Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre at Ywahoo Falls

edit
Massacre at Ywahoo Falls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Wiki article is based almost entirely on the completely fictitious essay written by one Dan Troxell for the Kentucky Historical Society. There is no earlier reference of any kind to such an incident taking place. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I have no knowledge about this event myself, without knowing the basis for your calling Troxell's essay "completely fictitious", I'd be inclined to keep this. The KHS isn't some vanity press or fly-by-night blog. And while I realize that ancestry.com probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source, this link claims a byline of a professor at Northern Kentucky University. To me, it seems that some academicians at least haven't dismissed it out of hand. Even if it didn't happen, it may still be worthy of an article that discusses how the account of the massacre came into being, the fact that apparently some folks believe it is true, and how it has been debunked or at least called into question. The article on Swift's silver mine, which I created, might fall into the same vein (no pun intended). I'll await further comments from other users and the nominator before I !vote. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SOLE source for the this massacre written by Dan Troxell for the Kentucky Historical Society, as I said before. I did not stress that the society NEVER PUBLISHED IT. State and local historical societies are, in any case, not always consistently reliable on facts. I also see reference above to a PhD; a PhD isn't necessarily a good indicator of a person's diligence with regard to factual truth. For example, a PhD in Chattanooga and Hamilton County in Tennessee published reams of junk history as fact in order to support certain claims made in support of the area's tourism.
Troxell's account can be found at http://happytrails_2.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ywahoo.htm . It cannot, however, be found on the website of the Kentucky Historical Society. Troxell's chief motive seems to be to buoy up the imaginary legitimacy of the two made-up tribes to which he claims to belong, the "Mighty Cumberland Plateau Thunderbolt Cherokees" and the "Southern Ky Cumberland River Shawnee". That in itself is reason to doubt his story. As you can see from the link, he offers no source for his tale other than it being what was passed down to him by word of mouth.
First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810.
Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee.
Third, Gideon Blackburn never had a mission in the Sequatchie Valley. The furthest west of his missions was at Sale Creek in what is now northern Hamilton County.
Fourth, Troxell's account mentions that those who committed the massacre were authorized by the "War Department" and the "Governor of the territory". Both Kentucky and Tennessee had long been states by 1810, so there would be no "territory" for a governor to sit over and the state militia rather than the War Department would have authorized the actions.
Fifth, Rev. Blackburn's schools had all been closed by this time after he was caught selling bootleg whiskey down in Alabama. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no expertise either way, and thus no basis for arguing these facts with you one way or the other. However, it seems to me that your argument for deletion is based on original research. Accurate research, perhaps (again, I have no way of knowing), but original research nonetheless, which is not permitted by Wikipedia. While a you are correct that a PhD is not always an indicator of diligence, what we have here so far is the word of a PhD versus the word of a Wikipedia editor, hardly enough information to make a determination either way, imo. Has anyone ever published a rebuttal to Troxell's manuscript? Certainly the fact that the KHS did not publish it is notable, but it is not necessarily an indicator of its unreliability. Again, I'm not opposing deletion at this point, but I'd like to have something more concrete to base a decision on either way. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've deleted the bulk of it as clearly copyvio from Troxell. There was one cite to an article by William G. McLoughlin, but that just mentions Blackburn's schools casually, all it says is "the Presbyterian schools of the Reverend Gideon Blackburn (1803-1810)," and we can't use that as evidence of why the schools didn't exist after 1810. I'll look at what's left now. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete, on the grounds that it never happened as per Dougweller's links. If it is kept though, it definitely needs to be moved to Alleged massacre at Ywahoo falls. Chris (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (See below).Chris (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of material that relies on a single online source that may or may not be reliable simply does not satisfy WP:V. If this were verifible in a number of independent sources, it might be suitable for an article; but as it stands, it's not. Deor (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other sources existing that need be included as references. Their lack is not a reason to delete... so I'll add them since no else has yet done so. I agree to the name change to Alleged massacre at Yahoo falls would be sensible, but as a topic covered in multiple book and scholar sources, it meets inclusion criteria.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on sources One of the books is self-published by Lulu.com, so you'd be hard put to claim it's a reliable source by our criteria. A 2nd is a hiking trail book, a reliable source for hiking trails but not for this article. The third looks on the fact of it to be a reliable source but I'd still like convincing it's independent of Troxell's manuscript. Encyclopedias such as this are always of varying quality. I searched JSTOR and didn't come up with anything useful. Nothing at all for Cherokee and cornblossom. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment Okay, we can disregard the Lulu book (now removed as a ref). However, Hiking the Big South Fork, University of Tennessee Press (ISBN 1572330317) is not self-published... and per guideline offers "significant coverage in that it is more than trivial mention, and need not be the main topic of the source material. And are you suggesting that Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO (ISBN 1851097708) is a work of fiction? Or are you suggesting that both ABC-CLIO and University of Tennessee Press have no editorial staff or reputation for fact checking or accuracy? While I suppose that's vaguely possible, and that they have been publishing hoax material for years... but somehow I think that conclusion highly unlikley... specially as both institutions have been long-accepted by consensus and guideline as decent and responsible publishers. If you want to learn how the ABC-CLIO and University of Tennessee Press vet their information, I suggest you write them. And again, I am not myself claiming that the massacre happened... only that its allegedly happening is covered in books acceptable for sourcing such. And respected as it is, JSTOR is not the sole repository or archive of all human knowledge. So when a G-search "Princess Cornblossom"+"Cherokee" brings up book sources... JSTOR must have simply missed them, I suppose.[6] and even ABC News' Diane Sawyer speaks toward the legend of Princess Cornblossom in speaking of her own Kentucky family history.[7] Or is Diane Sawyer herself a Troxell shill? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold on You're getting a mite aggressive here, verging on personal attack when you suggest I'm calling an encyclopedia fiction (or publishing hoaxes, etc). or someone a shill. Reliability is not the default, and I don't think you're going to convince people that even a fantastically reliable book on hiking trails is a reliable source for history. Google books does have a handful of books, I agree, but they all postdate Troxell's book, which is the problem. All, including Diane Sawyer, almost certainly in good faith. Do you have any evidence that any of them have evidence independent of the book? Which is why I looked in JSTOR - in effect, you are saying that several hundred well known historical journals, going back to the alleged incident, somehow overlooked the existence of Princess Cornblossom and in fact this massacre. That backs up the suggestions that this is a made up story. As for the encyclopedia, does it give any citations? Usually you can find out who wrote an entry, who wrote it? You have read the entry, not just the snipped, right? Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was obvious that if it had citations we could use those. I'd like a direct answer to my question asking if you've actually read the entire entry, please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our governing policies and guidelines do not demand that encyclopdia provide the world or us with their citations or vetting processes. Per WP:V and WP:RS, we are propely allowed to use the encyclopdia entry itself as a source, as it is not SPS, is independent of the subject being addressed, and comes from a respected publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this needs to be taken seriously [8], although we have the self-publishing problem again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced (allegedly) personal letters between individuals, exchanged on an open SPS forum, to be taken seriously? Letters reflective of (allegedly) two individuals sharing a similar POV? That is not reflective of the Wikipedia ethos. Again, and to repeat, I am not claiming that the information in the article is "historical" or "accurate", only that it is discussed in sources... just as many ledgends or ghost stories or tales of monsters. Wikipedia is not about truth, only about verifibility. For instance, Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra come to mind. Even with complete lack of scientific validation, we have articles based upon its coverage, not truth or accuracy. And that the sources respond with their coverage AFTER an alleged incident is reported upon by someone else? Well, that makes sense... as someone, somewhere had to make the first report, didn't they? And all subsequent reports will follow upon that initial one, no matter the credulity of the initial report or its lack. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about verifiability, but I'd still argue that it's relevant in this specific case. As for the first report - that should have been in the 19th century, not the 1970s. So what we have is one book, which no one has suggested so far is based on any written evidence, then being used in subsequent reports of the alleged incident. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the policy requirement for Verifiability is a point which cannot be overlooked, specially as (allegedly) personal letters posted on an online networking forum between two individials sharing a personal POV, are not RS and not WP:V. And we have several books, not "one". I am unable to ignore the information provided in the ABC-CLIO publication Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present, Volume 1, as the publication is from reputable institution known for fact-checking and accuracy. I am unable to think that information from a respected and relibale source can be ignored. I am unable to believe that because we might not personally know from where or how an encyclopedia performs their research before creating their entries, that their research can be discounted. I would be interested in any discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard that allows that encyclopedic publications from ABC-CLIO or publications from the University of Tennessee Press are invalidated because they do not reveal their editing practices. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move Clearly, there is enough controversy surrounding this event to warrant a move to something like Ywahoo Falls Massacre controversy, but just as clearly (to me) there is enough discussion in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The veracity of the event is not necessarily what is in play here. The existence and notability of the legend (true or not) is really at issue; I've seen enough to conclude that this reaches the bar set by WP:GNG and deserves to be kept. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: And to address some misconceptions posted by the nominator:
    • He wrote "The SOLE source for the this massacre [was] written by Dan Troxell.." Other sources, sources with which Troxell has no conflict of interest have come forward. Just took looking.[9] Yes, these are referred to as legends, but so what? The legend has coverage.
