Wikipedia

Talk:Cayuga people

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Cayuga People population

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are only about 12,000 Cayuga that are members of the Cayuga bands, one in ny and one in ontario. The population is nowhere near 86,000 as previously mentioned on this page. With only about 40-50% of aboriginal people living on reserve, the population off reserve is probably also around 12,000.12000,12000= 24,000 Even if say the Cayuga are a huge exception to other Native nations the population would still not be more than about 29,000-30,000. Also note, the total Iroquois population of all six nations is about 125,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.210.203 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

2013 data for Canada's Six Nation Reserve at Grand River First Nations Reserve says there are a total of more than 7,000 Cayuga there. I can't figure out how to fix the table in this article, which right now has 0 Cayuga in Canada.Parkwells (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Comment

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This ought to have something on the current land claims dispute going on (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060614/NEWS01/606140341) - I don't feel I know enough about it to add it in. Kmusser 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page has been copied and pasted! I was doing a report when I found that this page matched information with another page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsciencefrenchguy (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

– See notes about this group of moves on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. NB some of these may require re-disambiguation, those I am aware of I have added RMs for; some like Arapaho people are already redirects to the standalone title, a demonstration of the unneeded nature of the move to "FOO people". Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

* Mohawk → Mohawk (disambiguation)

* Oneida people → Oneida

* Oneida → Oneida (disambiguation)

