Talk:Moon-eyed people

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moon-eyed people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Appalachia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

William Trexel

We don't use self-published books as sources, and in any case an ophthalmologist is neither a historian nor a reliable sourc efor this. His publishers call him "Mr. Trexel" and say "William L. Traxel has researched the literary, archeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence of pre-Columbian visits and settlements in North America for over 20 years. He graduated from Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University, and has a doctorate degree from the University of Michigan. Mr. Traxel is a direct descendant of Squire Boone, the grandfather of the legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone." But if you look at the acknowledgment page of his book on Amazon he signs himself as 'Dr' and thanks the library at Poplar Bluff, Mo. He's actually an Ophthalmologist unless there's another person with the same name in Poplar Bluff.. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, these are the Adena

. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a conflict in the article - the lede suggests they were encountered in Ohio and might be the Ohio-centered Adena culture. The Legacy section relates them to stone structures found predominantly in the southern Apps, and specifically to one found in Georgia. This may represent the inherent tension between the scholarly archeo/anthro crowd and the hyperdiffusionists, but if so we need to summarize the scholarly material in the body, not just the lede, and we need a fringe-appropriate mention of the other interpretation in the lede and not just the body. Fundamentally, this needs the anthropological work that has been done on these people - the context of the original mention of them and what scholars have made of the expression. Then we can move on to notable speculation (scholarly and otherwise) about who they were and what sites have been attributed with them. I would make a go at it but I have neither the expertise nor the

time. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These are hardly Adena people. Connecting an 18th-century mention from a tribe in western Tennessee/eastern North Carolina to a 2000-year-old group from Ohio and West Virginia is a huge stretch of imagination, unsubstantiated by any archaeological findings. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

James Mooney

James Mooney's History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees says:

"There is a dim hut persistent tradition of a strange white race preceding the Cherokee, some of the stories even going so far as to locate their former settlements and to identify them as the authors of the ancient works found in the country. The earliest reference appears to be that of Barton in 1797, on the Statement of a gentleman whom he quotes as a valuable authority upon the southern tribes. "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." He seems to consider them an albino race.' Haywood, twenty-six years later, says that the invading Cherokee found "white people" near the head of the Little Tennessee, with forts extending thence down the Tennessee as far as Chickamauga creek. He gives the location of three of these forts. The Cherokee made war against them and drove them to the mouth of Big Chickamauga creek, where they entered into a treaty and agreed to remove if permitted to depart in peace. Permission being granted, they abandoned the country. Else-where he speaks of this extirpated white race as having extended into Kentucky and probably also into western Tennessee, according to the concurrent traditions of different tribes. He describes their houses, on what authority is not stated, as having been small circular structures".

Ok. But Haywood is John Haywood (historian), and the source used by Mooney is The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee (1823), an attempt to prove that the native tribes of Tennessee were descendants of ancient Hebrews. But he doesn't mention moon-eyed people.

Barton is Benjamin Smith Barton and he writes "This was communicated to me by Colonel Leonard Marbury, a very intelligent gentleman, who has given me much important information concerning the southern Indians."

This is apparently the source of the story. The issue is, how seriously do we take this and how do we represent it? Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to summarise what these sources say. Of course they are all second or third hand. Indeed there seem to be no actual direct native interviewees quoted. It would be good to know what the Encyclopedia of Appalachia actually says. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we even know that these sources are referring to the same (hypothetical) tribe? This seems like WP:SYNTH to simply assume that the two sources are referring to the exact same thing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Mooney doesn't say that the two are the same. This whole thing is a mess. Til says that virtually every source calls it a legend, but that simply isn't true. Some reliable sources discuss it without using the word legend - at least one says moon-eyed people is another name for Adena and that native Americans want that to be the 'official name'. We need to be careful that we don't conflate different stories, that we don't go beyond the sources, and probably that we attribute the sources. I'd like some reliably sourced comments on Mooney - I've seen anecdotal evidence Native Americans aren't always happy with him but that doesn't mean much as it hasn't been in reliable sources, and it's easy to find anecdotal stuff for almost anything. I'm not saying he's an unreliable source, Til, don't jump down my throat about this comment, just that I don't know much about him. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Salimfadhley that any attempts to identify who the "Moon-Eyed People" were would be WP:SYNTH or original research. The idea that they were Adena people (whose era ended in 200 BCE) is published in Barbara Alice Mann's essay in "Encyclopedia of American Indian History," so her personal theories could be presented as such in this article, but her essay defies all current archaeological research. Mann, an extremely proific writer, self-identifies as an "Ohio Bear Clan Seneca," which seems like a red flag (apparently it's "community-recognized," but not federally or state recognized. Of course there are two Seneca tribes and of course they have a Bear Clan, but they aren't in Ohio). -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I think what we're dealing with is various, not mutually agreeing snippets about a people who predated the Cherokee in their current area. It is only the Barton quote, which is evidently the earliest mention, that calls the people "moon-eyed" and indicates they couldn't see in the day. It's possible an article could be made for the tradition as a whole, but moon-eyed people probably isn't a great title for it. It's also clear that a lot of the subsequent mentions are heavily influenced by the "Welsh Indians" and Madoc stories and that probably should be mentioned. One variant that Mooney seems to have missed, is John Sevier's letter, currently described in the Madoc article where it's cited to Gwynn A. Williams. That one is attributed to Oconostota but it's very clearly tied to the Welsh Indians myth.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Although "Welsh Indians" currently links here, which I feel is pushing a POV, this isn't the "Welsh Indians" article. We would probably require some source by a scholar explicitly connecting Sevier's letter with the "Moon-eyed people". If no source ever has, that sounds like OR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected Welsh Indians back to Madoc where they're described in much more detail. Williams connects Sevier's account to the supposed Cherokee traditions of an earlier people who predated them, though not (as far as I can recall) to Barton's "moon-eyed people" specifically. That's really a problem with our article rather than the sources; Barton is the only early source using that description though there are obviously several accounts of a mythical preexisting people.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Williams also connects Sevier's account to the Welsh Indians legend (it's explicit in the text itself) and also specifically gives it as an example of the Euro-American legends influencing the Indian tradition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's plausible Williams is referring to some form derived from the same legend, but that's a SYNTH assumption if she doesn't make any claim about the "Moon Eyed people". Does anyone else connect Sevier with the "Moon Eyed People" or claim Sevier mentioned them? And I'm not seeing all the sources referencing Barton. Some do, in support of this being a Cherokee legend, and some others do not mention Barton at all, while still attributing this directly to the Cherokee, including studies on Cherokee oral traditions more recent than Barton's. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few other places that do connect Sevier's account with Barton's "moon-eyed people", but you're not hearing me: Barton's account is just one version, and it's the only early account that uses the phrase "moon-eyed people". Williams does connect Sevier's account to the ostensible Cherokee story. It's our problem that we're using the term for the title of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohio, or "Southern Highlands" ?

The wikipedia article says these people would have lived in Ohio before the Cherokee moved there. Something about this sounds dubious to me, since the Cherokee were never recorded as living in Ohio at any known point in history. The image of the plaque marker, if you zoom in on the text, puts them in the "Southern Highlands". This makes a lot more sense to me, because the Cherokee were indeed historically recorded as living in the Southern Highlands. What is the thought process locating this in Ohio I wonder? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I truly wonder if there has never been in recorded history of Cherokee living in OHIO, then how is it my family lived in Clinton, OH since the MID 1700's .. We are direct Cherokee descendants! My Grandmother Mary Elizabeth PEACEMAKER was born in 1906 in Maine. 75% Cherokee.. My Great Grandparents moved to PA with the rest of their relatives & then my Grandmother moved to the Clinton, Oh. area with her siblings.. In fact, the Peacemakers helped in building the 10 railways that DID ran through Clinton (until here recently) & they also helped build the little village of Clinton, Ohio. In 1972-73 my mother and her husband bought what used to be the Motel. My neighbors to the left of us owned the Whore House & in 1974-75, my Uncle Rodney bought the original train depo/post office that was built in the 1700's.. I was researching Blue eyed Cherokee Native Americans, I was trying to found out where the Blue-eyes that speckled in our family tree,came from when 95% of us are Brown-eyed. (Never heard of the MOON-people, but that does clear a few questions) All this info is easily obtainable on.......... Ancestry just look up Peacemaker. Clinton Oh. user:1crzy8ball

