Talk:Lumbee

Comment

Can we talk about how wealthy lumbee people are. Especially juxtaposing against most welfarized native Americans --Ninja247 (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.28 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

More background information needs to be provided on the Cheraw and Tuscarora Sections

There is an abbundance of information available on both of these nations respective histories. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a little more about what the historic record indicates happened to each of them. In other words: are there enough unnaccounted for individuals from either one to have been able to have made a significant contribution?

Bobby Hurt (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to Lost Colony theory (OR)

There is undue weight being given to early legends of Lumbee origin, and discussing them as if this article were the place to distinguish among them - this is Original Research. Editors are supposed to rely on valid, third-party sources for assessments. Much contemporary documentation by recognized researchers has disposed of the Lost Colony legend.--Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn`t be so sure about that..go to the website [ http://www.lost-colony.com ] read the articles and make your own conclusions..I will most likely rewrite the Roanoke Colony article eventually..I don`t have time to do it now..all I can tell you is there has been a lot of new research done vie ECU and I don`t understand why it`s taking so long for the information to get out but I guess people are unable to accept anything new..I have no idea where the Lumbees came from but there is one thing I`m pretty sure of and that`s the colonist did not starve to death on Roanoke Island..as much seafood that's available out there no one`s that stupid.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One published source that may deserve some mention on this topic is Robert C. Lawrence's 1939 book; "The State of Robeson"

On page 112 Lawrence states in part:

"....the colonists were not only to go to Croatan, but FIFTY MILES UNTO THE MAINLAND. This would locate them between Pamlico and Neuse Rivers, and there in 1660 Rev. Morgan Jones found among the Tuscarora a tribe known as "Doegs," light of complexion and who could understand the Welsh speech--proving beyond a peradventure some earlier association with the whites...............French emigrants as early as 1690 settled between the Pamlico and Neuse rivers, and here the first settlers found a native race to whom they gave the name "Malange," meaning "Mixed." At the earliest coming of the white settlers into what is now Robeson county, there was found along the waters of the lumber a tribe of Indians SPEAKING ENGLISH,owning slaves,and practicing many of the arts of civilization, who call themselves "Malungeans." I doubt not these were descendants of the mixed race above reffered to, who had moved from Neuse and Pamlico to other hunting grounds in the valley of the Lumber....."

An equally important piece of published material that I don't see present in the main Lumbee page is an article printed on February 12, 1885 in the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper. The article read in part:

“ …They say that their traditions say that the people we call the Croatan Indians (though they do not recognize that name as that of a tribe, but only a village, and that they were Tuscaroras), were always friendly to the whites; and finding them destitute and despairing of ever receiving aid from England, persuaded them to leave the Island, and go to the mainland.…They gradually drifted away from their original seats, and at length settled in Robeson, about the center of the county.”

I agree that the published material available doesn't even come close to substantiating this "Lost Colony" theory as it is portrayed in the main article but I do feel that enough evidence exists as not to rule it out entirely; thus making it worthy of mention. Bobby Hurt (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citations and improper source citation

Much new material has been introduced without the editors' using inline citations, which are preferred by Wikipedia. In addition, there is material without any sources, which can be removed if valid third-party reliable sources are not provided. Some editors seem to be relying heavily on dated (1930s and earlier research) that has been superseded by more recent scholarly work. This gives undue weight to earlier accounts of Lumbee origins which did not make adequate use of historical documentation.--Parkwells (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article was in a fairly good state some time back; perhaps we should just revert to that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to pick up the best version.--Parkwells (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Legends - References

Neither Hawks nor Lawson are llisted among the references or further readings, although they are cited in this section (incompletely).--Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The text says early white settlers of Robeson Co. recorded mixed-race Indians, but there is no cite.--Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Oxendine, Milling and Rights are referenced as authors in this section, their books or articles are not identified in either of the reference lists, nor are inline citations given. It's difficult to know what authors and books are being referenced.--Parkwells (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the reference information for Hawks, Lawson, Oxendine, Milling and Rights. I couldn't find reference information for DeMarce or Heinegg. Holloman and Pierce have been cited but these could refer to several different publications.-Uyvsdi (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Legends - number of tribes in NC

