Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls

1304:

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.

1319:

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

2610:: 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 Knowledge'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 Knowledge because there are NOT reliable sources for it. 2353:. 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. 2142:

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. 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. 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".

1254:... 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 331:. Accurate research, perhaps (again, I have no way of knowing), but original research nonetheless, which is not permitted by Knowledge. 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 Knowledge 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. 1160:

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.

1908:, 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 Knowledge to have this "article". 881:, 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 287:. 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. 1799:. 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 1963:- "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, 625:- 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? 1054:" 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. 1389:

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).

1633:. 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. Knowledge understands, even as some editors seem to not, that even a real-world hoax can receive coverage enough to merit an article. IE: 405: 2629:

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.

815:, 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. 261:. 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 1103:

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 Knowledge.

621:

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

925:, 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 1127: 976: 2549:

Because folks with little knowledge of this area keep arguing and arguing and arguing, with nothing to substantiate or support. The story's fabrication and complete lack of evidence should have been more than enough for it to have been deleted two weeks ago. But since I nominated it for deletion, I

802:

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 Knowledge ethos. Again, and to repeat, I am not claiming that the information in

377:

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

2628:

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

2439:

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

2419:

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)

2104: 1388:

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),

1159:

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.

1121:

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

1071:

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

620:

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

277:

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

1776:

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

1174:

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

572:

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

2467:

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 Knowledge. I don't blame Chris for his withdrawal from the debate after his good faith efforts

1211:

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

2241:

For the reasons given by Uncle Dick, and I agree that a mention in the Yahoo Falls article seems reasonable. I appreciate the replacement of the encyclopedia entry with an url that can now be read. Above people can see my request for information about the contributor, and references, etc that was

1133:

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

508:

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

307:

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

2397:

As for how this has been conducted, this way this process has been handled in this case is a violation of Knowledge 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

2141:

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. No serious historian gave the matter any credit, and Raymond Evans, noted ethnohistorian and archaeologist as well as

1365:

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

1318:

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

1303:

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

2382:

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

1102:

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

1475:

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 Knowledge as a source of accurate

850:

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

1183:

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

974:

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

248:

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

1876:

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.

278:

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.

1722:. 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 1777:

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".

984:

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

1943:

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".

1637:. A hoax event that was not written of in ANY text anywhere until the first report of the "discovery" in 1912. Knowledge 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. 1981:

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 Knowledge and its presence diminishes Knowledge's credibility.

1528:

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

527: 2589:, 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 2440:

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.

2462:

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

548: 2423:. 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. 2330:

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).

2005:. 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 1510:

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 Knowledge. That rationale just doesn't hold up.

1141:

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.

2198:'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. 2013:. 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 1122:

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

646:(JSTOR) is not the compendium of all human knowledge, having been founded in 1995 to archive academic journals, I believe it is an error to assign their being incomplete with an unmerited undue weight in light of a publication from 1709:

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:

1491:

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.

737:, 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. 581:

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,

155: 1557:

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 Knowledge I say. It's not like it was made up specifically for Knowledge, which is a different

1657:

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.

186:

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.

1049:

Your comments lack proper sourcing or foundation, and please, as such seem of personal opinion and original research... which are not values upon which Knowledge relies. Its difficult to give credence to your stating

1184:

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

803:

the article is "historical" or "accurate", only that it is discussed in sources... just as many ledgends or ghost stories or tales of monsters. Knowledge is not about truth, only about verifibility. For instance,

1138:... 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. 2068:, 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 587: 1008: 2212:

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.

2468:

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

509:

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.

2368:

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.--

1175:

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

1476:

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.

2502:

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.--

586:

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.

869:

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

484:

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

1673:

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

327:

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

2517:

The original source is not credible, neither is Dr. Tankersley, at least not his article in this case. The most the story deserves is a one or two line mention in the article on

2103:. 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 149: 2326:

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

1226:

Your doing so Doug, indicates perhaps a misunderstanding of policy and guideline, as Knowledge is not about truth, but is rather about verifiability. An article speaks toward a

1011: 1258:... such as encyclopedias from respected publishers and University Press publications... please understand my feeling rather loath to encourage a continuation of such activity. 715:

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.

