Jump to content

Talk:Iroquois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.Support correction

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jew is undoubtedly the neural term for a person who may be described by that word. If someone uses a different word for "Jew" while describing any such person from the time of the Persian. Empire onwards, they're probably being antisemitic. The same can't be said (with adjustment of the time period) for the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois. Animal lover |666| 18:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can definitely be said that a slur used without malice by a majority group against a minority group is still a slur. That's how slurs always work. And it can be said doubly for an educational organization that is given a correction and chooses to ignore it because education should happen "maybe some day, but not today" (as Sceptre explained in 2022). That summary from last year was eloquent in its defense of ignorance.
There are plenty of people who study this for a living and hold respected academic, cultural, and elected positions that have told us with certainty what the modern terms are in English. Here, for example, is the official English Language Arts curriculum for NY's public schools, developed by elders, educators, museum curators, and government officials inside of the relevant territories. https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/education/videos/haudenosaunee-or-iroquois
Like many of you, I was not taught many things in my era. That does not mean my ignorance trumps moder education. Let's use modern, reputable sources to guide our content decision. Let's not put it to a consensus vote of anonymous editors who provide nothing but a betrayal of their own lack of education. Rtothemean (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we should go by the personal opinion of one anonymous editor who's made all of one edit to Wikipedia instead? DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shared a citation to government-approved educational materials developed for English instruction by a museum, teachers, officials, and representatives of the nations the article is about that makes it clear what the expert consensus is. What did your comment contribute? Rtothemean (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentum ad hominem. 142.126.136.203 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Stewpot (TᴳRᴴAᴼIˢNᵀ) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Issues

[edit]

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)[reply]

The reference is from a book review on a fan site. The book itself is listed as non-fiction, but neither goog nor worldcat have any record of it, so I removed the citation. Possibly the statements need other references, but I think they're unexceptional enough that maybe not. Peter Flass (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2023

[edit]
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: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Oppose, per arguments from last years request, which appear to remain applicable. I'll note that presenting individual examples, as the nominator has done, is not convincing; no one disputes that some sources use Haudenosaunee, and demonstrating that does not prove that a majority of sources do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Last year, I said that "at the moment", the common name remained Iroquois. A Google Trends search indicates that when only one of the two terms is used, it's overwhelmingly Iroquois; note that doing it this way does exclude causes like "Haudenosaunee, also known as Iroquois". There was a temporary spike in usage of Haudenosaunee in late June during the 2023 World Lacrosse Championship, but sources went right back to using Iroquois as soon as as the lacrosse team was done playing. O.N.R. (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I probably should have prefaced my proposal with a response to existing counter-arguments as I have usually done. I have read through the previous move discussion but will not cite it because the previous nominator's argument was different in justification and the discussion itself was tainted by non-policy based arguments and strawmen as a consequence of out-of-site recruitment. Please respond to this proposal's arguments and assertions, not those of past proposals.
My response to those who support a strong reading of WP:COMMONNAME is that the common name by reliable sources is Haudenosaunee, not Iroquois. I am not asserting that Haudenosaunee is more commonly used than Iroquois amongst the general population or in everyday discussions – and, consequently, web searches and general web results. I myself grew up in Canada learning the name "Iroquois", as I did "Indian" and "Aboriginal". The list that I compiled above is not random, they are the reliable sources that most regularly mention the Haudenosaunee. If you view other articles by those institutions, they will consistently use Haudenosaunee; the linked articles and documents are just examples. Most reliable sources predominantly use either "Haudenosaunee" or "Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)". I challenge others to find reliable sources to the contrary, as that would be one possible counter to my assertion and argument.
My argument is similar to those who advocated a move from Kiev to Kyiv three years ago. Kiev was and still is the more widely used variant in the English language. Although Kyiv has been catching up, it still is not the common name in general use. However, most reliable sources cited by the article and which discussed the topic had begun switching to Kyiv consistently. It was also the name adopted officially, hence the argument that using an abandoned common name would be incorrect even if most readers knew the topic by that name.
I find the argument that we should wait for the name to catch on generally, that is including amongst unreliable sources, to be non-sensical. I make a distinction in weight(ed value) between the continued use an exonym by an external person who may be unaware of an existing endonym and the use of an endonym by an informed external institution that is often cited as a reliable source per Wikipedia's policy standards. Yue🌙 05:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge others to find reliable sources to the contrary That'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.
For a broader review that doesn't introduce cherry picking issues, see ngrams, which shows that Iroquois is used seven times more often than Haudenosaunee. BilledMammal (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
based on wp:NCET it doesn't matter which is is more common as long as the antonym is commonly used—blindlynx 16:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that guideline tells us to ignore WP:COMMONNAME or the other aspects of WP:Article titles; I think it gives us guidance on what to do when it is unclear what title is best under our general policy on article naming. This can be seen both at the start of the guideline, which says:

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.

