Talk:Great Law of Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Existed since 1000 BC? 2 Move request 3 RFC dispute at Constitution 4 Solar eclipse or lunar eclipse

[edit] Existed since 1000 BC?

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)

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

[edit] RFC dispute at Constitution

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)

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)

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

[edit] Solar eclipse or lunar eclipse

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)