This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Indeed, in his 1775 History of the American Indians, writer James Adair said that Cherokee towns “are still scattered wide of each other because the land will not admit any other settlement.” In fact, Gragson and Bolstad say, the picture was far more complex, and the supply of natural resources was unlikely to have played a major role. [1] Brian Pearson 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

~Note on Spelling and Phonetics Regarding Cherokee Language~

I edited the page to correct a few mistakes. The English Phonetic of Tsalagi is "chaw la gee" not "tsa la gee". Please verify this on the English/Cherokee Dictionary at http://www.wehali.com/tsalagi/index.cfm

Another note on English Phonetics of Cherokee words: It seems as if there has been a mistake with the spelling of the Cherokee Phonetic for "The Principal People" "Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya" may be an incorrect combination of English and Cherokee Phonetics. The aforementioned Dictionary shows that the Cherokee phonetic of this word should be "A-ni-yv-wi-ya" and it's English phonetic is "ah knee yuh wee yaw". If this is the case, the article entitled "Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya" should be corrected. Someone more knowledgeable than myself should look into it.

~Alunasa (No username) 04/22/08

I agree that the pronounciation is usually written out "chaw-la-gee", and I'm not sure who put Jaw-law-gee, but in truth, when we say the word in Cherokee, it's pretty hard to tell the difference. Mainly depends on who says it. (I say "worsh" for "wash" in English.) The real problem is for people who pronounce it "tsa-la-gee". If you want to change it, your choice is probably the preferred, more correct pronounciation. Odestiny (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First, the English/Cherokee Dictionary cited above seems hardly authoritative. The author candidly admits he was raised without knowing anything of his Cherokee culture, let alone the language.

Second, how does one determine an English phonetic for a non-Cherokee word such as 'tsalagi' that is itself merely a later day Sequoyian Phonetic representation of common English 'Cherokee', derived from the earlier Portuguese 'Chalaque' which was derived from a still earlier Indian word from a tribe neighboring the Cherokee, perhaps the Choctaw's 'Chilukki'? To be clear, neither Cherokee, nor Tsalagi, nor Jalagi are Cherokee words. They are all the same foreign word, with varied phonetic presentations. Since there are multiple Cherokee dialects, i.e. Upper Town, Lower Town and Overhill, the Cherokee had no single adaptation for this root word by which they have become commonly known. Some suggest it may even be a pejorative (dog people) created by their not-so-friendly neighbors, much like the Anishinaabe slur commonized as 'Sioux' for the Lakota, meaning 'little snakes'. Qureus1 (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One approaches the idea of 'fairness' by attempting to rework 'the stated' in order to more closely simulate 'the facts' without some overtly skewed guiding hermeneutic.

Ask the following questions before engaging in long diatribes or, as a mediator, in attempts at mediating what hasn't been addressed at ground level: Is this THE prejudice: that a specializing culture which came into contact with an essentializing culture characterized them as overessentialized. OR that an overspecialized culture (even unto an inability to coexist with nature without the societal life-preserver) cannot recognized the more balanced forms of gradual specialization which comes with those societies which have not chosen civilization at the expense of nature.

IOW: Some find "a people" as opposed to "a nation" as denigrating to the organizational realities that were in fact present though unrecognized due to gross characterization by some technophile. Some find "a nation" as opposed to "a people" as a forced intellectualization, primarily by white westerners, of what was never meant to be construed as a "class" or "nation" or even "race", but a constantly coevolving cluster of families which preserved certain 'ways'.

As some of you may know, an informal Mediation has been proposed in order try and achieve a satisfactory compromise regarding the Southern Cherokee Nation and its mention at this article, and I've been asked to conduct this effort. It is with this in mind that the input and, if possible, the collaboration of everyone involved is hereby required.

I see some progress has been made in the last days at the discussion that surrounds this article. This is indeed positive, and an excellent way to start this process. However, the concerns that everyone involved have expressed may not be truly solved until we all reach an express agreement. We must also keep in mind that this has special relevance, as it may serve as precedent for multitude of other articles that deal with Native American tribes, groups and personalities.

Since this is not a formal Mediation process, but an attempt to solve the differences that have hindered the search for a solution, I would like to ask everyone interested to briefly summarize their position below, as a first step in order to know exactly where we're standing. I'd like to request that we don't comment on other's opinions at this point, but that we focus on what our own expectations and proposals are. Needless to say that Jeffrey is a necessary part here, but absolutely anyone else who wishes to express something is welcome. Phaedriel - 23:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

After leaving the first stage of this debate open for around a week in order to give sufficient time to everyone interested to make a short summary of their positions, it's clear where we're all standing. So I suggest we proceed on to a second stage of proposed solutions and compromises, which has already began today. I've taken the liberty to close the first section, and I request that we please don't add to it; I've also moved part of it below to comment on the suggestion made by Proabivouac.

