Talk:Louis Hébert

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/quebec/monuments/hebert/ This link shows statue of Louis Hebert and wife, Marie Rollet, in Monmorency Parc, Quebec City, Quebec.

New addition about decendents

I added this piece so I hope it fits well. The details listed as fact are because I myself am a decendent from Louis and know a little about it. While my knowledge isn't perfect I am aware of the relocation to Bourbonnais area from notes from relatives and a letter describing a journey to the statue proving furthermore the awareness on our relation.

I wonder though, the part about having descendents named Hébert, isn't that just a coincidence? Meaning, a female descendent of his happened to marry a man also named Hébert somewhere down the line. It's a fairly common name, and there were over a dozen immigrants to Canada named Hébert. The part about Kaskaskia county should be put in a larger picture of French-Canadian immigration to the Illinois country69.156.72.6 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I'm a decendent from him, as well. He's my great great great great great, and so on, grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.216.107 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to earlier version...

... to remove copyrighted material, traced to rootsweb.ancestry.com. Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian

I don't think it's accurate to call Louis Hébert a Canadian, considering today's Canada wouldn't exist for a solid 300 years, and that the early French settlers aren't "directly" connected, predecessors, to Canada. I'm going to phrase it in a way that makes more sense, if no one opposes me doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastobasto (talk • contribs) 23:02, April 21, 2021 (UTC)

I oppose what you did and reverted it. The name Canada was used by the French in Louis' time. And now it is the name of the country where he settled. He was Canadian. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look in the article about New France for the map by Coronelli in 1688, showing the word Canada across the map. The 1703 map refers to Canada, or New France. This was not a name made up in 1867. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that New France's Canada has nothing to do with modern day Canada. They had a different population of different culture (Which in fact were called Canadien, which are nothing alike to today's Canadian, and which the descendants are people from Québec, which is what Louis Hébert was, and which is the acceptable nomenclature even in English if I remember right exactly as to differentiate it with modern-day Canada (AS, AGAIN, I REPEAT, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME), even for modern day Québécois https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/French_Canadians), with a different leadership, system and so on. It was a different region from today's Canada, only consisting of the total East of today's Canada. It was also an administrative region which didn't have much autonomy too, so the fact that it's not modern day Canada's successor is even stronger. Colonial Canada is to the actual Canada what Aquitaine or Brittany was to France. The old Canada is not the political/demographical/geographical/cultural successor of the new Canada in ALMOST EVERY WAY, and is only related to modern-day Canada by its conquest and ensuing struggles. It's history is also different from modern day Canada by about 200 years. It is irrelevant when the name was made up. Completely irrelevant. It would be like saying Sancho II of Castile was the first King of Spain (As in modern day Spain) simply because of how the Kingdom he made was in today's Spain.I'm reverting it back, as I do not find it to be a suitable justification. Just because a nation has the same name as another one, does NOT mean it's the same nation, or very closely related to it. Anyway, the point is that they're not close enough to be considered the same. And because it is the name of the country he settled in now, isn't a justification either. It wouldn't pass in other wikipedia pages (See : Mathieu Da Costa, George Washington's birth place and so on) "And now it is the name of the country where he settled. " But it was not when he DID, so it's why I did the edit. It's even more inaccurate when we consider that it links to modern-day Canada, which, even IF Canada was a successor state, would make it accurate in the same way that it is to link modern day America while linking for British America, although arguably worser. Bastobasto (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bastobasto The idea is to discuss things on this page to get some agreement before reverting. You have said the same thing twice and it is no more convincing the second time. If I revert you, this becomes an edit war, and I am not interested in an edit war. Your methods are not friendly, your reasoning is faulty. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prairieplant I know how discussions work, and i'd ask you to kindly reflect on the irony and hypocrisy of asking me to discuss before reverting, while yourself having done the same at the first of this conversation. However, who I need and wish to convince is not you personally, a single user, but the whole of the Wikipedia community, and no one except you have answered to my call for discussion, and I find your conclusion and logic to be completely faulty. The same reasoning I've used, even if you deem it to be faulty, is obviously shared by the rest of Wikipedia, or at least on multiple other articles, and has far more supporting, logical reasons. If you do not want to argue for the sake of not starting an edit war, so be it. But do not insult the reasoning behind the editor or imply that the edit is wrong without wishing to explain yourself in details, which I would gladly listen to, otherwise you are quite simply and unproductively denigrating without being constructive, without bringing anything to the talk. If I dare, I'd even accuse you of being somewhat dishonest considering you declared that both of my declarations were the same, while they very clearly were not, both in terms of length and content, as a quick way to potentially as a way to dismiss my last comment. I repeat, if you do not want an edit war, I do not want one either, but I simply wanted to report in this reply that throwing a last, dishonest jab without any details before "forfeiting" (if that word isn't a bit hyperbolic in this situation...) is quite unproductive, arguably dishonest, stubborn and as "unfriendly" as you claim my methods to be, and that you should refrain from doing it if possible for the reason mentioned beforehand. Also, talking about said accusation of unfriendliness : I am very sorry that you do not appreciate my "unfriendly" methods. Bastobasto (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]