User talk:BobC/House of Moytoy

Watchers
The following discussion is an archived Wikipedia debate of the proposed deletion of the article on the subject page. The result was deletion on 13 February 2009. My personal analysis follows the House of Moytoy discussion.

House of Moytoy Discussion

11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. It needs to be edited instead. It is the only article returned by a search for the term "Moytoy" which is a significant name in Cherokee history and genealogy. In addition, the term "House of Moytoy" refers to the Cherokee family of English and Shawnee origin. They are male-line descendants of an English trader, Thomas Pasmere Carpenter, whose family was related to Baron Carpenter of Killaghy and the Earl of Tyrconnell. Ref: G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 54. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.

This article holds significance in Native American culture. I have requested arbitration. The article should not have been swiped clean without discussion. Odestiny (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is based on Victorian fantasy derived from the exploits of a Scottish con artist from England, Alexander Cumming, who attempted to gain control over the Cherokee by naming one of the leaders of one of the smaller and more remote towns as "emperor" of the Cherokee, whose name he corrupted to Moytoy. That is all there was to it. There is no "House of Moytoy" and never was, they have no relation to any family of "Carpenters", Cherokee did not have any surnames until the very late 18th century, their families were matrilineal rather than patrilineal, they did not have "royal dynasties", and the individual Cumming named Moytoy had no European genes. The reference cited above is meaningless because there is no relation. And I repeat, there never was a "House of Moytoy".
There are already articles on Moytoy I and Moytoy II (neither of which, by the way, cite any sources at all, much less credible sources), which Mr. Sneed would have learned had he bothered to search. They themselves in fact need editing because the article on Moytoy I, at least, echoes many of the fictions Odestiny tried to pass off as fact above, in addition to being full of geneaological fantasies that have grown up in recent years, and widely discredited by reputable, credible geneaologists.
Wikipedia had been making an attempt to provide credible, factual information to the American public and the world at large. Allowing this article to stand would be reversing that course. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice pedigree above, but the idea of a Cherokee "royal house" (in itself a historically erroneous concept) being related the Anglo-Irish Carpenter family originated in the fantsy that Attakullakulla, whom the whites called Little Carpenter, was a member of that family. In fact, he was called Little Carpenter because Attakullakulla means "Leaning wood", which whites turned into Little Carpenter, the "Little" because of his physical stature. Attakullakulla, according to his son Turtle-at-Home, wasn't even Cherokee originally; he was from a branch of the Algonquin Nippising up north captured as an infant and adopted by a minor chief. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no Cherokee "royal house". That is not the point. The article is called "House of Moytoy, not "Royal House of Moytoy". Well known facts about Attakullakulla are being turned to suit the purpose of removing the article. There are no names or statements from "reputable, credible geneaologists" provided to support his claims. In fact, a simple search of the web will deliver an abundance of material that supports the claims of the article. Hamilton is choosing to spend his time rewriting Native American history. The wild, unsupported and egotistical statements he has made in the discussion are unwarranted. It should be simple enough to edit these articles by siting his own sources without making deletions based simply on his word. He does not appear to have the credentials to back it up. I have asked him why he chose to edit Cherokee related articles and on what he based his information, and did not receive an answer. It appears unreasonable for a Non-Cherokee to concentrate on the Moytoy line with such fervor without motive. There are many other articles in greater need of attention. Odestiny (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no "House of Moytoy", and you're wanting there to have been isn't going to change that. A patrilineal European-style "House" in a matrilineal society is laughable on its face. The "source" you referenced on the Moytoy I article is so riddled with errors if it were handed in as a paper in a college class (or even a high school class), it would receive a failing grade, because it is all invented, not reality. The standard for Wikipedia is credible sources, not just any sources. And the "history" isn't "Native American", it's American, as in white American, and a fantasy. What's more, your source considers the "Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee" to be an actual tribe of actual Cherokee, which if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research you would have learned. As for your bigoted reference to my race, I'm interested in historical accuracy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I drop my argument with apologies to Mr. Hamilton. I will not challenge the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete for lack of reliable sources and substantial doubts. There were two Chiefs Moytoy, and they did have influential relatives, but the leap from that to a "House of Moytoy" depends on Eurocentric assumptions. WillOakland (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Monday I have gone through over a dozen books that are available on Google, and there is just no support for the existence of a Cherokee "royal family" at this time. Historians agree that the Cherokee were very fragmented before 1794. Best I can tell, "Moytoy" was nothing more than a title for the rainmaker of a particular town, without any implication of a blood relationship. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made below. -- BobC 15:42, 24 March 2009 (EDT)



