Talk:Mohicans

Once-over

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)

Mahican vs Mohican Vs. Mohegan

The article as it stands now confuses the Mahican and the Mohican. I'll add it to my to do list, but it will be a while before I get back. In the meantime, of course, feel free to edit it. I'll be grateful for the help. Lou I 17:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Mohican and Mohegan are not the same tribe. According to every map I've looked at on the matter (four in the past week alone) the Mohegan (in Connecticut) and the Mohican (in Upstate New York) are listed as seperate nations. In one of these maps the Mahican were also listed as a seperate nation in Vermont (as mentoned above).

While it is concievably true that the Mohegan are descendents of the Mohican via the Pequot as you claim (I'm not an expert on the subject history), according to the Pequot museum the Mohegan and Pequot were seperate tribes at the time of European contact, and indeed spoke entirely different languages (according to the National Geographic map "North American Indian Cultures").

With a seperate language, three degrees of separation in the case of the Mohegan (albeit only one in the case of the Pequot), and centuries of seperation between them, counting them as all various factions of the Mohican seems to me to be akin to counting the French and Cajuns as Italians because of the common Roman ancestery on the part of the French and Italians and the Descent of the Cajuns from the French.

--Quintucket 01:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article has a serious problem confusing the Mahican groups with Mohegan groups. These are different linguistic and cultural groups. This article, at present, just adds to the confusion.

Serious research should be undertaken to improve the article. Source materials probably should not come from the internet as it is extremely unreliable with respect to accuracy, especially concerning information about the indigeous peoples of the Americas. (However, one good thing about the internet is that sometimes Native America communties have websites that detail their own views concerning their culture and history which sometimes disagree with the views of Euro-American anthropologists and historians.) I recommend starting with the excellent multi-volume work (as yet unfinished) below:

• Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978-present). Handbook of North American Indians. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.

The northeast volume ("from Virginia to St. Lawrence River, Great Lakes, Ohio Valley, Illinois") has been published:

• Trigger, Bruce G. (Ed.). (1978). Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 15). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.

- Ish ishwar 06:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Hodgepodge of Mohican and Mohegan history

Yeah, this page is totally wrong. I am Mohican (same as Mahican, Mahikan, Muheconnuck), which is an Algonguin speaking tribe now residing in Wisconsin, originally from the Hudson river valley, with stops in Stockbridge, MA, upstate NY and others along the way. The Mohegans (and Pequots) are Iroquoian speaking tribes and not very closely related, if I recall my history correctly. Accurate information about the Mohicans can be found at www.mohican.com. I'm brand-new in the wiki community, but if anyone wants me to jump in on this page, I'd be happy to. Jumpingfish 01:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[no they're not, they're Algonquian speaking as well] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.58.65 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

name confusion info from OED

quote from Oxford English Dictionary's entry on Mohican:

[Blend of English forms of the self-designations of two Algonquian Indian peoples (see sense A. 1a).

The self-designation of the Mahikans appears to have been Muhhekunneyuk (prob. < a place name Muhheakunnuk denoting the tidal section of the Hudson River: the translation ‘wolf’ in quot. 1907 is prob. mistaken) or Muhheakunneuw, and to have been transmitted via Munsee mà·hí·kan;

that of the Mohegans appears to have been a form apprehended as *Moyahegan (cf. Moya[u]hegunnewog people of Mohegan).

Cf. early 17th-cent. Dutch forms Mahikan (1625), Mahikander (1642), Maikan (c1626), Manikan (c1633) and post-classical Latin plural forms Manhikani (1633), Mahikanenses (1635).

The form Mohican in modern use is chiefly after J. Fenimore Cooper's usage (see sense A. 1b): on his choice of this spelling see quots. 1823, 1826 at sense A. 1a. In his 1994 edition of Cooper's novel, J. McWilliams identifies Cooper's Mohicans on historical grounds as the Mohegans, although Cooper does not mention the Mahicans as a separate people (cf. quot. 1826 at sense A. 1a). In the 1820s Cooper probably had some personal contact with a Mohegan offshoot of the Stockbridge Indians (see note at sense A. 1a).

Renderings of the Mahikan self-designation (e.g. Moheakunnuk, Mo-hee-con-neugh, Muhheakunnuk, Muh-he-con-nuk, Muhhekaneew), also occur in English contexts.]

(A. 1a)

A member of either of two Algonquian peoples who formerly lived along the lower Connecticut River and on the upper reaches of the Hudson.

One of these peoples (now usually called Mahican or Mohican) formerly occupied parts of eastern New York, western Massachusetts, and north-western Connecticut; the other (now usually called Mohegan or Mohican) occupied parts of eastern or south-eastern Connecticut. In historical usage, as in more recent non-specialist use, there is no clear distinction evident in forms used to denote the two peoples, and it is clear that in a number of cases the existence of two distinct peoples was not apprehended: it is impossible today to divide the early evidence decisively as denoting either one people or the other. There appears to be very little evidence before the 20th cent. for the names of the two tribes being used contrastively (but note quot. 1797).

The Mahicans and Mohegans both suffered severe reductions in numbers and power following the arrival of the Dutch and British in the 17th cent., and by the 18th cent. were scattered from their original territories. In the 1730s a community of Mahicans, together with remnants of the Mohegan people, settled in the Christian mission village of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. In the 19th cent. this group (known as the Stockbridge Indians) joined with a group of Munsee (MUNSEE n.) and settled on reservation land in Shawano Co., Wisconsin. The people of this reservation now identify themselves as the Mohican Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee band.

...

Members of today's Mohican Nation (see note at sense 1a) dispute Cooper's representation of the Mohicans as having died out as an identifiable people.

Peace. - Ish ishwar 06:22, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

spellings from OED

alternate forms of Mahican: Mahiggin, Mahican, Mahicanni, Mahiccan, Mahikan, Mahicon

alternate forms of Mohegan: Mawhiggin, Moheag, Moheegin, Mohege, Mohegen, Mohiganie, Mohiggener, Mohiggin, Mohigoner, Mohegin, Mohigon, Mohigan, Mohegan, Moheagon, Moheeg, Moheegan, Moheg, Moheagan, Mohingan

alternate forms of Mohican (??): Moheek, Moheken, Mohicand, Mahickander, Mawhickon, Moheckon, Mohekin, Mohickan, Mohickander, Mohickon, Mohecan, Mohiccon, Moheecan

other forms (??): Manheken, Manhigan, Monahegan, Monahigganick, Monahiggon, Monahiganeuk, Monheag, Monheagan, Monhegen, Monhegin, Monhigg, Monhiggin, Monohegen, Munhegan, Munhicke, Monhegan, Manhingan

- Ish ishwar 06:31, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

move to Mahican

Mohican is used to refer to 2 different groups:

• Mahican
• Mohegan

These are different groups. Mohegan and Mahican formerly redirected to here. This has been corrected, including creation of a real stub for Mohegan.

Mohican should either be a disambig. page or a redirect to Mahican.

This page is very wrong currently, but this is a separate issue from the move (I believe).

See above for more details.

Thanks - Ish ishwar 07:05, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Support for disambig at Mohican

• violet/riga (t) 21:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Ethnologue says

Ethnologue isn't helping much in this matter. It lists only one relevant Algonquian language: Mohegan-Montauk-Narragansett, whose dialects are Pequot-Mohegan, Narragansett, Montauk (Shinnecock-Poosepatuck), and Stockbridge. The only relevant Iroquoian language it lists (someone above said one of the two was Iroquoian) is Mohawk, also known as Kanien'kehaka. The word "Mahican" doesn't appear in the Ethnologue. --Angr 22:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

Ethnologue is generally not a good source for North American language classifications. I am not sure what they are using as their source (maybe Driver from the 1960s?). Ethnologue is to be applauded for its comprehesiveness, but as for its accuracy in all languages it is not good enough. (Compare, for example, Ethnologue's Penutian grouping & my skimpy rewrite of Penutian.)

A lot more is known about these languages now.

The best and most up-to-date works are

• Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509427-1.
• Goddard, Ives. (1996). Languages. Handbook of North American Indians (W. C. Sturtevant, Ed.) (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-1604-8774-9.
• Goddard, Ives. (1999). Native languages and language families of North America (rev. and enlarged ed. with additions and corrections). [Map]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press (Smithsonian Institute). (Updated version of the map in Goddard 1996). ISBN 0-8032-9271-6.
• Mithun, Marianne. (1999). The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23228-7 (hbk); ISBN 0-521-29875-X.

An another good book that is a bit older but still has a lot of good stuff (popularly called "the black book"):

• Campbell, Lyle; & Mithun, Marianne (Eds.). (1979). The languages of native America: Historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press.

I have based the classification of the Algic languages on Mithun (1999) since she is herself an Algonquian specialist.

[no she's not, she's an Iroquois specialist] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.58.65 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Mithun (1999) and Campbell (1997) do not mention "Mohican" (maybe due to rampant confusion?). Of course, they do mention both "Mohegan" and "Mahican" since they are different languages.

[linguists don't usually use the spelling 'Mohican'] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.58.65 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually havent looked at Campbell & Mithun (1979) or Goddard (1996), yet. So, stay tuned... Peace. - Ish ishwar 23:16, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Okay, but do Mithun and Campbell list both Mohegan and Mahican as Algonquian languages? Or is one Algonquian and the other Iroquoian? --Angr 06:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both are considered Algonquian by Mithun and Campbell. (I think the person above is just guessing?). - Ish ishwar 04:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Additionally, the Mahican language is mentioned in Ives Goddard's"Comparative Algonquian" in Campbell & Mithun (1979), but Mohican or Mohegan is not. - Ish ishwar 07:14, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

What Mithun says

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 [1]. --Angr 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Handbook of Native American Indians says

If further evidence is needed (or in case it interests other readers), I cite Goddard (1978), Salwen (1978), Conkey et al. (1978), & Brasser (1978) all from Trigger (1978), and also Goddard (1996). In my quick glance over all of these works, I do not find any reference to the term Mohican — I only find the terms Mahican and Mohegan. These two terms refer to two different groups as stated above in Mithun (1999), Campbell (1997), Campbell et al. (1979), and Goddard (1979).

Here is further discussion from Goddard (1978: 72):

"MOHEGAN-PEQUOT   The dialects of Connecticut east of the Connecticut River are generally classed together as Mohegan-Pequot. Athough this seems to be a valid grouping, the number and distinctness of the various local forms of speech are uncertain. That the problem is more complicated than simply differentiating a putative "Mohegan" dialect from a putative "Pequot" is shown, for example, by the differences between the Pequot of Stonington and that of Groton (Noyes 1690; Stiles 1973). It has been suggested that some of the remmant eighteenth-century Indians called Pequots may have actually spoken Niantic (Trumbull 1873:134); but nothing definite is known about the speech of either the Western or Eastern Niantic, not even whether or they were linguistically closer to each other than to the other groups nearby. It is possible that a vocabulary from the eighteenth-century Narragansetts (Stiles 1973a), which is very similar to Pequot, may actually represent the speech of the Eastern Niantic component of that group.

"EASTERN LONG ISLAND LANGUAGES   At the end of the eighteenth century the Unquachog, Shinnecock, and Montauk had forms of speech that were different enough for Thomas Jefferson to be able to write that 'the three tribes can barely understand each other' (Jefferson 1791). This statement appears confirmed by the many points of difference between the recorded vocabulary of Unquachog (Jefferson 1791) and Montauk (Gardiner 1798), but the materials on Sinnecock are too sparse to permit any precise statements about its dialectal affiliations (Gatschet 1889:390; Harrington 1903:39). Although diverse among themselves, the Long Island languages seem to have been rather close to those on the opposite shore of Long Island Sound. It may be that Unquachog should be considered a dialect of the western Connecticut language represented by Naugatuck and Quiripi and that Montauk should be grouped as a third dialect of Mohegan-Pequot.

"MAHICAN   Mahican was the language of the Indians of that name on the upper Hudson, and judging by a few personal names (NYCD 13:119, 379, 545) it may have been spoken by the Catskills as well. In the eighteenth century, Mahican was spoken in the mission villages of Stockbridge, on the upper Housatonic, and Shecomeco, in northeastern Dutchess County, New York; but its aboriginal extent to the east and south is not known exactly. There is a fair amount of variation in the different recordings of Mahican, but no systematic study has been done to determine if this reflects major dialect differenences. The language went west with the migrating Mahicans, and partial speakers were living among the Wisconsin Stockbridges as late as the 1930s."

Here are 2 short quotes from Salwen (1978) concerning the Mohegans:

"TERRITORY   The Pequot first appear in the documentary record in 1614 as the 'Pequatoos...enemies of the Wapanoos,' whom the Dutch encountered on 'the River of Siccanamos after the name of the Sagimos' (the Mystic?). The 'Morhicans' lived just to the west between the Frisian (Thames?) River and the Fresh (Connecticut) River (Stokes 1915-1928, 2:C, pl. 23; De Laet 1909:42-43). Other early seventeenth-century documents make it clear that Uncas, the Mohegan sachem, was subordinate to Sassacus, the chief sachem of the Pequot. In the early 1630s Sassacus 'held dominion...over the part of Long Island, over the Mohegans, over the sagamores of Quinapeake [New Haven], yea over all the people that dwelt upon Connecticut River, and over some of the most southernly inhabitants of the Nipmuck country, about Quinabaag' (Gookin 1972:7). The Montauk 'confederacy' of Long Island, which included the Shinnecock and Corchaug, was very close to, if not identical with, the Mohegan-Pequot in language ('Eastern Algonquian Languages,' this vol.) and aboriginal material culture (L. E. Williams 1972). While the Narragansett later claimed control over them, these groups paid tribute to the Pequot before the Pequot were defeated in 1637 (De Rasieres 1909:103; Gardiner 1859:22). Swanton (1952:29-32) lists many villages of the Pequot, Mohegan, and Montauk.

"HISTORY   Despite frequent assertions that the Mohegan-Pequot were a Hudson valley group that had recently invaded eastern Connecticut (De Forest 1851:59-60; Swanson 1952:32), there is good linguistic and archeological evidence that suggests a long period of in situ development (Salwen 1969)." (Salwen 1978: 172)

and

"Pequot (ˈpēˌkwät) and Mohegan (ˌmōˈhēgən): These names first appear as Pequats and Morhicans on Block's map of 1614 (Stokes 1915-1928, 2:C, pl. 23) and as Pequatoos and Morhicans in De Laet's 1625 volume (1909:42-43). Variant spellings by seventeenth-century writers include, for the first, Pyquans (De Rasieres 1909:103), Pequins and Pekoath (Winthrop 1908, 1:61, 76), and Pequants (Wood 1865:62), and for the second, Monhigg (Bradford 1908:338) and Monahegan (Winthrop 1908, 1:271). The Narragansett plural forms were Pequttôg and Monahiganeuck (Williams 1936:188, 1963, 6:84)." (Salwen 1978: 175)

Here is Brasser (1978) concerning the Mahicans:

"The Mahican (ˈmäˌhēkən or ˌmuˈhēkən) spoke an Eastern Algonquian language, which was probably most closely related to Wappinger and other Munsee dialects and to the Algonquian languages of New England. Linguistic data originating from Stockbridge, Massachusetts, betray the heterogeneous makeup of the local 'Mahican' population, which had incorporated many remnant groups from New England.

"The homeland of the Mahican Indians extended from Lake Chaplain southward into the western part of Dutchess County, New York, and from the valley of the Schoharie Creek in the west to south-central Vermont in the east (fig. 1). With increasing unity among the Iroquois tribes in the sixteenth century, relations with the Mohawk appeared to have become markedly hostile, making it impossible for the Mahican to use their domains west of the Hudson River for purposes other than hunting. On the other hand, the Mohawk did not dare to establish villages east of Schohaire Creek.

"Mahican country is part of the coastal uplands through which several rivers have cut north-south valleys. Of these, the valley of the Hudson River forms a lowland passage from Lake Champlain and the Saint Lawrence to the Atlantic coast. North of the Hudson River highlands the valley is rimmed on the west by the glaciated Alleghey plateau, and on the east by the rugged area of the Taconic and Green mountains...." (Brasser 1978: 198)

and

"According to the origin traditions of the tribe and the testimonies of its prominent leaders, the tribe's name was derived from Muhheakunnuk, which was the name of a locality. It referred to the tidal water of the Hudson River, which indeed is subject to ebb and flow as far upriver as Albany. Similar words in the related Munsee language corroborate these native testimonies. From this name were derived the terms Muhheakunneuw and Muhhekunneyuk, referring respectively 'a Mahican Indian' and 'the Mahican Indians' (Kokhkewenaunaut, 1763, in H. A. Wright 1905:184; MHSC ser. 1, 9:99-102; Aupaumut, ca. 1791, in E. F. Jones 1854:15, in Skinner 1925:102).

"Adriaen Block in 1614 and later colonial authorities usually referred to the tribe as Mahicans, Mahikanders, Mahikens, and similar names. It is possible that these names resulted from the early Dutch use of Delaware or Munsee Indian interpreters, who pronounced the tribe's names as mà·hí·kan, mà·hí·kani·w, Mahi´kanαk (Ives Goddard, personal communication 1973; Speck and Moses 1945:14). Related terms were used by the Shawnee: Mhíkana, Nhíkana, Hikanagi (Gatschet 1877). The Algonquins decided to call the Mahican 'wolves' because of the resemblance of the Alquoquin word for wolf to the Mahican's own tribal name. Following the practice of their Alquoquin allies, the early French too referred to the Mahican as 'wolves', either in French—Loups—or in Algonquin—Maingan, Mahingan (Champlain 1922-1936, 5:208, 214) Related to the Algonquin term is Montagnais Mahiganiouetch (mistakenly written Nahiganiouetch, in JR 18:260). By 1662 the name Loups began to lose is specificity and was used by the French to refer to several tribes in New England and New York State (Mooney and Thomas 1907b:786, 788). The Algonquin folk etymology gave rise to the common conception that the Mahican referred to themselves as 'wolves'.

"The Mahican tribe is not to be confused with the Mohegan of coastal Connecticut. These tribes were not related to each other, and their tribal names have been subject to the same mistake in translation. Starting in the early 1660s, English colonial authorities used the name River Indians for the Mahican and other Algonquian-speaking Indians residing on the Hudson river (NYCD 13:229)." (Brasser 1978: 211)

- ishwar (SPEAK) 01:26, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Article move deadline extended

The deadline for this requested move has been extended. Please present a clear vote for the proposed move as it is currently not obvious what peoples opinions currently are. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

response

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 (SPEAK) 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)

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)

I suggested a disambig page because many people would think of the hair style when the word "Mohican" is used. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

Page moved

I've created the disambig page - you may wish to change it around a bit. violet/riga (t) 17:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

First line of history section

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)

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)

Are the mohican people extinct?

Because i often hear things from simpsons that says that they died out or something? Dumoren 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Spanish Edition this group never existed and was an invention of an American writer

I don't want to discuss this, I just wonder how can be such contradictions?

About 30% of the whole Wikipedia project has validity, and unfortunately lots of people is using it to justify their ignorance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.203.85 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Our article has quality references which are rather more reliable than The Simpsons, Spanish Wikipedia or a statistic you appear to have made up yourself. SpinningSpark 12:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this, no, contrary to the Simpsons and James Fenimore Cooper, Mohicans as a people are not extinct. Here is the link to the website of the current-day Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Nation. Cjslaby (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Framing in the History Section

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)

Map totally inaccurate

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)

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)

CORRECTIONS NEEDED

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)

Stockbridge

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. "O" is accepted by consensus as the common name for the tribe as well as their own self-identification. (This is a little out of character for a move closer, but what on earth happened with the "s"? That should have been added automatically years ago per WP:PLURAL.) (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Mahican → Mohicans
• Mahican language → Mohican language

– According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes), "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Despite the famous title of James Fenimore Cooper's book, The Last of the Mohicans, the tribe is not extinct. They are federally recognized and refer to themselves as "Mohicans." Given that Britannica uses "Mohicans," it's hard to argue that that spelling isn't common in the English language. 2TWarren (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of Britannica's usage, the academic community (certainly linguists, and from what I can tell most anthropologists and historians) consistently uses "Mahican." As far as I know, every single book, article, and paper written on the language (or even just mentioning it) for at least the last sixty-plus years has exclusively used "Mahican"; the alternative "Mohican" is virtually never even mentioned. (I'm less familiar with the ethnological/anthropological/historical literature, but the historical Mahicans are referred to as "Mahicans" in, for instance, the Handbook of North American Indians, which is the modern standard reference encyclopedia on American Indians. They are also listed under "Mahican" in the Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (Vol. 1), the former [but now very very old] standard reference, and are called the "Mahicans" in the Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas (Vol. 1, Part 1, e.g., pg. 401).) Part of the problem is that, historically-speaking, Cooper wasn't referring to the Mahicans, he was confusing (or combining) the Mahicans and the Mohegans, and the name "Mohican" has stuck around for a few centuries as a result (though it was used by others before him, his books popularized it) -- though again, largely not in the academic community.

To quote Ives Goddard's "Notes on Mahican": "The Mahicans have often been confused with the Mohegans of eastern Connecticut and the fictional composite Mohicans of the novels of James Fenimore Cooper, and both of these names have also been used for them." His footnote goes into more detail on the modern Mohicans: "The largest group of Mahican descendants is on the Stockbridge Reservation, in Shawano County, Wisconsin, which is also home to the descendants of some 200 Canadian Munsees who arrived in the 1830's. The constitution of 1937 establishes the official name for this combined group as "The Stockbridge-Munsee Community" but also refers to them as "the Stockbridge and Munsee Band of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin" (Oberly 2005:220, 225) Since as now used in this community the term "Mohican" refers a group with substantial Munsee heritage, it is not synonymous with the established ethnological and linguistic term "Mahican," as used, for example, in the Handbook of North American Indians (Brasser 1978)."

So in this case I would argue that the guidelines of both "[g]enerally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources" and precision ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects") apply. To the first point, as I've already noted, the linguistic community, at least, always uses the term "Mahican" and never "Mohican"; I know less about the rest of the academic community, but the historical Mahicans are referred to as "Mahicans" in the standard reference work on American Indian topics (HNAI) as well as the Cambridge History. To the second point, referring to the group in question, and their language, as "Mohican" is not "precise," because (1) while "Mahican" has only ever referred to one group and language, "Mohican" has been used to refer to all of the Mahicans and the Mohegans and a fictional Indian group and a modern composite Mahican-Munsee group, and (2) "Mahican" usefully distinguishes the historical group from the modern composite tribal nation whose members may refer to themselves as "Mohicans" (and which already has its own separate, distinct article). Finally, because there has been so much historical confusion regarding the names involved, renaming the page from an unambiguous one to an ambiguous one is likely to continue or increase confusion, and would not be helpful. I would suggest that in lieu of a move, this information -- the fact that the modern composite tribe refers to themselves as "Mohicans" and that there has historically been a lot of confusion among non-scholars between the Mahicans and the Mohegans and the "Mohicans" and the modern Stockbridge-Munsee Mohicans -- simply be incorporated into the relevant articles.

(Note also that this was discussed before above, many years ago, and ish ishwar helpfully provided some actual quotes from HNAI and other sources to substantiate the "Mahican" usage there.) --73.166.134.151 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you have decided that the Mohicans do not live in historical continuity with the so-called "Mahican" because they accepted Munsee refugees into their community, and you ignore their self-identification with the so-called "Mahican" people and its language. I'd like to point out that virtually every tribe is a "composite" tribe, having taken in refugees from other groups as they faced decimation by disease and atrocities. How dare Wikipedia tell these people that their history isn't theirs because they took in refugees, like virtually every other tribe on the continent? The policy is to defer to them if they use a common, English-language spelling, which Britannica had the decency to do. The policy is designed to make sure that they themselves are not ignored. The earlier discussion ignored their self-identification. These people have suffered for four hundred years. It's time to stop. 2TWarren (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear or worded my comment poorly (I certainly concede "composite" was a very poor choice of words, and agree with you on the points in that regard!), in which case I apologize. My point was not that there is no continuity with the historical Mahican people -- of course there is plenty of continuity. But that is not the same as saying that the two names refer to the same thing. They don't. "Mahican" refers to a specific historical cultural group and the language they formerly spoke, and "Mohican" can refer to many different things, including but not limited to the historical Mahicans, and to a modern tribal nation whose members are mostly Mahican descendants. Just as there is, for example, one article on the Wampanoag people and a separate article on the modern Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, we have separate articles on the Mahican people (and Mahican language) and on the modern Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, which is a specific tribal nation. Additionally, the Mahican articles as currently written already note that "Mohican" is an alternate name, though this should be further clarified because it obviously continues to produce confusion. As for Rreagan007's comment below, "the popularity of the book and movie make a strong case that the common name, at least in a non-academic context, is "Mohican"" is precisely part of the reason I was arguing against changing the name. The book and movie do not refer to the "Mahicans" OR the modern Stockbridge-Munsee Mohicans, they refer to a made-up tribe in which Cooper combined aspects of both the Mahicans and Mohegans. That is, the "common name" as used by non-academics (and non-Mohicans) refers to something other than what is the subject of either of these articles (on the "Mahicans" or the Mohican Nation).

This comes back to my basic opposition to the move, which is that "Mohican," as I've said, is an imprecise name. There's at least three contradictory guidelines at play here. One is, as you mentioned, "How the group self-identifies should be considered." The other two, which I brought up, are 'usage in reliable sources' and 'precision.' The first case does favor "Mohican," but "should be considered" is not the same thing as "should override multiple other guidelines and policies when these conflict," so the other guidelines need to be taken into account. In the third case the clear preference should be for "Mahican": "Mohican" is not precise because it has been used to refer to four different things, and has continued to be a source of confusion for people up through today.

The second case is the most complicated. (I've tried looking for some more non-linguistics sources since last night, but obviously this has just been cursory so take the following with as heaping a pile of salt as you wish :) .) The linguistics community definitely uses "Mahican" exclusively. A number of other "reliable sources," including the standard reference work on American Indians, HNAI, also use "Mahican." And one "reliable source" I quoted above even explicitly states that the Stockbridge-Munsee Mohicans should be distinguished from the "Mahicans" as referred to in works like HNAI and as covered in this article, which is what Wikipedia currently does (and also does for other specific tribal nations as legal/political entities versus broader "tribes"/cultural groups that they are a part of or descended from or whatever, as with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe). However, there do seem to be some historical academic sources (mostly in from the last decade or two? It looks like?) that use "Mohican," or both "Mahican" and "Mohican," while others continue to use "Mahican." So for instance there have been two recent history books (both from 2013) on the "Mahicans," Rachel Wheeler's To Live upon Hope: Mohicans and Missionaries in the Eighteenth-Century Northeast (Wheeler has also written some articles in academic journals referring to the historical group as "Mohicans," but ALSO some articles, seemingly from a bit earlier in her career, which called them the "Mahicans") and William A. Starna's From Homeland to New Land: A History of the Mahican Indians, 1600-1830. (There may have been other recent books, but since these two were reviewed in peer-reviewed journals I'm counting them as ""more"" ""academic"" or ""reliable"" for Wikipedia's purposes.) So maybe what's happening is that the linguistic (and for the most part anthropological/ethnological/archaeological, it looks like) community has continued to use "Mahican," while the historical community is moving in the direction of "Mohican" but with plenty of variation still existing. That's my initial takeaway of what I've looked at, at any rate, but as I said it hasn't exactly been super thorough so I could well be wrong.

I would still argue that the current preponderance of usage of "Mahican" in the academic community, including in the standard reference work, and especially the "precision"(/confusion) guideline outweigh the "self-identification" guideline in this case. What about if, instead of Mohican redirecting to "Mahican," as it does now, it instead redirects to the disambiguation page, where we list the different historical and current usages of the term, including to refer to the historical cultural group that anthropologists, linguists, etc. call "Mahicans," the invented group from Cooper's work and its derivatives, and the modern tribal nation which goes by the name Mohican, with links to the specific pages on each? (Which is sort-of-but-not-exactly what the disambig page does now, and which should be fixed.) The article on the modern nation should certainly call them "Mohicans," since that is indeed what their name is, but that's not what the articles we're discussing are on. And the present article on "Mahicans" can go into more detail on the mess of the naming issues, including prominently noting that the modern descendants of the Mahicans are the Stockbridge-Munsee Mohicans and that they refer to themselves and their ancestors as "Mohicans." AND if academic usage continues to move toward favoring "Mohican," this might then outweigh the "precision" issue and the article names could be reevaluated. (Although there's also the complication that we kind of have two disciplines using the terms in different proportions, but obviously we can't, say, leave "Mahican language" as is while changing "Mahican" to "Mohican"......)

Finally, I'll just note that "Wikipedia" isn't "telling" the Mohicans anything about how they should self-identify or about their history or anything else, regardless of whatever decisions are made on the article titles. I have no objections at all to the Mohicans calling themselves whatever they want or think is appropriate, nor to them describing themselves as largely descended from the historical group who are called the "Mahicans" by most academics, since this is obviously true! If the articles are titled "Mahican," this is not some sort of statement about modern Mohican identity, it's because Wikipedia's job is to be an encyclopedia on notable things which neutrally reflects the facts and statements and usage found in reliable sources, and not to be anything more than that.

(Also as one final point, I do agree with Rreagan on changing to the plural, whatever else is decided.) --73.166.134.151 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The second comment on this page (from back in 2004) is from a Mohican: "I am Mohican (same as Mahican, Mahikan, Muheconnuck)." Jumping Fish humbly referred us to her or his nation's website for accurate information. What is neutral about ignoring that? Why don't you consider the tribe itself to be a reliable (primary) source, set against the massively contradictory evidence in secondary (reference) sources?

What is reliable about theories extrapolated from that massively contradictory evidence? For example, others using James Fennimore's poor cultural research in writing The Last of the Mohicans to claim that he changed the meaning of the word "Mohican" strains credulity, to put it mildly. The confusion of a white author does not mean that one tribe's name now also refers to another, especially when the novel is set at the other end of Mohican traditional territory, as far away as possible from Mohegan traditional territory. Can you see how it might be seen as offensive to suggest to today's Mohicans that theirs is the name of a "made-up tribe?" No, the name of their tribe was made immediately recognizable to English-speakers worldwide by an author who made some mistakes in describing them. We need to stop messing with the Mohican people based on other people's confusion. They know who they are and how to spell their name.

You cite the distinction between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag people to explain why you think we shouldn't defer to the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians on the spelling of "Mahican," because they are different things. But notice that we did defer to the Mashpee spelling of "Wampanoag." The naming conventions instruct us to defer to the tribe. There is only one band of Mohicans. Who do you think we should defer to, if not that band?

2TWarren (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"I would still argue that the current preponderance of usage of "Mahican" in the academic community, including in the standard reference work, and especially the "precision"(/confusion) guideline outweigh the "self-identification" guideline in this case."

That is the heart of our dispute. Earlier, you quoted the first sentence of the self-identification guideline ("How the group self-identifies should be considered.") to suggest that it is merely one factor to be considered. You ignore the next sentence: "If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Period. Under the guideline, the only thing to be considered is whether "Mohican" is commonly used in English. It does not even say that it has to be the most common form (although, frankly, if you search Google, "Mohican" brings up something like 9 million hits and "Mahican" something like 177,000). There would have to be a compelling reason not to apply the self-identification guideline. This is not one guideline among many for us to somehow balance out. It is the primary guideline to be applied here. Britannica's usage alone suggests that "Mohican" is a commonly used form in English. However, even the sources that prefer "Mahican" acknowledge "Mohican" as a common form. "Mohican" is, therefore, the only form that complies with the relevant guideline.

As I look over the earlier discussion, the claim that "Mohican" is confusing or ambiguous seems to be based on a single source: the OED. The OED seems to be the only source that suggests that "Mohican" could mean either "Mahican" or "Mohegan," and it offers no explanation or evidence for that assertion.

Today, the Mohegans call themselves Mohegans, and the so-called "Mahicans" call themselves Mohicans. I don't see how the OED claiming that someone sometime in the past mistaking the Mohegans for Mohicans somehow justifies foisting the spelling "Mahican" on the Mohicans. And I certainly don't see how that comes anywhere near making a case to ignore the primary guideline on naming tribes. Wikipedia does not want us to try to figure out the academic consensus here. They want us to defer to living, breathing human beings on their people's name, unless it is too obscure to be recognizable. "Mohican" is not ambiguous, confusing or obscure. The arguments against it are.

2TWarren (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as it does seem to be how they self-identify. Also, the popularity of the book and movie make a strong case that the common name, at least in a non-academic context, is "Mohican". Regardless, I also support moving to the plural title per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the good reasons laid out by ip editor above. We should of course report the term that the Stockbridge-Munsee Community identifies with, but the Stockbridge–Munsee Community article seems like the more relevant place for that. From what IP editor has said, it seems like RS treat the historical Mahicans as a separate topic. And Wikipedia seems to have followed suit, with separate articles on Mahican and Stockbridge–Munsee Community. Since the majority of historical/linguistic scholarship on the former topic uses "Mahican", and since "Mohican" has problems with precision, I think the current title is appropriate. I would support ip editor's suggestion of creating a dab page at Mohican (or even a WP:DABCONCEPT article). Colin M (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mohican band's historical office will be contacted next week to hear their perspectives on concerns raised here. Specifically, what is their relationship to the historical Mohican people of the Hudson Valley and to the Munsee people? Why does the band use the spelling "Mohican" and refer to itself as a band of Mohicans? What do they think about other people using the spelling "Mahican?" What do they think about people suggesting that "Mohican" could mean "Mohegan?" Etc. 2TWarren (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the current article title violates Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names. Virtually nobody outside of academia has ever heard the word "Mahican." "Mohican" is overwhelmingly the most common spelling of the name, and virtually the only one that most English-speakers have ever heard or seen (9 million Google hits vs 177,000). 2TWarren (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:PRECISION, I'd like to point out that ambiguity did not prevent Wikipedia from using the ethnonym Macedonians_(ethnic_group), despite a pointed and only recently resolved international dispute over that name (and the ongoing existence of other groups using that name). This could create the impression that there is a racial disparity in Wikipedia's treatment of the names of ethnic groups, since no other ethnic group claims the name "Mohican," and yet editors claim that it is too ambiguous to use. Setting aside WP:PRECISION leaves us with a term preferred by academics versus the group's autonym, which is also, by far, the more commonly used form in the English language.

Then editors claim that "Mohican" should not be used because today's "Mohicans" are distinct from historical "Mahicans." Well, in that case, shouldn't we refer to members of the modern tribe as "Mohicans" to distinguish them from historical "Mahicans?" I would hope that we could agree that that would be ridiculous. We have to use the same term for the Mahican/Mohican people in both the past and present.

So, this dispute seems to boil down to self-identification and common name versus an academic term. If we are going to avoid accusations of racism, I really think we need to show another example of Wikipedia preferring an academic term over a group's autonym that is also the most common form in the English language. Does anyone really believe that "Mahican" is the more common form anywhere except academia? It's 9 million to 177,000 on Google. Someone might claim that most of those hits have to do with the book The Last of the Mohicans, but "Mohican" is still the overwhelmingly (ca. 10:1) more common form when one searches phrases like "Mohican people" versus "Mahican people."

Specific rules generally take precedence over more general rules precisely because they were written with the special needs of that situation in mind. So, when one considers concepts such as verifiability and NPOV, one should consider them in light of the specific rule, not the other way around. Otherwise, the specific rule becomes meaningless. That is why I object to editors subordinating self-identification to other principles. When it says "considered" it would seem to refer to the criterion that follows (namely: "commonly used," Is it commonly used?). For example, we can verify what form of the name the tribe itself uses, but self-identification is meaningless if you subordinate it to academic opinion about what the name should be. One can have a NPOV on what form of the name the tribe prefers, but why have a self-identification guideline if the tribe's preference bears no more weight than anyone else's?

By the way, I personally prefer the spelling "Mahican" because that is what several generations of my ancestors called them in Dutch in the Hudson Valley. I had never heard "Mahican" used in English until I saw this article. Personally, having been made aware of the academic usage, I wish they did not use James Fennimore Cooper's spelling. However, that is their choice, not mine; and, like it or not, James Fennimore Cooper's spelling is far and away the more common spelling in the English language.

2TWarren (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It's Cooper's spelling and it is the way the Mohicans spell it. Never saw it spelled any other way until today. Who comes up with these other spellings? other Native American tribes? academics? What matters is WP:COMMONNAME and the excellent case made for it in this requested move. COMMONNAME is a policy that represents a very strong Wikipedia community consensus. The plural form is acceptable – see Americans, Germans, Canadians, Mexicans, Aztecs, etc. Should be "no contest", IMHO. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  16:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Cooper's spelling is the common one long applied to the real-world tribe. We're a general encyclopedia, and whether or not we personally agree with the esoteric alternative spelling is irrelevant, we go with common usage. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Something of a mess

• 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." [2]. 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."[3]. 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 [4] 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?
  
• {{--73.166.134.151}} was absolutely correct, as was Ish ishwar 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)

In Need of an Overhaul

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)

Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History et al.

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" 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", 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)

References

Requested move 9 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Mohicans → Mohican – Indigenous American tribes are referred to in the singular (e.g. Mohegan, Lenape, Apache, Seminole, Comanche, et al). Request repeated, as no indication why it was deleted and not acted upon Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Lennart97, Wikiuser100, 2001:569:74D2:A800:C464:248:F0B8:BC06, and 65.92.246.142: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Wikiuser100: Your request was contested here by Extraordinary Writ. It was then removed here by Ammarpad, which is not proper procedure; they should instead have converted your request into an RM or at least given you more time to respond. In any case, you can start an RM yourself by clicking the "discuss" button. Lennart97 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Some mixup seems to have occurred with the pings: the two IPs pinged above are not involved in this request, but @Extraordinary Writ: is. Lennart97 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• oppose per WP:ETHNICGROUP in general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used. In many cases, the most concise title will be a plural demonym, e.g. Bretons or Swedes. Note that in some cases, the common plural form is a mass noun that is the same as the singular form, as with Batak, Cherokee, or Wodaabe.—blindlynx 16:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The lead opens "The Mohican are..." which suggests that Mohican is such a mass noun that is the same as the singular form. Lennart97 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The above is true. In my original request I cited examples in WP of the (intextricably confused) Mohegan, as well as Lenape, Apache, Seminole, Comanche. I could readily turn up a score or two (or five) of examples corroborating the form - Oneida, Seneca, Wappinger, Cayuga, Munsee, Sioux, Chirakawa, Tuscarora, Montaukett....which can be confirmed by state here. It is the standard form in the encyclopedia. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on self id 'Mohicans' is the correct mass noun [5]—blindlynx 16:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As an observation, "Sioux" is a plural. Given the convoluted etymology of the names of other groups, it is not totally clear if an anglicised addition of an "s" for plural is necessarily correct in the original language in which the name was coined. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I figure following whatever members of the group do is the best course of action—blindlynx 01:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PLURAL. This was discussed several years ago in Move Requests for Aztecs and Olmecs. There are a number of other Native American ethnic group article titles that should be moved to the plural form based on Wikipedia title policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This argument only seeks to compound two mistakes. An error in the past is not correct by being repeated; and a policy in error (if even applicable) is just that.

