Talk:Onondaga people

Onondaga population

There are only about 1500 Onondaga that are members of the bands, one in ny and one in ontario. The population is nowhere near 80,000 as previously mentioned on this page. With only about 40-50% of aboriginal people living on reserve, the population off reserve is probably also around 1500.1500,1500= 3,000 Even if say the Onondaga are a huge exception to other Native nations the population would still not be more than about 7,000-8,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.210.203 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

hi

• [It appears that the fort depicted in the Onondaga article is in fact the Oneida Nation fort that Champlain attacked.]---
• [The writer is confusing the terminology of "League" with "Confederacy". The confederacy contains the five original nations with their close ally the Tuscarara Nation. The league is the alliance with numerous other Indigenous nations and some European nations.]
• [It is my understanding based on discussions with Onondaga elders that the Onondaga Nation remained neutral throughout the War for Independence. Some Onondaga men did fight against the colonists following the Willet and Van Skaik raid in 1779 on some Onondaga villages.]
• [The system of government at Onondaga is democratic, therefore, the relationship would not be "under" the chiefs. The chiefs make decisions and lead, they are not above the people, but equal with the people. If anything the people are above the chiefs according to Judy Johnson, who is a member of the Onondaga Nation.]
• [In addition to the Treaty of Canandaigua 1794 with the United States, the Haudenosaunee also made a treaty at Fort Stanwix (in ruins at the time) in 1784 with the United States while its government was following the Articles of Confederation. The two treaties resolved many disagreements and established the ongoing relationship that the two peoples follow today. The symbols of the two treaties are the Two Row Wampum Belt and the George Washington Belt. These treaties also include the numerous allied nations of the League. There are other treaties between the confederacy and the United States to include the Treaty of Fort Pitt in 1775. This early established peace and neutrality between the colonists and the confederacy.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchester (talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --evrik ^(talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Onondaga Council

The subject of Onondaga Council is not entirely clear, however it seems that one authoritative article on the Onondaga people/nation is desirable. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. The Onondaga Council article's content seems like it would fit better as a section of this article. It is a much shorter article, with a singular reference. The cited information could easily be incorporated into this article, where it would be much more appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. There is a problem here, in that not all Onondaga people are enrolled in the Onondaga Nation (which I assume Onondaga Council refers to—the US federally recognized tribe, which redirects to Onondaga people). In Canada, Onondaga people are enrolled in the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation. Onondaga Council is pretty horribly written, so merging it into Onondaga people is fine; however, Onondaga Nation should be its own independent article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I don't agree. I don't think you understand the gravity of what The Great Peacemaker was tryin to accomplish,,, If you want to hijack an article about my own people go ahead, if you want to co-operate with some1 whoo has first-hand knowledge, access to council members, and a stron stance within the congression-gatherings, talk to me otherwise put whatever spin you want to on something you guys obviously know nothing about. I understand why we can't reference Wikipedia in College. Good luck with the article! InternetHero (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is hijacking anything. This is the WP:CONSENSUS process, which is how all decisions are made on Wikipedia. Please understand that no one owns the articles here, they are a collaborative effort, where we all work together to improve content. Please stop taking these things so personally. Other editors are trying to contribute just like yourself. No one has discussed removing your contributions, only moving them to another location. You have made your comment, which will be considered in the decision. As the discussion continues, if the merge is inappropriate, there will not be a consensus supporting it. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. WP:IPNA convention and widespread applied practice is that people/ethno articles and government articles are separate topics and belong in separate categories. In some cases, a category may be on a redirect to one or the other if there is only one article, but it is desirable to keep them separate; the Onondaga Council article should be about the political body, not about the people.Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Onondaga Nation does need its own article for sure though; the nation-people redirect is hangover from the days in wikipedia when "FOO nation/Nation" titles were common and used very ambiguously; as was also Mohawk nation, which now redirects to Mohawk people but I believe Mohawk is clearly the PRIMARYUSE and origin of all other secondary uses; no RM has been filed there as with other similar cases because of time constraints and what would seem be a long, obstinate and complicated PT-cum-RM-battle. I'll run view stats on it and related titles later. As also with this title here, which I haven't refiled an RM on since the BATHWATER closure of the bulk RMs a few weeks ago.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Eclipse dating

Both the Great Peacemaker and Hiawatha pages give significant support for dating the eclipse to 1451; this page is the odd one out with the date (discussed in other pages) of 1142. Needs some editing to reconcile, but I don't have time to get to it for a while, so hopefully one of you fine folk will. --45.48.161.235 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)