Wikipedia

Talk:Iroquois/Archive 1

< Talk:Iroquois
Latest comment: 1 year ago by AedanHopper in topic Timeline of dates
Archive 1Archive 2

Vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this page has been vandalized. Under chapter 1.3 history - 18th century, halfway into the text there is a misplaced "Iroqui indians" then the text reverts to some sort of cut and paste kindergarten language, wich repeats itself several time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.141.89.53 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Note that the term "Native American" doesn't apply to Native

in Canada (such as the "Iroquois"). vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv141.110.99.50 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)I've used "First Nations," which applies to both American and Canadian Aboriginals and is the name they often, (though not always), prefer, particularly in Canada.

Many of the First Nations call themselves by names other than the names we know. The use of the term "Iroquois," applied to the Haudenosaunee, is a case in point. The term was originally used by the Huron (Wyandotte) as an insult. The French (who were also enemies of the Haudenosaunee) picked up the term. Since it was an insult, rather than the name they called themselves, it is worth a paragraph IMHO. However, there are many cases where the name commonly used by English-speakers is not the one the people themselves use. It might be nice if we could come up with a convention for handling this. For the time being, I have simply put the alternative name in brackets. I would welcome any thoughts on how best to handle this. Sunray 21:46, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC) and they used shit to clear choughs

I beg to differ. "First Nations" is never used to refer to American Native Americans. When I read that, I came here to ask if it should be changed, because, to me, it is specifically Canada-related. RickK 04:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- That's incorrect. "First Nations" is occasionally used in the United States. See the Wikipedia article about "First Nations."

There are plenty of Iroquois in the US too. -- Decumanus 04:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am completely aware of that. That's why I advocate changing First Nations to Native Americans. RickK 04:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was agreeing you, not disputing you. Actually the term doesn't matter to me. The Iroquois I know happen call themselves "Indians", for what it's worth. This article is somewhat defective, however, in that "Iroquois" is certainly not synonomous with "Iroquois Confederacy", which was a specific political movement about Iroquois-speaking peoples. -- Decumanus 04:31, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

although you can argue that we say "France" the "French" are the same, so maybe it's appropriate to equate the two.

Decumanus, I am OK with most of your edit, but can't understand why you changed "upstate" to "western" New York. The Mohawk nation most definitely occupied eastern New York (the Hudson and Mohawk valleys), so "upstate" is therefore the more accurate term. Much of the territory occupied would be also described "central" NY; only the Senecas being truly in the western portion of the present state. Pollinator 22:45, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm chuckling a little. I live in Staten Island, so it's all "western New York" to me. Just perception, really. Your wording is defintely more accurate.:) -- Decumanus 23:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Haudenosaunee

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I have added Haudenosaunee as the name for the Confederacy. I had always heard them as synonyms, as opposed to the definition of Haudenosaunee given on WP. Do these need to be merged?

Also, shouldn't this article be at Iroquois Confederacy? - BanyanTree 21:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just merged it in. The Haudenosaunee article was only a facsimile of a more in depth paragraph in this entry. --Heah 07:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaving this article titled "Iroquois" is inappropriate. As noted in the article, the term Iroquois is an insulting name applied by the league's long-time enemies, the French and Wyandotts. The people call themselves Haudenosaunee. This is tantamount to titling an article on Italians "Guineas", or one on Poles "Pollacks". While I understand that Iroquois is the more commonly known name, all searches of either term lead to this article. Why use an ethnic slur as the title and put the correct name in parentheses?

I agree with this; it's actually the first thing I thought of when I visited this article. It seems to be becoming more common in central New York. The Syracuse Post-Standard recently had a special feature article on the Onondaga Nation where they made exclusive use of Haudenosaunee (with an explanation of it's preference to "Iroquois".) While it may be historically congruent, it's culturally insensitive. Jestermonkey 06:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


I intend to rename this article to Haudenosaunee, and make Iroquois re-direct to Haudenosaunee. I understand the argument that Iroquois is the name normally used in the English language. However, the English language is changing. Authorities in Canada are starting to adopt the names traditionally used by indigenous peoples in their native languages, like Haudenosaunee. Government documents, newspapers, textbooks, and so-on show evidence of this change. Kesahun 19:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While of course it is not binding on Wikipedia, Article 14 of the United Nations Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous peoples states: Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. Kesahun 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Could someone add a sound file with the pronunceation of "Haudenosaunee" (.ogg?) or a phonetic spelling? That would help my understanding of the topic a lot. I think I would be helpful in many other related articles too! Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Haudenosaunee/Rotinosionni/Hotinosionni= HO-dih-nah-show-nee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.185.147 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really not good enough, pseudo-phonetic English rarely is. Again, can anyone give the pronunciation in a sound file or (preferably)in IPA? Causantin (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The page Haudenosaunee was merged here, and Iroquois is the common name. Someone tried a cut-and-paste move of this article but that messes up the article histories as well as being a conflict with Wikipedia common naming standards. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With so many people mentioning in this discussion topic that they support the name Haudenosaunee as the name for the article why hasn't it already been changed? It is the correct name for the people, we don't label African-American article as "negro" or worse. The term Iroqouis is just as bad as that worse name. Just because white people don't get it doesnt mean it isnt insulting and wrong. 24.182.142.254 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Invasion/Colonization

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I changed this text: In 1720 the Tuscarora fled north from the European invasion of North Carolina and petitioned to become the Sixth Nation.

to this: In 1720 the Tuscarora fled north from the European colonization of North Carolina and petitioned to become the Sixth Nation.


The term "invasion" in this instance is POV, and less accurate than the term "colonization" --Henrybaker 06:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the Tuscarora already lived there and considered it their land collectively, so do you suppose they viewed a new arrival who arbitrarily claimed it as their own as a coloniser or as an invader? And placed in that same situation what would you call the new arrival? LamontCranston 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see invasion as any more or less POV than colonization. While invasion implies violence or militarism and colonisation implies peaceful "moving in," the fact is that there was a mixture of both. There were explorers, settlers who build homes and planted crops, settlers who actively went out into areas and shot people, settlers whose only contact with natives was trade, actual armies sometimes, and ultimately the Tuscarora had to "flee"-- fleeing sounds like something you do when there's danger, isn't it? So if invasion is POV, then so is fled, and if we keep circle-dancing this we might get "In 1720 the Tuscarora decided to move from North Carolina to New York because they didn't want to live with Europeans" which is pretty funny. Just a thought 82.93.133.130 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

material copied without attribution

This article appears to be a wholesale copy of material from the site www.sixnations.org

If used with permission, that should be noted. In any event, there should be proper attribution.

It is unlikely that the people described in the article will appreciate the recent change that recharacterizes an invasion of Tuscarora territory as a "colonization"

Rome and the Druids among other tangents

This had been recently added to the article. At the least, the writing style is unencylopedic. And I doubt that the mention of Rome and Druids is very pertinent here. Please feel free to reincorporate what is of value here back into the article. older≠wiser 02:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There exists another, perhaps more compelling, version explaining the origin of the word "Iroquois"; as the French combination of two distinct In considering what may or may not have been insults of the past; we as readers/interpreters of a modern view must consider that the same alleged insults may actually have been statements expressing fear, in the sense of an attempt to degrade via misrepresentation the lives and ways of an entire people. This kind of slander is known to have been used by ancient Rome. Also Ancient Rome was accustomed to completely ignoring the views of local authorities with whom they had had agreements or relationships. See the link regarding Boadicea as a case in point:

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/England/Boadicea.html

Please see comments regarding Roman propaganda and the prescript or rule of Augustus forbiding the practice of Druidic rituals (See Druid). Such views would not have been supported or used had they not been effective in affecting how other Romans would see the Druids (or whoever else the propaganda was directed against) and determinedly undermine how Romans interacted with Druids or those peoples who followed the Druid ways. Other ancient events where propaganda can be said to have played a role in events are the Great Fire of Rome and the Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria (See Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_Great_Library). The Druids, and perhaps many other non-Roman nations in fact provided a firm, consistent and informed resistence against Rome.

The participants and writers developing the nascent US government addressed and compared the Haudenosaunee and their ways to a state of achievement in administrative self-governance which Rome itself never reached and which they hoped the US would aspire to and achieve. It is in especially in this light that the slander created by the Hurons must be taken into context for what it may in fact be; a grudging expression of both fear and repect, or perhaps even praise for an old and dangerous enemy. Just as Ancient Rome used propaganda against those who resisted it; which in time was later also used by Roman Christians against Pagans (refer to aforementioned references regarding the Great Library).

There may be a different kind of problem with the link identified as the official website of the Haudenosaunee. The link known as:

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/

The website may have a presence or support problem or other difficulty. I have sent emails to each contact provided on that site where it is listed for the purposes of making contact with someone and all have bounced back to me. My email software clearly lists that of the email addresses provided at the website either the addresses are not "valid" OR the "users are unknown". In any case, a different and yet useful reference in learning about the Haudenosaunee exists here:

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/index.html

The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. See Figure 31 at this link:

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/chp8.html#fig31

Druids, Romans and relationship to the Iroquois confederacy

I read the prior critique and considered it useful. If I were writing a tome regarding the history of propaganda or slander as a political tool of control, then I might be excused for the digressions in the areas I made. However, my intent in weaving my comments here were more narrow and as such I cut out the other references because they are not central to my original intent of providing a different researched view of the origin of the word Iroquois.

Regarding the Official Iroquios Confederacy website

It should be noted somewhere by others the following:

There may be a problem with the link identified as the official website of the Haudenosaunee. The link known as:

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/

The website may have a presence or support problem or other difficulty. I have sent emails to each contact provided on that site where it is listed for the purposes of making contact with someone and all have bounced back to me. My email software clearly lists that of the email addresses provided at the website either the addresses are not "valid" OR the "users are unknown".