    • He wrote "First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810." That statement is incorrect, and reflects lack of research before being shared. In the 1770 "Treaty of Lochaber" the Cherokee had to cede all claims to hunting grounds in central and western Kentucky. And in the 1775 "Treaty of Sycamore Shoals", they received rights to lands west of the Kentucky River (allowing them rights to a great portion of the state).[10][11] These treaties recognize that the Cherokee were in Kentucky prior to 1810. Why have treaties with indigenous peoples if they were not indigenous? The nominator's claim that there were no Cherokee in Kentucky before 1810 is incorrect. Even more to point are the archived treaties themselves, assuring that the Cherokee were indeed there.[12]
    • He writes "Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee." Again, the person's existance is not the question... the question is toward whether or not sources make such a claim toward the person's existance, and indeed they do,[13]
    • He writes "Gideon Blackburn never had a mission in the Sequatchie Valley". Research seems to throw doubt on his unfounded assertion,[14] when they speak toward Blackburn's work in Kentucky.[15] The nominator makes enough other unfounded statements, that his reasons for nomination fall into question.
  • While a legend is a legend, and a fact is a fact, either can merit inclusion if supported by sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A story made up ten years or so ago is not a legend. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comments lack proper sourcing or foundation, and please, as such seem of personal opinion and original research... which are not values upon which Wikipedia relies. Its difficult to give credence to your stating "made up ten years or so ago" when so many of your other arguments hae been refuted in numerous sources... some even going back to the 1700's. Did one person write a book about a family legend? Yes. Is the basis for the information in this person's book itself supported in multiple sources pre-dating his book? Yes. Again, a legend is a legend, and a fact is a fact... and either can merit inclusion if supported by sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Schmidt, there is NO mention of anything of the kind happening anywhere prior to Dan Troxell's attempt to have his fiction published as fact in the mid-1990's. None whatsoever. As to the several other problems with the story, please see the above comments I made on why this could not possibly have taken place.
        • Regarding your several wildly mistaken assertions above, you clearly know very little accurate information about this area of historical knowledge. That much is clear from your statement about the Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810 alone. Also, Blackburn's TWO schools are well-documented and neither is in Sequatchie Valley. There are no other sources for the story about the alleged massacre than Dan Troxell or those who are merely repeating him. Those who merely repeat are not additional sources. Throwing temper tantrums does not give your false statements any more validity and is unworthy of Wikipedia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Natty4bumpo|Chuck Hamilton, the "wild" assertions and "tantrums" are your own, not mine, and I never said the event "happened", only that reliable sources report it as "legend". Your dismissiveness toward the Troxell book's account does not denigrate the other, more respected sources that do speak of the event as a "legend". Further, you continue to make assertions as if your claims were fact, when such unfounded claims would need some sort of support to show them as more than opinion. At least I and other have attempted to support our comments with actual references. For example, I was able to provide links to historical archives of various Cherokee treaties showing Cherokee as being in Kentucky: IE the 1770 "Treaty of Lochaber", and the 1775 "Treaty of Sycamore Shoals", et-al,[16][17][18] while you simply repeat, no they weren't. Are you suggesting that the sources speaking toward these historically documented treaties dealing with the Cherokee in Kentucky are in error? And by what citable authority can you support that claim? You also repeatedly stated that Doublehead nor any other Cherokee had no daughter named Cornblossom, and my own cited rebuttal provides numerous sources that do indeed speak of the Doublehead and Cornblossom legend... sources which predate the Troxell book by decades. Again, Cornblossom's existance is not the question... the question is toward whether or not sources speak toward the person's existance, and indeed they do.[19] Way up above, after reading your opening comments, User:Forteana simply responded "Prove it". I am being far more verbose, but echo his sentiments. Please provide a verifiable authority for your assertions and we can discuss those sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dude, the fact that you do not realize how radically different the area occupied by the Cherokee in 1770, five years before the Revolutionary War, was from their situation in 1810, forty years and sixteen treaties later, shows how little you know about factual history as opposed to fantasy history. Like Troxell, who doesn't realize that Kentucky was already a state in 1810. And you are correct, there are many online so-called geneaologies that reference "Cornblossom" as one of Doublehead's daughters, but online "geneaologies" are often notoriously unreliable and often as much fantasy as the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls". There are NO actual, factual, hardcopy records of Doublehead having a daughter "Cornblossom", primarily because she never existed. "Cornblossom" was not a Cherokee name, the closest that there is in Cherokee is "Corntassel", which is a name for males. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dude, you've shown nothing beyond your personal opinion that all Cherokee vanished from Kentucky before 1810, and being an unsourced statement, your opinion itself smacks of fantasy. I imagine the Cherokee themselves would be surprised to learn they all disappeared from Kentucky simply because you say they did. And as no one is using a SPS geneology, please refrain from repeated WAX arguments. I have repeatedly stated to you that I am not asserting that Cornblossom is real... only that the legend of Princess Cornblossom has received coverage, as offered, in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. And all I have asked is that offer even one citation to support your repeated assertions, as repetition is not verifiability. Since you are either unable or unwilling to support any of your claims, please understand that I am hard pressed to think anything other that your unfornded suppositions and conclusions as totaly lacking in validity User:Forteana asked that you "prove it", only to have you respond with an interesting but ultimately unhelpful set of unsourced personal opinion. I ask you to please read WP:POV and WP:V before givng repeated doses of that same unsourced personal opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've removed the use of a hiking book as a reliable source, and the encyclopedia because I've asked more than once if Schmidt has read the actual entry and had no reply, so I think we can assume he hasn't. Reliability is not default and he can bring these up at RSN if he wishes. There are a lot of links, but I haven't found the pre-1958 ones he claims show the existence of Cornblossom, can someone else please point them out to me? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your doing so Doug, indicates perhaps a misunderstanding of policy and guideline, as Wikipedia is not about truth, but is rather about verifiability. An article speaks toward a legend and sources support that legend as being writen of... and removing those sources as you did, does not make them non-existant. I read and follow WP:GNG as written, which specifically states that "significant coverage" means the topic need be addressed in detail but need not the main topic of the source. And it instructs that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. That a book on Kentucky hiking trails may have pertinant information on a legend is specifically allowed, specially as the publication is from a University Press... like it or not. And Bad too, that you chose to remove an encyclopedia as a source because you do not have a copy in your hands. This shows further misunderstanding... as contrary to your actions, guideline encourages that we editors accept, based upon discussions and consensus created over years, that an enclyclopedia as a source, specially an historical tome from a reputable publisher that specializes in preparing research and source material, is indeed suitable. It is enough that it exists and that an editor might seek it out for himself. Since you have empowered yourself to remove reliable sources from an article because you do not have them in your hand... sources specifically encouraged by WP:RS... such as encyclopedias from respected publishers and University Press publications... please understand my feeling rather loath to encourage a continuation of such activity. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit an article, I haven't empowered myself. And you are welcome to go to RSN to ask if a snipped you haven't read is a reliable source, or if a hiking book is a reliable source. The hiking book could be used to demonstrate the existence of the story (not that it is a legend, but that there is a 20th century story). If you want to replace that in the body of the article in a more suitable context, feel free. But where an editor has clearly only used a snippet that is unclear and where the context hasn't been seen by that editor, I'd be very surprised if you get a consensus that it can be used. If you'd been able to come up with a quote from the book things might be different. You should know that we expect editors to actually have read the source. If you can't provide a quote yourself backing your statement, then it shouldn't be there. It is possible of course that when you clicked on the link you saw something I didn't, but as I keep asking you if you've read the excerpt and you don't respond to my question.... I don't know where you got the idea that you could use that. Although you keep trying to suggest I'm saying the book isn't a RSN, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't being used properly. I'm also saying that if you'd read it you might be able to help us if it gave any additional references. I'll add that even the most reliable source in general may not be a reliable source for a specific purpose. I really would appreciate it if instead of continuing to make comments about me you either stop or take your complaints to RSN. As for your complaint below, going to RSN is not edit-warring, it is the appropriate thing to do when a cite is challenged. 'Consensus' would only come in if there had been a discussion on the talk page (I don't think anyone else is backing you here) and I gave specific reasons, so it was clearly not arbitrary, and those reasons are, I believe without our policy and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You empower yourself, when you make an arbitrary decision to remove a proper source so that the result supports your own wish for an article to be deleted. Just as we have the nominator making empty claims with absolutely no foundation... we have you deciding for yourself that a reliable source cannot possibly be reliable because you haven't read it. Yes, anyone can edit an article... but removing proper reliable sources based upon one's personal opinion approaches vandalism. I will not go to RSN and whine about an editor expressing POV and removing an RS that should not have been removed, as it is you who should have taken your concern there, rather than impune another's efforts. I can imagine now though, that as you wish to set a precedent, there may be plenty of sources you may have added to articles throughout the project that may now be summarily removed by any editor who wishes, and for any reason. The "edit warring" would be if I were to return that proper source and you remove it again. But I will not return it... even though it is proper RS... as doing so would only encourage you to again act in your own interests and based upon a personal opinion that such could not possibly be reliable sources, even in the face of guideline explaning how it is, all based upon you haven't personally read it or because you assert or presume I haven't read it. And I know of no editor, including founder Jimmy Wales himself, who has access to every book, magazine, or newspaper that was ever written... so let's be realistic. When you want something removed at all costs, a lack of good faith in others is quite telling of POV. I will not return that source until after this discussion ends with a keep, as I trust a closer to have better understanding of policy than you are showing. What I have, and what has not been in any way refuted, is the topic of this legend meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer please note: 1) Upon his being asked, the nominator is either unable or unwilling to support any of his suppositions and conclusions. 2) Removal of reliable sources from an article does not mean the sources do not exist... only that they were removed without consensus in an arbitrary manner that contravenes existing policy and guideline. I will not edit war over this point of policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP IT, BOTH OF YOU. Thank you. Now, somewhere in here is an encylcopedia article that needs some attention. IMHO, the debate / slanging match above mirrors what seem to be the case in real life - that there are a whole bunch of people who believe that this happened (and who are prepared to erect monuments to the fact), and another bunch who think it was all made up in the 1950s. Why don't we write an encyclpaedia article that reflects that dichotomy, and then people who come here trying to find out about can be presented with details of the alleged massacre and the reasons why people think it didn't happen. I'll do this myself, later, if that's seems agreeable (don't have time right now). Chris (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chris, for a reasoned, rational, and guideline sanctioned response. And by the by, I do not believe it happened... but I DO contend that as a legend, the alleged incident has received coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and please allow Chris to do his rewrite in peace. Has encyclopedic potential, doesn't do a great job of showing it at present. If necessary, incubate until it's sorted. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO reference to a "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" prior to Troxell's fictional account. Not even a hint. A myth based on the fantasies of a New Age wannabe Indian in the late 20th century does not deserve an article and having it hurts the crediblity of Wikipedia as a source of accurate information. As to number of people who believe that the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" really happened, one-fifth of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim but taht doesn't make it so. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: Natty4bumpo|Chuck Hamilton, you have made dozens of POV commets with absolutely no citations to back up any of your comments... even after repeated requests that you show something.... anything.. to support what you assert. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, on the grounds you invented above, it is valid for anyone to make up whatever they like about anything under the sun, get enough people to believe it, then write an article about it for Wikipedia. That rationale just doesn't hold up. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bad faith acusation toward an editor trying to improve something to meet guideline. Your continued inability or unwillingness to address requests for sourcing that would support ANY of your comments, indicates that your comments are unsupportable POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well actually, I don't see that as a problem. If people do believe that this is true and we can prove otherwise, then good for Wikipedia I say. It's not like it was made up specifically for Wikipedia, which is a different Kettle of Fish. Chris (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and potentially a hoax. Merge to Yahoo Falls. (see below) Any verifiable information can be added to a new section at Yahoo Falls. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The legend itself IS verifiable as having been written of in a number of relible sources, true event or not, just as has Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra. That someone decides to remove proper sources from an article, does not mean the sources magically become somehow non-existant. Legends are lengends, and legends, even if not provable as historical fact, are not necessarily hoaxes. Wikipedia understands, even as some editors seem to not, that even a real-world hoax can receive coverage enough to merit an article. IE: Piltdown Man. A hoax event that was not written of in ANY text anywhere until the first report of the "discovery" in 1912. Wikipedia does not concern itself with truth, but with verifiability in relible sources (removed from an article or not) that allow a topic to be seen as notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it doesn't. It is not even an urban legend. For starters, the one, the only source for the story is Dan Troxell's tale in the mid-1990's which he offered with no attempt to verify with reliable and valid sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other and far more reliable sources exist, even if some have been removed from the article, shows you to be incorrect. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, repeated personal opinion does not equate to WP:V. Perhaps you might consider reviewing WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. That the legend has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time shows it may merit inclusion as a legend or as an alleged event. And try to understand, please, an event need not be historical fact to merit inclusion if coverage is available (removed from the article or not) that shows the topic as meetig the GNG. Examples of such have been offered: Loch Ness Monster... Chupacabra... Piltdown Man. And please try to understand as well, that it is through their reputations for fact-checking and accuracy in their information gathering and research... even of events surrounding an asserted legend or alleged event, that reliable sources providing the coverage have granted the legend enough coverage to meet inclusion criteria. It does not matter if an event is true or not... only that it had coverage. Please go nominate Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, Piltdown Man, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Abominable Snowman, et-al for deletion and see what happens. Might be far more educational than this discussion. It's NOT about truth. It's about continued coverage, no matter where OR WHEN the story first originated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fiction of the "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" is in nowhere near the same category of any of those that you mention. It's a made-up story by a single individual from the 1990's, not a widely publicized legend believed or utilized by many with an influence across a broad range of human culture that has existed for centuries or even millenia, the sole purpose of which was to buoy up the imaginary legitimacy of the two made-up tribes to which its author claims to belong, the "Mighty Cumberland Plateau Thunderbolt Cherokees" and the "Southern Ky Cumberland River Shawnee". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've rewritten it, referenced everything, and change my opinion to Keep. I've read all the sources, and what I've written is a correct summary of them - there appear to be no written mentions of this before 1975, and everything since is either based on that or propagated by one or other of the Troxall family. This thing is all over the internet, in books and encyclopaedias, and I think it worthy of a small article so long as that article makes it clear that this may not have happened. However, I would recommend that it be moved to Alleged massacre at Ywahoo Falls and this page turned into a redirect. Chris (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the contributors to this debate should be ashamed of the way they have been bickering with each other. I have relisted for discussion of Chris' rewrite. Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a hoax, that shouldn't be perpetuated. Heiro 07:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax (or, to be more strictly accurate, probably more fiction-assumed-to-be-fact than a true hoax). Not really comparable to folklore like Bigfoot or the Easter Bunny, as in those cases belief is widespread enough as to have iconic cultural notability, which is hardly the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, for the reasons given above by the two who have commented since the utterly unnecessary re-listing of this "article", in addition to all my comments above. The rewrite still only uses secondary sources that have as their original source the initial fictitious article. To keep it gives license to anyone who wishes to make up a cute story in order to attempt to provide shaky support for fallacious claims of imaginary entities like the two pretend tribes to which Dan Troxell claims to belong. It is an insult to the credibility of Wikipedia to have this "article". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the least bit even remotely credible that anyone at the time in question would establish a school to educate Indians in a narrowly specific, very local area 127.5 miles away. Furthermore, Dan Troxell, does not, I repeat does NOT, qualify as "Cherokee oral history". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle and Keep - "Alleged massacre...." The fact that this deletion request has generated this much heat is indicative to me that it is a subject worth preserving... For those of you believing this purported incident to be a fabrication — wouldn't it make you feel better to have an article up refuting what seems to be a legend of recent creation? Maintaining this article in no way constitutes an endorsement that the incident alleged actually happened, assuming that the article is given a more neutral title. There are enough sources to get this topic over the notability bar, clearly. Much of the heat here seems misdirected. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't an "alleged massacre", this is a story made up by a wannabe New Age Indian who had very little knowledge about the time period of the events he wanted to fabricate. It does not deserve an article in Wikipedia and its presence diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sourcing on this article is still insufficient to establish notability of the alleged event or of the controversy surrounding the alleged event per WP:EVENT. We have what amounts to a single reliable secondary source (the WBIR story), which does not satisfy notability requirements for depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. The event also fails to meet the criteria of WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE. It's a minor controversy that has received minimal local coverage, let alone the national or international coverage necessary to establish notability. I'm not opposed to including a sentence or two describing the controversy in the Yahoo Falls article, but this article fails WP:EVENT in every conceivable way. I stand by my previous vote for deletion. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately Uncle Dick, the reliable sources showing the legend's coverage meeting WP:GNG were removed by an editor who wishes the article deleted. But I do respect your merge that seeks to preserve information. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to go ahead and change my official vote from Delete to Merge. I still believe that a separate article is unwarranted per WP:EVENT, but the notability requirements for allegations/legends surrounding this event seem to be met by several reliable secondary sources that were removed and added back to the article. A paragraph or two in the Yahoo Falls article is probably all this event (or non-event) needs or deserves. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle and Keep per User:Carrite. I'm not saying it is true but it is clearly notable under WP:GNG. Its not for us to resolve an academic dispute. Even the governmental Kentucky Heritage Council hosts a chronology by Dr. Tankersley on its server referring to the 1810 massacre NATIVE AMERICANS IN KENTUCKY. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC) By the way, the best source for WP:N and WP:V (as opposed to truth) is Hiking the Big South Fork By Brenda G. Deaver, Howard R. Duncan, Jo Anna Smith which I believe was deleted from the article. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. James Livingood, formerly of University of Tennessee at Chattanooga's history department, promoted the myth of "The Last Battle of the American Revolution" in several books.[citation needed] No serious historian gave the matter any credit,[citation needed] and Raymond Evans, noted ethnohistorian and archaeologist as well as co-founder along with Duane King of the Journal of Cherokee Studies, took the whole idea apart in an article in the journal Tennessee Archaeology.[citation needed] The myth had originated in the 1890's as part of a residential development scheme on the north end of Lookout Mountain. The two developers took an actual encounter, not much of a real battle, that took place in 1788 and set it back in time to 1782. They also reversed the outcome; it was the Cherokee rather than the frontiersmen who won the skirmish.[citation needed] Yahoo Falls has been promoted by the local governments and commercial sector for financial interests, but that does not make the fabrication worthy of an article in an encyclopedia any more than the same does for the equally fictitious "Last Battle of the American Revolution".[citation needed] Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hoax or history, it's notable. Kudos to Chris for his rewrite efforts.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I take Uncle Dick's point about sourcing though, so I put in those couple of extra secondary references mentioned above. In some respects they are why I think this thing should be kept - it's beginning to creep out into mainstream books and so forth. Chris (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Careful. Reliable sources had already been removed from the article by an editor adamant that it be deleted... so yours just might be as well. But I am glad that you found some of the same ones as did I. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge*** with Yahoo Falls making it clear it is an alleged massacre, or failing that, and not as acceptable tome for the same reasons as others, retitle and keep. It should also not be called a legend. As others have said, we have enough sources now for the existence of the story to justify a mention (eg the hiking book, which can't be used as an RS for its historicity but can be used as an RS for the spread of the story). Dougweller (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care any more. I spent some time rewriting this, trying to make it NPOV etc and referenced it properly, only to have somebody else come along and remove all the references on the grounds that he didn't think they were credible. Maybe a hiking book isn't the best source of reference for Cherokee history, but surely that's the whole point here? This thing is being perpetuated, and explaining here why it's untrue goes some way towards trying to stop that. Anyhow, I think removing references from an article listed at AFD because you happen to disagree with them is very bad form. I really don't care whether the article stays or gets merged into Yahoo Falls or deleted - I'm big enough to appreciate that I have to go with consensus - but the way this whole thing has been conducted sucks. This is my last contribution to this debate, and I'm going to stop watching this now. I'm only doing this to try and help WP, and I wish I hadn't. Chris (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris that these sources should stay in pending the conclusion of the AfD. As has been pointed out above, the point is not whether the event actually happened but that it is notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three sources I removed is the least bit credible for a historical article. A hiking book? Please. The "article" by the Tankersley, allegedly a PhD in history, is the worst of the three, utter trash; if he'd turned in a paper that poorly sourced in college he would never have been awarded his bachelor's or had it taken away. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for how this has been conducted, this way this process has been handled in this case is a violation of Wikipedia rules. It was originally nominated for deletion nearly three weeks ago and was first relisted because no one gave enough of a damn to comment. This drek should have been gone two weeks ago. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You dilute your good arguments with weak ones that border on WP:BLP violations: the "allegedly a PhD" Kenneth Tankersley is easily verified as an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at University of Cincinnati with a PhD from Indiana University (dissertation: Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern United States) [20]. As for how this process is being handled, the only violation I see is that you have !voted twice and repeatedly removed references from the article under discussion because you don't like them. Let me also congratulate Chris on a good re-write. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is crap, however well it's been rewritten. The story for the source has a single source from the mid-1990's, and all other mentions of it are exclusively or at least ultimately derivative of that. As for my comments about Dr. Tankersley, well, if he's on faculty at KSU, he no doubt has his doctorate, what I am questioning, and have every right to question, is whether he deserves it. His "sources" for the article he wrote in support of the fallacious claims about the nonexistent massacre in question are among the least credible possible. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chris has done a bang-up job, in my opinion, of cutting through the spin (either direction) and presenting what the reliable sources say about the subject. The fact that he has cited so many reliable sources with regard to the subject indicates to me that WP:GNG has been met, regardless of the truth or fiction of Troxell's account. The tenor of this debate and the borderline bully tactics used by some here to justify deletion are well beneath the lofty ideals of Wikipedia. I don't blame Chris for his withdrawal from the debate after his good faith efforts were tossed aside, and I plan for this to be my final comment on the matter as well, although I will continue watching the debate to see how it ends. At minimum, the information should be preserved in the Yahoo Falls article, but I really favor keeping it as-is, except for an appropriate title change. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not exist, period. The story behind it is NOT CREDIBLE, is NOT VERIFIABLE, and is NOT NOTABLE. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle While it appears clear that this didn't actually happen, the story that it happened has wound up in reliable sources, so we should report the story, rather than the (non-existent) event.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Even a popular history ought to pay some little regard to truth." - Theodore Roosevelt, in his series The Winning of the West, 1889. His remarks were addressed in particular to the fictitious "last battle of the American Revolution" alleged to have been fought on the lower slopes of Lookout Mountain near Chattanooga, the made-up account of which appeared in Edmund Kirke's imaginative The Rear Guard of the Revolution in 1886. If he was appalled by Kirke's fiction, I imagine the future president would have been disgusted with the "Massacre at Ywahoo Falls". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO RELIABILITY: One of the persons on this thread referred me to the Wiki page on reliability standards, but may not have read it because the sources the persons claims are reliable fail on all counts. The original source for the "Massacre at Ywahoo Falls" fails the credibility test on the grounds of being questionable, with no fact-checking and no editorial oversight. In fact, since the Kentucky Historical Society never published the account, it amounts to a self-published work. Dr. Tankersley, formerly with Northern Kentucky U. (formerly as of 2007) based his article on Dan Troxell's self-published work, Thomas Troxell's admittedly fictitious self-published work, and interviews with both Troxells. The hiking book is not a peer-reviewed scholarly work and does therefore not fall into Wikipedia's "reliabile" category. The other sources for the article are those which rebut the occurence of Troxell's invented massacre. This article does not belong in Wikipedia because there are NOT reliable sources for it. DELETE Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ON SECOND THOUGHT, after further examination, while I realize the story of the massacre is a farce, it was printed in a history of Daniel Boone National Forest written for the Forest Service (though without vetting for accuracy), and was a source of local interest, as spurious as the account is. In addition, the anonymous, and illegal, erection of the monument followed quickly by its removal by the USFS make the story at least somewhat noteworthy, as long as the full story is told rather than just a summation of the alleged massacre itself. I'm not withdrawing my nomination for its deletion but will be satisfied with whatever the concensus decides. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go. No one who opined a keep says the story is true, only that coverage in what Wikipedia (if not yourself) defines as reliable sources merits an inclusion. And you are quite welcome to expand the article and set the allegation or legend in context, as long as you avoid battling over content and add the sources there that you did not offer here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There article is much changed now from what it was. It's now more focused on what was reported and how that effected the local community. So now, it fits. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_at_Ywahoo_Falls&oldid=1166303028"