This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iroquois article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haudenosaunee is the correct term to refer, us, the Haudenosaunee as. The term Iroquois is deep rooted in prejudice, colonial, imperial racist, oppression and discrimination. It is a derogatory term from an Algonquin language origin that has been forced on Haudenosaunee to accept and be officially recognized as, as well as call themselves. Continuing to force the acceptance of this term is no less harmful than the practices of the forced assimilation school. I'm not completely comfortable with this compromise/suggestion but maybe adding in (formaly/erroneously known as Iroquois) could appease those arguing "Well Iroquois is the accepted term now." In the corrected article. It is unacceptable to refer to a people in dderogatory lexicon. Allowing the term to remain as is, is quite literally the same as allowing antisemtic terms to be used on the official title page as Jews/Hebrews/Israeli. Onyoruba ( talk) 02:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
If Haudenosaunee is what they call themselves, and Iroquois is a slur, then yes we should update this. When is it ever acceptable to hold on to slurs because 'thats what we've always called them'? With that logic we'd still be using some pretty racist slurs wouldn't we? Maybe we should take seriously what the Haudenosaunee would like to be referred to rather than telling them what we'd like to call them because we are too lazy to learn a new word. Sammmmmmm7 ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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:
Zowayix001 ( talk) 03:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add map of modern recognized tribal boundaries in the 'Modern Communities' section. I wrote this:
{{maplink|frame=yes|type=shape|text=[[Indian_reserve_(disambiguation)|Recognized lands]] of modern Iroquois communities.| id= Q7856707, Q16243155, Q110904219, Q7093670, Q7094494, Q7959850, Q22951104, Q3457190, Q424379, Q3192630, Q7093666, Q7093671}} Rspln ( talk) 02:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Citation 61 (regarding Michael Varhol's statement about Iroquois being victims of themselves) is very broken and does not give a straight link to whatever the source is.There needs to be clearer citations that are NOT broken. Editor in chief(edited) ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There are no significant changes to the arguments since the 2022 discussion, and in fact there was only less support this time around. My recommendation is that we wait five years before considering this again; at that point it will perhaps be clearer whether there has been a definitive shift in the common name. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Iroquois → Haudenosaunee – The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. As mentioned in similar discussions, no one Wikipedia policy is absolute. Just because a name sees more common usage in general does not mean it should be retained as the title of the article. Consider, more broadly, terms like "Indian" and "Indigenous". Haudenosaunee has been the name preferred by governmental institutions, academic institutions, news organisations, and the Haudenosaunee themselves, for years. In other words, Haudenosaunee is the common name amongst reliable sources. Here are some examples below:
Yue 🌙 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I challenge others to find reliable sources to the contraryThat's simple to do (for example, Britannica), but proves nothing for the same reason that your list of sources proves nothing;
demonstrating that does not prove that a majority of sources do so.
This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities, and tribes. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming. This guideline explains how to handle cases where this format is not obvious, or for one reason or other is not followed.
Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English.
In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, and in even looking only at the line you are referring to (
If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.), I don't think that a 1:7 ratio is sufficient to meet
commonly used. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
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.- Iroquois is slightly more common among the best sources, but the autonym is
commonly used in Englishand Iroquois is
regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question.
Today’s Oneida Nation of the Thames is a flourishing and vibrant Iroquois community. The Oneida Nation of the Thames, like other Iroquois Nation’s is a sovereign independent Nation. [5] This illustrates that the self-identification argument is flawed. DeCausa ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can someone add a link to " /info/en/?search=Sachem" where the article mentions "but most notably when a hoyane (sachem) died" under the heading Spiritual Beliefs. 888Jazzy888 ( talk) 10:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "...while he English simply called them the "Five Nations" to "...while the English simply called them the "Five Nations" in the introduction of the page. The "he" should be replaced with a "the" because there is a typo and it does not make sense by saying "he English" when it should be "the English" 198.137.18.154 ( talk) 05:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the official Haudenosaunee page and they said something that directly conflicts with some information on this page. Mainly "It is she who appoints the title which cannot be carried hereditarily through the male line."( https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/government/). The article says that the chiefs are hereditary, but no source was cited. I would edit this page but I cannot.
Just trying to clear up a mistake. 88.115.165.69 ( talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The chiefs can inherit title through their mother's line, or less often from the clan they belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.72.78 ( talk) 17:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The section detailing slavery seems to be kind relying heavily on one scholar, Leeland Donald, who held a rather unique view of the importance of slavery among North American indigenous people. I notice that the bulk of this section (which seems awfully long relative to the rest of the article) seems to rely on Donald's work. I think it should be trimmed down (the article is not an appropriate place to portray one scholar's theory as fact) if there are no additional supporting sources. I also think that the controversial nature of Donald's work should be reflected in this section if it is to rely so heavily on him. See here (direct pdf) https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/185291/184642/192469 2605:B100:31B:68D0:2442:3485:492D:3655 ( talk) 00:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iroquois article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haudenosaunee is the correct term to refer, us, the Haudenosaunee as. The term Iroquois is deep rooted in prejudice, colonial, imperial racist, oppression and discrimination. It is a derogatory term from an Algonquin language origin that has been forced on Haudenosaunee to accept and be officially recognized as, as well as call themselves. Continuing to force the acceptance of this term is no less harmful than the practices of the forced assimilation school. I'm not completely comfortable with this compromise/suggestion but maybe adding in (formaly/erroneously known as Iroquois) could appease those arguing "Well Iroquois is the accepted term now." In the corrected article. It is unacceptable to refer to a people in dderogatory lexicon. Allowing the term to remain as is, is quite literally the same as allowing antisemtic terms to be used on the official title page as Jews/Hebrews/Israeli. Onyoruba ( talk) 02:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
If Haudenosaunee is what they call themselves, and Iroquois is a slur, then yes we should update this. When is it ever acceptable to hold on to slurs because 'thats what we've always called them'? With that logic we'd still be using some pretty racist slurs wouldn't we? Maybe we should take seriously what the Haudenosaunee would like to be referred to rather than telling them what we'd like to call them because we are too lazy to learn a new word. Sammmmmmm7 ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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:
Zowayix001 ( talk) 03:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add map of modern recognized tribal boundaries in the 'Modern Communities' section. I wrote this:
{{maplink|frame=yes|type=shape|text=[[Indian_reserve_(disambiguation)|Recognized lands]] of modern Iroquois communities.| id= Q7856707, Q16243155, Q110904219, Q7093670, Q7094494, Q7959850, Q22951104, Q3457190, Q424379, Q3192630, Q7093666, Q7093671}} Rspln ( talk) 02:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Citation 61 (regarding Michael Varhol's statement about Iroquois being victims of themselves) is very broken and does not give a straight link to whatever the source is.There needs to be clearer citations that are NOT broken. Editor in chief(edited) ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There are no significant changes to the arguments since the 2022 discussion, and in fact there was only less support this time around. My recommendation is that we wait five years before considering this again; at that point it will perhaps be clearer whether there has been a definitive shift in the common name. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Iroquois → Haudenosaunee – The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. As mentioned in similar discussions, no one Wikipedia policy is absolute. Just because a name sees more common usage in general does not mean it should be retained as the title of the article. Consider, more broadly, terms like "Indian" and "Indigenous". Haudenosaunee has been the name preferred by governmental institutions, academic institutions, news organisations, and the Haudenosaunee themselves, for years. In other words, Haudenosaunee is the common name amongst reliable sources. Here are some examples below:
Yue 🌙 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I challenge others to find reliable sources to the contraryThat's simple to do (for example, Britannica), but proves nothing for the same reason that your list of sources proves nothing;
demonstrating that does not prove that a majority of sources do so.
This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities, and tribes. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming. This guideline explains how to handle cases where this format is not obvious, or for one reason or other is not followed.
Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English.
In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, and in even looking only at the line you are referring to (
If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.), I don't think that a 1:7 ratio is sufficient to meet
commonly used. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
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.- Iroquois is slightly more common among the best sources, but the autonym is
commonly used in Englishand Iroquois is
regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question.
Today’s Oneida Nation of the Thames is a flourishing and vibrant Iroquois community. The Oneida Nation of the Thames, like other Iroquois Nation’s is a sovereign independent Nation. [5] This illustrates that the self-identification argument is flawed. DeCausa ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can someone add a link to " /info/en/?search=Sachem" where the article mentions "but most notably when a hoyane (sachem) died" under the heading Spiritual Beliefs. 888Jazzy888 ( talk) 10:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "...while he English simply called them the "Five Nations" to "...while the English simply called them the "Five Nations" in the introduction of the page. The "he" should be replaced with a "the" because there is a typo and it does not make sense by saying "he English" when it should be "the English" 198.137.18.154 ( talk) 05:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the official Haudenosaunee page and they said something that directly conflicts with some information on this page. Mainly "It is she who appoints the title which cannot be carried hereditarily through the male line."( https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/government/). The article says that the chiefs are hereditary, but no source was cited. I would edit this page but I cannot.
Just trying to clear up a mistake. 88.115.165.69 ( talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The chiefs can inherit title through their mother's line, or less often from the clan they belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.72.78 ( talk) 17:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The section detailing slavery seems to be kind relying heavily on one scholar, Leeland Donald, who held a rather unique view of the importance of slavery among North American indigenous people. I notice that the bulk of this section (which seems awfully long relative to the rest of the article) seems to rely on Donald's work. I think it should be trimmed down (the article is not an appropriate place to portray one scholar's theory as fact) if there are no additional supporting sources. I also think that the controversial nature of Donald's work should be reflected in this section if it is to rely so heavily on him. See here (direct pdf) https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/185291/184642/192469 2605:B100:31B:68D0:2442:3485:492D:3655 ( talk) 00:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)