Talk:Great Peace of Montreal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This may be the section that gave rise to the Neutrality tag. It contains some sweeping generalizations and statements that sound PoV and don't have any references to refer back to for verification. This section needs to be cleaned up and citations included for verifiable statements about French/aboriginal relations. There must be some academic studies or histories of the topic available Corlyon (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the offending text; it was blatantly anti-English and backed up by absolutely zero sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph unrepresentative of what was accomplished post treaty. Looking for more substantive information and citations.AnthonyIPA (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

General bias[edit]

This article as presently written presents in significant degree only the French perspective. What is missing is significant descriptions of diplomatic activities of the Iroquois and other native parties, especially in dealings with the English, who are only mentioned as traders. (They claimed to be guarantors of Iroquois security, but failed to do so in King William's War.) English diplomacy and frontier activity had an impact on the negotiations leading to Montreal, which is not mentioned. (The Iroquois in 1698-1701 conducted diplomacy both in Montreal and Albany, and also concluded a significant agreement in Albany in 1701 that furthered English imperial objectives; none of this is mentioned here.) The imperial ambitions of both England and France (claiming some sort of sovereign control over Iroquoia) is also missing. For these deficiencies of content I have reduced the assessment to Start. Magic♪piano 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, the article is missing alot of information. Your caricaturization of bias is a little incorrect though. THe English are mentioned as more than traders, but as allies of the Iroquois, and the results impacted the French much more than the English, so its only fitting to discuss that more. I think its best to look at this article in the context of the Beaver Wars - another article needing work. Please feel free to improve them both. I disagree with the downgrading to start class, it is a weak C according the assessment scale. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I don't keep track of which projects use C and which don't, I tend to ignore it as an assessment. Feel free to rate up those that use it.
As far as the English as allies: the problem is that Iroquois politics isn't that simple. While the Covenant Chain existed as a formal alliance, there were significant factions that were either neutral or pro-French within the league, and all of this is absent here. I only came to this article because I've been working on Richard Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont, the governor of MA/NH/NY 1698-1701, and was exposed to this in researching his role in frontier negotiations. Agreed that the impact of this treaty was of greatest importance to the French and the Iroquois, but the English (in particular Bellomont) tried to stop the negotiations. (One major reason for their failure in this was, as far as I've read, their inability to actually protect the Iroquois as promised in the Covenant Chain.)
Significantly improving the article would require more research into Iroquois politics than I'm presently prepared to do. Magic♪piano 15:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the reason for the bias is that the 300th anniversary of the Grande paix de Montréal was celebrated in Quebec in 2001. There were numerous events, several books were published, historians were interviewed, etc. The article (and the French one is more or less the same) presents the perspective our media underlined at the time. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should put it this way: you have alleged bias without providing sources. I agree the article requires improvement, but I do not believe there is an inherent or purposeful bias in it. So if you are unwilling to invest the time to address your concerns, you should at least provide some evidence that they have merit. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For a nuanced view of internal Iroquois politics and their diplomatic activities leading up to 1701, see for example:
  • Richter, Daniel (1992). The Ordeal of the Longhouse. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807843949. OCLC 255455334.
  • Richter, Daniel (2003) [1987]. Beyond the Covenant Chain. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. ISBN 9780271022994. OCLC 51306167. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
These were my primary sources in working on this subject in the Bellomont article.
I did not state that the bias is purposeful -- I merely state that it exists. Uncited statements like "egged on as they were by the colonists of New York, who encouraged their Iroquois allies to attack the Saint Lawrence Valley" are also problematic on their face, by the way. The French could be said to "egg on" their allies, too, but this is not stated (or even suggested). Magic♪piano 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Further instances of bias:
  • Frontenac defeats the English at Quebec in 1690. Why were the English at Quebec in fall 1690? Because of three Frontenac-orchestrated attacks on the New England frontiers. Why did those happen? (1) war declared in Europe (2) reprisal for Lachine massacre. Why did Lachine massacre happen? Not sure of proximate causes, but the chain clearly goes back further. Now, you obviously don't have to present this entire context here, but as presently stated the article leaves me with a strong impression that the English (and by extension the Iroquois) are the aggressors, when the history is clearly somewhat more nuanced. (Sources: see for example Peckham, The Colonial Wars, or Kingsford for Frontenac's role in the 1690 French offensive.)
  • The whole last paragraph of the Aftermath, while I accept its basic truth (even though it isn't cited), is relatively unvarnished French-Canadian boosterism and is not well-connected to the rest of the article. A discussion of French strategy for dealing with North American natives vs. that of other nations would be appropriate in a background section (not the aftermath).
  • "French followed their long-used reasonable policy" - "reasonable" is POV
  • "The Great Peace of Montreal is a unique diplomatic event" - uncited POV
Magic♪piano 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Historical shortcuts instead of historical context, promotional terms, etc.
Sources that could surely be of interest in addition to American or British ones are Gilles Havard's The Great Peace of Montreal of 1701 (preview of first 55 pages) and Alain Beaulieu's The Great Peace. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've given it a bit of a rewrite, adding some missing details and removing most of the above issues. I think (based on a modest number of sources I looked at) that it avoids unnecessary accusations of complicity in various actions without evidence. (No, I didn't cite anything, but I believe everything I wrote is more citable than what I removed.) Magic♪piano 17:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Wasn't the Huron-Wendat leader of prime importance in the success of the treaty? Shouldn't he be mentionned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Peace of Montreal. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)