Talk:Two Row Wampum Treaty

Wrong reference link

In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty reference 12 is suppposed to refer to an article in the Amsterdam Volkskrant (that is only accessible to subscribers). However, the actual link is erroneously http://www.colonialsense.com/Regional_History/Journals/Journal_of_Jasper_Danckaerts.php. Engelsman (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Prejudicial Language

I find the use of words like "supposedly" throughout this article to be prejudicial.

Georgia Yankee (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

400th Anniversary

I would like to propose a new section on the 400th anniversary events, which were not only festivities but a whole campaign to renew the treaty and expand its recognition on the state, national and international levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this over from our earlier conversation: "Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation." The Atlantic article is here. The other good source is from the UN here. It would be good to see if the statement in the "Interpretations" section speculating on the 2013 affect on the treaty can be updated -- did this happen? There is also information in this Washington Post article about conservation efforts and the treaty that could be added to the Interpretation section. Why don't you do a first pass, adding a short bit and I'll pop back to put in some more references and things. (Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tilde's -- see below the edit box -- but (yes, this is confusing) not on the actual article page.) LaMona (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - will add a few paragraphs. I'm checking on the 2013 passport recognition question. I'm told by NOON that Oren Lyons and two other elders were allowed into Holland on their Haudenosaunee passports in September 2013 for an official meeting on the Two Row anniversary, so can note that in the Interpretation. Gorgenkor (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Added those paragraphs, also fixed an error in the name of the Mohawk Nation (Kanien'kehá:ka, not Kanienkeh) in the second paragraph. Looking for a citation on the 2013 passport experience - have email confirmation from Andy Mager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the successful use of the Haudenosaunee passports by leaders on an official visit to Holland in September '13. Also fixed the bad url in the link to the article in De Volkskrant in that same paragraph.Gorgenkor (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)