Talk:Battle of the Plains of Abraham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of the Plains of Abraham has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Description of the German in the Royal American 60th on the Plains of Abrahams[edit] (Plains2009 (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Seperate article for the campaign?[edit]

Is there an article that describes the Quebec campaign in full? At the moment there are several one-off battles with articles such as this action and the Battle of Beauport, but not one that covers the entire siege. Would there be any support for the creation of a Siege of Quebec (1759) or a Quebec Campaign to offer an overview of all the operations around Quebec that year? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, I began working on this not too long ago:
Bibliographie du siège de Québec de 1759 (French and English sources: there is a lot online, in full or in preview)
Chronologie de la Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham (is still a draft. May to Sept. 1759)
Siege of Quebec (1759) seems to me like the natural placeholder.
Since I am planning to write a full article on the subject, I ordered two books from Amazon:
1. Guy Frégault. La Guerre de la Conquête, Montréal : Fides, 1955, 514 p.
2. Charles Perry Stacey. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle, Toronto : MacMillan, 1959, 210 p.
I should be receiving them shortly. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice! I'm going to try and motivate myself to give this article a once-over for style, formatting, et al and see if it's ready for FA sometime in the near future. With the anniversary this year, might be nice to have it polished up. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, things always get more complicated than they should... Turns out I did not order Guy Frégault. La Guerre de la Conquête, I pre-ordered the new edition that is coming out only at the end of this year! I was unable to find a copy in used books stores (tried two) and in the Grande Bibliothèque, they have their copies in the Collection nationale, meaning they cannot be taken out of the building but only consulted on site. I did however borrow a copy of Charles Perry Stacey. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle. I have it for three weeks. The only good news is that I ended up purchasing a book that just came out this year and that will probably be the most useful source of all: Jacques Lacoursière and Hélène Quimper. Québec, ville assiégée. 1759-1760. It is kind of like a 270-page calendar with entries for almost every day between Jan. 1759 and Sept. 1760. On the left-side column of each page you get excepts of letters, journal entries, etc. written by the protagonists and witnesses, and on the narrower right-side column are the sources of the excerpts. Although the book is in French, it could be said to be "bilingual" because the original language is preserved for each excerpt. Even the old spelling is preserved. So I am back to my Chronologie du siège de Québec de 1759, which focuses on the period between May and Sept. 1759. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Highland charge defeated by Quebecois militia?[edit]

That definitely did not happen.

By this do you mean that the account of the stand by some militia on the Coteau St. Genevieve during the retreat is fiction? Was there a stand at the boulangerie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Cook (talkcontribs) 12:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on Howe[edit]

I've removed this section again, for two reasons: one, it's written in a very fractured manner, and two, the majority of it has absolutely no relevance to his actions in this particular battle. That information might be reasonably used in his article, but not in this particular article. User:Plains2007, please avoid calling good-faith edits vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of Battle of the Restigouche in the aftermath? It seems to me that this resupply attempt, while arguably insufficient under the circumstances, deserves at least as much mention as Battle of Quiberon Bay does concerning France's ability to resupply New France.

And while I'm here, I'm surprised this article passed a MILHIST ACR without someone saying that it lacks any stage-setting background. Where and when did all these troops come from? Who sent them, and for what purpose? These are questions I'd expect an A-class article to answer, at least in summary form. Magic♪piano 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm going to try and pound on this thing for a while in the next few days, I'll look at that. I'm fairly sure I did discuss the background at one point when I did the rewrite, but things have been shifted around since then. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, as I look it over quickly, there's definitely a section been taken out; an editor who did some major revamps to bring some French perspective may have lost that along the way. I'll look through the history and see if I can find it again. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Quebec under siege" section, which explained most of the setup, was blanked by a vandal back in April of last year, and nobody noticed, including me. I feel silly now. =P it's back, though! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That would certainly explain it... Magic♪piano 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting some editing[edit]

Okay, so as my part of WP:NODRAMA, I'm going to get off my arse and try to clean up some of the somewhat enthusiastic editing that's gone on here over the last year while I've been distracted. Basically, my intention is to clean up the prose, adjust any issues as I find them, and hopefully have it prettied up enough for a FA attempt shortly.

One edit I've just made to start it off was to change the number of forces listed in the infobox. The ones I removed were referenced to a book by Peter McLoad, but they were at odds with pretty much every other source out there; I felt that going back to the original numbers was the best. I'll try and find my notes again (wish me luck, and someone send an avalanche dog if I'm not heard from for a day or so) to source that, but for now I think it's better to go with the more recognized numbers.

I'll bring up any other issues that might need some commentary as I come across them. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that some translations are under way. I wrote these over the past several months:
fr:Siège de Québec de 1759 => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Siege of Quebec (1759)
fr:Bataille de Beauport => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of Beauport
fr:Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of the Plains of Abraham
User:Magicpiano has already copy-edited the first two. I just need to go back to them for some fix-ups using my copy of Stacey's. Regarding the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, as you can see, I did quite an extensive rewrite of it. In the French Wikipedia, the article was really poor so I ditched it completely, hence the re-write However in English Wikipedia, there will be a need to do a merge of both articles. In my opinion, the current live article suffers from incompleteness, lacks focus on the battle itself (digressions), is made of narration and comments rather than plain neutral description of events as they unfold, etc. I find a lot of what is written belongs to the more general article of the Siege of Quebec of 1759 I just wrote.
I also produced this from the Appendices section of Stacey's:
User:Mathieugp/drafts/Order of battle at the Siege of Quebec in 1759
I should be done with the translation of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham this week, or maybe even this weekend, since I am now apparently suffering from insomnia... ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the incompleteness, but I do agree the work done by Plains2007 in a few places wandered off of neutral. I'm not quite sure what you think should be replaced by the Siege of Quebec article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Plains2007's edits in the article were not exactly neutral in tone and aimed to make a point. I believe that it is possible however to account for what he was trying to show all the while remaining carefully detached from the subject.
I am pretty much done with my translation to English, although it still needs to be copy-edited (by a native English speaker) and references from MacLoed's book need to be re-inserted (since I wrote the French article from the French translation of his work and the page numbers do not match). This is what is live in the French-language Wikipedia now. Feel free to review it when you have time and let me know how in your opinion we can merge all this information. Personally, I think we will need to move out some of the current article's contents to a detailed "Siege of Quebec" article, for which I already have a skeleton already. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There looks to be some information from the translation that could be brought in, but it also appears to have quite a lot of minute detail that would seem to be a little too much. I could be wrong. I'm still confused as to what you think should be moved to the siege article - I replaced the section on what happened in the run up to the battle because someone said it was necessary, so removing a lot of that would leave this without some key information. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I often felt the section on "Food supply" might be too long. I was meaning to show that supply was already a problem and that an important convoy was expected the night of the landing. I think the section could be made shorter without removing vital information. But I would not know what to remove from the other sections, although it may be possible to review for concision. Concerning this article, basically, what I think should be moved out of it is everything that is under "Siege of Quebec", and "Aftermath" which pertain more to the whole year of 1759 (and even 1760) than to the events leading to the battle on September 13 and the immediate consequences of it. These sections summarize a whole lot of events in a few sentences, which is fine, but would be more appropriate in a general article on the siege of 1759 than a specific article on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned, the "Siege of Quebec" section is in here because there needs to be some level of explanation as to where the troops came from, why they were in the area, and how they moved into place prior to the battle. It could be polished down a little, I suppose, and a more detailed version presented in the new article - this is a very much summarized version of the pre-battle siege, of course, and there's plenty of work that can be done to expand on that aspect of the conflict. I believe when I did the rewrite, I included that and the Aftermath section to match up with other articles on battles. (I should note that this article, with that information, did pass a MilHist A-Class review where a number of these points were discussed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree there must be a section on the Siege of Quebec, which provides context. However, now that we have (or are on the way of having) a full article on the Siege of Quebec, this section providing context can be a summary. In other words, it can open with For more details on this topic, see Siege of Quebec (1759). and be followed by two or three paragraphs recalling prior events. (A more general context being also available in French and Indian War.) I mean the same thing for the Aftermath section. Right now, the subject of the Siege and the Battle of September 13 are sort of fused together. This fusion is what, I believe, must have prompted User:Lord Cornwallis to suggest "an article that describes the Quebec campaign in full" on 23 February 2009. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious: What's Borneman's basis for revising the French casualties upwards so dramatically? I notice the monograph is quite recent (2007); is this enough time for us to determine that his figures met the approval of scholarly reviewers? Or, on the contrary, is it not best to present the widely-accepted ~600-700 casualty figures until the issue is resolved in Borneman's favour? Albrecht (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the "widely-accepted ~600-700 casualty figures" should be presented for the reason stated by Albrecht, but also because McLeod's book, which was published in 2008, uses those same figures. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I will say that this is random but somebody wrote Green Day as the title instead of preparations. I consider this vandalism and it should be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristian Zoppa (talkcontribs) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plan for 2010[edit]

In reference to the discussion in the above section (Starting some editing), I propose the following plan:

What do you guys think? -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrites are very detailed, but I note that they seem to rely on one or two specific texts - the proposed Battle article is almost entirely out of the MacLeod book. Can I suggest that you invite some oversight from WP:MILHIST with regards to your proposals? This article did pass one of their A-class reviews, though it needs some updating and revamping as it stands. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think (based on the amount of material) that the siege and the battle(s) should be kept as separate articles. This would allow the context in this article (and Battle of Beauport) to be compressed. I also concur with Tony that more sources should be used (at least as evidence that they have been consulted in preparation of the article). This can probably be achieved (at least with respect to this article) by merger; the siege article is essentially a new contribution and can be expanded or modified with additional sources later. (I frequently use only one or two sources when I start an article...) Magic♪piano 15:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Tony Fox: Yes, we can invite some oversight from WP:MILHIST. How do we go about doing this?
@ Tony Fox & Magicpiano: Regarding sources, I agree that a diversification is needed. As suggested by Magicpiano, the merge will lead to a certain diversification by itself. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting interested parties to comment here. Magic♪piano 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The diagram "plains2009.jpg" is messy and inaccurate. E.g. the British deployment is all over the place; the 60th were in red not green jackets in 1759. Should it be deleted? Graeme Cook (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Diagram deleted.

Graeme Cook (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Did a Quebecoise write this?[edit]

This is not an entirely objective article, and the tone of the bias sounds suspiciously like Separatist propaganda. Please blow up Quebec to prevent them from vandalising the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This type of incendiary comment has no place in a civilized discussion (reason for strikeout). --Skol fir (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


It says in the info box that 1200 were wounded plus 200 killed. Then in the aftermath section it says the French lost 664 and the British some 656, which, considering that the British had only regulars and the French had mostly militia, would be a tactical French victory. Can someone therefore sort this out?

Did the French lose 1400 men or not? If not, then the aftermath should explain how the equal 600 casualties suffered by both still meant a British victory. (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I returned it to the traditional numbers. As discussed above ("Starting some editing"), one author has recently used 1,200 for the number of French casualties but it is not clear that this is widely accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inset depicting William Howe[edit]

I'm relatively new to this, but isn't the inset depicting William Howe actually a depiction of Sir William Johnson? In Wlliam Johnson'd article it is covered and these articles would support that - &,_1st_Baronet Is this enough to edit that particular section of the article?Rattusnorvegicus (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviews[edit]

Suggestions for improvements to bring article to Featured Article status can be found at the following Peer Reviews:

Definition of "decisive"?[edit]

I think there is a problem with listing the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (BPOA) as a "Decisive British victory" when both the article itself and the entry for the Battle of Sainte-Foy acknowledge that a much bloodier battle was fought in nearly the same place (Sainte-Foy) the following year after the BPOA. I think the two articles need to be reconciled as the entry for the BPOA is in conflict with the entry for the Battle of Sainte-Foy. Even in this entry for the BPOA it lists the British Naval victory off France's Quiberon Bay as "the decisive battle for this part of New France." So either the BPOA was decisive (which the two articles do not seem to support as written) or Quiberon Bay was and the BPOA should simply be listed as a "British victory." Either the text of the two articles is wrong (calling into question their source material) or the conclusion is wrong. Surely it is only by including elements of opinion that the term "decisive" could be applied here? ERWalton (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Being bloodier doesn't make it more decisive. The British took Quebec at the Plain of Abraham and still held it after the Battle of Sainte-Foy in which the French failed to achieve their goals (not decisive) and the British barely survived (not decisive). Rmhermen (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


I have been told a few things about this battle that, if verifiable, should be in the article.

One is that Montcalm repeatedly asked for reinforcements from France and was denied them. e,g. [1] has "as Berryer, Minister of Marine, said to Bougainville, with the house on fire in France, they could not take much thought of the stable in Canada."

Another is often framed as a trivia question. With both Wolfe & Montcalm dead, the two seconds in command negotiated the formal surrender; what language did they do that in? The answer is claimed to be Gaelic since both were Scots, of course with a Catholic Highlander for the French. (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hibbert 1964?[edit]

Ref #14 points to a "Hibbert 1964". Is this a typo for "Hibbert 1959", or was there another work by Hibbert that hasn't been included in the Bibliography? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Engraving at British Museum - Windsor Castle[edit]

When I was a teeneager visiting England, namely Windsor Cast le, I came across this engraving celebrating what was a considered a great victory for the English [2] i.e. Museum number 1849,1003.7. Description:

View of the St Lawrence river sweeping into the right foreground around Cape Diamond, with British troops rowing up from Cape Rouge to a breach in the cliff on the left, below a gun battery, while the defeated French troops are rowed from the cliff past the sloop of Captain York of the Royal Artillery, the Hunter sloop and the Leostaff frigate, towards Colonel Williamson's battery at Point Levy on the opposite bank on the right;

Is there a way of including this picture in the article itself and the wonderful appreciation it represents?TonyMath (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Old draft[edit]

I found what I think was a 2009 draft for this page that kind of vanished before this one started, now at Draft:Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Could someone check it against this version? It cites the same MacLeod book but with different page citations but I don't know. If so, be sure to cite that page for attribution purposes and we can redirect it afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Repeating here what I wrote to Ricky81682 on his talk page a few minutes ago.)
Good move. This very advanced draft should have been turned into an actual Wikipedia article a long time ago... somewhere in 2010...
Basically, this draft is the English translation of what is already live at fr:Bataille des plaines d'Abraham since (apparently) the 14th of July 2009[3]. That complete rewrite was possible in the French-language Wikipedia because the initial content was very weak, contrary to what was (and what still is) at Battle of the Plains of Abraham.
I would still suggest what I suggested on January 23, 2010[4] on the Talk page of Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I doubt that I will find time to work on this myself any time soon... it would be awesome if someone wanted to pick up where I left off... more than 6 years ago! :-) --Mathieugp (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)