This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina. 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.

Pollinator, you reverted a lot of good changes wholesale. Some of them corrected grammatical errors. Others added new information. I am going to put most of them back in. I would ask you to negotiate on this talk page regarding specific pieces that you want to delete. Pokey5945 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The changes were more deletions than edits. And it appeared to have a rather hostile POV, as well. Also you made it appear that the tribe was named after the river. The fact is vice versa. Pollinator 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, let's work together to improve it. I don't think there is any substantiation for which name came first, the river or the tribe. Do you know of any? Pokey5945 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think this passage describing this event should be deleted. It reads like a newspaper story. What makes it deserving of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Pokey5945 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The "Catch 22" passage is just one theory of why it's difficult to prove ancestry. An alternate theory is that they can't prove Indian ancestry because they don't have any. It seems to me that perhaps a NPOV article should include both theories. Pokey5945 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the authors/administrator's fair-handed treatment of the Waccamaw people. This is the direct opposite of how the Lumbee were treated in the wiki article on them. The article on the Lumbee was made more fairhanded and without explanation on two occasions, racist and derogatory comments were inserted (most recently in June). Arvis 15 July 2007

" John Dimery first appeared on the Horry County Census in 1820 as a "free person of color." Historian and genealogist Virginia DeMarce and Paul Heinegg have found that 80 percent of the individuals listed as free persons of color in 1790 and 1810 were descended from African Americans free in colonial Virginia. Most of those were descended from unions and marriages between white women and African men, people who lived and worked together as free, servants, or slaves. Some of the Africans were freed as early as the mid-17th century.[10]"

It's not clear how this passage is related to the Waccamaw. Did John Dimery identify as a Waccamaw? Was he a descendant of the freed African Americans from colonial Virginia? Without context, I think the majority of this paragraph is in the wrong article. 8.19.241.10 ( talk) 22:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply