Talk:Mohicans

message: Someone who actually knows German might want to give this a once-over; I'm 20 years outside of my last class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephaestos (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 August 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Once-over

message: *violet/riga (t) 21:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for disambig at Mohican

message: re Mohegan:
:"A group of dialects termed Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk was spoken in eastern Connecticut (Mohegan, Pequot) and across the Sound on the eastern end of Long Island (Montauk). A 27-page manuscript by James Noyes, recorded in Stonington in 1690, is in the Beinecke library at Yale. In 1762, Stiles recorded recorded a vocabulary at Groton, published in Cowan 1973b. Nearly a century and a half later, additional Mohegan material was recorded from Fidelia Fielding (1827-1908), the last known speaker. Included are over 400 words and texts (Prince & Speck 1903a,b, 1904, Speck 1904), and a diary she kept from 1902-1905 with facing page translation by Speck (1928b). Cowan 1937b compares the Stiles material with that in Prince & Speck. Montauk is known from a vocabulary recorded by Gardiner in 1798, printed in a number of works, including Wood 1824: 28, Latham 1846: 32-4, Bayles 1874: 63-4." (Mithun 1999: 330)
re Mahican:
:"The Mahican inhabited an area from Lake Champlain south along the Hudson River to Dutchess County, in present eastern New York, western Massachusetts, and northwestern Connecticut. Their language is known primarily from two missions established in the 18th century, one by Baptist at Stockbridge in the Berkshires, the other by Moravians at Shecomeco in Dutchess County. Both communities were linguistically heterogeneous, and both were forced to move a number of times. Mahican was last spoken in the 1930s in Wisconsin. Stockbridge Mahican is represented by translations of liturgical materials (Sergeant 1822), words and grammatical notes by Jonathan Edwards (1788), a wordlist in Jenks 1804, and a text (Prince 1905). Mahican material from the Moravian archives in Herrnhut, Germany, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and in the Houghton Library at Harvard, appears in Masthay 1980 and 1991. Masthay 1980 contains hymns, a brief sermon, a letter, Biblical narrative, and word list, with decipherment and translation of the 18th century German into English. Masthay 1991 is a reworking of Schmick's dictionary from the mid 18th century, with historical phonology of the language by Pentland." (Mithun 1999: 331)
-  Ish ishwar 07:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
:: As far as I'm concerned, that clears it up. Mohegan should stay where it is and be about the people in eastern CT and eastern LI. Mohican should redirect to Mahican and should be about the people in and around the Hudson Valley. Somewhere it should be pointed out that the tribe referred to in The Last of the Mohicans is the same as the tribe referred to here as Mahican, even though the character Uncas was named after (and based on?) a real-life Mohegan Uncas. And of course the entire current text must be rewritten as it clearly refers to the CT/LI Mohegans. But the external links at the bottom of the page are right; the Mahican are the same as the Stockbridge Indians, and now live with the Munsee in Wisconsin . --Angr 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What Mithun says

message: : Ishwar response:
:: I initiated the move and I still support this.  
:: I have referenced 11 different scholarly works that do not refer to Mahicans as Mohican nor refer to Mohegans as Mohicans. 
:: My recommendation is (1) move this Mohican article to Mahican, and (2) turn this Mohican page into a disambiguation page. 
:: I seem to have convinced user: Angr to agree with the move. 
:: No one else has cared to comment, and no one has referenced any work that would led us to consider this move to be disfavorable.   Peace. - ishwar  01:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
: The only thing I would disagree with is making Mohican a disambig page. I've seen lots of times when Mohican is used to mean Mahican, but I've never seen a time when Mohican is used to mean Mohegan, except possibly in Cooper, who thought the two were the same tribe. I think Mohican should just redirect to Mahican, where it should be mentioned that the Mahicans of the Hudson Valley must not be confused with the Mohegans of eastern Connecticut. And, I reiterate, the text of the current article must be moved to Mohegan, and brand new text about the Mahicans written. But the external links are right. --Angr 05:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I'm indecisive or anything, but it sure looks like the modern Mahicans prefer the spelling Mohican. That seems to be the only spelling used on websites directly relating to the modern Mohican Nation. --Angr 13:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh right. I had forgotten the British call mohawks "mohicans". Okay, then yeah, the disambig is a good idea. --Angr 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: I've created the disambig page - you may wish to change it around a bit. violet/riga (t) 17:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone seemed to think Mohican should redirect here up to the point Mohican haircuts were mentioned.  That is a bit of a trivial reason for not redirecting here and causes confusion.  A better scheme would be to have Mohican redirect here and have a "for other uses see . . ." dab at the top of this page.  Anyone object to this? SpinningSpark 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved

message: The first line of their history section goes right into contact with Europeans.  The Mahican had a long history prior, which is not mentioned, and in accordance with a attaining a more global perspective, should certainly be included. Josh a z 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole history section needs to be reworked.  The whole section focuses on their contact with the Europeans and their conversion to Christianity; it smacks of having been written by a missionary.  Moreover, one cannot go east into Mass. and Conn. to the Hudson River.  The Hudson River is in New York State, and therefore west of where they ended up, not east.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.6.226 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line of history section 

message: The paragraph on the Moravian church has some big problems.
First, the adjective describing Christianity as "civilizing." 
Second, the description of Indians as "theirs." what??!
3. How could they possibly have been defending the Amerinds against white exploitation? According to the previous sentences, they weren't themselves necessarily exploiting the tribe, but they were definitely oppressing their culture. 
The whole way this is written is just janky.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.165.134 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framing in the History Section 

message: the map ostensibly showing the Mohican Homeland is totally wrong.  which is not a surprise if you click through to learn more about the image.  "This is a map of the Hudson River Watershed."
i cannot figure out how to edit the text under the image to clarify that it shows the watershed, not the mohican homeland.  if someone else could do that it would be a great service to the people who read this page!!!
thanks,
jeff  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.83.48 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image caption in the infobox is edited by changing the value of the parameter "image_caption=" in the infobox (4th line down).  What would be more useful however, is to make a new map showing the correct information.  Do you have these details, and what is the source? SpinningSpark 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map totally inaccurate 

message: The village of Scaticoke is listed as part of the wrong subset of the Mohican tribe. It was located north of Albany on the east side of the Hudson. The Mohicans were situated there as part of the defense of Albany.
The Mohawks fought with the British during the Revolution. The Mohicans fought with the Americans and helped defeat the British at the Battles of Bennington and Saratoga.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.132.153 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CORRECTIONS NEEDED 

message: Article says that after 1680, many of them moved to Stockbridge. They were invited to Stockbridge when it was established as a mission in 1734. It wasn't that the Mohicans "allowed" missionaries there as the article states, but rather, that was pretty much the entire point of the mission, which was entirely conceived and run by the English. The idea in part was to co-opt the Mohicans into fighting the French. After success with this, the English lost interest in the mission endeavor and basically ran the indians out of Stockbridge.
Given this rather glaring shortcoming, I'm inclined to be very doubtful regarding the rest of the article.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:d6a:b2c0:cde7:8c52:affc:83d7 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stockbridge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mahican. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822023701/http://www.mohican-nsn.gov:80/Departments/Library-Museum/Mohican_History/origin-and-early.htm to http://www.mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/Library-Museum/Mohican_History/origin-and-early.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *What is the difference between this article and the Stockbridge–Munsee Community article? 
*"Four communities of Indians in the Hudson Valley (the Algonquian-speaking Mahican, Housatonic and Wappinger on the east bank and the Delaware-speaking Munsee on the west) moved north in 1735 into western Massachusetts, where they founded a village called Stockbridge." . They later moved to Wisconsin and now identify themselves as the "Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians". There are separate articles for the Wappinger, and Munsee. As for the Housatonic: "The earliest settlers, the Mahican Indians, migrated out of New York’s Hudson Valley, coming over the Taconic Mountains.". Clearly, there is an historical distinction between the four separate groups that existed prior to 1735 and the combined band of Mohicans they make up today. (Interestingly enough the Stockbridge-Munsee history page  makes no mention whatsoever of these four groups.) Furthermore, the Wappinger were neither Mahican nor Mohican as the Mahican territory terminated at the Roeliff Jansen Kill. This is not helped by one editor going through and changing all mention of Mahican to Mohican. What's the deal with trying to obliterate the history of this people?
* was absolutely correct, as was  years ago! All the Stockbridge material should be moved to the Stockbridge page and this one reverted back to Mahican and focused on these people before the move in 1735. Manannan67 (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something of a mess 

message: This article on Mohicans is a mess. Today is Thursday, November 19, 2020 and there is currently a note at the top of this talk page rating the quality of this article as a C. I'd have to agree with that (at best). I will try to spend time over the next few months working on it but I certainly welcome the help of anyone else familiar with quality information on Mohicans. 
For starters, does anyone happen to know anything about the Lee Sultzman source? It's a random website that was last updated in 1997, it has no citations, and Sultzman's qualifications as an expert on Mohicans are unstated. Yet this "source" is invoked four times! Lots of work to do! --Cjslaby (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Need of an Overhaul  

message: Almost all books containing historical research do not list "Mohican" as a legitimate name of indigenous people; they will list "Mahican" and "Mohegan". The naming confusion comes from Mahican Johns town (a Mahican-Delaware town) in Ohio and its conflation with the Mohican River (also in Ohio). Early maps of Ohio show "Mahican Johns" town, while some later maps of Ohio show the transition from "Mahican Johns" to "Mohican Johns" town. A good reference is the "Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History""Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History" (ed. Helen Hornbeck Tanner, 1987) which has been the bible for establishing which peoples occupied certain areas in the Great Lakes region, and at what times they did so; this atlas is currently the go-to source for the Cleveland Public Library system. Additionally, I own a number of historical books with maps, as well as a number of "encyclopedias" of American Indians; none of these books reference a "Mohican" people. Even the "Atlas of the North American Indian""Atlas of the North American Indian" (by Carl Waldman, 1985), which is more of a general overview of all of North America, does not refer to "Mohican" people (Waldman, however, cites that "Mohican" should be "Mohegan" but offers no evidence as to why his choice is correct). 
The fact that there is a native group who now call themselves "Mohican" should not be an impediment to being accurate. A similar transition in naming has occurred among certain Ojibwe/Ojibwa people who now call themselves "Ojibway", which is a French cognate (the English cognate being "Chippewa" from the original indigenous word which sounds like O-chip-wah). Such is the effect of forced assimilation.
Can we correct this obvious (to me, at least) error and redirect Mohican people to Mahican people?
208.66.211.215 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History et al.