Jump to content

Talk:Melungeon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StephanieTree (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 3 September 2023 (→WP:REDFLAG: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateMelungeon is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 7, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Issues With Sources

Please provide good sources regarding the term Melungeon. Any studies, articles, dissertations, and the like belong in the popular culture section. Too many researchers are using this space as a way to legitimize their studies and beliefs and this is not the place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieTree (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies almost exclusively on only one source, a study by Roberta Estes, that was extremely limited in its reach. It only looked at the Melungeons of one or two very small communities in Eastern Tennessee and did not look at the genetics of Melungeons outside of those communities. Further, Estes herself has said they did in fact find one Melungeon family, the Sizemores, who did have Indigenous American ancestry. Not that many actual genetic studies have been done on these people and the only one that is being cited was 1. very limited in its scope and 2. does not support the statement that was in the article that no Melungeons have Indigenous American ancestry. I made some changes to the article to reflect upon this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:441F:920E:AA03:340 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Please provide links to other published studies. All the unsourced conjecture needs to go. Yuchitown (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Sundayclose I believe that the citations 1, 2, and 3
  1. Holloway, Pippa (2008). Other Souths: Diversity and Difference in the U.S. South, Reconstruction to Present. Athens: University of Georgia Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780820330525.
  2. "DNA study seeks origin of Melungeons". Tampa Bay Times. AP. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  3. Neal (June 24, 2015). "Melungeons explore mysterious mixed-race origins". USA Today. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
violate wikipedia standards When Not to Cite
and are also ambiguous opinion newspaper articles in a collection of articles and cannot be verified and are not specific to the quotes cited. Opinions? Can I get a WP:Consensus ? StephanieTree (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; irrelevant sources based in opinion be deleted and original resources for the quotes and claims written and cited in those places. StephanieTree (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting sources

In this dif, User:Chalahbai15 introduced wp:self-published sources, but they also misrepresented published sources. For instance, they were trying to use Jill E. Rowe’s Invisible in Plain Sight: Self-Determination Strategies of Free Blacks in the Old Northwest to back up the statement that Melguneons have "roots in the Atlantic Creole communities of Portuguese, Spanish, and Sephardi Jewish lançado descent." The books only briefly mentions "Melungeons of East Tennessee" in a list of other groups. "The rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in Western Africa, 1300–1589" does not substantiate this statement either. Yuchitown (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I agree; you have consensus to delete. StephanieTree (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Virginia vs. Western Virginia

Hi, coming here to discuss a disagreement as to whether to use "western Virginia" or "Southwest Virginia" in the infobox. I've explained my position in the edit history, and also linked to a source using the terminology (that was already linked in the infobox).

Can the other editors please explain their position on why "western Virginia" is a better term? In my head, "Southwest Virginia" makes more sense, as "western Virginia" could just as well refer to the counties of the state that border West Virginia. Whereas, the sources in the infobox, and elsewhere in the article, link Melungeons to the Cumberland Gap area and specify that the part of the state we're talking about here is where Virginia meets Kentucky and Tennessee, i.e. its southwest. Furthermore, why not link to the Southwest Virginia page but link to East Tennessee?

Appreciate the work done on this article to remove fringe theories. 2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My major concern at this point is the frequent reverting without discussion, which is why I asked you to discuss here. Yuchitown has made many improvements to the article recently, so let's wait for their comments. But don't revert again without a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, thanks. Would like to add to my previous comment that the book Other Souths, used a source that specifically uses the term "western Virginia" also refers to Albemarle County as being in "western Virginia near Charlottesville." Thus, for this author, western Virginia refers to a huge swath of area, including those northwestern counties of the state. Albemarle County, I think, is decidedly not in the territory associated with Melungeons or in Appalachia. Thus, I think this book actually lends more credence to using the term Southwest Virginia to be more specific. 2601:18D:4600:A610:3D50:F366:7820:7134 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly on this particular subject, I couldn't care less. Find decent secondary, published reliable sources and source the edit you want. I'm much more concerned about the wp:fringe theories creeping in and self-published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Okay, reverting to my edit that used the USA Today article as a source for "Southwest Virginia," which I made before I was asked to bring it to the talk page. 2601:18D:4600:A610:D12D:DE57:B8A4:C487 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Yuchitown The article right now is a huge WP:REDFLAG StephanieTree (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree- the citation reference book Other Souths is not properly cited in this article, nor is it relevant. I believe it should be removed. StephanieTree (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

loss of self-identification?

