Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natchez Massacre/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 04:31, 31 December 2012.

Natchez Massacre

 * Nominator(s): Jsayre64   (talk)  and Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delegates: Please, for courtesy, don't archive this nomination until I've considered the last statements in oppostion below. Jsayre64   (talk)  23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This article covers a historical event in which members of the Natchez tribe attacked French colonists at the French fort in modern-day Natchez, Mississippi, in 1729. Although over the following years the French retaliated, the massacre remained a bad memory for them and is now one of the major highlights of the history of French Louisiana.

Michaelmas1957 and I have addressed the remaining issues from the previous nomination and are now putting forth the article for a second FA consideration. Jsayre64  (talk)  01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is there such a long See also section? --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's especially lengthy, but I've removed the link to New France, since Louisiana (New France) is linked to in the text body. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - (All Done) Very interesting read, but the description of the event itself seems to lack some details. Could you clarify the differences in content between this article and Natchez people "Natchez Massacre and aftermath"? Overall a well-written article, but maybe some more background details and context could be added to fill a few minor gaps. GermanJoe (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Two examples: The "Natchez people" article has the approximate number of captives and a lot more details about the relations between the Natchez and other allied and hostile tribes. Both seem to be important aspects to make the article more comprehensive.
 * If the event was known as "massacre", the title is ok per WP:COMMONNAME. But i would suggest to reduce the usage of "massacre" and use a more neutral term in the text itself (attack, assault, raid, fighting ...).
 * Is there any detail available about Natchez casualties and any organized, armed resistance? Even if most colonists were taken by surprise, i find it unlikely, that there was no notable back-fighting.
 * The reason for the governor's dismissal is never stated explicitly (but clearly implied) - was he ordered back because of this attack and the heavy losses?
 * Tensions: "Tensions resurfaced when the new commandant, Chépart, demanded land containing ancestral Natchez graves in the center of a Natchez village." and attack: "The Natchez prepared for their strike by borrowing firearms from some French colonists ..." lack context. There has to been some activity between those 2 statements (protest, negotiations, threats ...).


 * Thanks for the input. This is what's been done since you commented and it addresses most of your concerns. I'm reluctant to include the casualties and captives stats from the Natchez people article, since this largely relies on a source that contradicts primary sources on the event, without explanation (see ). And my answer to your third bullet point: no, I can't find any detail on that, but the French definitely managed to drive away/kill some of the attackers. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks for the clarification. Further comments see below. GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When a professional historian specializing in this area contradicts primary sources, the response should not be to go back to reliance on the primary sources. That is in effect Original Research. The primary sources are historical documents and they require a professional historian to interpret and analyze them, they are not to be taken as the "truth of the matter". The information from the paper by Kathleen duVal should be included in the article, regardless of whether it gives a specific reason for contradicting the primary sources. There may be a number of good reasons for doing so - perhaps historians have uncovered information since 1730 for example. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "attempted to dislodge them": were they dislodged?
 * "Historical controversy surrounding the Natchez Massacre concerns the question": There is probably a way to make that tighter; several of those words don't add meaning to the sentence.
 * "both writing that the Natchez had conspired with other nations, but then attacked a few days earlier than the agreed date. ... Since the Natchez attacked two days earlier than the date agreed upon with the other nations, the other nations called off their participation,": See WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. . Thank you for the suggestions. Do you think the article is now FA-worthy? Jsayre64   (talk)  05:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Looks good; I made a couple of tweaks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying to the "Who messed with my Done" edit summary .... I did. See FAC instructions; don't use templates at FAC, since all the FACs are transcluded on one long page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm going to ask those currently opposing if they'd prefer to try to get this finished up during this FAC, or if they'd rather run this through Milhist's A-class process first. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea; whilst I have struck my oppose, I don't think the article is as comprehensive as it could be, and some input from Milhist would be an excellent idea to set it in the right direction. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have a preference. I see that this FAC continues to draw constructive input from other editors, and I also see that appealing to editors from MILHIST has also brought some additional attention to the article.  The article is still improving steadily as a result of this input.  It's been a while since I've helped push an article through FAC, but one of them was here for quite some time as reviewers pushed back and I continued to improve it.  (The article ended up way, way better as a result, but I'll admit it was a bit frustrating for me at the time).  As long as progress continues to be made on the article, and updates continue to be made on this page, I don't see that we have any kind of deadline here, so I'm fine leaving it here.   I think it might attract more attention here than on MILHIST A-class review.  Neil916 (Talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, Neil, but extensive revamp is not what FAC is for (though I grant you this principle could be seen as more honoured in the breach). While I generally like to give nominations every chance, I think archiving is appropriate now for this one, and I very much hope you'll continue to assist in the article's development and review, within or without of FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment II - (GermanJoe) Nice improvements (close to support). A few remaining points (Done):
 * lead "and the fort was ruined. The attack destroyed some of the Louisiana colony's most productive farms, and endangered shipments of food and trade goods on the Mississippi River. As a result, the French state returned control of Louisiana from the French West India Company to the crown in 1731" - this lead info needs to be incorporated in the main text aswell (see WP:LEAD as summary).
 * "As a result, the French state returned control of Louisiana from the French West India Company to the crown in 1731" - this important consequence needs a good source in main text. GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Do you have anything else or do you think the article is all set for FA? Jsayre64   (talk)  05:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Image check - still OK from last FA-nom (did some minor cleanup). GermanJoe (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Bibliography alphabetized. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - all points have been addressed. Looks like a comprehensive account of the event and its aftermath (where reliable information was available). GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Lacks comprehensiveness (1b), and for a lesser reason, the writing lacks clarity (1a). For the first issue, the description of the attack itself is remarkably thin for an encyclopedia article about an attack. There is a discussion of the background, response, and historical interpretations, but the description of the attack only spans six sentences, of which one is a mention that a detailed account was written of the attack. Some of the description leaves me with more questions than answers; 240 French colonists were killed, out of how many? How many attackers died? How did they get in? Was this a surprise attack? Who is Marie Baron Roussin, and why is it important that she was captured, and what happened to her? If Dumont de Montigny published a detailed account of the massacre, shouldn't we be able to come up with more than five sentences? The references section indicates that 21 pages of text plus a web page were sources for the section, wasn't there any other information? Even the French Wikipedia article on the subject includes more information about the attack, but Google Translate doesn't appear to handle French very well. As some examples of writing that need polish, use these as a model "One of their captives was Marie Baron Roussin—widow of Jean Roussin—who in 1731 married Jean-François-Benjamin Dumont de Montigny, as the latter revealed in his manuscript memoir, first published in French in 2008." from the attack section, and "Dumont de Montigny and Antoine-Simon Le Page du Pratz, the leading 18th-century historians of the Natchez, drew on information collected from French women taken captive during the massacre, both writing that the Natchez had conspired with other nations, but then attacked a few days earlier than the agreed date." from the Histroical interpretations section. The writing can be cleaned up in a couple hours of work, but the lack of comprehensiveness of the subject will probably be a much bigger chore. Neil916 (Talk) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? As I've said before, precise statistics given in some sources probably shouldn't be included in the article because they vary greatly from what historians wrote at the time, and it's not apparent what the real evidence is, so I haven't added any of those specifics, but I think the article is a lot more clear and detailed now. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now it should be even more clear, especially the "French response" section. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of those few WP:Milhist FACs that haven't had a lot of input from Milhist ... possibly because we don't cover most actions that have been termed "massacres", or maybe it's just a slow time of year. I'll be happy to help with prose issues after reviewers and noms are satisfied with comprehensiveness. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup for the delegates: we haven't had any input on comprehensiveness for a while, and I'm not sure what direction Neil916 would like to go with the prose; I'm guessing he likes shorter sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel kind of lost after this, which I don't completely agree with. Does Neil want more or less detail or is something else the problem? I've notified WT:MILHIST about the FAC, as he suggested. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose based on 1b, comprehensiveness.
 * As per Neil916, there is reportedly a detailed account of the attack, but only a few sentences in the article.
 * There is no mention of problems with the English in Carolina, which was in the French Wiki article and explained the alliance of the Natchez with the French, and provides background information.
 * The same on the reason for seizing the Natchez land, the French article specifies that it was for a tobacco plantation. It is this sort of attention to detail that is required in a Featured Article.
 * The French article indicates that the Natchez tribe was enslaved and exterminated by the French retaliation, and that it is currently extinct.
 * These are just a few of the issues, but in checking sources and other resources, I find that each raise more questions than the article provides answers. Until it is more comprehensive, I cannot support the article being promoted.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments, further issues:
 * The article still lacks comprehensiveness, despite the availability of sources.
 * James F. Barnett, The Natchez Indians: A History to 1735 (2007). Provides names and details of those who warned of attack, noted that Chepart had been drinking the night before the attack and had a hangover, after the massacre the tribe decided to defend the fort rather than withdraw, etc.  You list this as a reference, but you have omitted a great deal of detail that is necessary to raise this to a featured article.
 * Other sources are clearly available - see Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians (1899), as just one example.
 * I'm afraid I still have to oppose the article, at least as it stands now.  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose by Magicpiano
 * Maps: I don't know where this took place; please provide a map, either a US or MS-centric map that establishes a larger location context. I like the period maps, but they don't tell me where Natchez is in modern terms, and they also do not show the extent of French influence in the area at that time.  Was Fort Rosalie on the edge of French influence?
 * Sources: I'm a little concerned that a significant portion of the article is cited to 18th century French sources (more than half the citations are to these sources). This sort of article begs to have modern treatments used as much as possible, because it is only really in the latter half of the 20th century that historiography has treated Native American issues with something resembling balance.  (Feel free to push back on this, because I think the article is actually tipped toward the Native side.)
 * A specific citation issue: "a position consistent with the views of other 18th-century historians [...] and the Jesuit missionary Pierre-François-Xavier de Charlevoix, whose Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle-France was published in 1744.[36]" Cite 36 is to the frontispiece of a Charlevoix edition; this page does not contain an expression of Charlevoix's opinion. (You need to either cite someone else explaining Charlevoix's position, or cite a page from Charlevoix in support of the assertion.)
 * Comprehensiveness: echoing the above, here are some specific issues:
 * Were the colonists armed?
 * What was Chepart's reputation? When was he given command of Fort Rosalie? By whom?  Why did Chepart want the Natchez land?
 * This source suggests that Chepart's demand was made much earlier than November.
 * Was the arrival of Chepart and his actions the only thing that contributed to a deterioration in relations? (What else were the Natchez worried about?)
 * Elaborating: please tell me more about internal Natchez politics: how did they view relations with the French? Assimilation of French culture into their own? How did those views change in the years leading up to the massacre?  (The article currently reads as if things were mostly civil except for a few issues, when sources like Usner describe a deteriorating situation.)  Magic ♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we know how far ahead of the attack the warnings were voiced (days or weeks)?
 * There is no legacy section. Where is the Fort Rosalie site today, (briefly) what was its history after this event, and is it preserved? Is the site Chepart wanted also preserved?
 * A minor issue, but I would start the background by stating when French settlement of the lower Mississippi began.
 * Article needs more copyediting (samples):
 * Awkward: "In response to this threat, the Natchez seemed to promise to cede the land on the condition that they were given two months to prepare to relocate their temple and graves."
 * I'm going to object to this characterization (the Natchez "seeming" to promise) since it is made by a likely biased 18th century source. If you want to retain it, please support it with a modern analysis, e.g. quotes reproduced in Usner who describes the Natchez deliberations in some detail.  Magic ♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unclear: "This convinced the commandant even further ..." What is "this", and what is it further than?
 * "later had him beheaded by an executioner." --> "later beheaded him."

--(signature got lost due to edit conflict)  Magic ♪piano 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Oppose Sorry, but this article just doesn't seem comprehensive. -Simon Burchell (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs some more context - such as why the fort and trading post was established, perhaps a brief summary of French colonial history in the area; it could also do with a brief summary of the Natchez people, their ethnic identity, language, territory and history in the area.
 * The "Attack" section seems to basically say the Natchez arrived, they attacked, they killed lots of people. Isn't there anything more that can be said? How and where did they attack? In what order did the violence spread? What weapons did the Natchez use? Were the French colonists armed? Why were the French unable to mount an effective defence? It all seems very vague.

Done. It should all be good now. Jsayre64  (talk)  17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I find that most of the questions I posed above (in pursuit of improved comprehensiveness) are unaddressed. If you intend to continue working on the article, I will strike the ones I think you've addressed.  Magic ♪piano 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? Jsayre64   (talk)  05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement; I've stricken the addressed ones on my list. Note that I posed some of these questions, including some that remain, because I found answers for them that I felt would add value to the article.  I'm also dubious that you've addressed GregJackP's issues (which I generally concur with), and would like to see him weigh in.  (I've also elaborated on some of my outstanding objections above.)  Magic ♪piano 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not where I can look at this with the detail that it deserves (on my cellphone). After a brief look, and in response to Dank's question on my talkpage, I think that the article should probably go through an A-class review first.  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: criteria 1b (not comprehensive), 1c (not well researched due to overreliance on primary sources), 1d (not neutral due to partial quality of primary sources), 2a (lead not sufficient as a summary of the article). I do apologize for throwing sand into the machinery at this late stage of the review. I do believe that an excellent article could be written here and that we have a very good beginning. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Larger historical context + contradictions

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)


 * 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)
 * I would encourage a much greater reliance on sources such as Sayre 2002, 2009 (btw any relation to the nominator? That might have been a reason these sources haven't been used, but they really should be, since they are among the most recent sources, it is ok to cite oneself if one is an authority on the topic). 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)
 * 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.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that User Jsayre64 seems to be from Oregon where Professor Gordon Sayre is also from I am thinking that perhaps they are one and the same. In that case my comments should be read in a different light. If this suspicion is the case then I think that the lack of use of contemporary sources is because of the professional status of the author, who indeed is a professional historian who is capable of interpreting and evaluating primary sources. The lack of citations to Sayre's own work may be modesty and reluctance to self-cite which is commendable. Both are however problematic for the article. Wikipedia articles should be written not on the model of a research article that cites primary sources, but on the model of a review article that surveys the secondary literature. In a review article an author of course has to review his or her own articles if they are important in the field that is being reviewed, and it cannot rely too heavily on historical documents while leaving out what contemporary writers have written on the topic. If indeed we have one of the main authorities on the Natchez wars contributing here then were are in luck and the article may become really good, but in order to make the most of this the article should be rewritten to rely on contemporary sources and use the historical sources more explicitly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making a more detailed objection that elaborates my relatively modest complaint on the subject of sourcing. I am used to, on occasion, resorting to historical chronicles for sources, but I try to avoid it.  This episode in history seems to be well documented in secondary sources, and I concur they should be preferred.  This is something that is probably best not addressed in the context of this FAC.  I agree with GregJackP (and apparently Dank) that this should probably be sent into a MILHIST ACR after the issues of sources and comprehensiveness have been answered.  (I'd further recommend that the nominator invite those making these substantive objections to weigh in on those matters on the article talk page before it goes into a formal review again.  Cleary effort has gone into getting it this far, and the article should eventually reach FA.)  Magic ♪piano 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Thank you all for your input. Taking into account the latest round of comments, I think it's time we called a halt to this and let the nominator -- perhaps in consultation with some of the reviewers, as suggested by MagicPiano -- continue work away from the FAC process. While some sections have indeed been expanded, it appears more sources could be consulted, and personally I'd also hope that we could see further detail on the attack itself, as we seem to go from "challenge" to "massacre" in the blink of an eye. I concur with recommendations to go through MilHist A-Class Review once all that's complete, before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.