That was my reading of a source quoting Barton. He may be mistaken, or, more likely, I may have misread it. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in footnote 3. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Barbara Mann set some Seneca Iroquois oral traditions down in writing, that were published by the University of Toledo in 2006: "Land of the Three Miamis". In it, she alludes to Cherokee legends of the "Moon-Eyed People" as inhabiting what is now Ohio, and also states that there is disagreement among Cherokee tradition keepers as to whether the Cherokee had killed these people off, or intermarried with them. She says that the term "Moon Eyed People" means (in her words) "astronomers who kept close track of the night sky from their circle and effigy mounds." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mooney maintained Cherokees lived in Ohio, but his theory has not held up to 20th and 21st century archaeology. As mentioned above I strongly question Barbara Mann's credibility, although she is an extremely prolific writer. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I am so relieved to see that we have finally attracted someone who seems to know more about this subject. I agree with you above that the connection between the Adena and the Moon-eyes is shaky and relies on Mann and Johansen, but I was hesitant about making that point. I think Mann has also covered the Fort Mountain angle in some of her works. Some of her work does seem to have citations by peers and be academically published, and in the long run that may be more relevant to our guidelines than her ethnicity, but it would not be too surprising if some sources have indeed challenged her on those grounds. Would you be able to confirm for any skeptics that other major scholars on Cherokee folklore have also included this? I listed them as Barbara Duncan, Barbara Reimensnyder, Vicki Rozema, and Russell Thornton, and have already quoted some of them on this page, which apparently wasn't good enough for reasons not entirely clear to me. This doesn't even include the seemingly hundreds of easily accessible state histories and local histories who also describe this well known "Cherokee legend". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is the original information from Barton and then everyone else referring to and speculating on his original mention. But they are written about enough to establish notability. I'm not seeing the problem with the current article as is (with no wild stories of Welsh Indians). To be perfectly honest, I heard about the Moon-Eyed people from mom (don't worry, I'm not presenting her as a reliable academic source) who said they moved west and were encountered by the Kiowa, but I can't find anything published to verify that. I'll ask her tomorrow what other names, such as Kiowa names, they might be known by, which might yield more sources. This article seems similar to the Si-Te-Cah article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lol. That article was a mess before I looked for sources. Chinese whispers anyone? And that's what seems to have happened here although so far as I can see no one has actually researched and published on this history of the discussion of the moon-eyed people. I don't understand where Mann gets her information from (note she is referring to them as real people, no mention of legend so far as I know). Or the bit about Indians in Ohio wanting the Adena to be called the moon-eyed people, maybe your mom can find out about that? Til's claim about all or virtually all reliable sources calling this a legend fails when you look at the sources - some simply treat them as another group of Indians, others insist they are white/Welsh etc, some call them folklore, some a Cherokee legend. I can't find anything by Johansen by the way, only by Mann in 2 books Johansen edited. Thornton is another writer who does not refer to this as a legend - he calls it a tradition but is basing this on Mooney (who by the way took the Walum Olum to be genuine. Thornton only devotes one sentence to them in The Cherokees: A Population History. I can't find what Barbara Duncan says about them. And why in the world is Til adding Barbara Reimensnyder as though she's a separate source? Barbara Reimensnyder is Barbara Reimensnyder Duncan. You can see why I'm asking Til for details, not just names. Ah, found it. Cherokee heritage trails guidebook - Page 317 Barbara R. Duncan, Brett H. Riggs, Blue Ridge Heritage Initiative ... "Some stories claim that the wall's builders were "moon- eyed people" or even Welshmen led by Prince Modoc, as though the Cherokees lacked the technology for building a". So does that look as though Barbara Duncan is calling this a legend? Looks to me as though she's throwing cold water on it. Til, please explain why you have Barbara Duncan as a source for this being a legend or whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One problem is you are making up too many rules as you go along in order to "raise the bar impossibly high". Where do you get your authoroty to do so? Any author who is not native can be disqualified by you on grounds of not being native, and you insist on a source that is native. When it turns out some of these authors are native they can be disqualified on grounds that YOU don't understand where they get their information from. When I say the sources call this a Cherokee legend, the key word I am arguing is "Cherokee", not "legend". Some call it a story, a myth, a tradition, or as the original Barton put it, "the Cheerake tell us". They all attribute the tale to the Cherokee but you want to argue originally that the Cherokee really have no such tale, an argument that apparently no scholar in recorded history has ever before made, and part of your reasoning is because even though none of the sources fail to attribute the tale to the Cherokee, not all of them have used the specific word "legend" to describe the tale but rather some other synonym, or simply "the Cheerake tell us". This is a specious and facetious argument, because you are insisting that the source must use the exact word "legend" to deny the fact that they all attribute the tale, narrative, whatever to the Cherokee. And in fact many of them do use the word "legend" but they are still disqualified by you on some other grounds.

