Talk:Natchez revolt

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natchez revolt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

attacked French colonists in Louisiana in 1729, killing over 240 people?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 29, 2012, November 29, 2015, November 29, 2016, and November 29, 2019.

Current status: Featured article

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

inactive .ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles

project's importance scale .

Military history: European / French / North America / United States / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review.

United States: Louisiana / Mississippi / History Low‑importance

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

Talk:Natchez Massacre/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

This is a really nice article, clear and concise, describing a specific incident. I have been through the article and made a couple of copy edits.[1]

I have just one question before I complete the review. In the lede it says: "The governor of the colony, Étienne Périer, was recalled to France in 1733." However, this isn't followed up in the body of the article. Why was he recalled?

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [2] --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose:

   copyright laws

   , correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides

   reliable sources

   where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

   Very nice images

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear from the article, or links, why this is called a 'revolt' as opposed to a 'war' between the Natchez & the French. Can some clarifying citations be added?Tttom1 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly wouldn't call it a war because it took place in only one day. Calling it a revolt is more appropriate because the Natchez were protesting the French's intervention in their society and it was relatively short-term. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A battle during a war then. The article indicates several months of conflict, not one day. Revolt implies the Natchez were subjects of the French but I don't see anything supporting that. Independent peoples & nations don't 'revolt' against other nations, only their own nation. It is certainly a common misapplication in imperial and colonial times to justify aggression against other independent entities as putting down 'revolts' or 'rebellions'. According to Natchez people this was one of 4 wars and it is there called a 'rebellion' without any substantiation that this is about an actual rebellion. Tttom1 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about we just go with "massacre"? That's in the title of the article, anyway. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither a revolt nor was it an act of war as their bloodletting was not committed against a military target. It was a massacre perpetrated against innocent French civilians, the majority of whom did not survive. To call it a revolt is an omission of fact to the point of insult to the memory of the innocent French colonials who died at the hands of the Natchez savages that day. Mrjrcash (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjrcash: there's no point in replying to a 7+ years old post. There is a more recent but still old discussion at the bottom. To change it you'd have to show that most reliable sources call it something else. See WP:Article titles. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently seems to contradict the article on the Natchez people, which describes the 1730-31 war between the Natchez and the French as a disaster for the Natchez who ended up with no territory living dispersed among Cherokee and Chickasaw, and eventually driven to Oklahoma on the trail of tears. The massacre basically marks the end of the Natchez as a coherent nation. The article currently says that it "did not result in significant setbacks for the natives". Generally the article ignores the larger context of colonization of which the massacre and the French-Natchez wars were part, and it could do a better job at giving attention to the historical events leading up to the massacre and those following it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary French sources

The article uses a number of 18th century accounts by Dumont de Montigny, Le Page du Pratz and as if they were an objective sources of history, when in fact they are historical documents. They obviously are not objective historical accounts, as they were partial to the event and were not writing objective history but memoirs. It seems unlikely for example that the Natchez should have a caste called "stinkards" which is clearly a French word. Any use of 17th century should be as a primary source, i.e. with in text attribution and no interpretation. The article needs to find more contemporary sources written by historians who have critically analyzed primary sources such as those that support the bulk of the article in its current state.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage a much greater reliance on sources such as Sayre. Also Barnett's 2007, "The Natchez Indians: A History To 1735", seems to be an excellent source compared to reading the old French memoires.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• Patricia D. WoodsThe French and the Natchez Indians in Louisiana: 1700-1731 Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 413-435
• Douglas R. White, George P. Murdock and Richard Scaglion. Natchez Class and Rank Reconsidered. Ethnology Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 369-388 (regarding the "stinkards")
• ALBRECHT, A. C. (1946), INDIAN-FRENCH RELATIONS AT NATCHEZ. American Anthropologist, 48: 321–354.
• MOONEY, J. (1899), THE END OF THE NATCHEZ. American Anthropologist, 1: 510–521

And finally there is an MA thesis from the LSU history department called "THESE SAVAGES ARE CALLED THE NATCHEZ: VIOLENCE AS EXCHANGE AND EXPRESSION IN NATCHEZ-FRENCH RELATIONS" that is probably not the best source, but at least as good as 300 year old primary sources and which is definitely an interesting read.[3]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sme information from Arnaud Balvay's 2013 chapter in the edited volume The French and the Indians in the Heart of North America. I have ordered the book through interlibrary loan, but as for now I have been using the google preview which has no page numbers. When the book arrives I will supply page numbers. The chapter which is a summary of his 2008 book in French contradicts a lot of the romantic view of settler harmony and shows that there was increasing tensions between Natchez and French in the decades before the revolt, and he als shows that the retaliations by the French chased destroyed the Natchez as a people forcing them to live scattered among Creek and Cherokees as refugees by 1740.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We give the date of the massacre as November 29th - Barnett 2007:104 gives November 28th. Which is it? Du Pratz says they set out on the eve of St. Andrew which is the night of november 29th.
• We also claim that the NAtchez woman who warned the French of the attack was Tattooed Arm. This seems unlikely given that she was the Female Chief of the matrilineal Natchez. Barnett states that it was the Natchez lover of a French officer, citing Du Pratz. [Checked Du Pratz and he says that Tattooed Arm told Natchez women to warn their French lovers]
• The Number of dead. Currently the article says 240. Barnett gives two figures that are quite a bit lower. Ive removed the Conrad source wiwhich was cited for the 240 figure - and which does not seem to be a specialized source regarding the Natchez.

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the title is a little problematic both because it is somewhat non-neutral focusing solely on the casualties inflicted by Natchez against French and not on the subsequent retaliation by the French which basically amounted to genocide. Secondly most of the recent sources focus on the fact that the massacre of Fort Rosalie was a revolt against an increasingly intrusive and oppresive form of colonization by the French, and call it a revolt. I think Natchez revolt is a better title both because of this, and because it better describes the topic of the article which is the entire situation surrounding the French/Natchez hostilities, and not only the massacre at Fort Rosalie.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have a pretty convincing argument. I will change the title to "Natchez revolt" and start updating links in other articles, though hopefully this won't be a disruption to the upcoming A-class review? Jsayre64 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it shouldn't be a disruption, but certainly something we would want to have figured out by the end of the review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]