Sincerely, Aguilarojo

Regarding the Official Iroquois Confederacy website

It should be noted somewhere by others the following:

There may be a problem with the link identified as the official website of the Haudenosaunee. The link known as:

http://sixnations.buffnet.net/

The website may have a presence or support problem or other difficulty. I have sent emails to each contact provided on that site where it is listed for the purposes of making contact with someone and all have bounced back to me. My email software clearly lists that of the email addresses provided at the website either the addresses are not "valid" OR the "users are unknown".

Sincerely, Aguilarojo

i looking for a flag of Ioquois please contact me at : crackwindobe@voila.fr

Call for Peer Review

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I submitted Economics of the Iroquois for peer review. Please take a look over it and make suggestions.--Bkwillwm 20:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Passports

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a short edit based on reading a passage in a news story.

As Frichner travels the world, she uses an unusual passport. Appointed as a delegate of the Haudenosaunee to the United Nations Subcommittee on Human Rights, Frichner travels with a passport issued by Haudenosaunee, Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.

'It is not easy to travel on. Wherever I go, I make sure I have a visa to travel to that nation.'

Frichner recently went to South Africa to the World Conference on Racism sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Commission

SchmuckyTheCat 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Feedback from Historian

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Wikipedia Help mailing list has received the following e-mail from a reader, a history graduate at the University of Pennsylvania:

"The United States Constitution was partly modelled on the Iroquois League Constitution."

This is presented as a statement of fact, which is highly questionable.

Question 1: Who "modelled" the US Constitution on the Iroquois League Constitution?

Question 2: Further, WHAT specifically was modelled into the U.S. Constitution from the Iroquois?

If "The Confederacy was based, at the time of the arrival of the Europeans, in what is now upstate New York, as well as parts of Pennsylvania, Ontario, and Quebec"[your quote], how is it that it got incorporated by James Madison, into the U.S. Constitution, who was from VIRGINIA?

Further, where did James Madison pick up his copy of the "wampum" from the Iroquois?

My conclusion is that whoever wrote this little article, was exercising in wishful thinking or "Revisionalism" of U.S. History.

What and where are their historical REFERENCES?

In my reply I will note the existing caveat about many historians not being convinced. However, the quote from the historian has a footnote but the footnote is not listed anywhere. Would it be possible to either provide the footnote or provide another quote from a reputable historian doubting the claims.

Thanks for all the work on the article. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your history graduate didn't probe very much and needs to delve a little deeper. I browsed the six nations web site and found three relevant footnotes citing authoritative sources. (There may be more). Footnotes 18 and 19 show that the Iroquois were present at sessions of the Continental Congress. I couldn't say whether or not they were present at the Constitutional Convention, but that point is irrelevant. Some of the delegates there were almost certainly aware of the views of the Iroquois. Footnote 30 shows that Adams (and I suspect other founders) considered the Iroquois model as well as several other forms of government when they crafted ours. As for Franklin and Jefferson, he also might want to check out The Forgotten Founders, which includes a very rich list of primary and secondary sources. Vern Reisenleiter 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included a link and excerpt (hopefully not overlengthy) from what appears to be an excellent and balanced investigation of the dispute by Brian Cook. I feel this is a valuable resource about the controversy.

If the suggestion that whites helped draft the Haudensaunee constitution is considered racist, why is the suggestion that the Haudensaunee helped draft the U.S. constitution not considered likewise? Joescallan 13:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


The Iroquois had no influence on the U.S. Constitution except as a general example of unity or confederation

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It's quite correct that some statesmen, both Iroquois and colonial, remarked rhetorically that the colonists ought to be better united, and that some of them pointed out the Iroquois as an example of several entities that had managed to form a league, the idea being "If they can unite, so can you." But that is the extent of "Iroquois influence on the U.S. Constitution."

It is not at all true that the U.S. Federal system is "based on" or "copied from" the structure of the League. The fact is that the people of the thirteen British colonies, which became the United States, had no notion of Native American political or social organization, and no idea how the Iroquois League was organized. Anyone can verify this by reading the Federalist Papers, which are full of descriptions and analyses of European political systems ancient and contemporary, but nothing about the Iroquois or any other Native American system of governance. The authors were absolutely ignorant on the latter subject, as were the entire citizenry of those colonies. Tom129.93.17.66 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The average colonist may not have been very informed, but several of the founding fathers had personal contact with the Iroquois. 'Any other' is less relevant; the socio-governmental system of the League stood out. It would make sense to look at the example of a succesful neighbour rather than copy the old world that you left for a better future. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A few problems:
  1. At the time, the Iroquois were not a succcessful neighbor, but a recently conquered enemy.
  2. They were conquered in part because their federation had broken, pitting nation against nation.
  3. Those of the 1787 conventioneers who most clearly set the outlines of the new document had the least experience with Iroquois.
  4. In later discussions and memoirs, they mentioned many examples and theories, but not the Iroquois.
  5. Even if well founded, such hypotheses would be much more relevant in a discussion of the new document, than here. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the Iroquois were never conquered. They have their own government, judicial system, flag and passport. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deganawidah and Hiawatha

Deganawidah had the orenda,the inner spiritaul power of genius. Hiawatha was his speechmaker. The relationship riminds one of that of Moses and Aaron in the Old Testament ;it was Moses who conferred on the moutaintops with the Lord,while Aaron spoke to the people on behalf of his tonge-tied brother.

After Deganawidah had concieved the idea of the League of the Iroquios, Hiawatha paddled his white canoe from tribe to tribe, persuading them to consider the plan. The last to agree was the onondaga, whose chief, fierce Atatarho, insisted that his tribe must have chairmanship of the council. Finallt they hammered out the code that began, “I, Deganawidah, and the Confederate Chiefs, now uproot the tallest pine tree, and into the cavity thereby made we cast all weapons of war. Into the depths of the earth, deep down into thbe underearth currents of water flowing to unknown regions, we cast all weapons of strife. We bury them from sight and we plant again thge tree thus shall the Great Peace be established.”

Paragraph removed from article

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed this from the article:

"There exists another, perhaps more compelling, version explaining the origin of the word "Iroquois," as the French combination of two distinct terms used in the language of the Haudenosaunee. The participants and writers developing the nascent US government compared the Haudenosaunee and their ways to a state of achievement in administrative self-governance that Rome itself never reached, and an ideal that they hoped the US would aspire to and achieve."

The second half is denied by what was the immediately following paragraph. The first half may be useful - buit fails to tell us what the two terms were or what they meant or indeed who believes this alternate theory. Rmhermen 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the History and origins of the Five Nations of the Iroquois link is at best questionable. It's a poorly written article, on a site that's founded to oppose Iroquois interest in upstate New York.

I'll confess to knowing little about the topic myself, I really only know what I've read in a couple books, none of the scholarly works. This article clearly is not written in a scholarly format. Correction: Do'h what academic background? UCE is the group, not some college. The only source that I wouldn't question just from a glance on the basis of either date or originator is the National Geographic article. And that's not particularly crucial to his point.

At the end he admits to glaring contradictions in his article, but says that that doesn't change the veracity of his claims.

If there actually is such a controversy as this fellow presents, it should be included in the article, not just as a supplementary link. If not and the guy's just a crackpot, why do we have it in here?

I'd like to propose removing the link on two bases:

1. It reads like a poorly written rant.
2. The factual basis seems questionable.
3. It's not what people coming to this page would be looking for.

Oh, and I'm Quintucket, I'm having password difficulty with both Wikipedia and my email. It's been so long since I've had to type my passwords (which aren't the defaults on either) that I forgot.

But anywhen, sign me Quintucket, once I get my account functional again I'll confirm.

Material from article "Iroquoian languages"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following paragraph was cut from the article Iroquoian languages since it only concerns the Iroquois culture (and the article is about a language family that includes the Huron and Cherokee). I think the material is superfluous to this article. Joseph B 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Iroquois were made up of a group or league of tribes that settled much of the land which presently spans from upstate New York to western Ohio. They were not nomadic but preferred to live in villages of many multi-roomed longhouses, built with saplings and bark or thatch. These longhouses could be up to 300 feet long. Villages were occupied for about 25-50 years. The Iroquois relied greatly on domestication of plant foods, but also supplemented their diet with hunting and gathering. Food such as corn, squash, beans, and other crops were cultivated, often on large fields where forest had been cut and burned for planting. It can be stated that they practiced a system of shifting horticulture. They spent much time on cultivation, harvesting, the preparatration of maize, and storing food. They stored their crops in various types of pottery jars. Pots were specialized by being much sturdier, constructed to withstand thermal stress, but were sensitive to mechanical stress. Iroquian pottery could also be used for a variety of reasons or uses. They were great for preparing maize. Excavated grains, pottery and other evidence suggests that a typical Indian meal consisted of soup made from different plants and animals, with corn as a staple in their diets.

Seven Generations

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article doesn't address the fact or fiction of the Iroquois belief that decisions made considered the impact on the next seven generations. Sounds mythical but it would be interesting if true. Google iroquois "seven generations" for more.Yeago 14:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not mythical, but can be found in recorded speeches and is still part of the Iroquois culture today. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-"Iroquois" name (Contradict tag)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox and intro paragraphs disagree on the alternate/original name: Haudenosaunee or Haudenosaunne. 68.39.174.238 03:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

352,000 G-hits for Haudenosaunee, 181 for Haudenosaunne. Speciate 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

17th century population figure

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I find the population figure of 12,000 to be unbelievably low. Is it possible this is the number of warriors they could field instead? That would make more sense. Speciate 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The population count surely dropped considerably during the 17th century because of all the warfare but yes, this estimate sounds low. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May I offer something from my research, respectfully? I'm sure this is not correct because it takes not consideration of Canada and other back country areas etc etc

1783 - Captain Dalton, Superintendant of Indian affairs for the United State. Census Report: Chactaws, 6008 Oneidas,160 Chickisaws,400 Tuskeroras,200 Cherokees,500 Onondagas,300 Creeks, 700 Cayugas,230 Frankishaws,400 Jeneckaws,400 Oniactinaws,300 Suiz and Southuze,1300 Kickapoes,500 Putawawtawmas,400 Munseys,150 Fulawain,150 Delaware,500 Muskulthe or Nation Shawanaws,300 of Fire,250 Mohickons, 60 Reinars or Foxes,300 Uchipweys, 3000 Puyon,150 Ottawaws,300 Sokkie,350 Mowhawks,300 Abbinokkie, on the Oneidas,150 St.Lawrence,200

8160 Warriors 11690 This was found when I was researching military reports concerning what our older US Military Pensioner's records have written as the "Old War" of the 1790s. I could be wrong, this would represent warriors.

