Talk:Battle of Quebec (1775)

message: Arnold refused to give up and—despite being outnumbered by three to one—lay siege to Quebec, despite the sub-freezing temperature of the winter and the mass desertions of his men after their enlistments expired on January 1,1776. By March 1776, the first American reinforcements arrived which brought the total to 2,000 men. But unable to renew an assault on the city, the siege continued until over 8,000 British reinforcements arrived on May6, 1776, which forced the American army to retreat south and back to the New York colony.
:Who wrote the section on the aftermath? The English used is appalling! Darkmind1970 12:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege

message: In this article shouldn't they be reffered to as Canadiens rather then Canadians? Lyynn
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyynn (talk • contribs)  00:51, 10 May 2007‎ (UTC) 
It depends if you're speaking French or English. If you're talking about the people who live in Canada who are French, then its typically 'Canadiens' with an 'e' in my experience, but if they identify as English, then it's usually 'Canadians' with an 'a'.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F756:5F00:A104:49E7:C5A3:98F4 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian/Canadien 

message: Ths article is currently strongly biased and retconed to a Quebecois nationalist PoV, to the point of inventing 30,000 British troops and a "reign of terror". 67th Tigers 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongly biased 

message: Identifying one side as the "United States" in a battle that was fought in December of 1775 seems a bit anachronistic. The "United States" didn't exist either in fact or in law until July 4, 1776. The term "American Revolutionaries," used in the Invasion of Canada (1775) article on the campaign, seems more appropriate. Jsc1973 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "clean up" was not useful.  It removed nuances that were intentionally added to the infobox (e.g. to make it clear that French Canadian forces participated on both sides), and it added incorrect details (like the assertion that the 1st Canadian had 300 men).  Who the belligerent is listed is debatable: there are quite a few possible entries that are not obviously wrong.  Most of the pre-independence actions in the war list "United Colonies" (or specific colonies) as belligerents. Magic♪piano 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States? 

message: The current version of the article relies heavily on one source – so much so that it may have been transcribed directly from that source, potentially constituting a copyright violation.  The source citation only provides an author and page number. Would anyone have access to the original source so these concerns can be verified or eliminated? —ADavidB 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe ADavidB is correct, and I've added the reference for it.  From a brief scan of its pages at Google Books, the page numbers seem to be right, and I don't think it's copyvio. However, a diversity of actual inline citations would help. Magic♪piano 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author Wood? 

message: The article states that the colonial troops arrived on November 9th at the Plains of Abraham and then started gathering boats to cross the St-Lawrence river to reach Québec; this is impossible since the Plains of Abraham are on the same side of the river as Québec is! no boat needed!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nduchast (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arriving at Plains of Abraham? 

message: Anonymous editor  changed the numbers in the infobox, including deleting a citation.  I've reverted those changes.  Before changing cited numbers, please justify your numbers here.  (I provided the citations for the current values.) Magic♪piano 12:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing cited force numbers 

message: User:Plains2009 added the following:
:Carleton had to expel the American sympathizer from the city; and, outside the city many habitants were helping the American, every parish had American sympathizersBaby, p 32 who even took an active part in the battle of Saint-Pierre in front of Quebec.Lacoursière, p. 430 Near Sorel the French habitants joyfully join with Arnold troops even carrying their baggage'sCanada-Quebec, p. 184 The canon ball came from the Forges in Tree River provided by Christophe Pélissier (businessman), an American sympathizerPelissier biography online
:*Vergereau-Dewey, S. Pascale . 1775-1776: The Journal Of Francois Baby, Gabriel Taschereau, And Jenkin Williams , Michigan State University Press , 2005,  
:*Lacoursière, Jacques. L'Histoire Populaire du Québec, Les éditions du Septentrion, 1995, 
:*Lacoursière, Jacques. Canada, Québec, Les éditions du Septentrion, 2001, 
:*Starowicz, Mark. Le Canada une histoire populaire, Éditions Fides, 2000, 
I've reverted these contributions.  I want it to be clear that there is probably value in what was added -- however, the paragraph you added to the article lead contains information that is better placed either somewhere else in the article, or in a different article.  You added three sentences, each has problems:
*It is not really necessary to mention in the lead that Carleton expelled Patriot sympathizers -- there is already a sentence to that effect further down.
*Arnold was never (as far as I know) at Sorel, especially not during the march to Quebec City.  Perhaps your source meant Montgomery, or a different location on the Chaudière?  (I know that sources I have read indicate that the habitants helped Arnold's men on the lower parts of the Chaudière, but it doesn't go to Sorel, and I understand Arnold's route to leave the Chaudière to reach Point Levis.)
*The mention of cannon balls is without reference to any specific time or action.  When was this work done?  Who hired (or asked) Pélissier to do the work?
These things need to be made clear so that we can find the right place to add this information.
On the good side, you mention that the habitants in the countryside were helping the Americans, which was not in the article before.  You also mention the Battle of Saint-Pierre, which ought to be mentioned in the Siege section.  (The Invasion of Canada (1775), which I did much work on, mentions it.)
Some of the inline citations you provide are also incomplete or incorrectly formatted.  One cites Baby; according to your references, it should be Vergereau-Dewey.  Others cite Lacoursière without identifying which of the two works you added is the one being cited.
--Magic♪piano 15:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted recent changes

