POV, and WP:CITE. I've removed a vast amount of material about to the 19th-century Native communities, but these can still be accessed here (DIFF) if anyone wants to salvage anything useful from this content, which might be added to Texas Cherokees, Yowani Choctaws, or related articles. Yuchitown (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMTICnonRep (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This page is currently being vandalized by "TheRealMTICnonRep." I've attempted to protect the content entered by multiple editors along with their references but the above-mentioned editor, who is obviously working in support of this group being portrayed positively, persists in biased, non-sourced, commentary and edits towards that purpose. HistoryMingo (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Be advised that editor "Terran57" is the founder of this group as confirmed by editor "Yuchitown". I've followed the entries of "Terran57" and have discovered the same COI and vandalism posts on other Native American pages such as "Cherokee" and "Yowani Choctaws." I will try to find time in the near future to contribute to these pages as well and help bring them into line with Wikipedia standards. Where as "Terran57" seems to be no longer be active on these pages it is likely we can expect more COI and vandalism on this page from supporters of this group and especially after a public address by their own chair exposing corruption within the group. "TheRealMTICnonRep" has already been warned about editing outside of Wikipedia standards by multiple by editors regarding COI and vandalism yet persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryMingo (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"Problems with this article were brought in this conflict of interest discussion. The organization's late leader Terran57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created this page in violation of WP:BIO, WP:POV, and WP:CITE. I've removed a vast amount of material about to the 19th-century Native communities, but these can still be accessed here (DIFF) if anyone wants to salvage anything useful from this content, which might be added to Texas Cherokees, Yowani Choctaws, or related articles. Yuchitown (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMTICnonRep (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This page is currently being vandalized by "TheRealMTICnonRep." I've attempted to protect the content entered by multiple editors along with their references but the above-mentioned editor, who is obviously working in support of this group being portrayed positively, persists in biased, non-sourced, commentary and edits towards that purpose. HistoryMingo (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Salazar, M. (2016, October) State Recognition of American Indian Tribes. National Conference of State Legislatures., Vol. 24, No. 39. (https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/quad-caucus/state-recognition-of-american-indian-tribes.aspx) Accessed on 8 June 2022."

How is the following paragraph acceptable to be left on the "Talk" page? This is obvious biased commentary by a MTIC member in support of this organization. This user was seen bragging about vandalizing this page on social media. Are we accepting citing a "Talk" page as evidence that this modern group is historical? Or this user placing people's personal names in a complaint. This whole thing sounds like a sales pitch for the organization and if one were to hope to understand the validity of information on this user's post that can only be done by this user providing references and citations to each of the claims being made. Failure to do so simply lands this offering in the same place of non-sourced, unfounded, advertising and COI, just as the founder of this group did when they created this page. HistoryMingo (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Jan 11, 2025- This page has been edited beyond recovery... As we can see by the good conversation here in the "Talk" side of this, MTIC is a real historical community with a cemetery and a resilient people. The recent political attacks against the community from the former Chair Cheryl Giordano and outside parties such as Josey Moses have hindered the people from being able to move forward. Unfortunately this page has been filled with so much unreliable information and claims within recent months. JC never created MTIC, though joined the community in the 1980's after discovering the community under the Foster Bean administration. Before Mr. Bean, it was WW Keeler who attempted to regain traditional community lands through the Indian Claims Commission in 1948- though unsuccessfully. MTIC through the Texas Cherokees and Associated Bands represented CNO up until the creation of their constitution in 1975. This page has been severely edited as an attack against MTIC and the Thompson line. The community acknowledges the discrepancies within this family's genealogy and has worked within recent months to ensure the accuracy of historical data. Given the claims in this contribution to correct information, the community also realizes that this is speculation and is working towards uncovering any claims the community has brought forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMTICnonRep (talk • contribs) 07:51, January 11, 2025 (UTC)"

Jay8g, this content has been reviewed and vetted by "Yuchitown" and multiple others. What are the problems you're having to warrant a neutrality flag and or a need for a rewrite? Thanks, HistoryMingo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryMingo (talk • contribs) 04:34, January 15, 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that this article have been brigaded by single-purpose accounts with conflict of interests; however, that is no excuse to delete necessary content or edit war. User:HistoryMingo, learn how Wikipedia works before trying to police pages. TheRealMTICnonRep, read WP:COI. Yuchitown (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pinging User:Yuchitown since you've mentioned them. It's clear that this article is about a rather contentious topic of some sort. The way it is written right now appears to push one side of the conflict in a way that does not appear to follow WP:NPOV. User:TheRealMTICnonRep was attempting to point that out (in a way that was not particularly helpful, by adding talk page-style comments to the actual article -- if you're reading this, definitely don't do that going forward) and you immediately dismissed that as vandalism, which is not OK.