The section notes there are/were five recognized tribes in North Carolina, and one of them is Smilings. These are indicators this is based on dated text, as the state recognizes more tribes in 2009, and none goes by the name of Smilings.--Parkwells (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

In the quest to match citations with references and limit superfluous media listings, I'm moving the list of "Further Reading" here. If any of these are particularly significant or cited in the article, please feel free to restore those publications to the article. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uncited texts

• The Amerindian (American Indian Review). "Lumbee Indians put Klansmen to rout in ‘uprising’." 6.3 (January-February 1958): [1]-2.
• Anderson, Benedict . Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso; Revised edition, 1991.
• Anderson, Ryan K. "Lumbee Kinship, Community, and the Success of the Red Banks Mutual Association," American Indian Quarterly 23 (Spring 1999): pp. 39–58.
• Barth, Fredrik, ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969.
• Barton, Lewis Randolf. The Most Ironic Story in American History. Charlotte: Associated Printing Corporation, 1967.
• Beaulieu, David L. "Curly Hair and Big Feet: Physical Anthropology and the Implementation of Land Allotment on the White Earth Chippewa Reservation." American Indian Quarterly 7: pp. 281–313.
• Berry, Brewton. Almost White: A Study of Certain Racial Hybrids in the Eastern United States. New York: MacMillan Company, 1963.
• Blu, Karen I. “Lumbee.” Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 14, Southeast. Ed. Raymond D. Fogelson. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2004. pp. 319–327.
• Blu, Karen I. "'Reading Back' to Find Community: Lumbee Ethnohistory." In North American Indian Anthropology: Essays on Society and Culture, ed. by Raymond DeMallie and Alfonso Ortiz. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. pp. 278–295.
• Blu, Karen I. '"Where Do You Stay At?" Home Place and Community Among the Lumbee." In Senses of Place, ed. by Steven Feld and Keith Basso. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1996. pp.197-227.
• Boyce, Douglas W. "Iroquoian Tribes of the Virginia-North Carolina Coastal Plain," in Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant, vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978. pp. 282–289.
• Brownwell, Margo S. "Note: Who Is An Indian? Searching For An Answer To the Question at the Core of Federal Indian Law." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 34 (Fall-Winter 2001-2002): pp. 275–320.
• Davis, Dave D. "A Case of Identity: Ethnogenesis of the New Houma Indians," Ethnohistory 48 (Summer 2001): pp. 473–494.
• Dial, Adolph L. ‘’The Lumbee (Indians of North America book series).’’ New York: Chelsea House Publications, 1993.
• Craven, Charles. "The Robeson County Indian Uprising Against the KKK," The South Atlantic Quarterly LVII (1958): pp. 433–442.
• Feest, Christian F. "North Carolina Algonquians," in Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant, vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978: pp. 277–278.
• Forbes, Jack D. Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
• Galloway, Patricia K. Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.
• Garoutte, Eva M. Real Indian: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
• Greensboro Daily News, "The Lumbees Ride Again." January 20, 1958: 4A.
• Hariot, Thomas, John White and John Lawson (1999). A Vocabulary of Roanoke. Evolution Publishing: Merchantville, NJ. ISBN 1-889758-81-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hobsbawm, Eric. Bandits. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.
• Hudson, Charles M. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976.
• Magdol, Edward S. "Against the Gentry: An Inquiry into a Southern Lower-Class Community and Culture, 1865-1870," Journal of Social History 6 (Spring 1973), pp. 259–283
• Maynor, Malinda, “Native American Identity in the Segregated South: The Indians of Robeson County, North Carolina, 1872-1956,” ‘’PhD Dissertation’’. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2005.
• McCulloch, Anne M. and David E. Wilkins. '"Constructing' Nations Within States: The Quest for Federal Recognition by the Catawba and Lumbee Tribes." American Indian Quarterly 19 (Summer 1995): pp. 361–389.
• McKinnon, Henry A. Jr. Historical Sketches of Robeson County. N.P.: Historic Robeson, Inc., 2001.
• Merrell, James H. The Indians' New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
• Merrell, James H. to Charlie Rose, October 18, 1989, in “U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources,” ‘’Report Together with Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 334, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, October 14, 1993, House Report 290.
• Miller, Bruce G. Invisible Indigenes: The Politics of Nonrecognition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.
• Morrison, Julian. "Sheriff Seeks Klan Leader's Indictment: Cole Accused of Inciting Riot Involving Indians and Ku Klux." Greensboro Daily News, January 20, 1958: A1-3.
• Nagel, Joane. "American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and the Resurgence of Identity." American Sociological Review 60 (December 1995): pp. 947–965.
• New York Times, “Raid by 500 Indians balks North Carolina Klan rally.” January 19, 1958, p. 1.
• Newsweek, "North Carolina: Indian raid." 51 (January 27, 1958: p. 27.
• Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth-Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June 1996): pp. 44–69.
• Perdue, Theda. "Mixed Blood" Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2003.
• Pierce, Julian, J. Hunt-Locklear, Jack Campisi, and Wesley White, ‘’The Lumbee Petition’’, Pembroke, NC: Lumbee River Legal Services, 1987.
• Price, Edward T. "A Geographic Analysis of White-Negro-Indian Racial Mixtures in Eastern United States." The Association of American Geographers. Annals 43 (June 1953): pp. 138–155.
• Price, Edward T. "Mixed-blood Populations of Eastern United States as to Origins, Localization and Persistence. (Ph.D. dissertation) University of California, Berkeley, 1950.
• Redding, Kent. Making Race, Making Power: North Carolina's Road to Disenfranchisement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003.
• Robesonian, "‘The Law’ Treads Lightly to Avert Maxton Violence." January 20, 1958: 1.
• Ryan, Ethel. Greensboro Record, "Indians who crushed rally were mature tribesmen." January 21, 1958: A1.
• Saunt, Claudio. A New Order of Things : Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Saunt, Claudio. Black, White, and Indian : Race and the Unmaking of an American Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Seib, Rebecca S. Settlement Pattern Study of the Indians of Robeson County, NC, 1735-1787. Pembroke, NC: Lumbee Regional Development Association, 1983.
• Seib, Rebecca S. Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Seib, Rebecca S. "Lumbee Indian Cultural Nationalism and Ethnogenesis," Dialectical Anthropology 1 (January 1975): pp. 161–172.
• Seib, Rebecca S. “The walls came tumbling up: The production of culture, class and Native American societies.” Australian journal of anthropology 17.3 (December 2006): pp. 276–290.
• Seltzer, Carl C. "A Report on the Racial Status of Certain People in Robeson County, North Carolina." June 30, 1936. [NARA. RG 75, Entry 616, Box 13-15, North Carolina].
• Smith, Martin T. Archeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1987.
• Stilling, Glenn Ellen Starr. "Lumbee Indians." Encyclopedia of North Carolina. Ed. William S. Powell. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. pp. 699–703. available online
• Swanton, John R. "Probable Identity of the 'Croatan' Indians." National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. MS 4126
• Torbert, Benjamin. "Tracing Native American Language History through Consonant Cluster Reduction: The Case of Lumbee English" American Speech 76 (Winter 2001): pp. 361–387.
• U.S. Bureau of the Census, ‘’2000 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics: North Carolina’’ Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002
• U.S. Congress, Senate. Recognition as Siouan Indians of Lumber River of certain Indians in North Carolina. 73rd Congress, 2d session, January 23, 1934. Senate Report 204.
• U.S. Congress, Senate. Relating to Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. 84th Congress, 2nd session, May 16, 1956. Senate Report 2012.
• Usner, Daniel H. Jr. American Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Social and Economic Histories. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.
• Usner, Daniel H. Jr. Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy : The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
• Wilkins, David E. "Breaking Into the Intergovernmental Matrix: The Lumbee Tribe's Efforts to Secure Federal Acknowledgment." Publius 23 (Fall 1993): pp. 123–142. available online

