Talk:Great Law of Peace

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

POV removed during AfD[edit]

from talk:Gayanashagowa; WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I removed this POV from the page:[reply]

As well, it proved that it isn’t necessary to be part of a state to be able to undertake diplomatic actions. However, because the treaty was between non-state actors, Scholars of International Relations generally ignore it.

Karol 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existed since 1000 BC?[edit]

Existed since 1000 B.C.? That seems extremely unlikely. From a Google search, the constitution doesn't say anything about a date at all, although admittedly a search gives written versions. Adam Bishop 05:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yeah that's exactly the sort of thing that needs a reference. Until someone can provide it I'm deleting the text from the page.--Andymussell 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If, on the main Iroquois page it can be asserted that the english may have helped write it (and it would be accepted if those meddling indin's wouldn't have played the race card), a notion that has absolutely no historical precedence, then surely the notion that an ancient culture could have made their own constitution can at least be alluded to. Furthermore, there is more evidence that it could have been made in 1000 B.C. then there is that the english could have helped in it's drafting. The reason for this is that the culture of Native Americans goes back far beyond the last ice age, as supported by Vine Deloria Jr. book " Red Earth, White Lies". Also, it is important to note that Benjamin Franklin himself pleaded that the colonial states follow a plan similiar to the Iroquois: "It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies.: - Benjamin Franklin, "Lies My Teacher Told Me", James W. Loewen pg. 111

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 Move. The pages will be swapped to preserve nontrivial pre-merge edit history.

Move request[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The English name is preferred. "Great Law of Peace" is far more common than "Gayanashagowa" in English-language sources.

Google Books:

Google Scholar:

heqs 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Thankyou for clearing that up Kafziel. I thought I read that the article was about a person for some reason, sorry. – Axman (☏) 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a person; it's a document. Kafziel 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC dispute at Constitution[edit]

There is a NPOV dispute going on at Talk:Constitution, there is one editor who has declared himself to be an "expert" and has declared that there are "Principles of Successful Constitutions" without stating explicitly what the principles are, he is trying to write that they must come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason or else they "don't count" as successful Constitutions. I responded that this was highly POV and gave a number of counter examples including this one, but by Circular logic, he argues that my examples don't count as "successful" because they didn;t come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason, therefore they cannot possibly be regarded as "successful". Please share your comments. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do other than agree! The word "constitution" is simply a label. The precise meaning of any label is almost impossible to determine, even scientific labels. The word atom once meant: "The fundamental particle that makes up all matter"! The meaning of the labels we use develops and mutates in line with our underlying understandings. Because rigidly defined meaning is impossible, as meaning is a subjective and partial phenomenon, we must agree therefore on a "cloud" of meaning for any particular label we use and then strive to keep our usage of it focussed on the centre of the cloud as this cloud changes shape and position. Pedantic approaches at making language deterministic have always turned out to be futile and always will. Anyway, leaving philosophy out of this debate, if the word "constitution" is not appropriate (and in the end who cares?) then what label should we use? We are "talking" in English not Iraquoi! It's a bit like arguing about whether or not the Bible is the word of God, as if God has created English as the ultimate vehicle for containing divine knowledge! Presumably then the word "ambiguity" is then an oxymoron! This anglo/euro-centric view of the world is deeply embedded in us. It is partial and limited and must change if our civilisation is to continue and grow.

LookingGlass 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Any chance of a summary of the Great Law????

Solar eclipse or lunar eclipse[edit]

The main Iroquois article says that the more ancient dating is supported by the coinciding solar eclipse, the article at hand says lunar eclipse. We have an obvious problem here.


Ssavelan 01:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From Mann's 1491: "To check the estimate [Barbara] Mann and [Jerry] Fields turned to astronomical tables. Before 1600, the last total solar eclipse observable in upstate New York occured on August 31, 1142." page. 333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.21.69 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep.

Merge from tree of peace[edit]

Tree of Peace is an unsourced stub with very little that couldn't easily be integrated into this page. Any objections to a merge? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It looks like "Tree of Peace" can apply to more than the tree associated with the Great Law of Peace.[1]--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link works now. I also added another link source to Tree of Peace.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Bkwillwm's statement above. Karmos (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Accuracy of article's pov pushing[edit]

Re "rule of majority as opposed to consensus"... You do realize that some day, when all the dust has settled, Wikipedia will be remembered for centuries far and wide for originating and championing the notion that "consensus" can mean something opposed to the majority... (and something set by an exclusive minority) You do realize this right?? 172.56.34.193 (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a view to renditions[edit]

Hi - I'm proposing developing a section on published renditions grouped by nation-source given that the Great Law derives from renditions of the Epic of the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy. --Smkolins (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got bold and just went and did it… :-) --Smkolins (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Law of Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on constitution[edit]

I'm confused as to how the "Influence on the United States Constitution" section devotes more words to limiting the viewer's understanding of the influence of the treat on the US constitution rather than describing it. I'm assuming this is just a shitty attempt at propaganda. Does anyone elect to defend this section from editing? Bailey.d.r (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it seems far more likely that the founding fathers were influenced by church structures (particularly Presbyterianism from Scotland) that were similarly elective and representative. Madison, the father of the Constitution, was educated by Presbyterians after all. It also seems unlikely that the Colonists would have drawn from the Iroquois considering they were British Allies during the Revolutionary War. 65.254.18.190 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Law_of_Peace&oldid=1207411757"