Talk:Miccosukee

An anon IP address made some changes to the article. I found confirmation for one of the changes (federal recognition in 1958), and for an existing claim (recognition by Cuba in 1959), but the sources are on the tribe's own website. As this may not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I've open this discussion to see what others think. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I've fixed the confusion; the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Miccosukee Seminole Nation are two different entities.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to Buffalo Tiger who was the first Chief of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, it was Miccosukee treaty relations with Fidel Castro that prompted their Federal Recognition. Would you like a reference to the Miami Herald story? I wonder if the Miccosukee have officially broken their treaty relations with Fidel Castro. I also wonder why the Miccosukee went to Venezuela to seek treaty relations with Hugo Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.44.173 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Donald, curious about why Miccosukee Seminole Nation history is being sanitized by revisionists? If you are honest about the above correction and admission that there are two different entities, then why is there no mention of the Miccosukee Seminole Nation on the main page? Also, shouldn't the Miccosukee Seminole Nation have the right to add their official web site logo on the main page? Thank you for the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.44.173 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any good, reliable sources would be welcome, but I don't think we can trust the website of the "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" by itself. According to this article by Harry A. Kersey Jr., an expert on the Seminole and Miccosukee, and Mahon's chapter in The New History of Florida cited here, the original Miccosukee Seminole Nation (or Miccosukee Seminole Tribe) was active in the 1950s and was a predecessor to the modern Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. It was formed by Miccousukee-speaking Indians mostly living near the Tamiami Trail (the Trail Indians) in opposition to the federally recognized Seminole Tribe of Florida, and was acknowledged by Castro's Cuban government in 1959. This caused the US federal government to take negotiations with them more seriously, and they received federal recognition as as the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The current group (or whatever it is) using the name "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" and running that website appears to be a modern attempt to cash in on the historical name; there is very little information about them beyond their own website.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Morton Silver, atty. represented the Miccosukee Seminole Nation (still fully sovereign and fully intact with members, chief, etc.) beginning in 1952 (contract agreements state therein "Miccosukee Seminole Nation." The EVERGLADES Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida was recognized as a "Tribe" in 1957 and 1958. The "Nation's" web site (www.MiccosukeeSeminoleNation.com) features legal documentation, articles that can be crossed referenced in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Distribution of Seminole Judgement Funds UNITED STATES SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS Senate Hearing 95th Congress, SECOND SESSION ON S. 2000.

What you probably DON'T want to cross reference, I'm sure, is the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 which states that the Indian Tribes prior to being reorganized must have a reservation (Which Silver's clients did NOT have) and, they must have a quarum percentage of voters (which they didn't have) instead they had BORROWED voters from another tribe to set up a 3rd tribe called the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, which is ILLEGAL. And I am sure you don't want to mention that Morton Silver, atty, legal counsel to the Miccosukee Tribe was "never paid" a penny for his services of more than a half century of uncompromising legal assistance to a group of people who didn't even know they were "Miccosukee" until attorney Silver advised them after subsequent research and who stated their eternal positoin on their 1954 Buckskin Declaration of Independence, "WE DON'T WANT MONEY". If you don't want to be honest enough to tell a small fraction of the history I have evidenced within the source guidlines, then I'll find another forum that is honest to publish the story. However, this will be documented for future reference. Did I mention that Buffalo Tiger resigned from the Tribe as a member prior to reorganizing from the originally recognized Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.1.181 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for finally using the talk page to discuss your changes. Your edits must be sourced to reliable sources, and sometimes appears to contradict the sources that are there. It would appear that some of what you're saying is original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. Additionally, articles must be neutrally written; calling a tribe "puppet Indians" is not neutral. If you do not address these concerns, and instead revert to edit warring once the page protection expires, the page will have to protected again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you are back to your old editing patterns again. If you do not stop revert warring, the page will have to be protected again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

And yet again. I have protected the page once more hoping this user will commit to discussion on the talk page instead of reverting without comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice you are not using the discussion page. Why is that?

According to Buffalo Tiger who was the first Chief of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, it was Miccosukee treaty relations with Fidel Castro that prompted their Federal Recognition. Would you like a reference to the Miami Herald story? I wonder if the Miccosukee have officially broken their treaty relations with Fidel Castro. I also wonder why the Miccosukee went to Venezuela to seek treaty relations with Hugo Chavez.