Name change

I'm going to restore this article to the name Lumbee because there absolutely no discussion of a name change. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Legend creep and other issues

The legends section keeps growing, but without sources. Unsourced assertions have been deleted from other sections. The article is getting very circular as people keep restating the same info in different areas.Parkwells (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambugiation change

I changed the link Lumbe because it directs to the village in eastern Nepal and discussed another village in Angola in Africa. I have serious doubts on the two villages are related to the history and presence of Lumbees, whom are a mixed-race population of American Indians, African-Americans and white Europeans. It may have to do with numerous theories on the origins of Lumbees, Tuscaroras, Powhatans and even the Cherokees came from early settlement of the region from indentured servants and stranded seafarers of inter-racial origins (i.e. Latin Americans, Moors or North Africans, Turks or Turkic peoples, South Asians, East Asians and Malays) in the 17th and 18th century American colonies. There are speculation mythology of Lumbees are descendants of the lost colonies (Raleigh Colony) and the terms "Croatan" for the Croatan Indians in the area might descended from Croats sailors originally in the Balkans from what was then Ottoman Turkey (now the nation of Croatia along with former Yugoslavia) employed by Spanish, Italian, French and British seafaring companies employed in fishing boats way back in the 16th century on the Atlantic coasts of North America, included Basques and the Portuguese or Galizans, might already settled down with Amerindians in the Outer Banks and Sea Islands. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Legends not substantiated

There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were African Americans free iin colonial Virginia. A few may have had other than northern European ancestry for the European portion, but most were northern European and African, as documented by Paul Heinegg and cited in the article. People want to believe the exotic myths rather than the interesting reality of colonial Virginia. Please don't keep adding such unsourced mythology as above. No one is saying the Tuscarora, Powhatan or Cherokee came from European or Turkic immigrants - their origin as Native American indigenous peoples is documented via archeology, linguistics and genetics.Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were referenced as Mullato not as Free African Americans (I've read Heineggs work and it is fact that this and the term "free person of color" are in use 90% of the time). There is also a law dating back to 1705 (see Dr. Jack D. Forbes' published work) passed in Virginia defining a Mullato as "an Indian, the child of an Indian, the grandchild of an Indian, the child therof OR of a Negro." So Heinegg didn't substantiate a thing in regards to exact racial makeup of the families in question. The individuals he traced to Virginia (about 1/3 he substantiated) "could" have been a number of things in a racial sense. There is no objection to the presentation of his arguments. It is your own personal interpretations of them that are inappropriate (POV). He proposes a theory; just as others (which you have removed) have proposed theories. As I stated below; neutrality is lacking in your recent edits to this page.Bobby Hurt (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted

There is no justification for deleting content related to Paul Heinegg's major work on free people of color in the Upper South. He did extensive, award-winning research in a great variety of colonial and early federal records to trace numerous families found in the frontier areas.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Add cited content if you wish. But there is no justification for removing other cited content in the process. Paul Heinegg should be mentioned; but so should things like the published statements of Hamilton McMillan (which you removed). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The fact that they were written and cited is all that matters here. Neutrality is lacking in your latest edits.Bobby Hurt (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

McMillan's statements are not research, but anecdote.Parkwells (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent unsourced edits

Could someone much more familiar with Lumbee history fact check the recent unsourced edits by User:Poprobeson, User:SittingDeer, User:Cherokeeblood, and User:MntBuffalo, who appear to all be the same user. Obviously this person has a POV against Lumbees. I removed a completely POV opinion from the article and issued a warning against adding unsourced information. Not sure if all the edits should be reverted or if there is some merit to some of them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Revert unsourced changes

Editors have made major changes to the Lede which are in poor English, first of all, unsourced, incorrect and POV. They are not appropriate replacements for what was there. The article needs to be edited substantially.Parkwells (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What`s a Lede?

