Talk:Étienne Perier (governor)/Archive 1

Savary34, do not delete pertinent content with sources as you did and use talk page please

Hi Savary34, Thanks for your corrections and additions, but please, next time respect the work of other editors and do not delete pertinent content with sources as you did.

Instead of deleting content with sources as you did, it is better to discuss on talk page to explain your reasons in order to find consensus with other editors.

Without any discussion, you removed from the lead section essential information regarding the actions of Governor Perier in New Orleans (Perier’s decision of the complete destruction of the Natchez people and sold them as slaves) and their consequences (the Indians became hostile to the French due to Perier’s cruelty to them and Perier recalled in France for his failure to secure the safety of the French colony).

I remind you that the lead section is a summary of the most important contents of the article. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. So, I put back this pertient content in the lead section.

PS : I don't understand why you call me "heurtelions" ??? in my Talk page.

I did some research and discovered that you have some points of disagreement with this editor on French Wikipedia, on the article "Famille de Perier". Please, do not transfer your disagreements here. Of course, I am at your disposal to discuss in talk page of any improvements to this article if you wish. Regards. --Belyny (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny, the problem with this introductory summary is that it only presents the negative points of Perier's tenure. So let's leave out the info on the Natchez genocide, but let's at least point out that he also made some great accomplishments (such as building the very first protective levee on the Mississippi).--Savary34 (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Savary34

• You added hundreds of lines copied from a book with no reference at all. Please provide the exact references for each given information.
• It seems that you have copied "word for word" an author’s text; you have to synthesize what he wrote and only use short quotations.
• You added a lot of unnecessary and overloaded details (see summary style) and this article is now overburden and unreadable.
• The size of this article compared to the character’s low profile is now totally crazy (see Wikipedia:Article size) and makes this article a little bit ridiculous. So, let me ask you if you have a familial link with the subject of the article. It would maybe explain everything.

Fot the second time, I ask you to discuss first in talk page and find consensus before any substantial changes, so thank you for considering my request.

Regards --Belyny (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Belyny's point that the large quotes were excessive. If all the information is pertinent, it would need to be dispersed among articles on the engagements/battles/places, not dumped here in a biographical article. Carter (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny Carter I'll answer you when I have time. I have momentarily restored the balance between Perier's mistakes and successes (that you tried to hide twice). I agree with both of you, these large quotes were excessive--Savary34 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have reverted over here as the section title did not comport to NPOV and was excessively long. Invoking Godwin, even Adolf Hitler does not have such a section title.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Eostrix Thank you for coming to my aid against this contributor who is clearly hostile to the person being studied in this article, certainly because he has a conflict of interest. I don't think this account created only to vandalise and criticise etienne de perier (see his contribution history) should continue to edit. What do you think?I also note that he is trying to oust me by all means by launching unjustified proceedings against me!--Savary34 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Savary34: I have commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Savary34, which is what brought this article and editor to my attention to begin with (WP:BOOMERANG). I agree with you assessment on the singular focus and lack of NPOV here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"LouisianaDabis"

Hi Belyny i don t know who is this guy, though he apparently supports my view. Savary34 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Natchez revolt period section title

Should the title of the section covering the period of the Natchez revolt be "Indian conflict" (A) or "Collusion with commandant Chepart and cruel behaviour towards Indians" (B)? While I believe consensus here is clear from article history, please indicate your positions clearly on the talk page (LouisianaDavis, Belyny, Savary34, Qwerfjkl).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• A or alternative such as "Natchez revolt" or year period. Without taking a position on the veracity of statement B, it is not framed in a WP:NPOV manner and is not written in a disinterested tone and is a case of a WP:POVNAMING of the section title. As I have already invoked the shortcut to Godwin, even the Adolf Hitler article (someone we should agree is at least as bad as de Perier) does not have such a section title as B.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• B seems overly long and complicated for a section heading ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since solution B comes from a contributor who deliberately violates viewpoint neutrality, I think we should choose A.--Savary34 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No need for attacking another editor, Savary34. Stick to WP:MOS and the text. Carter (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix Carter I can't sign my messages because I am on mobile. I undertake not to comment anymore Belyny's behaviour.--Savary34 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• A-ish Something like "Natchez revolt and response" or "Conflict with Natchez" better fits WP:MOS for section headings. Carter (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• A we could write The Natchez revolt, Natchez revolt and response or even The Natchez and Governor Perier. We need to be as objective as possible. Yours sincerely, LouisianaDavis (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Necessary reminder of how to find consensus

Hi,

first : let me remind a Consensus is not the result of a vote on different proposals but the result of community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all.

Second : I disagree with the interpretation provided : The subject of the section is not "Natchez revolt period" (which is another subject that is the subject of an article) but 2 particular points :

• Perier’s collusion with Chepart to take together lands on which the Indians live (sourced)
• The behaviour of Perier vis to the Indians (sourced)

According to many authors these 2 particular point were some of the reasons that led to the Natchez revolt.

It is the sourced content of the paragraph which must make it possible to define the title and not the choice of one or the other on personal considerations. So, I propose to make 2 paragraphs with two different titles that summarize the contents of each paragraph.

Last : In the respect of the fundamental principles of Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks I insist on not being treated as an "enemy" by some editors in Conflict of interest on Perier Family (declared on French Wikipedia) with sentences as "from a contributor who deliberately violates viewpoint neutrality" or "that his account was created with a unique object. Perhaps Belyny is ill-intentioned towards this Louisiana governor"

Other point of consensus to find as a priority matter (reading order of the article)

The lead has been censored by Savary34 [1] with a abusive pretext of NPOV. The uncensored version must be restored. Descendants don’t have to rewrite history.

Étienne de Perier, known as "Perier the Elder" or "Governor Perier", born in 1687 in Dunkirk and died on April 1, 1766 in Saint-Martin-des-Champs, was a French Navy officer ennobled in 1726[1]. From 1726 to 1733 he was governor of the French Louisiana where he tried to control the Native Americans with fear, seeking to enslave and ensure the complete destruction of the Natchez people in 1731, in response to the massacre of Fort Rosalie that they had comitted in 1729. However, Perier's cruelty turned most of the Native Americans hostile towards the French.Because of Perier's failure to secure the safety of the French colony and despite his notable achievements such as the construction of the first ever levee on the Mississippi River in 1727, he was recalled to France and replaced in March 1733 by former governor Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville. From 1738 to 1765, Perier pursued his career as navy officer and privateer. He distinguished himself during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744[7]. He was appointed lieutenant-general of the French Navy Army in 1757 and Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Louis in 1765.

Reminder : The Lead section should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

Regards, --Belyny (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Belyny,

You are repeating yourself...

You write this because you know that your limited point of view will not be accepted. Two paragraphs do not make sense : only one, with all the sources would be ok. All you have to do is vote above.

In order for us to work in harmony with all the other contributors to this article, I invite you to read this with the utmost attention.

If you are familiar with the French page of Étienne de Perier, it will not escape you that all the sources testifying to the good - or bad - deeds of this governor are online there.

In view of your relentlessness, you seem strangely hostile to the contributor Savary34, why is that?

PS : would you know Correcteur21 ?

Yours sincerely, LouisianaDavis (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

LouisianaDavis, your answer shows that you are not following the rules and that you are not seeking consensus.... --Belyny (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Belyny,

The consensus is put to the vote above. You just have to read this section : your answer shows that you have not done so...

As a reminder, as Qwerfjkl told you on his own contributor page yesterday, Calling someone cruel is a NPoV violation; instead use phrases like 'was called cruel by X [reference]'.

I am waiting for an answer to my two previous questions.

Yours sincerely,

LouisianaDavis (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

LouisianaDavis,
I’m answering your question : I'm not another editor named correcteur21. Thank you (in the interest of transparency) to answer some of mine.