If you are honest about the above correction and admission that there are two different entities, then why is there no mention of the Miccosukee Seminole Nation on the main page? Are you willing to add the Miccosukee Seminole Nation logo, too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.83.93 (talk • contribs)

First, my previous comment was from nearly 2 years ago, and I have been using the talk page. As I explained above, the original group that went by the name "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" was recognized as the modern Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The current group calling itself "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" appears to be something new trying to capitalize on the historical name. I haven't seen any reliable sources discussing them. Unless we find some (that is, not just their own website), we should not mention them in this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This tribe is one of the best known tribe and did many great things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.18.10 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for not erasing my post again.

Is a United States Information Officer from the Bureau of Indian Affairs a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.83.93 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also noticed that an official US web site listed the sovereign Miccosukee Seminole Nation on US.gov as separate and distinct from the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. Is that a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.83.93 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to be specific. All sources used in articles need to be reliable, published sources. A conversation with an official from the BOI would not work, but perhaps he or she could direct us to a source that can be used. A passing reference in a government document would also not cut it, but again, you'll have to be more specific so we can vet it; if it's a substantial discussion we can use it.

There is no doubt that the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Miccosukee Seminole Nation were two different things. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida is the name of the federally organized tribe that was recognized in 1962. "Miccosukee Seminole Nation", "Miccosukee Seminole Tribe", etc. were names used prior to recognition by Miccosukees on the in trying to receive recognition. However, most of the prominent figures associated with the "Miccosukee Seminole Nation", including spokesman Buffalo Tiger, became part of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. You can read about all of this in the afterword to this book. The only thing that is in doubt is whether the modern group calling itself the "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" has any real relation to the historical group.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I agree that the Miccosukee Seminole Nation and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida are two distinct entities. The former never surrendered, whereas the latter became agents of the Federal government. State and Federal recognition was extended to the Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians, according to those who have never surrendered to the fraudulently created Federal government front organization of Bureau of Indian Affairs agents. The US public is increasingly becoming aware of the vote fraud against them, especially in Florida, as it was with the Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians in 1961, when the US government orchestrated a fraudulent election, based on the Indian Reorganization Act and borrowed voters, etc. etc. I trust that when the US public reclaims their government under the US Constitution. especially as it relates to the 2nd amendment, that these misfortunes of history will be corrected without any doubt in my mind.

I will check out Mr. Buffalo Tiger's book, since you seem to think that it is a superior source to published United States Congressional Hearings and BIA Information Officer's reports, etc.

Or, perhaps a foreign nation's take on the matter will be a sufficient source for Wikipedia?

You are incorrect that the Miccosukee Seminole Nation was used by a small group of people to establish recognition. Formal recognition had already been received in 1957 and 1958, State and Federal recognition respectively.

In his January 27, 1958 letter to the Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians, the Commissioner of the Interior Department stated the following, and quoting:

"Ordinarily formal recognition is given to Indian Tribal organizations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior where these organizations deal with assets under the trusteeship of the Federal Government. Since your organization admittedly does not deal with such assets, and is presumably not interested as an organization in the management of such assets, the request you have made presents us with a rather unique situation.

After my recent visit to Florida, I am satisfied that your organization includes in its membership a substantial number or Seminole Indians of Florida who are not affiliated with the reservation organizations nor participating in the services now being sponsored by this Bureau. I am also aware, of course, of the recognition which was granted to your organization by the Board or Commissioners of State Institutions of Florida last July.

I am, therefore, willing and glad to recognize your organization which you call the "Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians" as qualified to speak for and on behalf of those Indians who have affiliated with the organization by signing their names to the roll attached to the Constitution. More, specifically we are recognizing your organization as qualified to speak for its members on matters which are of concern to the Florida Seminoles as a whole (such as the pending claim against the United States) and in connection with the State lands where your organization may be given special jurisdiction by the State."

The Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians insisted that they just wanted land, not money, even after recognition was received. For this reason, the Interior Department was presented "with a rather unique situation". In other words, since the Everglades Miccosukee Tribe of Seminole Indians didn't want a reservation or to deal with assets, they felt they needed to go to Cuba, to seek recognition from a foreign 'friendly' government willing to assist them before the United Nations Assembly...which they still have.

The Tribe, formed to act much like a corporation to deal with the Federal government, decided that they were not accomplishing their goals.

So, in 1959 the Miccosukee Seminole Nation, which is separate and distinct from a tribe, obtained continued international recognition in Cuba. It was this event, according to Buffalo Tiger, that caused the US government to "start dealing with us [them] seriously". Before Buffalo Tiger had his illegal election, he officially gave his resignation as an official spokesman of the original entity. Now, then the question is, was the election legal, in accordance with US and Indian law? An honest historian and legal counsel would answer, no! It was an illegal election for several reasons. There is currently a large remnant of Miccosukee Seminole Nation citizens, many of which are slowly starting to quietly migrate back to the original nation, so I have been advised. These individuals should be recognized by the US government or, I believe, they will take their claims back to an international forum that will continue to recognize them. But don't rely on me, I am not a credible source.

