Talk:Plaçage

Verify tag

I added the verify tag because although there are links here, it's not clear which references back up which assertions in the text. There are also a couple of POV-ish sentences there as well. --Deville (Talk) 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

...'which references back up which assertions'? 'POV-ish sentences'?

I've studied this topic for some time for a novel; I note where I got this information and I get this reception?

Which of the assertions bother you, or is it the whole thing? Honestly...

gab 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi gab. First, let me be clear; I'm not saying that everything, or even anything, in this article is false. It may all very well be true, and moreover I am sure that you know way more about this subject than I do. In fact, all I know is what I learned in school (I grew up in New Orleans as well), and I'll be the first to admit that that isn't much.

However, the question here isn't truth or falsity of the assertions in the text, it is the verification, or, more specifically, how I personally, or any other reader, would go about checking the assertions made in the text.

I also notice that you're a pretty new user, and that this is one of the articles which you've done a lot of work on. I think this is great, and I certainly think Wikipedia needs contributors like yourself, especially because you clearly know about subjects that I personally don't. But in the light of you being a newish contributor to Wikipedia, let me also say what the "verification" tag means, or, at least, what I think it means. I'm not saying that the article needs to go; if I thought that, I'd have tagged it for deletion, or at least comments. What I'm actually saying when I put this tag is that I didn't feel as though the article satisfied WP:V, and that the article could be improved if it did. You shouldn't think of this tag as criticism, or even community concensus; it is simply my opinion. You have an opinion as well, and yours has as much right to be expressed as mine. In particular, you should feel free to remove the tag if you really think that the article is well-sourced and the sources are well-documented, and of course you certainly have the power to do so. (It's Wikipedia, after all. Just edit the article and remove the tag if you'd like.)

My thinking when I put such a tag is that I'm trying to send a flag, both to the main editors of a page, and to the community at large, that I think the article could be improved to better satisfy WP:V. At the risk of repeating myself too much, let me stress that this {{verify}} tag is in no way meant to be an assertion than anything in the article is false. It is my way of saying that I wouldn't know how to go about verifying the claims in the article, if I wanted. You should feel free to ignore my opinion if you wish, and again you can remove the tag without changing the article at all, if you so wish.

Let me be more specific about what troubled me and why I tagged it. For example, the introduction is seven paragraphs, and something like 50 or so facts are asserted in those seven paragraphs. As far as I can see, nowhere in that text is there a reference to any of the links you have below. In other words, let me pick a sentence at random (and this is completely at random) from the intro: "The plaçage system grew out of a shortage of accessible white women." Now, personally, this certainly seems believable to me, and in fact it seems likely to me that this is true. But let's say I doubted it, or I just wanted to see that someone outside of Wikipedia makes the same claim. Where would I go? It's not clear to me the way the article stands today. Now, of course, it's quite possible that somewhere in those links you have at the bottom, this statement is proven without the shadow of a doubt. But I'd have to read through them myself to find this out, and then I'd have to do this for the 50 or so assertions made in this article. My feeling (and this is shared by the concensus of the Wikipedia community, again see WP:V) is that it is the article editors' job to do this footwork, not the reader's job.

So, in fact, this is why WP:V was invented. If, for example, this article said, "As Morlas states in her thesis, the plaçage system grew out of a shortage of accessible white women. Morlas goes on to prove that . . . ", then in my opinion this would be a much stronger article. Then I could tell myself, "ok, that is a much more reliable fact; it appeared in a PhD thesis and isn't just a random claim from an person on Wikipedia."

As a sort of quick summary of a long (also rambling) story by myself: I'm not attacking the content of the article at all. I am only making comments about the style of writing, and moreover I in no way meant to give the impression that my impression of the article is very negative. I simply think that the article could be improved in some (mostly stylistic) ways, and I just wanted to make that claim. As it stands, it is a good article, and you have put a lot of work into it. With some more work, you could make it a great article.

All in all, it looks like I made you a little mad. Please believe this was not my intention; I was just trying to make, if you like, constructive criticism. My only goal in the time I spend here on Wikipedia is to do my small part towards generating good articles on important topics. (Otherwise, why bother, I'm not getting paid to do this! ;-))Hopefully, this dialogue we've started could contribute to making this article better. --Deville (Talk) 04:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mulatto", "Quadroon"

Is the use of the word "mulatto" appropriate here? It even points to the wikipedia article on that word which mentions that it is sometimes seen as a pejorative in certain cultures (Western culture being one of them, I'd say). Would mixed-race or some other term be better? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems that in the field of genetics, population and so on, these sorts of terms are still ok. Correct me though if I'm wrong. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Probably wouldn't be appropriate in many other contexts, but in discussing practices of the early 19th century in societies where such terms as "mulatto" were in common use and even had legal definitions, relevent given appropriate historical context. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Coincoin and Metoyer

To prior editors of this text: Numerous statements in the account represented well-disproved assertions and assumptions, principally these:

(1) Claude Thomas Pierre Métoyer was never a "French colonial administrator." He was French, born in La Rochelle, but came to the Spanish colony as a merchant and, late in his plaçage with Coincoin, became a planter. Very late in the Spanish era, he became a syndic (justice of the peace), but that was a judicial rather than administrative post. Also, he was never known by his first name, "Claude." Consistently throughout life, he was called (and wrote his own name as) Pierre.

(2) Métoyer did not "gift Coincoin with 68 acres." He could not, because he held no title to that property. He donated to her his *interest* in unpatented land, adjacent to his plantation, which he and their sons had begun to develop.

(3) Métoyer's legal wife was of French and German parentage, not a "Frenchwoman."

(4) No evidence has ever been found that Coincoin planted the exceedingly labor-intensive crop, indigo. The only crop for which there is evidence is tobacco, which she shipped to market at New Orleans.

(5) Coincoin did not "accumulate a small fortune in the fur trade." There is no evidence she participated in the frontier fur trade. There is evidence that she trapped bears and sent their pelts and grease to market at New Orleans. There is also evidence that she trapped turkeys to supply to local families.

(6) Coincoin did not "[buy] her children's freedom from Métoyer." She bought her daughter Marie Louise from Pierre Dolet of Bayou Pierre. She bought her daughter Thérèse from Marie des Neiges de St. Denis de Soto at Opelousas. She bought (or, rather, her son Augustin Métoyer did so, stating that he was doing so on his mother's behalf), her son Nicolas Chiquito from Antonio Gil y Barbo's estate at Nacogdoches. She also bought grandchildren from Mme. de Soto and other owners. All of these were offspring of her first slave union(s), none of whom ever belonged to Métoyer. The children by Métoyer who were born in slavery were ultimately freed by their father.

(7) The Spanish and U.S. records relating to her "land grant" provide no evidence that she sought this "on Métoyer's instigation." Also, that tract never became a "land grant." It was only a concession, which means she had received only an order of survey and settlement. She did not have it surveyed, ostensibly because the post surveyor went blind. Without a survey, she could not receive a Spanish patent (aka grant). It was later patented to her by the American government.

(8) Coincoin did not "create a prosperous dairy farm" on this land. She used it as a vacherie--that is, cattle-grazing land, which is quite different from a "dairy farm." The land was not cleared in any way and the only improvement was a cabin occupied by the Spaniard she hired to tend the cattle. In 1806, when the Spaniard died, she abandoned that operation, but continued to pay tax on the unimproved land.

(9) Melrose Plantation was never Coincoin's "estate." Contrary to the historical-site applications filed in 1972, the African House at Melrose was not built in 1796. Both the historical research that my late husband and I subsequently conducted for the local preservation society and the modern archaelogical work at the site have disproved that. Nor is it accurate to say that the African House is "the only African dwelling extant in North America." There is no evidence that it ever was used as a dwelling and the assertions of the local 'folk historian' Francois Mignon, that it represents African architecture, have been also disputed by archaeologists who specialize in the African diaspora.

Sorry to burst so many bubbles. Mignon's fables, and years of "rewrites" and "retelling" by others, have created many accounts contrary to the rich trail of evidence that actually exists for this remarkable lady.Eshown (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Elizabeth Shown Mills

Changes in Text and Erasure of Illustrations

I have not visited this page for some time since I created it, but the changes and omissions are glaring, nonetheless. The questions that I have are these:

The illustrative photograph of Sebastopol, which is a house and not a placée, is missing. Instead, the text is left, which makes no sense at all if the picture is gone. There is no discussion of Szymanski's placée or their son John to round it out. I would say, omit this text as the photo has been omitted.

The last entry, on the quadroon balls, is not up to Wikipedia standards. It reads as coming from a text or someone's paper, and may not be as accessible to readers who are not from the academy. I think that it needs cleaning up. I think that you also destroyed a lot of what I wrote and the sketches of buildings in aid of this academic view. I worked hard on this Wikipedia entry; I was the first to write it. I wish that I had been here sooner to be in on this revision. It appears rather contemptuous of my efforts. That's right. Contemptuous.

I appreciate the revision of Coincoin's history, as well as adding that of her daughter, in view of the new information about her and Cane River.

gtdanyelz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.26.237 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

problematic rape culture language

Phrases such as "So it became acceptable behavior for a white man to take a slave as young as twelve as a lover. " (which lacks citation) make it seem like the woman had a choice. The entire introduction contains similar language, and it isn't until later that they mention choice and survival, or that African and native women were captured traded and sold. Perhaps "So it became acceptable practice for a white man to rape a slave as young as twelve." Stating that a child slave was taken as a lover implies that a 12 year old slave had the personal agency to refuse if she wanted. Regardless of how well they were treated, a slave owner who slept with his slaves was a rapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.183.2 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Saratoga Trunk

"The book was later adapted as a film by the same name, starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. But it, like the film, falls apart after the action and the heroine move on to Saratoga Springs, New York."

What does that mean? What fell apart? The book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:bd20:1b9a:759f:357:43a1:7246 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Usually it means the book/film was well plotted up to a point where it becomes cliché, illogical, or something else. Regardless, the sentence doesn't really add anything to the article, so I'll go ahead and delete it. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)