110: 994:" 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, 221: 302:

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.

1840:

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.

2677:

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.

1134:

other Cherokee had no daughter named Cornblossom, and my own cited rebuttal provides numerous sources that do indeed speak of the Doublehead and Cornblossom

83: 78: 87: 2001:: The sourcing on this article is still insufficient to establish notability of the alleged event or of the controversy surrounding the alleged event per 115: 70: 2564:

As for "reliable", not one single source for the "article" meets Knowledge standards of reliability. I can quote those here, in full, if you like.

265:, 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. 1129: 978: 1212:

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.

2593:

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".

729:

Our governing policies and guidelines do not demand that encyclopdia provide the world or us with their citations or vetting processes. Per

1726:

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

407:

but it really doesn't help as it is probably based on the dubious sources we already have. Please remember it's also called 'Yahoo Falls'.

1117:

Natty4bumpo|Chuck Hamilton, the "wild" assertions and "tantrums" are your own, not mine, and I never said the event "happened", only that

678:

settings." And where is a mandate in guideline or policy that all outside encyclopdias, specially those from respected publishers like

170: 2644:

Well, there ya go. No one who opined a keep says the story is true, only that coverage in what Knowledge (if not yourself) defines as

137: 1437:

allow Chris to do his rewrite in peace. Has encyclopedic potential, doesn't do a great job of showing it at present. If necessary,

1403:

Thank you Chris, for a reasoned, rational, and guideline sanctioned response. And by the by, I do not believe it happened... but I

1701:

has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time shows it may merit inclusion as a

1139: 995: 791: 254: 17: 467:. If this were verifible in a number of independent sources, it might be suitable for an article; but as it stands, it's not. 313:

Fifth, Rev. Blackburn's schools had all been closed by this time after he was caught selling bootleg whiskey down in Alabama.

561: 540: 2421: 2039:

were removed by an editor who wishes the article deleted. But I do respect your merge that seeks to preserve information.

886: 578: 569: 533: 131: 74: 1625:

The legend itself IS verifiable as having been written of in a number of relible sources, true event or not, just as has

642:

All I have stated is that the allegation of this incident has received coverage... and not that it is true or false. As

2686: 2668: 2638: 2622: 2602: 2573: 2559: 2544: 2530: 2511: 2493: 2478: 2449: 2432: 2407: 2392: 2377: 2362: 2340: 2309: 2285: 2265: 2251: 2225: 2207: 2189: 2168: 2151: 2136: 2081: 2051: 2030: 1991: 1976: 1953: 1934: 1917: 1896: 1868: 1844: 1833: 1812: 1786: 1770: 1667: 1649: 1620: 1588: 1571: 1545: 1520: 1504: 1485: 1467: 1450: 1423: 1398: 1378: 1339: 1313: 1270: 1221: 1204: 1169: 1154: 1112: 1095: 1066: 1044: 1030: 935: 901: 860: 827: 795: 749: 724: 694: 634: 612: 518: 500: 476: 455: 416: 387: 366: 337: 322: 271: 258: 238: 211: 196: 52: 922: 1967:

There are enough sources to get this topic over the notability bar, clearly. Much of the heat here seems misdirected.

1800: 961: 463:. This sort of material that relies on a single online source that may or may not be reliable simply does not satisfy 992:

Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee.

485: 297:

Second, Doublehead, whose family is well-documented, had no daughter named "Cornblossom", nor did any other Cherokee.

127: 2484:

The article should not exist, period. The story behind it is NOT CREDIBLE, is NOT VERIFIABLE, and is NOT NOTABLE.

2278: 1861: 545:

significant coverage in that it is more than trivial mention, and need not be the main topic of the source material

1238:

as written, which specifically states that "significant coverage" means the topic need be addressed in detail but

399: 2701: 2665: 2222: 2165: 2048: 1767: 1646: 1585: 1542: 1501: 1464: 1420: 1375: 1336: 1267: 1234:

as being writen of... and removing those sources as you did, does not make them non-existant. I read and follow

1201: 1151: 1092: 1063: 1027: 898: 824: 746: 691: 609: 497: 284: 36: 177: 2700:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

66: 58: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2656:

in context, as long as you avoid battling over content and add the sources there that you did not offer here.