I did not realize Barbara Reimensnyder and Barbara Duncan may be the same person, you have indeed uncovered something there I was not aware of. This does not logically change the fact that she is a Cherokee scholar who solidly attributes this tale to the Cherokee, precisely what you are demanding, but predictably, when one is found, your superior knowledge and authority once again over-rules all published material on the subject.

Uyvnsdi, I have collected several academic sources that give alternate native names for the "moon eyed people" that may help your searches. These include authors who say the Moon Eyed people of Cherokee legend are known as the "Nickajackie" and "Yunwi Tsudi" or "Yunwi Tsusdi". Sources disagree on whether the "Yunwi Tsudi / Tsusdi" are the same as the legendary "Moon Eyed people" or have been confused with the "Nunnehi" or "Little people", another legendary race of Cherokee folklore. I don't know if there's any point in arguing any more with people here who want to pretend this isn't an actual Cherokee legend, insinuating that Colonel Marbury was mistaken or lying. I realize the real ulterior motive is because a few sources happen to have mentioned this stuff in the same breath with "Madoc", and anything daring to mention "Madoc" must be tarred and impugned for all time, ignored then laughed at, stabbed with their steely knives and finally dropped in the memory hole as much as humanly possible according to a certain school of thought that enjoys some afficionadoes here. So the real logical error here is "guilt by association". (i.e. Madoc is "guilty" of not existing or not being allowed to be mentioned, therefore anything else that has ever been associated by anyone with Madoc, is likewise guilty in the same way according to the law of damnatio memoriae.) Experience has shown they will pull out all the stops and appeal to their own superior personal wiki-expertise to over-rule as many published academic sources as it takes to achieve this, it's that important to them, although why I'm not sure; the original Cherokee legend may well have had nothing whatsoever to do with the Prince Madoc stuff. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Yunwi Tsudi" appears to be exclusively linked to Little People, which every tribe has accounts of (and is the sort of thing I try to avoid writing about on Wikipedia—plenty of stuff doesn't belong on the internet). -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Did you catch this assertion from an academic source attributing the "moon-eyed people" to "Cherokee tradition"? It also includes a few other tidbits on the version that has the Cherokee being partly descended from them rather than killing them all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cherokee tradition asserts that as the yunwi, the people, approached the "mountains of the rising sun", they encountered on the western slopes of the Appalachian Mountains people called the Chickamauga, or "big spear people". Their rulers were called nickajackie, which means "moon-eyed people" or "they who eye the Moon," or "Moon watchers." After a great drought and war, the yunwi and the chickamauga merged to become the aniyunwiya, "the real people" or "principal people"." Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture Volume XIV, 1999 p. 123, University of Texas Press.

I'm glad you traced down the nickajackie mention - I saw that and asked someone (Steve McCluskie) for the article but he hasn't responded. Who's the author? I wondered if Steve was. Is there any clue where this different version of the story came from? I couldn't find another source for nickajackie but there must be one. Nickajack on the other hand - "generally refers to the rugged Appalachian foothills in eastern Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. In Old Frontiers, John P. Brown states that "Nickajack" is a corruption of the Cherokee ᎠᏂ ᎫᏌᏘ Ᏹ ("Ani-Kusati-yi"), which he says means Coosa Town but more likely means Koasati Town". Vicki Rozema also says it means "Ani-Kusati-yi" which she says means "Creek people place." That's quite a different interpretation which at least for me is confusing.

I'm busy and not reading all the posts here - and will probably take a break soon. I found yesterday - not a reliable source but it quotes an astronomer, John Burgess, who seems to be a RS for Archaeoastronomy, as saying the Cherokee "“have a tribal legend that their ancestors displaced a race of moon-eyed people. “In the Cherokee language, moon-eyed could also be translated as moon watching. If those early Indians were interested in astronomy, they may well have built the wall.”

I have absolutely no reason to suggest that Marbury was mistaken or lying although I guess there is a possiblity that if Marbury was translating Cherokee he got the word wrong. The Madoc thing is a bit of a sideshow and can be dealt with. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee Legend

Nearly every published source ever written about the Cherokee agrees that this is a "Cherokee legend". (Search google books for [Cherokee "moon-eyed"] - a lot of them don't use the string 'moon-eyed people' but rather 'moon-eyed race', etc.) So all the sources including the Cherokee themselves are clearly in agreement that this is a Cherokee tradition. Now we have wikipedians who are openly arguing that it is NOT a Cherokee legend, simply because they can identify the first time it was written down, and they seemingly wish to suggest a novel argument that this means the original report is erroneous and somehow begat all the other mentions of the legend, therefore it is NOT a Cherokee legend. This is typical of what happens on wikipedia. However, let the facts state that there is NO published source whatsoever anywhere making such an argument that this is "NOT a Cherokee legend". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? "nearly every published source about the Cherokee mention "moon-eyed"? That's simply not the case. And how can anyone possibly know that "there is NO published source whatsoever anywhere making such an argument that this is "NOT a Cherokee legend". I searched and although some sources mention moon-eyed people I can't find anyone tracking this down to a Cherokee source for it. Now clearly I might have missed something, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a Cherokee saying it's a legend - but that doesn't make it one. It may be, I simply can't find any evidence yet. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well surely the burden is on you to back up your assertion that it's not a Cherokee legend with a source explicitly making that claim, not OR. And I know these sources include the main books about the Cherokee because I've read most of them. So if no scholar to treat this has ever before hit upon what you're arguing, I say we should not be the place to debut it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up, Til. (OK, to be fair, Doug, it's hard to prove a negative, but show us a definitive Cherokee history where they are NOT mentioned) Where are the peer-reviewed historical studies by respected historians who have studied the Cherokee culture and are experts on the Cherokee people? As far as I can tell, this is just more stuff on the various "white people were here before Columbus" legends that are interesting, but other than Vinland are wholly unproven. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, never mind the search I suggested for Google Books. Let's go another step higher and see if it's on Google Scholar, then see if you're smarter than all these sources.

Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't include the word legend. And even without it, you get "the mule was moon eyed", a book by an opthalmalogist, a book of ghost stories, etc. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So what? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for some unpublishable original research, a Muscogee-Cherokee-Delaware-Natchez cultural historian says they were most likely another tribe that migrated away, could be known as the aniso'i, had "big bug eyes," and not very much else is known about them. —Uyvsdi (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• FYI Mooney, James (1902). Myths of the Cherokee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 22–3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) at Internet Archive 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are aware that this book is already cited in the article? It just mentions the Barton book in a few words. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The question is one of notability, and this is just one more brick in the wall. You are now aware that this was from the official annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And as I commented at the AfD, it was a 1902 report, back when the US Govt was still grave-robbing in the name of research. And it only repeats the original claim. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You just make yourself look foolish with comments like that. If you were aware that's it's alrteady cited (added by me), then there was no need to mention it here is there? And it doesn't add to notability, if it's already there, and we know perfectly well where it came from back in 1902. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I WP:AGF, and would not dignify your needless breach of WP:Civil with further comment. If you added it, you did the article a service. However, the more robust citation that I added helped explain its significance. In any event, the addition was not directed at you, but might call to the attention of other editors a change that they might have overlooked. {:>})> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First scholarly source: What does Southern anthropological society proceedings, Issue 23 say?