BTW, It seems somebody researched Bacon's War concerning the Doegs actions causing the Susquehanoak and Occoneechee/Governor Spotswood incident in Virginia, (The remaining Virginia Susquehanoak element allowed to take refuge with your Nation,) offering you compliments... Conaughy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Within the text of your article reads: "Some old histories state that the Iroquois defeated the Susquehannock during this time period, but no record of a defeat has been found and it can be stated that no defeat occurred.[10]" Perhaps I should share this find; Wilcomb E Washburn, "The Governor and the Rebel." I have read that "He's the one who dug up a number of new documents in England." Some of the Penn Susquehanoak retreated or splintered, take your pick of words, to Virginia to a Virginia river island on the James, I believe it was the James River above Richmond, Wood's fort back then. Legend has that your defeat(?), it was over a cannon traded to the Susquehanoak by the Dutch and they soon ran out of ball & powder, but that's legend I suppose. Some scholars declare that the Merrin were a Virginia sept of Susquehanna and others have cataloged them as Siouan, so I don't know about them. But, the Bacon War incident were indeed whom the colonial Virginians called, Susquehanna and your article is those as you have it, allowed to take refuge. Conaughy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool resource

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/IroquoisVillage/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.100.91 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Changed the section on beliefs which looked like something copied from a website or schoolbook and was not very informative. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-contact culture

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it known when the Iroquois made the transition from the Stone Age to the Iron Age? Musicwriter (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Iroquois made the transition from the Stone Age to the Iron Age when European settlers introduced iron tools.--Fang 23 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Apoequois

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a source which references a tract of land which "...was called by the French the Prairie Apoequois, from the Indians who lived there in early times." No G-hits on Apoequois, of course this is more than a coincidence, but what would the linguistics dudes make of this? Anyone have any clues?PreciousRoi (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

King William's War

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states that the Iroquois remained neutral during King William's War. This is incorrect - they allied themselves with the English colonists. After the peace treaty in 1697 between France and England, the Iroquois remained at war with France until - as this article, correctly, implies - 1701. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What what was the Iroquois involvement in this war? There was the attack on La Chine, but this may have occurred before the war officially started. For Queen Anne's War, the article uses the awkward term "mostly neutral" because even though they seemed to be allied with the English the Iroquois were not actively involved. BradMajors (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Basque Fishermen and pseudohistory

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suppose it is remotely possible Basque Fishermen coined the term, "Iroquois". However, this is extremely unlikely. See pseudohistory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.201 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Evil?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I changed "evil" to "uncooperative and warlike" in the "Pre-contact" section in reference to Tadadaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.192.173 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it back and added a ref to support. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 21:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness raises its ugly head - again

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see someone has managed to remove the mention of the Iroquois genocide of the Erie and Huron from the article.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Iroquoius people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.213.156 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I checked the "offensive" link. Seemed awfully well documented and matches several other things I have read over the years.

Please remember: In an encyclopedia it is impossible to be offensive with the truth. If you want to remove something - challenge its veracity - not its political correctness.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I could care less whether it's "politically correct" or not; I do know that when I began to read it, I very quickly began to lose track of the number of factual errors, misinterpretations of current mainstream thought in both northeastern history and archaeology and applications of outmoded theoretical positions that I encountered. In my mind, that's not a good sign in a website that's being linked to in a Wikipedia article, not even as an "external link" offering. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that anyone who may have a general interest in exploring some of the broad themes found in the link that I removed in a far less "eccentric" and politically driven context might want to check out:

Migration in Prehistory: The Northern Iroquoian Case Dean R. Snow American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 59-79 Published by: Society for American Archaeology. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Iroquoius Indians lived in New York! WOW!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.90.141 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Moving orenda mention to spirituality section instead of intro

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence was in the intro: "The Iroquoian concept of "Orenda", meaning "spiritual force", which historically meant the adoption of other peoples, including war captives, to replace the loss of spiritual force by death."

This seemed pretty specific for the intro and it was uncited, so I deleted it. I could find no evidence that the Iroquois specifically thought of orenda as "adoption of other peoples." However, to preserve the concept and its importance to the Iroquois. I did some research in journals and encyclopedias and created a new page for orenda and will link to it from the spirituality section. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on Festivals getting too long and detailed

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I appreciate all the work going into improving this page -- however, I noticed the section on Festivals is getting very long -- do we need all the details of how the white dog was strangled, for example? Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought the mid-winter festival was important enough to deserve the extra verbiage. My original thought was to create a separate article, maybe just for the one, or maybe Iroquois festivals. Peter Flass (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

religion(s)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article lists the following "Karihwiio, Kanoh'hon'io, Kahni'kwi'io". Are these really different, or are they different names for the Code of Handsome Lake (Gai'hwi:io) in different languages? Most of the web seems to be quoting information from Wikipedia, so it's impossible (for me) to disentangle this. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could get this straight. The first seems to be Mohawk. Peter Flass (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

dress

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a section on clothing. This is past-tense, since I believe it is mostly historical. Do today's Iroquios wear traditional costume on ceremonial/special occasions? If so, someone who knows should add a sentence or two to this effect. Peter Flass (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"important"

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've twice removed the word "important" from the text simply because it adds nothing. An ip (172.58.225.116) seems to think otherwise and berates me for not posting here ... so I'm here. Would the ip please add your reasoning for "important" here. Vsmith (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And I guess the ip won't be here for a bit - as 'twas just blocked for disruptive editing on another article. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that calling the Iroquois "important" quite counts as a "peacock term", as the initiating edit by user:britannic124 said, but for the sake of consistency it's worth pointing out that out of the articles for the other most "important" Native American tribes that I checked (the Sioux, the Cree, the Ojibwe, the Cherokee, the Navajo, the Apache, the Comanche, the Shoshone, the Blackfoot, and the Illinois), none of them use the word "important" in that particular sense within the body of the article. CMurdock (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iroquois. 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) 00:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{Link rot}} Please add the tag. Thx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 (talk • contribs)

  Done: Kinda. I fixed the issue instead. Thanks, — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Population

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

|I find it very difficult to understand the figures mentioned in the article. 17,000 at 1940 in the U.S., and lets say 13,000 in Canada, ultimately shows am increase of over 400%. I know I can't register with the Seneca but my DNA doesn't lie. My grandfather George Ruth migrated a lot and it is simply impossible to tell how many moved to cities (50-70% live in cities or rural areas).

I know the population must have suffered after the Sullivan Expedition but they have been using -- and used, that tactic for hundreds of years. In the Beaver Wars that's how they were able to accept peace on their terms. I don't know, demographics is a really new science and I've been working on bringing clarity to it.

Use ctrl+f to find key words: "Following Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, it is now considered that a 'state' must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. As a division of the British Empire, Canada's international relations were handled by Britain when the League of Nations was founded and it did not meet these criteria. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy did." Basically, a native of one STATE is not A native of another STATE, so how this has to do with demographics is complicated and ultimately logically achievable. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent one sided edits by AS Brown

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The recent edits by AS Brown are one sided, giving the white view of history by white historians, and it is becoming clear what his motivation and agenda toward the article topic is, which is not supposed to happen here. There is abundant information that he chooses not to highlight, such as the treacherous methods of the French to invite the Iroquois to A "Peace talk" in 1699 which is still remembered as an infamous act of treachery. Why doesn't he tell about that if you want to load the article with that kind of stuff? 172.56.2.159 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iroquois. 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) 20:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iroquois. 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) 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Simple Typo: 'Denonville' is misspelled 'Dennoville' "and fled when the main French force came up.[79] The remaining Catholic Haudenosaunee warriors refused orders from Dennoville to pursue the retreating Seneca.[80] Denonville ravaged the land of the Seneca, landing a French armada at Irondequoit Bay, striking straight into the seat of Seneca power, and destroying many of its villages. Fleeing before the attack, the Seneca" Should be "refused orders from Denonville to pursue the retreating" Thanks Amateur Dave. 72.172.219.21 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Greyjoy talk 05:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Have just read the cannibalism section. None of the references mentioned come from First Nations people, only white eurocentrics, who have typically done a very poor job of understanding First Nations culture. The entire section seems illegitimate without any verification from the people themselves, and needs some relevant references. 207.81.188.14 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in society

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Where the Iroquois really a matriarchy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy says that most anthropologists hold that no matriarchal society is known to ever have existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.186.239 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Goodauestion. I can't read these on my iPad but some look useful. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Matrilineal. There was divided leadership. The women selected some of the leaders. Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a source which simply classifies them as matrilineal and "matrilocal". Meaning the women dictated "Longhouse politics", controlling the food supply and most of the events and relations internal to their clan. This ultimately translates into having a great deal of power. However, men handled the affairs between clans, with women only officially allowed to veto decisions by leading men when it comes to inter-clan politics. This is from Towards an Anthropological by David Graeber.
I generally find that trying to classify a society as matriarchal or patriarchal is woefully simplistic. Doing so ignores the divisions of power that are related to the divisions of labor and responsibilities between sexes.
EverydayEditor (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed in the section Wampum that some of the scientific names given for shell species are out of date compared to the articles on those species or to the Wold Register of Marine Species. Please change Busycon canaliculatum to Busycotypus canaliculatus, Busycon sinistrum to Sinistrofulgur sinistrum, and Busycon Laeostomum to Sinistrofulgur laeostomum. I have been trying to update these on other articles and would like these to be updated as well. 72.44.103.182 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done And thank you for the well-formatted request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Ritual

"Some anthropologists have found evidence of ritual torture and cannibalism at Iroquois sites..."


