Talk:Father Le Loutre's War

The tone is biased

The tone of this article is so biased against Acadians and Natives. It sounds that Nova Scotians want to justify the past ethnic and religious cleansings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The article includes the documented warfare that happened on both sides during this time period. By doing this, the article supports Acadians and Natives. Contrary to most accounts, the article renders visible Acadian and natives' resistance to the British Empire, Acadians and natives stood up for themselves and what they believed in, they were not simply weak, powerless, passive victims as they are often portrayed. Nova Scotians can be proud of this resistance. --Hantsheroes (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. The article and its companion about the Rasle War present only attacks on British civilians and do not take into accounts any of the British sponsored raids on the French and Native sides in Maine/New Brunswick in past war. Nova Scotia belonged then to Mi'kmaq nation but UK broke a treaty with settlers that were to be used as local militia. All your sources are based on British documents that are themselves biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have included all the published warfare I have access to from this war. I would be excited to find more leads to published work to which you are referring. To suggest that the article is bias against the Mi'kmaq and Acadians, however, infers they were doing something wrong by fighting back when they were not. Mi'kmaq and Acadians used standard colonial warfare to protect their land, families and way of life. And so they should have. Again, as a Maritimer, I am proud of the resistance the Mi'kmaq and Acadians made against the British Empire. The evidence here shows how powerful the resistance was in thwarting British plans to settle protestants throughout Nova Scotia. I think it is quite impressive. Regardless, I have documented everything in the souces I have. If you have others, please add them. --Hantsheroes (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tone and Nomenclature Concerns

It seems that the aforementioned bias in this article towards the Anglo-American viewpoint, and the naming of the article itself, are both due to over-reliance on a singular source -- that being John Grenier's text "The Far Reaches of Empire." A criticism of his research and conclusions is cited here: [1]

The justification for labelling this conflict (as well as Father Rale's War) under their current titles is, imo, very weak. — Muckapedia (talk) 6^e août 2022 10h54 (−4h)

Name of wars

I'm just wondering which source(s) call it "Father Le Loutre's War"; I have never seen these skirmishes collected in this way before. Can you give page references, please. Verne Equinox (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

John Grenier puts forward the "Father Le Loutre's War" frame on these series of conflicts in his books The Far Reaches of Empire: War in Nova Scotia 1710-1760 (University of Oklahoma Press, 2008) and The first way of war: American war making on the frontier, 1607-1814 (Cambridge University Press, 2005). He outlines his rational for naming these conflicts as Father Le Loutre's War. Do you think I need to be more explicit about these references in the article? --Hantsheroes (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very much so (the references). It is a helpful concept, but is is new. There aren't too many commoners with wars named after them! I think you also need to say something about Le Loutre himself and his motivations, such as we understood them. Presumably Grenier has something on this. I also note that your article on Le Loutre no few references for Le Loutre' bio. You should add them, including page refs. FYI, there is a coding trick in Wikipedia that allows you to provide inline page refs. It is this templeate: that you place immediately after the "ref" as in this example. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, why did you name it Father Le Loutre's War and not the Anglo-Mi'kmaq War? Furthermore, why Father Rale's War, and not the Anglo-Wabanaki War? The two priests were not part of all the conflicts involving the Abenakis and the Mi'kmaqs against the English colonists? Le Loutre was twice captured by the English and was not in Acadia for at least two years. Father Rale or Rasle, was also not involved in all the Abenaki retaliations.--Donnacona (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Historian John Grenier (See "The First Way of War" and "War in Nova Scotia") has named these two wars Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War. I think no lable fits these conflicts perfectly. I appreciate that Grenier used the parrallel naming of these wars because they underscore the alliance between the French priests and wabanaki confederacy. While the confederacy was often alone on the frontline, the firepower/ resources/ trade to withstand 75 years of regular warfare with the British Empire was provided substantially by the French through the priests.--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this! I did not realize the full importance of the French priests, although Father Rale only built two churches and kept up the mission at Penobscot, his involvement was much less than Father Le Loutre and he met a horrible death.--Donnacona (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Father Le Loutre's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514082831/http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html to http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102121555/http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=6086 to http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=6086

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Father Le Loutre's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015021267755%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D538
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011439372%3Bpage%3Droot%3Bview%3Dimage%3Bsize%3D100%3Bseq%3D369%3Borient%3D0%3Bnum%3D341
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514082831/http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html to http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014223302%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wild Tone and Citations in article

Hello there,

There seemed to be debate over the tone and how it reflected negatively, in the past, on Acadian and the Indigenous populations. This seems to have been wildly over-compensated with claims that are straight-up false, citations to 400 page books that, upon review, don't seem to say what the person claims they said and with the lack of a page citation impossible to know what they were citing, as well as citing a News article about an amature historian who, again, makes wild mostly unverifiable/out-right untrue claims.

I know that this is a hot button issue to people, but after reading 2 300+ page books that were cited and not seeing the cited claim in them, I am starting to think bias has over-taken this and we need to have some people actually parse through the article and review the citations, clean-up/remove/actually cite pages for the ones that are there and clean up the narrative here.

It states the current narrative that the war started when Cornwallis showed up, but also tells of the sieges at Fort Anne/Port Royal as being part of the war, when they happened years earlier. So when did the war start?

I just want the truth to be in the article. There are enough people making up claims that we don't need to include them. Is anyone willing to actually do a review with me over these claims and citations in an impartial, non-biased way? Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It will help if the article references The Anglo-French alliance of the 1720's that constrained any British action against the residents of Acadia. The 1745 conquest of nearby Fort Louisburg goes unmentioned, the contentious negotiaon at Axie La Chappel over Louisburg, and its return to France. The D'Anville Expidetion does have a Wilkpedia page but its not lonked here. The use of Halifax Harbor by the D'Anville expidetion exposed its stragetic importance.

It will help if the article references The Anglo-French alliance of the 1720's that constrained any British action against the residents of Acadia. The 1745 conquest of nearby Fort Louisburg goes unmentioned, the contentious negotiaon at Axie La Chappel over Louisburg, and its return to France. The D'Anville Expidetion does have a Wilkpedia page but its not lonked here. The use of Halifax Harbor by the D'Anville expidetion exposed its stragetic importance. Monk from Elmhurst (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

One might add that Francis Parkman wrote about this war where Francis Jennings did not mention it. Monk from Elmhurst (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The 1715 Treaty of Utrecht

Does this article reference he 1715 Treaty of Utrecht, where France ceded Acadia to Britian? it does have a Wilkpedia page. Monk from Elmhurst (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)