The proposed solutions are not a vote. We're trying to determine the best possible compromise in terms of satisfying everyone's concerns while keeping in tune with the goal of aiming for the best interests of encyclopedic quality. We'll keep this open for several days and I request that we please analyze every suggestion with these objectives in mind.

A short reminder to everybody: please, keep your cool. We now enter the potentially most heated part of this mediation attempt. I'm personally proud of all of you so far, and the polite, concise and sensible way in which you're carrying this discussion. Let's keep it like this, folks.Phaedriel - 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Native American Tribes. Jeffrey, I've taken the liberty to simply place a link to your proposed policy, since copying it here verbatim is a little redundant and takes a lot of space. Phaedriel - 00:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - complies with Federal Law, and does not expose Wikipedia or its editors to adverse actions for good faith edits of articles on Native Tribes. Also sets a high standard with established principles used by the United States for 200 years. It also sets appropriate standards for recognition of Tribes which will be supported by the legitimate tribal entiries and governments and increase their confidence in Wikipedia as well as the confidence of the general public and the Federal Government in the quality of the project. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed solution can be edited and modified to express the concerns of other parties. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I would possibly accept almost no mention of anything other than the Cherokee Nation, if there were strong reliable sources saying that "no one else had claim to being called Cherokee." But that is different than saying "no one else has the right to be called Cherokee." Or

OK I getting really tired of alot of unregistered users doing alot of crazy things. With this section there are things that are true but should this section be removed or not due to the fact that there are no citations at all. This is really frustrating.Mcelite (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

I noticed the "Part Cherokee Applicants" section yesterday, and though it appears to me to be a conglomeration of ideas, there may be some points that can expounded on. For example, it may be good to mention that many of the most famous Cherokee like Ross, Ridge, etc. had little Cherokee blood. Perhaps an explanation of the differences in requirements to be part of the Cherokee Nation of Ok, Eastern band, or Keetoowah. There is also very good opportunity for an explanation of the enslavement of Cherokee and intermarriage with African slaves in 1650 to 1750 era. This would have some relevance to the present Freedman controversy also. There are many African-American Cherokee Nation Citizens who are not part of the Freedmen. This would help to explain that difference.

After reading the above "Talk" discussions, I don't want to add to the problems, however, I would like to suggest some form of the following paragraphs be included. The first is adapted from the present paragraph. . I would be interested in opinions on if and how the information might be incorporated. I can provide citations:

Mixed-race applicants

The Cherokee Nation is made up of over 270, 000 people including those of African-American, Latino, Asian, white and other ancestry. Each year a great number of people apply for citizenship in the various tribal entities under the assumption they are of Cherokee descent.

Slavery was unknown to the Cherokee before the arrival of europeans. Nor did they distinquish among races. Enemy who were captured in battle, whether Indian, white, or otherwise, were often given to a clan who had lost men in battle. If the female leaders of that clan accepted them for that purpose, they might become members of the clan and of the nation.

In the late 1600's settlers began taking Cherokee as slaves especially in South Carolina. As the African slaves arrived and increased, the Cherokee and African slaves worked and lived together, sharing their cultures, and sometimes intermarrying. Many slave owners preferred to slaves escape into Native American territory. By 1775 the colonists began to fear the idea own African males and Cherokee women. Because Cherokee society is matriarchal, African males who married native women would become part of their clan. The indians were helping African slaves escape into Native American territory. By 1775 the colonists began to fear the idea these races together and worked to prevent it. They also believed their security depended on creating a hatred betwee the two races. Virginia and the Carolinas passed miscegenation laws.

By the outbreak of the Civil War, the African American population within the Cherokee Nation would amount to about twenty percent of the nation.

Requirements:

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma approved a Constitutional vote in 1975 by a 6 - 1 providing that citizenship include only Cherokees, Shawnees and Delawares. It requires that you must be an Indian, to be in an Indian tribe, determined by at least one ancestor listed on the base roll. The Dawes roll is the most authoritative historical document available to determine Oklahoma Cherokee ancestry, going back 100 years. There is no minimum blood quantum requirement—a policy that has resulted in a rapid expansion of tribal membership.

The Eastern band of Cherokees began in 1819 with families that settled away from the main body in North Carolina. To avoid the removal west, they claimed citizenship with the State of North Carolina. In 1889 they incorporated. However they were denied the right to vote until 1930. Rolls of qualified tribal members were taken from 1904 through 1924, but controversy kept them from being finalized. Fred A. Baker's final report was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1931.

Membership in the Eastern Band of Cherokee is based on this Baker Roll of l924. Original enrollees and their descendants born on or before August 21,1957 possessing 1/32 degree Eastern Cherokee blood qualified for tribal membership provided they applied before August 14, 1963 and either they or their parents maintained and dwelt in a home on the Qualla Boundary sometime between June 4, 1924 and August 21, l957, and were not enrolled as members of another tribe. A person born after August 21, 1957 or applying after August 14, 1963 was required to be 1/16 degree Eastern Cherokee blood.

The federally recognized United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians requires a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood showing at least 1/4 degree Keetoowah Cherokee blood for tribal enrollment.

Thank you, Odestiny (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's very true what you say. Because of all this there is an enormous amount of people who are both African and Native American. The problem is the government makes it extremely hard to gain recognition which in my opinion a way for the government to keep the Native American population at low numbers and as you said create hatred between the two races which for some people that has occurred. It's a part of history that is in the shadows and only some people know their full heritage it's sad and angering at the same time. Native American is the only race they want to know your blood quantum and it's ridiculous.Mcelite (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

The wikipedia entry on Part-Cherokee applicants was removed not long ago, due to erroneous and questionable claims of what it discusses.

1. The CNO has received tens of thousands of applicants from persons who claimed Cherokee lineage in Latin America: Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Chile was a major destination for Oklahoman Cherokee farmers or ranchers in the late 19th century), but U.S. Civil War historians studied the presence of 15,000 ex-Confederate settlers (including Cherokees) from the war-ravaged and economically depleted American South migrated on sea cruisers to ports in Central and South America in the late 1860's. Also to note some Cherokee slaves bought by the Spanish and Portuguese in South America or were traded to far corners of the earth, even to Asia and Africa to be auctioned to others in exchange for black African and/or Southeast Asian slaves.

2. In addition, the CNO constantly gets applications from Europe, by "Redbone" persons (the term for Europeans with any black African and/or American Indian ancestors), grown children a byproduct of U.S. soldiers (Cherokee or other American Indian) married white European war brides during the WWII occupation. However, the once global British and Spanish empires' contact with the Cherokee resulted in the employment of some Cherokee employed as scouts, sailors and guides for British admirals and Spanish conquistadors from the 16th to 19th centuries might well settled down in Europe. There is historical evidence of Squanto who assisted the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1620) and Pocahontas from the Virginia colony (1635) demonstrates American Indians visited Europe in diplomatic missions to introduce themselves to the British and European royality.

3. The Japanese community of California: many Cherokee migrants came to 'Japantowns' like Torrance in the Los Angeles area and San Joaquin valley in the 1920's and 30's) about "Cherokee Indians" who discovered their parents hide their Japanese heritage (or ethnic 'Nisei' or 'Sansei' whom felt they are Cherokees) or how Issie parents selected Cherokee mates for their children if hardly any favored matchmate was around. This is similar to the Chinese-African American (see Afro-Asian), Mexican-Indian American (see Punjabi Mexican American) and Kanaka Polynesian-First Nations Native Canadian intermarriage trends occurred in high frequency in California due to loopholes in anti-miscegenation laws and cultural similarities between minority groups arrived to work in farms and had high contact with each other (the case of Japanese-Cherokees)during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I wrote about this latest myth in the Japanese-American article talk page: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_American#Controversial_edit:_the_Japanese_Cherokee] +71.102.53.48 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the first paragraph have what other tribes called them? is it relevent to know that "the Powhatan were referring to this people as the Rickahockan" or that "The Cherokee were called "Alligewi" by the Delawares" ? Just wondering. Ono (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful information, but maybe not for the lead. Also, I thought the Delaware's "Alligewi" were a "legendary tribe" who lived on the Allegheny River (so named for them), whose identity is essentially unknown. Pfly (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. perhaps it could be moved to somwhere else in the page. 164.58.180.210 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be in the "17th Century" along with the first white contact. Also, I believe the statement "they were called Alligewi" is incorrect. Odestiny (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[ url= http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Bu-Dr/Cherokees.html#Comments_form]- The Cherokee in everyculture.com web site. A very reliable resource for any future entries or edits about the Cherokee. For example, it had a paragraph on Tahlequah, the Cherokee Nation's headquarters has a multiplicity of American Indian tribes: Creeks, Choctaws, Natchezs, Shawnees, Delawares, Iroquoians, Kiowas, Apaches, Comanches and even Navajos. So it's possible the Cherokee Nation could well be over 100 tribes joined in a single one, but the CNO is easy to join than most American Indian tribal nations due to its' own blood quantum regulations. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of people listed here as "famous Cherokee" and no citations. In addition, if this continues, the degree of fame is going to become an issue at some point, as well as the point of saying how much Cherokee a person is, etc. I could go into a lot of potential issues, but it's pretty obvious. I suggest that there at least be a source listed if a person - even Johhny Depp or Jimi Hendrix - is going to be listed as a Cherokee in this article. Odestiny (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