A mess

Sourced material related to historical research, rather than myths of origin, have been removed. The article needs to be reconstructed, as it is incomplete and inaccurate.Parkwells (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tuscarora bands in North Carolina

Per the article on the Tuscarora people and their sources, some bands have organized in Robeson County under various names including Tuscarora in the title. After splits in the 1960s, in 2010 they created a united, interim government called the Tuscarora Nation One Fire Council at Robeson County. They keep separate membership from the Lumbee, and have not achieved state recognition as a tribe. Given their independence, it seems inappropriate to label so much of the historic material here as "Lumbee/Tuscarora" ancestors, as one editor had added. This article is about the Lumbee; another article is about the Tuscarora. Yes, both people point to descent from the Tuscarora as part of their claim to Native American identity, but this article should not confuse the issue further.Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with all the "quotes"

There seems to be a lot of "quotes" around "words" like "facts" and "Western". It is really stupid. Either the statements need to back up by a referenced source or they shouldn't be included. Putting "quotes" around "words" serves "no purpose".19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)75.145.77.17 (talk)

These kind of articles are a hopeless cause. It's impossible to keep them free of bias and opinion. No one should ever cite Wikipedia as a reliable source.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A major rewrite is needed

A lot of uncited editorializing and just generally clunky writing now mars this article. I propose a major rewrite.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And shortening to relevant, cited information! It's so long, it's difficult to clean out the persistant POV commentary and vandalism. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lumbee content removal.

I reverted your good faith edits on Lumbee because they were not constructive. If you want to see content moved to another section, then you should just go ahead and move it instead of deleting it. If you find that some claims are not supported by references, you should tag those statements so that other editors can perhaps provide the references. This content should not be deleted either. Only content that clearly and unequivocally fails WP:NPOV should be deleted, and then it is best practice to bring it up on the talk page before deleting. Feel free to reply here as I will be watching this page and will reply as needed. I am also watching Lumbee if you would prefer to discuss this on the talk page there. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yours is not the only opinion as to what changes are constructive. I have worked on this article for a long time over years to try to have it reflect scholarship rather than myth. The article is marred by new arguments being inserted in areas that should be based in fact, and controversies need to be more clearly identified in separate sections. For instance, the section on archeology needs to be cleaned up and toned down. It suggests that because archeological artifacts show diverse cultures, this somehow strengthens the case for Lumbee tribal claims, jumping into controversy rather than stating the facts of archeology. One does not lead to the other. I moved the current Culture section from within the History section, as it is confusing to jump from history to discussions of current culture. It should not interrupt the History section. Deleting unsourced content does not have to be discussed on the Talk page, but may be.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the Culture section has current references, or early 20th century references, so should be in the appropriate place chronologically.Parkwells (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, you are clearly ahead of me in knowledge of the topic, and I appreciate that. Whether the edit was constructive is clearly only my opinion, and unfortunately I didn't convey that well. I can also see that my wording was less than skillful on the removal of content, you're right discussion is not required. But it's still a good idea (IMO). The content you said you were moving was simply removed from the version of the page I stumbled onto, I can see now that it was returned. I can see you have worked hard on this article (and countless others) and I appreciate that. However I still believe that if the only problem with content is that it is unsourced, then we should tag it or source it before deleting it. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an error; have moved some content that is historical (related to 19th c. recognition and state politics) to the History section, rather than keeping with Hamilton Macmillan's Lost Colony of Roanoke theory, as it was not related to that.Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

History section

Content on archeology has been added, so a new sub-header, Archeology, has been added. In this section, I have reduced the arguments embedded in the first paragraph to stick to facts, make it more neutral in tone, and to attribute Knick's conclusion or theory to him by name, as his conclusions are not necessarily supported by other scholars. He proposes that archeological evidence of diverse cultural interaction somehow supports that diverse groups made up a historical Lumbee tribe, according to what is here. (Have to try to read the original source.) Parkwells (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:
Archeological evidence shows that Native American cultures have long occupied present-day Robeson County. Artifacts have been collected from Paleo-Indian times through early, middle, and late Archaic, early, middle, and late Woodland times, and into the historic period; in short, Indian peoples have long occupied the land which is now considered Robeson County. According to Stanley Knick, the evidence of diverse cultural influences in prehistory of the region is a characteristic of the region, and repeated among Indians of diverse cultural influences during the historical period after European colonization. Parkwells (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I support your proposed changes.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Roanoke Again

From the article: "The Roanoke colony disappeared during a difficult winter, but reportedly left the word "Croatoan" cut into a tree. This account is considered legend and not supported by any mainstream historians. The scholarly consensus is that the colonists died of starvation on the island."

I can't imagine where this came from. I have read five or six books on the Roanoke Colony none of which dispute the story about "Croatoan" and "Cro" being carved on the post and the tree. Also, the colonists packed up their belongings, including the materials they used to build their houses, and took them somewhere -- hardly the behavior of people dying of starvation. (Perhaps the author has confused Roanoke with Jamestown?). Furthermore, had the colonists died on Roanoke, evidence of their graves would still be there and no one has ever found anything like that. Risssa (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "legend" refers not to the existence of the colonay or its disappearance, but to the assumption that Lumbees are their descendant. I agree that it could be reworded for clarity.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Melungeons

Are the Lumbee people related to the Melungeons? The descriptions are very similar. And, should there be a See Also reference to Melungeon? Risssa (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

HBL section non-encyclopedic

The HBL section is riddled with florid mythology and factual errors. I propose a major rewrite of the HBL section.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil War section

This is anachronistic, inaccurate and largely undocumented. "Lumbees" as such did not exist at that time. Some Lumbee ancestors did serve in the Confederate army.Pokey5945 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Origins theories

I propose the origins theories section be moved up to the beginning. I see no reason for it to be so near the end.Pokey5945 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

history of lumbee tribe

i live in baltimore city there are many people in my are who say they are lumbee indian but and plaese done;t take this wrong they look like vey light skinned black people they talk like black people and they well they have a bad very bad crime rate at least on my street they call black people the n word and the black people say you are just as black as me, they really look like very light skinned black people are they just "passing' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.130.201 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancestors of the current Lumbee tribe were considered "free people of color" until 1885. There is no confirmed evidence of any Lumbee ancestor self-identifying as a tribal Indian prior to 1885 (although a few claimed in court cases not to be black due to having some degree of white or Indian ancestry, in order to avoid prosecution). However, many of the Robeson County people self-ID as Indians since 1885, even though they can't agree on what tribe they are. Given that ethnicity is a social construction, it's reasonable to consider them Indians today, even if their ancestors were not. That's why the history section of this article is confusing and contentious.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Extreme Bloat

I have been mulling over what to do with this article for some time now. The article is very bloated with tons of unsourced material, crumby sources, highly contested "facts", and probably contains lots of misinformation. My proposal would be to begin removing all blocks of information lacking solid citation and trimming this article down to sourced material only. Even if we cut out some "correct" information, the current state of the article completely overwhelms anything useful with worthless uncited information. Jcmcc450 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree, although you might want to get some opinions at WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or a similar Wikiproject. There are several Lumbee related articles that need sourcing. Maybe some type of merger would be in order. This is not a nationally recognized tribe, but in some states (such as NC) Lumbees are well known. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that info on indigenous people in general is often from sources that look borderline from the WP:RS viewpoint (and some "scholarly" stuff that looks RS is actually crap), I would be careful about deleting much. A cursory glance indicates the sourcing is acceptable. What are the specific problems you are having? Can you put tags where info is dubious or where lack of sourcing is a big deal (and not a WP:POPE problem)? I've worked on a lot of GA and FA-class articles and am in WP:IPNA, so I think I can probably give a sense of what is OK or not... Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree some caution is needed, but if you look at the editing history of the article, you'll see unsourced or poorly sourced information that has been added, deleted, restored etc. I think a good start would be to chip away at the information that already has cn tags or global unsourced templates. Then take a closer look at what is already sourced to see how reliable the sources seem. Again I would suggest seeking opinions from a Wikiproject related to indigenous peoples. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I AM here due to the ping at the Indigenous people of North America (IPNA for short) wikiproject! My take is that articles on Native people generally tend to have been edited by a combination of people who know the culture but don't know wiki (so their sources look kind of iffy even if they aren't atoo bad, really) and then people who are clueless about Native cultures generally (save that they think they had an "indian ancestor" somewhere...) but have some notion of what kinds of sources to use, though the sources may not actually be very good. This is why I suggest not axing half the article but rather to analyze it section by section, look at the source material, and then fix what needs fixing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

