Talk:Fort Carillon - Knowledge (XXG)

1535:

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!--

1626:, 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!-- 2412:

two Frenchmen against it. To push this further, I noticed that when asked to vote on French Knowledge (XXG) 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.--

2895:

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.)

1307:, 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.) 1981:

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?--

890: 954: 558: 537: 2525:"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.) 453: 348: 2205:

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.

432: 327: 2973:(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? 358: 568: 922: 970: 1019: 998: 1846:, 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.-- 2477:

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.

463: 1029: 938: 759: 1134:

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.--

906: 243: 222: 874: 253: 191: 831: 820: 809: 798: 2372: 717: 669: 1746:. 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. 1401:

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?--

2373:

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

787: 3025:

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

2995:

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.

2898:

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

2894:

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

2705:

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

2461:

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

2411:

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 Knowledge (XXG), you have 5 Canadians voting to have a separate article on Fort Carillon and

1621:

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.

1133:

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

3139:

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

2660:

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" --

1383:

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

2852:

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

2476:

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

2204:

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.

2031:

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

1928:

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

1534:

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

1171:

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

3219:

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,

2167:

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 Knowledge (XXG) site written on the Fort Ticonderoga" does not strike me as reliable. See also

2075:

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

1980:

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,

1912:

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

3095:

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

2950:

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

2439:

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

2023:

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

1656:

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

2939:

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

2583:

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

1677:

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

1768:, 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. 1400:

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

2879:

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

2825:

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."

1115:

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

2348:

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.

3116:

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

2394:

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?

3164:

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

2587: 2943: 2018:

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

2541:

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 Knowledge (XXG) to do it. If you are an unhappy man, don't take it out on

2334:

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

2267:

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!

1259:]. 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.-- 2639:

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

2129:. 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.) 961: 699: 2588:

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

2944:

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

2090:

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.

977: 703: 1907:

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

2499:. 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.-- 1872:

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.

1345:

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

2058:

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.

929: 913: 691: 687: 2940:

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.

1364:

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 Knowledge (XXG).

1860:

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

897: 683: 1549:

While I sympathize to some extent with this "high value" you claim (umm, 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

945: 695: 1188:

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

2999:

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.

1640:

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

2621:

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.

2951:

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

2207:

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.

1156:

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

153: 1569:

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

881: 679: 2240:

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

3072:

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?)

2805: 2007:

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.)

2827: 2820: 3419: 2247:

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.

3195:, 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. 3429: 1518:

is what we should use), this argument doesn't fly. You should also check your examples -- one of them is a Knowledge (XXG) mirror, and Youtube content is hardly to be considered reliable.

3414: 3349: 2122: 1429:

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

598: 2212:, 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!-- 3424: 2813: 2728:

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

1452:, 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 1273:

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

3399: 3389: 3021:

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

2126: 3379: 3165:

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!--

1164:

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

615: 3409: 2491:

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

2202:

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:

1089: 772: 729: 3394: 3384: 2753:, 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.-- 2433: 1913:

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.--

3374: 519: 414: 3439: 3404: 1079: 1239:

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?

651: 147: 1653: 2117:

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

758: 1593:

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

3329: 3314: 509: 404: 3344: 3238:

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?

641: 2227:

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.

1055: 605: 3334: 1743: 79: 3319: 2228: 2118: 1437:, 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 485: 380: 3369: 3354: 2607:

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.

2558:

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

610: 3434: 3359: 2819:

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

309: 1460:

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.)

1042: 1003: 724: 674: 3364: 3324: 3309: 85: 3339: 3299: 299: 476: 437: 371: 332: 1255:

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:

1786:

I am thus wasting my time for an encyclopedia that involves benevolant work. Furthermore, the harassments of MagicPiano are a real turnoff!--

1652:

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

581: 542: 3304: 733: 44: 2907:, 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. 1514:

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:

2661:

we know they exist. The problem is that that sort of description is demonstrably incomplete, since damage assessments are known to exist.

30: 275: 3191:"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 3007: 2462:

common sense to accept this fact. What is unimportant to you or a Frenchman, is of considerable importance to Canadians as a whole.--

593: 99: 2816:

he also wrote "Amherst renamed the captured fort Ticonderoga." I'd think he could be considered as authoritative as M. Lacoursière.

2706:

and Naval Affairs for that information), so I have no particular reason to accept their word over, say, that of the fort's owners.

