Talk:Moingona

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Iowa

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).

Clarification needed[edit]

What kind of clarification is needed regarding the various flags?

The first one, about the "shit-faced" misconceptions, is discussed fairly effectively in the next paragraph.

What else needs to be cleared up about the Nicollet observation?

What else needs to be cleared up about he final conclusion?

JPFay (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over the meaing of Moingona[edit]

My work on the etymology of 'Moinguena' is being grossly mischaracterized. I've since fixed it, with appropriate citations.Djcosta (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine if you want to edit the article, but do not delete referenced information just because you disagree with it. You should attempt to incorporate your information with the existing information in a neutral way. Simply deleting large sections of referenced work is considered vandalism. I have made an attempt to combine all the alternative information into a neutral tone. Thanks, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that in a discussion of the origins of the Grand Canyon, it's 'important' to include claims it was formed 4,000 years ago by Noah's Ark.Djcosta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fay's claims are simply nonsense, but if you think it's important to act like he knows what he's talking about, I doubt I can convince you otherwise.Djcosta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You consider this 'neutral'?:

"These amusing reconstructions and interpretations are more newsworthy, more web popular, and more ‘way cool’ than the soundly warranted historical evidence, and so, over time, the facts get lost in the shuffle. That seems to be what has happened or is happening to “Moingona.” There is no historical record that “shit-faced” was ever expressed or implied in the vernacular usage of the term. There is very substantial evidence to the contrary by probably the most knowledgeable Algonquian linguists who ever lived. Missionaries who understood the language repeatedly used the term, not as a dirty metaphor or ugly insult, but as a very respectful name used in very cordial interactions with the people to whom it referred"

Wow.Djcosta (talk)

At the very least, I'd rather you didn't retain Fay's bizarre characterization of me as a 'theoretical linguist'.Djcosta (talk)

I have deleted this line from Fay's rebuttal:

"These amusing reconstructions and interpretations are more newsworthy, more web popular, and more ‘way cool’ than the soundly warranted historical evidence, and so, over time, the facts get lost in the shuffle. That seems to be what has happened or is happening to “Moingona.”

...because it is basically a completely subjective ad hominem that fails to contribute to his 'argument'.Djcosta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Meidation Needed?[edit]

There seems to be a serious conflict here that may warrant mediation. Both User:Djcosta and User:JPFay have published outside work on this topic, and have different views, to say the least. I have tried to make the WP article more neutral with both views presented; however, as editor of the Iowa Archeological Society Newsletter, I have published some of Fay's work, so I also have a conflict of interest. Recently Costa has deleted references to Fay's work and labled Fay an "amateur" historian in the article. Costa's complaints about earlier versions of the article are articulated above. I strongly recommend that either Fay or Costa put this matter into mediation (the process can be seen on that page). If neither is willing to enter into mediation, then I'd recommend that an outsider begin WP:Arbitration. Hope this can be resolved amicably, Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moingona. 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://archive.is/20120723212014/http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030914/ENT/70323017 to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20030914%2FENT%2F70323017

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]