What is the difference between torture and cannibalism, and "ritual" torture and cannibalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.62.19 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
66.188.115.58 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)



go to ducksters.com its way better guys

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Slave Trade?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would suggest adding a section on the Iroquois' involvement in the native slave trade. Europeans provided weapons to native tribes in return for slaves so numerous groups began stealing slaves from surrounding tribes. As the Iroquois became more and more involved, they began killing off thousands of natives. This time in Iroquois history should not be overlooked. --129.59.122.14 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a sub-section 5.14 where I will talk about Haudenosaunee slavery practices. I have a few paragraphs written in my sandbox already (although I am not quite finished). I hope to have it published by November 30, 2018. Hope this helps. Lilymw 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

One missing word

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Second paragraph in 5.1 : "Additionally war served as a way for young men to demonstrate their valor and courage, which was not a prerequisite for becoming a chief, but also essential if one wanted to get married and hence have sex."

This should be corrected to "which was not only a prerequisite", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evargalo (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Formation of the League

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In her book "Native American History," Judith Nies claimed that the 'traditional date of origin' for the Iroquois Confederacy was 1390. She did not cite any sources in support of her contention.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Nies, Judith (1996). Native American History. New York: Ballantine Books. MardorCH (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article regarding the Confederacy says the majority of scholars support 1451 AD as its foundation date. In any case, the articles flat statement that that the Iroquois Confederacy was founded in 1142 is not supported. Venqax (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do people keep misspelling led?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't get it and I don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.241.54 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I do it because the word lead (the metal) is pronounced the same as "led", and also spelled the same as the verb "lead". English spelling is stupid. I don't like it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

American Revolution review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Despite pointing out that the Iroquois Confederacy tried to stay neutral in the Revolution, the article fails to present the objective circumstances that led to non-neutrality.  The effect is to suggest wrongly that sources sympathetic to the British and Americans, and therefore the Canadian and US governments, are objectively neutral in portraying the Iroquois.  A fairer, objective review is in The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca (1972), an historical ethnography of the 19th century Seneca nation religious revitalization by anthropologist A. F. C. Wallace. Chapters Five and Six, particularly pp. 125-150, offer a well-documented survey of the agreements, war, and treaties before, during, and after the war. I summarize from this source in the following.  
    The Iroquois sought a neutrality agreement with the Continental Commission in 1775 (Albany) with the following conditions: 1, no interruption of free passage and trading in the Iroquois country; 2, no disturbance of Sir John Johnson or a certain Protestant pastor of the Mohawk despite their loyalist stand; 3, satisfaction of old land claims against the state of New York.  The Iroquois did not want invasion of their territory, harm of their free movement or people, or a demand for alliance from either side, but their conditions were not guaranteed.  The Iroquois council nonetheless remained at peace for a long time. Later in 1775, the Seneca promised neutrality on behalf of dependent nations in a council of Seneca, Wyandot, Shawnee, and Delaware, even though the Delaware declared independence.  Only certain individuals supported the British among Mohawks and the Americans among Oneida and Tuscarora.  Then, the Americans broke the neutrality agreement.  They killed a Mohawk loyalist in 1775, seized Oswego and captured some Mohawks, and imprisoned Sir John Johnson on a false accusation and later seized his land and wife. Because the Six Nations had kept the agreement but the Revolutionaries had not, Mohawk Joseph Brant fought against the Americans.  The British also used some troops under Brant, who had voluntarily fled, but the Americans sought Iroquois troops, which again broke the neutrality agreement.
    At Niagara in 1776 September, war chiefs of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Mohawk agreed to support the British, but they had no authorization from the Iroquois council sachems, i.e., civil/peace chiefs.  At the 1777 January Onondaga council fire, the latter apparently continued the neutrality policy.  However, because an epidemic wiped out three civil/peace chiefs and over eighty others, preventing a changed Iroquois council decision, the war chiefs and councils of separate villages and nations had temporary authority.  In summer 1777, the warrior council with the British (Oswego) did not have a consensus, but the Seneca leaders, defeated by a majority who wanted to fight for the British, caved in to make a unanimous decision.  The Iroquois, however, were against the Americans for breaking the neutrality; they were not fighting for the British political cause. 
    When the British accepted defeat in the war, the Iroquois did not. Because the war was going well for them, the Iroquois that had fought with the British would have continued fighting, but the British stood down and the Americans were not threatening Iroquois lands. The Iroquois considered themselves undefeated because they were.  The Americans could not afford to keep fighting them.  Nonetheless, from the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 onward for thirteen years, in various treaties, as well as later contracts, the Americans robbed the Iroquois of much land and sovereignty.  In negotiations, the Americans used unjust force, forcing signatures at gunpoint, taking hostages then lynched by white mobs, making Iroquois representatives drunk to get them to accept land swindles. The neutral, objective view indicates that the people of the Iroquois Confederacy were responsible and honorable, while the British tried to use them and the Americans were radically and dishonorably abusive of them.

Asiaedit (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)asiaedit

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is an incomplete quote attributed to Benjamin on this page, which gives the readers the exact opposite interpretation of Benjamin Franklin's intended words. The quote as it appears in the wikipedia entry is as follows:

"It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union ... and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies,"

But the full quote should be included instead. For as you will see, it gives a completely different impression. It can be found, along with the entire letter at: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0037:

"It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests."

It is obvious in its original, complete wording that Benjamin was praising 6 disparate Tribes, the equivalent of the French, English, Italians, Spanish Portuguese and the Dutch, for a forming a political Union, and was criticizing the colonies, all of the same English culture, for not being able to do the same. The historian sighted in this article who calls the idea that Franklin was inspired by the Iroquois "absurd" has obviously edited Bejamin's letter for his own purposes. Coyotle1979 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: While that may be so, here we are relaying different historians' opinions on the subject of influence. We aren't a forum to discuss our opinion - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "opinion" but of historical fact. The historian you've allowed to stay on this page is guilty of the worst kind of "cut and paste" editing, for the obvious purpose of misdirection and forwarding his own personal cultural agenda. If you allow this to stand unchallenged by Benjamin Frankiln's actual words, then Wikipedia will be guilty of the same thing by association and will start to lose its credibility as a neutral source for information. This is a matter of intellectual honesty. You should not be allowed to substitute relevant passages that conflict with your thesis with "..." and get away with it. If you won't edit/amend the historians statement itself because you don't feel it is wikipedia's place to editorialize a vetted historian's work then fine, but at the very least you should include Franklin's quote in its entirety just bellow the historian's version and allow the reader to make their own determination. Otherwise Wikipedia will be guilty of the same sort of neocon propaganda as Francis Jennings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyotle1979 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

English vs British

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are a number of references to "English"colonists which really should be edited to "British" colonists when referencing all events occurring after the 1707 Acts of Union. These are largely correct in the section on the French and Indian Wars but particularly evident in the sections on the American Revolution and Post War. 165.225.16.218 (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. The first mention of the term confederacy within this article (very first sentence) links to the article on Federalism, specifically a section that seems to no longer exist about "Anarchist and libertarian socialist modes of political organization". Given that the Iroquois are referred to as a confederacy, and that there is even a section within the confederacy article which mentions this, this seems like a very odd link to have made.
Therefore, it should probably link to this part of the confederacy article instead. Cheers :) --IsaacANThom (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

'Archaeologists Have a Lot of Dates Wrong for North American Indigenous History — But Are Using New Techniques to Get It Right"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The title of an article here. The article is mainly about Iroquoian sites and notes that radio-carbon dating gives different dates from the traditional ones. It argues that this is because "scholars viewed the topic through a pervasive colonial lens. Researchers mistakenly assumed that trade goods were equally available, and desired, all over the region, and considered all indigenous groups as the same." It's worth reading. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is 'Melting Pot' correct?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that under the 'Melting Pot' section, it is about mourning raids. Is the phrase 'Melting Pot' correct? -PhoenixStarlight —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Current status of confederacy?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Haudenosaunee Confederacy" redirects here, and the article seems to imply that some organization still exists representing or claiming to represent the confederacy today, but never directly addresses that. I'm confused. GeoEvan (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Accurate translation of Haudenosaunee

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Haudenosaunee is currently translated as "People of the long house."

However, a more accurate translation is "People who are building the long house."

The latter translation places emphasis on the unity and collectiveness of the groups rather than the house itself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazembe2 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Page title (requested move to "Haudenosaunee")

Latest comment: 3 years ago30 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move. Opposers note that the term "Iroquois" is more common in reliable sources, and more recognizable for the average Wikipedia reader. These are decisive considerations per article titles policy. It's possible that Haudenosaunee will become more popular in the future, in which case the title can be revisited. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Iroquois → Haudenosaunee – This page ought to be moved to "Haudenosaunee", with this "Iroquois" page redirecting to that, instead of the opposite (as currently configured), with "Haudenosaunee" redirecting here.

(Content changes would be necessary, too, if this move request is accepted.)

The article itself states that "Iroquois/Six Nations people" prefer the name "Haudenosaunee Confederacy." The section of the page about the names and history of the names makes clear that the "Iroquois" term came from people outside the Confederacy and its nations -- it describes possible derivations from Native languages as, at best, "lacking widespread acceptance."

The map in the info box is called "Haudenosaunee_Territory.png", but the caption says it depicts "Iroquois territory."

I imagine this topic was discussed at some point, but it's not a current discussion, and it ought to be.

Caveat: While I have editing experience, I recognize that I don't have experience with issues of this magnitude. That said, I'm confident that "Haudenosaunee" is the accurate name of the Confederacy and people covered on this page. I hope y'all will advise on the proper procedures for making a change like this, if I'm doing it wrong. I'd hate for the change to be rejected due to my lack of knowledge of process (which I am more than willing to learn and follow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonjo2786 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Relist note: the {{Requested move/dated}} template was installed at 04:38 on 28 December 2020 (UTC), so this request officially begins at that timestamp and should continue at least seven days. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not a slur. Walrasiad (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The word slavery is a slur against Slavs, but everyone uses it. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
you mean outside of WP:RELIABLE sources?—blindlynx (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No, reliable != academic. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of non-academic reliable sources. For example the The Canadian Encyclopedia [4] or any major Canadian news sources [5], [6],[7]. Not to mention that's what tehy call themselves [8].—blindlynx (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Your own sources use "Iroquois" for recognizability. Walrasiad (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The point is that a wide range of recent reliable sources prefer "Haudenosaunee"—blindlynx (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is not for academics, but for the general public. Keep the audience in mind. Your frame of reference should be common English works of general reference, not specialized articles. Walrasiad (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The idea that the term 'Haudenosaunee' is restricted to specialized are articles is plainly false.—blindlynx (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy states on its website that the name of the confederacy and its peoples "is properly called the Haudenosaunee Confederacy," not the Iroquois. Out of respect for this group of Indigenous Peoples and in the spirit of reconciliation, this page should default to using Haudenosaunee rather than Iroquois and should make mention of the Confederacy's statement. Ampersand Editor (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. See WP:COMMONNAME. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A historical people?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please consider removing the “historical” reference in the opening sentence. Of course, the Haudenosaunee are a historical people only in the same way that the British, French and Americans are. The people and the confederacy remain alive and active today while this reference perpetuates a misconception that we exist only in the past. Djberes (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the word 'historical' in this instance is referring to a change in the international status of the confederacy. However I agree it is misleading and I have therefore made the edit requested which I believe should stand until agreement is sought on the best way to describe the current status of the confederacy. Spekkios (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the status from "Recognised confederated state" to sonething like recognised confederation and change "unrecognised state" to unrecognised government.

The Iroquois Confederation is stateless, see anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan who specialised on the Iroquois society and their stateless government. 2A01:4C8:C80:2AD9:1:1:50E3:3DA (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 09:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adding a section covering the Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address under the 'Society' subheading or within the 'Spiritual beliefs' section of that subheading. This section will have the full address as well as its significance in the Haudenosaunee way of life. Tuck430 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please write that section out and post it to the talk page and re-open the edit request. The edit request template isn't for requesting to be able to edit, its for requesting a specific edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The confederacy today

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are various groups claiming to be representative of the Six Nations around today, the most promiment seeming to be the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Someone should probably do some digging and figure out the lineage of the various groups and what they do today. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Goano'ganoch'sa'jeh'seroni"?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article formerly included as one of the putative names of the Iroquois Confederacy the following:

the Seneca referred to them as Goano'ganoch'sa'jeh'seroni<ref>Zeisberger, David. ''Indian Dictionary: English, German, Iroquois—The Onondaga and Algonquin—The Delaware''. Harvard University Press, 1887. ISBN 1104253518, pp. 23 and 97. ''Goano'' means "big", ''Ganochsajeh'' means "roof" and ''Eroni'' means "people." As such, "Big-roof-people" or "People-who-live-under-the big-roof", in reference to the longhouse.</ref>

A few things made me suspicious of this. First, they are using an ONONDAGA dictionary as a source of an allegedly Seneca word. Secondly, the full tripartite term is nowhere to be found in the dictionary itself. And thirdly, the way this word was blithely made by stringing three words together (+ apostrophes added, seemingly randomly like something from a bad fantasy novel) with apparently no regard for Seneca morphology or morphophonology made me suspect that this word was simply invented by whoever made the edit. I e-mailed Wallace Chafe, Iroquoian linguist and author of the authoritative Grammar of the Seneca Language, and he confirmed that he has never seen this word before and that it may be made-up. It seems, furthermore, that this fabrication has since made its way to at least one physical publication, the "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations". This is irresponsible, and if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously then its contributors need to rise above literally making up fake words. CMurdock (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Note the source was published in 1887, so that may be part of the problem.Parkwells (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Who is "Ou8tatory, an Oneida chief"?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In the "French and Indian Wars" section, I found this sentence: "In February 1756, the French learned from a spy, Ou8tatory, an Oneida chief, that a British were stockpiling supplies at the Oneida Carrying Place, a crucial portage between Albany and Oswego to support an offensive in the spring into what is now Ontario." The source was given as "MacLeod, D. Peter The Canadian Iroquois and the Seven Years' War, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2012 page 23." I assumed this was a typo, considering the phrase "a British". I realized I could search the source on Google Books, and it turns out it was a typo, but only because the chief's name is Ou8atory, not Ou8tatory.

Googling "Ou8tatory" just gave me some bizarre results that seem to be AI productions copying text from Wikipedia and churning it through automatic translations and de-translations, resulting in gems like "In February 1756, the Man learned from a spy, Ou8tatory, an Oneida homosexual , that a British were stockpiling supplies at the, a homosexual ...". Googling "Ou8atory" instead gives a few other Wikipedia articles (actually only one, "Battle of Fort Bull", but in a few Wikipedia mirrors and in "wikien4", "the Elmer Fudd Wikipedia", where it is "Battle of Fort Buww", took me a while to realize that wasn't some actual obscure near-English language) using this same Peter MacLeod source.

I'm not well-versed in Iroquois names or Iroquois transliteration, but I've never heard of an American Indian language, or any language, using the number "8" to represent a sound. Couple that with the fact that all references to Ou8atory trace back to this one book, I thought I'd at least bring it to the Talk page's attention. Maybe this Ou8atory is known elsewhere by a more common transliteration. I guess transliteration isn't even the right term, it's just transcription. Skimming the "Iroquoian languages" and "Oneida language" articles don't offer me any help on writing Oneida sounds or why you'd use an "8".

I'll try to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole, but if anyone with more expertise can shed some light on Ou8atory, I'd appreciate it. Terminimal (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown:, this has to do with your edits. Your first edit[9] spelled it Outatory. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I do agree with you, Terminimal that I found the spelling Ou8atory as rather odd and strange, but that was the way that D. Peter MacLeod used it in his 2011 book The Canadian Iroquois and the Seven Years' War, and he used it a number of times so I presume that it was not a typo. I was rather hesitant about using the 8 in Ou8atory, but I decided rather risk charges of engaging in OR that I would use the name, as strange as it was, as MacLeod used it. I used Ouatory at first because that seemed to make more sense as at first I thought the spelling Ou8atory must had been a typo. But then looking over the book the name Ou8atory was used a number of times so I changed it to the way the source used it, as bizarre as it was. MacLeod is the Director of Research at the Canadian War Museum whose area of expertise is First Nations history and military history of Canada before Confederation, so I acting on the assumption that he knows what he is talking about. Of course, he may not, but I need a RS saying that, and I have not able to any RS along the lines that MacLeod is an idiot who doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.
There is a particular aspect of MacLeod's book that needs to be noted, namely that he wrote his book from the perspective of the Canadian Iroquois, so he made a point of using terminology that was made to challenge Euro-centric lexicon. So he refused to use the standard terms looting and plunder because the Iroquois did not see their practice of taking things during the course of a campaign as looting and plunder, and likewise he calls what is now upstate New York Kaniekeh, not New York, so his book is very different from traditional books, which might help explain things. I thought his book was OK because it seemed to have good reviews and it is a recent book that tried to depict the 7 Years' War as seen by the Canadian Iroquois instead of by the British and the French as most book do.
I don't have MacLeod's book right in front of me and I'm writing this from memory, but I seemed to remember based on the footnotes in The Canadian Iroquois and the Seven Years' War that spelling Ou8atory comes from a contemporary French source. That makes me wonder if the name Ou8atory is an idiosyncratic 18th century French transliteration of his Oneida name. I would agree with you that there may be a better transliteration of this chief's name from Oneida into French, but I have not able to find it. When it comes to transliterating names, I tried to follow what the sources say, which can be a real problem with language like Arabic as there is no standard way of transliterating Arabic names into English, which is why one finds a bewildering number of versions of the same Arabic name in different books and articles, which is rather frustrating ; my rule on that is generally use the version used around here and ignore what the books say, which I do out of the desire to maintain consistency and to avoid confusing the reader. In this case, I could not a version of Ou8atory around here, so I followed MacLeod as even through I do think Ouatory actually makes more sense. Sadly tonight, I have to go off to work a night shift (oh joy!) and the same tomorrow, so I don't think I will be able to visit the library to research this matter more this weekend. I'm sorry that I cannot shed more light on this matter at present. Thank you Doug Weller and Terminimal for this discussion. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@A.S. Brown: Sorry for not thanking you for your helpful reply three years ago. I'm doing so now because I got some insights into the use of Arabic numerals in American Indian names, and wanted to post it here for anyone who might be reading this Talk page in the next few decades, so I might as well give a belated thanks. I must've stumbled on the page for "Squamish people", and seen that their name was transliterated as "Skwxwú7mesh", the "7" representing the IPA character for glottal stop, "ʔ", probably for ease of typing. That reminded me of Ou8atory, and eventually I made a post about it on the subreddit r/asklinguistics. User u/Zgialor pointed out the number eight's similarity with Ou (ligature), "ȣ". The article for "ȣ" notes that it's been used in Wyandot and Mohawk, Iroquoian languages like Oneida. It has a picture of a "ȣ" used in an Algonquin calendar from 1871, and maybe MacLeod's source was from a time when the use of that character for Iroquoian languages was common. So it seems like MacLeod was using "ȣ", but representing it with "8" for convenience just as the Squamish transliterators represented the glottal stop with "7" for typing convenience. Only remaining mystery for me is if it's supposed to be read "Ououatory" or just "Ouatory" and the "8" just guides the reader in pronouncing the single "Ou" sound.
Maybe someone else who reads that part of the article and gets curious will find this useful for them. Terminimal2 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Terminimal2 Thank you for all your help. I did not have much luck with the university library (mind that you I visited was a shabby one as the better one is sadly out of my reach). So I went straight Ad fontes. I wrote Dr. Macleod an email, and he kindly wrote back. The name Ou8atory is spelled that way because that was the transliteration system used in the 18th century. The French language does not have a w sound. That is how the spelling of the Scottish royal family ended being changed from the House of Stewart to the House of Stuart when Mary, Queen of Scots went to France to marry King François II. The French could not pronounce Stewart, so they spelled it Stuart instead. Mary who grew up in France and was actually far French than Scottish (contemporaries describe her as speaking with a very strong French accent) kept the French spelling of her surname, which is how the House of Stewart became the House of Stuart. In the 18th century system of transliteration of Oneida to French, the number 8 represented the w sound that did not exist in the French language. Dr. Macleod explained in the all of the French documents, this gentleman was called Ou8atory, which was how he used that spelling in his book. The 8 represents the w sound so his name was actually Ouwatory. However, I favor keeping the spelling used in the book just for the sake of consistency. If necessary, we add a note explaining this. For confirmation, one can check page 135 of the 1896 book The Philology of the Ouananiche by Edward Thomas Davies Chambers here: [10] Thank you for all your help and time, and best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is too long; there is no separate article on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, unlike eg in French

