Talk:Battle of Quebec (1775)

Siege

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)

Can I just say that the essence of this entire page is that don't attack Canada in the winter unless you want to die? They basically froze themselves to death, no? 21:26, 2020-02-07 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F756:5F00:A104:49E7:C5A3:98F4 (talk)

Canadian/Canadien

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)

Strongly biased

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)

United States?

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)

I agree, I cleaned up the infobox, and changed "United Colonies" which was also inaccurate to Continental Congress.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Moi

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)

Author Wood?

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)

The title may be: Battles of the Revolutionay War: 1775–1781 by W.J. Wood.... —ADavidB 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Arriving at Plains of Abraham?

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)

Changing cited force numbers

Anonymous editor 84.110.76.147 (talk · contribs) 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)

Reverted recent changes

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 sympathizers<ref>Baby, p 32</ref> who even took an active part in the battle of Saint-Pierre in front of Quebec.<ref>Lacoursière, p. 430</ref> Near Sorel the French habitants joyfully join with Arnold troops even carrying their baggage's<ref>Canada-Quebec, p. 184</ref> The canon ball came from the Forges in Tree River provided by Christophe Pélissier (businessman), an American sympathizer<ref>Pelissier biography online</ref>

• Vergereau-Dewey, S. Pascale . 1775-1776: The Journal Of Francois Baby, Gabriel Taschereau, And Jenkin Williams , Michigan State University Press , 2005, ISBN 0870137409
• Lacoursière, Jacques. L'Histoire Populaire du Québec, Les éditions du Septentrion, 1995, ISBN 2-89448-050-4
• Lacoursière, Jacques. Canada, Québec, Les éditions du Septentrion, 2001, ISBN 2-89448-186-1
• Starowicz, Mark. Le Canada une histoire populaire, Éditions Fides, 2000, ISBN 2-7621-2282-1

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)

I removed the point of view statements

The expedition was inside the british colonies and not an invasion. Canada did not exist in 1775, the name is the Province of Quebec.

• rebels
• , who turned out in high numbers
• The American failure in this battle showed that there was insufficient support among the Quebec populace to support continued efforts to take the province from British control.
• The population remained canadien, there was no such thing as french speaking
• canadien
• Removed assault for attack
• The battle was the climax of the rebels' invasion of Canada and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the colonists. The battle did not actually repulse the invasion
• this occurred six months later with the arrival of 4,000 troops and General John Burgoyne; Carleton would use these reinforcements to force the colonial army to retreat, and would eventually drive them all the way back to Fort Ticonderoga.
• The Canadians, for their part, helped to turn the population against the Americans with an effective Loyalist propaganda campaign; by March, there was open discussion in Quebec City for throwing the Bostonnais, as the Americans were known, out of the province.
• The American failure in this battle showed that there was insufficient support among the Quebec populace to support continued efforts to take the province from British control.

Plains2009 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of these I have no particular issue with (in fact, on rereading Lanctot, I realize that the "open discussion" was in Montreal, not Quebec City). A few I do take some issue with.

• The population remained canadien, there was no such thing as french speaking

Lanctot and others (obviously not cited here) indicate that the local militia were divided in part by their language. Are you disagreeing with this?

Also, Canadien is not a widely-used term in the articles I have seen on Wikipedia. It would be improper to use it without indicating what it means to the many English-speaking people who are not familiar with it. (I personally do not understand how, in this context, Canadien differs from French-speaking. Please feel free to educate me.)

• The battle was the climax of the rebels' invasion of Canada and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the colonists. The battle did not actually repulse the invasion
• this occurred six months later with the arrival of 4,000 troops and General John Burgoyne; Carleton would use these reinforcements to force the colonial army to retreat, and would eventually drive them all the way back to Fort Ticonderoga.

What is POV about this? The battle is clearly the turning point of the invasion, and the rest is merely a brief summary of the activities later in 1776. If there are individual words (like rebel), feel free to change them.

I also note that you have not answered my questions about the motivation and timing of Pélissier's activities (which I know your source does not provide answers for). If his work was done at Montgomery's request, for example, his activities are best described in the appropriate chronological place -- the section on Montgomery's arrival. If the things he supplied did not arrive until after the battle, it is better mentioned in the section on the siege. As you have currently added it, the one-sentence section you have added is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic.

