User talk:Mathieugp/Archive 2

Diagram

Hello and thank you for your contributions! I just tagged Image:Constitution-usa-thomas-paine.png with {{ShouldBeSVG}}. Do you still have the Dia source for this file? If so, would you be willing to export it in SVG format and upload the SVG to the Commons? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) – What issues did you run into? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) – OK, that's fine. I was thinking that the problem might be the use of SVG fonts. I find that in Inkscape at least, I have to convert the text to a vector path before Firefox or MediaWiki can view it properly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we get an english translation of the 1793 diagram ? 8/8/2008

Sure, I'll gladly translate it to English. Do you mean Condorcet's constitution or the one made by the Montagnards faction after the coup which gave them control of the Convention nationale and which resulted in the guillotining of practically all their political opponents? I am guessing you want Condorcet's because Thomas Paine was on the constitution committee that signed the Plan de constitution? I am actually writing an article on this very subject here. Unfortunately, I know nothing of the contribution of Paine or Sieyès or any of the other people who signed the Plan de constitution. The work is generally attributed to Condorcet and is part of the two French compilations of his works. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reference in the Parti rouge article. I found another similar such situation with Province of Canada where perhaps you might be able to help out with, too. I wonder how the French language references should be titled because they aren't readily verifiable by the 99% of the English language Wikipedia users who don't speak French. Any suggestions? Jonathan Logan (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Maybe we can resolve the reference problem for all foreign language sources because there has to be a great many in numerous languages. I changed Parti rouge to a second heading "Additional foreign language information sources" but maybe you or someone else can come up with a condensed title. Jonathan Logan (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed "Additional foreign language information sources" to a French Reference. Maybe you can clarify something. Does listing something in any foreign language in the English Wikipedia meet the requirement of being readily verifiable so as to qualify it as a Reference? Jonathan Logan (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information. To conform to policy I will change the heading back to what is was but still, if you can come up with a more precise header let me know as I will use it elsewhere as I expect to have French language materials listed in any work I do on Acadians. Jonathan Logan (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Ontarians

Excellent link, thanks. Yeah, it looks like a really good source for either a timeline or a longer "History of the Franco-Ontarian community" article. (And a biographies section, too! Albert Regimbal! Woohoo!) I'm wondering, though — is the page just wonky because I'm looking at it in Linux, or are you also getting a page that takes up only the left half of the browser window and leaves the right half completely blank? Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm using Fedora Core these days. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving page

You have moved the following page Fête nationale du Québec to Quebec's National Holiday in this edit. [1]. You have also preceded this by making related edits to the lead that involved renaming the article. Changing article titles is an important move that requires consensus and discussion. This is more than a bold edit, but is a violation of wiki policy. Please change it back and discuss on the discussion page. --soulscanner (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the page back to its original as best I could. I've also put in a formal request to have it moved to "Saint Jean Baptiste Day" which follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Please read these carefully before participating in the discussion.

By the way, you've made this page very attractive. It looks much better now. --soulscanner (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote at Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day)

Hi, I've set up a vote to try and resolve this here. As you've commented on the issue already, I wanted to ensure you take the opportunity to vote. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on my talkpage. Thought I'd let you know. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merci

Thank you for your kind message. I do what I can. You have done a lot of great work. I look forward to seeing all of those articles improved in the future. Let me know if I can help. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible wiki policy violations on Quebec Talk page

Please keep in mind that wikipedia pages do not serve as talk forums for topics or personal historical interpretation of events. They are there for discussion of how to improve the article.

Also, please review guideline on splitting the comments of other editors .

* Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Heading added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

I'd appreciate it if you restored the integrity of my original posting. The discussion becomes hard to follow when posts are broken up. I think we can both agree that we want other editors to make it possible to follow the discussion. :-) Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner

For the National Patriotes Day issue, I think I'd refer this first to WP:NPOVN as he basically attempted to rewrite the article from the POV that the "true" name of the holiday was Victoria Day, and that the names it has in Quebec were just to hide the monarchist aspect of the holiday. In reality, there are several examples of holidays that change name between provinces, the best know possibly being Civic Day (which also goes by Natal Day, Simcoe Day, Colonel By Day, etc.) There isn't a name which is "more valid" than the others, contrary to what Soulscanner seems to think.

For the isue of celebrants to June 24th, that too would be NPOVN first, but there is some behaviour issues which might be referred to WP:WQA, particularly that he seems unable to assume good faith from editors with views opposed to himself, or to admit they might be wrong. Further regarding June 24th, for example he seems not to have realized that at one point he sustained that anglo-Quebecers did not celebrate the holiday, and several days later, he said the contrary (when it turned out to suit his argument).

The way I see this, this eventually might be a case of WP:MEDCAB or further a user-conduct WP:RFC. It all depends on how amenable he might be to mediation. Not sure where you'd like to start; just let me know.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary of Canadian Biography

I will also send an Email to Library and Archives Canada in support of the providing of redirects for the previous URL format. I noticed that they appear to have resequenced the IDs used in the URL but it appears that a large range of IDs is offset by a constant amount so that an automated table-based approach is feasible. There might be a need for a plan B, though. --Big_iron (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A bot seems like a possibility: the old URLs look like

 http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=#####

and the new URLs look like

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

and for a wide range of old values, roughly from 35000 to 41000+, the new value is old_value-34122, e.g. http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39918 becomes http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=5796. --08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quebec Founder Population

I beg your pardon - infomercials? Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News is the top trade publication in the biotechnology field. That does not mean that it publishes unassailable truth (nor does any news outlet), but it does mean it cannot be dismissed as simply an "infomercial". I cannot vouch confidently for bioscienceworld.ca; if you dispute the validity of that source, eliminate it and the information associated with the citation. As for the sources you indicated in your note to me ... your deciding to fork and create a new article does not at all help the state of the article that you complain about my contributing garbage to. Fix it if you think it is garbage; don't say "I'm going to write my own correct article" - fix the existing one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lower Canada Rebellion

Thanks for your message. I understand your actions, and I believe you took the correct course. In the absence of an edit summary, though, I could not figure out what you were doing. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Title for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day

Sorry, I missed your reply a few weeks ago. Are you amenable to a without-prejudice move? If so, let's do it now! Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To "National Holiday (Quebec)", to be clear; I still support the other title, but let's get some action going here. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quebec