1943:"You know that most historians state that Amherst had his 11,000 soldiers rebuilt Fort Carillon in 1759-60 after it's destruction" 104: 20: 1554:

has, for much of its history, been under some sort of German control. However, it is currently known by its Polish name, for the

3294: 3041:"It was to New France what West Point is to the United States today." Umm, sure. It was a military academy? Citation, please? 2562:

against you; as previously noted, I don't make it a practice to call people names (hence the quotations around "racist" -- it is

589:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2314:? With only my schoolboy French "une bonne partie" works out as "a good part" which in English idiom is not the same as "most" 2054:

You might take up your interesting assertion that the fort was destroyed in 1759 with its current owners: as Martin points out,

74: 1590:-- and certainly the most widely used -- of this structure is "Fort Ticonderoga", so this is what the article's name should be. 1433:, another French Canadian, whose translation work I have cheerfully improved). However, you really ought to do such work in a 1277:. The Carillon history (four years out of 30 or so active, 250 total) is disproportionately well represented in that article. 3026:

invasions (homeland security). Fort Ticonderoga is merely the fort itself. That is why Fort Carillon needs to be separate.--

1764:, pretty much dictate the use of "Fort Ticonderoga". Any potential encyclopedic reason (Varing's emotions, uncorroborated by 1331:

It seems superfluous to me to have a separate article when the content would fit comfortably in the Fort Ticonderoga article.

266: 227: 202: 3061:

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.

2121:

of the damage (key phrase: "The fort itself was not seriously injured" despite the damage done to the bastion and barracks).

1862: 168: 65: 3235: 2283: 1929:

French in 1759 is the King's magazine (Magasin du roi), not the entire fort which was slightly damaged but not destroyed.

1842:, which had a short life as a village and which occupied the land Montreal was built on, has a separate article. So does 135: 1723: 2566:

term, not mine). If you find these tactics offensive, I suggest you stop using them. (And how's that citation coming?)

1809: 2521:

Goodness gracious. Varing, where did I "want to discredit Jacques Lacoursière"? Here, let me turn it around: why do

1563: 1209:

is not relevant either -- we do what our sources tell us (is this refrain familiar to you?). Our sources tell us the

2233:

Here, "In 1759, French troops evacuated the Fort but not before blowing up the King's Magazine, "Le magasin du Roi"."

2232: 2854: 109: 1583: 2969:

Well, I'm not sure what relevance the second quote has to this discussion. The first quote points out that the

2642:

New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History, Last modified: February 18, 2006, URL:

129: 1578:(because that is the common name of the battle, just as the 1734 siege of the above Polish city is called the 889: 208: 3011: 1866: 2885: 2612: 2482: 2319: 2113:

You still need to cite your assertions; right now, you're just making sh*t up, because you have yet to cite

1813: 1389: 1336: 1034: 728:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 3192: 3003: 2729: 2169: 1761: 1555: 1210: 3022: 2849: 2750: 2391: 2311: 2264: 1579: 1205:

What other language WPs do is not relevant here (I've read the discussion on fr.wp, btw). What you think

953: 125: 2809: 2150: 1116:

additional content on the French period. What exactly do you think is missing from Ticonderoga article?

55: 1054:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

484:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

468: 379:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

363: 274:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2282:

Then what happened to the tower in this photo, the British missed it all together! Poor marksmanship!

70: 3246: 3203: 3148: 3104: 3081: 3049: 2981: 2915: 2840: 2783: 2740: 2714: 2669: 2630: 2574: 2533: 2453: 2403: 2357: 2252: 2180: 2137: 2095: 2067: 2040: 1972: 1933: 1881: 1828: 1812:, recreating their contents here is indeed a waste of time. I recommend you instead work on writing 1776: 1751: 1734: 1714: 1669: 1609: 1526: 1468: 1373: 1315: 1285: 1247: 1221: 1180: 1124: 573: 175: 2339:), these should be preferred. As Martin says, Lacoursière is not detailed in explaining the damage. 1760:

I was actually aware of that discussion. The fact that the names identify the same structure, plus

190: 3170: 3122: 3031: 2870: 2758: 2380: 2291: 2273: 2217: 1897: 1457: 1449: 161: 1658: 2904: 2881: 2608: 2478: 2315: 1805: 1575: 1453: 1385: 1332: 2996:

The old name is well-known, but certainly it is not treated historically as a a separate topic.

2236:

Fort Ticonderoga website : " the French abandoned the fort after blowing up the powder magazine"

1961: 1476:

There are many other sites having only Fort Carillon as their article or heading. Have a look:

557: 536: 1445: 1172:

the corruption surrounding the original construction), but these hardly merit an article fork.

