User talk:Magicpiano/ArchiveQuebec1

Surrender of Quebec City?

While reading up various sources for a bio of Adam Lymburner, a British merchant who resided in Quebec from 1772 to 1807, and played a role in our getting a provincial parliament in 1791, I found something new to me and I wanted to know if you had anything on the subject in the sources you have:

The day after was held, at the Lieutenant-Governor's, a war council in which it was resolved to defend Quebec for as long as there was any hope of success (*). The war vessels were immediately taken to Cul-de-Sal, to winter there, and the crews were incorporated with the garrison. But, on the 11th, one realized that citizens were not unanimous, and that a meeting had been held by mostly British merchants, Adam Lymburner at its head, about surrendering the place. Colonel McLean held another meeting, where he appealed to national pride and restore a little bit of order in Quebec, and, luckily, Arnold was unable to cross before the night of the 13th.

This is in Maximilien Bibaud (1855). Les institutions de l'histoire du Canada ou Annales canadiennes jusqu'à l'an 1819, p. 232 (online)

Thanks!

-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly glancing through the relevant pages of Stanley, he does not specifically mention any meetings taking place (this is in the interval between the arrival of Maclean and Carleton). He mentions "cabals" of American sentiment, with Maclean as a successful propagandist against them in getting the British elements of the militia to participate in the defences.

Also a brief look at Justin Smith, volume 2. He also mentions secret meetings ("anarchical town meetings", according to Ainslie) taking place in the days following Cramahé's first call to arms, as well as the drafting of an article of surrender, but no names. There are numerous citations on these pages (referencing mostly letters in archives, i.e. primary material, generally to or from Ainslie, Cramahé, Maclean, or Carleton); I could transcribe them if you can and want to trace them. Magic♪piano 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not wish (or rather do not have the time) to research further into this for the moment. I was just curious about it. Peaceful surrenders were obtained in Montréal and Trois-Rivières. It looks likes the same could have happened in Québec City. This perspective had eluded me. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears that all sources seem to agree that Maclean had a significant impact on the defense, in terms of both logistics and morale, only to be surpassed by the arrival of Carleton. If he hadn't shown up when he did, QC might have surrendered. (None of the historians seems to have thought very highly of Cramahé's military or leadership skills.) Magic♪piano 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly useful source

• Atherton, William Henry (1914). Montreal, 1535-1914, vol. 2, pp. 71-85 (online)

Reading through it mostly for the 1760-1775 part, I found that the coverage of the 1775 invasion is worth reading. While concise, it might still be of interest to you. The part between 1760 and 1775 is also well reported, and is much more thorough than I expected. Because of the title, I did not presume it would recount the general situation of the province so well, all the while focusing on Montreal specifically.

He quotes the report prepared for Carleton on the "rebels" who fled the province, p. 84

-- Mathieugp (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, interesting source, also in Google Books. At least his biases are pretty clear. (I've read enough of the Lanctot now that I've got a pretty good picture of where his biases are, at least with respect to the Americans.)

By the way, I just added a bunch of background to Battle of Longue-Pointe. I wanted to link to the modern location of "Longue Pointe", but it isn't really clear to me where it is (it is clearly not the place described in Longue Pointe, Quebec, or the one located by searching Google Maps for "Longue Pointe Quebec"), other than being across the river from Longueuil. Can you provide an appropriate modern designation for where this event took place? Thanks! Magic♪piano 14:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it can't be that one. It's hard to imagine launching an attack on Montréal City from there. A lot of places are called Longue Pointe unfortunately. It might be close to the Ville de la Longue-Pointe which was annexed to the Ville de Montréal in 1910[1]. All sources I have read say it is near Montréal. To cross from Longueuil to a place named Longue Pointe on the Island of Montreal, near the city, and try to take it over makes sense.

Look what I just found by accident while searching for Longue Pointe:

Birth of America, a French video game on the French & Indian Wars and the War of Independence!

And they drew us with a tuque and an arrowhead sash, playing on both "teams":

http://www.birth-of-america.com/img/Armies-British.jpg

http://www.birth-of-america.com/img/Armies-American-French.jpg

I tried the demo, but it failed to launch through Wine on Ubuntu 8.10. At least on my computer. Zut. :-( -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a close look at this 1744 map. It shows a "Fort de la Longue Pointe" just below (downstream from) La Ronde on the Ile de Montreal. That is literally almost directly opposite Longueuil. One thing some histories mention is the relative danger of the crossing that Allen and his men undertook (in either batteaux or canoes). Do you know if the currents are dangerous just below La Ronde and Ile Saint-Helene? (I also can't help wondering if the "Longue Pointe" is actually the point at Longueuil, and the depicted fort was called that since it was built opposite the point. Then then name was stuck to that side.)

OK, so I have the confirmation that the village was build on the site of the fort[2]. That site would be within the quartier Mercier-Est today. It says on that page that the site of the fort was east of the current Hôpital Louis-H. Lafontaine (formerly the hospice Saint-Jean-de-Dieu). The address of the Hôpital Louis-H. Lafontaine is 7401, rue Hochelaga, Montréal. This link says the "pointe" refers (or used to refer) to the whole east portion of the island of Montreal. This link gives a long description of the history of Longue-Pointe (the municipality) and has a picture showing the town of Longue-Pointe west of Pointe-aux-Trembles. Unfortunately, this picture is not a reliable map. There is hardly anything to see there now, because the oldest parts of the village de la Longue-Pointe was destroyed and its people expropriated for the construction of "rampes d'accès" of the Pont-tunnel Louis-Hippolyte-Lafontaine.

Ah, this is great, merci beaucoups. I figured the place was now a bit of a wasteland, what with rails and arterial roadways going through it. But this is enough that something can be written, and maybe the full map of that fragmentary picture will turn up someday. (I had a similar problem with Battle of Chelsea Creek, where the topography of Boston has changed so much due to "land making" since 1775 that places where the action occurred are hard to identify in modern terms.) Magic♪piano 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those city councilors have no respect for old buildings or the work of historians... ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually dual-boot one of my computers (Ubuntu and XP, usually Ubuntu); I'll have a look sometime when I boot into XP. Cheers. Magic♪piano 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of it. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Still reading Mr. Atherton's Montreal, 1535-1914, I find more stuff that could be of use to you. On page 56, the author quotes a letter to the Earl of Sherburne written by Carleton at Quebec (dated 25th November, 1767) in which he [Carleton] reports on the noblesse. He's got them sorted by age and rank in what he calls a "Return", which is to be found in full in Canadian Archives for 1888, page 44. Can you see this? I cannot from here. -- 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Mathieugp (talk)

I can see some of the Canadian Archives; that volume is not one of them. Interesting observation on Carleton; in many ways he really had his sh*t together. I'm still dithering on picking up the thread of Quebec politics related to the invasion, but that may come in handy. I've got a sandbox in which I'm trying to document everything (American, Natives, British, Quebec) that happens between the capture of Ticonderoga and the end of August, when the invasion starts. I think its content will eventually become the introductory portion of the invasion article. Feel free to comment, it's very much a work in (occasional) progress.

I forgot to mention that he starts quoting other parts of the same letter date 25th November, 1767, on page 53. If I land on other sources for your sandbox, I'll let you know. Hopefully these Canadian Archives will pop up in Google Books or Archives.org or some other place soon, because I have often been blocked by their unavailability online. I am just too lazy and too much of an amateur to go to the Grande Bibliothèque (even though it is 5 minutes from where I work!) and start searching in the paper books. Every time I forced myself to do it, I ended up with hand-written notes I had trouble sorting out later on. I am really addicted to computers I am afraid. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reading pages 59-60 now and it has a summary of the investigations done by the government of Carleton on the noblesse. There is probably no need to consult what is in the Canadian Archives with this info readily available. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also added material on Quebec reaction to the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga (and raid on Saint-Jean), and I've added a paragraph to Battle of Longue-Pointe based on your work above. I poked around a few sources I know for old maps, but have not turned up a good old map of Montreal yet that would be useful for that (and likely other articles).

I saw your changes to Battle of Longue-Pointe and Ethan Allen because they are on my watchlist. I am reading Capture of Fort Ticonderoga now. If you are looking for an old map, your best bet I think is here: http://services.banq.qc.ca/sdx/cep/accueil.xsp

This will be an occasion for you to practice your level-1 French because the interface is in French only! -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've actually located some very nice maps of Montreal from the 1740s and 1750s at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France that will serve the purpose quite well. I have to screen-capture zoomed map details, but they're actually fairly nice. I should have something up tomorrow on the Longue Pointe article. Magic♪piano 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Journal de MM. Baby, Taschereau et Williams, 1776

• Journal de MM. Baby, Taschereau et Williams, 1776

Are you able to consult this one from the USA? This is the journal of the three men commissioned to inquire on the disloyalty of the Canadians during the American Invasion. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any view of that. I was aware that Baby had written a journal (seen several references to it). Presumably a trip to the library for a modern printing is in order... Magic♪piano 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know it was finally translated to English. A couple centuries later. :-)

Off topic: Listen to Dans toutes les saisons sung by Jean-Paul Guimond (song #15). Amazingly authentic. In the mishmash of blue grass, klezmer, tango, country, Serbian, Gypsy, jazz, spoken words, Irish, etc., that you find in the list, there is also actual Quebec-originating folk music (!) to be heard in songs # 5, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 35, 38, 41, and 46. (That being said, they are all excellent musicians playing good music. I particularly like 24, 26 and 42. And there are even some good American-sounding tunes, but I guess those won't sound very "foreign" to you. ;-)

Indeed. A few of those groups are represented in my music collection: Boulerice & Demers, Reveillons, Matapat, Vent du Nord, and, most recently Genticorum -- they were in town recently, nice show. Magic♪piano 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the connoisseur! As a piano player, you'll probably enjoy listening to this talented old accordionist too then. I hope he will upload more! -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

National Order of Quebec

I must apologize to bother you with something trivial like this. Hopefully this will be the last time it occurs, although such issues are (unfortunately) all too common with Quebec-related topics and in the past have exasperated and exhausted more than one user (including me). The present case appears mild compared to the endless controversy over for example the Quebecois article or the Quebec National Holiday one. The Quebecois case has improved lately, but the Quebec National Holiday is in a total impasse.

The article National Order of Quebec was moved to Order of Quebec on January 18, 2009. There is currently a discussion going on in the article's talk page. The user who made the move is now considering moving it back to "foster amity" as he puts it. :-) He indeed appears to be both amicable and intelligent, which helps a lot. We just need a few other people to give their opinion and hopefully support the revert as we are ready to do. Feel free to drop by and visit. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

I hereby respectfully request your mother-tongue and copy-editing skills to review this translation. :-) MERCI BEAUCOUP! -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Given the length of the article, it will take several days to complete. Magic♪piano 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm only really looking at the language, I do have comments on the content and organization:

• Legislative history seems long (and I found it somewhat confusing, due in part to the shifting timeline). I think it needs to be distilled to (1) the bill that people are protesting, and (2) the main bill the parliament was working on at the time. If there were other actions (either legislative acts or actions of MPPs) that added to the atmosphere, they should be given at best brief mention.
• Damages description appears to be redundant -- I counted what seemed like two or three different descriptions of the library's contents. (There should be a better description of what the building is housing earlier in the article. This will give a good reference point for when the damage is described later.)
• It's mostly an interesting read, but it seems at times that facts of marginal importance are added (like the reason for Lafontaine's absence from the report presentation).

Probably one more pass, then I should be done. Magic♪piano 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my broken translation. Yes, I agree to all your comments and I am well aware of the various shortcomings of the article as it stands now.

The "Economic crisis" and "Rebellion Losses Bill" sections, both intended to provide a little bit of context before describing the insane furry of the Tories in 1849, should be moved to their own articles. Provided these articles were there, I could then just summarize keys points and place a "Main article" banner at the beginning of each section.

There was repetition in the description of the libraries. Now there is only one place, under "Damages". There was one at the end of the preceding section, the one on the mob action.

There are a lot of "facts of marginal importance" and a lot of unanswered questions too. The main reason is that the sources suck. To make sense of it all and filter the anecdotal, I would have needed to engage in original research. Believe it or not, there is today in 2009 no contemporary historian who covered and interpreted these episodes, which at the time were called l'année de la terreur. I have left a lot of facts out of the article because I found just too little info on them. I have also left out a lot of quotes from the newspapers which support the POV that it was a "racial riot" against the Canadians who were then still a majority to speak French and practise the Catholic religion.

I am personally very dissatisfied with the article, yet it is now the best source of info on the subject on the Internet. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured you knew it needed work; just giving my thoughts. I think I've done all that can be done with it at the moment. Magic♪piano 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merci! I'll move it to the public space now and see how things evolve from there. I will also publish a "roadmap" to improving it in the Talk page. Among other things, it would be really nice if someone could transcribe Perry's account in Wikisource or some other place. I used the French translation of it when I wrote the article in French, but that is not ideal for the English article, since I am not quoting a French translation of a text originally written in English... -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

I see now that you are moving in on the battles of the French and Indian War/Guerre de la Conquête. I presume you will take your efforts onto the mythical Battle of the Plains of Abraham at some point. This would be very (very) welcomed as there is a lot of fog around this battle, the siege of Quebec just before, and the way in which the capitulation occurred a few days after. A famous painting (which is used in the article) shows Wolfe and his army climbing the cliff during the day, when it actually happened during the night under heavy rain. Also it would seem that it is general Howe who actually got the soldiers on top of the plains. Then there is the neglected evidence that the capitulation did not really occur as a direct consequence of this battle, but rather as a consequence of the commanding officers in Quebec, following the instructions of their general (which were written weeks before the battle) to surrender when there would be no bread left in town. On the day of the battle, after Montcalm's death, de Lévis, who became de facto general, wrote that he was in disbelief that the surrender had actually occurred, since according to him, his army was winning the campain! I do not yet know what to make of all the conflicting reports of this battle and the capitulation, but in Wikipedia all facts and POV have to be accounted for on their merit. If a neutral account of the battle is possible, it is here in Wikipedia. Should be neutrally covered the details of the battle per se, Wolfe's war crimes during the siege (three consecutive orders to burn the country around Quebec), the misunderstandings between Vaudreuil and Montcalm from day one.

One good contemporary review of the battle and the tactical errors made by Wolfe and Montcalm is online:

• Jean-Pierre Poussou, "Montcalm et la perte du Canada", in Stratégique, no 50, 1991 (online)

By the way, I do not now if you are informed of this, probably not, but there is a great controversy in Quebec right now because an agency attached to the federal State has decided to re-enact the battle on the plains this summer[3] for the enjoyment of tourists! -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my foray into the earlier war was motivated by a desire to improve Fort Ticonderoga. I needed to make sure its section on the Battle of Carillon was up to snuff (I intend to put the fort article up for FA, probably my first try at that). The article on Carillon was a disaster, so I decided it needed a rewrite. I also improved Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) while I had the materials in hand (and because it's a relatively untricky event to describe).

I know there are other disastrous articles hiding in the French and Indian War series (and I suspect the main article is also subpar), but I have no plans to address them right now. (I expect the revolution to continue to occupy my time for a while -- the Quebec invasion series is coming along fairly well, and I expect it to be the subject of more GA and MILHIST-A reviews.)

One time when I was in QC, there was a reenactment getting set up on the Plains -- I think it was of the American siege, not sure. I got the impression at the time that reenactments are somewhat regular occurrences there -- part of the tourist draw. Magic♪piano 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. There is so much to do to improve Wikipedia! I'm afraid we'll still be working on it in our old age... :-)

Re-enacting the 1775 siege is unlikely to stir controversy. First of all, most people do not know anything about it. Second: in the end, the political status quo prevailed, so there isn't much to talk about beyond the battle itself.

However, Ottawa re-enacting the battle of the plains of Abraham could be said to be somewhat equivalent to Westminster re-enacting the Battle of Falkirk (1298) (or Battle of Culloden) in Scotland. This is very political in Quebec. People still remember the Sponsorship Scandal of recent memory. I know a lot of people who see it as pure provocation and are seeing red right now. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow the link to see where the reenactment was taking place. It does seem strange that they wouldn't do the full-on reenactment on site (as happened in my backyard here on the 225th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord). Doing it in Ottawa? that is indeed weird.

I briefly look at Battle of the Plains of Abraham and its talk page. I note that some of your observations have already been raised (by User:Plains2007 in his brusque way and semi-helpful way). I'll also note that Anderson Crucible of War (not particularly a friend of the French) and the article's editors, do in fact have Howe in the role leading out of the cove. Both note that it rained before the landing; Anderson implies that the landing was delayed in part because of rain. This is somewhat sensible -- bringing a whole army up a slippery slope at night in the rain strikes me as a Bad Move, even if it gains an element of surprise.

(And if you haven't noticed, most paintings of battles are inaccurate, for many reasons. I wouldn't complain about that -- stick to facts you can source well; books if you can. I get the impression that the editor working on the article would be receptive to a well-presented correction of things that are wrong in the article. Raise just one issue at a time, unlike Plains2007's laundry list, and bring references that will pass FA scrutiny.)

-- Magic♪piano 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant that Ottawa, the capital of the federal power, is re-enacting in Quebec City, the capital of the provincial power, the battle that lead the said provincial power to remain a provincial power to this day (from province of France, to province of Great Britain to province of Canada).

Unfortunately, I have not that familiar with the sources of the Guerre de la Conquête. I'd have to do a lot of reading before I can start adding stuff and fixing other people's errors. Maybe I'll start a bibliography and a timeline in my drafts section. That's always helpful.

You're right: paintings are often inaccurate because they are done by artists, not historians. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Longue-Pointe

I am reviewing your article, Battle of Longue-Pointe, for GA and find it a fine article. I have left a few comments regarding it at Talk:Battle of Longue-Pointe/GA1. Please contact me if you have comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the caps on "natives" as I am pretty sure the caps are incorrect. I suggest you ask to find out for sure, say at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to get an answer, or the Library reference desk. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as someone there will surely have the answer. Congratulations on a very nice article! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a brief survey of a few articles featuring Native/Indian involvement. Most of them use the term Indian. I may ask at the pump anyway -- there are other articles in my pipeline where it'll be an issue.

Thanks for the pass! Magic♪piano 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a perfectly good citation

article: 2nd Canadian Regiment Date: 10-23-08 section: Skirmish at Hanover You deleted the citation, please restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.102.150 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me why that source is reliable. Magic♪piano 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact

In Vaugeois, Denis (1992). Québec, 1792: les acteurs, les institutions et les frontières, Montréal: Fides, p. 40, one can read:

Quant à la participation québécoise et acadienne à la guerre de l'Indépendance, l'historienne Virginia DeMarce a identifié plus de 1800 Canadiens français qui prirent part à la lutte du côté des rebelles.

... which translates to:

As for the Quebec and Acadian participation to the War of Independence, historian Virginia DeMarce has identified more than 1,800 French Canadians who took part in the struggle on the side of the rebels.

It is most unfortunate the bibliography does not list DeMarce. In find myself unable to tell you for sure in which of her publications that information comes from. Here is nevertheless the list of all her works in the Catalogue Iris of the BAnQ: [4]

-- Mathieugp (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That sort of number doesn't surprise me, considering the numbers recruited for military service (something like 500-800 between Hazen and Livingston, from my reading). But it's certainly an interesting fact to add to a discussion of Quebec's participation in the Revolution. Magic♪piano 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

While you were working on that article I didn't pay much attention, and it was flattering to see you mention something about the featured picture restoration helping to inspire the FA drive. So something that caught my attention shortly after FA promotion I've never mentioned. It just seemed awkward to do so. But really this ought to be said.

The section on the British preparations mentions troop strength and commanders, but nothing about the actual battle plan. Have you noticed that the featured picture itself contains a detailed 15 point plan of attack? It's considerably different from the way the battle actually transpired.

This image is, in fact, a manuscript primary source. There are limits to the ways that primary sources can be used at this site, which raises intriguing possibilities. You see, not everything I restore is widely known to the experts. A few months back I restored a panorama of a famous hotel, and even though it had been photographed by a famous photographer the hotel staff themselves were unaware that the image existed until I contacted them.

How thoroughly have you checked your sources on the Battle of Ticonderoga? Do any of them mention the fifteen point plan of attack? If not, then we ought to be checking this more thoroughly because there's a chance that this constitutes a find that would be publishable in a reliable offsite venue.

It was more than a little surprising that nobody noticed this, especially coming so close on the heels of the discovery from the Wounded Knee massacre restoration. Durova²⁷⁵ 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did actually notice that the situation (I hesitate to call it battle) did not go to plan (and that the map had a plan). None of the major secondary sources I recall discussing his plan in any great detail. The second paragraph of "British advance" discusses Amherst's change of plan, only briefly mentioning the fact that his original plan included a flanking maneuver around expected French resistance outside the fort (as he was probably expecting the old French lines to be occupied and contested). Some aspects of the plan clearly were executed as planned:

• the camp is roughly in the old French lines, which appear to be in the same place the camp is marked on the 1759 map (this can be checked by comparison with the 1758 map)
• the distance Kingsford reports for initial cannon placement (400-450 yards) roughly lines up with defensive line "A" (I used the scale indicator on the 1758 map to check this, since the 1759 does not have a scale); I can believe it might have taken three days to set up batteries there.
• I doubt Hamilton (the other main source for the details) discussed the placement of the siege lines, but it would not be a stretch to image they were at the places marked "Q".
• The northernmost crossing of the lake was executed, but they apparently only cut the log boom, since they didn't prevent the French from evacuating.

I'd have to get the Hamilton book (the ref for that part of the text) again to see how much more he said that I might have editorially excluded. Understand that most conventional F&I war histories glide over this action, since it is a sideshow of the main action before Quebec, and the secondary action of capturing Fort Niagara. I think the biggest change of plan was that Amherst was expecting more resistance outside the fort than he got. It may very well be that mention of the creation of the plan is only in primary materials (records of the campaign, Amherst's order's to Brasier or an engineering superior, and so forth) if it is anywhere. A detailed bio of Amherst might have something.

It might actually be worth writing an explicit comparison of what happened vs. what's in the plan, but this seems pretty close to WP:OR to me.

By the way, if you didn't notice, I'm prepping the article for WP:TFA; 250th anniversary and all. Cheers! Magic♪piano 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Coolness. Yes, occasionally there are things where we have to hold back for a while per NOR. In a situation like this one (and a couple of others) it's worth considering as a serious possibility that offsite publication could be a viable option. That kind of undertaking--if properly researched and vetted, and published in a reliable source--brings our project to a whole different level of seriousness. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

I have recently uploaded a major re-write of the French-language article on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham:

• fr:Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham

I am in the process of translating it in my drafts section:

• User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of the Plains of Abraham

The re-write is not quite the definitive and thorough account of the battle I had in mind initially. And reference to practically a single book is an additional weakness of it... BUT it is neutral, rather complete and clearly better than the &$^$# we had before. ;-)

If I can keep the focus on this task, I should be done with the translation in a week. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of work to do for an article where the article in this WP probably already correct in a significant amount of its detail. Are the issues of accuracy with the existing English article really that numerous? (I can understand the need to add missing detail, but wouldn't it be easier to raise individual issues of accuracy and/or bias?) I've not read the English translation of Frégault on this subject, but it is in a nearby university library (I looked at it to get an idea of what it was like on other subjects). I've generally avoided this battle, because the article seems to be well-tended, and other F&I war articles need destubbing and de-crappy-writing. (I am surprised that it passed MILHIST ACR though; it's clearly lacking in stage-setting background. In fact, I'll mention it over there...) Magic♪piano 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a lot of work. :-) Frégault does not provide the level of details Stacey did in 1959 and now MacLoed in 2008. (MacLoed's is far better than anticipated and the only account ever written with the stated goal of a 50/50 split in the attention given to what is happening in each camp. The result is a very-well balanced description of all that is happening and I tried to reproduce that as well.)

The main issue with the English article was incompleteness, lack of focus on the battle itself (digressions), narration and comments rather than plain neutral description of events as they unfold, etc. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

When I posted the French re-write, I simply ditched the original. The English one is more complete and I will have to incorporate several relevant paragraphs. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent news from the translation department: I am done. Unfortunately, the preview of D. Peter Macleod's Northern Armageddon: The Battle of the Plains of Abraham was insufficient to insert all the reference notes the article needs. That means I will have to go to the library, just to search for the pages of the English book that match the pages I cited from the French book. More delays... :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I spent some two and a half hours restoring reference notes, but the library closed before I could finish. Maudit! Almost there! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it! I have inserted the remaining references yesterday night, finally! -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are back from your wikibreak, so : welcome back! I was recently reminded that I have a draft rewrite of a new Battle of the Plains of Abraham article needing the copy-editing skills of someone like you. So whenever you have time for this on your agenda. If, whatever the reason, you do not think you will find a place for this task in the near future (let's say by the end of 2009), let me know and I will start looking for someone else with your precious skills.

BTW, were you on vacation somewhere? -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was principally in a land of camels and ancient temples and a land of great beer and chocolate, although I had family obligations as well. I'll take a look at your draft after I finish dealing with a much delayed GA candidacy. Magic♪piano 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. You're not afraid of contrasts! Did you ride a camel? :-)

Thanks again for your help with copy-editing. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just discovered that there is such a thing as a Guild of Copy Editors! I will put up a request to them and see how it goes. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for not getting to this sooner. I've had relatively little time for WP (I have hundreds of photos from my trip to reduce and process into a useful slideshow), and most of has been sunk into trying to deal with the Carillon GA. If you know someone with SVG map-creation skills, can you send them my way? (I'll try to pry some time free in the next few days to look at your work...) Magic♪piano 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize my friend: you're not my employee! ;-) I am happy to have found this guild because I did translate a good number of articles from French to English (sometimes the other way around) and I know that these can all be improved in terms of grammar and style. Even if you do find the time to go over my draft, there are many others "creations" of mine that need to be reviewed by people.

I wish I could find "someone with SVG map-creation skills" for you as well as for me. I think we need a programmer that will write us a gui tool to take a OpenStreetMap map and add/removed layers easily. I tried to do it myself for a plains of Abraham map, by butchering the xml file by hand, but in the end it was not only very long to do, I ended up removing stuff I wanted to keep on the map. The file is not exactly human readable. I of course wanted to remove only the streets and labels and keep the grass and water, on which I could have drawn whatever I wanted. There ought to be simpler way to do this. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My humble opinion is to follow whatever the usage is in English regarding French nobles, if there is one. Regarding "Pierre Du Gua de Monts", the author of his bio article in the DCB calls hims "de Monts" throughout the article. But the author of the article on the Marquis de Vaudreuil in the same DCB calls him simply "Vaudreuil". Judging from this, there does not appear to be any established usage in Canadian English. (I cannot tell for American English.) But you are right that it should be uniform within the same article, so let's drop the de thing. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

Congrats on the main page! A fine article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sideling Hill

Hi Magic -

Just saw your updates regarding Sideling Hill. Am amazed, in that I thought I was the only one alive that knew it existed. Curious as to your interest in the subject.

I recently did 6 months of research on the subject and a draft of my results is at sidelinghill.pbworks.com . I had added the Battle to the Wikipedia F&I list of battles by state and was going to add it to the table of battles by year and then add an article. When I went to do so, I found your work - Thanks. Your source is one of very few that even discusses the battle and it is the only one to report the date correctly.

If you review my material, you will see that their is a good more more that could/should be included in the article and a couple of minor corrections. Would you like to do it, or would you like me to. There should also add articles re Jean Lowry and Alexander Culbertson.

I'm not sure how this communications works so don't know if you'll even see it. Think it would be simpler to use email - pamrw@msn.com

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Jim Wilks Gainesville, VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.145.9 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review - Battle of Carillon

Hi, MagicPiano, I'm GA reviewing Battle of Carillon and have posted comments at Talk:Battle of Carillon/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MagicPiano, are you doing any more? There about 4-5 to do then I think it's just dotting Is and crossing Ts. --Philcha (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for the map to make some progress before finishing up. (I've started looking hard at Inkscape to see if I can do a decent tracing of the geography in SVG. Placing the units is probably pretty easy.) Magic♪piano 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MagicPiano, congratulations, it's a GA. It's been a long job for a few reasons, but it's really interesting article. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (I know things were frustrating for a time, but things worked out OK in the end.) Magic♪piano 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

Thanks for catching my error so quickly in the Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) article. I jumped to a wrong conclusion! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)