Talk:Iroquois

Mohawk Hairstyle

I see no coverage in the main article regarding the "mohawk" hairstyle of the Iroquois. I tried to explain to my nephew that the trend during this last decade goes back to a style introduced by the Iroquois. Is just an urban legend? Being that the mohawk hairstyle has become so culturally relavent, I would expect to see some treatment on the history (or myth). For example, was this something done only during times of war, sacred ceremonies or as a daily grooming practice? Was it limited to men or a style shared by both sexes? With all the variations on the style today, what did the original style look like? Was it spiky? Was it short? Was it of a consistent width or tapered from to back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.249.184.239 (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

1142?

The article quite confidently dates the founding of the confederacy to 1142, yet the link given in support is speculative at best - I feel a more tentative wording is required here Kisch (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of non mainstream sourced material

I'd like to point out that some of the material added to the article today was obtained from a source that many would consider controversial in nature and may not meet Wikipedia's requirement's regarding "reliable sources" WP:RELY. Autonomedia, the publishing source for some of the material I'm concerned about, are described as "publishers of radical theoretical works", a claim which is supported on their own website. Although sometimes appropriate for use as a reference in articles regarding themselves or related topics, material obtained from a fringe publisher is not usually appropriate for use as a general source for other articles. This isn't to say, that some of the issues being broached by today's additions are not appropriate, but because this is an encyclopedia based on 'mainstream' sources, additions must be supported by references from non-controversial sources. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m assuming that you are talking about this [1] edit. It seems like to me that the issue of reliability of a published source rests first not with the publisher (especially if you are just relying on a wikipedia article about the publisher) but with the author. In this case the author is Sally Roesch Wagner who according to this site [2] held an academic position for 37 years in an area, women’s studies, that is related to the material sourced to her in this article.

As far as the material itself, it seems consistent with (if more detailed than) what I have read elsewhere. I did a quick comparison with Alan Taylor’s “The Divided Ground” (publisher Knopf) and the women’s role in land ownership, declaring war, and treaties is consistent with Wagner’s work. Are there some parts of the material that you find to be controversial or wildly inconsistent with other sources?

In any event, tagging the entire article for possible problems in one section seems to be an over-reaction. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on the tag being too much. I'm the editor behind the addition in question, and I can assure you both that Wagner employs copious original reports from the 19th century in her chapter of the (questioned, questionable) book of collected essays. Many early Anglo-American observers of the Iroquois are cited by Wagner, with perhaps the greatest proportion of cites taken from the papers of radical feminist Matilda Joslyn Gage, famous for helping write the now-standard-text History of Woman Suffrage with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Here, in the reference chapter that I used, Wagner doesn't do much synthesizing of others' work; instead, she frames selected quotes with what would have been going on in the area at the time. The quotes themselves drive the edits I made to this article, so it was a mere convenience to use Wagner as my cited source. Otherwise, I would have been citing a half dozen primary sources, a practice that is discouraged. I feel strongly that the edits I made today are in line with accurate-as-we-can-get observations made of Iroquois practices, though what's presented here are not the things that a man of that day would normally have noticed, and thus not the things transmitted for many decades in standard study materials about the Haudenosaunee. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the dubious sources tag and added a small section describing the role of women in 19th century Iroquois life, again using Sally Roesch Wagner as the source. This researcher's credentials are good. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take note that contrary to your responses, in my original posting here, I did not challenge Dr. Wagner's work, nor her notability as a scholar regarding aspects of Haudenosaunee culture. That's why I didn't challenge or remove the material that was added, which I would have, had I been concerned about her scholarship. As I pointed out, my specific concern was with the publishing company Autonomedia, the source of the material being cited and provided through a link to Google Books. I don't think that particular company makes any pretence at all toward being a source of "neutral" or "mainstream" scholarship, as I pointed out in my earlier posting, on either their own website, or through any other source I was able to locate. My reading of WP:SOURCES indicates to me that because of that, their publications are considered undesirable in general as a source of references to support material in the encyclopedia; apart from instances where that company itself or related topics are being written about. Except in blatant cases where the meaning of the material itself in an article is jeopardized, because of my own cultural biases, I'm personally disinclined toward immediately making changes in the encyclopedia in situations like this. Personally, as a mark of respect, I would much rather add a template in the hope that a dialogue might occur and the original contributing editor is provided with the opportunity to make the changes themselves if they choose to, if that's an "overreaction", then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. I'll take a few moments and track down a source for the material that is more in keeping with my interpretation of Wiki policy. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This source looks more appropriate in my opinion, but I'll leave it younger abler minds to add it if they choose to. I'm afraid the intricacies of slipping this into multiple reference locations escapes me at the moment: Wagner, Sally Roesch. “The Iroquois Influence on Women's Rights” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithica, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 115. onen Deconstructhis (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then vs. Now -- what's the focus?