• are you a sockpuppet of Caux9 who edited on this article Etienne de Perier and who was blocked on French Wkipedia for sockpuppetry [2] [3] on Perier family? (I add this account in the Sockpuppet investigations)
• are you like Savary34 in conflict of interest with the subject of the article?

I am waiting for the result of Sockpuppet investigations about LouisianaDavis and Savary34

LouisianaDavis you are wrong : a consensus is not the result of a vote on different proposals but the result of community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all. You must participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines and not refuse them. Please refer to Consensus--Belyny (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny The goal of this discussion is to find content that respects neutrality of viewpoint. Just because an author thinks perier is cruel doesn't mean you can write it in the lead section. I did not censor the lead section. I removed your version which is much too long and does not respect the neutrality of point of view (even Hitler does not have the word "cruelty" in his lead section). Descendants don’t have to rewrite history  : this sentence, in addition to being totally false, is a personnal attack on the contributor. You MUST discuss content, NOT contributors. I do not agree with your proposal of titles that do not respect NPOV (Perier's crual behaviour towards Indians). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You MUST show the facts without making judgments. It is up to the reader to form his own opinion based on neutral facts, not for a contributor to impose one--Savary34 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please just knock it off. At the risk adding to the rancor, I'd ask Savary34, Belyny, and LouisianaDavis to just step back and stop it with the back and forth. None of it helps achieve the goal of crafting a better, encyclopedia article. Carter (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Carter. I propose that now everyone listen and respect each other’s arguments and stop personal attacks. I ask everyone find a consensus on each point of disagreement in the respect of the policy Wikipedia:Consensus and not according to his personal opinion of what is a consensus.
• In a constructive approach it is better to work in the reading order of the article : lead, first paragraph, second paragraph etc. Regards.--Belyny (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Find consensus on the lead : the current version is not compliant with what an introduction (or lead) should be on wikipedia

The current version is not compliant with Lead section : "the leasd should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".

I propose to restore the lead as it was before Savary34's deletion for a objectable point of vue of "NPOV" [4]. I propose :

"Étienne de Perier, known as "Perier the Elder" or "Governor Perier", born in 1687 in Dunkirk and died on April 1, 1766 in Saint-Martin-des-Champs, was a French Navy officer ennobled in 1726. From 1726 to 1733 he was governor of the French Louisiana where he tried to control the Native Americans with fear, seeking to enslave and ensure the complete destruction of the Natchez people in 1731, in response to the massacre of Fort Rosalie that they had comitted in 1729. However, Perier's cruelty turned most of the Native Americans hostile towards the French. Because of Perier's failure to secure the safety of the French colony and despite his notable achievements such as the construction of the first ever levee on the Mississippi River in 1727, he was recalled to France and replaced in March 1733 by former governor Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville. From 1738 to 1765, Perier pursued his career as navy officer and privateer. He distinguished himself during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744[7]. He was appointed lieutenant-general of the French Navy Army in 1757 and Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Louis in 1765."

This proposal identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This version respect NPOV :

"Perier's cruelty" toward the Indians is not "a point of view" ans respect NPOV : i'ts a historic fact reported by numerous authors which, according to the authors, had an impact on the relationship between the Indians and the settlersand, as such there is no there is no valid reason to sweep it under the rug. See below. --Belyny (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• "PERIER'S CRUELTY TO THE NATCHEZ" is the title of a paragraph from the book "History of Louisiana"from Charles Gayarré widely copied in the article by Savary34 who has forgotten this paragraph : Charles Gayarré, History of Louisiana, W.J. Widdleton, 1867, page 438.

This text has long since fallen into the public domain.--Savary34 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Sue Eakin and Manie Culbertson write in 2006 Louisiana: The Land and Its People "Most of the Indians were now hostile to the French due to Perier's cruelty to the Indians" Sue Eakin, Manie Culbertson, Louisiana: The Land and Its People, Pelican Publishing 2006, page 98.

• Carter Godwin Woodson, Rayford Whittingham Logan, The Journal of Negro History (1916) :"Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races , the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men" The Journal of Negro History by Carter Godwin Woodson, Rayford Whittingham Logan, Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1916, page 370.

• same sentence in Sybil Kein Creole: The History and Legacy of Louisiana's Free People of Color (2000): "Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races , the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men." Sybil Kein, Creole: The History and Legacy of Louisiana's Free People of Color, LSU Press, 2000, page 11.

• Same sentence in Henry J. Richardson The Origins of African-American Interests in International Law {2008) : "Perier's cruel logic was reactionary. Since he had used blacks to murder Indians in order to make bad blood between the races , the Indians retaliated by using blacks to murder white men." Henry J. Richardson (III.), The Origins of African-American Interests in International Law Carolina Academic Press, 2008, page 378.

• Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians writes; "Governor Perier intends ordering them burnt. Such rough measures and cruel punishment inflicted upon the Indians, without any just cause whatsoever, from that day to this, by those who professed and taught the humane and pacific principles of Christianity. drove them to justly abhor the white race…" Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians, Headlight printing house, 1899, page 455.

• "destroying the Natchez wherever found. "Since their flight" said Perier, "I have had fifty of them killed or taken prisoners. I buried here six of them, four men and two women." At this exhibition the whites seemed as proud of the horrid scene, as the ancient Romans were of the mutilation of human beings by wild beasts in the arena, above which sat civilization in the shape of Governor Perier, proving human nature to be the same at bottom, however modified at the surface, whether it remains in the original nakedness of barbarism, or conceals itself under the varied garments of civilization, as is so well established in the oppression and cruelty perpetrated by the American people of the 19th century upon the Red Race of this continent. Was not this savage act of cruelty, perpetrated by those who assumed to be Christians, regarded by the Indians as an approval of their custom?”History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians, by Horatio Bardwell Cushman, 1899, page 547

Comment and proposals on Lead :

• Editor 1:Hi Belyny I don't agree with your proposal (Perier's cruelty) which does not respect the neutrality of point of view. I propose instead: Perier's behaviour. Not even Adolf Hitler has such a lead section--Savary34 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Editor 2: Hello Belyny and Savary34. As you know we are on an encyclopedia, so, calling someone cruel is a NPoV violation. I agree with Savary34 : Perier's behaviour could be ok, or we could write something like The repression organised by Perier which is more factual. LouisianaDavis (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Editor 3: The word "cruelty" in and of itself is not be a WP:NPOV violation; attempting to whitewash cruel behavior (which "repression" could be seen as doing) can also be unbalanced. I'd also note, Savary34, that Eostrix's comment about cruelty and Hitler was in regards to a section header, not the lede or other part of the article (in fact, the Hitler article does include the quoted phrase "the embodiment of modern political evil"). That said, for the lede, things should be succinct and reflective of what's discussed in the article and in line with MOS:OPENPARABIO. A lot of the detail outlined above belongs to one degree or another in the main text, but for the lede, I would suggest the following:

Étienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. His time as governor was marked by some notable achievements, including the construction of the first levee along the Mississippi River in 1727, but ultimately was marred by his failed attempt to destroy the Natchez tribe, which incerased Native American hostility toward the French in the territory. After being removed as governor, Perier distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744.