I'm really not sure what the heck is going on here (both on this article or in real life), but the current page reads more like an attack page (or at least POV pushing) than a neutrally-written encyclopedia article. Please do not remove the maintenance tags without discussion and without even making an attempt at fixing the problems.Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

TheRealMTICnonRep is a member of the Mount Tabor Indian Community group in the article. They were seen bragging about defending the group on Facebook by amending the article. Also, as you mentioned Yuchitown, they were posting all kinds of editorial comments on the page and copy and pasted an attack paragraph on the chairwoman of this group on the talk page in every category. Is this type of activity not vandalism? I'm doing my best to contribute here with sourced information and a balanced view but as you mentioned Yuchitown this is a contentious topic. That being said, it's no surprise the article on a publicly disavowed Native American group might not read as positive for that group but that does not mean the information is not correct or the article is unbalanced. HistoryMingo (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll review the content you sent me. If you could assist me in understanding how addressing tagged issues is a "edit war" I would appreciate the help. I am doing my best to learn the standards and practices but there is a lot of "wiki culture" I must learn as well. One tag cited a need for a "lead." I added a lead and removed the tag. I also added another reference and citation to address the tag for bias and a potential rewrite. I inquired with the editor of the tag where they felt there was bias in the article and what issues warranted a tag and request for a rewrite. I didn't receive a response to either question but was accused of "edit warring." This is the first time I am being called out for anything, and I don't mind that, but the tones are a little aggressive. If I've done something wrong tell me and I'll fix it or point me to a source and I'll read it. My confidence that the other editor isn't the one engaging in "edit war" or vandalizing the page would grow if I heard any answer about what the issues are instead of simply flagging the page with no explanation. HistoryMingo (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Start reading the blue links to learn about what the different issues are. Start with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You were Wikipedia:Edit warring with User:Jay8g. Just because another WP:SPA is violating policy doesn't make it okay for you to violate another policy. Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope you will receive my discussion and questions as trying to learn and not stubbornly trying to evade any correction. I have made errors due to lack of knowledge and I acknowledge that. I am committed to learning all I can before taking on more issues of this nature. My questions come from my review of the "edit war" page you sent me. The Wikipedia:Edit warring page states correcting vandalism is not edit warring. TheRealMTICnonrep vandalized the Mount Tabor Indian Community page and then copied and pasted a large paragraph of pure commentary and attack using the personal names of people and placed it over 8x in the talk page in every category. A careful read of this paragraph shows the user is obviously tied or in some way affiliated or in support of this organization. I tried to assist in bringing both the page and talk page to standard. The username associated with the vandalism mentioned is owned by Tanner Bonham who is a member of Mount Tabor Indian Community and holds a board position on their Heritage Center. He was seen bragging on social media about defending his group by "correcting" the Wikipedia page. From what I understand this users involvement in this group disqualifies them from being able to contribute to this page. The controversy surrounding this group is an important topic in the Native American community right now and that compelled me to come here and assist. I prefer to focus on history but when the public address from this groups chair was made and viewed throughout the Native Community, I came here to read this page. I had not made a single contribution here before that. In reading, I discovered this page was created by the founder of the group itself. It was chalk full of COI, advertisements, unsourced material, and propaganda. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to bring it up to standard. I'm learning about things and am trying to find the balance between protecting Wikipedia pages and standards and being called a "page policer." I'm learning about how tags can be added and if you address them and remove them it can be called "edit warring." I've read the policies you are sharing with me and have learned how to better address these situations. I wonder if you might help me understand if there is a gray area here as well though. You saw what TheRealMTICnonrep did to the page, but did you see what they did to the talk page? Is cleaning that up policing or warring? When that user's efforts seem to be quashed by the rules and review of other users it wasn't very long before another user quickly arises and tags the page with bias and rewrite tags. You reviewed the page and never did that. Where are the problems on the page? It seems anyone can easily add those tags, but they are difficult to remove. The difficulty with this instance is when I tried to correct the issues and remove the tags the user Jay8g who placed them said "Nope." The rules state to work for consensus so I contacted Jay8g and asked them to point out the issues so I could attempt to address them and move the discussion forward. Again, Jay8g didn't share a word about any problem. I then attempted to correct the issues again with more steps and removed the tags when I felt I had. Jay8g pops up again "Nope." Again, I ask what the issues are and got no response. So, my question is, what stops someone from vandalizing a page with tags or, in this case, say a MTIC member from just logging in a tagging up an article they don't like or agree with to hurt the credibility of a page? How can one reach consensus if one party will tag an article with issues but not communicate about them? It seems if a user doesn't like or agree with any article on Wikipedia, they can go tag it with multiple issues and then simply not communicate about the issues to kill any chance at consensus. As it stands today, Jay8g has tagged up this article with issues but won't communicate where the issues are. A quick review of my personal "Talk" page shows me requesting multiple times from Jay8g to share the issues he felt warranted tagging up the article. While he was present and active to continue to advise and correct me, tag the article, make comments, he seemingly refused to answer any question about what the issues were. What would a quality Wiki editor do next in a case like this? HistoryMingo (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

None of this is an emergency. See wp:Wall of text. Yuchitown (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Very helpful. You're a credit to Wikipedia. HistoryMingo (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@HistoryMingo: I've already told you the issues. Again, I have no idea what the deal is with this in real life so it's hard to say exactly what needs to be done.

1. The page is not written from a neutral point of view. It is written more as an attack page. Your goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article, not to persuade people to agree with you.
2. The page lacks context for the dispute and instead assumes the reader already knows what's going on. Reading this page leaves me with more questions than answers.

All in all, it seems that this is something that you have deep seated opinions on, which can make it difficult to write in a neutral manner. Without taking sides in this dispute, just because you believe your opinion is correct doesn't mean it's the neutral point of view.

Anyway, I'm moving on now. If you have further questions, try the WP:TEAHOUSE. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)