The Mohican themselves refer to themselves in the singular: Mohican.com. Encyclopedia Britannica refers to them as Mohican. I've already listed a dozen examples, and pointed others to a link here at WP where they will find scores and scores of other Native American tribes referred to in their article title in the singular [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_tribes_by_state here. What more evidence do we need? Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While the site's name is singular, Mohican.com actually consistently uses Mohicans in the running text. Lennart97 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

They are the Mohican people. One is a Mohican. A group may be either "Mohicans" (e.g. "Five Mohicans entered the dance contest.") or "Mohican" (e.g. "A group of Mohican danced at the pow-wow."). The article title refers to the people, collectively. Wikiuser100 (talk)12:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And in general, I'd say we need evidence specific to Mohican(s). What other tribes are called is ultimately not as important. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In "general" and "in specific". I offered both the Tribe's own website - where they refer to themselves as the "Mohican" people, and Britannica, the "authoritative" encyclopedia (composed by experts, not just well-intentioned volunteer amateurs like ourselves  ;) ). Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We have evidence that self id plural is 'Mohicans', per WP:ETHNICGROUP that is what the title should be—blindlynx 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: Yes, on that website (https://www.mohican.com/brief-history/), they are referred to as "Mohican people". But this RM is not proposing a move to "Mohican people". In the phrase "Mohican people", the word Mohican is used as an adjective, not a noun. On that website, the noun is Mohicans, not Mohican (when not appending "people"). They use "Mohican" as an adjective in "Mohican people", "Mohican Indians", "Mohican historian", "Mohican women", "Mohican leaders", etc. But when used by itself, as a noun, it is "Mohicans". See "the lands of the Mohicans", "between the Mohicans and the Mohawks", "The Mohicans were eventually driven from their territory", "The vast lands, which the Mohicans had used ...", and so on – it's very consistent. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiedia article titles refer to Native American tribes as a people. That is the point. And is consistent about it. Right down to tribal bands (click here for the 16 bands of the Wappinger- all 17 of the names mentioned in the singular, referring to their respective "peoples"). I have twice pointed others to the list of Native American tribes by state list here demonstrating that consistency across the board. "Mohawk" as a people. Five "Mohawks" dancing. Article title: "Mohawk". Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To amplify the above point, the website https://www.mohican.com/brief-history/ uses "Mohican" as an adjective and "Mohicans" as the noun to refer to the group. The Mohican themselves refer to themselves in the singular: Mohican.com is absolutely wrong. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Untrue. We are talking about the people, the basis for the article title. From the The Origin and Early History section of their Brief History at mohican.com: "Because the Mohican people chose...." They indeed refer to themselves as the "Mohican" people. And their website isn't "mohicans.com" as we are trying to force on them. It's "mohican.com". Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be no polite way of putting this, but this is a matter of simple English comprehension. If you look at all of the page https://www.mohican.com/brief-history/ you will see that the word "Mohican" or "Mohicans" appears 51 times. Out of these there are 19 with an "s" on the end - i.e. plural. These are all nouns. Apart from 2 instances, the remainder are all adjectives. Therefore the predominant noun by which this group of people call themselves is used in the plural. I presume that you agree that a Wikipedia article title is usually a noun – I certainly struggle to think of one that has an adjective as its title. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No need to get snarky here, User:ThoughtIdRetired. Please see my response to User:BarrelProof, which I wrote before seeing this. This isn't a counting contest. How do the Mohican people refer to themselves at their own website? "...the Mohican people", verbatim. Wikiuser100 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am new to this. All kinds of arguments and examples in support have been given so far, all appearing in rebuttal to asterisked "opposes". How do they (and their posters) ever get credit as appearing in support? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RMCOMMENT. Each editor is limited to one "vote", but the result of an RM is decided based on consensus and all arguments are taken into consideration. Lennart97 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Who does the tallying - and weighing, as all arguments are not of the same merit? Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor in good standing, more at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If not an admin, the editor should be someone "highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures", per WP:RMCI. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Scrolling down this Talk page to get here my eyes caught a telling anomaly at the top of the 2019 RM discussion, indicating the two changes ultimately made:

• Mahican → Mohicans
• Mahican language → Mohican language

Naturally, this begs the error in the first of the two. If the singular was used for the language ("Mahican" became "Mohican"), and WP article titles refer to a people, then that change should have been "Mahican" → "Mohican", again in the singular. Not "Mahican" → "Mohicans".

The change to language was not made "Mahican language" → "Mohicans language". Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you might need to study the difference between an adjective and a noun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No need to get snarky, User:BarrelProof, either. Obviously I sabe the grammar. By your reasoning every single article WP has entitled for Native American tribes in the singular (including all 16 bands of the Wappinger and the Wappinger, and scores and scores of others in that listing I have provided three times now) are wrong. Article title, "blank", with "people" implied (except when specific disambiguation is required, when that word is appended in the title). By norm, fill in the blank ("people" implied). Mohawk. Apache. Comanche. Cayuga. Seminole. Creek. Cherokee. Nez Pierce. Catawba. Munsee. Lenape. Mohegan. Etc. Etc. Etc. No "Mohawks", "Apaches". "Comanches", "Cayugas", et al. Every single one of these is wrong? Wikiuser100 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The representation of other Indian tribes using their name in a simple Anglicised plural (i.e. stick an "s" on the end) does not seem to be as straightforward as suggested above. Looking at the Cherokee, this[6] says "...the Cherokee actually lived in...", and: "...gold was discovered on the Cherokee's land." Usage B1 in the OED has the quote: "The Cherokee have lived in North Carolina's...". Similar research on other tribes produces the same complex picture. It appears that the word "Cherokee" (sticking with that example) can be used for both singular and plural (much like the word sheep). I have already pointed out that "Sioux" is the plural of that word. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because the plural is the same as the singular does not mean it is not a plural. All of those are plural. Just as Inuit, Miꞌkmaq and Mississaugas are plurals—blindlynx

@Wikiuser100: That comment was actually not snark, or at least not purely snark; it has actually not been apparent to me that you have understood the distinction between an adjective and a noun, since your responses never seemed to respond directly to the remarks people made about that distinction. For example, as far as I have noticed, none of your comments in this discussion (including your latest one) have ever included the words "noun" or "adjective", despite everyone else here discussing the distinction between an adjective and a noun as part of their reasoning. As clarification, is it correct to say that you believe "Cherokee", when used as the Wikipedia article title or in a phrase like "the lands of the Cherokee included what is now western North Carolina", is an adjective? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per self-identification. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.