This article seems split between describing the Iroquois as they were during the first era of European contact and as they are now. There are descriptions of Iroquois government and cultural practices which don't specify which time frame is being described. Are the Iroquois still a melting pot nation? Are they still hunters, fishers and farmers? The article might benefit from being reorganized so that early observations by whites are defined as such and separated prominently from descriptions of the people as they now stand. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A related problem is that editors have unwittingly conflated three topics: the Iroquois people, the Iroquois League, and the Iroquois Confederacy. It's like trying to write about the American people, the US Congress, and the history of the United States as if they were a single topic. If the distinctions are not understood, the article becomes unfocused.

To fix the problem, the next step, as always, would be to do some more research, a task no one has gotten very serious about here yet. Until editors start reading and citing modern scholars like Abler, Fenton, Richter, Snow, Tooker, et al., instead of mostly relying on things that just happen to be on the Internet, the article will likely remain in poor condition. —Kevin Myers 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to add Peter Wilson to the list of "famous" Iroquois. He was the first Seneca to graduate from the Geneva Medical College in Geneva, NY and was a noted orator often taking on the Assembly of the State of New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.103.69 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality / POV dispute.

The revisions made to the section on Iroquois Influence on the US Constitution is unacceptably pushing a POV. The previous version was neutral, giving both sides impartially, and stated in part:

According to several historians, including Donald Grinde, the democratic ideals of the Gayanashagowa provided a significant inspiration to Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other framers of the United States Constitution. John Rutledge of South Carolina in particular is said to have read lengthy tracts of Iroquoian law to the other framers, beginning with the words "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."

The Congress of the United States passed Concurrent Resolution 331 in October 1988, specifically recognizing the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. A 2004 State Department website also cites research compiled by the Smithsonian Institution acknowledging the influence of the Iroquois Constitution on the U.S. Framers, as well as the differences.

This is not, as the editor stated, giving 'undue weight to a minority argument'. The sources that give this history are too numerous to mention. As Margaret Green Devereaux writes in The land and the people: An American Heritage (1974) p. 42, It is a matter of record that, at the first meeting to formulate our Constitution, Rutledge read aloud from the Constitution of the Iroquois... Richard Barry's 1971 biography of Mr. Rutledge, p. 336, gives a full account of this event, which occurred July 27, 1787, and began with him quoting the words "We the people" from a parchment of Iroquois law.

It is true that there is also a school of thought of modern revisionists who have been vehement in attempting to deny or suppress the fact that anyone at the Constitutional Convention ever mentioned the Iroquois. But if there is any "undue weight", it is in the current version which is totally skewed in pushing one POV while marginalizing the other school of thought. Therefore I am nominating this for a neutrality check.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is a completely false – not to mention blatantly POV – characterization of the current state of scholarly opinion of the so-called Iroquois Influence Thesis. The error perhaps results from the fact that pro-Thesis material is readily available on the Internet, while the rebuttal to that material is in scholarly journals and in books written by academics, and often accessible only through university libraries. Anyone familiar with the literature on the topic will know that, until my recent changes, the article misrepresented the debate. Here's a brief history of the Influence Thesis for those who have not read the literature.

Beginning in the late 19th century, a handful of scholars familiar with the Iroquois wrote that the Iroquois League had an influence on the ideas of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and in particular the United States Constitution. The subject was not dealt with at length until Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen began publishing (together and separately) books and articles on the topic in the 1970s. The Influence Thesis was strikingly revisionist, since standard histories of the US Constitution made little or no mention of the Iroquois. The Thesis became popular in the 1980s, culminating with the well-known congressional resolution in 1988 during the bicentennial of the US Constitution.