I've answered you on my talk page. This is complicated enough that we better have the conversation in one place. :) Magic♪piano 22:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Mathieu

Merci pour ton message :-)

J'apprécie toujours tes interventions sur Wikipedia et je trouve que ton travail est remarquable

J'ai vu que pour ma page sur les plaines que plusieurs de mes commentaires on amené des corrections sur la page principale, alors pour l'instant je ne voyais pas comment je pouvais faire mieux

Je me concentre à corriger des points controversés tels que la participation des québécois à la révolution américaine que les british-canadien veulent effacer, et sur d'autre propagande qu'ils font contre nous

Je vais me forcer à corriger mes pages tout en fournissant des sources précises

Savoir que quelqu'un va pouvoir me vérifier va m'aider :-)

J'ai eu un hiver 2007 très difficile à mon travail avec de très mauvais patrons, des mauvais patrons qui ont finalement été mis à la porte...alors maintenant ça va mieux

Le 250ième des plaines s'en vient...on va leur faire une petite surprise :-P

J'en ai très long à dire :-)

Merci encore pour ton message :-) ! Etienne2007 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Une source pour l'histoire des Batailles

J'ai lu la plus belle explication sur la deuxième bataille des plaines dans le livre :

Sons of the Mountains (the highland regiments, in the french and indians war, 1756-1767) De Ian MacPherson McCulloch Volume I

http://www.amazon.com/Sons-Mountains-Highland-Regiments-1756-1767/dp/1930098758

Ca: ISBN-13 978-1-896941-49-3 ISBN-10 1-896941-49-4 US: ISDN-10 1-930098-75-8

Le type est un ultra nationaliste mais il passe son temps à raconter les défaites des écossais :-) Un livre totalement remarquable pour les dessins et l'explication de la bataille de 1760 et même celle de Québec

Il faut seulement comprendre que c'est un nationaliste anti-québécois qui écrit...

Je te laisse découvrir le récit enlevant de la bataille de Lévis...

Il faut comprendre que tout ça est la première partie de la guerre qui continuera en 1775

En particulier sur l'importance de William Howe qui est un général plus important que Wolfe

Sur la carricature de la page wikipedia de la bataille des plaines on voit William Howe vêtu de vert sur la gauche de Wolfe

Dans un livre sur les 10 généraux british les plus importants Wolfe n'apparaît pas mais William Howe apparaît

C'est ça qu'on doit faire comprendre au Québécois, que c'est Howe qui mène l'attaque à Québec

Et c'est lui qui perd l'amérique quand il ne va pas aider burgoyne en 1777...

William Howe c'est comme Hitler pour l'amérique, l'ennemi numéro 1

William Howe n'a pas seulement envahit québec...il a envahit Boston en 1775, New York en 1776 et Philadelphie en 1777...en plus de perdre l'amérique à cause de sa bêtise...

William Pitt notre envahisseur a aussi connu une fin comique par une crise cardiaque en réalisant que la France venait de le battre en amérique en 1778...(La mort de Lord Chatham)

Voilà ce qui arriva vraiment à nos envahisseurs...et ce que les anglais veulent tant nous cacher...

C'est LUI qui est le personnage historique, pas Wolfe...qui n'est qu'une propagande

Les anglais nous ont bien caché cette réalité...

Comme leur défaite de Saratoga qu'ils ont effacé de leur livre d'histoire...

Pour les troupes en présence j'ai de l'information sur leur nom, leur costume, leur origine etc...

On pourra mettre tout ça à jour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etienne2007 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Background of 1775 invasion

Bonjour Mathieu. I've decided that the Background section of Invasion of Canada (1775) needs to be expanded to cover more the Canadian/Quebec attitudes toward the war. I drafted the following to lead the "Canadian preparations" section (all of which I think is citable and reasonably accurate):

The population of Quebec was divided on the question of the war, generally along class lines. British merchants who controlled the fur trade, and had much to lose if trade was cut off with Britain, were generally Loyalist. English-speaking migrants from the Thirteen Colonies were largely Patriot sympathizers. The French-speaking land-owning noblesse and the powerful Catholic clergy were generally Loyalist in their sympathies, especially since the Quebec Act had restored some of their power. The mostly Catholic French-speaking peasantry, or habitants, were generally neutral, as they were somewhat discontent with the power over them, and somewhat friendly toward the Patriots. They were also not accustomed to taking up arms.

I'm trying to introduce, and capture the sentiments of, each major group in Quebec before significant things start taking place (like Carleton declaring martial law in June 1775, which I think triggers among other things the failed attempts by the noblesse to raise militias). I'd appreciate your comments on this, especially the last sentence (did the habitants participate in e.g. French and Indian War?). (I will be expanding that sub-section to include more detail on the actions of Carleton and other actors and their consequences eventually. I still need to figure out how to work Native American sentiments into this, since they also play a role.)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would very much like to see an expanded coverage of the attitudes of the five main populations (Amerindians, Canadians, French, British and British Americans), before, during, and after the invasion. However, at this point, I would not know how to summarize them. I am in the process of studying all this for my personal knowledge, and the more I read, the more I find only future research will shed the needed light on that period. What I gathered from various readings is this:

Regarding the English-speaking group (British born and British Americans), yes, there is a group that remained loyal because their trade or their job in the civil government or military made them depend upon the connection with Great Britain. Some of them however, who are certainly not guilty of disloyalty in 1774-1775, are opposed to the government, especially the administration of justice, wish for a constitutional reform, and find themselves targeted by the newly created ruling class who takes advantage of the fact that the Habeas Corpus law is not enforced in the colony (it will after 1784, despite instructions from the Colonial Office to introduce it in 1778). This complicated reform battle started in 1763 and culminated in 1791 when Great Britain finally granted a (caricature of a) provincial parliament to us here. So, before the invasion, and unrelated to what is going on in the truly British Thirteen colonies, there is a party who oppose the government, but are not necessarily disloyal, probably are sympathetic to the cause of the Americans, but do not collaborate or at least there is no solid proof of it. Some clearly take part with the Congress, such as those who will lead the Canadian regiments (Moses Hazen, Livingston, Duggan). There are so few English speakers residing in the colony at the time that we could probably count them all. They live the towns, are mostly in the military, the civil government or in trade. Their interests are not at all in harmony with those of the majority of the people. Some British or British Americans who settled right after the Conquest are in 1775 more "integrated" into the body of our nation: they speak French, are not (or no longer) anti-Catholic, married a local woman, etc.