citations should not be word of mouth or statements from the person. this is insensitive and appropriating behaviour, particularly in the situation of tori amos, who has a history of lying about her native ancestry. no documents exist, it is a family legend; furthermore, she appropriates the genocide of the native american juxtaposed with her suffering as a white woman. this form of racism is inexcusable, and should not be perpetuated. her statements engender mitigations of the native american suffering, and propagates to the masses who, already ignorant, come to think of the genocide as on par with the sufferings of a white woman in america. (a woman who lied about being raped and validate her own complacency, no less; in doing so, she appropriated real suffering and advocates for the hysterical victimization of white american women.) this is contributing to the silent holocaust of the native american. this cannot continue. something must be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess queen101 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

the whole point being that alleged cherokee ancestry should not be stated on wikipedia unless there is verifiable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess queen101 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are three sources which mention Amos' Cherokee ancestry. Do you have any reliable sources that say otherwise? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

how is that valid, encyclopaedic evidence? it is not. look at her career: it is made up of inconsistencies to legitimate the alleged oppressions of white women set in .

to reiterate: her claims are not conducive with legitimate evidence. for example, i could say right now that i am a jew.
i am not. 

there is no evidence to her claims. what she is doing-- this is appropriation. you cannot claim and use a history of an oppressed people to cement and serve your own indulgence, suffering, and artistry. it is barbaric and it is not conducive with the encyclopaedic tradition. her status must be removed because her career rests on the appropriation and glorification of a culture, tradition, and history she has no right to claim. it allows for the perpetuation of her ignorance to her fans, as well. something must be done.Chess queen101 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You have presented no third party reliable sources that back your claims. Until you do so, we can only assume her claim to have Cherokee ancestors is valid based on the sources present in the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

While one of the sources mentioned above is a book about Amos at least partially written by Amos, the other two are newspaper/magazine articles. Accordingly, those articles are third-party. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that unless a source can be sited that proves the person is a member of a Cherokee tribe, they not be listed as a Cherokee. That would mean they have an ancestor on the Dawes or Baker rolls. There is no real reason to list famous people who are Cherokee anyway. Those in control of the article on Oklahoma will not even list Will Rogers, because they say there is no reason to list people just because they are famous. If a famous person claims to be Cherokee, and is not, anything they do or say in the public arena reflects on the Cherokee people as a whole. That is not right. In addition, as I have stated before, how famous is famous? At some point the list of famous Cherokee would be longer than the article itself. To restate - if Torry Amos for example, can show she has a direct ancestor on the Dawes or Baker rolls, like anyone else, then she can call herself Cherokee. Odestiny (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait....so you're saying that unless we can "proove otherwise" that tori amos isn't cherokee, then her allegations may remain. I understand that the whole point of wikipedia is to reject the idea of scholastic method, but you claim is rather counter-intuitive. If I were to edit, say, Peter Mackay's page saying that he is dating COndoleeza Rice and that they make out on her piano, technically, according to your logic, that would be legitimate unless I could explicitally proove otherwise? We need more rigorous definitions of a objective 'truth'. I believe the "chess queen" is trying to highlight this need to the wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.0.242 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not her allegations, per se. You'll note I've excluded her book from the list of sources I mentioned as reliable. What's left are two newspaper articles, which are deemed to be reliable sources. We therefore have a statement that is verifiable, and that's why it's allowed to stand in the article.

