Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Annexation of the Leeward Islands

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Annexation of the Leeward Islands edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this often forgotten period of history. There is no real (agreed-upon name) name for the conflict. It is a tale of indigenous autonomy and fierce resistance and one that counters the narrative of the romanticized Tahiti of tropical Polynesian beauties and paradise. This is also a personal concept milestone since when I was originally solely studying history in college I once planned to do a honor thesis on these two wars: the Leewards and the Franco-Tahitian War. Because of the obscurity of this topic and even the obscurity of names and places for both sides of the conflict, please make sure to ask clarifying questions to help me make this article more clear to general audience. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

What an awesome article. Was there a reason you didn't write a thesis on these wars? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to the sciences as a career and couldn’t put time into it. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine edit

A very interesting read. I made some copyedits, but the article is generally well written. Here are my comments/questions:

The native population... I am not quite sure what this section's narrative is. Given that contact with Europeans was at the turn of the 19th century, does this mean that the population declined to 8-9,000, which held for 'much of the 19th century', or was the decline during the 1880s and 1890s, as implied later? And then at the end it appears that there was population increase in the late 19th century in the Leeward Islands?

Sadly the source doesn't say anything about pre-contact population, which is odd, since it is mainly focused on European censuses and counts. The section is to give context of the miniscule size of the island kingdoms and note that the war and conflicts with France in this period didn't lead to a decline in the islands' population.

Hmmm, that's what I don't understand. You write that "The native population of the Leeward Islands numbered around 5,000 to 6,000 people throughout much of the 19th century", where "much" is ambiguous; I assume it means from the early 19th century to later decades, but I would recommend making it more specific. Then you add that a number of factors "contributed to a general decline of native populations after European contact", i.e., after the middle of the century. This apparently contradicts your comment above, and what follows in the article with the 1897 census. So when was this 'general decline'? Constantine ✍ 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: The book goes into detail about disease and warfare negatively affecting the population in the Leeward Islands in the early 19th century. I changed the order of the two sentences. However, the latter part just looks at the population of the islands in the period before and after the French war to show the negligible effects of the war and also the forces that the French would have been dealing with. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norma McArthur noted explain briefly who/what is Norma McArthur

Changed.

The first two paragraphs of the 'Raiatea' jump a bit back and forth in time. Right before the section, we saw Britain recognize the French annexation in 1888, and then we are back in 1880, without explanation. Either split these earlier events off and describe them before the Anglo-French negotiations, or somehow frame this better at the beginning. This is repeated later on when you write that On 17 March 1888, Governor Lacascade took possession of Raiatea and Tahaa and raised the French flag, and the next paragraph begins with On 25 September 1887, five chiefs of Raiatea petitioned Papeete to send a French resident , which obvious predates both the Anglo-French convention and the official annexation.

The Raiatea section is meant to be sectioned off and be stand-alone from the previous three paragraphs which just deals with European negotiation and the events leading to the annexation of all the islands as a whole. The following three subsections with each of the main islands' names are meant to dive deeper into the their individual experience with French annexation. I will have to think a little more on how to change this up.

The purpose is clear, but the phrasing could help a bit along: perhaps add a note '(see below)' and link to the sub-sections after King Tahitoe and his chiefs signed a request for French protection and/or explain after Chessé was unable to convince Huahine and Bora Bora to sign similar agreements that these islands submitted only after the formal French annexation of the entire island group? That would notify the reader that the individual cases are presented in detail later on. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See these changes.

On 11 September 1895, the young queen and the native government... was this act voluntary or 'voluntary'?

It was voluntary since Huahine had been on and off with French annexation for seven years.

while retaining her honor as queen not quite sure what you mean. She retained her formal status/title as queen, her royal honors (which were), or...? If this is connected to the next two sentences, perhaps 'while retaining her nominal status as queen, being allowed to collect tributes from the outlying northern islands while receiving a pension...' or something like that.

In a sense, yes. Made the change.

That's about it. Although completely unfamiliar with the area and the topic, I had no problems understanding events (the broad thrust of the narrative is rather familiar from other times and places, of course), apart from the few cases above. Well done. Constantine ✍ 21:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine: Is this a support? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert: G'day, KAVEBEAR, thanks for your efforts with this one. Not a lot stood out to me and it looks like it meets the criteria to me. I have only a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest splitting the second paragraph of the lead as it seems very long compared to the first
I see a mixture of US and British English spelling, for instance "neighbouring" (British) and "centered", "traveled" (US)
there are no dup or dab links
suggest adding alt text to the images: [1]
all information appears referenced (no action required)
prose seems ok to me (no action required)
suggest potentially translating the titles of the works that are not English
"SPECIAL ISSUE" probably should be decapitalised per MOS:ALLCAPS
ext links all seem to work (no action required)

Image review edit

Three images, all appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources are high quality. No spot checks done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

All right this is taking to long I'll review this and then we finally can promote it.

The annexation of the Leeward Islands (French: Annexion des îles Sous-le-vent) or the Leewards War (French: Guerre des îles Sous-le-vent) The word "French" is too common and shouldn't be linked.

It's a part of the template.

I've fixed it for you.

armed conflicts between the French Third Republic and the native kingdoms of Raiatea-Tahaa, Huahine and Bora Bora Just call it France but keep the link and add Tahiti as a French ally.

Changed

Note one is really big you almost can make a separate section in the body called "Name"?

Changed

kingdoms of Raiatea-Tahaa, Huahine and Bora Bora Pipe those names with the kingdom names same in the body.

Not sure what you mean here.

Pipe Raiatea to the Kingdom of Raiatea, Huahine to the Kingdom of Huahine and Bora Bora to the Kingdom of Bora Bora.

Done

The infobox says the conflict started in 1880 however I do not see any violence between the two parties?

Diplomatic conflict began in 1880 but violent retaliation. Most sources date the conflict to 1880 with Chesse's mission.

The natives of Huahine set up a rival royal government under Queen Teuhe Maybe use rebel royal government?

The term rebel is not neutral hence why I have stayed cleared of it.

Tahitian guerilla resistance on Tahiti was forcibly Was this still part of the Franco-Tahitian War or was this after it?

This sentence is referring to that previous war. It is pretty chronological in that paragraph.

In 1858, the American consul in Raiatea --> "In 1858, the American Consul in Raiatea"

In the way it is being using in the sentence, it is referring to the job position not as a title. It would be proper if it was Consul Stevenson or something like that.

the Tahitian kingdom was annexed to France Because?

It is extremely complicated but was part of the negotiation process Chesse was doing as well. The simple truth is that it was just making de jure what was de facto French rule since the 1840s just now without a royal figurehead or semplace of native sovereignty.

Commercial groups in Hamburg and Berlin protested the actions of the French Berlin is too common so it should be unlinked.

Changed

rights in the French Shore off Newfoundland Link Newfoundland.

Changed

French annexation of the islands.[34][39][37] Re-oder the refs here.

Changed

The captain of HMS Turquoise ordered --> "The Captain of HMS Turquoise ordered" and link both captain and the ship and who is the captain?

Linked HMS Turquoise. Captain seems too common and also again difference in title vs job position. If we find out who the captain is than, we can say Captain So-and-So.

The Raiateans unsuccessfully appealed to Robert Teesdale Simons, the British consul in Tahiti --> "The Raiateans unsuccessfully appealed to Robert Teesdale Simons, the British Consul in Tahiti"

Again not how I have been seeing it capitalized in the sources I am using. See also: https://www.dummies.com/education/language-arts/grammar/when-do-you-capitalize-references-to-people/

suppressing the 1878 Kanak rebellion in New Caledonia Is there a link of this rebellion?

No there is not. It is mentioned in one sentence on New Caledonia.

under Queen Tuarii and 1700 rebels reluctantly surrendered --> "under Queen Tuarii and 1,700 rebels reluctantly surrendered"

Done

Links for Duguay Trouin and L'Aube?

It can be redlinked but I am not sure how to name it since I am not a nautical historian or understand Wikipedia's convention on naming French ships which seems different from British HMS vessels.

Hey Nate, you're an expert in warships; can you do me a favour and look in your sources or these ships' names are the names we're searching for? They're probably on your to-do-list if not then you can add them in the list. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be looking for French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1873) (which is on my to-do list at some point). As for L'Aube, I don't know what vessel that refers to; there was an Amiral Aube, but that ship was not yet built. Conway's doesn't list another vessel by that name. My guess is that it was a merchant vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you Sturm? Does one of your sources say something about a L'Aube in between the 1880s and 90s? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a transport named Aube that's assigned to the l'Extrème Orient as of February 1895 and broken up in Nouméa in 1904 that I'm pretty sure is your baby.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your answers.

Done

@KAVEBEAR: I've tweaked the links, another thing here before I'll support is. When you mentioned a warship can you please add what kind of ship an example is "In 1896, two French warships, the cruiser Duguay-Trouin and the troopship Aube"? The readers know then what those ships were without clicking the links; same with HMS Turquoise. Do you know what kind of type of ship HMS Turquoise was? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remained a threat, and the queen asked for military assistance --> "remained a threat, and the Queen asked for military assistance"

Corvette.

Same issue as above. I've used this convention in past FA and GA.

recovering from a recent civil war between Bora Bora Is there a link of this civil war?

No there is not.

more directly by France under the French judicial system.[73][70][74] Re-oder the refs here.

Done.

Can you translate the titles of both Caillots, Chesneau, Huguenin, Jaulmes, Juster, Teissier, Toullelan, Zielinksi, both Agostinis, all three Barés, Bruyère, both Hännis, all four O'Reillys, Pasturel, both Sauras and Toullelan?

I don't see the purpose of that and I don't fully understand French enough to translate. It seems involving a lot of original research.

You, of course, can use a translate website or asking a French person but that's just a suggestion and I believe there is no rule who says we should translate them.

I am not going to machine translate it.

Months are not needed in the sources unless there are two or more sources from the same year.

Generally dates are required to be cited for journal articles which is the convention I adopted.

Some ISBNs have hyphens while others don't maybe standardise them?

I am not sure how to do that since the isbn hyphens are separated using a tool on the wiki edit page.

Is it? I though people just remove or add some hyphens between well at least that's what I do.

Okay, that's anything from me. KAVEBEAR if you have a moment to address them then we finally can promote this ARC. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Please review and let me know what else needs to be done. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: May I ask you to reply to my responses? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. My original comments didn't save but all the edits been made a few days ago.KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't expected a reply that quickly but that's great now I can support it before my two-day Easter break on Wikipedia. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.