402: 2540: 2507: 2428: 2132: 2112: 488:

would be sensible, but as a topic covered in multiple book and scholar sources, it meets inclusion criteria.

1013:

The nominator makes enough other unfounded statements, that his reasons for nomination fall into question.

233: 2682: 2634: 2618: 2598: 2569: 2555: 2526: 2489: 2445: 2403: 2388: 2271: 2261: 2147: 1987: 1949: 1913: 1854: 1782: 1663: 1530: 1516: 1481: 1165: 1108: 1040: 362: 318: 192: 2585:"Even a popular history ought to pay some little regard to truth." - Theodore Roosevelt, in his series 1750:, et-al for deletion and see what happens. Might be far more educational than this discussion. It's 1018:

While a legend is a legend, and a fact is a fact, either can merit inclusion if supported by sources.

956:" Other sources, sources with which Troxell has no conflict of interest have come forward. Just took 262: 143: 2658: 2336: 2247: 2215: 2195: 2158: 2077: 2073: 2041: 2026: 2022: 1930: 1760: 1639: 1616: 1612: 1578: 1535: 1494: 1457: 1446: 1413: 1368: 1329: 1309: 1260: 1217: 1194: 1144: 1085: 1056: 1020: 891: 856: 817: 787: 779: 739: 720: 684: 630: 602: 514: 490: 412: 383: 2373: 2185: 1131: 986: 163: 2536: 2503: 2424: 2358: 2203: 2128: 2108: 2010: 1808: 1747: 1567: 1394: 451: 441: 207: 921:

Clearly, there is enough controversy surrounding this event to warrant a move to something like

873:. And we have several books, not "one". I am unable to ignore the information provided in the 597:

speaks toward the legend of Princess Cornblossom in speaking of her own Kentucky family history.

1972: 1727: 1711: 1626: 804: 558: 537: 228: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2124: 1179:

has received coverage, as offered, in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. And

2678: 2630: 2614: 2594: 2565: 2551: 2522: 2485: 2441: 2399: 2384: 2257: 2143: 2006: 1983: 1945: 1909: 1821: 1778: 1659: 1512: 1477: 1251: 1161: 1104: 1036: 1004: 971: 957: 671: 358: 349: 314: 188: 2332: 2243: 2065: 2018: 2002: 1926: 1442: 1305: 1213: 852: 783: 716: 655: 626: 510: 429: 408: 379: 598: 2369: 2291: 2181: 1878: 1559: 1246:. That a book on Kentucky hiking trails may have pertinant information on a legend is 773: 675: 663: 472: 396: 393: 2472:

article, but I really favor keeping it as-is, except for an appropriate title change.

2464: 2416: 2354: 2199: 2100: 2036: 2035:

Unfortunately Uncle Dick, the reliable sources showing the legend's coverage meeting

1804: 1694: 1674: 1563: 1390: 1324: 1235: 1185: 926: 544: 447: 437: 203: 1126:: IE the 1770 "Treaty of Lochaber", and the 1775 "Treaty of Sycamore Shoals", et-al, 2645: 2474: 2096: 1968: 1841: 1830: 1739: 1735: 1719: 1690: 1634: 1255: 1118: 1076: 931: 734: 594: 333: 328: 267: 250: 49: 811:

come to mind. Even with complete lack of scientific validation, we have articles

104: 2648:

merits an inclusion. And you are quite welcome to expand the article and set the

2156:

Empty claims. More unsorcable rhetoric created by nominator to support his POV??

2518: 2469: 2120: 2116: 2069: 2014: 1743: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1608: 1603: 1189: 870: 866: 730: 550:

Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present, Volume 1

464: 1366:

existing policy and guideline. I will not edit war over this point of policy.