One May Not Claim That Someone Murdered Someone Here without Any Evidence, no Citations at All

I deleted a paragraph which made assertions about killings and even murder without even a shred of evidence nor one source, reliable or not! (EnochBethany (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC))

@EnochBethany: - I see you didn't check at all to see whether this could be sourced. See Henry Berry Lowrie but particularly Lowry War. I'm hoping you will do the right thing by our guidelines and restore the information with the sources you want. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Do the right thing? If someone thinks that a murder was done by someone or some group, that thinker is responsible to prove it before he posts it. Otherwise, it may be libel. Libel should not be allowed to stand in hopes that someone may eventually prove it true. This is more than Wiki-lawyering. This is real law. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

This is Wikipedia, we actually expect people to use commonsense and check for sources. It isn't libel, it's actual history. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We expect whoever wishes to make a claim to back it up with reliable sources. We recognize that the burden is on the claimer. We have the common sense that this work belongs to the claimer, not to someone who notices derogatory statements that lack sources. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

Who is 'we'? We actually have an editing policy that says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research."

But you didn't do that. You didn't even add a citation tag. The Lowry gang and its killings are well known to people interested in the Lumbees and the Civil War. It was very easily sourced. You could have fixed it, but instead deleted it. That's against policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Party here. This argument is fairly frivolous. @EnochBethany: was being Bold but not Assuming Good Faith. Keep in mind @Dougweller: that policy dictates that any unsourced content can be challenged and removed (though its generally better to attempt to find a source first). One last point I would like to make is that this does not constitute as "libel of a living person" because the Lowery Gang members are no longer alive. Even if some might still be alive, they are not being called out. Oh, and please don't use "we" none of us speak for all of us. Using Argumentum ad populum usually just annoys users who don't agree and stacks things against you. Unless there is more to discuss that could improve the article or our editing methods, I recommend you both drop this and leave it be. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jcmcc you are of course more or less correct in the thrust of your comment, but WP:Removal is an essay, not policy, whereas WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is in fact policy. Interestingly enough, there are US states where libel laws can apply to the dead. I was a bit careless in using we, by which I meant not some generalised 'we' but our policy. I admit that editors removing easily sourced material irritate me and that probably shows. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Group discussed as to its origin is yet in existence. Just up & stating that someone or some group did murder, should not be allowed to stand for a moment without proof. If someone writes, "The moon is made of green cheese," or "John Pillsbury murdered a mother in Chicago in 1918, I am not about to go and do that person's research for him. Whoever claimed Pillsbury murdered a mother is the one to do his own homework. I am glad to see that the passage was revised with citations. I have no dog in any fight. I had never heard of this group before and find it interesting; but I strongly object to just up and saying that someone did murder without citations. The issue of assuming good faith, is irrelevant. I do not assume that all men are sinners and prone to be judgmental, I recognize it as an observable fact. And I don't just assume that it is improper to accuse anyone of murder without a shred of evidence; I acknowledge the fact. I commend the fixer for adding the citations. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

Cheraw

In the article it says the Lumbee have abandoned claim of Cheraw descent. I have no idea where that came from, the tribe says all the time they are Cheraw. Even their official website says they're descended from Cheraw. I'm half Lumbee and I hear this from other Lumbee a lot.