2643: 1901: 1571: 51: 2025: 1642: 1158: 3276: 3225: 2958: 2900: 2858: 2801:? Volume 9 (1952): "The destruction of the fort was not as heavy as the French counted upon" 2686: 2651: 2595: 2547: 2504: 2467: 2417: 2336: 2239: 2158: 2081: 1986: 1948: 1918: 1851: 1801: 1791: 1683: 1631: 1594: 1540: 1503: 1489: 1438: 1406: 1351: 1264: 1196: 1139: 1051: 452: 431: 347: 326: 2775:, we must telephone M. Lacoursière? Did you ask him about what McLynn and Kingsford said? 2367:

Histoire Populaire du Québec, Volume 1, bottom of page 295. These are the same works as in

1957: 141: 3240: 3197: 3142: 3098: 3075: 3043: 2975: 2909: 2834: 2777: 2734: 2708: 2663: 2624: 2568: 2527: 2447: 2397: 2351: 2248: 2174: 2131: 2092: 2061: 2034: 1966: 1930: 1875: 1822: 1770: 1747: 1728: 1708: 1663: 1603: 1520: 1462: 1367: 1309: 1279: 1241: 1215: 1191:]. It's even separate in French on wikipedia, but not Konigsberg, goes into Kaliningrad.-- 1174: 1118: 2804:

I wonder what prompted William Nester to write: "Amherst occupy Fort Carillon in 1759."

1765: 1706:

of the other article, a significantly disproportionate share of the structure's history.

1515: 3166: 3118: 3027: 2866: 2754: 2376: 2287: 2284:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/FortCarillon.html

2269: 2213: 1742:

We've got exactly the same problem in WP:FR with the same contributors, as you can see

1430: 921: 481: 376: 2772: 3288: 2862: 2020: 1598: 1361: 586: 258: 24: 3035: 3015: 1623: 1434: 2681:, not repaired. There you have, and you cannot object to Government statements.-- 1456:), but you don't need more than a few sentences for that. (If you want to create 969: 2371:

that historian Jacques Lacourisière reprinted. You can have a look for yourself:

3272: 3221: 2954: 2682: 2647: 2591: 2543: 2500: 2463: 2413: 2235: 2154: 2077: 2055: 1982: 1914: 1847: 1787: 1679: 1627: 1536: 1499: 1485: 1402: 1347: 1260: 1192: 1135: 1112: 1698:

Talk about not letting go... I told you that "its historical achievements" are

1498:

I would take up your offer in a new article on the Carillon Flag. Thank You!--

1018: 997: 2942:

Jeanne Henriette Louis, Maître de Conférences à l'Université d'Orléans, p. 35

1956:

Furthermore, the next time you accuse me of racism, I'm going to report it to

1820:

descriptions have more relevance than they do in an article about a building.

1551: 1303:

Here's what one source says about the damage done to the fort in 1759 (Crego,

1047: 1024: 563: 458: 353: 248: 2436:

of the damage report to the fort. It is the most detailed I have seen yet:

1843: 1839: 1817: 1678:

understand? You defend Konigsberg as separate. I see no difference here!--

937: 905: 242: 221: 2390:

Thank you. You wrote "Your quick to discredit a highly known historian as

1559: 873: 585:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 1909: 3280: 3249: 3229: 3206: 3174: 3151: 3126: 3107: 3084: 3052: 2984: 2962: 2918: 2889: 2874: 2843: 2786: 2762: 2743: 2717: 2690: 2672: 2655: 2633: 2616: 2599: 2577: 2551: 2536: 2508: 2486: 2471: 2456: 2421: 2406: 2384: 2360: 2323: 2295: 2277: 2256: 2221: 2183: 2162: 2151:

http://theudericus.free.fr/Vermont/Ticonderoga/Ticonderoga_English.htm

2140: 2098: 2085: 2070: 2043: 1990: 1975: 1936: 1922: 1884: 1855: 1831: 1795: 1779: 1755: 1737: 1717: 1687: 1672: 1635: 1612: 1544: 1529: 1507: 1493: 1471: 1410: 1393: 1376: 1355: 1340: 1318: 1288: 1268: 1250: 1224: 1200: 1183: 1143: 1127: 271: 2010:

As far as the map is concerned, if I redrew the map to reflect all

1622:

But history is history, and you cannot erase it! Take the article

716: 668: 1722:

Since you and I appear to be at an impasse, I have listed this at

2848:

Wow, no wonder Varing left! It took two weeks to get a hold of

184: 15: 2832:

Please ask M. Lacoursière about why these writers are wrong.

1657:

claim exist bring something truly not available in English,

968: 952: 936: 920: 904: 888: 872: 757: 2732:

for providing the proper name for the article on the fort.

2644:

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/forts/fortsA_D/carillonFort.htm

1441:, improving the writing is, in my opinion, a waste of time. 1800:

Considering that decent-quality articles already exist on

2865:. Please don't be anti-Canadian. We are your friends!-- 2440:

greatest use to the conquerors, for bread could be baked.