Regarding the French-speaking group, there is a pattern: those who are the main "agitators" of the constitutional reform, and are looked at suspiciously by the government as potential collaborators in the invasion by the Congress, are virtually all French-born: Pierre du Calvet, François Cazeau, Valentin Jautard, Lusignan, Pierre de Sales Laterrière, etc. They were all thrown into prison "preventively" at some point during the 1775-1783 period. Things get pretty rough for the civilian population here when Haldimand the mercenary replaces Carleton, in 1777.

The disloyalty of an important part of the Canadians, at least during the first moments of the invasion, is quite evident. Normally we should be distrustful of the Congress's partisans praising the Canadians and their support or non-interference, as this might just be propaganda meant to motivate, but when we have British officials saying the same thing... I quoted some very incriminating passages of the governor and lieutenant-governor's correspondence here in the article Quebec Act.

The "Canadian" nobility, or rather of French nobility who are born Canadian, support the British government after the Quebec Act. So does the Catholic Church. This was part of the strategy of the British to win the elites among the conquered people. There are exceptions, for example Louis-Philippe de Vaudreuil, but he only comes into the picture with the French in 1778. (He was born in France, but his father was a Quebecer, the last Governor General of New France in fact.)

The seigneurs, who are not all nobles, far from it, are virtually all supportive of the British, but there are also exceptions.

When you write "They were also not accustomed to taking up arms", what do you mean exactly?

I will consider myself knowledgeable enough on all this when I have done more reading. A lot more reading. Presently, among other things, I am working on a Chronologie du mouvement de réforme menant à l'adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1791. This I am sure will help me better understand the state of society just before 1775. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay. I knew this was complicated, and I'm not really surprised that it's more complicated than I thought. :)

From what you write, I would say that my summary on the attitudes of the English-speakers (British and British American) is basically correct; I used "largely" and "generally" to paper over the uncertainties and nuances.

I also take it that I was correct in summarizing the clergy and nobility as strongly Loyalist. One sublety that eluded me before: I had always assumed that the seigneurs were nobility (effectively by virtue of position). I knew that English-speakers (like, I believe, Hazen did) had purchased seigneurages, so I suppose their roles and motivations may differ (even if, as you say, they are both Loyalist). I can make explicit that these are two different classes of people.

About the agitators: what sort of people were the agitators, and how significant a force were they in 1775? For the purpose of introducing the invasion, I am happy to marginalize them behind weaselly words like "largely" and "generally" unless they're significant enough to affect the main thrust of the action (e.g. causing Carleton or one of his lieutenants to do something notable with respect to the American action), which cases I can probably deal with in context. I think a detailed view of their role in Quebec politics of the time would otherwise be best served in other spaces.

On to the habitants. I wrote:

The mostly Catholic French-speaking peasantry, or habitants, were generally neutral, as they were somewhat discontent with the power over them, and somewhat friendly toward the Patriots. They were also not accustomed to taking up arms.

There are a few things about the habitants that seem clear to me, based on their actions:

• they were generally friendly to the Americans when they showed up, at least until the coin ran out, and/or the luck turned
• they were resistant to the non-traditional call-to-arms issued by the seigneurs, seemingly because it violated the traditional expectations around that type of relationship
• when pressed, they took up arms with the British, but did not apparently perform well (this is also somewhat true for those who took arms with the Americans, if at least one account I've read of the battle for QC is to be believed), and deserted quite readily (based on some of Carleton's writing about the Montreal militia)

I'm trying to summarize or generalize attitudes out of this in the first sentence. The second sentence is a guess, which is why I fished from you for some specifics. If they had largely not been militarily active in the French and Indian War (unlike a great many from the Thirteen), or did not regularly handle weapons (for hunting, or regular militia training, as was somewhat common in the Thirteen), it could be construed as true. I can probably find a citable historian to support the idea.

Thanks again for your input. Magic♪piano 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree that these two attitudes have existed among the British and British Americans: we have facts, names, petitions signed by citizens, people enrolled on one side or the other, etc. However, I am not knowledgeable of the proportion each side takes relatively to the whole. I am quite the skeptic if you had not already realized: I cannot agree with a statement such as "most did this or that" unless I see numbers or statistics. If these numbers exist as sources to be cited, they are in the most recent historical works published, those that are not necessarily or not completely available to consult online, not yet at least. For that reason, I am not sure we can back the claim that most British Americans were on the Patriot side, while most British were on the side of their government. If I were to follow my intuition, I would say that most British and British Americans were on the side of the Congress. But I would not know how to prove it.

2. The clergy asked all Catholics to defend their King. Not fighting with the King was a sin worthy of excommunication, which did not fail to occur. The nobility are so few that we may be able to list them all and see what they did. From there we would get numbers. But everything I read says they supported the King's government.

3. Historically, owners of the seigneuries were the clergy, officers and ex-officers of the French army or government, associations of inhabitants even, etc. As military men tend to sometimes die in battle, some seigneuries were owned by widows.

The agitators were educated people spreading enlightenment philosophy and revolutionary ideas from France. It would indeed be complicated to talk about them in the intro. They are quite active when, thanks to the Congress, a printing press is brought along with a typographer, Fleury Mesplet, in Montreal. Since the subject is "the invasion", suffice to say some worked for the Congress directly or indirectly. Jautard was employed by I forget which American officer.

4. I know where you have read what you summarized about the habitants. I took time to read (not entirely of course) Smith's The Fourteenth Colony as you had suggested. It is much better than some of the comparable books published in the late 19th, early 20th century, and it does not contain the censorship of the British or British-sponsored authors on the Canadians who sided against George III's government. However, I cannot recommend relying on his conclusions. This book is severely outdated. It does not have the scientific rigor you find in subsequent works by historians, when the profession became specialized and truly methodical in the reconstruction of the past. I strongly advise citing from more recent works.

The habitants, under the French regime had no choice to be or not to be drafted. All able men from 16 to 60 were part of the militia and they had better show up when raised or else pay the consequence with their lives. This is what Bougainville writes on the Canadiens in 1757 while serving in the French army in North America [2] :

The simple inhabitants would be scandalized to be called peasants. Indeed, they are of a better fabric, have more spirit, more education than those of France. It comes from the fact that they do not pay any tax, that they have the right to go to hunting, fishing, and that they live in a kind of independence. They are brave, their type of courage, as well as that of the savages, is to expose themselves little, to ambush; they are extremely good in the woods, skillful when shotting; they fight by dispersing themselves and covering themselves up behind large trees; it is because of this that at Belle-Rivière they defeated General Braddock. It should be convened that the savages are superior to them in this manner of fighting, and it is the affection which they have for us which until now preserved Canada. The Canadien is tall, glorious, lier, kind, gracious, honest, untiring for the hunt, races, voyages which they undertake in the Upper Countries, lazy for farming. Among these same Canadiens, one claims a great difference for war and voyages in Upper Countries between those of the government of Quebec and those of the government of Trois-Rivières and of Montreal, which win over the first, and those of Quebec are better for navigation; among these inhabitants, those who travel in the Upper Countries are reputed the most brave men.

I quote this to give the idea of them before the Conquest of 1760. After the Cession of 1763, all Catholics are disarmed as per the laws of England on Catholics. It is possible that some of the farmers recruited by the Congress were young enough that they were born under British rule or were not 16 in 1763. I do not know what these ones can do with a musket in their hands. The older ones however, are all veterans of the War of Conquest. Recently, a much-praised book with conclusions from the latest research was published on the militia of New France: but I forget the title. I'll search for it.

At page 104 of Jacques Lacoursière's Histoire populaire du Québec, Tome 1, a best-seller series here, by the most publicly-known Quebec historian (because he had a TV show), we can read[3]:

"In an ordinance date June 9, signed at Montreal, Governor Carleton puts the province under martial law and orders "consequently that the militia be readily put on foot in the said province". This decision changes little to the situation. "The whole city of Montreal was murmuring, tells Sanguinet [one of the rare witnesses], and, worst even, the populace refused to form militia, under the pretext that colonel Templer had promised them they would form companies of 30 men and would have the liberty to chose their officers." "

A little further on page 408, he quotes Pierre Guy writing to François Baby:

"We find ourselves in the most critical situation it is possible to imagine; the inhabitants are so corrupted by the old subjects [British] that it is not possible to reason them out and bring them back."

To show that the Americans are equally in trouble, and to illustrate the problem of desertion among the militiamen (both American and Canadian), he quotes Richard Montgomery writing his wife Janet on September 12, about the deplorable behavior of his troops and the embarrassment he feels at the thought that Canadians are witnessing it [4].

Page 419, Lacoursière writes:

"The most fantastic rumors were circulating in the capital then awaiting to be besieged at any moment, for one had learned that the armies of Montgomery and Arnold had made their junction. One evaluated the forces to more than 4,500 men, when in reality it had no more than one thousand soldiers. One evaluated at 500 the number of Canadians giving a hand to the invaders. One inhabitant even declared that a fleet transporting 7,000 Russians was sailing up the river. He was sent to prison to await the arrival of these surprising visitors."

After quoting Montgomery's messages to the inhabitants of Quebec City, he writes:

"A little after their arrival, the smallpox begins decimating the American troops. On both sides, desertions multiply."

I will quote only one more thing I am now looking at: after describing the failed attack, the death of Montgomery, he describes the arrival of the British troops and writes: "The royalist sentiment predominates again. On June 4, anniversary day of King George III, Quebec City is feasting."

This was after the May 12 proclamation forbidding all those who had not joined the British militia in November 1775 from entering the city. The tide really shifted from there as far as I can tell.

I bought La tentation américaine 1774-1783 by Marcel Trudel lat week. I'll see if there is anything useful in it for the purpose of the article. -- Mathieugp (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mathieu. Just so you know, I am not exclusively depending on Smith's writing. He is useful for material that is less factually controversial, providing details (especially about the invasion approaches of both Montgomery and Arnold) that are often missing elsewhere. I'm extremely leery of his attitudes, as I am of most early scholarship, especially on a subject rife with controversy (which is one reason I've generally avoided this topic so far). (For another example of controversy: after the Battle of Bunker Hill, there was much controversy over the role of Israel Putnam in the battle. Even as late as early 20th century, you can read histories like Allen French's The Siege of Boston which are critical of him. It is my opinion, as it was of others, that much of the fault on the American side lay elsewhere, likely Artemas Ward, who never even saw the battlefield.) Recent scholarship is always valuable and necessary as a check against either explicit or assumed biases on the part of earlier historians. One book I've picked up from a local library is Canada Invaded by George Stanley. This is a 1973 Canadian Crown publication (ISBN 88866-537-7, apparently sponsored by the Canadian War Museum); are you familiar with it? (I've only briefly scanned it so far.)

In re weasel wording: in the absence of hard quantifiable facts, I'm OK making judgments, as long as representative citations and quotes can be produced to bolster the statement. Which is better: 1. say nothing (as now) and wait for the (possibly mythical) quantification, or 2. say something that "current research" (which may resemble WP:OR in this sphere) can arguably support, and correct it later if/when quantification arrives?

I don't have much time today (it's Thanksgiving) and will consequently have limited WP time over the extended weekend. But I appreciate your input, and will get back to this as I can. Magic♪piano 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Stanley's, I found this review of it in the Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française, vol. 28, n° 1, 1974, p. 122-123: [5] As I was ready to assume, it appears a good book if you care about the military details. It is not very useful however to enter into the psychology of the rural folks. :-)

American Revolution, in The Canadian Encyclopedia, gives a good idea of how Canadians would tend to summarize the invasion based on the works of the two main Canadian authors who wrote on the topic: Gustave Lanctôt and George Stanley. The "loyalism" of these two is unquestionable. To get the POV of those who did not regard the Canadiens as a bunch of foreigners in British territory, one must read Gustave Lanctôt, Marcel Trudel, and Pierre Monet. Unfortunately, only Lanctôt was translated to English:

- Canada and the American Revolution, 1774-1783, Toronto : Clarke, Irwin, 1967, 321 p. (review here in French)

To answer your question, I would say: we repeat, like parrots, what comes out most uncontroversially from the contemporary historians. So long as we quote them correctly, and as much as possible point out what facts or interpretation of facts is making them conclude what they conclude. This is my understanding of neutral POV, a third-person voice, and that is why Wikipedia is so interesting. I fully trust you to write something good and accurate, to the extent that it is actually possible to do so with what is available to us now. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say: Happy Thanksgiving to you, your family and friends! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on Stanley (and the mention of good Canadian sources, even if I (a) may not get access to them, or (b) be able to read them in my français terrible), I didn't think it was going to give me much insight into habitant psychology, but more as one of several counterweights to Smith for the more factual parts of the story.

To go to the question, or more to the point behind it: I propose to you the following. I will draft a paragraph that I claim as a summary of relevant positions as I understand the sources to imply or state them. It will be fully cited, hopefully with sources that you also can access (if not, I can summarize anything you care to question). I'll try to use as many recent historiographic sources as possible, or things that are either original sources (letters from Carleton, etc) or quotations from them. Then you can throw darts at it; add to it with information from references you deem relevant. If we disagree about weasel-word usages (most/some/many), we can always raise the weasel-wordage to include specific uncertainty ("it is unclear how many X thought Y; actions seem to indicate some/many/few did"). Is this a course of action you would be agreeable to? (I'm imagining the end result of this, or portions thereof, to be useful in a number of places, not just Invasion of Canada (1775), which is why I think it's worth working on and getting as close to right as is reasonably possible.)

I'd wish you a happy Thanksgiving too, but I'd be six weeks (or so) too late. Cheers! Magic♪piano 02:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This course of action is very agreeable to me. :-) I further propose to be the guy who focuses on the French books, while you focus on the English ones. Since I believe important that you have at least one Quebec historian as part of the material you work with, I also propose you e-mail me your mailing address so I can have Lanctôt's shipped to you as an early Christmas gift. I'll also be buying it for me, in French, at the same time.

Change of subject (somewhat): Did you watch the John Adams (TV miniseries)? I saw it all recently. I thought it was very good all in all. I wish one day we have something comparable on Louis-Joseph Papineau and Pierre du Calvet. It almost became reality for a 5-episode miniseries on the Papineau family around 1998, but Radio-Canada, the main public TV broadcaster here, abandoned the project. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous gift of the Lanctôt; I've emailed you details. I'm imagining this will take some time to do, but then, I'm not in too much of a hurry.

I have not seen the John Adams miniseries. It was on HBO, which I don't get. I may someday rent the DVDs, or see it if it comes to a non-pay channel. Magic♪piano 19:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The Lanctôt has arrived. Thank you again!

I have set up my Sandbox as a staging ground for this work. As mentioned above, I expect this to take some time, but feel free to chime in there if you wish. (I've seeded it with "notes to myself" on things to cover.) Cheers! Magic♪piano 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have received mine today as well. I'll skim through it this week and let you know what I think. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lanctôt's

In the first page of the book, the author says the work is a "narration documentaire et chronologique des événements, narration qui s'accompagne du constant rappel des complexes collectifs en présence et de leurs expressions dans la psychologie du temps."

It does a good job at that, despite the partial comments of the narrator, who would not have been able to publish his work inside Wikipedia. ;-) But I found these comments to be so obvious and transparent, that they did not disturb my reading. Lanctôt uses the word "rebel" as do most British historians. The work is thorough, if indeed he consulted all the sources found in the bibliography.

The first chapter, which tries to summarise the main events from the War of Conquest to 1773, just before the adoption of the Quebec Act, was not convincing.

1. Claiming that the British governors (Murray and Carleton) were the selfless defenders of the political rights of the New Subjects against a faction of colonists opportunistically agitating for a House of Assembly to rule over them and bring about their assimilation is a caricature of what happened, to say the least. It is to depict two parties using the POV of one side, when there were in fact multiple conflicting interest groups who wished either for the status quo or for reform, but for distinct and often contradictory reasons. Some indeed wanted a House of Assembly for protestants alone, but these are to be found both inside and outside the official party. Some wanted a House of Assembly, but wanted it enough that they were willing to accept Catholics in it, if that were what was needed to obtain it, and that is indeed what ultimately happened when a provincial parliament was finally granted in 1791. Lanctôt does not know that francophone Catholics petitioned for a House of Assembly in 1784 (because the list of signatories was not properly published by the Canadian Archives in 1921) and does not understand the reason why they did not join the Old Subjects in their petitions of 1773. I am 100% certain of this fact, and also 100% certain that Lanctôt could not have known it then, because the truth on this question was clearly revealed to us only in 1971, thanks to Pierre Tousignant. I did not read Tousignant's doctoral thesis myself, but I can quote many works that referred to it, among them John Hare. Aux origines du parlementarisme québécois, published in 1993.

2. Governor Murray, this is visible in his correspondence, did not want the conservation of French Civil Laws because he was benevolently trying to save the poor victims of the British Conquest, but because he believed that treating them as equal, allowing them to preserve their possessions and practise their cult freely was a much better way to bring them to gradually adopt the language, manners and religion of England than to overthrown their system of laws and their customs. Murray was disgusted by the treatment his government had given the Acadians, and he intended to do what he could to prevent the same humanitarian disaster to hit the Canadians who were legally British Subjects. Portraying the governors as almighty rulers is also a mistake: they were following orders from the Colonial Office and the only thing they could do was to either comply or delay the execution of the orders or in worst case plead a convincing case against them. Both Murray and Carleton had clear instructions to favour British immigration so as to ultimately outnumber the old settlers and overwhelm them. The British government will not cease trying to transplant British colonists within the St. Lawrence river valley to outnumber the original settlers and when it will become obvious that they have failed at doing that (because if incompetence and reasons outside their control), they will annex the old settled country of Lower Canada with the newly settled country of Upper Canada, precisely for the purpose of making it a new country in the majority English-speaking. Or, in Lord Durham's own words in his 1839 Report on the Affairs of British North America:

But I repeat that the alteration of the character of the Province ought to be immediately entered on, and firmly, though cautiously, followed up that in any plan which may be adopted for the future management of Lower Canada, the first object ought to be thaf of making it an English Province; and that, with this end in view, the ascendancy should never again be placed in any hands but those of an English population. Indeed, at the present moment this is obviously necessary: in the state of mind in which I have described the French Canadian population as not only now being, but as likely for a long while to remain, the trusting them with an entire control over this Province would be in fact only facilitating a rebellion. Lower Canada must be governed now, as it must be hereafter, by an English population: and thus the policy which the necessities of the moment force on us, is in accordance with that suggested by a comprehensive view of the future and permanent improvement of the Province. [6], p. 219

But of course, the only one who is accused of favouring the assimilation of the old settlers is Francis Maseres because he is the agent of the British settlers who want Habeas Corpus and a House of Assembly...

3. Do not worry, I have no intention of doing the same for the other chapters of the book. I will only point out one last thing: There is a factual mistake, page 131 in my book, about Pierre du Calvet enrolling in Moses Hazen's regiment. This is a misunderstanding. This is most likely the nephew of Pierre du Calvet who is also called Pierre du Calvet who enrols on the American side. This little detail is important. Pierre du Calvet (uncle) does not join the American side, as an ensign bearer under Hazen when he is then a prosperous trade and a Justice of the Peace, well-regarded by governor Carleton. This makes no sense at all, and this is pointed out by multiple authors, including Jean-Pierre Boyer (2002), the closest thing to a biographer du Calvet ever had. -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My perception of Lanctot is similar to yours: he clearly has a soft spot for the French Canadians, but it does not obviously interfere with the facts. I find something similar to be true of Stanley — he is (as far as I can tell) scrupulously careful to ascribe opinions to others (which means if there is significant bias, it is editorial rather than written). I've only looked at a few sections of Lanctot, and need to compare some of the sections with Stanley's take, which should be interesting. Magic♪piano 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisie

Comment est-ce que tu peux soutenir l'oppression des gens des Premieres Nations? Tu te vantes de ta patrimaginaire, la "Quebecoisie", avec sa genese il y a quatre siecles?

QUATRE siecles?

Les Iroquois, les Mohawks, ils furent ici pour des MILLENIES. Tu les exclus?

La patrie Mohawks se trouve dans l'État de New York. J'espère bien qu'ils auront un gouvernement autonome sur un territoire qui leur appartient en propre. Si un jour la croissance de leur nation les amène à avoir une population de plusieurs millions, donc un marché intérieur important capable de soutenir une économie nationale dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, et qu'ils se sentent prêt à se donner un État souverain, je n'ai rien contre. Je suis plutôt favorable. -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Soutiens-tu l'independance de l'Ungava?

Je soutiens la liberté des Inuits du Québec et d'ailleurs, oui. Si un jour le développement de leur nation les amène à avoir une population de plusieurs millions, donc un marché intérieur important capable de soutenir une économie nationale dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, et qu'ils se sentent prêt à se donner un État souverain, je n'ai rien contre. Je suis plutôt favorable. -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tu veux que le Quebec ait ses frontieres pre-Canadiennes[7]?

Tu veux dire les frontières au temps de la Nouvelle-France? Pas vraiment. Je ne désire pas que les lois de notre Assemblée nationale s'appliquent jusqu'à Détroit. C'est pas très pratique. L'important c'est que nos lois s'appliquent sur le territoire que nous occupons réellement. Toute la Terre m'appartiendra toujours en tant qu'être humain. C'est bien assez pour moi. -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tu veux qu'on fasse une "decolonization"? C'est bien. On deporte les Europeens, alors? On se debarasse des francais avec les anglais? Tu soutiens la purification ethnique?

Faire la décolonisation ça veut dire se débarrasser de l'influence du gouvernement de la majorité des habitants de l'Amérique du Nord britannique sur le territoire du Québec. En un mot, que les lois fédérales du Canada ne s'appliquent plus chez-nous. Ainsi, tous les peuples du Québec, au nombre de 12, seront décolonisés d'un coup.

Je ne pense pas que les Européens soient très nombreux au Québec. Quelques dizaines de milliers de Français tout au plus. J'ignore le chiffre pour les Anglais. Qu'est-ce que tu penses accomplir en proposant l'idée de se débarrasser de ces pauvres personnes?

La purification ethnique? Quel rapport avec les droits de la personne humaine, le droit à l'autodétermination des peuples, la liberté politique, les droits culturels et linguistiques des groupes humains, dont il est question lorsqu'on discute de l'indépendance du Québec? -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ou est-tu hypocrite minable qui enleveras cette message? 65.94.187.173 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Je ne vais pas l'enlever, mais je vais t'inviter à te relire et à corriger tes fautes d'orthographe. Ou peut-être le réécrire en anglais pour que les visiteurs de la Wikipédia anglophone puissent le lire? Ça serait plus respectueux à mon avis. Il faut respecter l'autre tu sais, respecter son espace vital, son espace de croissance, sans abdiquer le nôtre, get it? Aussi, je pense que tu gagnerais beaucoup en sympathie en étant plus polis. Je travaillerais là-dessus si j'étais toi. -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Québécois

Please comment at Talk:Québécois. Many pages link to this article when they should really link elsewhere. Joeldl (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I feel Soulscanner is violating consensus with the disambiguation note he's inserted at the top of the page. I'd appreciate comment at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom, under "Scope of article". Thanks. Joeldl (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

In poking around for background on Battle of Saint-Pierre, I've run across this Google Book. If you can access it, I'd appreciate some translation. I can piece most of it out (having Lanctot in English helps), but some parts are elusive. On page 60, Chasseur is described as a meunier -- qu'est-ce que c'est? (Miller?) Then, the paragraph at the bottom of 61, after the battle, if I read correctly 3 dead, 10 wounded on the Loyalist side? Finally, the paragraph at the top of 62, Beaujeu retreats to Ile-aux-Grues to avoid capture?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Meunier is a grain miller, yes. It will be my pleasure to help you verify your interpretation of the French text. However, I cannot see the book from my geographical location, again. I think I am going to have to submit a petition to the Google administration if it continues... ;-) If you upload it to the usual place, I'll grab a copy of it, read it, and tell you what I think.

By the way, I too might be requiring your mother-tongue ability soon. I am presently translating this French-language article of mine to this temporary place before I move it to Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal. In many ways, this is the continuation of the Patriot vs. Tory war inside the 14th "Colony". ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to contact your ftp server. I suspect my interpretation of Beaujeu's action is more-or-less correct -- his bio at biographi.ca indicates that after the advance force was defeated, he disbanded the militia and "went into hiding" (which might just be retreating to Ile-aux-grues).

The Internet gateway/NAT/firewall/etc. box where I work was down. The power supply blew up. Luckily we had a spare part lying around so I was able to fix it today. You should be able to FTP now.

File is now uploaded. Magic♪piano 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No wait, I downloaded the file and Adobe Acrobat tells me the file is corrupt. It was 5.5 MB on my end. (I have since removed it from the server.) -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, take two. ftp appears to be recording the correct size (11.8mb). Magic♪piano 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I'll check it out tonight after work. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are few things that I'm looking for with respect to Saint-Pierre that, if you find potential sources for, would be useful. First, I've not seen any sources showing Patriot (pro-rebel) casualties that I would treat as reliable. Second, several sources (including I believe Lanctot) indicate that, because both sides recruited in the area, there were family members on both sides of the confrontation. Any detail on this would be useful, it will add color to the page. (Having seen the Baby-Taschereau-Williams report in Google Books preview makes me think it may actually contain at least some background -- names of some affected families. The translation of the report is at the Massachusetts Historical Society; I intend to go there one of these days.)

I'll see what I can find in French regarding the Saint-Pierre battle.

Let me know when you want your sandbox looked at -- I'm always happy to copyedit. Magic♪piano 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Page 61 reads:

This last one, who had been lightly wounded, was released. This important capture ended the combat. One could already count three dead and ten wounded on the side of the English. The Canadians, friends to the Congress, would have killed the prisoners who had surrendered, if the Bostonians had not stopped them. Sanguinet recounts that one saw in this affair fathers fighting against their children and children against their fathers.

Page 62 reads:

M. de Beaujeu, when learning the result of this unhappy encounter, dismissed his partisans and went into hiding on his island, afraid to be taken prisoner himself.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Thanks! Magic♪piano 16:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint-Pierre

How do you like Battle of Saint-Pierre? I'm not sure how much more I can do with it. (I could do something like list the parishes sending partisans on each side of the skirmish -- this would require looking at the Baby report again, a trip to the Mass. Historical Society.) Magic♪piano 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article looks like the perfect example of a well-sourced & neutral description of a military conflict. :-) The list of parishes sounds like a good idea to me. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if it helps, but here are bios on the Couillard family:

* http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=721

* http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=5172

-- Mathieugp (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the books listed as a source in the biographi.ca bio is available, which goes into the relevant branches of the Couillards around pp 295-305. Even after looking at those sources, it is somewhat ambiguous to me who Couillard is. It could be Joseph Couillard (1738 - 1822), it could be Jean-Baptiste Couillard de l'Espinay (1759 - 1808) (seems a bit young, compared to the other seigneurs involved), or it could be Louis Couillard (1734 - 1799). I give a slight edge to the first one, since his branch of the family appears to be more closely associated with St-Thomas-de-Montmagny, but I'm also inclined to leave the weasel-wording that's currently in the article.

What makes this research maddening at times is that the same names get used over and over again -- can't you guys come up with original names (like Trig or Barack)? :-)

Thanks for the pointers! Magic♪piano 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know! The folks here used to be all named "Jean-Baptiste"! Today, Jean-Something remains quite common, but "Baptiste" is rather rare. Things have changed... -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cedars

We'll see what happens with the GA nomination of Saint-Pierre -- thanks for your help with that. I have a different sort of request that you or another habitant might undertake. I suspect it will require a car.

In Battle of the Cedars there is this assertion:

• Since 1923, the location at The Cedars has been designated the Battle of the Cedars National Historic Site, and is one of Canada's oldest historic sites.

This line was there when I started to work on the article, but I cannot find any useful information about the site on the web. It is listed in the [Parks Canada NHS list for Quebec], but, because the site is not administered by Parks Canada, they don't seem to know anything else about it. The typical Google hits for tourism in the area also do not mention it, which I find strange.

I would like to find out more about the site (history of its designation as a NHS, basic tourist info -- something similar to what's at the end of Fort Ticonderoga), and also get a suitable picture to use in the article. (I thought it might be Coteau-du-Lac NHS, which is in Les Cèdres, but they're listed separately.)

Does this sound like a challenge? Magic♪piano 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite a challenge to me since I do not own a car, however I can post your request to the right place in the French Wikipédie and hopefully someone will either know or be able to check because they live nearby. Is this agreeable to you? -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainement. Merci! (Does Montreal have a service like Zip Car?) Magic♪piano 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think so. We have something called Communauto. Why, you want to subscribe me to this? ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted your request here. I ran a search myself and found nothing of interest concerning the historic site, however this bio here tells us the de Montigny is probably Jean-Baptiste-Jérémie Testard de Montigny, the brother of the dude whose life is recounted in the DCB online. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! :)

Dear Mathieu: Thanks for your healhty advice. I think I'm following it. I red your userpage; just out of curiosity, are you and independentist? Regards.--Againme (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too.--Againme (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Traduction de Portal:New France/Content

Merci Mathieugp pour tes traductions très à-propos! Manquant de temps ces jours-ci, j'apprécie beaucoup ton travail et t'encourage à continuer! JF Lepage (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Canadian election results graphs

Hi Matheieugp. What I've been intending to do is produce SVG version of the graphs, which would allow for much easier translation (or adddition of new results). Unfortunately, my life has been rather busy of late, so I'm probably not going to be able to do so any time soon. If you are able to easily create them, then I can always put the data for each image on its page (which I shoudl do regardless). What I suggest as an interim measure is to produce captionaless versions of the exsistign PNG files for non-English use. Hope this helps. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Address of the NY Provincial Congress to the people of Canada, June 12, 1775

I don't know if you have this yet, but I found a copy in French. Magic♪piano 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look tonight in Monet's to see if it is there. From memory I believe it was. What I can tell you for sure right now is that I cannot view the contents of the 1904 Report on Canadian Archives through Google Books from where I am located. This is really starting to annoy me. You'd think "Canada" would be a good place to study the history of "Canada", but actually no, you are better off residing in the States! ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one dated June 2, 1775 by the NY Congress. Signed by Peter Van Brugh Livingston. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 2nd, my bad. I'm not sure there's anything else really notable that would interest you in that volume. That section of the report contains mostly correspondence involving one of Germain, Barrington, Carleton, and Tryon, relative to the military actions of the Boston and Quebec campaigns. Magic♪piano 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like your department. ;-) Although, I am working on something rather "military" right now just here. -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quebec sovereignty movement

Hi, can you help me on the talk page of Quebec sovereignty movement? One user thinks that if sovereignty-association and sovereignty-partnership occurs, that would mean that Quebec would still be apart of Canada.Lanççelot (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Traduction s'il vous plait?

I'm struggling just a bit with this, can you fill in the blanks?

Le Sr Joseph Bellefontaine, dit Beauséjour, de la rivière St Jean, fils de Gabriel, officier sur les vaisseaux du roi dans le Canada, [sic pour Acadie] et d'Angélique Roberte Jeanne, était major de toutes les milices de la rivière St Jean par ordre de M. de la Gallissonmère de 10 Avril 1749 et en a toujours fait les fonctions pendant la dite guerre jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été pris par les ennemis et y possédait en propres plusieurs lieues de terrain où il a eu la douleur de voir massacrer sous ses yeux une de ses filles et trois des enfants de cette fille par les Anglais, qui voulaient par ces cruautés et par la crainte d'un pareil traitement l'engager à prendre leur parti, sort qu'il n'a évité que par sa fuite dans les bois, en important deux autres enfants de cette même fille.

My translation thus far:

Sieur Joseph Bellefontaine, also called Beauséjour, from the St. John River, son of Gabriel, King's officer [???] in Canada [actually Acadia], and Angélique Roberte Jeanne, was leader of the militias on the St. John River, by commission from M. de la Gallissonmère on 10 April 1749. When leading the militia in said war [this would be the French and Indian War], he was captured by the enemy [???], and forced[?] to witness the massacre of a daughter and three of her children by the English, who wanted, by this cruel act [???] for him to join their side. He managed to flee into the woods with two of his daughter's children.

For some context, see recent entries at Talk:Moses Hazen. Source is probably not accessible to you. Merci beaucoup! Magic♪piano 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing to you from Sarajevo right now. I am on vacation. I guess I should have put up a sign on my user page. :-) But I actually have about an hour to kill before the saz concert I am attending to at 18:30. Here is what I read:

The Sir Joseph Bellefontaine, aka Beauséjour, from the river St Jean, son of Grabriel, officer on the King's vessels in Canada, [sic for Acadia] and Angélique Roberte Jeanne, was major of all militias in the river St Jean by order of Mr. de la Gallissonmère from 10 April 1749 and has exercised these functions during the said war until he was captured by the ennemis and was owner in good right of several lieues of land where he had to suffer witnessing the massacre of one of his daughter and three children of that girl by the English, who wanted by these cruelties and the fear of such treatment to engage him to take their party, a faith which he managed to avoid only by his escape in the woods, taking with him two other children of that same girl.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Un autre fois merci! I trust the Balkans are nice; I may get there one day. Magic♪piano 02:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

national holiday of Quebec

Salut, il y a présentement une controverse sur l'article, l'utilisateur mrboire est d'avis que la source qui mène à l'article de johnson parle que la fête exclut des minorités non canadiennes française alors qu'il y est écrit qu'elle exclut les anglo-québécois, les fédéralistes québécois, et qu'elle est tenu par les souverainistes (les séparatistes dans ses mots).Lanççelot (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydro-Québec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salut, je viens de voir que tu as remis une seconde copie de ton organigramme dans le bas de l'article. Je l'avais déplacé en haut, dans la section Corporate structure comme me l'avait suggéré quelqu'un dans le débat de BA sur fr. Qu'en penses-tu? Salutations cordiales... Bouchecl (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

En passant, connaitrais-tu quelqu'un qui pourrait faire une bonne relecture de la version anglaise? J'ai traduit ça un peu vite et je suis certain que des erreurs de grammaire se sont glissées dans le texte. Bouchecl (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci! Je t'enverrais bien des lauriers, mais je ne sais pas où les trouver dans ma terre d'exil :) Bouchecl (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Le Drapeau de Carillon

Bonjour Mathieu, in researching something else (the publication history of the Ogden painting on Battle of Carillon), I encountered a page on the Quebec flag's history. Google helpfully turned up that you also have a sandbox where you seem to be working on that. I turned up this link, and I'm wondering if the left image is a picture of the actual so-called "Carillon banner" (it seems to fit the description), and if you know of images of it that might be usable here. (Might it be worth a dialog with Luc Bouvier, the page's author, who seems to be a professor?)

Cheers, Magic♪piano 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the banner which may have been carried during the battle. The text on the personal blog of Le Petit Emerillon is a cut and past from here. It's funny you mention this: not too long ago, I pointed a friend of mine to Bouvier after stumbling upon his site (Heraldic America), and this friend contacted him to invite him to give a conference for us who are part of the Collectif identité québécoise. Bouvier recommended contacting Gaston Deschênes, who gave us a good conference on the history of the Quebec flag on January 16, 2008. I must have created that sandbox (thank you for reminding me of its existence! ;-) with a view to propagate that knowledge in the English language. Alister B. Fraser's short chapter on the Quebec flag is about the only solid English-language source you can find online right now. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the things I've seen (which are all probably derived in some way from Gagnon's debunking) are at best uncertain on its use at Carillon. Fraser certainly doesn't think it was there, and I've reflected his opinion in Battle of Carillon, since he seems to have done fairly detailed research. It would be nice if WP could get an image of the banner itself, though. Magic♪piano 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Groulx

Thanks for the reference to the Gordon paper at Marianopolis. I was living in Quebec in 78-79, studying French & Québécois literature at Laval and had certainly heard that Lionel Groulx had expressed opinions that indicated a certain level of anti-semitism, so it may have been as a result of the publication of the first volumes of Clouds by David Rome or possibly the earlier works like Betcherman's The Swastika and the Maple Leaf which received attention in English Canada or Victor Teboul's work in French. There are probably very few significant figures from the past whose attitudes or actions when closely examined do not reveal what we would judge today to contain unacceptable racist views or blameworthy acts. It is one of the dangers of idealizing our heros, leaders, thinkers and writers to risk forgetting that they were also products of their time and place, were capable of falling into traps when pursuing their ideological goals and may have done things that are blameworthy in addition to the other contributions for which they should be remembered. "The ends justify the means" being the thinking that has created so much misery over the years. The other side of the coin is the danger that arises from the blind demonization of the past; to constantly reduce leaders, thinkers, writers and people (especially those on the other side of an ideological debate or ethnic divide) to the 'worst' aspects of their conduct. Some of course will always be beyond redemption. Corlyon (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fête Nationale

Hi,

I would like if you could take a look at what I have tried to piece together and give me some thoughts. I'm trying as a Québécois to neutraly show both sides of the story. User_talk:Mrboire/Political_nature_of_the_celebrations Thanks.

Émile Nelligan

Hi Mathieu,

I have replaced the picture of Émile Nelligan with a better quality one from the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Case

I saw your message at WS, I started reading it but it got heavy and I was running late, so I bookmarked it for later reading about a week ago...I'll probably try to finish it on Friday. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)