Talk:History of Randolph, Tennessee

Article split off

The History of Randolph, Tennessee was split off the main article Randolph, Tennessee due to recommendations in the GA review of the main article. Please understand that there will be redundancies for a few days between the articles Randolph, Tennessee and History of Randolph, Tennessee. The main article Randolph, Tennessee will be reduced in length in the history section in the next few days. My decision was to accept more redundancies due to overlapping articles in the beginning, rather than losing information for a few days while preparing it all in the sandbox. Furthermore, this gives a better opportunity for other editors to positively influence the articles at this early stage. Thank you for your understanding and for your patience. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have nominated this article today as a self nomination. As far as I am concerned, the article meets the required criteria. Improvement as suggested for the article in the (GA review) of the parent article have been adopted for the most part. Thank you for your efforts and comments in advance. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Content reduction

I have removed some of the content of History of Randolph, Tennessee. The following sections had information reduced in favour of articles of their own:

• European explorers/Cavelier de La Salle -> Fort Prudhomme
• Civil War/Fort Wright -> Fort Wright (Tennessee)
• Civil War/Fort Randolph -> Fort Randolph (Tennessee)

This solves issues with too many quotations in the prose and reduces the length of the article, which should enhance the readability of the article. This will also help the article not to diverge too much from the topic. No information will get lost for the reader as I have marked the paragraphs below the respective header with the {{main|main article}}-tag to link to the corresponding article. All three related topics are notable enough for an article, in my opinion, and there is potential for expansion for all three of them. I have categorized and linked them. Where disambiguation pages were needed I started them (Fort Wright, Fort Randolph), existing links to the pages from article pages were disambiguated. I also refined the categories for the Randolph images on Wikimedia Commons to reflect the split articles to better accommodate the topic. ( Media related to Fort Wright (Tennessee) at Wikimedia Commons, Media related to Randolph, Tennessee at Wikimedia Commons). The articles related to Randolph were also united in a new category Category:Randolph, Tennessee, a sub-category of Category: Unincorporated communities in Tennessee. doxTxob \ ^talk 07:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Randolph, Tennessee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Would it be possible to not open the article with a one-sentence paragraph?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I pretty much think you got it all. I dwelled for a long time to try to identify anything that could be added between 1865 and 2008, but I cannot think of anything that would be suitable. Fact is, this is just a bunch of fields with a few scattered houses after the Civil War. Otherwise, it meets all the GA criteria. Congratulations!

Comments

Thank you very much for the review of this article. I have fixed the single sentence at the beginning by combining it with the following paragraph. Was that the reason why the prose (section 1a) is not checked as "pass"? If I have missed any suggested improvements with the prose, please let me know, it would be nice for the article to pass all points. I am glad that I could apply your previous advice from the recent review to the article and I appreciate your recommendations for further reading, especially the good writing guide. I have learned a lot and I am going to learn form that further.

Let me leave some unencyclopedic remarks here, if you allow. Scattered houses and many fields, that is Randolph for the last 150 years or so, and probably the most amazing view of the big ol' River I have ever seen. I was there a few times to make photos and figure out where the Civil War powder magazine is. It is actually pretty hidden in the woods and on private property, there is not even a sign. So I talked to a few residents to inquire the whereabouts and of course to the owner, to acquire permission to walk on his land and make photos. The community is small, tight-knit and very clean, not the usual litter at the roadside you find everwhere else. The people are very friendly and helpful. Yes, since the town was burt down in the Civil War the place is pretty quiet, most people left. A few stayed and descendents of those still live there.

Thank you again for your advice and congratulations for your 50th DYK. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ??? was about the single sentence. It was not worth the trouble of placing on hold, since you have previously shown yourself as a reliable nominator. I also took a look at the main Randolph article, and it is looking a lot better after some more content has been added, and the history somewhat reduced. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Native American History, de Soto, etc

Hey doxTxob, thanks for all of the nice comments and the barnstar, they are much appreciated. As for the stuff here, here's a list.

1. To start I'd completely remove the stuff about Mexican origins for the Chickasaw. I know it's in the main Chickasaw article, but it's currently considered factually inaccurate. The Chickasaw and Choctaw, along with the Creeks are Muskogean speakers and are believed to have originated in the Southeast, the Alabama/Mississippi area. Horatio Cushman is a pretty unreliable source, he was writing over a 100 yrs ago, long before most of the reliable archaeological work was done in the Southeast, and with a pretty heavy bias. 99.9999% of all archaelogists and the available literature would oppose the idea of Mexican origins today. I can't believe no one has fixed the Chickasaw or other pages that cite him yet. The Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creeks are believed to have developed in the aftermath of the de Soto expedition, a sort of amalgamation of the remnants of the societies devastated by the social upset form diseases and wars left behind by the departing Expedition. All of the Muskogean speakers encountered were further south and east of this area, and the Chickasaw are theorized to have moved into the area later. The language groups thought to have lived in this area at the time of the expedition are Tunican, Natchezan, and possibly Siouan, with Caddoan beng further to the west.

2. Paleo-Indian to Archaic Indians to Woodland Indians. Mississippian is a development of Late Woodland, so changing the text to reflect that Mississippian developed form the local Late Woodland peoples might be good.

3. At the time of the de Soto Expedition, the people living in this area have been identified as an archaeological phase known as the Tipton pase, whose geographical extent is parts of Tipton, Lauderdale and Shelby Counties. It is the phase directly north of the Walls-Kent phase, south of the Jones Bayou Phase and directly east of the Nodena phase. Several small, single center mounds and moundless villages have been found for this phase, but no paramount multi-mound center has been found. This could be because the meandering of the Mississippi has destroyed it in the last 450 years.<ref>{{cite book|editors=David H. Dye and Sheryl Ann Cox|author= Smith, Gerald P.|title=Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi|article=The Walls Phase and its Neighbors|date=1990|publisher=[[University of Alabama Press]]|isbn = 0-8173-0455-X|pages=135-169}}</ref> (That's about all I can find in my books, although if I find more I'll send you a message)

4. I'm not sure you should include anything about de Soto possibly crossing at Randolph. The proposed sites(there are 3, four if you count that wacko who thinks they actually crossed the Ohio River into Indiana) for the crossing are far to the south of Randolph, and it seems that the only documentation you've included for a crossing near Randolph is from 1874. The majority of the villages and towns visited by the Expedition have been tentatively identified with known archaeological sites and complexes, worked out with the distances given in the narratives, and the currently accepted path doesn't put them that far north on the eastern side of the Mississippi River.<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Charles M. Hudson (author)|Hudson, Charles M.]]|title =Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun| date =1997 | publisher=University of Georgia Press}}</ref> He was in the general area tho, what with the Nodena site(possibly the location of the Province of Pacaha) being directly across the river. The Expedition would definitely have affected the locals, but it's doubtful they ever set foot in the town or even the county.

5. Don't know much about LaSalle being in the area, so can't really help you there.

Hope this helps. If you can find a definite mound site in or very near Randolph, with a map, measurements for mounds, etc., I'll do a quick illustration of the site for the article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Herb! Yes, the further back in time we go the more potentially inaccurate the information gets. At first thanks for your evaluation of the sections. One comment ahead of this: It is not so easy and often unwanted to just remove material that might not be correct. If there is a controversy, the controversy needs to be mentioned and all voices be heard, so to speak. This is to provide the information for the reader to form his or her own opinion. The problem is that the Indian sections at the beginning of the article are more to round out the story of the modern town of Randolph. However, they should absolutely contain correct data but can't discuss the topic in its entirety. So altogether I would only like to add as few words as possible to the text but still provide good information. The stuff I would like to add I put in bold for the better overview [points (1), (2) and (3)]. Before I start searching here without being an expert, can I ask you for two good sources for point (1) and one good source for point (2) and check my formulation in point (3)?

(1) "The Chickasaw and Choctaw, along with the Creeks are Muskogean speakers and are believed to have originated in the Southeast, the Alabama/Mississippi area." Do you have two sources for this? This really needs to be included, especially in the Chickasaw article. As it has been mentioned in the research that it could have been Mexico, the inclusion in the Chickasaw article is warranted, in my opinion, but if there is a different opinion, the other opinions need to be mentioned. I would formulate "the majority of the documentations indicates and it is probably true that..." or similar to make the state of research clear to the reader. With well founded information in the Chickasaw article, I can skip the questionable Mexican origin here. (two sources)

(2) "Paleo-Indian to Archaic Indians to Woodland Indians. Mississippian is a development of Late Woodland" do you have one source for this? This seems to be important enough in the context to be mentioned. Just to make sure: The Paleo Indians were first, from them the Archaic Indians developed and they developed into the Woodland Indians out of which the Mississippian Culture formed, and the Chickasaw developed as a tribe of the Mississippian Culture? Is that Right? What are the approximate timeframes of their activity (Woodland Indians), so I get that information right? (one source and approx. times)

(3) Very interesting, I have never heard of the Tipton Phase. The whole story is probably too much for the context of this article but I would like to mention the Tipton Phase. Would it be correct to say that the inhabitants were "Chickasaw living in the archeological phase called the Tipton Phase" or similar? (Source: <ref>{{cite book|editors=David H. Dye and Sheryl Ann Cox|author= Smith, Gerald P.|title=Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi|article=The Walls Phase and its Neighbors|date=1990|publisher=[[University of Alabama Press]]|isbn = 0-8173-0455-X|pages=135-169}}</ref>)

(4) I tried to mention the controversy of De Soto's crossing of the river. Although the majorty of sources do not indicate it was at Randolph, one does and that opinion warrants a mention, in my opinion, especially as Randolph is mentioned in the source. I tried to indicate the majority opinion by adding more sources there and in the formulation ("... it is more likely and probably true that..."). That should be clear enough for the casual reader to understand the state of reasearch. As mentioned before, we can not just leave it out. (Comment to self: No action required.)

(5) (Comment to self: No action required.)

Unfortunately, I only have a source stating that there were Indian villages in the area, no details, no locations. If there were mounds, they are gone, like the Nodena site, flattened out by farming the fields. What a pity! Another piece of history destroyed! (It is also a pity because an illustration would have been nice) Thank you for your help and expertise! doxTxob \ ^talk 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help.

(1.)Well, I have this Over the next few centuries the Tuskaloosa peoples, Coosa peoples, Plaquemine Missisippian peoples from the Mississippi and Pearl River valleys and other native peoples came together to form a confederacy which became the historic tribe known as the Choctaw.<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Patricia Galloway]]|title=Choctaw Genesis-1500 to 1700|publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]]|date=1995}}</ref>, which I wrote into the Chief Tuskaloosa article, with ref included. I don't have anything specifically about the Chickasaw. But including a theory of Mexican origins doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as it's been pretty much discredited in the last 100 yrs. It's not a controversial issue, we just know alot more than Cushman did and his theory is no longer given any credence.

(2.)List of archaeological periods (North America) has a list for archaeological time periods. It has stuff for all of N. America, so you have to look for this specific region of the country. And there is this-

Central Mississippi Periods	Subdivisions	Dates
Woodland Indians	Mississippian	900 to 1550 or European contact
	Late Woodland and Baytown	400 to 900 CE
	Middle Woodland	1 to 400 CE
	Early Woodland	500 BCE to 1 CE
Archaic Indians	Terminal Archaic	1500 to 500 BCE
	Late Archaic	3500 to 1500 BCE
	Middle Archaic	5500 to 3500 BCE
	Early Archaic	8500 to 5500 BCE
Paleo-Indian	no subdivision	to 8500 BCE

<ref>{{cite book|editor=Charles H. McNutt|author= Smith, Gerald P.|title=Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley|article=The Missisippi River Drainage of Western Tennessee|date=1996|publisher=[[University of Alabama Press]]|isbn = 0-8173-0807-5|pages=97-118}}</ref>

which I took from Prehistory of the Central Mississippi Valley, ref is included.

de Soto map

(3.) Saying that they were Chickasaw living in the Tipton phase would probably be inaccurate. The Tipton phase people developed in situ from local Late Woodlands period people. Then de Soto came, brought all sorts of diseases, social disruption, etc. and left. All across the Southeast, the local societies collapsed, then the remnants of the different societies coalesced into what became the historic tribes such as the Chickasaw, Choctaw, etc. De Soto encountered some people in central eastern Mississippi who called themselves the Chicaza(see the de Soto map I included). It's more than likely that these people, along with other remnant populations(possibly including the inhabitants of the Tipton Phase) came together to form the historic tribe who called themselves the Chickasaw. Patricia Galloways book Choctaw Genesis-1500 to 1700 deals specifically with the Choctaw, and describes the process by which it's believed this happened, but I'm not sure where or if you can find a specific example applying to the Chickasaw. It might be better skip the whole origins of the Chickasaw issue to say that something like The Tipton phase people(a local expression of Mississippian culture) inhabited the region during the time of first contact with Europeans by the de Soto Expedition, but by the historic period the land was claimed by the Chickasaw.

(4.)As with the Choctaw origins theory, a 100 more yrs of archaeological research have shown that the Mississippi River crossing probably occured much further south than Randolph. I'm not sure including a 100 yr old no longer credible theory is worth it, but as long as it's clear it's no longer believed to be accurate, then go ahead.

Anyway, that's what I got. I'm sure you prolly don't want to include the table, but it helps to describe the time line to you. A ref note for the info in the table is included at the end of the table. An article about the Tipton phase people would be nice, a nice companion to the other phases I've been working on such as Parkin and Nodena, but I just haven't found much info about it other than what I already mentioned. I think the 2 or 3 books I have that mention it adds up to a total of 2 or 3 pages. I could put together the numerical designation of a few sites, and a description of the pottery that is used to determine the phase, but like I said, pretty thin for a whole article. And since there are no sites to illustrate, no museums with pottery samples to photograph, no historic narratives that mention it specifically, and no one really focusing there research on it specifically, it might never be more than a stub. In fact, of the 10 or 20 phases in the area(I wrote a little already about the Nodea and Parkin phases in their articles), maybe an article dealing with all of them would be more appropriate, as the info for any one is a little short of a full article, but combined, could make a really good one. I've been considering one for awhile, but have been busy with other projects lately and haven't had the time to build new wiki articles from the ground up. Maybe I'll get to that the next time I have some down time. I'll drop you a line if I do.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Herb! Wow, I have tried to include some of the information into the text but it turns out that once you start, one thing comes to the next. I must admit now that the topic Indian cultures is far to complex to go into all the details in this article. What I did was to add the Woodland Phase and I only described the approximate times of existance, I skipped all the what-developed-from-what and which-tribe-migrated-from-where completely and leave it for the expert articles to go into detail there. After thinking about it again, I followed your advice about the origin of the Chickasaw from Mexico and dumped that statement, what I left in the article is "The exact origin of the Chicksaw is uncertain". That is good enough to indicate to the reader that there is some sort of uncertainty related to the question. I guess who is interested in the topic could look it up in the Chickasaw article. But then, this does not really solve the problem with the Mexican origin as it is not correct there. I could use your references, thank you for providing them in the perfect format already. I hope I did not produce any mistakes when including the material. I have learned a lot in this discussion and a little better than before I understand how some of the threads are connected. What an exciting topic to know a lot about! Thank you doxTxob \ ^talk 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

You mentioned you could make a "quick" illustration. I do not want to ask for too much but if you think it might interest you, here is what went through my mind. Maybe you'll consider it. With my request, please keep in mind that I am not an expert in artwork and also not in Native Cultures, I might underestimate the meaning of "quick" here. As mentioned before, there are several native Indian villages known in the area according to one source, but I have found no documentations on their size or location.

Please have a look at the image that shows the second Chickasaw Bluff from the river (Image:Randolph TN Union fleet passing Ft Randolph.jpg) not a very detailed image. There is the river, the beach, bluffs and houses. For your orientation: The Randolph Church today is about where the single house is with the two trees in front, left of the group of five houses, half way up the bluff. The two landscape photos that show the Mississippi River ( Media related to Randolph, Tennessee at Wikimedia Commons) are made from almost that position, just a little more down the bluff. I have seen your illustration of the Kings Crossing Site (Image:Chr_us_ind_04.jpg), great with the water in the foreground. Is there something in the landscape and the river beaches that could inspire you to an illustration of the second Chickasaw Bluff at Randolph; something that would not distort history beyond the freedom of art? A cultural scene with the bluffs in the background. Or a scene of people working, fishing, maybe. Or a religious ceremony. Or the bluffs like in the Image:Randolph TN Union fleet passing Ft Randolph.jpg, how could that have looked like in those days. Maybe they landed canoes (instead of Union boats) on the beach. Something that likely would have happened there. It would be nice to have a good quality view of the second Chickasaw Bluff with native activity. The image could also be used to illustrate the Chickasaw Bluff article as well as the Chickasaw article and a few others, I am sure. The wide format like in "the Fleet passing Randolph" would have the advantage that it could be easily integrated even into a shorter paragraph in a number of aricles. As I said, I don't want to ask you to invent a native village at a place where it was not. That would be wrong, but would something reasonable and likely come to your mind that could have happened in this scenery? doxTxob \ ^talk 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Randolph, Tennessee. 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/20070927040837/http://www.memphislibrary.lib.tn.us/history/memphis2.htm to http://www.memphislibrary.lib.tn.us/history/memphis2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205223927/http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html

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) 21:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:History of Randolph, Tennessee/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Due to various content and notability issues, disorganized and poorly laid out sections, and substantial overlap on the main Randolph, Tennessee entry, I am recommending this article for reassessment to B-class, and also consideration for deletion and merging with main page.

Content

Much of the article covers the history of the wider area of West Tennessee and the middle Mississippi River basin.

• Indian cultures section is almost entirely dedicated to the wider history of Native American settlement in the Southeastern United States. Only one sentence is directly related to Randolph, otherwise the paragraph and section are not appropriate for this article.nf utvol (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• The European settlement is better than the Indian cultures section, but still needs work. I condensed the information on de Soto and La Salle's exploration and removed unrelated information. The first paragraph of the subsection on European settlers is more focused on the wider region.
• The Establishment section is mostly fine, though I would cut the final sentence. Old Republican should be Wikilinked in its first mention.
• Cotton commerce is mostly fine, but under Travel Routes reference 32 (to TDOT) is dead and doesn't support the information. I might have missed it, but the last paragraph under Travel routes isn't supported by the reference. The Slavery section again is mostly focused on the wider issue of slavery in the United States, with only a couple of sentences dedicated specifically to slavery in Randolph. It either needs to be expanded with more information or merged into another section. The Decline section should probably not be in Cotton commerce, though it's largely fine content-wise. Additionally, the table for historic populations is of questionable utility, with only four data points and a 147 year gap.
• The Civil War section is mostly copy-and-pasted from the main pages on Fort Wright and Fort Randolph. These sub-sections could probably be merged into a "Fortifications" sub-section, edited to be more concise, and left with the appropriate Main Article tags. Under destruction, needs copy-editing (for instance, Randolph's location 40km north of Memphis is mentioned multiple times and could probably be done away with here).
• The Church history section has significant issues pertaining to notability. Why is there an entire paragraph on a local church, including its pastor, attendance, and address? See: WP:ISNOT.
• The Postal history is largely discussed above in the Commerce section. Additionally, large parts of it are not supported by the sources, or are not adequately sourced. For instance, the discussion about the road is not appropriately sourced (it's just a link to a street named Old Randolph Road in Memphis...which may or may not be a reference to the road to the town of Randolph). Also the ZIP code and area code are not appropriate for a history section.
• The Modern history section has numerous issues. The first paragraph is not sourced appropriately at all. The last paragraph is almost entirely unsourced except for the population.
• The notes section needs to be condensed to a couple of sentences and placed in the Civil War section. The rest of the information on the forts should be broken out into their respective articles.nf utvol (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Delist

No feedback received, delisting. nf utvol (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)