2125:

Hiking the Big South Fork By Brenda G. Deaver, Howard R. Duncan, Jo Anna Smith

1731: 1715: 1630: 808: 573:

guideline as decent and responsible publishers. If you want to learn how the

285:

http://happytrails_2.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ywahoo.htm

963:

Yes, these are referred to as legends, but so what? The legend has coverage.

651: 468: 2256:

I agree. A brief mention in the Yahoo Falls article should be sufficient.

2242:

ignored, but the new link gives those and I've written to the contributor.

2180:. Hoax or history, it's notable. Kudos to Chris for his rewrite efforts.-- 1607:. (see below) Any verifiable information can be added to a new section at 882: 874: 679: 667: 647: 590: 574: 565: 554: 1455:

A good fatth incubation for Chris's continued work is acceptable to me.

659: 526:

Okay, we can disregard the Lulu book (now removed as a ref). However,

879:

Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present

2072:

article is probably all this event (or non-event) needs or deserves.

1192:

before givng repeated doses of that same unsourced personal opinion.

889:

are invalidated because they do not reveal their editing practices.

2021:

in every conceivable way. I stand by my previous vote for deletion.

1824:

to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

432:'s links. If it is kept though, it definitely needs to be moved to 378:

the schools didn't exist after 1810. I'll look at what's left now.

352:

to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

643: 622: 583: 2694:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

954:

The SOLE source for the this massacre written by Dan Troxell..

2115:) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC) By the way, the best source for 2415:

You dilute your good arguments with weak ones that border on

2064:. I still believe that a separate article is unwarranted per 1754:

about truth. It's about continued coverage, no matter where

1001:

Gideon Blackburn never had a mission in the Sequatchie Valley

2099:. I'm not saying it is true but it is clearly notable under 308:

than the War Department would have authorized the actions.

564:) is a work of fiction? Or are you suggesting that both 1965:

assuming that the article is given a more neutral title.

2056:

I'm going to go ahead and change my official vote from

775:, although we have the self-publishing problem again. 100: 96: 92: 162: 1035:

A story made up ten years or so ago is not a legend.

970:." That statement is incorrect, and reflects lack of 543:) is not self-published... and per guideline offers " 1795:

it, referenced everything, and change my opinion to

1010:

when they speak toward Blackburn's work in Kentucky.

292:

First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810.

1829:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 968:

First, there no Cherokee living in Kentucky in 1810

357:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 682:, must have citations, else they can be ignored? 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2704:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1250:allowed, specially as the publication is from a 1007:seems to throw doubt on his unfounded assertion, 980:These treaties recognize that the Cherokee were 1242:. And it instructs that sources may encompass 428:, on the grounds that it never happened as per 2127:which I believe was deleted from the article. 1576:The legend predats Knowledge by some decades. 1411:, the alleged incident has received coverage. 2383:awarded his bachelor's or had it taken away. 1083:citations... that support your conjectures. 222:list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions 176: 8: 1925:I struck your !vote, you are the nominator. 851:subsequent reports of the alleged incident. 600:Or is Diane Sawyer herself a Troxell shill? 2550:have to answer assertion to the contrary. 216: 1681:. Perhaps you might consider reviewing 949:misconceptions posted by the nominator: 220:: This debate has been included in the 1853:a hoax, that shouldn't be perpetuated. 1599:as unverifiable and potentially a hoax. 2535:So you've said. And said. And said. -- 1803:and this page turned into a redirect. 1244:published works in all forms and media 1240:need not the main topic of the source 772:And this needs to be taken seriously 7: 283:Troxell's account can be found at 257:claims a byline of a professor at 24: 923:Ywahoo Falls Massacre controversy 2591:The Rear Guard of the Revolution 2290:Also agree. Sounds reasonable. 2017:article, but this article fails 1801:Alleged massacre at Ywahoo Falls 865:But the policy requirement for 547:. And are you suggesting that 486:Alleged massacre at Yahoo falls 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1177:legend of Princess Cornblossom 1: 2687:04:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 2669:02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 2639:01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 2623:00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 2574:14:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 887:University of Tennessee Press 579:University of Tennessee Press 570:University of Tennessee Press 534:University of Tennessee Press 444:) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 53:03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2105:NATIVE AMERICANS IN KENTUCKY 1758:the story first originated. 259:Northern Kentucky University 2603:02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 2560:21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2545:19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2531:19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2512:19:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2494:18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2479:16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2450:18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2433:18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2408:16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2393:16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2378:14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2363:08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2341:02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 2310:22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2286:14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2266:13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2252:09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2226:10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2208:08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2190:05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2169:10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2152:03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2137:23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 2082:21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2052:10:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 2031:20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1992:18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1977:17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1954:17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1935:02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1918:14:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1897:12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1869:07:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1845:07:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1834:07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1813:06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1787:06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1771:02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1668:23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1650:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1621:19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1589:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1572:17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1546:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1521:17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1505:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1486:15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1468:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1451:14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1424:23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1399:11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1379:04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1340:09:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1314:05:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1271:04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1222:12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 1205:04:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1170:11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 1155:16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 1113:14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 1096:16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 1067:10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 1052:made up ten years or so ago 1045:22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1031:21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 936:17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 902:10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 861:09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 828:20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 796:07:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 750:10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 725:09:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 695:20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 635:07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 613:03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 519:20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 501:19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 477:01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 456:06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 417:10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 388:09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 367:00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 338:13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 323:20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 272:21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 239:20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 212:23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 197:20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2721: 436:massacre at Ywahoo falls. 2270:Agree with this as well. 2123:(as opposed to truth) is 1230:and sources support that 929:and deserves to be kept. 885:or publications from the 529:Hiking the Big South Fork 404:about this. I also found 2697:Please do not modify it. 650:, founded in 1956 as "a 67:Massacre at Ywahoo Falls 59:Massacre at Ywahoo Falls 32:Please do not modify it. 2587:The Winning of the West 813:based upon its coverage 2351:I don't care any more 1386:STOP IT, BOTH OF YOU. 1677:does not equate to 1441:until it's sorted. 1363:Closer please note: 524:Response to comment 263:Swift's silver mine 2194:Thank you. I take 1748:Abominable Snowman 1407:contend that as a 506:Comment on sources 401:plus a news story 44:The result was 1836: 1728:Loch Ness Monster 1712:Loch Ness Monster 1627:Loch Ness Monster 1124:being in Kentucky 805:Loch Ness Monster 799: 782:comment added by 658:for the study of 369: 329:original research 241: 225: 2712: 2699: 2661: 2646:reliable sources 2500:Keep and retitle 2477: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2282: 2275: 2218: 2161: 2093:Retitle and Keep 2044: 1961:Retitle and Keep 1894: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1865: 1858: 1828: 1826: 1763: 1675:personal opinion 1642: 1581: 1538: 1497: 1460: 1416: 1371: 1332: 1263: 1252:University Press 1197: 1147: 1119:reliable sources 1088: 1075:Please show the 1059: 1023: 934: 894: 820: 798: 776: 742: 687: 672:secondary school 640:Hold on yourself 605: 493: 356: 354: 336: 270: 236: 231: 226: 181: 180: 166: 118: 108: 90: 34: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2702:deletion review 2695: 2659: 2473: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2280: 2273: 2216: 2159: 2042: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1863: 1856: 1819: 1761: 1640: 1579: 1536: 1495: 1458: 1414: 1369: 1330: 1261: 1195: 1145: 1086: 1057: 1021: 945:And to address 930: 892: 818: 777: 740: 685: 656:reference works 644:Journal Storage 603: 491: 347: 332: 266: 251:reliable source 234: 229: 123: 114: 81: 65: 62: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2718: 2716: 2707: 2706: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2679:Chuck Hamilton 2672: 2671: 2631:Chuck Hamilton 2627: 2615:Chuck Hamilton 2608:NO RELIABILITY 2595:Chuck Hamilton 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2566:Chuck Hamilton 2552:Chuck Hamilton 2523:Chuck Hamilton 2497: 2496: 2486:Chuck Hamilton 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2442:Chuck Hamilton 2436: 2435: 2425:Abby Kelleyite 2400:Chuck Hamilton 2395: 2385:Chuck Hamilton 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2292:Andrew Lenahan 2258:Chuck Hamilton 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2144:Chuck Hamilton 2129:Abby Kelleyite 2109:Abby Kelleyite 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1984:Chuck Hamilton 1957: 1956: 1946:Chuck Hamilton 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1910:Chuck Hamilton 1900: 1899: 1879:Andrew Lenahan 1871: 1838: 1837: 1827: 1816: 1779:Chuck Hamilton 1774: 1773: 1660:Chuck Hamilton 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1560:Kettle of Fish 1553: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1531:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1513:Chuck Hamilton 1508: 1507: 1478:Chuck Hamilton 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1382: 1381: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1162:Chuck Hamilton 1105:Chuck Hamilton 1100: 1099: 1098: 1037:Chuck Hamilton 1016: 1015: 1014: 997: 988: 964: 939: 938: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 867:Verifiability 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 676:public library 664:social studies 521: 479: 458: 421: 420: 419: 371: 370: 355: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 315:Chuck Hamilton 310: 309: 304: 303: 299: 298: 294: 293: 289: 288: 280: 279: 243: 242: 214: 189:Chuck Hamilton 184: 183: 120: 116:AfD statistics 61: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2717: 2705: 2703: 2698: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537:SarekOfVulcan 2534: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504:SarekOfVulcan 2501: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2311: 2308: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2277: 2276: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2170: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1860: 1859: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1843: 1835: 1832: 1825: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1772: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1600: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1498: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1469: 1466: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1130: 1128: 1125: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072:taken place. 1070: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1017: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1002: 998: 996: 993: 989: 987: 983: 979: 977: 973: 969: 965: 962: 959: 955: 951: 950: 948: 944: 941: 940: 937: 933: 928: 924: 920: 919:Keep and move 917: 916: 903: 900: 899: 896: 895: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 858: 854: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 829: 826: 825: 822: 821: 814: 810: 806: 801: 800: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 774: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 751: 748: 747: 744: 743: 736: 732: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 696: 693: 692: 689: 688: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 638: 637: 636: 632: 628: 624: 619: 616: 615: 614: 611: 610: 607: 606: 599: 596: 592: 588: 585: 580: 576: 571: 567: 563: 560: 556: 552: 551: 546: 542: 539: 535: 531: 530: 525: 522: 520: 516: 512: 507: 504: 503: 502: 499: 498: 495: 494: 487: 483: 480: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 459: 457: 453: 449: 445: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 403: 400: 397: 394: 391: 390: 389: 385: 381: 376: 373: 372: 368: 364: 360: 353: 351: 346: 345: 339: 335: 330: 326: 325: 324: 320: 316: 312: 311: 306: 305: 301: 300: 296: 295: 291: 290: 286: 282: 281: 276: 275: 274: 273: 269: 264: 260: 256: 252: 247: 240: 237: 232: 223: 219: 215: 213: 209: 205: 201: 200: 199: 198: 194: 190: 179: 175: 172: 169: 165: 161: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 129: 126: 125:Find sources: 121: 117: 112: 106: 102: 98: 94: 89: 85: 80: 76: 72: 68: 64: 63: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2696: 2693: 2664: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2626: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2590: 2586: 2584: 2499: 2498: 2459: 2458: 2412: 2350: 2349: 2327: 2295: 2279: 2272: 2237: 2236: 2221: 2214: 2177: 2164: 2157: 2097:User:Carrite 2092: 2061: 2057: 2047: 2040: 1998: 1964: 1960: 1922: 1904: 1903: 1882: 1873: 1862: 1855: 1850: 1839: 1820: 1796: 1792: 1790: 1775: 1766: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1740:Easter Bunny 1736:Piltdown Man 1723: 1720:Piltdown Man 1706: 1702: 1698: 1697:. That the 1656: 1645: 1638: 1635:Piltdown Man 1601: 1596: 1595: 1584: 1577: 1552: 1541: 1534: 1509: 1500: 1493: 1474: 1463: 1456: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1419: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1385: 1374: 1367: 1362: 1335: 1328: 1320: 1266: 1259: 1248:specifically 1247: 1243: 1239: 1231: 1227: 1200: 1193: 1180: 1176: 1150: 1143: 1135: 1123: 1091: 1084: 1080: 1062: 1055: 1051: 1026: 1019: 1000: 991: 981: 967: 953: 946: 942: 918: 897: 890: 878: 877:publication 823: 816: 812: 745: 738: 690: 683: 639: 617: 608: 601: 595:Diane Sawyer 549: 528: 523: 505: 496: 489: 481: 460: 446:(See below). 433: 425: 423: 374: 348: 245: 244: 217: 185: 173: 167: 159: 152: 146: 140: 134: 124: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2519:Yahoo Falls 2470:Yahoo Falls 2398:weeks ago. 2070:Yahoo Falls 2015:Yahoo Falls 2011:WP:GEOSCOPE 1744:Tooth Fairy 1609:Yahoo Falls 1604:Yahoo Falls 999:He writes " 990:He writes " 778:—Preceding 392:I've found 359:Ron Ritzman 150:free images 2650:allegation 2333:Dougweller 2244:Dougweller 2196:Uncle Dick 2074:Uncle Dick 2023:Uncle Dick 1927:Dougweller 1732:Chupacabra 1716:Chupacabra 1631:Chupacabra 1613:Uncle Dick 1443:Alzarian16 1306:Dougweller 1214:Dougweller 966:He wrote " 952:He wrote " 853:Dougweller 809:Chupacabra 784:Dougweller 717:Dougweller 627:Dougweller 562:1851097708 541:1572330317 511:Dougweller 430:Dougweller 409:Dougweller 380:Dougweller 2370:Arxiloxos 2182:Arxiloxos 2007:WP:EFFECT 1793:rewritten 1791:OK, I've 1705:or as an 1602:Merge to 1077:citations 652:publisher 589:and even 424:Probably 255:this link 202:Prove it. 2660:Schmidt, 2217:Schmidt, 2160:Schmidt, 2066:WP:EVENT 2043:Schmidt, 2019:WP:EVENT 2003:WP:EVENT 1822:Relisted 1762:Schmidt, 1641:Schmidt, 1580:Schmidt, 1537:Schmidt, 1496:Schmidt, 1459:Schmidt, 1439:incubate 1415:Schmidt, 1370:Schmidt, 1331:Schmidt, 1323:meeting 1262:Schmidt, 1196:Schmidt, 1146:Schmidt, 1087:Schmidt, 1058:Schmidt, 1022:Schmidt, 1005:Research 972:research 893:Schmidt, 883:ABC-CLIO 875:ABC-CLIO 819:Schmidt, 792:contribs 780:unsigned 741:Schmidt, 686:Schmidt, 680:ABC-CLIO 668:academic 648:ABC-CLIO 604:Schmidt, 591:ABC News 575:ABC-CLIO 566:ABC-CLIO 555:ABC-CLIO 492:Schmidt, 350:Relisted 204:Forteana 111:View log 2475:Acdixon 2413:Comment 1999:Comment 1969:Carrite 1842:Spartaz 1831:Spartaz 1756:OR WHEN 1707:alleged 975:state). 958:looking 932:Acdixon 660:history 618:Hold on 434:Alleged 375:Comment 334:Acdixon 268:Acdixon 246:Comment 230:Beloved 156:WP refs 144:scholar 84:protect 79:history 50:Spartaz 2654:legend 2612:DELETE 2465:WP:GNG 2417:WP:BLP 2238:Delete 2101:WP:GNG 2058:Delete 2037:WP:GNG 1905:DELETE 1874:Delete 1851:Delete 1724:legend 1703:legend 1699:legend 1695:WP:GNG 1693:, and 1597:Delete 1435:please 1433:, and 1409:legend 1325:WP:GNG 1321:legend 1236:WP:GNG 1232:legend 1228:legend 1186:WP:POV 1136:legend 985:there. 927:WP:GNG 674:, and 461:Delete 426:delete 398:, and 128:Google 88:delete 2355:Chris 2200:Chris 2062:Merge 1805:Chris 1691:WP:RS 1564:Chris 1391:Chris 1256:WP:RS 943:Note: 735:WP:RS 623:JSTOR 584:JSTOR 448:Chris 438:Chris 235:Freak 171:JSTOR 132:books 105:views 97:watch 93:links 16:< 2683:talk 2635:talk 2619:talk 2599:talk 2570:talk 2556:talk 2541:talk 2527:talk 2508:talk 2490:talk 2460:Keep 2446:talk 2429:talk 2404:talk 2389:talk 2374:talk 2359:talk 2337:talk 2262:talk 2248:talk 2204:talk 2186:talk 2178:Keep 2148:talk 2133:talk 2121:WP:V 2119:and 2117:WP:N 2113:talk 2095:per 2078:talk 2027:talk 2009:and 1988:talk 1973:talk 1950:talk 1931:talk 1923:NOTE 1914:talk 1809:talk 1797:Keep 1783:talk 1718:... 1714:... 1687:WP:N 1683:WP:V 1679:WP:V 1664:talk 1629:and 1617:talk 1568:talk 1517:talk 1482:talk 1447:talk 1431:Keep 1395:talk 1310:talk 1218:talk 1190:WP:V 1188:and 1166:talk 1109:talk 1079:... 1041:talk 947:some 871:WP:V 857:talk 807:and 788:talk 733:and 731:WP:V 721:talk 662:and 631:talk 577:and 568:and 559:ISBN 538:ISBN 515:talk 482:Keep 473:talk 469:Deor 465:WP:V 452:talk 442:talk 413:talk 384:talk 363:talk 319:talk 218:Note 208:talk 193:talk 164:FENS 138:news 101:logs 75:talk 71:edit 46:keep 2652:or 2328:not 2303:bli 2281:iro 2060:to 1890:bli 1864:iro 1752:NOT 1181:all 1081:any 1003:". 666:in 654:of 227:-- 178:TWL 113:• 109:– ( 2685:) 2637:) 2621:) 2601:) 2572:) 2558:) 2543:) 2529:) 2521:. 2510:) 2492:) 2448:) 2431:) 2406:) 2391:) 2376:) 2361:) 2339:) 2306:nd 2300:ar 2297:St 2294:- 2274:He 2264:) 2250:) 2206:) 2188:) 2150:) 2135:) 2107:. 2080:) 2029:) 1990:) 1975:) 1952:) 1933:) 1916:) 1893:nd 1887:ar 1884:St 1881:- 1857:He 1811:) 1785:) 1746:, 1742:, 1738:, 1734:, 1730:, 1689:, 1685:, 1666:) 1619:) 1611:. 1570:) 1562:. 1533:. 1519:) 1484:) 1449:) 1405:DO 1397:) 1327:. 1312:) 1220:) 1168:) 1111:) 1043:) 982:in 859:) 794:) 790:• 723:) 670:, 633:) 593:' 553:, 532:, 517:) 475:) 454:) 415:) 395:, 386:) 365:) 321:) 253:, 224:. 210:) 195:) 158:) 103:| 99:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 77:| 73:| 48:. 2681:( 2633:( 2617:( 2597:( 2568:( 2554:( 2539:( 2525:( 2506:( 2488:( 2444:( 2427:( 2402:( 2387:( 2372:( 2357:( 2335:( 2260:( 2246:( 2202:( 2184:( 2146:( 2131:( 2111:( 2076:( 2025:( 1986:( 1971:( 1948:( 1929:( 1912:( 1807:( 1781:( 1662:( 1615:( 1566:( 1515:( 1480:( 1445:( 1393:( 1308:( 1216:( 1164:( 1107:( 1050:" 1039:( 960:. 855:( 786:( 719:( 629:( 557:( 536:( 513:( 471:( 450:( 440:( 411:( 382:( 361:( 317:( 206:( 191:( 182:) 174:· 168:· 160:· 153:· 147:· 141:· 135:· 130:( 122:( 119:) 107:) 69:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls - Knowledge

Index