Talk:Fort Carillon

More emphasis?

Perhaps User:Varing will elaborate on why the "more emphasis" he wishes to put on Fort Carillon cannot be added to the Fort Ticonderoga article. The text he seems to like contains precious little that is not already in the latter article. Furthermore, the Ticonderoga article is not so long that it cannot support additional content on the French period. What exactly do you think is missing from Ticonderoga article? Magic♪piano 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Only half of the original fort was reconstructed in 1911. (half the barracks, the main observation tower, and about half the outer walls were not reconstructed or by the British after taking the fort). This period is the main reason of existance for Fort Carillon and the major battle that took place is testimony of that. When the Green Mountains boys took Fort Ticonderoga renamed by the British, there were about 83 Vermonters against 48 or so British soldiers, no major battle here. Furthermore, there exist three different sites for Byzantine, Constantinople, and Istanbul. Same for Konigsburg and Kaliningrad. The same can be done here and back in 2003, it started out as Fort Carillon.--Varing (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The examples you give (Istanbul and Kaliningrad) have very long histories that justify the existence of separate articles. As I mentioned above, the Ticonderoga article is not too long, and additional information can be added to it -- it could be lengthened by 50% before running into size guidelines.

Second, the fact that relatively modest portions of the fort were destroyed in 1759 does not mean the two structures were different. Every source I've ever seen treats them as the same structure.

Third, you didn't answer my last question. Given that most of what is in this article is already in the other one, how much material is missing? There are two specific things either in this article or in this discussion that are not in the article (the details of the 1911 reconstruction work, and the corruption surrounding the original construction), but these hardly merit an article fork. Magic♪piano 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

When readers are looking for Fort Carillon, it should take them to Fort Carillon and not Fort Ticonderoga. The most important battle took place at Fort Carillon. Other sites have separate articles for Fort Carillon, have a look [[1]]. It's even separate in French on wikipedia, but not Konigsberg, goes into Kaliningrad.--Varing (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What other language WPs do is not relevant here (I've read the discussion on fr.wp, btw). What you think should happen is not relevant either -- we do what our sources tell us (is this refrain familiar to you?). Our sources tell us the common name of the structure is "Fort Ticonderoga". Magic♪piano 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I observe that about 40% of the Ticonderoga article is on its construction and history (as Carillon) to 1759. Does anyone think this distribution unfair? Magic♪piano 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I't the name that is unfair, it was renamed Fort Ticonderoga by the British and most historical re-enactments are done for Fort Carillon. See: [[2]] and [[3]]. You would not take kindly that we rename the article on Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Carillon, would you? If Los Angeles became Angel City or San Diego, Saint James? Something Americans did not do, but the British did extensively, especially in the Maritime provinces.--Varing (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been known as Ticonderoga for most of its history. Whole books use the name in its title (see Fort Ticonderoga bibliography). The Ticonderoga article mentions Carillon in the very first sentence of the lead. The Carillon history (four years out of 30 or so active, 250 total) is disproportionately well represented in that article. Magic♪piano 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what one source says about the damage done to the fort in 1759 (Crego, Fort Ticonderoga, p. 36): "... the French blew up the fort's powder magazine. The explosion destroyed the southeast bastion and the king's storehouse. The fort's south and west barracks were damaged by debris from the explosion. The barracks were repaired so a British winter garrison could be housed at the fort." Sounds like the same structure to me. The fact that the British did not do much to maintain it afterward, and that it was stripped of usable materials in the 19th century (all cited in the Ticonderoga article) would explain the need for 20th century reconstruction. (The bastion was only reconstructed two years ago.) Magic♪piano 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems superfluous to me to have a separate article when the content would fit comfortably in the Fort Ticonderoga article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comfortably by your opinion, but not comfortably for readers who are looking for Fort Carillon. The article on Fort Carillon gets submerged by Fort Ticonderoga! It was separate at the beginning back in 2003 and should have stayed that way.--Varing (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now, people who look for Fort Carillon on WP get a poorly-written poorly-researched mish-mash of franglais, when before they got a feature article that has considerably more depth on the subject of the French period of the fort. I don't think this improves Wikipedia. Magic♪piano 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That is probably the most telling comment - that there already exists Feature Article quality material on Fort Carillon. If there is much more to be added on Carillon that material should have been used as a starting point for a spin-off article. I note that as it stands acording to this article the history of the site ends in 1759. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There exist an extensive article on French wikipedia about the flag of Carillon flown at the fort during the Battle of Fort Carillon, which does not exist in English. It was to be added to the Fort Carillon article, more than doubling it's size. Since it doesn't exist in English, why should I bother spending hours to translate it only to be lambasted by MagicPiano. It just so happens that the Carillon flag became the Quebec Flag in 1948 and that it is as important to them as the Star Spangle Banner Flag that flew over Fort McHenry is to Americans, or should we change the name of Fort McHenry to Fort something else?--Varing (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you could ask for help with translation -- there are ways to get things done that are less contentious than your present style. I might even help, this is one thing I am often willing to do (just ask User:Mathieugp, another French Canadian, whose translation work I have cheerfully improved). However, you really ought to do such work in a private sandbox, especially if you are planning on modifying an already well-written article. In this case, because most of the article content is redundant to what's in Fort Ticonderoga, improving the writing is, in my opinion, a waste of time.

As far as the flag is concerned, fr:Drapeau du Carillon should be translated into Carillon flag, not dumped wholesale into a fort article, where the flag's subsequent provenance is mostly irrelevant. The fort article clearly merits a mention of it (it is already mentioned in Battle of Carillon), but you don't need more than a few sentences for that. (If you want to create Carillon flag and do a rough translation of the French article, I will happily copyedit it to improve the language, and not even be snarky about it in the process.) Magic♪piano 13:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many other sites having only Fort Carillon as their article or heading. Have a look: [[4]],[[5]],[[6]],[[7]], etc.--Varing (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would take up your offer in a new article on the Carillon Flag. Thank You!--Varing (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many many sites having Ticonderoga as their article or heading. Even if I agreed with this method of determining names (I don't: what reliable sources say is what we should use), this argument doesn't fly. You should also check your examples -- one of them is a Wikipedia mirror, and Youtube content is hardly to be considered reliable. Magic♪piano 12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. The problem is that Fort Carillon is so highly valued to French speaking Canadians, that putting it under the heading Fort Ticonderoga does not render it it's full credit. It would be nice to have Fort Carillon as the article heading and Ticonderoga under it, but many would cry foul because it is a US national monument and it is important to US history. It's like Waterloo is important for the British in their victory over Napoleon. Let's just say that the Belgium government changed the name to Van Loops! Does this imply that Waterloo and the Battle of Waterloo all have to be redirected to the Van Loops article. The British would cry foul and would definitely want to preserve the original name. Unless you had Fort Ticonderoga (Fort Carillon) as a heading, thereby giving both priority. But to have people wanting to know about Fort Carillon redirected to Fort Ticonderoga does not resolve the issue. We make Fort Ticonderoga bigger than life and dwarf Fort Carillon which should in all due respect be more important than the former. It was bad enough that Canadians lost to the British without belittling or minimizing the greatest moment in their history. I still need to find time for that Carillon flag article, but if you have looked at it, there is so much to translate, and these days, my job is taking a lot of my time. But I will do it as soon as I have the opportunity. Thanks!--Varing (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While I sympathize to some extent with this "high value" you claim (umm, [citation needed] for said high value, by the way), the rules are, more or less, the rules. Consider a somewhat more contentious example than this one: a certain city on the Baltic Sea has, for much of its history, been under some sort of German control. However, it is currently known by its Polish name, for the simple reason that it is now Polish, and is primarily known by its Polish name. There are editors who objected to this, and a major discussion ensued. Did everyone get their way? Of course not.

If the community of Waterloo, Belgium were to change its name, the correct thing to do would be to (1) rename the article (retaining mention in the article of the old name for historical purposes), (2) redirect Waterloo, Belgium to the new name, and (3) do nothing with Battle of Waterloo (because that is the common name of the battle, just as the 1734 siege of the above Polish city is called the Siege of Danzig (1734) and not the Siege of Gdańsk (1734)). The current name -- and certainly the most widely used -- of this structure is "Fort Ticonderoga", so this is what the article's name should be.

Furthermore, in this case having separate articles would result in a non-trivial amount of duplication. Most of the early history would still need to be present in Fort Ticonderoga, and the British history would need to be summarized in Fort Carillon. This is not particularly productive. Magic♪piano 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Stettin is redirected but Konigsberg is not in English. In French it is! Does this mean that Konigsberg should be redirected? What about Byzantine and Constantinople to Istanbul? You see, you cannot erase history. If you look at it from a geographic and cultural standpoint, okay, go right ahead. But history is history, and you cannot erase it! Take the article Moon landing, I firmly believe they did not have the capabilities to go and that they never went, yet an article exists on this fallacy! When Von Braun writes in his memoires that it would take 3 Saturn rockets the height of the Empire State building to go and come back to get there, how can he be wrong? It takes two meters of protection to cross the Van Allen radiation belt. The space module had nothing but a thin golden aluminum foil as protection. Those who filmed the landing in a London studio, were all killed in so-called accidents. I could go on and on, but the point is, Stettin, Konigsberg, Fort Carillon really existed, and it's not too much to have two separate articles. If I want to know about Konigsberg, I really don't care about knowing about Kaliningrad. Furthermore, you can add a lot to Fort Carillon and place in the Fort Ticonderoga article as a reference for more in-depth history, go to Fort Carillon article. I have not finished with it you know! So much has been written in French, that it is much more elaborate than you can imagine!--Varing (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you have proposed so far has added significant "depth" to the history that isn't already in the other article. I also already said that the Ticonderoga article can easily grow by 50-100% or more before running into WP:SIZE issues. Do you really think you can provide new content that would double the size of that article?

I suppose a lot may have been written in French on the fort; can you identify some works dedicated to the subject? (The reason I ask is that searching books.google.fr doesn't turn any up.) Have you looked at the bibliography of the Fort Ticonderoga article yet? There are several whole books (and not just 100-page children's books, these are scholarly works) devoted to the fort's construction and history in English. Unless the voluminous French materials you claim exist bring something truly not available in English, WP:NONENG applies. Magic♪piano 18:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You never let go do you! I told you that to merge the article would take away it's significant importance as a fort and it's historical achievements. Fort Ticonderoga is a US historical landmark, not a Canadian one. Fort Carillon becomes dwarfed in it's article. What is so hard about that to understand? You defend Konigsberg as separate. I see no difference here!--Varing (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about not letting go... I told you that "its historical achievements" are already documented and take 40% of the other article, a significantly disproportionate share of the structure's history. Magic♪piano 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you and I appear to be at an impasse, I have listed this at WP:Proposed mergers. Magic♪piano 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We've got exactly the same problem in WP:FR with the same contributors, as you can see here. It reached a deadlock because of wrong and/or biased arguments. A separate article appears irrelevant by any point of view, regarding to the bibliography and the common sense: Fort Carillon and Fort Ticonderoga are the same fort, the same building. And this fort is very much better known as Ticonderoga than Carillon. Even in French. Martin1813 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually aware of that discussion. The fact that the names identify the same structure, plus WP:COMMONNAME, pretty much dictate the use of "Fort Ticonderoga". Any potential encyclopedic reason (Varing's emotions, uncorroborated by reliable sources, notwithstanding) for splitting are obviated by the short history under its first name; that history is necessary context for its later history. If it had a lengthy history (as the Königsberg/Kaliningrad issues does), I might see it differently. But four years do not a separate article merit. Magic♪piano 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am thus wasting my time for an encyclopedia that involves benevolant work. Furthermore, the harassments of MagicPiano are a real turnoff!--Varing (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that decent-quality articles already exist on Fort Ticonderoga, Battle of Carillon, and Battle of Ticonderoga (1759), recreating their contents here is indeed a waste of time. I recommend you instead work on writing Régiment de la Reine and other such articles, where military sartorial descriptions have more relevance than they do in an article about a building. Magic♪piano 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Recently I noticed that Hochelaga, which had a short life as a village and which occupied the land Montreal was built on, has a separate article. So does Stadacona, which was a short lived village where Québec City is now built. How can that be, since according to you, they did not have a very long life span. If it had not been for Fort Carillon and the Battle of Carillon, Washington would not have thought the fort to be impregnable, and would not have wasted any time on it. So it's not Fort Ticonderoga which is important, it's Fort Carillon and the Battle that ensued.--Varing (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You write of Carillon and Ticonderoga as if they are somehow different places. They are not. We are discussing a single structure that has had two different names, not a geographic location. The geographic location is described in Ticonderoga (hamlet), New York, and not in Ticonderoga, New France.

And you still have not addressed the other elements of my argument, principally the fact that, for reasons of establishing proper context, these article would necessarily overlap to such a degree that they might as well be one and the same. Magic♪piano 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Chateau Saint-Louis/Chateau Frontenac

Chateau Haldimand was built on top of Chateau Saint-Louis, and then Chateau Frontenac on top of Chateau Haldimand, yet all three have separate articles in French and two have separate articles in English. I am beginning to believe that there is bigotry on your part for doing this. It started by the destruction of the picture of Fort Duquesne, then the long argument that there were no Canadians on the battlefields along with the French during the Seven Years War, and now this about Fort Carillon. You know that most historians state that Amherst had his 11,000 soldiers rebuilt Fort Carillon in 1759-60 after it's destruction by the French, yet you continue to argue that it is the same because it was rebuilt on top.--Varing (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You just said it : "Chateau Haldimand was built on top of Chateau Saint-Louis, and then Chateau Frontenac" : there are different and successive buildings. So there is no comparison or analogy possible here, as Fort Carillon and Fort Ticonderoga are the same building. The only thing destroyed by the French in 1759 is the King's magazine (Magasin du roi), not the entire fort which was slightly damaged but not destroyed. Martin // talk 09:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"You know that most historians state that Amherst had his 11,000 soldiers rebuilt Fort Carillon in 1759-60 after it's destruction" I do not know this. Prove it. Go through all of the sources listed in Fort Ticonderoga, and quote excerpts from them.

Furthermore, the next time you accuse me of racism, I'm going to report it to WP:ANI. I've already warned you once to be civil. Magic♪piano 12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, why did you hurry to change the writing on the Flag of Carillon to mention that it was was a fabrication? Did you check before putting that back on. The flag was carbon copy analysed, and found to be 18th century and not 19th century. Just because the church where it was held modified it, the flag itself and the 4 fleur-de-lys ornating the corners are authentic. This was a 19th century rumor, used to disuade national unity after the 1837 rebellions in Lower Canada and Upper Canada. Did you take time to look at all the sources or just the one written in? You ask me to translate it, then you proceed to discredit it! Furthermore, you made a map of New France reducing it's boundaries to small patches of blue, to discredit it's true extent as well. With all that put together, what am I suppose to think? You would never do that to anything pertaining to the United States history, would you?--Varing (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please work on your reading comprehension. The story of the banner's use is what appears to be a fabrication, not the flag itself. I have no doubt the banner is of a suitable age. (As for the rapidity of my response, the article is on my watchlist.)

As far as the map is concerned, if I redrew the map to reflect all claimed territories by all parties, there are large areas that would be contested (courtesy of sea-to-sea grants); if I were to draw them with the "racist" bias you claim I have, they would look very different. A map of claims in 1702 would, for example, describe the Great Lakes region as contested (see Nanfan Treaty for the British claim to this territory). Rather than painting large areas as contested, it is better to show areas of actual control, and correctly labelling territories that are actually under French, English, and Indian control as such. I could call you "racist" for not acknowledging Indian claims to those lands, but I'm not a dick and don't make dickish crypto-racist assumptions.

In re what you're supposed to think, you could ask for explanations of such things before jumping to conclusions. Instead, you assume other people think like you do and have political (or other) agendas in what they write. I suggest you remove the timber from your eye before complaining about the mote in mine. Magic♪piano 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You might take up your interesting assertion that the fort was destroyed in 1759 with its current owners: as Martin points out, they agree that only the powder magazine was destroyed, and that the fort was renamed. If you're wondering why the fort was "reconstructed" in the early 20th century, you might do some research on what happened to the fort between 1759 and 1909. Magic♪piano 12:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why you keep referring to only the power magazine? A lot more than that was destroyed. It's true to state that they did not have time to destroy it completely, but nevetherless, half was destroyed, including the barracks. Why would Amherst and his men spend 2 or 3 seasons to rebuilt it, if only the powder magazine was destroyed?--Varing (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because that is what is mentioned in all the sources : just the King's Magazine. Amherst repaired the fort, not rebuilt. This is a significant difference. You've been asked source for your assertions for a month now but you didn't give just one. Martin // talk 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You still need to cite your assertions; right now, you're just making sh*t up, because you have yet to cite a single source in support (this after your misuse of Eccles was noted). Do let me know when the Fort Ticonderoga people agree with you that a whole new structure was built. Here's one account of the damage (key phrase: "The fort itself was not seriously injured" despite the damage done to the bastion and barracks). Here's Parkman. Here's McLynn. Exactly what damage do your sources describe the fort as sustaining in 1759? (And yes, I know there are many sources that simply say "the fort was blown up" -- these sources are virtually useless unless they actually state the extent of the damage.) Magic♪piano 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How about renaming the article Fort Carillon or Ticonderoga like in this article? http://theudericus.free.fr/Vermont/Ticonderoga/Ticonderoga_English.htm --Varing (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources that use that sort of nomenclature? A web page presumably created by a random individual on a French ISP's hosting service that says "This chapter has been based on the Wikipedia site written on the Fort Ticonderoga" does not strike me as reliable. See also WP:COMMONNAME. Magic♪piano 20:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of Fort Carillon

This is to help Varing, since Martin keeps jumping in this side to help you! Jacques Lacoursière, famous Canadian historian wrote this about the last days of Fort Carillon: Le 21 juillet, l'armée anglaise monte sur des centaines de berges. Le lendemain, elle débarque non loin du fort Carillon. Bourlamaque envoie un détachement pour retarder la marche de l'ennemi. Au cours de la nuit du 22 au 23, Canadiens et Français, soit environ 3600 personnes, quittent le fort. Seule y demeure une arrière-garde de 400 hommes, que s'affaire à mettre le feu aux deux hôpitaux, aux hangars et aux baraques. Pendant quatre jours, du 23 au 26 juillet, les canons ennemis bombardent le fort où sont retranchés les hommes du capitaine d'Hébécourt. Le 26, vers les dix heures du soir, après avoir miné le fort et chargé tous les canons, la garnison quitte tout doucement la place forte. Vers minuit, l'explosion démolit une bonne partie du fort. There should be no more discussions on this matter. The fort was largely destroyed by the French and Canadians before leaving, and by the English bombarding the fort for four days between July 23rd to 26th, 1759. l'explosion démolit une bonne partie du fort, means that most of the fort was demolished. Add to that four days of British bombardments, and it is no wonder it took nearly two years, (1959-60) to rebuild the fort. Case closed!--Mont-Joli (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lacoursière is a very reliable source but "une bonne partie" is vague and loose. Every more precise document states that just the powder magazine was destroyed. Statement of a British officer. Here, "In 1759, French troops evacuated the Fort but not before blowing up the King's Magazine, "Le magasin du Roi"." Fort Ticonderoga website : " the French abandoned the fort after blowing up the powder magazine". sur Historic Lakes : "The French have blown the magazine at Ticonderoga but the fort is still serviceable, so Sir Jeffrey sets out to restore it while building a new, more massive fort to the north at Crown Point". As Fort Ticonderoga Association is a research foundation, I assume that they know what they write. They are more specialized than Lacoursière who juste wrote a few lines about the battle, despite his fame and his seriousness. Martin // discuter 10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your quick to discredit a highly known historian as Jacques Lacoursière Martin, and place all the credibility on one British officer who, (if true) wrote that only the powder magazine was destroyed, maybe because his main interest was the powder magazine! So they bombed Fort Carillon for 4 days and 4 nights, and no damage was done. Amazing! --Mont-Joli (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Then what happened to the tower in this photo, the British missed it all together! Poor marksmanship! http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/FortCarillon.html --Mont-Joli (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there an English translation of Lacoursiere? With only my schoolboy French "une bonne partie" works out as "a good part" which in English idiom is not the same as "most" GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources that do not accurately characterize the extent of the damage should be discounted, in preference to those that do. Since sources exist that describe the nature and extent of the damage (some in my commentary above; see also sources dedicated to the fort's history in Fort Ticonderoga), these should be preferred. As Martin says, Lacoursière is not detailed in explaining the damage.

Lastly, when you quote from works, please identify the works (by name and ISBN or OCLC number, please) so that others can know which of Lacoursière's works you're referencing. Since editors have already been observed misquoting sources on this very subject, it is important that this be done. Magic♪piano 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, it came from Histoire Populaire du Québec, Volume 1, bottom of page 295. These are the same works as in Nos Racines that historian Jacques Lacourisière reprinted. You can have a look for yourself: http://books.google.com/books?id=_4hBdiDOv_AC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=Carillon+-+Jacques+Lacoursi%C3%A8re&source=bl&ots=Fc6erochmM&sig=QwLsCu_l-z4YL5Ydh0Sd1lmZ4so&hl=en&ei=Dd3FTeLZB-fX0QHPha2LCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false --Mont-Joli (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You wrote "Your quick to discredit a highly known historian as Jacques Lacoursière Martin, and place all the credibility on one British officer". Why do you discredit the British officer (what is his motive for lying)? Why do you discredit other historians who provide more complete descriptions of what happened? Is Lacoursière the only authority that is acceptable? Why? Magic♪piano 19:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the way I see what is happening: For Franco-Canadians, Fort Carillon is as important to them as Yorktown is to Americans; Waterloo to the British; and Austerlitz to the French. This is why on French Wikipedia, you have 5 Canadians voting to have a separate article on Fort Carillon and two Frenchmen against it. To push this further, I noticed that when asked to vote on French Wikipedia on the maintenance of categories dealing with Chinese-Canadians, Vietnamese-Canadians, Lebanese-Canadians, Haitian-Canadians, etc., 8 to 9 Canadians voted to keep these categories and 2 or 3 Frenchmen voted against. So you don't want to talk race, let's talk nationalism. It is obvious that nationalism plays a role here. When Obama spoke about the resolve and determination of Americans to fight terrorism, he did not mention the world population, although terrorism affects the whole world. So, if you have taken listening skills, you know that no two people think or judge things the same way. But in a case of historical events, some historical events mean much more to certain nationalities than others. I therefore perceive that what pertains and touches the history of Canada, Canadians and Canadian historians will be more in favor of maintaining certain articles than non-Canadians.--Varing (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is Kingsford's account of the damage report to the fort. It is the most detailed I have seen yet:

There was only a part of the walls injured, and all the work of importance required was the restoration of one bastion and a part of the curtain. The glacis and covered way were still good, the casemates uninjured. Eleven excellent ovens remained standing in good condition, and they proved of the greatest use to the conquerors, for bread could be baked.

-- Magic♪piano 19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that M. Benedict Arnold Martin has given you this info, you too want to discredit Jacques Lacoursière. But I would like you to consider what I wrote about nationalism a little futher up. I feel that you cannot disregard this. As an American you know the value of this, and I would appeal to your common sense to accept this fact. What is unimportant to you or a Frenchman, is of considerable importance to Canadians as a whole.--Varing (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Appealing to an appreciation of nationalist feeling makes me wonder if there is a risk of wandering off the path of Neutral Point of View. Noone is trying to discredit Lacoursière on the subject - just pointing out that there are more detailed treatments which seem to answer the question of howmuch of the French site carried over into the British occupation and to the present day. While this discussion has turned up some interesting information on the early period of the site currently known as Fort Ticonderoga, it started out as trying to address the issue of whether a standalone article on Fort Carillon is necessary or desirable while there is a Featured Article covering the whole period of the site. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is why the article on Fort Ticonderoga is non-Neutral, because it highlights Fort Ticonderoga at the expense of Fort Carillon. The title itself is Fort Ticonderoga, not Fort Carillon or Fort Ticonderoga, or Fort Carillon - Fort Ticonderoga. If Fort Carillon had not been built, had it not been renown for its's famous battle in 1758, Fort Ticonderoga would NOT have existed all together. This is what the opposition to two articles, or a fair article title refuse to understand.--Varing (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. Varing, where did I "want to discredit Jacques Lacoursière"? Here, let me turn it around: why do you "want to discredit" Frank McLynn, you "racist"? Or William Kingsford? Am I a "racist" because I don't worship at the altar of your chosen historians? Are you a "racist" because you don't respect the authorities I present? (You still also have not backed up the idea that this whole business "is of considerable importance to Canadians as a whole" or even French Canadians. Citations, please, for at least the third time now. This is otherwise just more sh*t you make up.) Magic♪piano 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your language is crude, disrespectful, irresponsible, and unwarranted. If you want to call me a racist, I call you a Bigot, for this is exactly what Bigots do! You have an ax to grind, and you choose Wikipedia to do it. If you are an unhappy man, don't take it out on me.--Varing (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If bigots call people racist, then you are a bigot, since you first used the term "racist" to describe me. I merely use the above as an example of using your own tactics against you; as previously noted, I don't make it a practice to call people names (hence the quotations around "racist" -- it is your term, not mine). If you find these tactics offensive, I suggest you stop using them. (And how's that citation coming?) Magic♪piano 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This Fort Carillon, which we called Ticonderoga, was a fort elevated on a narrow passage, which was the only communication between Lake George and Lake Champlain. Since it had been only two years of it's destruction, it was not well known in England; however, it united all the advantages that a fortress could take advantage of in nature and in art. État Politique de l'Angleterre, Jacques Genet, p. 226 http://books.google.com/books?id=vwsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA226&dq=Importance+of+Fort+Carillon+to+Canadiens&hl=fr&ei=5c3KTeH7OoHpgAfR3e35BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false --Varing (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

construir does not equal "destruction" according to google translate. "has all the advantages that fortresses can draw from nature and art" is rather poetic as well.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Varing, you really ought to check the publication dates of works you cite. This one fails on that basis alone, never mind the obvious translation problems. Even I recognize that the translation is in the wrong tense. Magic♪piano 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fort Carillon, 1755/58 - 1759, Essex County, Ticonderoga. Built by the French, and partially destroyed by them upon withdrawal in 1759. Rebuilt as Fort Ticonderoga 1759-60 by British, captured by Americans in 1775, recaptured by British on the way to Saratoga in 1777. New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History, Last modified: February 18, 2006, URL: http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/forts/fortsA_D/carillonFort.htm --Varing (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do let us know when you get a source that contains as much detail as, say, Kingsford's description of the damage, that also thinks the fort after its capture is a replacement for (rather than repair of) the French construction. You don't need to point out sources that say "the fort was blown up" -- we know they exist. The problem is that that sort of description is demonstrably incomplete, since damage assessments are known to exist. Magic♪piano 17:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The New York Government authorities mention that: Rebuilt as Fort Ticonderoga 1759-60 by British, not repaired. There you have, and you cannot object to Government statements.--Varing (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you believe everything your government(s) tells you, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. In this case, the government statement is only as good as its sources (just like you and me). We don't know what it's sources are (unless you've asked the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs for that information), so I have no particular reason to accept their word over, say, that of the fort's owners. Magic♪piano 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Update

Lest Varing think this discussion closed because he wandered away from it, he has still not rebutted the testimony of Kingsford and McLynn. He has also not addressed the relevance of WP:COMMONNAME for providing the proper name for the article on the fort. Magic♪piano 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally phoned Jacques Lacoursière, and he told me that there were two different forts, and therefore it demands two articles. He told me that the late Professor Guy Frégault had written in the same sense.--Mont-Joli (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So, in order to verify this, we must telephone M. Lacoursière? Did you ask him about what McLynn and Kingsford said? Magic♪piano 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do M. Lacoursière's sources extend to the Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Association? Volume 9 (1952): "The destruction of the fort was not as heavy as the French counted upon"

I wonder what prompted William Nester to write: "Amherst [went on to] occupy Fort Carillon in 1759." link Nester wrote a whole book about the Battle of Carillon, in which he also wrote "Amherst renamed the captured fort Ticonderoga." I'd think he could be considered as authoritative as M. Lacoursière.

Daniel Marston, who has written all sorts of North American war histories: "[Amherst] decided to take some time and fortify Fort Carillon, renamed Ticonderoga." link

Carl Crego also documents the damage the fort sustained in detail: "The explosion destroyed the southeast bastion and the King's storehouse. The fort's south and west barracks were damaged by the explosion. The barracks were repaired so a British winter garrison could be housed at the fort." link

Please ask M. Lacoursière about why these writers are wrong. Magic♪piano 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, no wonder Varing left! It took two weeks to get a hold of Jacques Lacoursière at his home in Beauport, since he gives conferences throughout Canada. It seems to me that any Canadian historian would approve having two articles. This is part of Canadian history. You are looking at it from an American point of view! Look at the bright side, the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup with a Canadian coach Claude Julien, and two goals each by Canadians Patrice Bergeron and Brad Marchand. Please don't be anti-Canadian. We are your friends!--Mont-Joli (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with MagicPiano, it's all very well M. Lacoursiere telling you this but it needs to be a published statement to be of any use in the article. Also if opinion is divided among historians as to whether the fort was flattened and the ruins built on or repaired we should include both opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think I'm not anti-Canadian -- I like visiting there, and most Canucks seem to be quite friendly. However, to misquote you, this is a part of American history. You are looking at it from a Canadian point of view! Lacoursière is not a privileged source, and his published descriptions of what happened to the fort that have made it into this discussion are remarkably short on details, and mimic those of American authors whose descriptions are also often short on details (i.e. "the fort was blown up/destroyed/needed to be rebuilt"). The problem is that detailed accounts of the damage exist, and fairly clearly show the fort (as a significant structure) was not destroyed. It is these sources that need to be addressed, because (in my opinion) their content trumps that of those containing abbreviated descriptions. (This is why, if you really have a connection to M. Lacoursière, you should put this question to him.)

Graeme, the issue of divided opinion doesn't work -- the argument by proponents of this article's existence is that there should be two articles, whereas I and others claim there needs to be only one (hence the merge tags). The current content of this article is little more than a rehash of parts of Fort Ticonderoga and Battle of Carillon, with some sartorial flair thrown in. Why Varing and Mont-Joli didn't start by forking Fort Ticonderoga and cutting it down is beyond me. Magic♪piano 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Importance of Fort Carillon to Canadians

• Fort Carillon was built by Canadians in 1755. That year was a turning point in the history of New France. Fort Carillon became renown in Canada because it permitted Canadians to win a victory over the British on July 8th, 1758. According to a Canadian legend, the Virgin Mary appear during the battle and the English would lose themselves in the creases of her robe. Others, proclaimed that the Banner which had seen fire at the Battle of Carillon, became during the 18th century, an important symbol in the hearts of Canadians. Jeanne Henriette Louis, Maître de Conférences à l'Université d'Orléans, p. 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=mXqK4EFc014C&pg=PA35&dq=Importance+of+Fort+Carillon+to+Canadiens&hl=fr&ei=5c3KTeH7OoHpgAfR3e35BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• From Eccles: The French send a young officer, De Jumonville, with an escort of 34 men, to kindly remind the Virginians that they are on French territory. With no warning, Washington orders his men to open fire while De Jumonville is reading a diplomatic declaration. Ten Canadiens and officer De Jumonville are killed and the others are taken prisoner. Washington leaves the bodies of his victims to the wolves. Outraged, the French attack Washington who capitulates, admitting his guilt in the assassination of officer De Jumonville.--Varing (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what relevance the second quote has to this discussion. The first quote points out that the banner (not the fort, but the banner and its association with the battle) was important to 19th century Canadians. I accept this. I also accept that the fort "became renowned", but this is not the same as "important". So why does this mean we need a whole separate article on the fort (rather than the banner, which you seem to have begun to work on), or that we should adopt an awkward uncommon construction for naming the feature article that already exists? Magic♪piano 18:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What's to discuss?

Fort Carillon and Fort Ticonderoga are the same structure. If there is no separate article for the Sears Tower since its redesignation, there is no reason there should be separate articles for Carillon and Ticonderoga. I grew up in Burlington, and traveled to the fort regularly on school field trips. The old name is well-known, but certainly it is not treated historically as a a separate topic.

If the article were approaching size guidelines, the capture/renaming of the fort would make a logical break point (i.e. Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul), but that is not the case here, and no separate article is indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.90.177 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if you did not sign this, you accidentally touched an interesting point made about size guidelines. The location of Fort Carillon itself was much more than just the fort. As Jacques Lacoursière mentioned to me, it was a village with its own Lower Town, hospital, stock houses, gardens, etc. (See 1758 map). It was to New France what West Point is to the United States today. It was the southern most part of Canada on Lake Champlain, and it was there to protect the heartland of Canada from any invasions (homeland security). Fort Ticonderoga is merely the fort itself. That is why Fort Carillon needs to be separate.--Mont-Joli (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"It was to New France what West Point is to the United States today." Umm, sure. It was a military academy? Citation, please? Magic♪piano 00:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't take it literally. The Eiffel Tower is as important to Paris as the London Bridge is to London. That is what I meant.

Oh, OK. Then you agree it wasn't of any geographic strategic importance. (Or did you mean to say it was like West Point during the American Revolutionary War, which strikes me as a more apt comparison?) Magic♪piano 13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Fort Ticonderoga is about "merely the fort itself", why isn't this article also? Alternately, if this article contained information about the ancillary structures, why would they not be appropriate for inclusion in the other article, which already has a fairly comprehensive history of the structure's existence? Magic♪piano 16:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the other structures no longer exist. You have to see beyond the trees and look at the entire forest or picture. That is why we have Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, and the US government is not doing a good job at it because they are nearsighted. Let us not make the same mistake here.--Mont-Joli (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because the structures no longer existed after circa 1759 doesn't mean they don't merit mention in an article on Fort Ticonderoga, whose history includes the years before 1759. I suggest it is your view that needs broadening. (Considering such mentions amount to a few sentences, this is not a big deal.) Magic♪piano 13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Fort Ticonderoga article is a U.S. National Register of Historic Places and a U.S. National Historic Landmark. The United States did not exist during the period of Fort Carillon. Its importance to the US is its role in the Revolutionary War and not the Seven Year's War. Fort Carillon's importance is to that of New France and Canada, not to the United States. I don't wish to start again what was already said by others. Put it to rest once and for all please!--Mont-Joli (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you "put it to rest once and for all please"? After all, you're the one who's never addressed the issues raised above (doesn't comply with WP:COMMONNAME, forts are the same structure, Lacoursiere is not a privileged source vs. McLynn and others, and so on). You just come back and repeat yourself without actually dealing with these arguments. Magic♪piano 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too polite with this guy. He is impolite, obstinate, blind, and contemptuous. The whole town was destroyed and never rebuilt; the fort was half destroyed and rebuilt; and yet he still argues that it is the same. Don't waste anymore of your time on him. His world revolves around arguments, insults, and confrontation.--Varing (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let those without sin be those who cast the first stone. It is not I who make the argument, it is sources listed above that make the claim. Why do you fail to address those sources? Magic♪piano 12:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

strongly fortified by high tranches

...strongly fortified by high tranches: does this signify "deep trenches" Or is tranche military jargon?--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)