To refute your example, if you added that to Peter Mackay's page with no reference to back it up, it would be deleted. If, however, the Globe and Mail reported the piano tryst, then it would be verifiable in a reliable source and a "legitimate" edit. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the globe and mail is right-wing propaganda, c.fred. everyone knows that. Chess queen101 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"The "chess queen's" claims remain the same - newspaper articles, for these purposes, are not an appropriate source. I find it deeply troublesome that wikipedia will contribute to the appropriation of native culture, in order to 'exoticize' celebrities. It's disgusting, superficial, and untrue. I understand that wikipedia is a fluid form of knowledge sharing, but there is a form of privilege going on here, and that is for white celebrities. You'll notice that Ward Churchill, a prominent aboriginal activist and scholar, is only mentioned in passing, and then his nativeness is called into question as 'dubious'. Also, Fred C - popular magazine articles? Surely you know those aren't an appropriate source...and why have they been taken off the main cherokee page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasp (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss whether or not these sources are reliable, then WP:RSN is probably the place to do it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that without valid sources attesting to enrolled membership, no one should be listed as Cherokee and "fame" should also be sourced. The self-identified people of Cherokee descent should be moved to a separate page and list to reduce the publicity - most are unsourced assertions by models and soap opera actors, whose pages on Wikipedia have no sources. No reason to contribute to that "notability".--Parkwells (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that many people, both famous and not, do fake having native ancestry for attention. However, there many, though no fault of their own, who are Cherokee and are not part of the Cherokee nation. I worked with a young woman who is of Cherokee ancestry through her father, but because she and her siblings were removed from their home as children and had a Caucasian last name; they were classified as white by the social workers who took them out of the home. I had been trying to help this young woman claim her ancestry, but she was having problems getting the information she needed even with the help of her grandparents and siblings. Her parents were trying to help her indirectly, but she was not able to talk to them due to a court order that was put into place by her guardian. The reason for stating this is that there are people who have had to deal with the social welfare system like the woman I worked with who could have had their official documentation removed or destroyed. Thiw would include peple like Kristin Chenoweth, who were adopted and know they are of Cherokee ancestry. She was also raised by people who are of Cherokee ancestry. Why can't her name be allowed to be under the famous catagory? The same with James Garner, whose mother was of Cherokee ancestry. His mother passed away when he was very young. Yet, Mr. Garner is very active in Native American causes. I do agree having a citation is needed, but newspapers should be allowed as sources. If someone wanted to, they could probably look up the ancestry of all the people listed with the BIA. Even then, there are many people of Native ancestry that aren't listed with the BIA again through records being lost or due to the person being lost in the social services sector due to domestic abuse or violence, especially children.--Gmosaki (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks initially to records begun by Moravians, then government rolls, then additional interest by the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Cherokees are one of the most well-documented ethnic groups around. The Cherokee Heritage Center has a staff of several full time genealogists, so it is actually quite easily to find out if one is of Cherokee descent. 700,000 people claimed Cherokee descent on the lass census, so there's obviously a major discrepancy between what people believe about their heritage and the reality. It seems practically every county singer and half of Hollywood claims to Cherokee. Johnny Cash publicly admitted that he just invented his "Cherokee" heritage. It's the default choice for people who have been told in family history that they might be part Indian, which is ironic, because saying you're part-Cherokee scores you zero points in the Indian world. Contrary to public culture, there are a finite number of Cherokee people. Making a claim of distant Cherokee ancestry is worlds apart from *being* Cherokee, just as having a French ancestor two centuries ago does not automatically entitle a person to be a citizen of France. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

This link is to an unreferenced and unsourced article should be removed. The original article sites only an MSN group for Granny Magic and no true support. For the little people it sites David Vann's site, which is one of the best. However, the fact that Appalachian whites believed in the Cherokee Nunnehi or Yundi Tsundi has nothing to do with this article and should not be linked to it. If not, the original article needs to be edited and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your concerns about this link have less to do with the quality of the article and more with the content of the article. I must admit I did not know it was such a touchy subject when I added the link, my task at hand was de-orphaning articles. However, the article is about a (partly) Cherokee tradition, I do not think a link in the see also section of the Main Cherokee article would be out of place. Your arguments for removing the link are flawed, imho. If the article is of that bad quality I suppose you should AfD it. I think the fact that Appalachian whites had adopted to Cherokee beliefs is plenty of reason to link to it from here, after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and part of the policy is to link articles together. Without Cherokee traditions, no Appalachian Granny Magic. Hence the link. Shoombooly (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to support Shoombooly on this one. I've re-added the link. If we had to wait until every article was well-sourced and verified before it was wiki-linked, then we would never be able to link anywhere! Do you truly believe we should never link to stub articles? Also, I don't see how the two articles can be unrelated. If something influenced by the Cherokee tradition can't even be included in the See also section, then by the same argument, you couldn't link to Christianity from the Judaism article, either.--Aervanath's signature is boring 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. However the article in question needs editing to meet guidelines, which I will assist with. Odestiny (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Way to be bold, Odestiny!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)