Talk:French and Indian War/Archive 1

message: Ew, that's disgusting!  How about some footnotes in here?--Xiaphias 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranthetical Citations?

message: Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands

message: Where can I get information on the specific types of firearms and weapons  and technology that were used in this conflict? What kind of weapons or cannons would French soldiers at Fort Louisbourg or Fort Beausejour typically have?--Sonjaaa 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Osprey Publishing Ment-at-arms: Louis XV's Armies 1-5, King George's Armies 1-3, Montcalm's army, Wofl's Armies; Campaigns Seven Years war, French and Indien war, Quebec 1759, Louisbourg 1758, etc. I have a few of these myself and the information is vaste.--Dryzen 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons and technology?

message: The French and Indian War (or English and Indian War if you are Canadian) started in 1954 with the events around Washington's engagement preceeding Fort Necessity.  The Seven-Year War did not start 1756, but the Seven Years War is not the same war as the French and Indian War in the beginning.  When the European war started in 1756 then the wars became two parts of a larger World conflict.  (Steve 17:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comment about the "English and Indian War". --Saforrest 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Changes 

message: My impression, once more, is that these terms refer only to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and its aftermath. Quebecers might, on occasion, refer to the war as a whole in this manner, much as Frenchmen might say notre défaite face aux Prussiens in reference to the Franco-Prussian War, but I doubt this is the norm. Historical discussions would almost certainly employ Guerre de sept ans. Albrecht 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Guerre de la conquete" and "War of the conquest" are used in government exams.  The Quebec government uses this term to refer to the period leading up to and including the fall of New France.  This provincial exam is a prerequisite for high school graduation. The "Seven Years War" is how the government explains the European conflict.  The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is used to describe the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.  Great emphasis is placed on the War of the Conquest and there is no mention of the "French and Indian Wars" (on the exam).   Both French and English speaking Quebecers are given the same exam (obviously translated).  Both groups consistently use the Conquest term; certainly not on occasion.  I am a high school history teacher in Quebec.  Trapper 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did not know that. Well, if it's as you say, then there's no problem. Albrecht 20:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trapper's got it right. For the French colonist descendants it would of been somewhat strange to call it the French-Indien War, since this term seems completely ignore that the British where involved. While the Conquest indicate what happend, that is the conquest of Colonial North America.--Dryzen 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested that Quebecers (and I count myself among their number) used the term Guerre de sept ans, not "French and Indian War." From my experience I still think this is the case, but obviously Trapper's in a better position to judge this. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that Francophones outside of Quebec speak of any "Conquest." The whole affair reeks of nationalist overtones. Albrecht 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the rest of Canadian Francophones, but the Franco-Ontarian and Acadian groups do call it "La guerre de la Conquête" and for the later its coupled with "Le grand Dérangement".--Dryzen 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "Guerre de la conquête" and "La conquête britannique"

message: Sorry if this has already been settled. I knew little about the subject (until reading the article), thus my very basic question: how can this be a 9 year chapter of a 7 years war? To me a chapter would be shorter than the whole thing. Thanks in advance for the answer. Anagnorisis 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shortest answer woudl be that from the initial engagement to the final confrontation 9 years tiem had spanned. This though includes the skirmishes along the frontier regiosn in 1754, burgeoning into the official War in Europe in 1756, followed by the colapse of the French regime in north america in 1760 and finaly the diplomatic resolution of the Indeien rebellions in 1763. All of this is of course explained in detail within the article.--Dryzen 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nine year chapter? 

message: Wow, this is a great article. Very long, lots of charts and infoboxes, and at least one actual map. Maps, images, and infoboxes are crucial, to my mind, towards pushing an article over the edge of becoming a Good/A-Class/Featured Article. Very long, detailed, obviously a lot of work has been put into this. Some sections need wikification, and some sections could also benefit from expansion. But overall, I'm giving this a B, the highest rating I feel comfortable giving without a vote or consensus from other editors. With a little work, and the assessement of a few other WPMilHist people who are not me, I think this can easily become an A-Class or even Featured article. LordAmeth 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. I'm not sure if this should be claimed by the US task force, the British task force, or both. As I am a member of neither, I have left both off. If anyone in either of those task forces wants to claim the article into their domain, please do. LordAmeth 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of mind that it should be claimed by the participant militaries, therefore: British, canadian, French and United-States. I also agree on the B markign as this article needs to cleaning up but is in over all good shape. Although, I disagree the proposed reson behind the French defeat as determined by Mercantilism. --Dryzen 17:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: hopiakuta 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling seems mangled. 

message: Um, look at Beginning of the war and Langlys expedition, theres no article, and im curious to know what exactly happend in 1761, thanks, Im watching you O_o 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing parts in article 

message: I addded information to the langlys expedition, sorry wasnt sure where to cite where i got the info so I'll put it here,  EagleEyes 12:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to section Langley's expedition 

message: Fort bull and signal hill seem to be links to unwritten articlesIm watching you O_o 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  red/broken links 

message: Is this the usual or is there some sort of research that has to be done by younglings and they just want to blast their frustrations at the subject?--Dryzen 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be fashionable nowadays among high school students (and, I imagine, people who should know a lot better) to treat with mockery any subject involving war and the French. Albrecht 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this vandilism? 

message: I tried to revert this article that someone vandalized and really messed it up, could someone fix it? EagleEyes 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to your last modification, all the other edits where vandalism and responced reverts.--Dryzen 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faild attempt to revert 

message: It is like just a bunch broken html script and junk, someone please fix it. EagleEyes 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look, everything should be back in order. --Dryzen 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dryzen, I apprecieate it, EagleEyes 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure to battle vadalism, just wish there wasn't so much of it...--Dryzen 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's a shame... EagleEyes 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is mangled 

message: The article claims: In Ontario, it is now increasingly also referred to as "The War of the Conquest," or just "The Conquest."
Can anyone provide a source for this?    I understand why "guerre de la conquête" is used by francophones in and out of Quebec, and I understand why the term exists in Quebec English, as a consequence of being translated from French.  But I've never heard the term used in English in Ontario. --Saforrest 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for Ontario claim 

message: :Here it is called the French and Indian War which is odd but someone mentioned the reason being the Brittish, colonist and their Native American allies against the French and their allies(other Native Americans). We kind of think of the Seven Years' War as something that didn't involve us. Unless you major in it in college the other conflicts are not discussed with the same detail. In our education system the history of Pennsylvania gets discussed in detail around the 6th grade level. I realize it was interconnected but I think this is a bad case of POV by reason of birthplace and nationality. The conflict is seriously looked at in our area because we could of been French if things went different. The importance to the area is stressed because of the strategic value of the confluence of the three rivers. The Ohio, Allegheny, and Mononghehela meet here in Pittsburgh. There are a lot of side tributaries in the area and eventually the Ohio River flows to the south to meet up with the Mississippi River. Then the Mississippi goes to the Gulf of Mexico. Essentially whoever controlled the area controlled the new world. I'm new to wiki but I would be glad to help with this project. Being a local I could probably get some pictures. The geography and resources of the are(rivers,oil,coal,furtrade) made it a very valuable area to acquire. I'll link here other references. Be patient with my wiki abilities please. Just think I can add something to make this a super feartured article. Besides it will be linked to Project Pittsburgh. Deedee19482 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the view of someone in [[Pittsburgh|Pennsylvania]]

message: Needs information on casualties and economic impact. -- Beland 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics request 

message: This article resemble the main article on the Seven Years War, a mess. It must have changed a lot since the person above writing about this being an A-class article. There is some good stuff in here, but the article needs better structure, more narrative on the course of the war, only one list of battles (in the properly formatted box), and less on George Washington - he became very important later. Or perhaps it just needs more on others (hate to see factual stuff deleted).
And can the people on this discussion page please get over the name of the war! They would better spend their energies improving the article. 
Iacobus 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Now all we need is somebody to do something about it. -Gomm 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, if only I knew more, but wouldn't it be great if someone who actually knew a lot about the subject, could cite references, and was a good writer, got to work? Or two or three of them? I can write and cite, but can't pretend to have much in-depth knowledge. They must be out there, somewhere... --Iacobus 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mishmash of an Article 

message: "Braddock's expedition" did not take place during the war. Braddock's forces were defeated on July 9,1755. Great Britain didn't declared war on France until may 18,1756, France on June 9,1756. In fact the battle of Lake George took place on September 8,1755, also before war was declared. These two sections should be placed in a section prior to the war. This section could contain other events/battles significant to the war but not a cause or part of it.    '
:But you seem to forget they did take place in the "French-Indien War" which started in 1754.--Dryzen 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braddock's Expedition 

message: Please expand the outcome section with the answer to this question: What impact did the war have on the Native American participants?  Seems like a big thing to leave out. MrZaiustalk 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have an excellent point there- I have no doubts that there is probably some social history that is absent from this article. I'll keep it in mind for when I have actual time to finally get to it! Monsieurdl 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: The root causes listed are biased and severely lacking in substance, not to mention unreferenced. I never realized how weak the article was- but that will change soon. With others help, it can be done. I have an extensive library of French and Indian War sources that will make this article shine- Parkman, Morison, French and British accounts, George Wrong, et cetera. The story that is forgotten in American texts shall be told! Let's do this thing! Monsieurdl 00:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way ahead of you; I'm on this as well...--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Root Causes

message: When the French didn't have no where to go they went and lived with the indain's also the fur stared running out because no more beaver.French and indain war  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.9.87 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beaver Fur 

message: MIKE IS COOLCould there be a link to the Oneida Carry article (that article has few linking articles)? An attack by the French in 1756 seems relevant to a discussion of the French and Indian War especially the start. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oneida Carry