By that time, however, serious questions about the Influence Thesis were being raised in scholarly journals. The debate was waged primarily in the pages of Ethnohistory (late 1980s) and the William and Mary Quarterly (mid 1990s). Among the various objections to the Influence Thesis, opponents argued that the Founding Fathers were not knowledgeable enough about the Iroquois League to have borrowed ideas from them, and that Grinde and Johansen misrepresented or exaggerated references to the Iroquois in the historical record in order to make their case. The most notable opponent of the Thesis was probably Elisabeth Tooker, an anthropologist who had published extensively on the Iroquois. Tooker went so far as to characterize Grinde and Johansen's work as an "elaborate hoax."

By the late 1990s, most of the leading academic scholars of the Iroquois and the US Constitution (two very different groups) seem to have decided that the Influence Thesis had been debunked, although as Daniel Richter lamented, they all faced being labeled as racists for having rejected the Thesis as a modern myth. Specialists in Iroquois studies who joined Tooker in rejecting the Influence Thesis in the 1990s included Aquila, Fenton, Jennings, Richter, Snow, and Starna, all of whom had written major academic works on the Iroquois. Outside of Iroquois studies, the number of prominent academics who rejected the Thesis is too numerous to mention; restricting the list to just Pulitzer Prize winners would include names like Ellis, Fischer, McDougall, Rakove, Schlesinger, and Wood.

Although most support for the Influence Thesis has come from people who are not professional historians or anthropologists, Grinde and Johansen have had some supporters within academia, the most notable probably being Vine Deloria, Jr. and Ward Churchill. Grinde and Johansen believe that the Thesis has not been debunked, and continue to publish books and articles on the subject. They view themselves as doing battle against the academic establishment.

All of this is not to suggest that one side is right and the other wrong. Our job here is to accurately describe the debate in a neutral way, and not, like Til Eulenspiegel has done, choose sides. The question is: does the article accurately describe the current state of the controversy? It does now; it did not previously. —Kevin Myers 04:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PS—the John Rutledge anecdote cited above is apparently spurious, and seems to have originated with an unreferenced biography of Rutledge that the American National Biography has called "totally unreliable". Even Grinde and Johansen treat the story with caution, pointedly saying that Rutledge is "reported" to have read Iroquois law to the Constitutional Convention. Apparently there are no primary sources that support the claim. —Kevin Myers 04:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The alleged Rutledge quote of Iroquois law is widely mentioned outside of wikipedia, in fact extensively covered, and it deserves to be mentioned here as well, not simply brushed under the carpet without mention because you have singly made a determination that it is "apparently spurious". But if you have any published source specifically disputing it, it can be used to verify that this claim is disputed. Here is one of the books that have been written specifically on the question:

"Richard Barry, Rutledge's most recent biographer, states that, according to family lore, Rutledge was imbued with Iroquois political theory from the time of the Stamp Act. Unfortunately, most of John Rutledge's papers were destroyed in a house fire in the nineteenth century. Rutledge probably was bringing up some of the points about American Indian government that Adams had discussed in his Defence. Thomas Jefferson had also written Rutledge on the vices of European government and the virtues of American Indian governments, see Thomas Jefferson to John Rutledge, August 6, 1787, in Boyd, ed., Jefferson Papers, XI, p. 701."

Source: Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy by Donald Grinde, Professor of American Indian History at UCLA, and Bruce Johansen, faculty prof at U. of Nebraska. According to them, two of the most vocal detractors who have tried to minimize or suppress any connection the Constitution Drafters may have had with the Iroquois Nation, have been Patrick Buchanan and George Will. NPOV calls on us to present the sides of the dispute neutrally, but your version has a distinctly discernible "point of view" on the subject, and tries to paint itself as "mainstream", using your skewed interpretation of "Undue Weight" as a pretext.

You have also unilaterally made another determination, that the history of Washington's treatment of the Iroquois is "irrelevant" to this topic, as an excuse to "whitewash" a fact that is obviously quite relevant and 100% on topic, but perhaps you are really uncomfortable with it being mentioned for some other reason. You should not be bypassing all of the other editors here who have worked hard on that, and single-handedly determine for everyone else that something important like this has no relevance and may not be mentioned here. I would like to know if a consensus here agrees with you that George Washington's history with the Iroquois should have been just blanked out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your every comment about the Influence Thesis reveals your lack of familiarity with sources other than the much-disputed work of Grinde & Johansen that happens to be available on the Internet. You cannot possibly know what the "mainstream" opinions are if you have not read them. Until you familiarize yourself with the literature, there's no reason to comment further on that topic. The scholars have already argued the specific points years ago; it is not our job to refight that battle. Our job is to briefly and accurately summarize the arguments of the scholars, not to cherry pick points (like the Rutledge anecdote) that we think might be significant. I'm not sure that you understand the role of a Wikipedia editor.