My Analysis [8 May 2010]

Let me start by saying I understand both sides of the argument: the purist side of me agrees with the viewpoint that we should strive to research and obtain a literal, substantiated and documented history of the facts, with no room for suppositions, presumptions or hypotheses. The other more fundamentally imaginative side of me looks for a good story based on facts, but complemented by novelty, imagination, common sense and creative analysis (i.e. “thinking out of the box”).

I believe the “House of Moytoy” article is a historically-based supposition of the few known facts from a Eurocentric mind-set (both now and in the past), interwoven with non-documented Cherokee lore passed down through the generations until recorded by early explorers, anthropological researchers and Native American historians, and the creative analysis of the article’s contributors.

As can be seen by looking at the history pages in a number of Cherokee personalities included on Wikipedia, modern-day fact-fanatics will not be satisfied with anything less than a written record documented at the source and time of the event, of which very little had been recorded or has been found in Cherokee history (which historically has more evidence than other native American tribes due to its creation of the Sequoyan alphabet). Today we genealogical and cultural researchers rely on the little documented evidence of Cherokee life, culture and history as recorded by 17th and 18th century explorers, government agents, missionaries, and those from colonial roots who intermarried into the Cherokee Nation.

While American Indian purists and scholarly revisionists may play their parts in editing (i.e. "slashing apart") unproven biographies of these Cherokee leaders in the Wikipedia community, although not specifically stated or inferred, political correctness may also be an underlying attitude that seems to justify rejecting articles of Native American "history" in the Wikipedia community. Since its inception, university professors, high school proctors, and grade school teachers alike have rejected the use of Wikipedia for student reports and theme papers. Now that Wikipedia is trying to clean up its image, some would prefer to erase unproven or undocumented history --- or even cleanse documented history recorded with so-called Eurocentric leanings that may be unsubstantiated by more politically correct versions. That to me seems nonsensical and just as biased unless they can replace it with other known facts and a valid competing historical record.

If this story in question was in fact based upon "geneaological fantasies that have grown up in recent years, and widely discredited by reputable, credible geneaologists," then I challenge the commentator to cite those credible references for the rest of us who may not have been privy to that information, not just expect us to accept a vague reference to a Google search. (The fact that this self-pronounced expert can’t even correctly spell the word "genealogy" does little to add credibility to the claim of more knowledgeable uncited sources.)

While the Cherokee blood running through my veins is vastly engulfed by the amount of European blood, I too want the true story of my distant Cherokee lineage known. From what I've read, it is a fascinating story, if even only a portion of what I've read can be believed. While it may not be able to be shown as a proven fact, it seems plausible to me, based on the number of known, recorded inter-relationships between Indians of different tribes and European settlers and explorers during the 17th and 18th centuries, is that the Cherokee Nation became what it was because of European influence and the cross-marriage between Indians and European settlers. I believe all five so-called "Civilized Tribes" earned that distinction because of these inter-relationships in varying degrees.

While the direct connection between Thomas Pasmere Carpenter and Moytoy may not be proven, I believe it is credible enough, in the absence of more definitive and substantiated information, to be at least recorded for analysis, possibly not as fact, but as a reasonable and plausible possibility.


Supportive Pieces of the Puzzle

Folklore, legends, and what may be considered today as urban myths, have their origins in factual events or in what may have passed for historical reality, or at least believability. Looking at the Cherokee people as a homogenous group unconnected with outside forces and non-Indian influences is both culturally nieve and historically ignorant.




--BobC 21:51, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Fundraiser
Help fund new features!