Talk:Samuel de Champlain/Archive 1

Untitled
he was a sailor--24.188.57.222 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a navigator: that is more than the low-level sailor he was before 1595, aside his father ! -- 66.36.131.1 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe add some info about how he founded Acadia? --142.166.97.10 17:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy and odd formatting ( tiny notes )
Firstly, it is stated that, "No period portrait of Champlain exists." Soon thereafter is a second picture, captioned with "No authentic portrait of Champlain exists." Seems kind of redundant and unprofessional to me... Sexually, under the Early Travels subsection, "he lived before the end of the XVI^th century." Is there any particular reason that this is stated in Roman numerals? It's a bit inconsistent with the rest of the article, so far's I can find, and I'm not familiar with any standards of writing in which this would be needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.76.3 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalization
Someone just vandalized the page

AxyJo 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I fixed it

AxyJothis was one of the forent contryes


 * and again, twice. I.  raining girl 00:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandals to this page from April 1, 2007 through April 16, 2007. Refs after names are links to the change edits that support the vandal claim (I skipped at least one that was complicated that resulted in a date change 1567->1580 or visa versa)
 * four by
 * one by  who also vandalized Bigfoot and Stockmarket
 * two by   who also only has done vandalism
 * one by  who also only did vandalism
 * 
 * 
 * a three piece deceptive vandalism changing 1608 ot 1607 to appear as a revision by  3: 2:[.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_de_Champlain&diff=prev&oldid=120620421]
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * and then we get into MARCH 2007 JetheroTalk 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reported to Requests_for_page_protection JetheroTalk 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Made sure everyone listed above was welcomed with and warned with  (or level 2 or 3 as appropriate). JetheroTalk 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Made sure everyone listed above was welcomed with and warned with  (or level 2 or 3 as appropriate). JetheroTalk 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
The overall content of the article is good, and the references at the bottom are nicely laid out. However, the article is largely just body with no clear introduction, it needs to be divided into some subjects. Ben Babcock 21:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Woohookitty for wikifying it. The sections make the page easier to read, and make it easier to find specific information about Champlain. Ben Babcock 23:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Father of New France
Samuel de Champlain is known as the Father of New France. I think this should be bolded in the lead section. Phoenix2 16:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Question

 * Can someone please explain why this relatively innocuous page attracts so many bad edits? CJCurrie 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of the article looks like it was written by someone who is not entirely fluent in English. Could certainly do with some clean-up of its style. By the way, this is a terrible sub-heading title. --Iacobus 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense. Champlain was French and is very well known by French-speaking people from France or from Quebec. Afterall he was the Father of New France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.55.156 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I heard that Louis Aubert (I don't know the spelling) or someone from his family travelled with Champlain to Quebec. I just want to verify if this is true with someone. Rijaman 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * His name is Louis Hébert. The Hébert family is still with us today, so there must be something true about that story. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Loudogood (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Our first Dirty Harry? Imagine the scene when his Montagmaos allies spread to right and left, leaving him alone facing the Mohawks, what would be the 17th cent feeling, and in old French, of "go ahead, make my day?" Would this have been a thought of his? I am serious.Loudogood (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Champlain's Date of Birth
There exists no documentation for Champlain's date of birth. Circumstantial evidence, however, indicates that he was born about 1580, not 1567 or 1570, as stated in the literature before 1978. Thus his achievements were those of a younger man than has been suggested in the literature, including the Dictionary of Canadian Biography.

See:
 * Jean Liebel. <>  Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 32, 2 (septembre 1978): 629-39.
 * Champlain: the birth of French America / edited by Raymonde LItalien and Denis Vaugeois. (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemery (talk • contribs)


 * That's fine... sorry, anonymous IPs changing dates without any edit summaries sometimes get caught in a vandalism revert... please be sure to cite those sources in the article... - Adolphus79 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is now strong evidence that Champlain was born as late as about 1580. This is based on the now known year of birth of François Gravé, said Dupont or Pont-Gravé, 1560, and on what Champlain wrote for 1619 events about this Gravé-Dupont : (free translation) "His age would have given him to me as my father." — See the french version of this page for exact references, and for the table giving details about the military service of Samuel Champlain. As some other people, I will keep contributing before next July to the french version of Samuel Champlain page. Daubert (in french) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) — Daubert (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is rather flimsy "evidence". Why somebody must be 20 years older to be old enough to be respected as a father (that is what is written in the original French edition), but could not be 15 or even less years older but have an imposing appearance? Or did Gravé always wave his baptism certificate around? Besides, in the French Wikipedia somebody tries to ascertain that he was a sergeant in the French Army at age 15, but had already studied extensively navigation and cartography, rather precocious, I think, even considering that his uncle was a ship captain. I don't think it impossible he was a little older, maybe even 10 or more years, after an early seafaring childhood and youth trying a military career. Anyway, where are the sources for the 1580 birthyear? Or is it Original research? And what is the original source for the "ca. 1567"? which is given almost everywhere? Kraxler (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The first source of Samuel Champlain "1567 birthyear" is l'abbé Pierre-Damien Rainguet's 1851 Biographie Saintongeaise (ou Dictionnaire historique de tous les personnages qui se sont illustrés […] : see pp. 140-141, or pp. 148-149 of these digital photocopies). This "1567" was very flimsy.
 * Despite Léopold Delayant (member, secretary, then president of l'Académie des belles-lettres, sciences et arts de La Rochelle) wrote (in 1867) that the Rainguet "1567" year was proofless and wrong, l'abbé Charles-Honoré Laverdière, in his Notice biographique of the Œuvres de Champlain (1870),  tome 1, pages ix à xj, uses a bad mathematical proof to agree with l'abbé Rainguet on the "1567": Laverdière affords only 10 to 12 years as age difference between Samuel Champlain et François Gravé (instead of 18 to 20 years), and he uses "1554" (wrongly, instead of 1560) as Gravé birthyear, according to the de visu bad age estimate provided by the recollet brother Gabriel Sagard in 1623.
 * Everywhere after, the proofless "1567" was engraved or carved on every monument dedicated to Champlain, and written in every book containing the word Champlain.
 * In 1978, Jean Liebel wrote On a vieilli Champlain (They made Champlain older), in the Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française (RHAF, number XXXII, pages 229 to 237), after a full examination of all the old and new sources, concluding that "1580" is a much better approximated year.
 * Nowadays, most of the historians agree on the near "1580". - 66.36.139.84 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should add that l'abbé Rainguet, and l'abbé Laverdière, and all their parrots, were wrong when evaluating the jobs of Samuel Champlain into the King Army (in 1595-1598): these jobs (fourrier, then maréchal des logis) are "horse caring jobs" at that time, not "nowadays sergeant jobs", and it was not requested to be major (aged 25 or more, at that time) to do these jobs; Laverdière wrote that Champlain began to be maréchal des logis as soon as (wrongly) in 1592, and (wrongly) that he had to be 25 years old at that time, thus being born in 1567 (1592 - 25 = 1567), what was to be proven !!
 * And you should also add that there was no public school at that time and that Samuel Champlain did not study latin neither old greek (unlike Marc Lescarbot did), thus having time, when young, to learn navigating, drawing maps,,, - 66.36.132.6 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism
Brouage was a very catholic city in a protestant area. Thus, it makes no sense to say Champlain was a protestant for this reason.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jdtr/brouage.htm

Brouage, tête de pont contre les protestants de La Rochelle (1569)

http://books.google.fr/books?id=iX-DoOHuWxQC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=brouage+richelieu&source=bl&ots=pqbF9M0myF&sig=UsfeR7FvHn-3eSL1o3un5gfjaQc&hl=fr&ei=p2_vSZvdKZqWlAf-46CJBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Richelieu (very catholic himself) promoting Brouage against La Rochelle

http://www.brouage.org/histoire.html

and so many more links proving that Brouage was a catholic town... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.80.95 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro. paragraph
"His travels have had the most lasting importance to World History." This last sentence in the intro paragraph makes little sense (especially if taken literally). Perhaps it was written by someone without English as their first language. Anyhow, I have deleted it. --Iacobus 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Portrait
If, as the article says, there are no authentic portraits of Champlain, why does it feature a picture which is ostensibly of him?

--Tex 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears everywhere on the Internet. The Wikipedia reader is subtly alerted that it's an inauthentic portrait of him. Just trying to keep Wikiinformation better than the average, without stirring up loyal local reproaches. --Wetman 05:23,

4th desember 1612(UTC)

I recall glancing through a newspaper describing the famous image of Champlain as being some cardinal of the same period, picked as a more impressive visual and retitled by a history textbook. Anyone else hear of this? 174.91.223.140 (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I knew that I wasn't hallucinating. Please, someone wikiliterate, deal with this. http://www.canadiana.org/hbc/_popups/PAMc006643_e.htm 174.91.223.140 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
I did add also that there is Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont as part of his legacy. Illuminati 10:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works but I wanted to add that Champlain also has a memorial statue in Saint John, NB, Canada in Queen Square that commemorates his discovery of the Saint John river. He named the river Saint Jean (Saint John in English) because he discovered it on Saint Jean Baptist day in 1604 (I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudge ass (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also a memorial statue in Champlain, NY, alongside the Catholic Church. Traneride (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

His history
most likely he was born in the year 1570. In Brough, France. His dad and uncle are sea captians

Very poor comment here above. His birth town is not even spelled right. Brouage!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.55.156 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Daughters
Samuel did have three adopted girls,in english thier names are Harmony, freedom, and charity and his wife was 12 years old when they got married. He left all of them on one return to france and never saw them again, but that was not mentioned. fuyfghkjgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.41.88 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) The name Champlain gave them was rather: Faith, Hope, and Charity (as were named the three major « theologal virtues »). Champlain was not allowed to bring in France the two of them who did not yet quit him, when the Kirke brothers kept Quebec and deported most of the French inhabitants in 1629. - 66.36.138.251 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These three young native girls were given to Champlain to compensate the murder of some French inhabitants.

His history
most likely he was born in the year 1570. In Brough, France. His dad and uncle are sea captions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.198.80 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me....
... or does this timeline not make sense? 'On May 22, 1616, he left the Huron country and was back in Quebec on July 11 before heading back to France on July 2.' Grandma Roses (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

timeline is wack
how the funbags could he have been in quebec on july 11 and then return to france on july 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.185.170 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No doubt this time line is inside out. It's wiggity wiggity wiggity whack.--Matt D (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Honours: Would someone like to add "Champlain Mountain" in Acadia National Park? Champlain named the island where the mountain sits... there is also a Sieur de Monts 'spring' in the park.... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.50.153.41 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth, again
User 66.36.*.* has asserted that "Most historians now agree" that 1580 is his most likely year of birth, and cites Litalien, pages 16ff. The English translation of Litalien does not support this, and appears to be similar in content to the French. Some of the contributors to Litalien have this to say about Champlain's year of birth:
 * Litalien (p. 16): uncritically appears to agree with Liebel
 * Taillemite (p. 19): "around 1580"
 * Fiquet (p. 37): cites Liebel agreeably
 * François-Marc Gagnon (p. 92, footnote): 1567 or 1570
 * Eric Thierry (p. 121): seems to accept 1580, but his argument is weak
 * Denis Martin (p. 355): "between 1570 and 1580"

I will add data from a table Fischer presents (p. 573): Fischer is very detailed in his disagreement with Liebel's conclusion; his main complaint is Liebel's assumption that Pont-Gravé must be 20 years older than Champlain, and that a 1580 birth would make Champlain 14 in 1594 when he is known to be in military service, and is already referred to with the particule de noblesse (de) in documents from the war that date to 1595.
 * Dionne and Trudel (no specific citation) argue (or agree that) 1570 is more plausible (which Fischer agrees with)
 * Liebel argues for 1580

You noted that in Trudel's entry on Champlain in the French Dictionary of Canadian Biography he supported 1580 as a birth year. Trudel wrote:
 * ... il serait né vers 1570, peut-être en 1567, ou plus tard, vers 1580.

in English:
 * he was born around 1570, perhaps 1567, or much later, around 1580.

This does not sound like an strong endorsement of 1580; in fact, I read it as more supportive of 1570.

This does not appear to me to be "most historians" (or even "most modern historians"). Unless there are many more historians to consider, I think the language on his birth year should be even less certain than it currently is. Something like this:
 * Historians are divided on when he was born. The 1567 date is widely regarded as improbable, with the debate centered between 1570 and 1580.

Feel free to quote more specifically from Litalien (or other sources) if I've missed something.  Magic ♪piano 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Modified with additional information, since user appears to not have read it.  (Side note, since you edited the reference to this: Fischer claims (p. 571) that Champlain's performance in the Siege of Fort Crozon was sufficiently notable that he is mentioned in contemporary documents about the siege.  He does not identify the documents, however.)  Magic ♪piano 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Champlain's Boss
Someone wrote into the article that: "On May 7 1620, Louis XIII named him administrator of New France, a post he served for the rest of his life."

It is FALSE. Champlain's boss never was directly the king, but a noble named by the king, the first being Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, the last being Cardinal Richelieu. What happened in 1619: the Merchants wanted François Gravé Du Pont to be the administrator of Quebec instead of Champlain. The king told Champlain's boss not to do that. So, Champlain came in Quebec (with his wife) in 1620 and showed this "commission" approved by the king. — 66.36.146.247 (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing who Champlain's boss was. I am only saying that the king appointed him as administrator of New France. When we have a difference of opinion in Wikipedia, it is policy that we must identify reliable sources to clarify the matter, rather than engaging in an edit war. Several sources refer to Louis XIII having appointed Champlain as administrator of New France:


 * "... on May 7th, 1620 Louis XIII asked Champlain to maintain the country of New France 'in obedience to me, making the people who are there live as closely in conformity with the laws of my kingdom as you can.' Champlain immediately returned to New France and was to spend the rest of his life focusing on administration of the country rather than exploration."


 * "... He led a group of Huron-Algonquin warriors in an ill-fated attack on an Iroquois village, but ceased his adventures in 1620 after the King Louis XIII ordered him back to Quebec as an administrator."


 * Do you have sources that state something different? If you don't, I will replace the statement in the article with one that is sourced. Sunray (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See what Trudel wrote in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, based in part on Champlain works, in François Gravé Du Pont entry (this reference is given at the end of Gravé article):


 * "In 1619 the merchants joined together to name him to replace Champlain at Quebec; the latter protested [...]. Champlain was obliged to remain in France, and Gravé was in command of the colony at Quebec until the spring of 1620, when Champlain presented himself, bearing a commission naming him lieutenant to the viceroy."


 * ... the same historian and Dictionary, in Champlain entry :


 * "Sure of what he was doing, he [Champlain, at spring 1619] set off for Rouen with his wife, in order to sail for Quebec. He showed the king’s letter and the articles signed by the partners, and proved that he was the Prince de Condé’s lieutenant. To no purpose: the partners refused point blank; the boat set sail; and Champlain returned to Paris to plead his case before the king’s Council. “Now began our pettifoggery.” A judgement confirmed him in his command (“which decree I make known to them in the open Exchange at Rouen”), but the 1619 trip nevertheless could not take place. During this enforced leisure, Champlain had written up the account of his Voyages from 1615 to 1618; the privilège is dated 18 May 1619. The Prince de Condé was liberated in October 1619, and yielded his rights as viceroy to Henri II, Duc de Montmorency, admiral of France. The latter confirmed Champlain in his office, and appointed the Sieur Dolu, the Grand Usher of the kingdom, as an intendant to put the society “into a better condition of prosperity than it had been.” On 7 May 1620, Louis XIII wrote to Champlain to enjoin him to maintain the country “in obedience to me, making the people who are there live as closely in conformity with the laws of my kingdom as you can.” From that moment Champlain was to devote himself exclusively to the administration of the country; he was to undertake no further great voyages of discovery; his career as an explorer had ended."


 * With Champlain works, Trudel and the DCB are good references. In 1619, Condé (Champlain's boss) was in jail. At the end of the year, the Duc de Montmorency became Champlain's boss. - 66.36.146.247 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you do not want to say that Louis XIII "appointed Champlain as administrator." Fine. None of the references make that exact claim. They say Louis "ordered him back to Quebec as an administrator..." "wrote to Champlain to enjoin him to maintain the country..." etc. The facts that all the references agree on are:
 * Champlain was told by the King to administer the country
 * He ceased exploration and returned to Quebec City in 1920.
 * He remained administrator of New France for the rest of his life.


 * Are we in agreement on these facts? I will change the wording accordingly. Sunray (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important here that:
 * The reader will not think that Champlain's boss was directly the king: it should be very clear that it never happened.
 * The beginning of the article must not contain details that could induce such confusion as to think Champlain was governor in title: it was never true.
 * We always must know that not all sources, or extracts (out of context), or translations... are clear, complete, and convenient; hence, for such an article, specialized reknown historian works are much better than other sources, and Champlain is the first important historian of the beginning of New France.

- 66.36.146.247 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with what you've said, above. However, I do see some problems with your recent additions. You added, in the first paragraph, the fact that Champlain founded Quebec City. This is already stated in the second paragraph, as follows: "Champlain established in 1608 the French settlement that has since grown to become Quebec City." You then stated that he was administrator of Quebec City. This doesn't seem to square with sources (including the one you provided) which say that the king asked him to administer the country (New France). The other problem is that you added extraneous information about the viceroy(s), which does not belong in the lead. I've reverted these changes. You may wish to read WP:LEAD, which gives guidance on writing the lead section of articles. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O Great Gold Starized Veteran Editor IV, it is up to you to change the WP:LEAD rules, because you dont follow them.


 * - 66.36.153.34 (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To the note referencing to Trudel and appended to the sentence written by this Editor IV:
 * In 1620, Louis XIII ordered Champlain to cease exploration, return to Quebec, and devote himself to the administration of the country.

I added details and explicit citation of Trudel, because it must be very clear that Champlain was not viceroy neither governor of New France, even if (and why) the king wrote to him ... - 66.36.156.59 (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting the founding of Quebec City (and New France) ??
The same day, the same user who added confusing details in the presentation, a so called "Gold starized Veteran Editor IV", removed from the first paragraph (at 16:26, 11 December 2009) what is the most important fact about Champlain (and the note included):


 * "As lieutenant to a viceroy, he founded Quebec City on July 3, 1608, and served as its administrator for the rest of his life."

See Selected_anniversaries/July_3:


 * 1608 – French explorer Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec City, considered to be the first European-built city in non-Spanish North America.

From now, according to this veteran editor, this action of Champlain (and its exact date) should no more be written in the first paragraph of the Champlain article presentation ?? - 66.36.156.89 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Sunray pointed out above, Champlain's founding of Quebec is mentioned in the second paragraph. It is debatable whether his precise status at the time (lieutenant to a viceroy) is important enough to include in the lead.  I think you are right that his role as founder of Quebec should be mentioned more prominently in the first paragraph (and then not in the second).  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes and References
Champlain was a courages man. Which I hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.167.105 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

when did the dutch establish new amsterdam?
the answer is in 1626 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.26.55 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Memorials
This section of the article obviously gives a sense of how revered a figure Champlain was in the history of northeastern North America. It had a "refimprove" tag on it, which I've removed. Most of the named places have articles about them, so they are verifiable by clicking the link. The question in my mind is whether some of them can actually be called memorials. I can see that naming a lake or a bridge after someone is a memorial; statues, schools, obviously. But commercial entities such as hotels? I'm not sure. I suppose if it is a famous hotel like the Chateau Champlain, we shouldn't quibble. One could argue that the name was chosen because of Champlain's fame. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal of the refimprove tag and the rationale that a linked article is verifiability...for all the casual browser knows the linked articles themselves have no sourcing. Sources should be listed in the article directly, not only available via linkage. Doniago (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely if something is backed up by a well-established article there is no question of its verifiability. To doubt that there is a Champlain Bridge in Montreal or Ottawa is to know nothing about Canada (and that is why we have wikilinks--so that people can learn). You do not have to verify that there is a Sun or a Moon. On the other hand, I can agree that some of the more obscure memorials may need references for verification. I am willing to check that out. However placing a "refimprove" tag on the section is counterproductive. It implies to the reader that there is some problem with the section that needs fixing. Sunray (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you shouldn't be required to read a second article to confirm that an item in the first article is reliably sourced. I'm sure many WP readers don't know a lot about Canada, and while Wikilinks are fun and useful and all, readers should not be required to follow them to verify an article's quality. With the number of links that were possibly obscure and unsourced, I feel the refimprove tag was appropriate. In any case, I think we need to hear from other editors since we seem to disagree on this.
 * Also, what happens if one of those articles is deleted? Doniago (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you feeling offended that I reverted you? I ask, because WP:V does not require that we reference everything. But perhaps my explanation wasn't clear. On the other hand, if it is just a garden variety disagreement, perhaps we should wait for others to comment. Sunray (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel it's inappropriate to rationalize a lack of sourcing by claiming that the linked articles are themselves sourced. In my opinion the sources should be included in the article itself. The memorials should be sourced because, without sourcing, there's no evidence that the memorials are to Samuel de Champlain as opposed to John Champlain who lives down the street. In any case, as I stated above, I think we need to hear from other editors so that a consensus can be reached. Doniago (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are saying that a link may not confirm that the memorial is to Samuel de Champlain? If I've got that right, I agree with you. It makes sense that if we were to rely on a link, it would have to be a stable article (rather than a stub) and confirm that the object is a memorial to Sam, (not John), Champlain. To address that, the entries could be checked against that criterion. Anything that was not perfectly clear would need a source. Would that satisfy your concerns? Sunray (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)