– See notes about this group of moves on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. NB some of these may require re-disambiguation, those I am aware of I have added RMs for; some like Arapaho people are already redirects to the standalone title, a demonstration of the unneeded nature of the move to "FOO people". Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. These names are generally ambiguous. Should "Wyandot" be the Wyandot people, the Wyandot Nation, or the Wyandot language? We've had this debate before, and decided on being specific. And you really should have the discussion in one place. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Who was it that decided to be specific?? - certainly not me, not in the way you mean. We have indeed had this debate before, but what you're saying about how it came out is not how it was; indeed not, or have you forgotten the five RMs you bitterly (and baitingly) opposed? And lost? it's like that "vs lang per name convention" claim on so many.....you refer to a convention but I don't see it anyway. "We" did have a convention, that ethno articles did not need "people", in many cases because it's redundant to the meaning of the name (and also not how those names are used in English, where they commonly are standalone "especially in more recent sources" but not only). The RM system did not allow for a central discussion site; I assumed it would be at Talk:Chipewyan people...but here you are making the virtually same post as you did there on a second page. Another part of the "old convention" which was reached by a fairly large group of editors in times gone by, not by one editor acting alone and changing hundreds of articles without discussion, or even letting anyone know... part of that "old convention" was to, where possible/plausible, use native endonyms as a standard for ethno article names; in cases where a "tribe" is a government page and not a people page then "tribe" remains. And in the same convention, "FOO First Nation" (or if still used "FOO Indian Band") was a title for a government page, not a people page. "Your" consensus ignores the "FOO people" problem. And re using native names, that's where Palus and Spokan come from, now with needless disambiguation, and with respect to the geographic complications of the "English" versions of those names. "Our" conventions make a lot more sense than "yours" does, the FOO people problem was serious enough that "someone" felt compelled to pirate-change a category name to make it FOO when that is in direct conflict with FOO's primarytopic. That particular category was changed speedily to match a change to the main article (to the FOO people format, because FOO has many other meanings); this was the whole point of using the native endonyms and that was summarized in the reversions from your changes to those articles. Convention? How about precedent? Consistency? Currently there are scads of FOO ethno articles with no "people" or "tribe" attached to them. And part of the whole point of the old consensus' recommendation that ethno articles (and categories) be in the native form was because of consistency; and fairness, even though some names are more obscure and/or of recent invention. You wantonly, also, changed other articles, now at RM also, to "[archaic form] people" from "modern usage" claiming COMMONNAME but the stats on those just weren't right (Dakelh, Wuikinuxv) as has come out in the closure of the former RM, and during the discussion on the latter. So don't talk to me about "conventions" and "being specific". Stop making things up; you were a rogue in making all these changes; of course you'd oppose them. And don't call this a personal attack, I'm calling a spade a spade and telling the facts; and represent a convention agreed upon by multiple editors early on, which was to address the whole set of articles; which you went after solo, one-by-one, referring to a convention taht does not exist, and also ignoring the "FOO people" convention which in the rest of the wiki-universe is used for "people who are FOO". I'm wasting my breath I know, you have never been open to reason; your claim that these names are ambiguous is nonsense; they are very specific - which is why many of them are already redirects to the changed-name, e.g. Abenaki; then there's Androscoggin and Timpanog. Ambiguous in respect to what??Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Some of these requests are likely acceptable but others are certainly not. Let's take the example of the request to move Nanticoke tribe to Nanticoke and Nanticoke to Nanticoke (disambiguation). There is no demonstration that Nanticoke is most commonly associated with the tribe. It's a name associated with an extinct language and a number of scattered geographical locations. For instance, there are almost 1.5 times the page views for each of Nanticoke Generating Station and Nanticoke, Pennsylvania than Nanticoke tribe (see: [1][2][3]. Nanticoke tribe has essentially the same number of his as Nanticoke, Ontario (see:[4][5] and only slightly more than Nanticoke River[6]. The same is almost certainly the case for Cayuga, Mohawk and potentially Oneida. In the very least this RM should be split and each attended to separately. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm all for organizing a split if it means that the unique and definitely primarytopic ones are more likely to pass this. Nanticoke I can see that the generating station is probably (easily) the most primary usage, "Mohawk" not so much because the standalone form (to me) is recognizably about the people; other uses were named for them and I can't see a chain of gas stations or a military vessel being the most common use of the term. Oneida silverware comes to mind for that term (the current Mohawk people title I helped create btw, because Mohawk nation has various complicated connotations and like "tribe", "nation" has legal meanings). I already avoided Seneca, where the primarytopic is clearly the Roman senator whose bio that link goes to. That aside, what parameters do you propose for such a split? Re Entiat and Klickitat yes there are city and county names to contend with; in most cases there are not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Procedural oppose any swapping of a page with a disambiguation page should be requested separately, for every swap instance, a separate discussion should occur. Any displacement of a disambiguation page and replacement of its location for some other use should also occur separately for each instance. These are all different primary topic discussions. Several of the targets are disambiguation pages, so overwriting a disambiguation page is a primary topic dispute, and should each be discussed separately. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • creation of many, perhaps most, of those dab pages, was contrary to dab page guidelines and PRIMARYTOPIC consideration and was done without any procedure or consultation at all. Freelance/rogue application of non-existing conventions in contravention of clear guidelines is how they came about; using them as examples is a non sequitur.Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Most of the proposed titles are needlessly ambiguous, and breaks with established practice across all ethnic related articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • That is a misleading claim but not surprising given your track record opposing me and your PAs towards me; that "established practice" is NOT across ALL IPNA articles and "FOO people" has that other complication which is also an established practice across "individuals who are FOO". And the "established practice" in these cases is 90 percent the work of one editor acting alone, "establishing a practice" on his own say-so, claiming guidelines that do not exist or were dealt with in isolation from other guidelines or even the full texts of those self-same guidelines. AND 90% of these at least are NOT ambiguous, and were in fact at "FOO" prior to being changed; so evident is this that the wording of the ledes, which were not changed, indicates that the common usage in English in these cases is not "FOO people" but simply "FOO", as in "the FOO are a Native American/First Nations/indigenous people in", and on most of them there is a hatnote "for other uses see FOO (disambiguation) (not to "FOO" as you'd think would have been the case if said reckless editor had done more than just change titles and move on; some articles have the FOO people wording in the lede but other editors tidied that up, where it does occur; but it's rare. Established practice was JUST "FOO" until the reckless change of the bulk (95%? more??) change to them in 2011, as was the convention established early on that - while y'all keep on talking about conventions, none of your ilk will even acknowledge as extant for a very long time; even though there remain many "FOO" articles in all province and state indigenous categories. Exaggeration and misrepresentation and outright fabrication is nothing new to me around here, but man is it easy to shoot holes full of too.Skookum1 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Since this proposal has to bearings on the general approach to nomenclature of ethnic groups I have notified WP:Ethnic Groups of this discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Good idea. Where's the relevant WikiProject re the "FOO people" = "individuals who are FOO" issue, which is also an "established practice, so vital to someone that she applied it wantonly to create one category with a highly ambiguous name without caring about the consequences....(very funny to hear you talk about these names being ambiguous LOL). I'm all for broader input here but the point here was indigenous peoples of North America only, where various cultural and geographic issues apply, not ethnic groups worldwide...the "FOO people" "disambiguation" clearly is highly ambiguous and something other than "people" must be found to replace it due to the usual meaning of "individuals who are FOO", which is used for both main article titles and overwhelmingly for categories (99+%). And so, the easiest way to deal with the problem of the unnecessary disambiguation that was applied to them, particuarly totally unique ones, is to revert them to "FOO" which is where the bulk of them were to start with. cf. what WP:UCN has to say about "conciseness". i.e. brevity as well as clarity. Androscoggin and Timpanog and Ojibwe do not need any extra words in their titles, especially ones that confuse the article's type of content with "individuals who are FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment on this close - WP:BATHWATER applies. Those that are redirects to current title should all have been moved for obvious reasons, whatever other dab/primary topic issue might be in only some.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cayuga_people&oldid=1206843101"