Talk:Metoac

This article is just wrong.

This article is an attempt to shoe-horn a completely inaacurate premise, that there were 13-or-so Native American tribes on Long Island at one time, into something more palatable, like they were not tribe names but place names. Silas Wood, the local politician and amateur "historian" responsible for creating the 13-tribe myth, has been proven to be at best mistaken, and at worse a charletan. This article should be removed to prevent further perpetuation of the "Metoac" myth. For more on the debunking: [1] Shoreranger (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to be specific on what is inaccurate. The article as currently written states in the first sentence that the 13 tribes is inaccurate and it was acutally place names. There are 2,360 Google articles most of which refer to Metotac as a tribe and there are 160 books most of which refer to Metotac as a tribe. I have always argued that the article needs to be here to clarify the situation rather than deleting it altogether. Afterall if push comes to shove, there is only one article saying there never a Metotac while there are hundreds that say there was. Further, a tribal organization is recognized by New York State for reservations for Shinnecock and Poospatuck. And from a legal perspective tribes did exist on Long Island and that is how the land was sold (mainly be Wyandanch). Americasroof (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but the arguement that the myth has been perpetuated so well that over 2,000 hits on a Google search return does not prove the myth as fact, only that it is widespread. The return of hits on "Lost City of Atlantis" does not mean the place or the people actually existed, right? The 160 books you refer to all rely on a fallacy created by Silas Wood. A verifiable source by Wiki standards for Native Americans on Long Island, that is peer reviewed and refutes the "Metoac" myth, is Strong's Algonquian Peoples of Long Island (ISBN-13: 978-1557871480), itself referenced in The Columbia Guide to American Indians of the Northeast (ISBN-13: 978-0231114523). You can probably get a hold of Srong at (631) 283-4000. Further, the existance of political entities recognized by New York State is apples-and-oranges when discussing this myth. It only proves that it was convenient at one time for the state to apply a given name to a group, that is all. There are many books about Native Americans on Long Island that don't mention "Metoac": just because a book doesn't specifically refute the myth doesn't mean it tacitly accepts it. The whole article just muddles the whole thing, and implies legitimacy to the Metoac concept to the casual reader, and doesn't provide any real clarity with a closer reading. It should just go. If it can be re-written in a way that clearly addresses the whole 13-tribes concept as a hoax, then the current article should be removed until that article is ready. A stub refering to the Silas Wood fallacies would suffice in the meantime. Shoreranger (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally revisited this and got it to a point where it does not confuse the reader and perpetuate the myth. Shoreranger (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to clean it up. However, I still disagree with your deletion of the names of tribes alleged to have been on Long Island. There's a lot of articles out there both on Wikipedia and elsewhere that refer to to those names. The context is now lost and so the myth will continue. And for what it's worth the Shinnecocks are supposedly very close to federal recognition. Americasroof (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult collaborating when you delete talk about the issue and remove referenced material including direct quotes. Americasroof (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly: I deleted talk on my own discussion page to clean it up. You will notice there were other posts besides your note to me that was removed. I am unaware of any Wiki policy that precludes or discourages such clean-up, but you are welcome to try and enlighten me. Secondly, I "reverted" the article to a version that had stood for a long time, despite the problems with it, because it was preferable to the complete re-write. I encourge cited material, in context, but in the case of this article it would seem best if it came one piece at a time to make it accurate, unlike what replaced it. That revert included the information on the "locations" despite my objections to the confusion it creates, which should be an indication of my good faith. The problem it: I do not have the leisure time necessary to dedicate to this article that will be necessary to haggle a usable version, I suspect, and I know of noone else who is interested enough in an eroneous term to provide a good Wikipedia article on it - in fact, most want it ignored in the hopes it will largely be ignored on Wikipedia by readers, but I am not convinced. Shoreranger (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being just wrong, the article is full of grammar and punctuation mistakes and odd, nonsensical wording. Besides needing to be rewritten based on verifiable sources, it needs to be translated into adult English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparative maps

Both maps shown show a view of the native populations of Mid- Atlantic Coastal region. The one showing the broader region correctly shows the Canarsee and Rockaway as being a more closely related to the Lenape, and sets the border for Metoac much furthur east on Long Island than the Nassau County line. Though used in articles (they are graphically interesting and better than nothing) they are misleading, particularly the Long Island map, which seems to blob all the native into one, as does this article. Using location exonyms for naming the people who inhabited the place, as was common in the 1600s, relying on the colonialists' choices (the only written info available) may support the idea of thirteen distinct groups, but squeezing them into the banner of 13 nations, and calling them all Metoac does seem to be stretching it a bit. In any case the maps, made by the same person, do contradict each other.Djflem (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Spot-on. As far as I am concerned, maps should be as peer-reviewed as any other source. Shoreranger (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tentative tag removal

I have tentatively removed this long standing tags as I believe the article does sufficiently represent its title. There would seem a need to furthur elaborate on the concept of the thirteen tirbes as developed by Silas Wood (whose article, incidently does not cover any of his writings cover this topic), though it can stand w/o it.Djflem (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

09-2010 update

Last mention of pending federal status is 2009.Djflem (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Change name of article

Rather than perpetuating the inaccurate name of Native Americans on Long Island as Metaoc, in an article that attempts to update information about them based on solid history and science, why not rename the article and have Metaoc be a minor sub=head or topic within it, along with the names of what at one time were thought to be 13 tribes? The article could be renamed as "Native American tribes of Long Island", for instance, or "Native American peoples on Long Island." There is way too much information that is useful to have the article dominated by the inaccurate name. "Metaoc" could be set up to link to the correctly named article.Parkwells (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Shoreranger (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)