Your charge that Washington's history with the Iroquois has been "blanked out" is yet another mischaracterization. His role in ordering the Sullivan expedition is mentioned in article; I added his Town Destroyer nickname to the "see also" list. The part I removed was an inaccurate, essay-like paragraph with children's book statements such as: "While this action by General Washington helped win the war and earn him the familiar nickname 'Father of Our Country', it also earned him another, less flattering moniker." If you read the Town Destroyer article (which I wrote years ago and ought to revise) you'll see the shortcomings of this statement. More should be added to this article about Washington's relationship with the Iroquois, but it should be accurate information added by someone familiar with the sources.

To challenge the accuracy of an article without having first done your homework is to discourteously waste the time of your fellow Wikipedians. I am willing and eager to discourse with knowledgeable editors about how to improve this article—Lord knows there's much to be done—but to you I shall say no more. Best wishes! —Kevin Myers 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Our job is to briefly and accurately summarize the arguments of the scholars, not to cherry pick points (like the Rutledge anecdote) that we think might be significant." Ha ha! I love the way you off-handedly dismiss the extensive debate about Mr. Rutledge! There is so much material and debate there, it might well deserve a dedicated article! Not to cherry-pick points, indeed! I know the role of a Wikipedia editor well; it isn't to ignore huge volumes of debate with a summary "this is what the 'mainstream' thinks. Now move along, nothing else to see." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

This is clearly a ongoing debate ....I do believe that it should be mentioned in the article..in the proper context. In the article Native Americans in the United States this was a long copy edit fight....the conclusion of that copy edit fight was this statement.......That i believe is still not neutral enough

The Iroquois League of Nations or "People of the Long House" was a politically advanced and unique social structure that was at the very least inspirational if not directly influential on the later development of the democratic United States government, a departure from the strong monarchies from which the Europeans came. The article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page after this conclusion.

Now keep in mind that the copy edit war was 3 years ago and from what i can see here the over all view may have changed ....but never the less i do believe mention of it or the argument over it should be included.

just my two cent as i see this is going to go on if we dont get more opinions or simply tackle the problem in the article stating that is an ongoing academic debate. like in the article Models of migration to the New World Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the wording of the article|section all by itself about the Thesis tells me that it's decidedly, and pointedly, POV-pushing. It lists the points about the influence as a 'controversy' and doesn't give it a fair hearing. Neither does it allow for the possibility that it's correct. It sets up this information as crazy or crackpot, then shows how this is so. That is very not neutral. The language is not neutral.

About the larger point, though: Native Americans in general influenced many thinkers during this period, as can be seen in the writings of Rousseau and others in the Enlightenment who discussed man in the "state of nature." They were frequently speaking about the Native Americans that were doing things very differently than the Europeans who were writing about them. There's more that could be said about this, but that's the gist of it. Hires an editor (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

if you want an extensive debate go here.

I feel like this section is discussing whether or not the iroquois influenced representative development in the United States. That is not the claim made by the Iroquois - they claim that they invented divided government or the Balance of Powers in the Clan Mother System. This claim should be at least mentioned in this section... (Eric James Wolf (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC))

Small change I can't make that another can?

Can someone please change the grammatical error in the "beaver war" section?

"Beginning in 1609, the League engaged in the Beaver Wars with the French and their Iroquoian-speaking Huron allies. They also put great pressure on the Algonquian peoples of the Atlantic coast and what is now the boreal Canadian Shield region of Canada and not infrequently fought the English colonies as well. During the seventeenth century, they were said to have exterminated the Neutral Nation.[21][22] and Erie Tribe to the west. The wars were a way t control the lucrative fur trade,[citation needed] although additional reasons are often given for these wars."

to

"Beginning in 1609, the League engaged in the Beaver Wars with the French and their Iroquoian-speaking Huron allies. They also put great pressure on the Algonquian peoples of the Atlantic coast and what is now the boreal Canadian Shield region of Canada and not infrequently fought the English colonies as well. During the seventeenth century, they were said to have exterminated the Neutral Nation.[21][22] and Erie Tribe to the west. The wars were a way to control the lucrative fur trade,[citation needed] although additional reasons are often given for these wars."