By the way, I agree with you that the name of the article on the Invasion of Canada (1775) is a bad one. I have not bothered to propose renaming it yet. However, even the crossing of borders between provinces (rather than nations) can be termed an invasion, I do not think the word is misplaced here.

--Magic♪piano 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

References

To MagicPiano

[I will intersperse my response -- MP]

• It is not sufficient to mention in a small sentence that the pro-American canadiens were forcibly removed from Quebec city. It deserves more emphasis then this; the canadiens were not helping Carleton.

MP There is much missing from this and other articles about the American Revolution in Quebec, particularly with respect to the participation of the inhabitants on one side or the other. I'm not denying that American sympathizers were essentially expelled from the city (or that it could have more space in the article); it is not clear to me that it requires mention in the lead.

• Many canadien under severe treat nonetheless supported the American, and not just a few did.

MP Agreed. The risks of helping the americans were high -- treason, excommunication, and so on.

• As for the source of Sorel it's on p. 189 of Canada-Quebec from Lacoursière:In the region of Sorel many canadiens joyfully help Arnold's troops, my translation. Technically they are Arnold's troop but either Lacoursière got the place wrong or the general wrong, I agree with you.

MP Lacoursière is almost certainly wrong, unless the "Sorel region" was large enough to include the area between the Chaudière and Levis. If you have access to this book, it contains what is one of the most detailed accounts of Arnold's travel through Maine that I have read. (By the way, I find errors in history books quite often -- usually an author is wrong about some part of the story that was not his main focus, and that he did not research as carefully as the parts that he cared about.)

• As for Pelissier he built his canon-ball from the May 1, 1776,(p. 427 of Lacoursière) they were not used for the siege but the American were using them while they retreated.

MP OK, thank you. I knew Pelissiere was pro-American, but was only aware of some discussion he had with Montgomery and Wooster about how to handle dissent. I think that Pelissiere's part is probably better described in Invasion of Canada (1775) then, since he does not appear to play a role in this battle. Does that work for you?

• I should also correct the reference to Baby with the author of the book about the Baby's report, you are right.
• Gustave Lanctôt is known to despise the pro-american side; I don't have much faith about his version of the event. In the biography of Clément Gosselin, more serious historian agreed that Lanctôt is biased.

MP I find that just about every historian who writes about this period is biased. I have read a fair amount of Lanctot and Stanley, as well as some Americans (especially Smith, who is useful for describing the general action, but dated in his politics). Who is the Gosselin biographer?

• The word canadien is not used in wikipedia, but it should be. French speak french. German speak german. English speak english. In 1776, the canadien spoke french. The others were canadian or british. french and english speaker fought together in the 1st and 2nd Canadian Regiment. You would not describe British by saying they are english speaking, even if it is accurate to a point.

MP I have no particular objection to using Canadien, but it does need to be explained in its first use, something like this: Canadien (French-speaking Quebec resident), because (as I said) lots of people don't know what it represents. This is also true of words like habitant and seigneur.

• As for naming this the invasion of Canada we can't change it since it became the name of the event for all practical purposes. But we should explain that New York was a Province for the British. Massachusetts was also a Province. There was no international border crossing to go into the Province of Quebec. Moreover the word Canada was specifically removed by the British in 1774. As such it was only the 14th provinces in 1775.

MP I generally try to link to "Province of" articles when describing these events. (And there were more than 14 British provinces in 1775 -- Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, East and West Florida, but they did not play a large role in the revolution.)

• The word invasion that is also incorrect. Schuyler was actually retreating when he was told the canadien would not help him. He was convinced they would by Livingston near Chambly. That is why he continued. Many in Montreal call the event a liberation,such as Valentin Jautard. Throughout Quebec the population and militias were sharply divided. Soon, 15 000 foreign soldiers would be in The Province of Quebec, no amount of so-called propaganda made them changed their mind. The small population of 80 000 civilian could not voice their opinion.

MP It is true that Schuyler was talked out of retreat by Livingston, and that the population was divided. As far as the use of invasion is concerned, I invite you to read the the Wiktionary definition; it does not mention international borders, only territory held by another.

• Feel free to adapt and correct my bad English.

MP If you let me know when you've finished making a reasonable amount of change, I will be happy to copyedit to improve the English. (If you are still adding material, I would rather wait.) If I have any questions, I'll ask them here.

Plains2009 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The battle was the climax of the rebels' invasion of Canada and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the colonists. The battle did not actually repulse the invasion
• this occurred six months later with the arrival of 4,000 troops and General John Burgoyne; Carleton would use these reinforcements to force the colonial army to retreat, and would eventually drive them all the way back to Fort Ticonderoga.

• In the previous post I failed to address this question. What changed the war in favor of the British was the arrival of 13 600 british and german, not the failed attack at Quebec. The 4 000 troops of Sullivan could have won later. The climax was the fall of Saint-Jean, Chambly and Montreal, not the skirmish in one night at Quebec. The american didn't even leave after that.

MP My personal view is that Quebec was the more important prize than Saint-Jean and Montreal, as it represents a substantial bastion against outside support (I think the Americans viewed it as the real prize too). Arnold did not want to retreat afer the battle, for political reasons (looking bad to the locals). The Americans were then in a race to get troops to Quebec before the ice broke up -- they lost that race. (There is a reason why wars were not fought in winter...)

• As for the rising of the french canadian they did rise by not helping Carleton and 757 did rise just in the region of Quebec. But the population was small compared to the population of the states. The event hapen in only eight months and the population was allready helping the american. Quebec was not a free province, it was invaded previously and allready occupied by the british. It was under martial law from the start. In 1778, the militias were disarmed by Haldimand (from Clément Gosselin report to Congress). The canadien refused to help the british side and Carleton had many problem because of it. Burgoyne's army was half german, it should also be mentioned. And it was 3 times more then the 4 000 you stated.

MP Every account I have read so far paints the Canadiens as being largely neutral, although generally friendly toward the Americans, and willing to provide some level of support. But relatively few wanted to take up arms (witness Livingston's and Hazen's recruitment results). Things then began to look worse when the coin ran out, and American leaders like Wooster started mistreating people. This is not a simple situation to describe.

I am also aware of the makeup and general count of the troops that arrived in 1776. They did not arrive all at once, and I think only some were used to drive the Americans back to Ticonderoga, with the rest following behind. The British were limited in their offensive by the ships they had on Lake Champlain.

Plains2009 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Magic♪piano 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments

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)

My Aswers to MP

When Arnold arrived in Saint-Joseph the canadien sold them flour, cows and offer to drive them in their boat. A women sang Yankee Doodle and danced when she learned they were american. Canadien from Lévis refusing to take arm against the american asked Arnold to come quickly to their town. (P. 416 of Lacoursière book)

This behavior sure doesn't look like an invasion. No canadien did that for Wolfe.

MP the Canadiens may not have thought it was an invasion; I think General Carleton would disagree. (I again direct you to the dictionary definition, referring only to moving against territory held by another.)

Other canadien built ladders for the american. For the attack in Quebec the american had 500 ladders. They had them because many canadien helped them. A number of abenakis also help Livinsgton at Saint-John gates.

Books that pretend that the canadien were neutral are biased against the american. So many resisted conscription that Carleton and Haldimand could not rely on them. 300 to 400 militias assembled against the british troop in Mascouche because they didn't want to fight the american. (p. 404 of Lacoursière Book)

MP This is a strange assertion, since I have also read histories by American historians that say similar things.

Refusing to report under the treat of martial law is not neutrality. Joining the american in great number (like 747 in the Quebec region alone) is not neutrality either. The entire Province of Quebec had only 90 000 people, it was a small village. Reading the opinion of letters of that time doesn't help since those witness didn't know all what was going on. The Baby's report is clear that hundred of canadien actively help and supported the american. Making the canadien the first people to help the american independance. Well before Lafayette.

The siege and attack was greatly achieved because hundred of canadien helped Arnold and Montgommery. Edward Antill was with Montgomery that night. It is not irrelevant to point that out at the begining of the article. Or at least to make it very clearly in a separate section.

MP As I've said, I don't deny the Canadien's role. If you can find specific contributions that directly apply to the subject of this article (Quebec City, November 1775 to May 1776), they're more than welcome.

To answer your question more specificaly, you can talk about Pelissier in the other article, I'm ok with it. I leave you the link of the biographer of Clément Gosselin, you can read the comment about Gustave Lanctôt at the end. In 1775, the british were not another entity, not any more then in Boston or NY. The american did not invade the Province of New York when they took Ticonderoga. And since many canadien welcomed and helped the american and the american were absolutely NOT attacking them, I continue to think that invasion is a british point of view. But I can live with that since most historian, even american, accept it. The large amount of troop in the Province of Quebec is not irrelevant to the fact that all pro-american voice suddently stopped, and it was not simply because they suddently fell in love with the british. The investigation of pro-american militias is not irrelevant to the fact that the american were equiped by them. The report is written after the siege about the help that occurs before and during the siege. On all else I did not comment, I agree with your comments.

MP On the subject of Ticonderoga, there was in fact a great deal of concern on the part of both Massachusetts and Connecticut politicians about the actions they authorized concerning the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. (I've worked on that article too, but this political aspect is not there.)

I will not make other changes for now, but I'm working on the whole revolution and I will come back later. In the meantime I would suggest the use of more neutral word. The pro-american were not collabo (a bad word in french meaning sell-out). Climax is too strong for such a small scale attack that almost was called off (most of the american didn't want to do it). What turned the tide was the 15 000 troops in june. We should insist it was the Province of Quebec at the time.

MP I would not think to use the word collaborator in the article -- my use in the discussion here was neutral in intent.

Anyhow, you're doing a great job and you know your stuff. Strive for a more disinterested point of view with more neutral terms and by not suggesting one side was more heroic than the other, it is too much a point of view. And don't forget that the surrounding is important, not just the 1 hour of battle. Don't make it sound that the canadien were all in the british side. Continue, the article is in better shape then it was some years ago... Plains2009 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=2423&&PHPSESSID=tkgbnqg4h7q8pband3a3nbjf81

MP Thank you. I (an American, if it is not clear), am actually interested in having a high-quality, balanced, and neutral description of these events. It will be a real challenge to achieve, and I think many contributors (such as you) will be required to make that happen.

I will move some of your contributions around, but try to preserve your intent. If I do not, please assume good faith, and let me know what I did wrong. Magic♪piano 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Quebec (1775)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Lead, P2: Who is Daniel Morgan and why is he important? Some context is needed
   • British preparations, P1, last S: as in this case is ambiguous. Does it mean "while" or "because"?
   • Arnold's arrival, P2, S1 (minor point): Arnold is reported as outnumbered 1,200 to 600, but later (in Siege, P1) a ratio three to one is used. For internal consistency, it might make sense to say Arnold was outnumbered two to one here to parallel that later figure; In this case both the 1,200 figure and the 600 figure are both already reported in the article
   • Carleton's arrival…, P2, S4: "took care to make sure" is a clumsy phrase. Can this be simplified while retaining the meaning conveyed in the source?
   • Montgomery's attack, P2, S6: should the plural form of musket be used here. (If so, consider using the cannons plural to match)
   • Arnold's attack, P2, S1: The number killed is confusing. Is it "30 + 20" or "30 (including 20)"?
     • Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Siege, P1, S1: Who is Wooster? He's not mentioned or linked previously in the text.
   • Footnotes, Note 2: Consider using a comma thousands separator for the figures, especially since 1800 could be confused as with the year in this context.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Another fine article. Just a few prose issues need resolving before it passes. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've covered your prose issues. (The description of Morgan I put in the body. He's primarily mentioned because he went on to become more notable as the war went on, and assumed a leadership role after Arnold's injury.) Magic♪piano 20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All looks good

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellhalla (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2009‎ (UTC)

Specific British regiments?

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)

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)

Who is "he"?

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. 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)

I've clarified these usages. Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit [1]. 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)

References

Portal template

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)

Spelling

Based on the spelling used here, I think the British/Canadians must have actually lost the battle, because apparently we now spell "American" style. Since this is a British/Canadian victory on British/Canadian soil, could we not use British/Canadian spelling (defence in particular)? I'm fine with American spelling used in Revolutionary War battles that took place South of the border, but this battle should favour Canadian spelling. CaperBill (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In particular, defense should be changed to defence. I'm reverting a recent change to go back to Canadian English (and I'm in Washington, DC). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I restored Canadian English for that word. If there are any other words with American rather than Canadian spellings, they should be changed. Apparently the matter of regional spelling had not been taken care of in FA review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're asserting WP:TIES here? I think the "strong national ties" are equal, and the correct rule is probably WP:RETAIN, meaning it should go back to American. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of leaving it alone. It should have always been Canadian English. I won't edit war. Evidently, the process for Featured Article review is broken, in the specific matter that it doesn't include agreement on the variety of English. However, as this educated American sees it, the use of American English in this article is just mistaken. The British, who later become Canadians, won the battle, and the battlefield is in Canada. I'm asserting, first, the process is broken for review of featured articles, and, second, this article should have been and should be Canadian English. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument for Canadian English is plausible but I don't think it's a slam-dunk. Anyway I certainly won't edit-war over it either, and in fact am dropping the subject. (I did un-pipe your "New Year's Day" pipe, though.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And I would say that since it happened during the American Revolutionary War, that American English is preferred or at least acceptable. That, and the fact that it passed FA review using American English, seem to point to American English being fine. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not. This happened on Canadian soil, whether part of the American Revolutionary War or not; CANENGL applies and the template establishing that is on clear display above.Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep as American English I'm with HotStop on this one , in that no variant has stronger ties than the other to the subject-matter, that being an assault by American forces during the American Revolutionary War on a Canadian city defended by the British Army. The fact that the battlefield is in Canada may militate in favor of Canadian English, but the overall significance of the American Revolutionary War to Canada is minor in comparison to "south of the border". Therefore that militating factor is seemingly nullified. I've looked through the history of the article, and it appears that American English is the first variant clearly used. Per ENGVAR, then, American English is proper for the article. If I'm mistaken about which variant was used first, I'll be happy to eat crow. Cdtew (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Skookum, that template was placed there today, during this argument, and is of no consequence. See this edit. Cdtew (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To the eyes of one neutral contributor and reader as myself, this is a non-issue. I'm French and a native French-speaker. I use Wikipedia EN because I see it as the most International and complete version of the Encyclopedy, more that the French version. Wikipedia has many standards and rules, as you all know, and to me, one of these standards is that it's the American English which is commonly used here, not the Canadian nor the English, and that's because it's American English that is mainly widespread worldwide as the International English language. Akseli9 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not the standard. The standard is explained at WP:ENGVAR, and it boils down to a two-part test: (1) Does the topic have "strong national ties" to a particular English-speaking country? If so, use the English of that country. (2) Otherwise, figure out who came first, and stay with that version.

There are a lot of nuances and considerable room for arguing as to what it means, which is what's going on here. I'm staying out of that argument, but I did want to respond to this before someone else got here to respond more heatedly. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this clear and useful precision about languages used. Akseli9 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider change: The implication of WP:TIES does seem to be that since it took place in Canada it should follow Canadian norms. The argument that it was a campaign which was important to the later USA cuts both ways – the ultimate loss of the southern colonies in America was a major turning point for Britain as well. Though the issue can be seen as even more complicated: all the parties involved were, of course, British at the time (except the natives, who were by now on the margins, and had quite different languages anyway) - and the events took place long before Noah Webster's campaign to differentiate US English from British English, which led to most of the differences in spelling &c. But I am an inveterate conservative in these matters – and I confess that I do have a preference for "American War of Independence" rather than "Revolutionary War", since it doesn't seem to have disturbed the local notables to the extent that the English, French and Russian revolutions did... Deipnosophista (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not be fooled by the title: it was a British–American battle, and the spelling could go either way. I think in these cases one goes back to the first spelling to disambiguate the variety. As far as I can see, totaling was the first word to do the trick: AmEng, not CanEng or BrEng. Tony (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does anybody else see the irony in Canadians and Americans battling over an article about a battle between what eventually became Canadians and Americans? I personally think the ties to EN-CA is slightly stronger, but not so much to worry about it. Resolute 13:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• The strongest tie is geography, with the battle having taken place in what is now Canada. Peter Grey (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The first use of defence (and no use of defense) was this 2008-JUL-28 edit. Unless someone can find a prior usage of US rather than Canadian Engvar, WP:RETAIN supports Canadian English (which, btw, uses -yze, not -yse) in this article. There is no instance of 'total' on that date. --JimWae (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I want to draw the attention of others to the fact that 2 editors have circumvented discussion on this page by putting an engver tag on the page while a discussion is going on--JimWae (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so hardheaded to admit if I'm wrong. I believed American English to be the first variant used, but you have apparently proven that incorrect. I will not object further to Canadian English being used as the variant, unless further evidence can be dredged up of prior American usage. I was more arguing against the TIES faction than anyone who had a good argument per RETAIN. Cdtew (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As a Featured Article for July 4th 2013

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Edward Antill

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)

Dablink resolved. Cdtew (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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. Bencherlite^Talk 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

American?

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)