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is too long, making reading uncomfortable; I see that there is no separate article on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Yet in the French Wikipedia, there is a separate article. Plus talk about the Confederacy is confused. Good luck TGcoa (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The word “Indigenous” must be capitalized. 174.94.6.231 (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: The word "indigenous" in this context is an adjective, not a proper noun, and is not normally capitalized. General Ization Talk 02:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the Iroquois Confederacy be its own article?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a maintenance tag about the article's length, and separating the Confederacy, a major topic no doubt worthy of a separate page, seems like a reasonable course of action. What are other editors' thoughts on this? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Onkwehonwe" (by any spelling)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This term is generally not used to mean just people of Haudenosaunee nations, but all "First Nations"/"Native American" people. I'm not apt to reply, but I hope future editors will reflect on this and perhaps discuss it further. 76.69.87.7 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Map

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article map should be changed. It is of far too large a scale for such a small territory and it's difficult to see due to the lack of contrast between land and sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikaze0617 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The largest extent of the territory is larger than many European countries, but that's still not large in the "North American" context. Also, the "current" (pink) areas are invisible without magnification. Maybe future map editors could, in addition to using a smaller base map (if possible), highlight the current territories in a more contrasting colour like yellow. 76.69.87.7 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

IPA transcription of "Haudenosaunee"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the IPA transcription of Haudenosaunee in the first sentence, the ezh (ʒ) should probably be an esh (ʃ) and the first /i/ should probably be replaced with a schwa (ə). So /ˌhoʊdənoʊˈʃoʊniː/ instead of /ˌhoʊdinoʊˈʒoʊniː/, at least based on the video that’s currently listed as a citation for the transcription.

Examples from the citation:

I also found these examples, though I can’t say how reliable they are relative to the video currently cited:

  • (/ˌhoʊdənəˈʃoʊniː/)[1]
  • (/ˌhoʊdɪnoʊˈʃoʊniː/)[2]
  • (/ˌhoʊdənəˈʃoʊniː/)[3]
  • (/ˌhoʊdənəˈʃoʊniː/)[4]
  • (/ˌhoʊdinoʊˈsoʊniː/ or /ˌhoʊdənoʊˈsoʊniː/)[5]

These are all my best efforts at transcribing—more experienced people should feel free to suggest something closer to the speakers if I’ve made an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richnsb (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but I generally hear people say (/ˌhoʊdɪnʌˈʃoʊniː/) or (/ˌhoʊdənʌˈʃoʊniː/). Of course, we must also remember that the Haudenosaunee are a confederation of 6 nations with 6 different (related) languages, so pronunciations will vary on that basis as well as others (e.g. which side of the "border" does a Haudenosaunee confederate find themselves). In any case, I've never heard anyone say it the "ezh" way. Change that for sure. 76.69.87.7 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DofTnRhm5o&t=22s
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DofTnRhm5o&t=46s
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-jefCvnXWA&t=223s
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-jefCvnXWA&t=513s
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOem_7Re5E&t=178s

suggested split

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At a glance, it would appear that the sections Society and Government could just be pulled out wholesale if desired and placed in a separate article without doing too much violence to the text. After that there might need to be some rearrangement and possibly repetition of information so the articles flow better. Peter Flass (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago58 comments40 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This is a tough thicket to cut through, so I'll try my best to outline my train of thought on this.

WP:COMMONNAME is not an absolute rule, and it gives plenty of cases where using a less common name may be preferable. The question is whether this is one of those cases.

To start off with: "Haudenosaunee" is not uncommon enough that it should be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, WP:ETHNICGROUP does say that if "commonly used" – which is an arbitrary level but, from my estimation, met — an autonym should be given due consideration.

There is an assertion in the RM that "Iroquois" is a slur, and I am incredibly sympathetic to that argument, but the evidence to support the assertion (with reliable sources) is... not adequate enough to trigger the "if problematic" exception in COMMONNAME, in my view.

So, we ultimately come back to the question of usage in reliable sources. And while usage is favouring "Haudenosaunee", the crossover point is still too far away in the future for me to feel confident to pull the trigger to go against the general rough headcount; Kiev vs. Kyiv, it isn't. To paraphrase Jayron32, "maybe some day, but not today".

On the other hand, there may be some cases in which "Haudenosaunee" should be used as it's more common; for example, definitely Haudenosaunee men's national lacrosse team and possibly Haudenosaunee passport.

It's close-run, but in this case, there is no consensus to move this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Iroquois → Haudenosaunee – Haudenosaunee is the English name for these people. The term Iroquois has its roots as a slur roughly meaning, "snakes", that was used by the Haudenosaunee's rivals before being adopted by the French.

While some may argue that Iroquois vs. Haudenosaunee is merely a case of exonym vs. endonym (example: Germany vs. Deutschland), this is incorrect. Haudenosaunee is the word used in English. Moreover, the Haudenosaunee people are primarily English speakers. That's because Haudenosaunee is not one language, it is a people that speak several severely/critically endangered languages (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk).

The Haudenosaunee have long sought that people stop referring to them by the name forced upon them by Europeans, particularly because this name has its roots as a slur.

More and more media institutions are already making the switch, (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/sports/indigenous-athletes-lacrosse.html, https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1163592259588, https://globalnews.ca/news/9160129/loyalist-college-events-truth-reconciliation-day-2022/), and it is high time Wikipedia updates its use of this term also.

Although Iroquois is more common among English speakers at present, that term is outdated, and too controversial to continue being the name of this article.

At the end of the day, updating this article's name is not about the difference of an exonym and an endonym, moreover, it's more than acknowledging the Western centrism that permeates academia. Updating the name is literally about not calling these people an actual slur.

As an academic resource, we must ensure Wikipedia informs the public of the correct nomenclature — using the discrepancy as an opportunity to raise awareness and educate.

They ARE the Haudenosaunee people. They are NOT the Iroquois.