It's a minor edit that i can not do. Since I am locked out of the article. GeneralChoomin (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. —Kevin Myers 09:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Same problem, please can anyone change the text in infobox? Someone used probably too much <br>, it should be all in one sentence. Thx --Wowee Yowee Zowee (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Iroquois"

The pronuncation given in this article shows ['ɪrəˌkwoɪ]. I suspect that this is an American convention, as I was taught in school (in Canada) to pronounce it, in and merely a bilingually conscious revisionism. Nevertheless, it is the more accurate, considering the geographic context of these peoples. Shouldn't both of these pronunciations the given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.235.134 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the discussion section works, but the pronunciation is eer-uh-koi, not eer-uh-kwoi. The 'qu' here is read as in French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.34.24 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The way to represent the correct French pronunciation for readers of English might be Ee-ro-kwah. It can be pronounced as in French, and I've also heard the English pronunciation Eer-uh-kwoy or Eer-uh-kwoyz. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the aforementioned French pronunciation as it is common in schools in both Québec and Ontario. WesJensen (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern Government

Considering the Six-nations are a current nation with a current government should'nt it use the Country infobox not the ethnic group infobox? If not shouldn't there be a seperate article for the Six-nations Confederacy?--70.49.186.37 (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mighty warriors

The Iroquois were mighty warriors and in the course of creating their trade empire wiped out several other tribes (I think the modern term is genocide).

Are we going to include a list of the tribes the Iroquois removed from the gene pool?Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the challenge is to find acceptable sources, preferably highly scholarly sources. And what are the chances these peoples were absorbed more than systematically killed off? Smkolins (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First, you will have to come up w a (useable) definition of genocide. Most people agree it is genocide if you kill everybody. Then it starts to get murky. Is it genocide if you use the bible method: Kill everyone except young women past puberty who can prove they are virgin? What if you try and don't have 100% success? 10% success? I will accept any definition you can come up w, even if the rest of wiki disagrees, as long as it is internally consistent and can be used in this article.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No - you mis-understand. It's not up to us to say something is or isn't. It's what informed opinion says. If you find a credible source saying the Iroquois carried out genocide then it's worth considering. Personal opinion and baseless extrapolation are not allowed in Wikipedia. That's why we use citations. Smkolins (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

An oft-cited scholarly article on this topic is:

• Blick, Jeffrey P. "The Iroquois Practice of Genocidal Warfare (1534-1787)." Journal of Genocide Research 3, vol. 3 (2001): 405-429.

I haven't read it, though I've read authors who've cited it. I suspect that Smkolins's point is correct: the Iroquois absorbed tribes rather than "removing them from the gene pool". Historians once thought that the "Beaver Wars" were about economics, but now the idea is that the wars were waged to replace population. After the Iroquois lost a huge number of people to European diseases, they attacked enemy tribes and forcibly assimilated the survivors to replace those lost to disease. This process is talked about in other modern scholarly sources, which have not really been consulted for this article yet. —Kevin Myers 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Like

• Levene, Mark (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: The rise of the West and the coming of genocide: Volume 2 of Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. I.B.Tauris. pp. 63–68. ISBN 9781845111953. http://books.google.com/books?id=3PsLXeDflfMC&lpg=PA417&ots=DOhr1R1SlC&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Barr, Daniel P. (2006). Unconquered: the Iroquois League at war in colonial America. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275984663. http://books.google.com/books?id=vi1ROx0PmI4C&source=gbs_navlinks_s. 
• Parmenter, Jon (2007). "After the Mourning Wars: The Iroquois as Allies in Colonial North American Campaigns, 1676–1760". The William and Mary Quarterly 64 (01). http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/64.1/parmenter.html. 
• Candice, Campbell (2008). Cultural Aspects of Warfare: The Iroquois Institution of the Mourning War. . Citations; LaGrange College: Undergraguate Research Journal (LaGrange College) 2008. http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations08/CULTURALASPECTSOFWARFARE.pdf. 

Smkolins (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The proper passport for Iroquois people living in the USA

THIS is the proper passport for overseas travel, Haudenosaunee... that's what Uncle Sam says anyhow.