1597:, and the British history would need to be summarized in 1046:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 375:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2586:État Politique de l'Angleterre, Jacques Genet, p. 226 2584:

fortress could take advantage of in nature and in art.

1152:

The examples you give (Istanbul and Kaliningrad) have

160: 2263:

Your quick to discredit a highly known historian as

770:

This article has been checked against the following

480:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 270:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3420:

North American military history task force articles

1649:

content that would double the size of that article?

855: 769: 174: 3430:United States military history task force articles 2677:The New York Government authorities mention that: 2028:and don't make dickish crypto-racist assumptions. 1562:. There are editors who objected to this, and a 1558:that it is now Polish, and is primarily known by 3415:C-Class North American military history articles 3350:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 2003:Please work on your reading comprehension. The 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3425:C-Class United States military history articles 2679:Rebuilt as Fort Ticonderoga 1759-60 by British 3400:European military history task force articles 3390:Canadian military history task force articles 1645:issues. Do you really think you can provide 1566:. Did everyone get their way? Of course not. 8: 3380:British military history task force articles 2799:Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Association 2210:l'explosion démolit une bonne partie du fort 1064:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New York (state) 742:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 3410:French military history task force articles 3395:C-Class European military history articles 3385:C-Class Canadian military history articles 2797:Do M. Lacoursière's sources extend to the 992: 962:North American military history task force 852: 766: 663: 531: 494:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British Empire 426: 389:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom 321: 216: 3375:C-Class British military history articles 1574:to the new name, and (3) do nothing with 978:United States military history task force 626:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 3440:Mid-importance New York (state) articles 3405:C-Class French military history articles 3267:does this signify "deep trenches" Or is 2933:Importance of Fort Carillon to Canadians 1947:Go through all of the sources listed in 1816:and other such articles, where military 1601:. This is not particularly productive. 1213:of the structure is "Fort Ticonderoga". 722:This article is within the scope of the 3265:...strongly fortified by high tranches: 994: 665: 533: 428: 323: 218: 188: 3330:Low-importance British Empire articles 3315:Low-importance United Kingdom articles 732:. To use this banner, please see the 3345:Low-importance United States articles 2024:claims to those lands, but I'm not a 1067:Template:WikiProject New York (state) 745:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 3335:All WikiProject British Empire pages 2076:the powder magazine was destroyed?-- 1040:This article is within the scope of 930:European military history task force 914:Canadian military history task force 579:This article is within the scope of 474:This article is within the scope of 369:This article is within the scope of 264:This article is within the scope of 3320:WikiProject United Kingdom articles 3260:strongly fortified by high tranches 2310:Is there an English translation of 898:British military history task force 497:Template:WikiProject British Empire 392:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3370:Fortifications task force articles 3355:WikiProject United States articles 2857:, and two goals each by Canadians 1960:. I've already warned you once to 1384:history of the site ends in 1759. 946:French military history task force 629:Template:WikiProject United States 284:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject France 14: 3435:C-Class New York (state) articles 3360:C-Class military history articles 2493:Fort Carillon or Fort Ticonderoga 1444:As far as the flag is concerned, 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2497:Fort Carillon - Fort Ticonderoga 1027: 1017: 996: 829: 818: 807: 796: 785: 715: 667: 566: 556: 535: 461: 451: 430: 356: 346: 325: 251: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3365:C-Class fortifications articles 3325:C-Class British Empire articles 3310:C-Class United Kingdom articles 2145:How about renaming the article 1951:, and quote excerpts from them. 1360:Right now, people who look for 1275:very first sentence of the lead 1084:This article has been rated as 646:This article has been rated as 514:This article has been rated as 409:This article has been rated as 304:This article has been rated as 3340:C-Class United States articles 3300:Low-importance France articles 2812:about the Battle of Carillon, 2229:Statement of a British officer 1945:I do not know this. Prove it. 1863:Ticonderoga (hamlet), New York 1: 3220:insults, and confrontation.-- 1058:and see a list of open tasks. 488:and see a list of open tasks. 383:and see a list of open tasks. 278:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3305:All WikiProject France pages 2245:Fort Ticonderoga Association 2198:Destruction of Fort Carillon 2147:Fort Carillon or Ticonderoga 1810:Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) 1043:WikiProject New York (state) 725:Military history WikiProject 3250:12:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3230:12:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3207:21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3175:20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3152:13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3127:05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3108:16:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3085:13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3053:00:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3036:03:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 2990: 287:Template:WikiProject France 3456: 3016:23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 2853:Cup with a Canadian coach 1832:01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 1796:01:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 1780:15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 1756:14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 1738:15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 1718:12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 1688:07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 1673:18:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 1636:19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1613:13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1545:01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1530:12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 1508:20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 1494:20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 1472:13:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 1448:should be translated into 1411:03:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 1394:20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1377:19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1356:17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1341:17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1319:16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1289:19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1269:17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1251:15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1225:19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1201:17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1184:15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1144:14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1128:14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1090:project's importance scale 790:Referencing and citation: 652:project's importance scale 520:project's importance scale 477:WikiProject British Empire 415:project's importance scale 372:WikiProject United Kingdom 310:project's importance scale 2919:21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2890:19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2875:19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2844:15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2787:14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2763:14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2744:13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 1654:searching books.google.fr 1516:what reliable sources say 1083: 1070:New York (state) articles 1012: 976: 960: 944: 928: 912: 896: 882:Fortifications task force 880: 851: 748:military history articles 710: 645: 582:WikiProject United States 551: 513: 446: 408: 341: 303: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3281:17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC) 2985:18:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 2963:18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2718:02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 2691:22:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 2673:17:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 2656:06:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 2634:20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2617:20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2600:18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2578:14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2552:14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2537:13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2509:12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2487:10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2472:04:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2422:04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2365:Certainly, it came from 1838:Recently I noticed that 587:United States of America 3295:C-Class France articles 3096:structure's existence? 2457:19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2407:19:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2385:16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2361:14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2324:10:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2296:16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2278:16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2257:10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2222:02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 2184:20:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 2163:12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 2141:20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 2099:20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 2086:19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 2071:12:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 2044:20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1991:19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1976:12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1937:09:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1923:00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1885:15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 1867:Ticonderoga, New France 1856:00:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 1564:major discussion ensued 1035:New York (state) portal 856:Associated task forces: 801:Coverage and accuracy: 500:British Empire articles 395:United Kingdom articles 2149:like in this article? 1584:Siege of Gdańsk (1734) 1580:Siege of Danzig (1734) 1446:fr:Drapeau du Carillon 973: 957: 941: 925: 909: 893: 877: 834:Supporting materials: 762: 632:United States articles 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 972: 956: 940: 924: 908: 892: 876: 761: 469:British Empire portal 364:United Kingdom portal 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 2749:I personally phoned 1814:Régiment de la Reine 574:United States portal 105:No original research 3023:Jacques Lacoursière 2850:Jacques Lacoursière 2751:Jacques Lacoursière 2434:Kingsford's account 2392:Jacques Lacoursière 2265:Jacques Lacoursière 1898:Chateau Saint-Louis 1724:WP:Proposed mergers 1154:very long histories 823:Grammar and style: 776:for B-class status: 600:Articles Requested! 3271:military jargon?-- 2991:What's to discuss? 2905:Battle of Carillon 1806:Battle of Carillon 1700:already documented 1576:Battle of Waterloo 1454:Battle of Carillon 1166:the same structure 974: 958: 942: 926: 910: 894: 878: 763: 730:list of open tasks 267:WikiProject France 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3236:those without sin 3006:comment added by 2255: 1902:Chateau Frontenac 1572:Waterloo, Belgium 1104: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1095: 991: 990: 987: 986: 983: 982: 847: 846: 792:criterion not met 734:full instructions 662: 661: 658: 657: 530: 529: 526: 525: 425: 424: 421: 420: 320: 319: 316: 315: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3447: 3243: 3200: 3145: 3101: 3078: 3046: 3018: 2978: 2912: 2901:Fort Ticonderoga 2859:Patrice Bergeron 2837: 2780: 2771:So, in order to 2737: 2711: 2666: 2627: 2571: 2560:your own tactics 2530: 2450: 2400: 2354: 2337:Fort Ticonderoga 2251: 2177: 2134: 2064: 2037: 1969: 1949:Fort Ticonderoga 1878: 1825: 1802:Fort Ticonderoga 1773: 1766:reliable sources 1731: 1711: 1666: 1606: 1595:Fort Ticonderoga 1523: 1465: 1439:Fort Ticonderoga 1370: 1312: 1305:Fort Ticonderoga 1282: 1244: 1218: 1177: 1121: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1061:New York (state) 1037: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1021: 1014: 1013: 1008: 1004:New York (state) 1000: 993: 863: 853: 837: 833: 832: 826: 822: 821: 815: 811: 810: 804: 800: 799: 793: 789: 788: 767: 750: 749: 746: 743: 740: 739:Military history 719: 712: 711: 706: 675:Military history 671: 664: 634: 633: 630: 627: 624: 576: 571: 570: 569: 560: 553: 552: 547: 539: 532: 502: 501: 498: 495: 492: 471: 466: 465: 464: 455: 448: 447: 442: 434: 427: 397: 396: 393: 390: 387: 366: 361: 360: 359: 350: 343: 342: 337: 329: 322: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 261: 256: 255: 254: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3455: 3454: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3285: 3284: 3262: 3241: 3198: 3143: 3099: 3076: 3044: 3001: 2993: 2976: 2935: 2910: 2835: 2778: 2735: 2726: 2709: 2664: 2625: 2569: 2528: 2448: 2398: 2352: 2200: 2175: 2132: 2115:a single source 2062: 2035: 2014:territories by 1967: 1905: 1876: 1823: 1771: 1729: 1709: 1664: 1604: 1560:its Polish name 1521: 1463: 1435:private sandbox 1425:Umm, you could 1368: 1310: 1280: 1242: 1216: 1175: 1159:size guidelines 1119: 1109: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1033: 1028: 1026: 1006: 861: 835: 830: 824: 819: 813: 808: 802: 797: 791: 786: 747: 744: 741: 738: 737: 677: 631: 628: 625: 622: 621: 620: 606:Become a Member 572: 567: 565: 545: 499: 496: 493: 490: 489: 467: 462: 460: 440: 394: 391: 388: 385: 384: 362: 357: 355: 335: 290:France articles 289: 286: 283: 280: 279: 257: 252: 250: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3453: 3451: 3443: 3442: 3437: 3432: 3427: 3422: 3417: 3412: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3392: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3372: 3367: 3362: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3342: 3337: 3332: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3312: 3307: 3302: 3297: 3287: 3286: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3111: 3110: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3056: 3055: 2992: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2966: 2965: 2946: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2896: 2830: 2823: 2817: 2802: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2766: 2765: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2619: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2123:Here's Parkman 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2032:mote in mine. 2029: 2008: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1953: 1952: 1940: 1939: 1904: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1870: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1650: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1591: 1567: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1442: 1431:User:Mathieugp 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1169: 1162: 1147: 1146: 1108: 1107:More emphasis? 1105: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1086:Mid-importance 1082: 1076: 1075: 1073: 1056:the discussion 1039: 1038: 1022: 1010: 1009: 1007:Mid‑importance 1001: 989: 988: 985: 984: 981: 980: 975: 965: 964: 959: 949: 948: 943: 933: 932: 927: 917: 916: 911: 901: 900: 895: 885: 884: 879: 869: 868: 866: 864: 858: 857: 849: 848: 845: 844: 842: 840: 839: 838: 827: 816: 805: 794: 780: 779: 777: 764: 754: 753: 751: 720: 708: 707: 680:Fortifications 672: 660: 659: 656: 655: 648:Low-importance 644: 638: 637: 635: 619: 618: 613: 608: 603: 596: 594:Template Usage 590: 578: 577: 561: 549: 548: 546:Low‑importance 540: 528: 527: 524: 523: 516:Low-importance 512: 506: 505: 503: 491:British Empire 486:the discussion 482:British Empire 473: 472: 456: 444: 443: 441:Low‑importance 438:British Empire 435: 423: 422: 419: 418: 411:Low-importance 407: 401: 400: 398: 386:United Kingdom 381:the discussion 377:United Kingdom 368: 367: 351: 339: 338: 336:Low‑importance 333:United Kingdom 330: 318: 317: 314: 313: 306:Low-importance 302: 296: 295: 293: 276:the discussion 263: 262: 246: 234: 233: 231:Low‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3452: 3441: 3438: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3428: 3426: 3423: 3421: 3418: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3406: 3403: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3368: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3358: 3356: 3353: 3351: 3348: 3346: 3343: 3341: 3338: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3328: 3326: 3323: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3313: 3311: 3308: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3298: 3296: 3293: 3292: 3290: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3259: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3244: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3201: 3194: 3193:WP:COMMONNAME 3190: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3109: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3094: 3093: 3086: 3083: 3080: 3079: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3024: 3019: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3008:71.173.90.177 3005: 2997: 2986: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948:From Eccles: 2947: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2920: 2917: 2914: 2913: 2906: 2902: 2897: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2882:GraemeLeggett 2878: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863:Brad Marchand 2860: 2856: 2855:Claude Julien 2851: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2831: 2829: 2824: 2822: 2818: 2815: 2811: 2808:Nester wrote 2807: 2803: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2788: 2785: 2782: 2781: 2774: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2731: 2730:WP:COMMONNAME 2723: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2704: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2620: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609:GraemeLeggett 2606: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2531: 2524: 2520: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479:GraemeLeggett 2475: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2444: 2438: 2437: 2435: 2431: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2402: 2401: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2316:GraemeLeggett 2313: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2197: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2171: 2170:WP:COMMONNAME 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2128: 2127:Here's McLynn 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2069: 2066: 2065: 2057: 2053: 2052: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2021:Nanfan Treaty 2017: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1879: 1871: 1868: 1865:, and not in 1864: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1767: 1763: 1762:WP:COMMONNAME 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1667: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1600: 1599:Fort Carillon 1596: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556:simple reason 1553: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1481: 1479: 1477: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1466: 1459: 1458:Carillon flag 1455: 1451: 1450:Carillon flag 1447: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386:GraemeLeggett 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1371: 1363: 1362:Fort Carillon 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333:GraemeLeggett 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1256: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1212: 1208: 1207:should happen 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1114: 1106: 1091: 1087: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1044: 1036: 1025: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1005: 1002: 999: 995: 979: 971: 967: 966: 963: 955: 951: 950: 947: 939: 935: 934: 931: 923: 919: 918: 915: 907: 903: 902: 899: 891: 887: 886: 883: 875: 871: 870: 867: 865: 860: 859: 854: 850: 843: 841: 836:criterion met 828: 825:criterion met 817: 814:criterion met 806: 803:criterion met 795: 784: 783: 782: 781: 778: 775: 774: 768: 765: 760: 756: 755: 752: 735: 731: 727: 726: 721: 718: 714: 713: 709: 705: 704:United States 701: 700:North America 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 676: 673: 670: 666: 653: 649: 643: 640: 639: 636: 623:United States 617: 614: 612: 609: 607: 604: 602: 601: 597: 595: 592: 591: 588: 584: 583: 575: 564: 562: 559: 555: 554: 550: 544: 543:United States 541: 538: 534: 521: 517: 511: 508: 507: 504: 487: 483: 479: 478: 470: 459: 457: 454: 450: 449: 445: 439: 436: 433: 429: 416: 412: 406: 403: 402: 399: 382: 378: 374: 373: 365: 354: 352: 349: 345: 344: 340: 334: 331: 328: 324: 311: 307: 301: 298: 297: 294: 277: 273: 269: 268: 260: 259:France portal 249: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 25:Fort Carillon 22: 18: 17: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3239: 3196: 3188: 3141: 3097: 3074: 3042: 3020: 3002:— Preceding 2998: 2994: 2974: 2970: 2949: 2938: 2908: 2833: 2810:a whole book 2798: 2776: 2733: 2727: 2707: 2678: 2662: 2638: 2623: 2604: 2582: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2526: 2522: 2496: 2492: 2446: 2396: 2370: 2366: 2350: 2244: 2209: 2203: 2201: 2173: 2146: 2130: 2114: 2060: 2033: 2015: 2011: 2004: 1965: 1944: 1906: 1874: 1821: 1769: 1727: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1662: 1646: 1624:Moon landing 1602: 1588:current name 1587: 1582:and not the 1519: 1461: 1426: 1366: 1308: 1304: 1278: 1274: 1240: 1214: 1206: 1173: 1165: 1153: 1117: 1110: 1085: 1041: 771: 723: 647: 611:Project Talk 599: 580: 515: 475: 410: 370: 305: 265: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3140:big deal.) 2773:verify this 2369:Nos Racines 2312:Lacoursiere 2253:// discuter 2119:one account 1211:common name 1113:User:Varing 812:Structure: 148:free images 31:not a forum 3289:Categories 3187:Why don't 2880:opinions. 2056:they agree 1748:Martin1813 1552:Baltic Sea 1048:U.S. state 3167:Mont-Joli 3119:Mont-Joli 3028:Mont-Joli 2867:Mont-Joli 2755:Mont-Joli 2605:construir 2377:Mont-Joli 2288:Mont-Joli 2270:Mont-Joli 2214:Mont-Joli 1844:Stadacona 1840:Hochelaga 1818:sartorial 1661:applies. 1659:WP:NONENG 1484:], etc.-- 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3004:unsigned 2814:in which 2432:Here is 1962:be civil 1704:take 40% 1586:). The 1111:Perhaps 1052:New York 773:criteria 692:European 688:Canadian 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3269:tranche 3117:here.-- 2096:// talk 2012:claimed 1934:// talk 1910:bigotry 1643:WP:SIZE 1088:on the 684:British 650:on the 518:on the 413:on the 308:on the 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3273:Wetman 3247:♪piano 3222:Varing 3204:♪piano 3149:♪piano 3105:♪piano 3082:♪piano 3050:♪piano 2982:♪piano 2971:banner 2955:Varing 2916:♪piano 2841:♪piano 2784:♪piano 2741:♪piano 2724:Update 2715:♪piano 2683:Varing 2670:♪piano 2648:Varing 2631:♪piano 2592:Varing 2575:♪piano 2544:Varing 2534:♪piano 2501:Varing 2464:Varing 2454:♪piano 2414:Varing 2404:♪piano 2358:♪piano 2249:Martin 2243:. As 2241:Point" 2181:♪piano 2155:Varing 2138:♪piano 2093:Martin 2078:Varing 2068:♪piano 2041:♪piano 1983:Varing 1973:♪piano 1958:WP:ANI 1931:Martin 1915:Varing 1882:♪piano 1848:Varing 1829:♪piano 1808:, and 1788:Varing 1777:♪piano 1735:♪piano 1715:♪piano 1680:Varing 1670:♪piano 1628:Varing 1610:♪piano 1537:Varing 1527:♪piano 1500:Varing 1486:Varing 1469:♪piano 1403:Varing 1374:♪piano 1348:Varing 1346:way.-- 1316:♪piano 1286:♪piano 1261:Varing 1257:] and 1248:♪piano 1222:♪piano 1193:Varing 1181:♪piano 1136:Varing 1125:♪piano 696:French 616:Alerts 281:France 272:France 228:France 205:scale. 126:Google 3242:Magic 3199:Magic 3144:Magic 3100:Magic 3077:Magic 3045:Magic 2977:Magic 2911:Magic 2836:Magic 2779:Magic 2736:Magic 2710:Magic 2665:Magic 2640:1777. 2626:Magic 2570:Magic 2542:me.-- 2529:Magic 2495:, or 2449:Magic 2399:Magic 2353:Magic 2176:Magic 2133:Magic 2063:Magic 2036:Magic 2005:story 1968:Magic 1877:Magic 1824:Magic 1772:Magic 1730:Magic 1710:Magic 1665:Magic 1605:Magic 1522:Magic 1464:Magic 1369:Magic 1311:Magic 1281:Magic 1243:Magic 1217:Magic 1176:Magic 1120:Magic 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3277:talk 3234:Let 3226:talk 3171:talk 3123:talk 3032:talk 3012:talk 2959:talk 2903:and 2886:talk 2871:talk 2861:and 2828:link 2821:link 2806:link 2759:talk 2687:talk 2652:talk 2613:talk 2596:talk 2564:your 2548:talk 2505:talk 2483:talk 2468:talk 2418:talk 2381:talk 2320:talk 2292:talk 2274:talk 2218:talk 2159:talk 2082:talk 2026:dick 1987:talk 1919:talk 1852:talk 1792:talk 1752:talk 1744:here 1702:and 1684:talk 1632:talk 1541:talk 1504:talk 1490:talk 1407:talk 1390:talk 1352:talk 1337:talk 1265:talk 1197:talk 1140:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3189:you 2953:.-- 2523:you 2445:-- 2125:. 2016:all 1647:new 1427:ask 1080:Mid 1050:of 642:Low 510:Low 405:Low 300:Low 176:TWL 3291:: 3279:) 3228:) 3173:) 3125:) 3034:) 3014:) 2961:) 2888:) 2873:) 2761:) 2689:) 2654:) 2646:-- 2615:) 2598:) 2590:-- 2550:) 2507:) 2485:) 2470:) 2420:) 2383:) 2375:-- 2322:) 2294:) 2286:-- 2276:) 2268:-- 2238:. 2231:. 2220:) 2172:. 2161:) 2153:-- 2084:) 1989:) 1964:. 1921:) 1854:) 1804:, 1794:) 1754:) 1726:. 1686:) 1634:) 1543:) 1506:) 1492:) 1482:], 1480:], 1478:], 1409:) 1392:) 1354:) 1339:) 1267:) 1199:) 1142:) 862:/ 702:/ 698:/ 694:/ 690:/ 686:/ 682:/ 678:: 156:) 54:; 3275:( 3224:( 3169:( 3121:( 3030:( 3010:( 2957:( 2884:( 2869:( 2757:( 2685:( 2650:( 2611:( 2594:( 2546:( 2503:( 2481:( 2466:( 2416:( 2379:( 2318:( 2290:( 2272:( 2216:( 2157:( 2080:( 1985:( 1917:( 1900:/ 1869:. 1850:( 1790:( 1750:( 1682:( 1630:( 1539:( 1502:( 1488:( 1405:( 1388:( 1350:( 1335:( 1263:( 1195:( 1168:. 1161:. 1138:( 1092:. 736:. 654:. 522:. 417:. 312:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index