Hi There, nice work you're doing on Southern Cherokee nation of Kentucky - you obviously know what you're talking about. Mark^Dask 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the "Original Research" tag might suggest you are losing sight of objectivity in the article. I imagine you would not want your expert input to be compromised by editors of lesser knowledge than yourself so can I suggest you tighten up on your language? I deleted the word "unfortunate" because it is value-laden. Maybe your authority on the subject is compromised when a person of my relative inexperience can challange you on so trivial an issue. The "original Research" tag is something you dont want - it undermines your authority - the authority of your otherwise excellent input. Mark^Dask 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - to you as well. The citations are all from legitimate sources, and were carefully researched. Additionally, Many sentances were recently tagged with the need for citations. I either cited where the information came from, reworded, or deleted the questionable sentances, but the objections remained. To just say that the citations are questionable, but not say how, or which ones is not objective either. This demonstartes that the information contained within the article, even though factual may not be palatable to certain faction of Southern Cherokee posturing for legitimacy as a tribe (and the CNO for that matter). A lot of the information cited is common knowledge, and should not even need a citation, but I have had to go over and beyond what I believe is normal. There are many articles on the Wikipedia with less citations, and of lesser quality without the PO/POV label I used an existing format common to the Wikipedia. I am starting to believe a simple article has become a political football. ~PB