68.36.120.7 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now also making news in the UK: [3]. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

modern Iroquois

Apparently the Iroquois have passports, which indicates they have a modern government, yet there is no mention of that in here. perhaps there needs to be a separate article on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Haudenosaunee have had their own passports since the 1920's. Here is a picture of it http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/17/sports/LACROSSE2/LACROSSE2-popup.jpg. It some real bullshit that this happened to them. "That broader issue of the validity of tribal passports — which experts in American Indian law say have been allowed for international travel for several decades, even if the letter of the law forbids them to be used as replacements for United States passports — remains unresolved. " (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/sports/17lacrosse.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.8.196 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That picture is of a modern passport issued since 1977.[4]. As far as I can tell, the modern passports are produced by the Onondaga Nation http://www.onondaganation.org/ and the Iroquois Nationals also started there, rather than being something from a central Iroquois government.--Rumping (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The first three paragraphs of the section "Wampum" are plagiarized from a museum website. By hosting this content, for almost 2 years, isn't Wikimedia openly sanctioning plagiarism?64.250.228.220 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As this had been ignored for almost two weeks, I have removed the entire section "Wampum". Since most of the content within it was plagiarized from here (a page published in 1998 on the website of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History) and it laid the foundation for the last paragraph, I removed the content in full. Erasing only the plagiarized content would take the remaining content out of context.64.250.228.220 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it not have been better to rewrite it? NevarMaor (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel like doing so right now. We already have an article on wampum, and it is linked to in an image caption within the article. It would be nice to have a sentence that mentions it, so that it can be linked from the main (text) content of the article, but no section on wampum is particularly necessary, so I saw no need to rewrite it.64.250.228.220 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

George Armstrong

I see George Armstrong listed as a prominent Iroquoian yet on the George Armstrong page he is listed as Irish-Algonquin. That page lists a source (http://www.homeoftheleafs.com/players/armstrong.php). Considering his birthplace (north of Sudbury) is traditional Algonquin territory, it seems likely he is Algonquin. If correct, he should be removed from the list. NevarMaor (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Iroquoian maple syrup

In item 3.2 (Food) it's not accurate to state that the Iroquois tapped maple syrup from trees. The stuff that flows out of sugar maple trees is sap, which must be reduced to edible syrup by heating or boiling, a process that takes several hours. Musicwriter (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Post War

Everything after Wisconsin in the next to last sentence and the entire last sentence should be deleted as an out an out lie.

I have removed it, mainly since the article Indian removal says different. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for alternate etymology of the word "Huron"

Hello Wikipedia Gatekeepers,

My proposed Wikipedia edit will use the source material from the p.24 of the book, Celebrating 150 Years: Huron County, Michigan 1859-2009.

This was taken from my notes while reading the book:

Irri-ronan - one of the tribe's names for themselves (I failed to note the tribal meaning, but it's in the source material, and will be cited in the proposed edit)

Hirri-onon - the French introduced the initial "H" and drop an "R" from the word.

Hirr-on - more French influence in the pronunciation

Huron - the final French variant spelling of Irri-ronan

Thank you for your consideration, Steve Kubacki www.StephenKubacki.com

Stevekubacki (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What does the etymology of the word "Huron" have to do with an article about the "Iroquois"? Plus, I would generally trust a specific work on the history of the Huron or Iroquois for specific name meanings and language histories over a generalized history of a county in Michigan(which happens to share that name) by the local historical society. Also, please do not sign with your personal website, etc. Sign with ~~~~ and the software will automatically add your acct nanme or IP address and time and date stamp the message, per our policy on signing posts. Heiro 22:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve, you might want to move your comment to Talk:Wyandot people. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disrespect Towards First Nations

I believe that to use the name "Iroquois" is disrespectful. The correct name for these people, as they call themselves, is "Haudenosaunee," or People of the Long House. Iroquois is a name they were called by hostile clans, and it means "Dirty Black Snake." Also, using the term "Indian" in reference to the First Nations is also disrespectful. As many wiki users are from out of country, you may not understand that these terms are offensive. Please respect the views of the First nations and what their name for themselves, please.

Gamblerkid (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for what happens in Canada, but in the US the word 'Indian' is not considered generally considered offensive by Native Americans. The Six Nations Council's web page uses the name Iroquois, are they being insulting? See [5]. And if the Asssembly of First Nations speaks for Canadian Indians, as I assume they do, if the word is offensive why do they use it? See [6] " Assembly of First Nations and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians" to host... etc. We have an article on this by the way, Native American name controversy. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)