Hi Tcr25 I almost agree with this proposal. The problem is that you mention a failed attempt to destroy the Natchez when this tribe was wiped out as early as 1732, barely a year after the punitive expedition of 1731. So in 1733, when Perier left his post, the Natchez no longer existed (except for a few very rare harmless survivors who left Louisiana). Belyny what do you think of this LS ? Concerning the word "cruel" we will discuss it again when we rewrite the concerned paragraphs.--Savary34 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead? I went with "failed attempt" because the goal was to completely eradicate/subjugate the Natchez to ensure the safety of the colony. As Natchez people#Natchez after 1730 notes, the tribe was scattered and in flux after the Natchez War, but many members ended up banding together with other tribes, including the Chickasaw and Choctaw. These tribes (mostly Chickasaw, but also some Choctaw) then increased their hostilities towards the French in response to Perier's expedition. The failure was both in achieving a total destruction of the Natchez and in ensuring peace for the territory. Carter (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 That's true. Ok, let's keep this sentence.--Savary34 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25 Thanks for you proposal. I also almost agree with it. I suggest the following amendment:

Etienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. He decided the complete destruction of the Natchez people for the prosperity and safety of the colony, which increased Native American hostility toward the French colony. He initiated in Louisina some notable achievements such as the construction of the first ever levee on the Mississippi River in 1727. Because of Perier's failure to secure the safety of the colony, he was recalled to France and replaced in March 1733. Later, he distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744.

--Belyny (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Tcr25's proposal.--Savary34 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay to put the levee before the attempt to destroy the Natchez. The way I have the order, the context flows from governor to achievements to failure to removal. I did add in your text about why he was removed and the date. That makes a better closing note to the lede's discussion of his governorship. Revised version below:

Étienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. His time as governor included some notable achievements, including the construction of the first levee along the Mississippi River in 1727, but ultimately was marred by his failed attempt to destroy the Natchez tribe, which incerased Native American hostility toward the French in the territory. Because he failed to secure the safety of the colony, Perier was removed as governor in March 1733. He later distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744.

Carter (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 I note an error. Perier was not dismissed, he resigned. Revised version below :

Étienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. His time as governor included some notable achievements, including the construction of the first levee along the Mississippi River in 1727, but ultimately was marred by his failed attempt to destroy the Natchez tribe, which incerased Native American hostility toward the French in the territory. Because he failed to secure the safety of the colony, Perier resigned as governor in March 1733. He later distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744.

--Savary34 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I see conflicting sources on this in an admittedly quick search, but it appears that Louis XV directed Bienville to return to Louisiana to serve as governor in 1732. I'm seeing sources say "recalled" more often than other verbs. "Resigned" seems to appear either on wikiclones or non-RS genealogy sites. Would "recalled" work better? Carter (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine.

Hi, I disagree on two points on this proposal :

• I do not agree at all with first mentioning his achievements and second his decision of the complete destruction of the Natchez people. Extermination of a tribe is not a "detail" (nowaday the name is "genocide". It a very important historical fact with tragic consequences for the Natchez people and more important that some achievements.
• We can't write "Perier resigned as governor" because many sources indicate that in fact he was recalled :

"Perier’s failure to secure the safety of the city was so severely criticized that he was recalled to France and Bienville was sent back to the colony again"Lyle Saxon, Fabulous New Orleans, Pelican Publishing Company, 1989

"The king ordered Perier home and brought Bienville from retirement to serve as governor once again" Walter Greaves Cowan, Jack B. Mcguire, Louisiana Governors: Rulers, Rascals, and Reformers, Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2010, page 27.

"Perier was recalled, and in 1732 Bienville, then fifty-two years old, was summoned out of retirement by the king to be governor of Louisiana" Leonard Victor Huber, New Orleans: A Pictorial History, Pelican Publishing, 1971, page 2.

"Perier was recalled, and the Canadian [Bienville] relieved of his disgrace, reinstated" Grace Elizabeth King, John Rose Ficklen, A History of Louisiana, L. Graham, 1893, page 98.

"Perier's regime was very unpopular at the Court of France" John Wymond, Henry Plauché Dart, The Louisiana Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, Louisiana Historical Society, 1936, page 558.

--Belyny (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Perier was recalled to France. The term genocide commits only you. No author uses it to my knowledge. The consequences for the Natchez people were as tragic as those for the 250 settlers massacred at Fort Rosalie, precisely by this tribe.

I did not ask to write "genocide" in the article, I made the point in Talk page that the total destruction of a people as decided governor Perier is nowaday called "genocide". However I have made it clear on 2 points:

• decision of Extermination of a tribe by Perier is a very important historical fact with tragic consequences for the Natchez people and more important that some achievements. Therefore I do not agree at all with first mentioning his achievements and second his decision of the complete destruction of the Natchez people.
• We can't write "Perier resigned as governor" because many sources indicate that in fact he was recalled : "Perier’s failure to secure the safety of the city was so severely criticized that he was recalled to France and Bienville was sent back to the colony again"[5] --Belyny (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There's agreement on using "was recalled." I don't agree that mentioning levees first diminishes the attempt to enslave and destroy the Natchez. I think that putting it second in the sentence is more powerful because it largely negates the positives of the first half. This is also the lede. There will be space to detail Perier's activities against Native Americans in the main body of the text. That said, adding the adding the adverb "completely" before the word destroy could emphasize the extent of his effort. Revision below:

Étienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. His time as governor included some notable achievements, including the construction of the first levee along the Mississippi River in 1727, but ultimately was marred by his failed attempt to completely destroy the Natchez tribe, which increased Native American hostility toward the French in the territory. Because he failed to secure the safety of the colony, Perier was recalled as governor in March 1733. He later distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744.

Carter (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Tcr25 ?(Sorry I can t sign because I m on mobile). From Savary34.
• I also agree with Tcr25's last proposal. There is now a consensus on the lead. We can now discuss (I propose tomorrow) the next paragraph Family and see if there is consensus or disagreement on it. Thanks a lot Tcr25 for your effective and constructive help on this article --Belyny (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Belyny and Savary34 for working through this. And, yes that was my comment; User:Tcr25 is my account name, but the signature reads "Carter". Carter (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tcr25. Let s do like that for every paragraph. From Savary34

I was following the latest exchanges without participating in them. In my opinion this compromise is perfect, objective and fair. Thanks a lot Carter for your intervention. Sincerely, --LouisianaDavis (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Because the article is still locked, Tcr25 asked me to put the lead you folk have agreed to in the article for you. I'd rather go a slightly different route. I'm going to unlock the article. Then, one of you (pick straws) can replace the lead. I have a couple of comments, although not because I want to be involved in editing the article in the future. First, the body of the article is an absolute mess, way too long and almost incoherent at times. I hope you people are going to work on trimming it. Second, I do not want to see a resumption of edit-warring. If I do, I may block editors without notice. On a more friendly note, thanks very much for working together.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 : I've made the change. Sincerely, --LouisianaDavis (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 Yes we are going to work on it.--Savary34 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25 LouisianaDavis Belyny what do you think about adding the following sentence to the lead section : "Perier was appointed lieutenant-general of the French naval armies in 1757, then Grand Cross of Saint-Louis in 1765". I think this information is essential and has a place in this section. Revised version below :

Étienne de Perier (1687 – 1766), also known as Perier the Elder (French: Perier l'Aîné), was a French naval officer and governor of French Louisiana from 1726 to 1733. His time as governor included some notable achievements, including the construction of the first levee along the Mississippi River in 1727, but ultimately was marred by his failed attempt to completely destroy the Natchez tribe, which increased Native American hostility toward the French in the territory. Because he failed to secure the safety of the colony, Perier was recalled as governor in March 1733. He later distinguished himself as a naval officer and privateer, including during the capture of the HMS Northumberland in 1744. Perier was appointed lieutenant-general of the French naval armies in 1757, then Grand Cross of Saint-Louis in 1765

--Savary34 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Both the promotion and the honor came at the end of his career and I don't see in the fr-wiki article that he had any notable achievements after the appointment to lieutenant-general. Both items are in the infobox at the top of the page, so I think we are fine not including them in the lede. Carter (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 It is true that he had no notable achievements after his appointment. But these awards remain exceptional : there were only 8 Grand Crosses of Saint-Louis...--Savary34 (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

fr:Catégorie:Grand-croix de l'ordre royal et militaire de Saint-Louis has 148 people listed. It's an important award and is highlighted in the infobox (and should be in the body of the article), but I don't see it as something that adds to his notability and therefore isn't necessary in the lede. Carter (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

When I said that there are only 8 Grand Crosses, I meant simultaneously (I read somewhere that there cannot be more than 8 Grand Crosses at the same time). I understand your point of view.--Savary34 (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, there were only two Grand Crosses at the same time in the royal navy (L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux [Intermediary for researchers and curious] (501-518 ed.). 1994.).LouisianaDavis (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In the navy alone yes, but not in the army in general.--Savary34 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This decoration was in its time almost unique for the French Royal Navy, as previously mentioned. It should, in my opinion, be mentioned in the introduction. Let's wait and see what the other contributors think... LouisianaDavis (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I also think that mentioning it the lead section would be interesting but we won't get a consensus on it, I fear.--Savary34 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Forecast

When the page will be unblocked I will remove the paragraphs which are too long, especially those of arguin. Especially since specific articles have been created on Wikipedia in French so there is no need to spread entire pages on this biography. I will also remove the useless and much too long paragraph concerning the instructions given to Perier by the Company. Savary34 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Savary34, perhaps we should create paragraphs dedicated to the capture of Arguin and Portendick on the English Wikipedia. This will help to unclog the present article and provide interesting new content for history buffs. --LouisianaDavis (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are engagements that are notable enough for an article (one one doesn't currently exist), it would be preferable to create ones here either writing anew or translating with credit from the fr-wiki article. Similarly, there is a level of detail around other topics that may belong more in other articles about the event than here in the article about this man. Carter (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Family

Let's discuss the "Family" paragraph and see if there is a consensus. From Savary34. Savary34 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody, the current "Family" section seems ok to me. Perhaps we could mention that Étienne de Perier had children who were naval officers and that his younger brother Antoine Alexis de Perier de Salvert was a squadron leader in the French Royal Navy of the 18th century (sources on the French wikipedia page of Étienne de Perier). I think it should be short and briefly summarise the family background of the character. Sincerely, --LouisianaDavis (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some stylistic changes I would see to the graf to align with the MOS for biographies. It may be better to rename the section "Early life," instead of "Family" too. Suggested text:

Perier was born in 1687 in Dunkirk, France. He was the son of Étienne Perier and Marie de Launay. Étienne Perier was a successful shipowner and merchant in Le Havre, as well as captain of the Port of Dunkirk. In October 1726, Perier, his father, and his brother Antoine Alexis were ennobled by Louis XV via letters patent in recognition of the family's decades of service to the king; at this point the family surname became "de Perier."

References

Carter (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25 I agree with your proposal. But perhaps we could add more information about his father, Étienne Perier later de Perier (1644-1726), see his page on Wikipedia in French. Savary34

This presentation seems to me complete and exhaustive. You don't mention Étienne de Perier's wife ? Sincerely, --LouisianaDavis (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's also a problem we don't mention his wife and his children (see his page on Wikipedia in French). Savary34

LouisianaDavis, Savary34: Usually wife and children are mentioned towards the end in a "Personal life" section (or something similar. Look at Template:Biography for the usual structure). I'd suggest adding at the end of the article something like the following:

Étienne de Perier married Catherine le Chibelier, daughter of an échevin from Le Havre and widow of the naval officer Jacques Graton de Chambellan, on 21 September 1719. They had three sons and one daughter. Two of the sons, Étienne Louis and Antoine Louis, lived to adulthood and followed their father's footsteps into military service.

References

Carter (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 Excellent. Savary34 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This proposal also suits me perfectly: it is synthetic and objective. Thanks to you Carter! --LouisianaDavis (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Belyny What do you think about Tcr25's proposal ?--Savary34 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25 Hi Savary34, a few remarks :

• It is better to have in reférences the link which allows to read the contents of the indicated source and give the exact page.
• "Successful" for Etienne Perier is an unnecessary superlative. The source says "they have together as father a non noble shipowner and merchant in Le Havre" Philippe Haudrère, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes, Service historique de la marine, 1996, page 89. Even if an author says "Successful" it is not enough to say that on Wikipedia, the concept of "successful" can vary from one author to another.
• The manuscript "Nouveau d'Hozier" is a not published primary source and his analyze is an original research not allowd. It's better to avoid it. The information is already given by a reliable, published secondary source.
• French Wikipedia is not a source for Wkipedia.

I propose the the following change:

Perier was born in 1687 in Dunkirk, France. He was the son of Étienne Perier and Marie de Launay. His father was a commoner shipowner and merchant in Le Havre, as well as captain of the Port of Dunkirk. In October 1726, Perier, his father, and his brother Antoine Alexis (later de Perier de Salvert) were ennobled by Louis XV via letters patent in recognition of the family's decades of service to the king; at this point the family surname became "de Perier."

References

For "Personal life" : Carter's proposal is ok for me.

I propose to continue on Monday. Regards, --Belyny (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny I don't agree with later de Perier de Salvert because Antoine Alexis bore this name from at least 1724 (2 years before the ennoblement).Indeed, in his Nouvelle relation de l'Afrique occidentale (1728), Jean-Baptiste Labat reports that during the second siege of the fort of Arguin in 1724, he signed the following summons to the Dutch: Perier de Salvert. Also we should add links on Etienne de Perier's father and brother toward their pages on Wikipedia in French.--Savary34 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny, to your points

• Regarding references, exact page is fine, but should be done using full {{cite book}} (or whatever) templates on first reference and {{sfn}} on subsequent references.
• I won't insist on it, but I disagree with your take on "successful" being too subjective. It's clear he was a person of influence and wealth given his positions, so successful seems an effective shorthand to use.
• Re: Nouveau d'Hozier, I'd point to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It supplements the secondary source and helps clear up ambiguity.

In your rewrite, I would prefer "non-noble" to "commoner;" to my American ear that seems clearer to me.

• Can you clarify where you feel fr-wiki is being used as a source? I referred to the French version of the article in drafting, and included interwiki links where there was a fr-wiki article but no corresponding en-wiki version. (Using the {{ill}} template in this situation is designed to encourage someone to create an article in en-wiki.)

Savary34, I did not see an actual article on Perier's father on fr-wiki; he was linked to a general article on the de Perier family. I see less value in linking to that than to articles on specific people. Antoine Alexis is linked to his fr-wiki article.

I'll wait for further comment before proposing revised text, but for now I would prefer to stick with what I offered above with the substitution of "non-noble" for "successful" and specifying page 89 for the second reference. However, I will go ahead and add the Personal life section as proposed to the main article. Carter (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Belyny:
The concept of  « successful » can vary from one author to another, as the concept « cruel ». So both are unnecessary superlatives.
Savary34, Raymond de Bertrand writes that Antoine Alexis de Perier would have taken the patronymic de Salvert during his first marriage in 1729.
LouisianaDavis (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Carter, this primary source « Nouveau d’Hozier » has no added value as several other secondary sources mention annoblishment (I will add some of them). I agree with the mention « non noble » which is clearer here. LouisianaDavis (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

LouisianaDavis, we don't need to over-cite the point. I like including the primary document, as mentioned, because I feel it helps supplement the secondary source and is available online (at least for those who can read old French handwriting). I don't insist it be included, but I don't feel it harms anything to include. Carter (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Carter, in my opinion this is not useful as the secondary source already in place is sufficient on its own - the idea being to unclog this page. I have read PRIMARYNOTBAD but I remain convinced that a good secondary source is more than sufficient. LouisianaDavis (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion in the new "Early life" section below. Carter (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone

Hi everyone Belyny Tcr25 LouisianaDavis : to prevent any conflict, please do not make any modifications on the page before we get a consensus on each paragraph. Thanks.Savary34 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. --LouisianaDavis (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Service"

Can someone clarify the statement "Étienne de Perier entered the service in 1695, and saw his first battle at the age of eight." which is directly the same as on fr-wiki: "Étienne de Perier entre au service en 1695, et assiste à son premier combat à l'âge de huit ans." Is "service" an indicator he was working on his father's or another merchant's ship? On a naval ship in some non-enlisted capacity? In a position similar to an English young gentlemen? The listed source does not allow previewing on Google Books and I'm not finding a copy elsewhere. I'm trying to gain clarity as to whether that line belongs with his Early life or where it currently sits "in the royal French Navy." —Carter (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Carter, Étienne Taillemite writes in his dictionary of French sailors that Etienne de Perier started in 1695 on a privateer ship - alongside the sons of Jean Bart. (I'll get back to you soon with more informations and exact references). LouisianaDavis (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, LouisianaDavis. I'm wondering if something like the following should then be part of the "Early life" section (currently titled "Family") with the source attached, of course:

In 1695, when he was eight years old, Perier joined a privateer crew alongside the sons of Jean Bart where he saw action during the later days of the Nine Years' War.

Currently that statement is at the start of the section on his service in the French Navy. —Carter (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Carter, I have just read the entry "Étienne de Perier", page 414 of Dictionnaire des marins français by Étienne Taillemite (Tallandier, 2002).

I quote the first lines (translated from French by myself): "Born in 1697, of a father who was a captain. He is called "Perier the Elder" to distinguish him from his brother Antoine Alexis de Perier de Salvert. He entered the service as a volunteer in 1695 at the age of eight, and sailed until 1704 on ships escorting convoys in the English Channel and the North Sea (on a privateer ship, therefore, other sources given on the french page confirm this - ie : Philippe Haudrère, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes : 1600-1857, Service historique de la marine, 1996, p. 87 to 100). In April 1704, he embarked on the Prince-Eugène and the Protée in the squadron commanded by Saint-Pol de Hécourt, which fought several battles and captured many enemy ships, etc. "

He started out as a privateer, notably alongside François-Cornil Bart, before joining the French Royal Navy in 1704 (Philippe Haudrère, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes : 1600-1857, Service historique de la marine, 1996, p. 87 to 100).

I wish you a very good day.

Yours sincerely,

--LouisianaDavis (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello I will not be able to contribute until Monday evening. Thank you for your help Tcr25. Here is his father's article, but everything is on the "de Perier family" article. — --Savary34 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2021

Early life

Bringing the discussion up to the latest, below is what I propose for an "Early life" section instead of the current "Family" label:

Perier was born in 1687 in Dunkirk, France. He was the son of Étienne Perier and Marie de Launay. Étienne Perier was a non-noble shipowner and merchant in Le Havre, as well as captain of the Port of Dunkirk. (In October 1726, Perier, his father, and his brother Antoine Alexis were ennobled by Louis XV via letters patent in recognition of the family's decades of service to the king; at this point the family surname became "de Perier.")

In 1695, when he was eight years old, Perier joined a privateer crew alongside a son of Jean Bart, a friend of his father's. He saw his first action and was wounded before he turned 9.

References

This respects the comments discussed above around the "successful" description and removing the Nouveau d'Hozier source, along with interlanguage wiki links for the father and brother. I placed the information about ennoblement in parenthesis because it doesn't happen chronologically early in his life, it makes sense to include it here with mention of his father. And it explains the Perier/de Perier distinction. I also pulled up the first line from the current military service section as Perier's youthful privateering adventure comes before he joined the military. I also removed the mention of seeing his first battle at age 8 because it isn't mentioned in the information LouisianaDavis provided from the sources. Missing is the exact page number reference from Haudrère for Perier's starting as an 8-year-old privateer. —Carter (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations Carter for what I think is a perfect proposal. Regarding the source that says that Étienne de Perier (father) was a very good friend of Jean Bart, here are the sources :

• L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux, Numéros 508 à 518, 1994, here : (fr) Étienne de Perier fils d'Étienne Périer , capitaine de vaisseau et de port au Havre puis à Dunkerque - qui fut un grand ami de Jean Bart - et de Marie de Launay... / (en) Étienne de Perier, son of Étienne Périer, captain of a ship and port in Le Havre and then in Dunkirk - who was a great friend of Jean Bart - and of Marie de Launay...
• Michel Vergé-Franceschi, Les officiers généraux de la marine royale, 1715-1774: Annexes, Librairie de l'Inde, 1990, page 192
• Revue maritime et coloniale, Volume 62, France, Le Ministère de la Marine, 1879, page 665, here : (en) ...the Méduse, a frigate commanded by Périer de Salvert, one of the two sons of the former port captain of Dunkirk, friend of Jean Bart.

Concerning Perier's starting as an 8-year-old privateer, I have Philippe Haudrère's book, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes: 1600-1857, so I'll give you the exact page number - which is currently missing - and related quote later. The wound that Etienne de Perier received at the age of 8 is indicated in this same source.

PS : Please note that the source Haudrère 1857 is an error. The writer Philippe Haudrère was born in 1940. To my knowledge, his only book partially devoted to the Perier is La flotte de la Compagnie des Indes - french source which gives a lot of details about the life of Étienne de Perier (father) and his two 'main' sons, Étienne and Antoine Alexis.

I wish you all a very good day.

Yours sincerely,

--LouisianaDavis (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, LouisianaDavis. ABove I've fixed the date on the source, added a line about first wound, and added one of the indicated sources for Bart being a friend of Perier. Still need page numbrer for first wounding. [Note, the error in the references is because of there being multiple instances of the source here on the Talk page; it should work fine in the main article.] —Carter (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

• In 1695 Perier was volunteered on a frigate. Haudrère writes p 91 a merchant ship and not a ship of the king’s army. So it was a privater.
• Etienne Perier was not "wound at 8 yo" in 1695 but in 1714 at 17 yo (injured by a splinter on the hip) (Haudrère p 91)
• It is not obvious at all following the sources that the surnam of the family "became de Perier when they were ennobled in 1726 (alsom its seems that his brother"s exact surnname became Antoine Alexis "Perier de Salvert" and not "de Perier de Salvert". See : [6] and Raymond de Bertrand, Notice historique sur Antoine-Alexis Perier de Salvert in Mémoires de la Société dunkerquoise pour l'encouragement des sciences, des lettres et des arts, 1862>
• Because the request for ennoblement was made by the father (see Haudrère) and both sons benefited of his letters patent, I would prefer :

Perier was born in 1687 in Dunkirk, France. He was the son of Étienne Perier and Marie de Launay. His father was a non-noble shipowner and merchant in Le Havre, as well as captain of the Port of Dunkirk. (In October 1726, his father, himself and his brother Antoine Alexis were ennobled by Louis XV via letters patent in recognition of the family's decades of service to the king)

In 1695, when he was eight years old, Perier joined a privateer crew alongside a son of Jean Bart, a friend of his father's and saw his first battle.

--Belyny (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi.

Étienne de Perier was indeed wounded a first time at the age of 8 years, as previously mentioned, I will bring the exact reference. The injury at the age of 17 is the second in a long series. Belyny, in this source : "Il assista à son premier combat à l’âge de 8 ans en 1695. En 1704, il fut blessé d’un éclat à la hanche gauche ; en 1707, il est dangereusement blessé au bras droit d’un coup de fusil ; en 1712 il est à nouveau blessé dans un siège à terre, ..." which means in english : "He saw his first battle at the age of 8 in 1695. In 1704 he was wounded by a shrapnel in his left hip; in 1707 he was dangerously wounded in his right arm by a rifle shot; in 1712 he was wounded again in a siege on land".

In addition, a reference is not sufficient in itself, I confirm that the branch of Antoine Alexis is indeed "de Perier de Salvert": I will bring sources - all of them are available on Google Books or Google Scholar.

As it stands, Carter 's proposal is better and more faithful to reality.