And at the end, which reinforces this by saying:

Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English.

In this case, the best title under our general policy on article naming is clear, and we don't need to resort to this guideline.
This guideline also says 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)[reply]
The difference in recent sources is much less pronounced, about a third (1:2ish ratio) are for 'Haudenosaunee' on gscholar for post 2019 hits and the difference is even closer when going more recent, clearly meeting 'commonly used'—see[1],[2]. I think that we should give extra weight to antonyms as long as they meet the criteria of commonly used in recent sources. Also MOS:IDENTITY is relevant here—blindlynx 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BilledMammal's 2 above posts. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, just to note that the media items cited above by Yue in their initial post are all, bar one, about the same topic: the Lacrosse team. But that's not surprising because, as first reported here in June, the Iroquois Nationals changed its name to the Haudenosaunee Nationals. The other item is reporting on an event being marked by the modern Haudenosaunee Confederacy organisation. None illustrate a change in RS usage generally. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Iroquois clearly the common name. Haudonsaunee is never mentioned without Iroquois. Reverse is not the case. Walrasiad (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A Google ngram shows that the proposed title hardly occurs in print before the 1980s, and is still far less common. The term "Haudenosaunee" seems to be a modern coinage—possibly dating to the mid-19th century, but not treated as more "correct" than "Iroquois" by anyone until quite recently, and then it seems only on the assumption that "Iroquois" must be either of colonial origin or a slur—neither of which is etymologically settled. It has yet to be shown that this trend will continue until "Haudenosaunee" becomes the common name, but it is certainly not used in historical sources, which is where everyone not belonging to the Six Nations will typically encounter them as "Iroquois", and begin searching for more information under that title. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per wp:NCET How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title it's clear from this discussion that 'Haudenosaunee' is commonly used in English while admittedly not being the common name—blindlynx 16:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ETHNICGROUP, which is clear about this: 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 English and Iroquois is regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question.
    Google ngrams can provide an interesting glimpse, but isn't something to rely on. Its data is dated (from 2019), it doesn't provide any insight about current trends, it doesn't provide any insight about what's considered derogatory, it doesn't provide any insight about which terms are used by members of the group vs. others, and it lumps together all sorts of fiction and other documents we don't actually consider reliable. If you look at Google Scholar results, which has similar limitations but at least does a better job of restricting results to what Wikipedia considers reliable, results for "Iroquois" since 2022 are 5,460; results for "Haudenosaunee" since 2022 are 4,160. That's not a big difference, and when combining it with WP:ETHNICGROUP, I have an easy time supporting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I suppose I ought to chime in here. I think at the present time "Iroquois" is more common widely understood and "Haudenosaunee" is less. I wouldn't oppose revisiting this issue in future years, to see if this situation changes. In the meantime I'm adding "Haudenosaunee" to some articles that don't use the term. Peter Flass (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the google trends and ngrams provided by above editors. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 oncamera  (talk page) 03:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ETHNICGROUP. As stated by others the community's self-identification should be the primary terminology as that is how the community refers to themselves. A good point of reference to look at when thinking about this would be the Haudenosaunee Confederacy website. The author explains how the term "Iroquois" was used by the French but that is not their self-identification. As we can see from the page and usage throughout the site the current preferred terminology for the community is Haudenosaunee and to not utilize this as the primary term is confusing when the community only refers to themselves with this title. Another source that handled this issue of terminology is the Haudenosaunee Guide for Educators written by the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. Throughout this guide the community is referred to by their preferred terminology with the guide explaining that the group is commonly known as the "Iroquois Confederacy" but still primarily uses the term Haudenosaunee for every reference of the community outside of that. Archiveghost (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians who appear to not use Haudenosaunee?[3][4] DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were formed in 1969. So more than two generations ago. Yuchitown (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown: Your point being? They are a current and active organization and have chosen not to change their name. The Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team was formed in 1983 and changed their name but the AIAI haven't. Not only that, but on the AIAI website they continue to speak of themselves as Iroquois: 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)[reply]
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 27 December 2023

[edit]

can someone add a link to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

 Not done: The word is already linked prior to that. (See WP:LINKONCE.) DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dimadick (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undone. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the chiefs hereditary?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leeland Donald/Slavery, undue weight

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iroquois&oldid=1251897005"