Talk:Pedee people

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pedee people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Stub. Only one paragraph. Needs thorough expansion. --Aaron Walden (20 February 06)

Needs citations and context...very badly needs context --Miskwito 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citations. Editorial and unsubstantiated. Stonerose1972 (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 02:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations

If the South Carolina Department of Archives and History's State Historic Preservation Office's published information is incorrect, then please find a better published source with correct information. All information has to be properly sourced. Yuchitown (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Regarding the sources on the page, rootsweb.ancestry.com is user-generated so not considered a reliable source. Sciway.net appears to be a content mill gleaning content from Wikipedia among other sources. Geocities is definitely not an acceptable source. The book *Nothing But Blood and Slaughter: Military Operations and Order of Battle of the Revolutionary War in the Carolinas - Volume One 1771-1779* does not actually mentioned the Pedee people. Yuchitown (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Obviously, there's been a lot of POV-pushing in previous iterations of this article to legitimize some groups while delegitimizing others. The book Hiding In Plain Sight: the Pee Dee after Contact by Claude W. Chavis, Jr. is self-published under the name "PDIN Press," so cannot be listed as a reference or recommended as a source. See WP:RSSELF about self-published sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view about not pushing agendas that aren't validated in secondary published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Comment

Please do not post photos that are not credibly sourced on this page. Posting a photo of people simply claiming to be Pee Dee does not meet Wikipedia posting standards. (Alolyphant (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The final section is about people who claim to be Pedee today. This individual claims to be Pedee. Just because this person belongs to a group you don't deem to be Pedee doesn't mean anything, since the name of the group and its status with the State of South Carolina is listed in the caption. Take it up with the State of South Carolina. You are pushing a POV, which is absolutely fine on your own personal blog, but not here. Yuchitown (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

--Per SC House Bill Wording Native American Group” means a number of individuals assembled together, which have different characteristics, interests and behaviors that do not denote a separate ethnic and cultural heritage today, as they once did. The group is composed of both Native American Indians and other ethnic races. They are not all related to one another by blood--Please stop pushing your own POV. There is no proof that the people in the photo are Pee Dee. (Alolyphant (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)) Alolyphant (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing a POV. The final section is for people today who claim descent from Pedee people. All the groups are listed as they are listed in the South Carolina's website. You've tried to suggest there were more Pedee people in 1808 than historical records acknowledge; you've tried to hide the fact that Pedee people owned African American slaves. Because of this ongoing, tedious process, I stripped the article down from pure fantasy to what's actually in the historical record, which is very little. The Wikipedia process works because the article is now vastly superior to what it was a week again. If you want to publish new information about groups claiming descent from Pedee people, that's what blogs, newspapers, websites, journals, etc. are for. Yuchitown (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

With all due respect, you edited (completely changed) the heading of the final section to read 'descendants'. From reading your edits on this page and the pages of other ethnic groups and/or state recognized tribes it appears that you may need to reevaluate your ability to remain objective toward these types of pages. It is apparent that you have a biased against non-federal tribes. If your inappropriate behavior continues on this page I will begin editing your unsourced, personal opinions on all of the other pages you edited relating to ethnic groups & state recognized tribes. Please stop vandalizing pages with biased opinions, questionable sources that do not meet Wikipedia standards & your harassment of users who do not relent to your POV. With the utmost respect Alolyphant (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which you are parroting back terms I've used reveals that you have not read any of the essays about them. Wikipedia:Citing sources explains what constitutes an acceptable source, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research are other core essays to read. I had my copy of Handbook of North American Indians out so figured I'd edit neighboring groups whose articles were woefully neglected. The Waccamaw Siouan tribe has a recorded history that continues through the 19th and 20th centuries, so I added cited material about that. You don't know my personal opinions, because I don't post them on Wikipedia. To understand what vandalism is, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Adding material published in respected ethnographic and historic texts that you don't happen to agree with is not vandalism. Yuchitown (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Alolyphant, please provide actual verifiable sources (with URL) for any material you want to add, or provide sources to prove something in there is incorrect. Otherwise, drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at "Catawba and Neighboring Groups" in Handbook of North American Indians, Mooney's The Siouan Tribes of the East, and Swanton's The Indian Tribes of North America, all information about the Pedee (all the texts use this spelling, most likely to distinguish between the Pee Dee River and the archaeological Pee Dee culture) from these sources in included in the article. There wasn't much, but no picking or choosing occurred. Yuchitown (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Surnames

This paragraph was completely uncited, so I'm moving it here to the talk page:

"Common names in the Pee Dee tribes are Oxendine, Chavis, Deas, Williams, Galphin, Jeffcoat, Gleaton, Hoover, Hutto, Bolin, Locklear, Jones, James, Wise, Argoe, Braveboy, Pendarvis, Sweat, Owens, Quick, and many others."

If anyone wants to create new articles for the contemporary organizations identifying as Pedee descendents, go for it. Just remember to cite everything with reliable, secondary published sources. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown