Talk:Surrender of Montreal (1760)

request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands
Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
 * I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted from redirect page
This page was previously blanked and redirected to a disambiguation page. From the diff, it seems that the reasoning for this was that it was felt that title did not reflect the information in the stub. I've reverted that to a previous version. I feel that if someone feels the title is a problem, then they should nominate the article for renaming, rather then blanking the article and redirecting the page (which seems dangerously close to vandalism to me...) Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ALbrech
The objective and outcome of a major campaing deserves an entry, even if you don't like the outcome. you've already been accomodated by the move of this article from battle of montreal ->seige of montreal -> surrender of montreal. to be honest, I view your contuned blanking as nothing but vandalism. please stop Mike McGregor (Can) 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has been a stub for a year. The campaign "objectives and results" (such as they are) have been described at French and Indian War. Time to put up or shut up: where are all the other stubs describing bloodless handing over of cities? Where can I find "Surrender of Berlin (1807)," "Surrender of Madrid (1939)," "Surrender of Barcelona (1704)," etc.? These were all part of campaigns with their own "objectives and results." We do not make article stubs every time a city changes hands bloodlessly. Albrecht 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you show me a rule or guideline aginst the presence of stubs on wikipedia? can you explain to me the harm done by the presence of this stub? you've already been accomodated after a round of blanking this article by it's move from 'battle of montreal' -> 'siege of montreal' -> 'surrender of montreal'. that is what we call a compromise. a compromise between a non-battle being called a battle and an event having no article at all. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, considering there was never any "siege" or "battle," your claim to having "accommodated me" is exposed as extremely disingenuous. All you did was turn an outright spurious page into a merely redundant one. Witness the Canadian official history:


 * yet, oddly enough it's important enough to warrent it's own page in Canada's offical history... hmm. Mike McGregor (Can) 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop being silly, and stop reaching so hard. You'll strain something. The book's content was digitized in a manner that clumped the two or three paragraphs dealing with Lévis' surrender terms on an html "page." Hey, look, "The British Reach Montreal" also has a page, maybe you could write us a stub for that. (lol, And be sure to toss in "Decisive British victory.") Albrecht 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The city's fortifications - a simple stone wall that enemy artillery would be able to breach in a few hours - were not designed to withstand a European-style siege. Vaudreuil and Lévis had no choice but to capitulate. ...Lévis therefore surrendered.


 * But this isn't about sources. Consult whomever you'd like. Rutledge. Berton. Zuehlke. The story never changes. You can't manufacture fictional battles. Albrecht 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules, in this context, are less important than the rules of the MILHIST project. I was not aware that we needed articles highlighting the surrender of every major city in every major campaign. Your desired changes are too POV; it's like they only add insult to injury to an already ignominious event. "Hey, let's just create an article about it!"UberCryxic 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So show me a rule at MILHIST... how is calling the surrender of Montreal "the surrender of Montreal" POV? Your right, we don't need articles to highlight EVERY surrender of a city. But your slippery slope argument is a bit of a logical fallacy. but i think a surrender with the cultural and historical impact of essentially booting French authority from its last major stronghold on the continent deserves at least a stub. I should point out, the change being made here is the blanking of the stub that had been stable after a compromise was found after Albrech's first cursade of blanking and reverts (as opposed to constructivly working to fix the problem) because he didn't like the name 'battle of montreal', understandable considering no battle took place, siege of montreal was proposed, but he rejected this too as too POV, surrender of montreal was porposed and the stub became stable for almost a year, because that (the surrender) is what took place. albrech has already stated his POV and distain for what he feels is an over-repesentation of french defeats and british victories on wikipedia, and i think he's aggresivly pushing that bias again. but rather then being constructive and balencing the ratio by creating new articles french victories that may have been missed by wikipedia or improving existing articles, he has gone back to disrupting the 'pedia by unilaterally blanking articles, and reverting any attemptes to fix the vandalism  Mike McGregor (Can) 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As you should know, no siege took place either. When an army besieges a city, trenches are dug. Artillery is brought forward. Circumvallation lines are built up. Shots are fired. People die. Calling this a siege isn't a compromise, it's another wishful fantasy on the part of dishonest editors. And speaking of logical fallacies, your appeal to "historical impact" is revealed to be a false dilemma when you consider that the cultural and macro-historical implications of the Conquest are drawn up at New France, History of Canada, French and Indian War and Seven Years' War (with a dash at Battle of the Plains of Abraham, which is where the historical literature, correctly or not, usually pins the fall of New France). If you're so smashingly motivated to add to the historical discourse on the end of French rule in North America, then I suggest you head over to those articles. Because there's absolutely no reason to do it here, and, if you've noticed, no one has attempted to do so for a year. It's almost incredible that you can continue to speak of the article as some repository of vital content that's being mercilessly slashed by POV-driven vandals. Nothing in your arguments bears the slightest relation to the inherent problems and contradictions involved here. Once again you continue to dodge the issue with spurious accusations of vandalism and bias while conventiently ignoring what I actually told you, namely that "I take no issue with the ratio of British/French victories as they stand in the historical record. Obviously, the people who go as far as to make up battles in order to alter the balance in favour of one combatant, i.e. with delightful fiction like 'Battle of Montreal (1760),' are the ones with the 'agenda.' I notice you haven't said a word to justify the article based on its content, as requested above." Obviously, nothing's changed. Albrecht 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I was refering to was: "...while I'm sure it appeals to the Anglo-American patriot who refuses to conceive of the Seven Years' War (and indeed the rest of modern history) as anything besides the rightful triumph of Anglo-Germanic martial prowess over the weak, effeminate, corrupt, and cowardly French people, doesn't make for a viable article. Let me know what you propose. (PS: for years now the French and Indian War articles have been under constant attack by editors seeking to marginalize French military success while promoting and aggrandizing British victories. If my point of view seems a bit extreme it's only because I've been fighting this nonsense tooth and nail almost single-handedly.) Albrecht 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)". Do you at least aggree that montreal was surrendered? If yes, would you agree that the surrender of France's last stronghold in North America is an improtant event in North American history? and if so, exactaly what harm does having a stub do to wikipedia or the military history project? If the information is accruate, I don't see what harm it could do, even if it's just a little info. At least with a stub, there is a potential for expantion. And even without expantion, a little info is still useful info.        Mike McGregor (Can) 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, how clever of you to take a rationalisation presented in good faith and twist it out of context. Of course, you don't have to look far to see examples of what I was talking about:, , , ,  , , ,  , , . Beyond that, UberCryxic will happily show you that Wikipedians don't exactly have a reputation for careful reflection and sound consideration when it comes to assessing issues in French military history. Now, you can of course continue to deliberately distort and obfuscate the question into one of French v. English bias, despite the fact that I've cheerfully added to hundreds of articles on French defeats and British victories. But I'm still not sure why you'd cling so hard to one line of text and an obnoxious Infobox that mentions a siege which never happened. To answer your question: Yes, Montreal was surrendered. No, we don't write articles for cities that simply surrender, be they mighty Viennas or Berlins, or paltry Villefranche-sur-Mers; last strongholds or first ones. Yes, information is useful. Redundant and superfulous information is not. You want expansion? French and Indian War has plenty of room for the description of military operations, while New France and History of Canada would be much improved by a discussion of the political impact and legacy of French colonial institutions in America. Albrecht 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * wikipedia's own article on Siege states "A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition, often accompanied by an assault." just because the defenders surrendered before a bombardment began, dosen't mean there was no seige. you listed parts of a siege. the siege is the 'blockade with the intent to conquor' itself. but as you dissagreed, you were accomidated by the article being renamed the "surrender of montreal" which is factually accurate, just less open to simantics. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please. The very next line states: "A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault." Nice try. Albrecht 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bottem line is I'm not pushing an article called "siege of montreal". I offered that title a year ago, it was rejected, i proposed a diffrent title which was accurate and stuck. you can keep setting up that strawman if you want...Mike McGregor (Can) 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may need to stop and recognize the difference between a strawman and an observation. Just ten minutes ago you suddenly tried to claim once again that a siege had taken place: "just because the defenders surrendered before a bombardment began, dosen't mean there was no seige." I don't blame you for wanting to dissociate yourself from that bizarre comment, but it's right here on the page. Besides, I'd be more worried about your absurd idea that the discussion hinges on the article's title. The title's as "accurate" as Surrender of Vienna (1805), Surrender of Paris (1815), Surrender of Algiers (1962), Surrender of Berlin (1806), Surrender of Huelva (1936), Surrender of Rocroi (1914) and countless other non-articles. Albrecht 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really have no desire to disassociate myself from any comment I've made here. The fact that these other articles have not been created is a pretty weak argument for the obliteration of this one. (that's part of what that whole "Be Bold!" thing is about, encouraging the creation of new articles.) instead of being destructive and blanking the page, why not be constructive and suggest some acceptable titles, or put some effort into fleshing out the stub? quite frankly, the contempt you show your fellow editors through actions like unilaterally deciding to blank a page does nothing to help this encyclopaedia grow, build consensus or encourage civility. in fact, it's downright disruptive Mike McGregor (Can) 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I add my two cents and propose that everyone take a step back, leave the article like it is (the stub) and talk about it here? I realize that there has been basically no discussion about this, but if some people don't want the stub, we could propose to put it on WP:AFD and let discussion happen and hopefully get a consensus for either leaving it as a stub or for deleting it entirely.  -- Whereizben - Chat with me 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike's changes are an absolute disaster and should not be allowed to stand. In fact, they have been reverted. The main problem I have with this article, if you were to provide a description, is that Wikipedia would then have to go out and create countless of other similar articles when major cities fell during a campaign. For example, in 1805 when the French captured Vienna we'd need an article saying "Surrender of Vienna (1805)" (but no such article exists, nor should it) or in the recent Somali conflict we'd need a "Surrender of [enter city name] (2006)" every time a strategic center fell. It's absolutely ridiculous. Mention the relevant military engagements that led to the fall of Montreal or retitle the article to the Siege of Montreal, if it can be described like that.UberCryxic 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Mike's Changes" consisted of reverting a blanked page to a version that had been stable for over a year and was factually accurate. if there is a POV problem with the outcome in the info box as "british victory" or "decisive british victory" or what ever was there, why not change it to "Montreal is surrendered to British forces" or something like that? its a bit more constructive then blaking a page. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Siege of Montreal (1760)" would be the only appropriate title to this article, if a siege took place. Refer to just about every article on military history on Wikipedia and how they're titled, including the Battle of Singapore in World War II, not the "Surrender of Singapore." Again, this title is far too POV.UberCryxic 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the title is necesarily POV. If no battle took place and no seige took place and the main event was the surrender then it is accurate to use the term "surrender" in the name of the article. Johntex\talk 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track
This edit war has become entirely too silly! ;-)

But, more seriously, there are several points that ought to be considered:
 * The title is not, per se, an unacceptable one if the article is actually about the "Surrender of Montreal" as a distinct event. (There is no requirement that "Siege" or "Battle" be used; c.f. Fall of Mogadishu.)  However, unless the surrender was a lot more elaborate than normal, it's going to be pretty much impossible to write more than a stub about it in particular.
 * The "objective and outcome of a major campaing" does not generally need a separate entry unless the one for the campaign itself is too long to contain all the necessary discussion. Note, for example, that there's no Outcome of the Gettysburg Campaign article.
 * The campaign itself, however, may indeed warrant an article. (I use the term "campaign" narrowly here, to refer to the operations against Montreal only, rather than the entirety of the Canadian operations during the war.)  The overall narrative is likely to be a far more fruitful source of material than its final act.

Thus, I would suggest that a Montreal campaign of 1760 (or perhaps Canadian campaign of 1760, if there are some other fringe events to pull in) article be created, and this be redirected there. Kirill Lokshin 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Montreal campaign of 1760 or Canadian campaign of 1760 would be a good solution here. Personally I'd prefer "Montreal campaign..." ("canadian campaign" would probably require a dab w/ invasion of Canada (1775)). An article about the three columns converging on montreal, the surender and with mention of the Thousand Islands and Sainte-Foy (and links to the main articles on each) seems like a good idea to me. Mike McGregor (Can) 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Going by precedent, French and Indian War: Campaigns of 1760 is probably better if we want to cover Lévis' effort against Quebec, as per Kirill's suggestion. Albrecht 04:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a bad precedent, as it violates half a dozen naming conventions all at once. ;-)
 * (The correct version of that title would be something like Campaigns of the French and Indian War in 1760; but even that seems overly convoluted, given that the F&I War is a theater of the broader Seven Years' War, which has numerous other events in 1760. There's no particular need to have the name of the war in the title; could we perhaps go with something simple like Canadian campaign of 1760?) Kirill Lokshin 06:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The cause of Lévis' retreat to Montreal are related to the Battle of Sainte-Foy, while the British military operations that unbarred the route to the city are described in Battle of the Thousand Islands (After taking Fort Lévis (August 24) the British dallied for a few days before showing up at Montreal, which promptly capitulated). My solution was virtually identical to yours, except, there being no "Montreal campaign" to speak of, I redirected to French and Indian War instead. I have since been informed that this is "disrespectful," "destructive," and "downright disruptive." Go figure. Albrecht 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's some material in the battle articles, but it's quite choppy; I certainly think that there's potential for an overview article starting off with the aftermath of the Plains of Abraham and providing an overall narrative of the next year's operations. Kirill Lokshin 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. In any event, the war boasted many other campaigns far more deserving of narrative treatment than the final year. But it doesn't really matter whether the new material shows up in French and Indian War first or in a new article created for the purpose, a la French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1793. Content can be moved at will, so the solution remains essentially the same. Albrecht 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, "Fall of [something]" is much less controversial than "Surrender of [something]." We title these articles with references to larger campaigns and events, not to single, specific acts ("Fall" is encapsulated by the former). Otherwise, as has been mentioned before, we'd be swamped with articles on cities surrendering throughout history, which is ridiculous.UberCryxic 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're conflating two different issues here, though. "Fall of ..." is, of course, broader than "Surrender of ...", and this generally makes it a more appropriate title; but that's because of the practical point that the article usually covers more than just the surrender (the surrender itself typically not having enough material to warrant a full article), not because we can't have articles on individual surrenders as a matter of principle. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You say it's because of a practical point, but I think it's because of an encyclopedic one. An article with a similar title to this one would have no encyclopedic value, and so should never be made. It wouldn't even be prudent to argue on behalf of a "major" or "famous" event because you would run into the same problem I highlighted above. Only if it was a commonly known term for a historical event would I feel remotely comfortable with titling an article like this, but even then it should be avoided altogether.UberCryxic 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree. Except in extreme cases, it's the content of an article that determines whether or not it's encyclopedic, not the title; the issue, in my view, is that an article dealing specifically with the surrender of a single city generally wouldn't have enough content to be worthwhile.  Where there is enough content, "Surrender of" is quite legitimately used as a title (c.f. Surrender of Japan, for example); but this simply isn't possible for the vast majority of surrenders.  We don't want an article limited in scope to the surrender, in other words, regardless of whether that article would be called "Surrender of X".
 * (I'm surprised we don't have an article on the Surrender of Breda, incidentally; that one really could be written quite well. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the article you cited is atrociously titled because it's too vague. "Surrender of Japan" could be a generalized term for all the times the nation-state of Japan (or something resembling it) has surrendered in history, which in this case wouldn't be that often. But surely you can imagine other cases where it would apply. The content of the article does determine its legitimacy, but the content must be condusive to the title, and I can't imagine any of these articles satisfying that criteria beyond just saying "This country surrendered." The Surrender of Japan article seems like a pathetic propaganda piece, despite the good content. The best thing to do in situations like these is to highlight the specific act that led to the surrender or something, like German Instrument of Surrender, 1945. That's fine, encyclopedic, and helps avoids problems like these. So if there were some proclamation that led to the surrender of Montreal in 1760, then we can make an article on it and say the impact that it had on the larger strategic campaign.UberCryxic 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except it was not the "German Instrument of Surrender" that had been planned by the EAC it was only the "Surrender of the German armed forces in 1945" with the terms copied from a Stars and Stripes article by a British actor and theatrical manager! --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)