Talk:Cheraw

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina / South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Saura be merged into Cheraw people. These are the same ethnic group, as per [1], [2], [3], [4], and Cheraw is more commonly used in literature (compare "Cheraw tribe North Carolina" (4,870 hits on Google Books) vs. "Saura tribe North Carolina" (383) Uyvsdi (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Support, makes sense if they are about the same thing! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to merge, which one is the name the people prefer to use for themselves, or is that disputed? Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some Lumbee friends I can query, but I think we have to go by published literature (actually the Lumbee website might be of assistance: [5]). My best understanding is that Saura/Cheraw are extinct as a people; Lumbees are descended from them but have their own culture/identity, much in the same way Seminole are descended from Lower Creeks but are distinct.) -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Should both be merged into Lumbee, then? Just wondering if redirects can handle it all? Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheraw existed 18th century and before; the Lumbee exist 19th century up to the present. I added actual cited information to Cheraw people that might help clarify who they were historically. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Then it sounds like a merger into Cheraw (or whatever the preferred name is) will work, once you determine which name is better. Djembayz (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merger into "Cheraw." Have come across a terrific source from an academic press that draws from both archeological and historical studies to study and link these groups, and makes the connections from references to Saras in one period, and Cheraw and Catawba in another. He particularly studies the peoples of the Carolina Piedmont in this perio and his work should be helpful in reconciling accounts of this people. Robin Beck, Chiefdoms, Collapse, and Coalescence in the Early American South, Cambridge University Press, 2013. Intend to study this more. Agree with Uyvsdi in ending the merger at Cheraw. The Lumbee formed later in a different process of ethnogenesis; some individuals had some Cheraw ancestry but it was not a cultural group.Parkwells (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's unanimous. If it's okay, I'll go ahead with the merge. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130411224057/http://www.theitem.com/lifestyles/panorama/cheraw-indians-chief-to-speak-at-genealogical-society/article_1855697c-6c94-51f5-b7ba-e2daa528830a.html to http://www.theitem.com/lifestyles/panorama/cheraw-indians-chief-to-speak-at-genealogical-society/article_1855697c-6c94-51f5-b7ba-e2daa528830a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

An IP hopper keeps adding the figures "50-60 people" for population. These figures are not in the book being cited. Both the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and the Sumter Tribe of Cheraw Indians claim descent from the Cheraw, among other tribes, so the figure is truly unknown. Yuchitown (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I've semi-protected the page. Just for one week as it hasn't been protected before. If the disruption resumes, just let me know and I'll extend it.

I only saw the request in the edit summaries because this is on my watchlist. Most admins will miss that type of request. In the future, the best thing to do is either ping one of us directly, or head over to WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for on top of this! I don’t want to be the Editor That Cried Wolf, so didn’t want to bug you, but if it’s really okay, I will in the future. Best Yuchitown (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Yes, it's really OK :) It's what I signed up for in volunteering to be an admin. I really prefer doing page protection on articles I know something about. It's more satisfying and easier than having to get up to speed on ones I've never seen before, which is why I'll sometimes volunteer on talk (as well as working at RFPP now and then). I gotz the buttonz, may as well use them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, thanks! Yuchitown (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: IP blocks and semiprotect have all expired, and they have returned. To this page, as well as to Yuchi and Shawnee. With one of their IPs as well as with a new named account, 115.75.179.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Baoiiii (talk · contribs). Could we get some extended blocks or a much longer semiprotect for all of these pages? It's the same exact edits, unsourced, no rhyme or reason. And for the life of me I can't figure out why someon in Vietnam wants to add the small changes they do to these articles, over and over, for months at a time. He iro 08:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And another 171.236.70.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He iro 09:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock Bao122 (talk · contribs). He iro 15:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking into it now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Doug blocked the IPs. I've warned the new account, as well, but given the IP-hopping and likely socking, I agree that semi-protection will save all of us a lot of time. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockdrawer seems clearly committed to creating new accounts to disrupt, so all indeffed. All pages semi'ed for 2 months. No problem protecting them for much longer or indef when it expires, as they do seem to be magnets for this sort of stuff. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, and no worries on delay, wasn't a world ending sitch. Hopefully after these expire they have moved on with whatever their crusade is. Still wondering WTF is their agenda. So weird and so random. He iro 01:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]