Regards,

LouisianaDavis (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. These are pretty minor differences and I would hope that we can keep things civil and productive here before we get to the more controversial stuff. That said, I'm mostly fine with Belyny's version. I did add a full stop to the last sentence, and I would restore the interlanguage wiki link to Perier's father. I would also restore the order I proposed (Étienne, father, and brother); it is less awkward sounding than the proposed (father, himself, and brother). Regarding the first wound; it's a trivial factor (if he'd been maimed in a distinctive way that affected the rest of his life, that would be encyclopedic). I'm okay mentioning it as color that shows the sort of life he had, but it's not mandatory.

Also, does anyone have an actual copy of the L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux cited here? The Google Books version (at least that shows up for me) provides no page view, and the current reference is fairly broad.

As for Antoine Alexis's full surname. Let's worry about that when someone creates an en-wiki article for him. It's getting way into the weeds for this article.

And one last thing: If not with the ennoblement is there any clear indication of when the family surname shifted from "Perier" to "de Perier"? That is worth mentioning at some logical point in the article. — Carter (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Carter, I think that this mention of the injury at the age of 8 belongs in the section on Étienne de Perier's youth. It gives a foretaste of the rest of his career and provides a good context for the character. I have this L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux in my old papers/books, I will find it.

Concerning the surname de Perier, Étienne de Perier (father) obtained it at the time of his ennoblement via letters patent. The son Étienne bore it in turn from 1726 (one year before arriving in Louisiana) and his brother Antoine Alexis added the patronymic de Salvert, in principle during his first marriage in 1729 according to Raymond de Bertrand (or before according to Savary34 who has identified correspondence from 1724 signed "de Salvert")

LouisianaDavis (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The ennoblement was in 1726, so are you saying both Perier and his father gained the "de" at that time? Or Pereier used "de Perier" prior to October 1726? Carter (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carter, they did not "gained" the particule "de". In France even during the "Ancien Régime" it was forbiden to modifie your surname without a decree of the king therefore registered. The particule "de" had nothing to do with the ennoblement of octobre 1726, but when a non noble as the Perier family was ennobled often, to imitate the noble families "de race" "seigneur de terre" (lord of land), they put without any authorization "de" before they surname, they were rarely condemned for this. --Belyny (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting but we need sources, Heurtelions. LouisianaDavis (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Belyny your statement makes no sense. Etienne Perier and his descendants gained their particle "de" in the ennoblement of 1726. Antoine Alexis'name is de Perier de Salvert and not Perier de Salvert.--Savary34 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Savary34 which secondary reliable source says that? Let me remind you Wikipedia:No original research "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." --Belyny (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I confirm, Etienne Perier was not wound at 8 yo but at 17 yo in 1704. I copy below for everyone what writes Philippe Haudrère, in Les flottes des compagnies des Indes 1600-1657, Service historique de la marine, 1996, pages 91-92. :

"Périer l’aîné a été volontaire à bord d’une frégate dès 1695, et il a assisté sur celle-ci à son premier combat : il avait huit ans, car on est plus précoce à bord des vaisseaux de commerce qu’à bord des vaisseaux du Roi. De 1695 à 1704, soit en guerre, soit en paix, il a servi comme « volontaire sur les convois de Bretagne en Flandres ». Puis son père a profité de sa propre nomination au grade de capitaine de vaisseau en 1703 pour lui pour lui obtenir une place de garde de la marine le 1er avril 1704. A noter qu’il s’agit d’un garde de la marine roturier comme le fils de Jean Bart. A partir de 1704, ce faux garde marine embarque en qualité d'enseigne sur toute une série de frégates armées en courses dans l'escadre du Nord et il participe à plusieurs combats et à la prise de plusieurs vaisseaux sous les ordres de Saint-Pol-Héricourt. Après avoir été blessé d’un éclat à la hanche au cours d’un engagement, il sert sous Forbin et Duguay-Trouin, ayant souvent pour camarade François-Cornil Bart, le fils de Jeans Bart. Durant huit ans, il multiplie les abordages et captures de vaisseaux, s’empare de plusieurs convois anglais, hollandais et hambourgeois, reçoit ses premiers commandements, mais il ne s’agit que de flûtes. En 1707, pour ses vingt ans, il est « dangereusement blessé au bras droit d’un coup de fusil », porte des troupes en Écosse en 1708, et est fait prisonnier de guerre en 1711. Libéré sous réserve de ne plus servir à la mer, il sert dès 1711 « dans le détachement des canonniers de la marine à Valenciennes » , est en 1712 « au siège du Quesnoy » où il est à nouveau blessé ( il reçoit sur lui une brique de parapet), et il est fait à nouveau prisonnier de guerre « après la prise de la ville » . Après la paix d’Utrecht, il sert à la mer comme enseigne, puis, en 1714 - 1715, fait office de capitaine en second sur une frégate de la de la compagnie du Sénégal et croise sur cette côte contre les interlopes. Il y prend une frégate anglaise de 18 canons « chargée de 150 nègres ». En 1716, il commande une frégate, le duc d’Orléans pour la compagnie du Sénégal et y sert comme garde-côte pendant des années. En 1718 puis en 1719, commandant la même frégate, il combat les interlopes au large du Sénégal et en prend plusieurs. Ainsi, lorsqu ' il passe en 1720 au service de la Compagnie des Indes , à 32 ans , il totalise déjà 24 ans de services à la mer et dans les mers du Nord et d’Afrique : au moins une vingtaine de campagnes, trois blessures, reçues en 1704 (à 17 ans), en 1707 (à 20 ans), et en 1712 (à 25 ans) ; plusieurs combats et abordages ; il a été volontaire, enseigne, aide d 'artillerie, commandant de flûte puis de frégate, et il est regardé comme un excellent combattant à la mer comme à terre" --Belyny (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Always remember to supplement your sources with other ones, otherwise your work is incomplete. I will add the source for his injury at the age of eight yo later. L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux says of him :

"Sa carrière est retracée dans la thèse de M. Franceschi sur les officiers généraux de la marine au XVIIIe siècle. Fils d’Étienne Perier, capitaine de vaisseau et de port au Havre puis à Dunkerque – qui fut un grand ami de Jean Bart – et de Marie de Launay, il naquit au Havre vers 1687. Il assista à son premier combat à l’âge de 8 ans en 1695. En 1704, il fut blessé d’un éclat à la hanche gauche ; en 1707, il est dangereusement blessé au bras droit d’un coup de fusil ; en 1712 il est à nouveau blessé dans un siège à terre. En 1715 on lui connaît une vingtaine d’armements et âgé de 28 ans seulement il totalise de multiples combats ; il a combattu en 1695 puis comme volontaire (de 1695 à 1704), en 1704, en 1705, en 1706 ,en 1707, en 1708, en 1710." LouisianaDavis (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry LouisianDavis, either you read wrong or you count wrong : "En 1704, il fut blessé d’un éclat à la hanche gauche" : in 1704 he was 17...--Belyny (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Belyny, neither but I conclude that despite your PhD, you have some difficulties to understand. I never said that this source "L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux" included the mention of the injury at age 8. LouisianaDavis (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So, next time please don't "conclude" but just report content specificcaly given by reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia:No original research and remember "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" . --Belyny (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Start by applying your insolent and useless lessons to yourself, dear Heurtelions. Unlike you, I do not insist on forcing a source and therefore a false version of facts. LouisianaDavis (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nota: "L’Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux" is not a reliable source by itself, because such as in Wikipedia information are given by anonymous contributors but in a format of questions and answers and under their sole responsibility and without obligation of sources --Belyny (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please try to control the sniping back and forth here. Most of the information being cited to L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux seems like it should be non-controversial and if it has an editorial board that oversees the content (i.e., it's not entirely user generated and published like Quora or even Wikipedia), it may suffice even if it isn't the best source. If there is a better source for the points currently cited to it, please provide them. Similarly, if more specificity about the issue number, page number, date, etc. can be provided that would be good. It may be that I'm IP-locked as to what Google Books shows for it, but the link above does not appear to provide any information about Perier (I'm only seeing a short snippit about Roger Nimier). —Carter (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I own L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux, Carter : I have to admit that I was wrong about the injury when I was 8 years old. The exact pages concerning Étienne de Perier are pages 1109-1110. Roger Nimier is regularly mentioned there, as this writer is said to be descended from Perier in the female line (according to this same source). LouisianaDavis (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. Perier was never wounded at 8 years old.--Savary34 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Savary34. Given that, and absent improvement on the L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux source, I propose the following as the final, consensus text:

References

—Carter (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 I agree with your proposal.--Savary34 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Carter ok for me. --Belyny (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! I will mark this as final, but wait a little while to see if LouisianaDavis has any further comment before moving it to main article. Carter (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Carter, ok for me. Once again, thanks for your great work.LouisianaDavis (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Okay it's been made live. —Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Expeditions of Arguin (1721 and 1724)

Hi, instead of these far too long paragraphs, I propose :

In 1721, he took part in the capture of Arguin. In 1724, he participated in the capture of Arguin and Portendick.

--Savary34 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Question: The current text and the source it's connected to talk of "Perier the Cadet" and "Perier de Salvert", but I didn't see any mention of Étienne de Perier. —Carter (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 This mention is in Haudrère.Page 87 : Perier l'Aîné [...] participe ensuite à l'entreprise du fort d'Arguin. [...] en 1723, il commande un autre vaisseau [...] avec lequel il entra dans Arguin et mit le feu au port de Portendic--Savary34 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I would put this all in as part of the section "Company of the Indies (1714–1726)" with the following text:

After the Wars of the Spanish Succession wound to an end in 1714, Perier returned to sea to combat pirates off the coast of Senegal for the Compagnie du Sénégal, which later was merged with the Company of the Indies.

In 1720, Perier served under his younger brother, Antoine Alexis, in the capture of Arguin, an island off the coast of Mauritania, in 1721. The Dutch retook the island a year later, but lost it again to French troops, including Perier and his brother, in 1724. After recovering Arguin, the Company troops captured a battery and a fort at Portendick further down the Mauritanian coast before returning to France.

While serving the Company, Perier also protected Company ships in the Pacific off the coasts of Chile and Peru, as well as spent six months on the Malabar Coast, guarding the recently established fort at Mahé, India, which was under threat from local rulers.

References

Again, specific page numbers would be appreciated. — Carter (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 Agreed.--Savary34 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok for me Tcr25. LouisianaDavis (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What does Belyny think about Tcr25's proposal ?--Savary34 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In the French Navy

Moving ahead with the next section, I would see us used second level section heads for the next section instead of having it all under "Military service". The first section I would call "French Navy (1702-1714)" with the following text:

Perier joined the French Navy as a volunteer in 1702 at the age of 15. He escorted convoys in the English Channel and the North Sea until August 8, 1704, when he joined a company of gardes-marine.

During the War of Spanish Succession, he saw action and was wounded in several engagements, including the capture of the HMS Falmouth in 1704 and the HMS Hampton Court and HMS Grafton in 1707. In 1708, he sailed with Claude de Forbin to Scotland as part of the failed French invasion of Britian.

File:Siège du Quesnoy en 1712.jpg

Siege of Le Quesnoy in June 1712.

In 1711, Perier was taken captive as a prisoner of war and released on the condition he no longer serve at sea. To comply with the terms of his parole, he served on land in the Marine Artillery Corps in Valenciennes, France. In June 1712, during the Holy Roman Empire's siege of Le Quesnoy, Perier took part in the city's defense. He was injured by a parapet brick during the siege, and was captured again when the Austrians overran the city.

After the Wars of the Spanish Succession wound to an end in 1714, Perier returned to sea to combat pirates off the coast of Senegal.

References

The specific page numbers for references will need to be added. And is there a better source for the ships taken in 1707? — Carter (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25 we can add that Perier was injured by a parapet brick during the siege of Le Quesnoy (June 1712) (Philippe Haudrère, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes : 1600-1857, Service historique de la marine, 1996, p. 91).--Savary34 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding that, Savary34, but did the injury have an impact on his life or career or anything that makes it especially notable? Carter (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25To the extent that injuries in service could help with promotions and awards, I think so.--Savary34 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the text above to include it. —Carter (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Its wrong to write "Etienne Perier was "in the Royal Navy from 1702 to 1720"

• A privateer person or a privater ship is not part of "the Royal Navy". The "Royal navy" means the king's vessels (Royal Army) and not the private vessels of French corsairs or Companies as "Compagnie du Sénégal" and "Compagnie des Indes" even if they have "letters of marque" to conduct raids on shipping of a nation at war with France, on behalf of the French crown. Philippe Haudrère make the difference "on est plus précoce à bord des vaisseaux de commerce qu’à bord des vaisseaux du Roi". --Belyny (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Belyny, That's all valid, but doesn't really help me understand what needs to change. The current text has him volunteering for the Navy in 1702 and it seems there is a change where he is working for the Company of the Indies (or another Company) starting around 1720. If that's not the case, can you please provide the correct delineation? —Carter (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the concern the heading name? Would simply "French Navy (1702–1720)" be better? —Carter (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

French Navy avoid some misinterpretations. if we follow what Philippe Haudrère writes :

• 1695 - 1704 : volunteered on merchant vessels
• April 1704 get a post of "garde de la marine" ( but he doesn’t seem to have held the position, called "false garde marine" by Philippe Haudrère)
• 1704 - 1711 privateer (enseigne) on different armed frigates
• 1711 - 1713 : gunner (on land) ( Navry Army?)
• 1714 - 1720 : Navy officer at the service of the Compagnie du Sénégal
• 1720 - 1726 : Navy officer at the service of the Compagnie des Indes
• Mars 1727 : take his fonction as commandant general of Louisiana (he will be be named "governor" in July 1731 (other sources than Philippe Haudrère for this)

I think we must reports the actions in the relevant sub-paragraphs. --Belyny (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I wonder if something is being lost in translation here. If I'm understanding correctly there were three groups of ships that are being considered the "French Navy" here: privateers (operating independently with letters of marque), Company ships, and the Royal Navy (which is all the French Navy article covers). Is that correct? The current text says that Perier joined a company of Gardes de la Marine in 1704, which I understood to be part of the Royal Navy, not privateers. —Carter (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to mply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources, but we can consider than from 1711 to 1715 when he was gunner (on land) he was enlisted in the Navy army on land. --Belyny (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure it's clear, concise, and written appropriately. From what's been quoted from Haudrère (1996) above, the evidence is mixed. "A partir de 1704, ce faux garde marine embarque ..." makes it sound like he wasn't in a formal a company of Gardes de la Marine, but it also says he served under Saint-Pol Hécourt, Claude de Forbin, René Duguay-Trouin, and François Cornil Bart, who were all commissioned officers (as best I can tell) at the time. But he also participated in the Planned French invasion of Britain (1708) did rely on a fleet of privateers, so... And there's no detail about where he was captured in 1711 nor the authority of the "détachement des canonniers de la marine à Valenciennes." I'm not familiar enough with the organization of the French military at the time period to intuit all the nuiance. (That said, it does seem the final paragraph about Senegal clearly belongs with the Company of the Indies section (even if it was the Company of Senegal when he joined) not the "French Navy" (whatever that phrase is implying) section. —Carter (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that this source states, at the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession, that Perier "volunteered for the King's navy and soon became a midshipman." —Carter (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think we can't do anything with such a sentence written by an author who is not recognized as a specialist in the royal navy and who apparently confuses the privateers, the ships of the companies and king's Navy.
• A careful readding of Philippe Haudrère and others helps to understand that Etienne Perier was never "on the vessel of the King" (Royal Navy) before 1744 :

In 1729, while he has been governor for 3 years and is 42 Yo, Maurepas, French naval minister discovered that Perier has no military rank in the Royal Navy except garde de la marine (young officer in formation) The Comptroller General explained the reason is that Perier made his career in the company of Indies and didn't get any promotion. Maurepas found a solution he reminded that the King promised the Company of Indies to consider the military services for the Company that will be reported to him as services for the King, and Perier is appointed capitaine de frégate to give his rank more dignity. see :

Philippe Haudrère, Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes: 1600-1857 , page 94.. --Belyny (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Materials

As requested, here is the interesting excerpt from L’Intermédiaire des chercheurs et des curieux, Numéros 508-518, 1994, p.1109-110, transcribed by me. It may be useful for the rest of the writing process. These various elements - and in particular Choiseul's letter to the King - are all confirmed by Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes : 1600-1857, Michel Vergé-Franceschi, Service historique de la Marine, 1996, pages 91-100.

"Sa carrière est retracée dans la thèse de M. Franceschi sur les officiers généraux de la marine au XVIIIe siècle. Fils d’Étienne Périer, capitaine de vaisseau et de port au Havre puis à Dunkerque – qui fut un grand ami de Jean Bart – et de Marie de Launay, il naquit au Havre vers 1687. Il assista à son premier combat à l’âge de 8 ans en 1695. En 1704, il fut blessé d’un éclat à la hanche gauche ; en 1707, il est dangereusement blessé au bras droit d’un coup de fusil ; en 1712 il est à nouveau blessé dans un siège à terre. En 1715 on lui connaît une vingtaine d’armements et âgé de 28 ans seulement il totalise de multiples combats ; il a combattu en 1695 puis comme volontaire (de 1695 à 1704), en 1704, en 1705, en 1706, en 1707, en 1708, en 1710, en 1711 (à Valenciennes), en 1712 (au siège du Quesnoy), en 1714… Dans la seconde partie de sa carrière il livre un combat très rude en 1718, combat en 1720 (prise du fort d'Arquin), en 1724/1725 (à Portandick), gouverne la Louisiane de 1726 à 1733, combat encore en 1744. Chef d'escadre en 1751, il sert à la mer en qualité d'officier général à deux reprises. Lieutenant général des armées navales il totalise 31 campagnes, dit Choiseul (qui ne compte pas celles faites en qualité de volontaire), 10 commandements , 10 combats (sans compter ceux faits comme volontaire et les combats rendus sur terre), 4 abordages, 3 blessures et plusieurs prises, dans le cadre de la compagnie des Indes pour laquelle il a aussi exercé des commandements non comptabilisés par Choiseul dans la dizaine ci-dessus. Sur la recommandation de Choiseul qui écrit au roi : « C’est le plus ancien officier que le roi ait dans sa marine et un de ceux qui s’y est le plus distingué… Cette décoration honorera sa vieillesse, ses services et lui fera finir plus paisiblement sa carrière » ; il reçoit le 13 août 1765 la Grand-Croix de Saint Louis rendue vacante par la mort du vice-amiral du Bois de la Mothe. Avant de mourir, très âgé pour l’époque (79 ans), au manoir de Tréoudal près de Morlaix, Périer l’aîné perdit ses deux fils au service, l’un lieutenant de vaisseau de 36 ans ; en 1756 à Saint-Domingue, le cadet, aussi lieutenant de vaisseau, mort à 31 ans dans le naufrage du Juste aux Cardinaux en 1759. Il a également perdu son gendre, le lieutenant de vaisseau de Tréoudal." --LouisianaDavis (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, LouisianaDavis Just to clarify, the page numbers are 1109–1110? Is there a specific date/issue number for where this is included (as opposed to Numéros 508–518, which would seem to be the full year's worth of issues)? Also, that doesn't include his ennoblement, which we currently cite to this. Did you not transcribe that part or do we need a different source? —Carter (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Carter, exactly, the page numbers are 1109-1110. For the record, I have a large book of the 1994 issues, so I am not able to give you the exact number of the publication. Concerning the ennoblement of the Perier, it is well mentioned in a following section of L’Intermédiaire des chercheurs et des curieux, Numéros 508-518, 1994, p.1109-110 about Antoine Alexis (younger brother of Étienne de Perier):

"Connu sous le nom de Périer de Salvert, il fut anobli avec son père et son frère en 1726 et fut nommé chef d’escadre des armées navales le 1er septembre 1752. Lui aussi laissa une descendance que je n’ai pas étudiée et où l’on trouverait peut-être Roger Nimier." LouisianaDavis (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Who writes that in ICC? It is better (when possible) to refer to a an identified and a published author whose reputation can be evaluated rather an anonymous contributor to the ICC. Even if there was an editorial board on the ICC, the editorial board only chose the questions and answers but it did not validate them. ansd contributors could express their disagreements and write opposite things in the ICC... --Belyny (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Belyny. I will give you the name of the author later. Here, all the ICC informations are confirmed by Michel Vergé-Franceschi in his book "Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes: 1600-1857" (incidentally, this is the subject of the ICC's introductory remarks).
In some respects, I understand their model : if the ICC had had to respond to your critical disagreements, they would have gone bankrupt in the early 1990s. Best regards, LouisianaDavis (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Michel Vergé-Franceschi book different from the Philippe Haudrère book with the same title and year of publication?

As it stands three facts are sourced to ICC: 1) His parents; 2) the ennoblement; and 3) the friendship between his father and Jean Bart. Below is an alternative source for ennoblement; the other two facts should be easy to source to something else.

—Carter (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternatives sources concerning Jean Bart’s friendship :

Michel Vergé-Franceschi, Les officiers généraux de la marine royale, 1715-1774: Annexes, Librairie de l'Inde, 1990, page 192.

Revue maritime et coloniale, Volume 62, France, Le Ministère de la Marine, 1879, page 665 : (en) ...the Méduse, a frigate commanded by Périer de Salvert, one of the two sons of the former port captain of Dunkirk, friend of Jean Bart.

Best regards, LouisianaDavis (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, LouisianaDavis. Is the below quote from the same Michel Vergé-Franceschi book or from the Philippe Haudrère book with the same title given below? —Carter (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If you need an other source concerning the ennoblement, there is Les flottes des Compagnies des Indes : 1600-1857, Michel Vergé-Franceschi, Service historique de la Marine, 1996, page 93 :

"En 1725, la famille Perier connaît un nouveau tournant. Illustrée au sein de la Compagnie des Indes du temps de la Régence, elle va à présent atteindre le sommet des honneurs au sein de la marine royale. (...) Dès 1726, le vieil Étienne 1er âgé de 82 ans, fait valoir qu'il a bien servi le Roi, lui et ses fils. Depuis 1721 le cadet est enseigne de vaisseau, et en août 1726, l'aîné est nommé gouverneur général commandant pour le Roi en Louisiane. Aussi le moment est-il favorable pour que le vieil Étienne, quoique mourant, sollicite en octobre 1726 des lettres d'anoblissement. Elles lui sont expédiées par le jeune Louis XV depuis Fontainebleau." LouisianaDavis (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I maintain that if there are reliable sources of recognized and published authors on a topic (Philippe Haudrère and Michel Vergé-Franceschi for the family, the ennoblement and the friendship with Jean Bart), it is preferable to use these reliables sources as references rather than "second hand" source such answers and response written in the ICC by some unknowns and not recognized specalists, which in fact only report (acccording to their readings and their choices) what the authors write. Even if its not conflictuel here, this often avoids a lot of disagreement and waste of time. Regards --Belyny (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)