message: On reflection, I think that much of your contribution is really better located in the Invasion of Canada (1775) article.  The scope of this article should be the time of the battle and siege around Quebec City, roughly November 1775 to May 1776.  A number of your additions fall outside this scope (and within the scope of the other article):
* Carleton declared martial law in June 1775.  This should be mentioned in the Background (not the Aftermath) of this article, but its effects throughout the province should be documented in the other article.  (The declaration obviously had effects in Quebec City that need to be documented here, along with the proclamation Carleton made when he arrived in November.)
*Carleton's investigation of collaborators with the Americans should be in the other article (or the Quebec City-related investigations should be documented in the Aftermath here); it happens after the Americans have already fled Quebec City area.  (The same for Pelissier's activities.)
*The effects of the large military occupation should be documented in the other article; again, this happens well after the Americans have left the scene.
I am willing to make these changes (I did much work on Invasion of Canada (1775), but it is missing much of this sort of detail).
Regards, Magic♪piano 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comments

message: Hi; dropped by here in relation to Talk:Royal_Fusiliers#Fusiliers_saved_Canada.3F and noting that no specific British troops, other than the Canadian militia, are named in the article; wondering whether that includes the Fusiliers, and who else?Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Royal Highland Emigrants are mentioned.  I'm unaware of specific assigments of either the 7th (aka the Fusiliers),  8th,  or 26th (the only regiments that I'm aware of that had troops in the province in 1775) to Quebec at the time of this battle.  Most of these troops were at St. Jean or frontier posts, and I'm not aware of the composition of any regulars left at Quebec after the war started.  Sources that illuminate this point are welcome. Magic♪piano 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific British regiments?

message: Would someone please re-word these sentences to make it clear who "he" is, or state here on the talk page who "he" is and maybe I or someone else will re-word them:
*(in the lead) "Arnold was injured early in the movement, and Morgan continued to lead the assault.  His column was eventually trapped..." Whose column was trapped: Arnold's, or Morgan's?  I.e. who is "His"?  Morgan, I think, because otherwise the sentence afterwards is confusing: how could Arnold continue to besiege the city if he had surrendered?  But the reader shouldn't have to read the following sentence to make sense of this one.
*(In section Defense of the Province"While he was in Montreal seeing to the defenses there, Lieutenant Governor Hector Cramahé had in September organized a militia force of several hundred to defend the town, although they were "not much to be depended on", with estimates that only half the militia forces were reliable.Smith (1907) vol 2, pp. 10–12  He had also..." Who is "he" near the beginning of the first sentence I quoted: Carleton, or Cramahe?  And who is "He" at the beginning of the following sentence? 
Thanks.  I hope these minor comments are helpful for what seems to be a well-written article as far as I've read up to. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified these usages.  Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edit . The second one is now definitely sufficiently clarified IMO, and the first one (with Morgan) is probably OK too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "he"? 

message: The positioning of the American Revolutionary War portal template at the beginning of the Notes section seems unusual to me.  Actually, I'm not familiar with where portal templates are usually placed, but I thought most navigation templates went at the top or bottom of the whole article. I didn't find anything about this at WP:MOS. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal template 

message: To choose an American defeat as a featured article for Independence Day is an obvious insult to Americans. I'm very disappointed that Wikipedia has chosen not even a neutral or unrelated article, but an article about American loss, on a day that is important to us. The Wikimedia foundation's bias against the US and US citizens has always been obvious, but this slap in the face is simply unnecessary and uncalled for.
:Was thinking the same thing; not sure why an article such as this one was chosen on this particular day to be Wikipedia's featured article.Gobbleygook (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tie-in to the Revolutionary War is the rather obvious link, though not as good as if it had been saved for December 31. As a July 4 article, it isn't terrible.  The Canadian campaign shaped how North America developed, and helped decide the limits of American territory.  Losses in battle determine how a nation becomes what it is just as much as victories do. Resolute 13:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't terrible in the sense of relevancy, but it's terrible in the sense of cultural sensitivity. There's good reason (using your argument) to nominate the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as TFA for the Japanese founding day celebration but I doubt you'd find many people who are going to view that nomination decision in a positive light. Gobbleygook (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really bad comparsion. That bombing killed over 100,000 people and tied directly into the Surrender of and occupation of Japan. This on the other hand, was a failed military campaign in which it was a small part of the Revolutionary War (an overall victory for America). The death toll was nowhere near as large nor was this a precursor for a British rule of the colonies.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is a poor choice for TFA, and that December 31 would have been a better date, but disagree that Wikimedia is biased against Americans. Brutannica (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many articles on Wikipedia, it's Canada-centric and exaggerates the importance of Canada and Canada's role in the world.  (In this case it thankfully only manages a Canada name-drop).  It's a typical Canada-centric article in that it  manages to find a strained Canadian angle on a subject that has nothing to do with Canada--I highly doubt that this minor skirmish has any significance outside of a Canadian high school classroom.  We can all be thankful that this article bucks the trend and doesn't quote some obscure American business magazine, known only in Canada, that uses undesirable criteria to support the contention that this or that Canadian city is an interesting and pleasant place to live.  It also doesn't seem to be a typical Canadian article in that it doesn't make unqualified statements that should be qualified; there seems to be a refreshingly small number of over-enthusiastic contributing editors who have never travelled more than 50 miles (80 km) from the place where they were born... and have a corresponding perspective.  (Just as an aside, if you read many of the previous entries on this talk page, you will notice that in the past, this article has had problems with Canadian editing).  It's interesting that Today's Featured Picture on Canada Day (whatever that celebrates) didn't have a picture of a Canadian clubbing a baby seal. --Wikiddingme (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is much more likely to be found in an American High School classroom than an Canadian one. As for clubbing baby seals, I suppose we could show Brits clubbing grey squirrels on Guy Fawkes or something as well. And the Burning of Washington for the next President's Day (the only battle a President ever commanded). As for being featured on the 4th, considering that it seems like the majority of editors are Americans, Americans must have been in the process to choose it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is the first I have ever heard about Wikipedia having a know Canadian Bias. Also, as mentioned due to population sizes there are certainly many more Americans editing Wikipedia making that claim suspect at best.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Could not have worked out better - lost of people educated about this topic. As for Canadian bias - I simply done see Canadians that make up about 8% of the editors here being able to do this.Moxy (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

text: @Wikiddingme: you have got to be kidding me. This article is about a battle with Canadian agressors and Canadian defenders on Canadian soil. Of course there is going to be an inherent bias in the article. As for being insulted about this article being featured on the 4th of July, don't be so sensitive. Nationalism is silly anyhow. - Sweet Nightmares 15:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a Featured Article for July 4th 2013 

message: The article contains an unresolved link to a disambig page Edward Antill. Probably this should be Edward Antill (soldier). How did that get through FA scrutiny? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dablink resolved.  Cdtew (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It "got through FA scrutiny", as you put it, because the FA scrutiny happened in 2010 and the dab page was only created in January 2013 . The fault, if any, is with the person who created the dab page but did not clean up the incoming links, not with the FA process. BencherliteTalk 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Antill 

message: The word American is used many times in a wrong manner. None of the sides are American. Or both of the sides are American. The English side was more American, if the logic of Political science is strictly used. The so-called American side was only a mix of Continental Europeans with some footing in the local geography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.255.107 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  American?