FURTHER REF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSXL33JiKLY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOem_7Re5E OddlyOaktree (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Support It has become commonplace within academia, news media, and the cultural sector to refer to the confederacy as the Haudenosaunee in land acknowledgements (both written and spoken). Continued use of Iroquois is acting against reconciliation efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.161.228 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 192.0.161.228 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Support. The current page name is a slur. Using the name that the Haudenosaunee actually use is more important than deferring to COMMONNAME. HaiFire3344 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and per reasons listed by User:192.0.161.228. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. As mentioned elsewhere, neither term is English, but Haudenosaunee is the common name the nations in question use, while Iroquois is a Gallicized term. Unfortunately, the majority of writing about an Indigenous group is still written by non-Native people not always well-versed on the subject, so it matters who is using which term. The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are switching to Haudenosaunee is a sign that this is the preferred English-language term for the Six Nations and that Wikipedia should follow suit. Yuchitown (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • Support move idgaf what is the most common name in English. Once you've been educated that the current title is a slur put on minority people by conquerors you should correct it. Redirects and prose in the article exist to explain names. Always remember that "most common" is only one of several competing criteria for how to name an article. It's beyond to keep a "common name" when it is abusive - without any other objection other than "it's common, durrr". You become an abuser with that kind of attitude. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    I note that I have yet to see reliable sources posted that back up the "slur" claim.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Do newspaper articles from the region not count as reliable? (https://dailygazette.com/2014/08/30/annual-iroquois-festival-chance-share-culture/) Additionally, Wikipedia refers to the Tsuut'ina by their preferred name, not by Sarcee, which is what other nations called them and is also a slur. I fail to see what the difference here is. "The Tsuutʼina people were formerly called the Sarsi or Sarcee, words which are believed to have been derived from a Blackfoot word meaning "stubborn ones". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuut%CA%BCina_Nation) Wikipedia should use the name the Haudenosaunee use for themselves, not the name given to them by enemies and colonizers. That is the most respectful and accurate course of action. I support this change. MontanaMetisGirl (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MontanaMetisGirl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    When they're so sloppily written that they call "Iroquois" a slur while still using it multiple times, yes, I don't see them as particuarly reliable. If the claim it is a slur is commonly accepted, then you should be able to provide academic sources. Further, Wikipedia has - as far as I know - no policy preferring endonyms to exonyms.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    This is not about endonyms vs exonyms, this is about not using a slur as the title when many reliable and academic sources are switching to a neutral term that we can use instead. HaiFire3344 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Some may view this as a slur, with justifiable cause, but I offer support for the reasons pointed out by @Yuchitown above. On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. As an English encyclopedia that sometimes puts us at odds with the viewpoints of others. My personal viewpoints matter little though I believe it perfectly reasonable to argue or try to make a case for it by using my personal viewpoints and that's why I'm not opposed to those expressing personal viewpoints above. Reliable sources are changing or altering their usage of the term. In this case I believe a move may be warranted. I would like to see more non-Native sources provided outside of just the NYT and CBC before extending strong support for this move and stating unequivocally that the majority of English sources have altered their usage. I would be opposed to the removal of the term from every article on Wikipedia, especially those views presented from the colonial position and from specific quotes made by others. I would also oppose any potential moves related to Iroquoian languages as that is the academic term for the family of languages. --ARoseWolf 16:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support For the reasons I listed above. The words we use are important. They hold power from their histories. As many here have already pointed out, the word "Iroquois" is NOT a neutral term. It has no place being used as the title of this article. Haudenosaunee people are living and breathing members of our communities and families. They are not but a long lost people for academics to study. They are here and now, and their naming preference matters. OddlyOaktree (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. If Haudenosaunee is what they call themselves, maybe we should take seriously what they would like to be referred to rather than telling them what we'd like to call them because we don't want to use a new word.  Sammmmmmm7 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sammmmmmm7 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • support While—as others have noted—'Haudenosaunee' is not currently the common name in English it is commonly used in English so per WP:ETHNICGROUP it would be the best tile (from that policy How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title)—blindlynx 19:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The average English language reader will have no idea what the "Haudenosaunee" are, but they will have heard of the Iroquois. The term "Haudenosaunee" is not commonly used in English and it is nowhere near the most commonly used. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking at gscholar there are about half as many hits for 'Haudenosaunee' as for 'Iroquois' since 2018 [11][12]—blindlynx 20:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but the naming convention for ethnic groups says that the "common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used". The common English-language term for the Iroquois is the Iroquois. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
That convention goes on to say 'If their autonym—in this case "Haudenosaunee"—is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title". (Also sorry i meant to reply to myself not to you with my last comment)—blindlynx 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've never read or heard of the proposed name. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral. "Iroquois" is still by far the most common English name. A Google Ngram search restricted to publications after 2000[13] still shows it much more common than Haudenosaunee, and even in the most recent year for which data is available (2019), it is used more than 7 times as often as Haudenosaunee. There is a slight upward trend in the use of Haudenosaunee since about 2012, but there's also a slight upwards trend in the use of Iroquois since around that time, and the ratio seems approximately constant. On the other hand I have sympathy for the WP:ETHNICGROUP argument, especially the statement Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. It does appear that "Iroquois" is considered derogatory by many members of the group.[14], but I'm reluctant to wholeheartedly support a change to a term that has such infrequent general usage in English. CodeTalker (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:CRITERIA; the proposed name is less natural and less recognizable. Ngrams shows the current title being used 8 times more than the proposed title; Google Trends shows a similar disparity. I am sympathetic about the WP:ETHNICGROUP argument, and if the disparity was less significant, if Haudenosaunee was only slightly less common than Iroquois, I would support the move on that basis, but at the moment the disparity is too large and the change would make Wikipedia less useful and more difficult to comprehend and read. This move should be re-proposed once more reliable and independent sources have switched over. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google ngram viewer ([15]) comparing usage of Iroquois vs. Haudenosaunee between the years 1980 and 2019 shows Iroquois is used 7 times as much. The usage of both seems to be growing at about the same rate now, so
Haudenosaunee seems unlikely to approach Iroquois any time in the near future. Peter Flass (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: WP:ETHNICGROUP > WP:CRITERIA. Imagine it's 1950 and we're discussing the title of African-American and we looked at what the most common term was in the literature in preceding years. This is like that, or like Kiev/Kyiv. I think we should make the change now even if not everyone has made the change yet. Levivich (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    WP:CRITERIA is policy, WP:ETHNICGROUP is a guideline. Per WP:POLCON when a guideline and a policy disagree we should follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    They don't disagree. WP:CRITERIA says When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. and that its bulletpoints aren't rules. Hence, we look to the guideline pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per Levivich. WP:ETHNICGROUP is pretty clear on this. It's a bit less common but it's a less precise, more offensive alternative to the actual name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    No, that says that "in general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used." The common English-language term is the Iroquois. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    I invite you to keep reading the page you're writing from. Guidelines often give general advice before getting into specific contexts when the general might not be the right way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - as long as there's a redirect (or DAB) from "Iroquois", no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN While the word "Haudenosaunee" is growing in usage over time, it has not even come close to matching the use of Iroquois. According to Google ngrams, even in the most recent year for data, the usage of Iroquois outnumbers Haudenosaunee by at least an order of magnitude. Checking other Google data, Google news: Iroquois BCABBCxAzIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCxAxCDATIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCxAxCDATIFCAAQsQM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOgoIABCABBCxAxAKOg0IABCABBCxAxCDARAKOgYIABAKEANQAFiWFWDvH2gDcAB4AIABZogBgQSSAQM1LjGYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-news Haudenosaunee shows a similar about 10:1 advantage to Iroquois. Given that, it looks like Iroquois is still the common English term. Maybe some day in the future, this will not be so. But as of today, Haudenosaunee is not the common name. --Jayron32 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    With regard to UCN, the policy says When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The current title is clearly not neutral or accurate. Haudenosaunee may not be the most common name, but it is a common name. Also worth noting is that Haudenosaunee is the main name used for the confederacy in The Canadian Encyclopedia. HaiFire3344 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • support While COMMONNAME would say otherwise, per WP:ETHNICGROUP "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." The problem is that the autonym isn't commonly used. But given the term Iroquois is considered derogatory by the group and Haudenosaunee is common enough per the numbers found above I think the move is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The WP:ETHNICGROUP guideline is fairly clear-cut, and while WP:CRITERIA lists several criteria, it also mentions consistency and previous precedent, which clearly suggests that we should follow topic-specific guidelines and precedents when they exist. Additionally, Haudenosaunee is not so unrecognizable or unnatural as to outweigh those concerns - it has significant academic usage, especially recently. By a quick Google Scholar search, say, its academic usage in the past two years is reasonably close to that of Iroquois. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Aquillion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - If the current title is indeed a racial slur (as sources appear to show), it needs to be changed. We don't have the article on black people under the n-word for all the obvious reasons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an endonym vs. exonym. Nominator has claimed sources have switched usage, and while Haudenosaunee is surely more common than it was before, it doesn't appear to be more common than Iroquois yet. Take The New York Times for example, mentioned by the nominator; the cited NYT article on lacrosse was on a group that explicitly identified itself by the Haudenosaunee name, which the NYT correctly honored. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/books/review/military-history-indigenous-continent.html only uses "Iroquois" and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/arts/indigenous-continent-pekka-hamalainen.html has mixed usage, but 6 counts of "Iroquois" and 2 counts of "Haudenosaunee", 1 of which is a gloss in parentheses. Both of those articles are more recent than the lacrosse article, too. SnowFire (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    You linked to the same NYT article twice - is one meant be a different NYT article, or is one meant to be the book the NYT article reviewed (which also uses "Iroquois")?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Eldomtom2: Thanks for the catch. Yeah, copy/paste error. Fixed the second link to the proper news story. (These were found via searching for "site:nytimes.com Haudenosaunee" and "site:nytimes.com Iroquois" with a restriction to the past year, for reference. In the interests of full disclosure, there was another hit on Haudenosaunee more recent than the lacrosse story, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/dining/native-american-agriculture.html , but it's a single mention of a proper name, "Haudenosaunee Strawberry Popcorn".) SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The shift in usage cited by the person who proposed this name change is very slight, if we are to do some OR and refer to Google Trends. The proposal would go against both WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:UCRN, which OddlyOaktree admits. I am also troubled by any proposal that is written like a call to action, which certainly goes against the idea of WP:NOTLEAD, WP:RGW, and the general spirit of Wikipedia. Eladynnus (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a close call but I prefer the traditional and common name of an ethnic group to alternatives. Thus, Iroquois is slightly preferable to Haudenosaunee. I note (from reading the Wikipedia article) that the origin of the name "Iroquois" is debatable, and that it may not be derogatory. I also note that at least some members of the Iroquois confederacy still call themselves "Iroquois." See: [16] On the other hand, the lacrosse team recently renamed itself, dropping "Iroquois" and calling itself the Haudenosaunee.
  • My principal reasons for preferring Iroquois are historical precedent, clarity, and avoiding confusion. In literature and history the Iroquois have been called "Iroquois" for more than 400 years. "Iroquois" has historical resonance. To my mind, whatever the origin of the word, that's a good reason to continue calling them Iroquois. Change the name of Iroquois and scholars 1,000 years from now might be arguing whether Iroquois and Haudenosaunee are the same or different peoples. A present-day person might read Francis Parkman about the fearsome Iroquois and not be aware that they are the same people described as Haudenosaunee on Wikipedia. (I feel the same about the controversy between "Native American" vs "Indian." Are Native Americans the same as Indians? Or are they different peoples? It can be confusing.) I like clarity. Moreover, "Iroquois" conjures up -- at least to me -- the image of an important people who preserved their power and independence for almost 200 years after their first encounters with the white colonizers. That's not a legacy to be denied or obscured.Smallchief (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Support per Hobit and per Aquillion. They call themselves Haudenosaunee and academics are starting to support the use of Haudenosaunee. While Iroquois is the de facto exonym, it's a name imposed on them rather than a name that they are proud of. This is not an uncommon trend as other Native American ethnic group pages has had similar changes such as Gabrieleño to Tongva and Juaneño to Acjachemen in Southern California has made such changes under the similar circumstances where prior English/Spanish exonyms were not favored regardless of popular usage and subsequently moved. Unlike those circumstances, Iroquois is a slur appropriated by the French language and subsequently the English language, so there would be more reason to rename and move the page on ethical grounds. IvanjelikalAnCom (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Have no comment of the question of the RFC. .... BUT its "clear" we have some serious WP:MEATPUPPET. Wondering the best way to deal with this.Moxy-  19:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comment, the Template:not a vote tag at the beginning, and comments on apparently canvassed users should be enough to ensure the closing administrator will notice it and take it into account. Animal lover |666| 09:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I support the move, but yes, having a massive wave of brand-new accounts appear in support is not the way forward. Yuchitown (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
There was a couple styles of WP:CANVASSING here: Both on-wiki, as seen from this diff where the user who requested this move contacted another user who had supported a previous move attempt, and off-wiki, as seen in this Reddit post here where they are trying to direct Redditors here to support the move request (I'm assuming Redditors seeing that post and joining Wikipedia are the cause of some of the new accounts appearing here for WP:SPA purposes. Of note, you can also clearly see the person who created that Reddit thread is named OddlyOaktree (the same as the Wiki user who created this move request here). But, with the WP:MEATPUPPETS clearly tagged, hopefully the closer of this move request will have an easier time ascertaining the consensus. Canuck89 (Talk to me) or visit my user page 08:47, November 25, 2022 (UTC)
i saw the most to my talk page after i posted here and informed OddlyOaktree of rules around canvasing [17], they subsequently deleted a post to someone else talk page [18]—blindlynx 22:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Haudenosaunee or Iroquois

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Why does the article default to a French exonym (etic name) rather than the endonym (emic name)? If there were an article about you would you rather it be titled what you call yourself or something someone started calling you years later without your consent? 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:45D5:2A0C:E92A:9CBA (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally think the article should use "Haudenosaunee" too, as that's what the people call themselves, and it's an acceptable term for the Confederacy in English. But unfortunately "Iroquois" is the more common (much so) of the two in English today (Google Ngram), and Wikipedia doesn't seem to prefer endonyms over exonyms in its titles (See: Germany, not "Deutschland"; Japan, not "Nihon" or "Nippon"; Venice, not "Venezia"; to name a few), and WP:COMMONNAME does exist.
Given that we've gotten (not so much, but noticeably) better at recognizing the leftovers from colonialism in the U.S. in the last 3 years, I don't think 1900-2019 is great as a proxy for today's usage. Jakob Weisblat (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
However, WP:NCPLACE#General_guidelines does say that guidelines for choosing whatever name for a given place are "advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus". So in theory, if everyone agreed that it should be "Haudenosaunee" anyway, then we could change it. But there has to be consensus first. Delvethedragon (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I vote to leave it. Haudenosaunee is a redirect to this article and apprears several times in the article. Iroquois is far better known and understood. We also use common names for the six nations, rather than the endonyms. Peter Flass (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The New York Times uses Haudenosaunee these days: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/sports/indigenous-athletes-lacrosse.html Jakob Weisblat (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I’m starting to see it more and more. Maybe as it becomes more common WP should consider changing. Are there some kind of language cops who decide these things? 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Flass (talk • contribs)
The situation seems pretty similar to the KyivNotKiev campaign, where the common name is considered in some way offensive (citation: https://haudenosauneenationals.com/why-we-changed-our-name/) and the preferred name has international recognition (e.g. at The World Games) in international organizations. I would support an article name change. Zowayix001 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it's the common English term. Just like Germany is the common English term for Deutchland. Spekkios (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The name of this article really needs to be updated to Haudenosaunee, with Iroquois as a redirect. The term Iroquois is a French translation of a slur used by the Haudenosaunee's rivals meaning "Snakes".
Updating this article's name is more than just the difference between an exonym and an endonym, moreover, it's more than acknowledging the Western centrism that permeates academia. Updating the name is literally about not calling these people an actual slur.
They ARE the Haudenosaunee people. They are NOT the Iroquois.
Ref: https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Iroquois_Indians, https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/200/301/ic/can_digital_collections/curriculum/iroquois/origin.htm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSXL33JiKLY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOem_7Re5E OddlyOaktree (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Even the first article you cite mentions Haudenosaunee once and then uses Iroquois the rest of the time. It’s the Welsh vs. Cymru problem. This is English Wikipedia, and should use the most prevalent English term. A Haudenosaunee version can use the endonym. Peter Flass (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Haudenosaunee is the English word. They primarily speak English, and use it when speaking English. The word Iroquois is outdated. If Wikipedia is to be an educational resource, it needs to teach the correct word for things. The English language changes over time, and that's okay! We all have the capacity to grow with it.
Like or not, Wikipedia is a powerful resource for people looking to learn about the world. It has a duty to convey correct information. It doesn't matter how many people use the other term, if it's not the correct term, it shouldn't be used as the title. Instead, we should use discrepancies like these as an opportunity to educate.
Haudenosaunee is the correct English word now, and Wikipedia needs to adapt.
We should also be weary of word orthodoxy holding back our language. Just because we learned of a word for something in high school, does not make it the right word indefinitely. English is a descriptivist language, it has the capacity to change and adapt, and so should we. OddlyOaktree (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll also add again, that the crux of this is not exonym vs. endonym, it's that the word Iroquois is a slur. I know many of us who have used that term don't do so maliciously, we may not have even been aware of its history, but in a shared world we need to be open about learning the history and weight of the words we use, and adapt accordingly.
Moreover, let's acknowledge that the word Iroquois itself is NOT English, it's a direct loan word from French. Therefore if arguing that the English word can be the French word, there should be no issue using the Haudenosaunee word instead.
The proper English word is Haudenosaunee. OddlyOaktree (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to propose a move? Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Yuchitown (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Oh, wonderful! I'll read the instructions and get it started as soon as I have a chance. Many thanks! OddlyOaktree (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

———
Although I voted against renaming the article, I suggest changing existing articles to use both, as “Iroquois (Haudenosaunee)”, or “Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)” at least once on first occurrence. I have been doing this to some extent. I guess “Haudenosaunee” is the accepted term overall, although I think the name is written differently in each of the Six Nations’ languages. Peter Flass (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a misplaced bracket in the first sentence of paragraph 3 in the section on the American Revolution: "The American Revolution caused a great divide between the colonists between Patriots and Loyalists and a large proportion (30-35% who were neutral)" should be changed to "The American Revolution caused a great divide between the colonists between Patriots and Loyalists and a large proportion (30-35%) who were neutral" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:55f3:2700:98c9:3841:d3be:b6 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Done Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change name from “Iroquois” to “Haudenosaunee” in article title. 2607:FB91:1C7E:690:8002:FEFF:3D58:D306 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS R1A - Summer Session

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 May 2023 and 21 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maanth (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kennethshyle.

— Assignment last updated by SierraTL (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Order of names in the lead sentence

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current page puts "Five Nations" and "Six Nations" second, and "Haudenosaunee" last.

I switched the order so "Haudenosaunee" would be second, ahead of "Five Nations" and "Six Nations", with the edit summary "move official name closer to the front as it has a degree of international recognition".

User:DeCausa reverted with the edit summary "It's not "official" it's an autonym".

Since I interpreted this as not responding to the original edit summary, I unreverted with "look at the edit summary. The name is officially recognized by at least two international bodies (World Lacrosse and the IWGA), so it is not just an autonym (not just used by the Haudenosaunee themselves)".

User:DeCausa re-reverted with "World Lacrosse?? Sorry no that's not "officially". If you want to pursue this once reverted you need to take it to the talk page to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Please read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS".

My arguments:

  • The IWGA and World Lacrosse both qualify as international bodies. Recognition by them qualifies as official. The IWGA and World Lacrosse have officially recognized the Haudenosaunee by this name. It is not just an autonym.
  • Because the Haudenosaunee consider themselves a nation, and simultaneously World Lacrosse's other members are nations, it makes sense to use the "[common name], officially [official name]" phrasing the same way we do for Taiwan and South Korea. Even the US Virgin Islands (which are a World Lacrosse member but not quite a nation) uses this exact phrasing.
  • It is already consensus that Haudenosaunee is at least the second most common name. There have been numerous discussions for moving the article to Haudenosaunee, none for Five Nations or Six Nations. The latter two don't even redirect here unambiguously.
  • WP:ONUS is about including or omitting information from an article. This change neither adds nor removes any information from the article.

Zowayix001 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Zowayix001: you're confusing two issues which aren't actually related: the order of the alternative names and saying that the name is "officially" Haudenosaunee. I don't have a problem with and am neutral on the order of the alternative names: if you want to move Haudenosaunee ahead of 5/6 Nations, that's fine.
However, Haudenosaunee is not an "official" name. There's always uncertainty about when something is or isn't "official" in Wikipedia, but normally it's when there is some governmental or statutory imprimatur. How private sports bodies use the name isn't relevant. "Official" names are recorded at the U.S. Department of the Interior's list of Federally Recognized Tribes here. There's no official name for the Iroquois - only the constituent tribes because it is a confederation. There is therefore no "official" name - only common usage such as autonyms. Also, per WP:LEAD, it would need to be discussed in the body of the article that it is an "official" name, which it isn't. Only it's use as an autonym is mentioned.
So go ahead and change the order, but I suggest leaving the description as an autonym. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Date of Creation of the Confederacy

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The second paragraph of the introduction states that, "The Confederacy came about as a result of the Great Law of Peace ..." I added a [when?] tag to this statement. I understand that in situations such as these it is impossible to give a precise date. Nonetheless, I think that some sort of explanation is needed here, something along the lines of "The date has not been historically established." Robert Dominik (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of dates

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a point in the second paragraph where it talks about the formation of the confederacy but doesn't give any inclination of when this could've been. Also there is a link that says "When?" right after it which takes the reader to nothing. The article is written well and non biased and just gives a general overview of the Iroquois. AedanHopper (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iroquois/Archive_1&oldid=1244538944"