Barbara Reimensnyder spent much of her life learning Cherokee traditions firsthand from the Cherokee. In Southern anthropological society proceedings, Issue 23, Univeristy of Georgia Press 1990, she writes of this in her article "Cherokee Sacred Sites in the Appalachians" and mentions many of their traditions as learned firsthand, including the moon-eyed people.

"For thousands of years the Cherokee have lived in the Appalachians. For them the earth was and is alive: water, stones, mist, fire. Everything is alive and everything is sacred. In the mountains, over several thousand years, they found places that were special for spiritual reasons. They found doorways to the spiritual world; they found monsters and moon-eyed people; they found places to avoid, like the Nantahala Gorge; they found the places where sacred plants grew; plants used for healing and ceremonies; and they found places where spirits would..."

No doubt you will argue that this is worthless because "passing mentions don't count for anything" or some such, but really you seem determined to rewrite the scholars and flush Cherokee traditions down the memory hole by any means possible, according to your superior knowledge of the "truth" and your original research expert analysis in judgement of any sources you don;t like. So, we will find more than "passing mentions" in a few other sources, and see if the pattern continues of "raising the bar impossibly high". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I don't know the truth. But yes, this is just a passing mention with no discussion. Seriously, if you can find something that actually shows that shows an origin that isn't Barton's Colonel , great, I'll be happy with it. But so far I can't find any suggestion from reliable sources that it doesn't. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days so I may not be able to take much part in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And to spell it out, despite your claim that "it's hard to find any scholarly book about the Cherokee that DOESN'T call this a "Cherokee legend"" (modified from "all"), your first source doesn't call it a legend or myth. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The words 'legend' or 'myth' might not appear in that selection... but also if you notice, mentioning them in the same breath with "monsters" certainly doesn't help the argument that it is not a 'legend' or 'myth' does it?

Would everyone be careful to sign their posts? Was the one above by Til or Doug??...Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Next Source: Footsteps of the Cherokees

This is an excellent firsthand book of much Cherokee lore, and I have my own copy on my bookshelf. Like several other scholars, Vicky Rozema mentions that there is the Cherokee tradition that the ancient wall at Fort Mountain State Park was built by the "moon eyed people". All of these scholars could not have gotten that detail from the 1797 report that was the first mention of "moon eyed people".

"The origin of the 855-foot-long rock wall that gives this mountain its name is clouded in mystery," she writes [I bet Doug can tell us exactly where it came from, he seems to know everything about everything!] "One local legend says it was built by a fair-skinned, moon-eyed race of people who once inhabited the region. According to Cherokee legend, when the Cherokees moved into the area north of Fort Mountain between the Little Tennessee River and the Chickamauga region, they displaced a pale-skinned, moon-eyed race.

Vicky Rozema is one of the foremost Cherokee historians who has written several books on Cherokee history. Of course, that too can be easily discounted, all we have to do is assume that we are smarter than she is and know more about it, and therefore she is a suspect source. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be following the time tested method of ignoring everything you can't pick apart, pretending you didn't see it, and focusing instead on the ones that are easier for you to pick apart. Am I right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Statements on a tourism marker are hardly going to qualify as RS. And if you look at your "foremost ... historian" argument, it doesn't hold water: She wrote three books, all published by an alternative publisher that admits that they publish works "not of the scholarly nature the press was publishing..." and of a quirky nature. Here, an extraordinary anthropological claim requires extraordinary evidence, and you have yet to provide ANY citations to reliable sources, peer reviewed literature, or anything linking the legend of Madoc to the Cherokee or "white Indian" material. Maybe someone claims a local legend, but even your quote above is "one local legend," hardly a ringing endorsement. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to stoop so low as to attack the publisher and the author just because you, as a wikipedian editor, don't like something she says, you're running out of ideas, take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and get their consensus, and cite some guideline (not an essay), please. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til, this is called WP:RS. You have surely heard of it. Insulting editors for using policy suggests you are running out of ideas. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

State Historical Marker

Here is the State Historical Marker that is already pictured in the article text. It reads:

Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People

While some legends equate the moon-eyed people withe the descendants of Prince Madoc, Cherokee legends tell of the moon-eyed people that inhabited the Southern Highlands before they arrived. These people are said to have been unable to see during certain phases of the moon. During one of these phases, the Creek people annihilated the race. Some believe these moon-eyed people built the fortifications on this mountain.

Other versions of the Cherokee legend tell about people with fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes that occupied the mountain areas until Cherokee invaders finally dispersed them. Some tales said the moon-eyed people could see in the dark, but were nearly blind in daylight. Other legends describe them as albinos.

Delaware Indian legend tells of their migration eastward from the far west and meeting a race of very tall, robust, light-skinned people they called the Allegewi, until they prevailed with the support of the Iroquois, who were also moving eastward. Some surviving Allegewi went to Cherokee territory and stayed with them for a time and are remembered as Tlvni Kula, "moon eyed" people, who were tall, fair-skinned, with light hair and grey eyes, and carried strange weapons and tools.

So, the Park Service Historians who researched the legend for this State Historical Marker, were also familiar with the Cherokee legends. I know, I know, they don't count, because these historians didn't have the benefit of being among the Wise Wikipedians Who Can Discern the Truth of all Things, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So where are these other legends? The marker also says "Legend attributes three stone forts to Prince Madoc's people." So that's a Cherokee legend also? And we can use the plaque as a source for it? Sources for a legend about the "Tlvni Kula"? You said almost all sources mention these moon-eyed people and now y you come up with an old state marker written by - ah, you say a Park historian. I assume you can source this, maybe give us his/her name? And you claimed this wasn't fringe yet this marker is clearly fringe. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Prince Madoc is not stated to be part of the Cherokee legend, and if you read carefully enough, you will not see me nor the source stating it is. Illogical red herring there. But why can't we use the plaque as a source? Oh that's right, anything mentioning "Madoc" is declared to be automatically "fringe" according to Doug Weller's rules, right? If not, could you please elaborate on why any source is automatica lly disqualified and assumed to be "fringe" if and because it mentions "Madoc"? Because I think I must be missing something by failing to see your point of view here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The first line says "Welsh and Cherokee legends coincide here on Fort Mountain." So this bit about the Forts is either being described as a Welsh legend or a Cherokee legend, and so far as I know no one has said there is a Welsh legend about forts here. You know as wel as I do that the paque doesn't meet our criteria for a reliable source to show this is a Cherokee legend, and you are ducking my questions. Ironically, while I simply don't think we should label this a Cherokee myth or legend(and am not trying to add text saying it is not one), you are the one who thinks they know the "truth" and trying to label this a legend or myth. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely a Cherokee legend, because the consensus among scholars is that it is a Cherokee legend, no scholar has ever argued that it is not a bona fide Cherokee legend, and you are the first individual ever AFAICT to insinuate that it is not, or to come up with a novel OR argument to cast aspersions on it being a Cherokee legend. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that the first mention of these people doesn't say it is a legend or myth isn't casting aspersions. So far your scholarly sources are one that mentions it in a list and doesn't call it a legend, a sign in a state park, and Vicky Rozema who I missed. I'll take a look at her later. It's up to you to demonstrate a consensus though, and so far you've come nowhere close. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to be making up all the rules as you go along, you seem to be making them awfully easy on yourself. You aren't required to have any source at all to attack the notion that it is a Cherokee legend. (Obviously there are no sources doing so). All you have to do is stigmatize each and every source that talks about this with your glorious opinion, and your original research theory that it is not a Cherokee legend but was invented by Marbury (something no source has ever stated) is supposed to stick "because you say so". Plus you have several times accused me here and in the "fringe" page of being the one to make up the idea that it is a "Cherokee legend" out of my own head. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did write "You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see" at FTN. Please show me the several times where I'fe accused you of making up the idea it's a Cherokee egend out of your own head. And I really don't understand your lack of interest in finding any Cherokee sources that this is a legend, a myth, part of their folklore, etc. I can't find any reliable sources that give a source other than Mooney or Barton or one derived from them. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On FTN did you not write "Let's see who actually calls it a legend - it isn't called a legend in 1797, so that bit is flat-out wrong, it's a label attached by Til." ??? So that means I am the one making up the idea that this is a "legend"? And the important thing about all these sources is that they all point to the same tribe, namely the "Cherokee", for this story, not whether or not they call it by the exact word "legend" or some other phrase. The 1797 source identifies the Cherokee as the source. The Anthropological journal clearly identifies the Cherokee as the source. What kind of a "Cherokee source" are you looking for, what would it take to satisfy you? It seems everything claiming the Cherokee are the source (i.e. everything ever written on the "Moon eyed people") has already been stigmatized as dubious by your skepticism that the Cherokee are valid to say what their own traditions are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure I wrote that. It was about adding "According to one Cherokee legend first attested in 1797" to Cherokee mythology. It was not attested as a legend in the 1797 source which doesn't use the word legend or myth, etc, that's a lable you added. That's your proof that I "several times accused me here and in the "fringe"? One misrepresented or misunderstood statement by me? Legends are passed down either orally or in writing, right? And where orally, they are written down by researchers who if they are doing their job report where, when, and who. If written down, we have written sources from the people whose legend it is. What's wrong with requiring this standard? Is this something to do with your disagreement with science (although this isn't exactly science) in other fields? Legends are also usually more than just this short report. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still pushing your original research notion that all the copious references to this legend in literature are derived from a single source, not to mention your original research notion that the original source is untrustworthy, and therefore all the experts on the Cherokee who have written about this are wrong and you are right. Please try to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with what you perceive to be my views on science. Clearly we are going to have to pursue some form of mediation or arbitration here: you sir do not get to rewrite Cherokee folklore because you "don't like it." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And I don't want to rewrite anything, I'm interested in the Cherokee sources - if there are any. I don't know if Marbury is trustworthy or untrustworthy - how could I and how could anyone? As I've just written at Talk:Cherokee, I think that oral or written testimony by actual Cherokee is important if we want to discuss a legend or myth. I can't see why you object to that. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since most Cherokee legends would be oral, and would have been part of their oral tradition, there won't be many sources. I recognize that they were the first Native American tribe to have their own written language, but finding that material, if it included discussion about the moon-eyed people, will be problematical at best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was extensive contact between the Cherokee and Europeans in the 18th century, and there are many written accounts of Cherokee culture. If this was an important legend, it likely would have been documented. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Even so, the Cherokee had lots of other legends beside this one, that they never revealed too much about to outsiders, from what I've heard, even some known only to elders and not most Cherokee. And if they did get written down, sometimes there was a historical tendency to repress the accounts from seeing light. So this one is surprisingly well attested, but just not enough to satisfy everyone, it seems. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At the AfD you said whole chapters have been written about this. I asked for sources for these chapters, and you replied "Perhaps you have not google-searched very hard; entire chapters have been written about the moon-eyed people legend. It's more a case of nothing is good enough for you when you're personally determined to see a bit of somebody else's culture disappear from wikipedia-land, although anyone wishing to know about the Moon-eyed people can still find abundant sources from just about anywhere else. Once again, it seems you would rather they get their reliable info on this from elsewhere rather than from us". These personal attacks are tiresome and I don't see why I should have to put up with them, and it seems entirely irresponsible to make claims about sources that you won't produce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That was addressed to Salimfadhley; I didn't realize he was your associate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til, as I have said before, go find the sources. Elsewhere I phrased it "put up or shut up." You have not done so, as noted above, you have produced one book from a publisher that admits it does not do peer-reviewed material and even that material contains a lot of qualifying language. It is you who are pushing the edges of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to fringe levels to promote a POV agenda, which, apparently, is to prove the Madoc legend. Your evidence is insufficient, so far. Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL Trying to prove the Madoc legend? That is the biggest load of nonsense I've seen here yet! Get a grip... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have no interest in proving the so-called Madoc legend or some other thing about white people being there before the Cherokee? I thought that was your agenda, if I was mistaken, my apologies. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. But I have no interest in "proving" anything of the sort, and no agenda but to keep content in line with the sources, free of WP:BIAS, and WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say that this might at one time have been a well known legend. However because it was so well known, it was never really mentioned, except in passing, since it was assumed that people would remember it, but nobody did.--Auric talk 22:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)