If you are acting in accordance with Wikipedia standards, then I understand why there is a growing discontent among the people regarding the veracity of Wikipedia in whole or in part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.243.110 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As I've said several times, I haven't seen any sources indicating that the modern group (or whatever it is) who call themselves the "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" have any real connection to the "Miccosukee Seminole Nation" of the 1950s. If you have sources indicating that is the case, bring them up so we can check them out, but just insisting that they are the same group based on the name is not going to cut it. I did not say your government documents were unreliable, only that you need to actually bring them up so we can check them out. Please note that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources published by experts in the field, rather than primary sources, which are open to interpretation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It might be useful to have more current facts if we can find them: for instance, size, # of employees, and revenue generated by casino and related businesses in Miami; size of the reservation, and its uses/activities. Economic impact of tribal activities, development activities, if any, funded by gambling revenues and NASCAR participation. Will try to do some research. Parkwells (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pritzker supports the fact on control of 200,000 acres of wetlands; I added details from the tribe's website and will be looking for other sources about the lands.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Miccosukee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The etymology portion of this article is racist, and invented completely from whole cloth. It's attributions are fake as well. "The Journal of Etymological Studies" does not exist, and R. J. Evans-Fitzgerald's translation does not and has never existed on the Miccosukee tribe's official website. This portion of the article needs to be removed: "==Etymology== The etymology of the Miccosukee tribal name have been debated for many years. While the origins have not been fully documented, modern scholarship holds that the name originated among the first Spanish colonizers to reach the North Carolina Basin. In one of the few surviving journals of Juan Ponce de León, he records that his men called the natives they encountered there in the early 16th century micos sucios. This is likely the earliest recorded version of the name that became "Miccosukee."^[1] He describes the origin of the name:

When we arrived on the shores of the Northern islands we encountered an odd group of natives. They lead us to their village where they lived in hollow'd mounds and were fully covered in mud and refuse. My lieutenant, [Diaz de la Torre y Gonzaga-Palacios] exclaimed 'Son como micos sucios' (they are like dirty monkeys). From thence forth, until we departed those cold shores, Mico Sucio was the means by which we referred to these happy natives.^[2]"

Schorman (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done That an entire section cited to a fake journal has remained in this article for over 10 years is somewhat embarrassing so thank you for bringing this to attention. I cannot find any "Journal of Etymological Studies" indexed in any standard academic journal database or even through Google. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.Pinsky: I do not believe that the Iron Arrow Honor Society should be mentioned in this article. I believe that The Miami Hurricane is not sufficiently independent of the University of Miami and its student body to serve as a source for stating the relationship of the society to the Miccosukee tribe in Wikipedia. Moreover, whether or not that source is acceptable, having a section about the society in this article does not contribute to the quality of the article. Will you agree to removing that section from the article? - Donald Albury 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your statements. In my opinion there is a big difference between editorial independence and independence in the sense Wikipedia uses and that student newspapers certainly fail the latter. Thank you. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

And I thank you. - Donald Albury 16:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Atlantic Historian: I habitually remove persons who do not a have a Wikipeida article from "Notable ..." lists in articles. There is a template, {{Uw-badlistentry}}, that is used to notify editors that such entries have been reverted. I am holding off in this case because it is likely that sources can be found to support articles on most of the named leaders who do not yet have articles. I hope other editors who follow this article will offer opinions on this exception. Donald Albury 22:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, Donald, thank you for letting me know about that. I am very new to doing anything with Wikipedia other than reading it. My current goal is to provide additional cited content and citations to the Miccosukee page, but I agree that there should be enough sources to support articles on these other named leaders. If you're okay with allowing the exception for a short time, I'll move on to looking at those other pages afterward.

Please excuse my not following your second sentence, but I don't understand the reference to the template. Are you saying that I inadvertently reverted something re: the "Notable" section that you have removed in the past? Or are you suggesting something that I should do going forward? Thanks in advance. Atlantic Historian (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, that is a template that is often posted to a user talk page when that user has added someone who does not have a Wikipedia article to a list of "Notable ...". It posts the following text to the user page, Hello. Your recent edit to (article name) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Wikipedians often refer to "non-notable" entities. I prefer the phrase "notability has not yet been established". As it happens, the only article about a Native American that I have started is Urriparacoxi, but I extensively rewrote Ahaya a few years ago. If you need any assistance in researching and writing about notable Miccosukees, I will be happy to help. Donald Albury 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply