Talk:Fort Frontenac

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I was wondering whether anyone knows of any other (reputable) sources where the capturing/imprisonment incident is described. Parkman, who from what I understand, is the "best" source describes it pretty much as described in this article, but other descriptions such as in the Marquis de Denonville article and in some other publications I have come across mention that 50 (in his book "The Military History of Canada, by Desmond Morton says 40) hereditary chiefs of the Iroquois Confederation from their Onondaga council fire had met under a flag of truce at the fort. Denonville then seized, chained, and shipped the 50 Iroquois Chiefs to France to be used as galley slaves. Parkman does not mention this; he just mentions the 51 locally caught Iroquois (fishermen and the like) - not chiefs - who were lured by the possibility of a feast at the fort. They were then imprisoned and some of them sent to France. BCtalk to me 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marquis de Denonville]] incident 

message: The first sentence of this article on Fort Frontenac reads: "Fort Frontenac was a French trading post and military fort built in 1673 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada." I have a hard time with the idea that the French, in 1673, built Fort Frontenac IN the British town of Kingston, which was named for King George III over one hundred years later. I'm going to try and fix this, so that it makes historical sense. 74.196.127.243 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix. This should have been caught a long time ago.  BC  talk to me 19:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Built IN Kingston, Ontario? 

message: From the paintings, map, engraving and description further down in the article "Three quarters of it are of masonry or hardstone, the wall is three feet thick and twelve high", the statement "The original fort, a crude, wooden palisade structure" in the introduction, without any reference to the actual stone building that was largely destroyed by the British, is misleading and should be rephrased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.71.12 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this has been fixed now by filling in some missing content. BC  talk to me 16:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The original fort, a crude, wooden palisade structure" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Frontenac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608051749/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ffom/default_e.asp to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ffom/default_e.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/18th_century/fort_frontenac_1758_saving_face_after_ticonderoga/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified