Talk:Neutral Confederacy

Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / History Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

removing image link

I am removing the image of the 'Neutral Longhouse' from the Museum of Ontario Archaeology as it is not an accurate reconstruction - it does not use materials that are or were available to the people of the area (birch bark). I work at the museum and we keep getting people coming to us about this image. The ones from Ska-nah-doh are probably better, but we don't really have any good idea of what they looked like above ground. [User:Elanya|Elanya]] - 2020-12-01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elanya (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Removed image: MusOntarArchae 4618a.jpg[reply]

Claims that I removed regarding the neutral nation

I removed the material from the article, because quite frankly I strongly doubt that that information was derived from sources that are defined as appropriate for use in Wikipedia. It may have a basis in lore, but all information in Wikipedia must be obtained from reliable previously published sources, no independent research or first hand accounts are allowed.Check this out to get an idea of what I'm talking about Deconstructhis (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current article is unsupported

The current version of this article is a very biased representation of history that appears to be slanted heavily toward an interpretation put forward by some members of Haudenoshaunee people, but is not shared by mainstream historians or the oral lore and history of the Mississauga nation. Please provide citations from reputable previously published sources to support these extraordinary claims. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have cut and pasted most of these comments from comments I've made on another talk page, because of how similar the two situations are.) A large amount of the material in the current version of this article consists of what appears to me, to be a very dubious and highly personal interpretation of the history of the Attawandaron ("Neutral") nation and other native groups in the areas surrounding Lakes Erie and Ontario. It seems to me, for the most part, to be so far out of mainstream thought on the subjects involved, that I feel that unless proper citations from reliable sources are provided to support what's being contended, that it has no place in Wikipedia. The problem with the material, in my opinion is that the editor involved is mixing his own unsupported idiosyncratic "theories" in with potentially interesting historical materials to such an extent, that it would be difficult for an average reader to differentiate between the "wheat and the chaff". Out of a sense of fairness to the editor involved, for the moment, I have refrained from immediately deleting what appears to me to be some fairly extraordinary claims, in order to provide them with time to support their position with properly referenced citations from reputable sources. Without proper citations, it is my opinion that the material in its present form is highly questionable and unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would appreciate input on these matters from knowledgeable people involved in the Indigenous peoples of North America project here on Wiki. Thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links I keep seeing being added and removed from this and related pages is this one. Reading this website I find my "assume good faith" challenged. Pages like this make it look like this group is primarily about casinos. While I am no expert on the history of the Erie, Neutral, and other groups, I have a hard time swallowing the recent edits by the editor who keeps adding this external link. I try to assume good faith, I do... sometimes it is hard. Pfly (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, now you have a good article.

OK, I've fixed the original article up a fair bit with some material from good secondary sources. If I find more, I'll come back and add more info. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These Sources Are Seriously Flawed

Actually a lot of the current sources for this article are seriously flawed. Any source material older than the past three decades or so on this subject should be taken with a large grain of salt, Neutral scholarship has changed tremendously over the past thirty years and this article does not reflect that. Information dependent on material from the early 20th century version of the Catholic Encyclopedia for instance, which this article is heavily dependent on, is now well outside accepted mainstream archaeological scholarship in the field. An excellent starting resource for developing a more current perspective on this subject is: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario To A.D. 1650, Chris J. Ellis & Neal Ferris, Editors, 1990, Ontario Archaeological Society, ISBN: 0-919350-13-5. It would be very helpful if someone could apply the proper template to the top of this article that would provide a 'heads up' to readers and indicate the problems with outdated sources being utilized that I've outlined. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I did the best I could with the few sources available - actually, the Catholic Encyclopedia stuff was here before me, and I just added information from Reville. If you have access to the source you mention above, feel free to wade in and add to the article. I'd suspect that Neutral scholarship has changed as well - it seems to have become a politically charged topic what with that Haldimand Tract war going on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, any efforts to improve the encyclopedia are always appreciated. The problem with the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source in this instance is that it's perspective is based on misinterpretations of the Jesuit accounts by early ethnographers and in particular a heavy reliance on Nicolas Sanson's erroneous 1656 map. On Sanson's map the Jesuit missions are displayed as being spread out across the north shore of Lake Erie and even into areas just south of the Lake Huron basin. Modern archaeology now believes that the area occupied by the Neutral nation at the first contact with Europeans in the early 17th century was in all likelihood pretty much restricted to an area between the Grand River valley and the western end of Lake Ontario, especially on the Niagara peninsula and that the purported Jesuit missions existed in the same vicinity. It can be somewhat confusing because the archaeology also indicates that the ancestors of the Neutrals, previous to the 17th century, had in fact at one time occupied areas as far west as present day Chatham Ontario in the Thames Valley and moved in a slow migration eastward over a long period of time through the vicinity around present day London and St. Thomas, in all probability abandoning (at least for settlement purposes) the areas they had previously inhabited as they went. It's been suggested that this ongoing movement was spurred by political conflicts with their Algonquian neighbours to the west. You're right to point out the potential political difficulties inherent here, but in terms of the Neutral nation itself, I'd suggest that the majority of mainstream opinion on both sides of any potential political divides would be pretty much in agreement with what I've outlined above, at least as far as the circumstances surrounding the Neutrals themselves go. As always I'll put this article on my 'to do' list, with the continuing hope that someone else might enjoy making a trip to the library as well. :) Deconstructhis (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. My only additions, based on Reville, were made just because I was reading the book online, thought it was a neat source, and then saw very little in the Wikipedia article on the Nuetrals or Kandoucho. I'd like to keep an eye out for more info on the Neutrals in my readings, just cos it seems a nice thing to do - but I guess I'm not someone who would be able to do much editor-level work. I'm certainly not an archaeologist. I'll be happy to see more additions to this article, even if it's years from now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Current Context To Consider When Editing Lower Great Lakes Natives Historical Articles

In my opinion those editors who are interested in contributing to articles regarding historical Iroquoian/Mississauga cultural matters in the Toronto region in general, may be interested in reading the following.[1] A quick Internet search for Mr. "Redwolf" [Nexus news is best] and connected interests, indicates to me that many of the (in my opinion) "questionable" editing choices in Toronto regional historical native articles, over the past while, reflect a theoretical bias toward the ideas of a U.S. based group who call themselves the "Erie Moundbuilders Tribal Nation", with whom Mr. "Redwolf" apparently now publicly self identifies. Those of you who have edited articles in the recent past on these subjects will probably quickly recognize this group. (see news story link above and past versions and discussion pages of Erie nation and Teiaiagon articles.) regards Deconstructhis (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chonnonton

Where does this name come from? An IP has inserted it in June 2009.--Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess in this instance is that "Chonnonton" is being derived from the Neutral nation entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia [2] mentioned in the reference section. In my opinion this is an instance where information in the CE is letting us down. There's a broad consensus in the Iroquoian literature that the actual name that the "Neutral" people called themselves is in fact unknown and in all likelihood lost to history. The names we see applied to them in these instances are without a known exception, either a name applied to them by a neighbouring people or names lifted from local maps of the period which were mislabelled by incoming Europeans after misunderstanding exactly who was being described to them. On whole, this article really needs some work; it's too bad, there's actually a fair bit of historical and archaeological information about this nation available in the literature; no one's ever simply put it together. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. In the german WP this name has made a certain career: Someone has simply turned the article's name into "Chonnonton". I have tried to create an improved version, but it's difficult to find adequate publications in Germany. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the name here used for Neutrals actually the name for the Seneca? In scientific literature it pops up as most likely the name for these more notorious Iroquoians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.182.5 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Neutral Confederacy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

maybe never much more than a stub unless someone has more detail, maybe a conjectural map; related language article would appear to be ~~Huron~~ --Skookum1 (14 May 06)

The Hurons spoke the Wyandot language, but I'm not sure if the Neutrals spoke that --Miskwito 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Neutral Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]