@Yuchitown: Per your revision of 15:17, 26 August 2023, it states:

[Plecker] directed the offices to reclassify members of certain families as black, causing the loss for numerous families of documentation in records that showed their continued self-identification as being of Native American descent.

I'm trying to parse this change. The reclassification of certain people of native American descent caused the loss of documentation of their self-identification as native Americans to be lost.

So they themselves are being identified (i.e. as "colored" or native American), but the issue is "by whom?". Adding "self" makes it seems like they're relying on the documentation as to how they identify themselves, whereas the issue is how they are identified by others who are going by whatever the documentation states. Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native American is capitalized as per MOS. You appear very resistant to the verifiable truth that in the past certain Melungeon families self-identified as having Native American ancestry. No tribes identified them as such, so falls to self-identification. Yuchitown (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Au contraire! I am not resistant to any such claim, but the issue is how state officials identified them. Plecker insisted on changing their identification (on existing birth records) from "Indian" to "colored" with the result that subsequent offspring would, by law, be identified as "colored". Fabrickator (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what's the problem? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Your change represents that changing the designation on birth certificates affected how they self-identified, when it actually affected how they were identified on official state records. In so doing, it also precluded descendants from being identified as "American Indian". Thus, the problem is not how they self-identify, but how they are identified by the state on their birth certificates. Fabrickator (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But these families are the origin of the identification. The identification is not originating from any Native American tribe. Make it "self-identify on their official forms" if you want. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Regarding the above statement and your edit adding "on official forms", it sounds like you are trying to put forward some prescriptive standardized and well-enforced process, going beyond mere self-reporting of births by those persons directly involved in the birthing process. Can it be recorded as a "tribal birth" only if reported on an "Official Tribal form"? Can you provide a source for this? Fabrickator (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to accomodate you while keeping the article truthful. You do not appear to be familiar with Native American topics. You can try reading WP:NDNID, but, in a nutshell, with Native identity when an individual or family claims a Native American identify, we at Wikipedia can only verify that that have self-identified. To claim anything beyond that and to make a statement that they actually are of Native American descent would require that a specific Native American tribe claims the individual or family. Census records are primary documents; today they are completely self-identified. Yuchitown (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
You need to sign your comment below. But you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families, hence "self-identification. Yuchitown (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
You are attempting to apply WP:NDNID out of context. That's clearly when, in a WP article, a claim is made that some specific person or persons are indigenous. No such claim is being made (i.e. about a specific individual or individuals) in this instance. Instead, we are describing a generic case of somebody registering a birth and reporting how they claim the offspring should be registered. We are not making any claim in the article that a particular individual is in fact indigenous. This is how the birth is registered and how the state recognizes it, thereby determining how that person is treated by the law, even if it is not satisfactory as evidence to support such a claim on WP. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023

Yuchitown wrote: "... you keep ignoring the fact that no Native American is claiming any of these families."

I am missing something. This is not dependent on any specific person actually being a Native American. Rather, the claim is that there was a set of persons who had been reported on their birth certificates as American Indian, which had actually provided them with certain advantages as compared to being registered as "colored". I'm perplexed as to where you're coming from, I guess it's that they were properly not Native Americans, so they shouldn't have been able to register as American Indians. Or you feel it's material for some other reason. But it's not a relevant issue, inasmuch as the article is not claiming that any particular person was a Native American. The intention of the Wikipedia guideline is that within an article, we should not assert that someone is a Native American without a tribal acknowledgement to that effect. Such a claim is not being made in the article, and in particular, it's not being made with regard to any specific person. The claim is that "... documentation in records ... showed their continued identification as being of Native American descent." The claim is not that they were in fact Native Americans, but that right or wrong, the actual birth records showed them as Native Americans.

So what's my objection to prefixing "identified" with "self"? In this context, "self-identified" would likely be interpreted to mean that they actually considered themselves to be Native Americans, but we should only infer that they registered their births that way because they couldn't register as "white" and they didn't want to register as "colored". Until the passage of the Racial Integrity Act, Melungeons were able to be reported on their birth certificates as American Indians. That's not to assert that they were in fact American Indians, but that was the best choice available to them, and until Plecker came along, they were able to have that claim accepted. None of this depended on tribal documentation for the selection of "American Indian" to have the desired effect. Fabrickator (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am, back again. I can see how people looking at the phrasing in the article may think that "self-identified" is an appropriate term here, yet it provides a pretty specific inference that the person (the parents?) were able to exercise their own free will in the matter, yet the reality is the only available choices were "white", "colored", and "American Indian" (setting aside the issue that the rationale for the "self" prefix is a Wikipedia policy about verifiability). But if we were to be consistent, we would have to say that after the Racial Integrity Law became effective, they self-identified as "colored", even though that was the only choice open to them.
This system of classification of race is something that was "done to" these people. They may have had a greater or lesser influence on this, depending on the conditions under which the race was reported. When they had the option, they chose "American Indian" rather than "colored". What they actually self-identified as? I don't know, but it wouldn't have been limited to the selections provided on the official forms. I suggest that it would lessen the confusion to replace "identified" with "assigned", "recorded", or something similar. Fabrickator (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free to add "self-identify" to "colored" or "white." Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Ambiguous References

@Sundayclose I believe that the citations 1, 2, and 3
  1. Holloway, Pippa (2008). Other Souths: Diversity and Difference in the U.S. South, Reconstruction to Present. Athens: University of Georgia Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780820330525.
  2. "DNA study seeks origin of Melungeons". Tampa Bay Times. AP. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  3. Neal (June 24, 2015). "Melungeons explore mysterious mixed-race origins". USA Today. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
violate wikipedia standards When Not to Cite
and are also ambiguous opinion newspaper articles in a collection of articles and cannot be verified and are not specific to the quotes cited. Opinions? Can I get a WP:Consensus ?
What do you think, are these citations relevant or verifiable as it is on the Wikipedia page currently?

StephanieTree (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDFLAG

The first paragraph is linked in error to a third party opinion on a controversial study; the primary source used for the word Melungeon is arbitrarily placed in the middle of the sentence and connected to an additional source that does not agree with the primary source and definition of Melungeon people and where they are from.


Melungeons (/məˈlʌndʒənz/ mə-LUN-jənz) (sometimes also spelled Malungeans, Melangeans, Melungeans, Melungins[1]) are a group of people from Appalachia who predominantly descend from Northern or Central European women and sub-Saharan African men.[2] Their ancestors were likely brought to Virginia as indentured servants in the mid-17th century.[2]


This citation could be cleaned up and the citation mentioned twice should be collapsed in one sentence and the full citation and resource should be in sentence 1 found here on the definition of Melungeon: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1890/volume-10/1890a_v10-2

Source in dispute: https://www.tampabay.com/incoming/dna-study-seeks-origin-of-melungeons/1231925/ StephanieTree (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are published, secondary sources discussing this or other genetic studies of this group, you can add them, but trying to suppress published material that you don't agree with is censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Yuchitown (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I believe an article that talks about living people who were a part of a genetic study is an inappropriate source to use for the definition of this word, which is in violation of WP:HARM StephanieTree (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Avoiding harm that is. StephanieTree (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "1894 Report of the U.S. Department of the Interior, in its Report of Indians Taxed and Not Taxed" (PDF). www2.census.gov. Department of the Interior. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  2. ^ a b "DNA study seeks origin of Melungeons". Tampa Bay Times. AP. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2023.

proposal to delete "A Typical Malungeon" sketch

The "A Typical Malungeon" (Calloway Collins) illustration is more of a caricature than a realistic depiction of a Melungeon. IIRC, this was commissioned by Dromgoole and her perspective on the Melungeons is evidently not unbiased. Additionally, the article doesn't alert the reader to this fact.

I suggest that the illlustration be removed from the article. In the alternative, there could be additional content added elaborating on societal or systemic bias against Melungeons (e.g. in the media, as exemplified by Dromgoole's "contributions"). I'm not volunteering to do this, just saying that this would provide the needed context for this illustration. Fabrickator (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; the illustration of Calloway Collins is a caricature and part of the Yellow Journalism of Dromgoole; the other issue with this picture with the Goins family picture is that this words is steeped in racism- the word itself is a caricature of a group of people. To include a picture of a family and not even know who they are or give credit to them or the source of the photo other then looking like a realistic depiction of a Melungeon is also not unbiased. The two pictures provided in this article together are definitely inappropriate; however the Calloway Collins depiction was titled "A Typical Melungeon" and was infamously circulated along with the descriptions of these families by Dromgoole. It makes it not wikipedia appropriate when someone has decided that Arch Goins' brother's family provides a "realistic depiction of a Melungeon" since this word is a racial slur at the end of the day. I propose the Goins family picture is deleted in favor of sticking to documented evidence of where "Melungeons" were written about in history with that descriptor- not based on someone's private family photos on wikipedia that were uploaded from the Melungeon Heritage Association but the original source is no where to be found since this is a private collection photo. I agree with the alternative- to provide education with an appropriate context of this illustration; and then I also propose to delete the Goins family photo- unless someone can provide a source for this photo. StephanieTree (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melungeon&oldid=1173631484"