Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

I started the article "Voyageurs" (from what was previously a redirect page) by copying the Voyageur section from the Coureur Des Bois article. Voyageur is an extensively used term, with a different meaning than Coureur Des Bois. It was discussed there that it should be a separate article. I used the plural form for the title because the singular is the title of a disambig page. Eventually the Voyageur material should get reduced in or removed from the Coureur Des Bois article, but I'm not going there now. The same for renaming the new article to "Voyageurs (fur trade)" as had been suggested in the disambig talk page in 2007. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work. Further tag-bombing is unnecessary to make this point. Please feel free to improve. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan / propose renaming this to "Voyageur (fur trade)". I don't want to "mis-fire" regarding the exact title, and so for now will just leave it here for comment and review North8000 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is doneNorth8000 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and shortly thereafter undone. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a sports team named the Voyageurs? Maybe minor hockey only, or maybe only school league...so inconsequential unless someone writes and article about them...and if it's a Quebec team, it would be Les Voyageurs anyway; a see also for Voyager seems also appropriate....about the space probe, maybe an older ship, too?Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is to the wrong James H. Baker but am not sure and so I left it for now. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was Secretary of State for Minnesota, and the reference is to a work on Minnesota history, so he's probably "da guy".Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have found an orphan article that I think should be merged into this one somehow: Engage Ouest. I'm wikilinking it now but ideally it should be a part of this article. Thanks! Kobuu (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Also merge templates added to both articles.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Merge what into this article? Just delete the other, or blank it and redirect it here, that title is not a phrase in English, it's a term in French, and um, I've never heard it - but then I've never read histories of Canada in French, though I can read French. Also that title should have an accent on the final 'e', I think; engagé. The wording "is term applied to Frenchmen who lived in Canada" is clueless; they were habitants, "Frenchmen" is a bit derisive, or can be, when used on canadiens also, when not just "quaint" or folksy. But "Frenchmen who lived in Canada" seems a European conceptualization of them...and not even good grammar; they were francophones from New France, period. This term may occur in French language histories of those times, but it's obscure....and not part of English. Anyways I see nothing there worth including/merging in this article; and there's no citation for the French term engagé ouest or engage ouest, either one. All it means is they were contracted/signed on, that's it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@skookum1, I already tagged it for deletion and was denied. It is a useful bit of info but probably doesn't warrant its own article. I agree, it should be deleted. As for where it comes from, I have no idea. I just found it during cleanup and figured that someone with more knowledge would want to grab it and throw it in here. I couldn't find anything on the web as far as sources either. And yes, I agree that the article is currently derisive and poorly written. Kobuu (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And uncited...so why wasn't it deleted? Who said no and why?? Lately there's been a rash of deletions for useful articles based on no third-party references, this one does not have useful information, if anything it has poorly-written information, has no corresponding article in French Wikipedia, even though it's a French term (if spelled right and it's not) and doesn't exist in English etc. Do you mean you db'd it or PROD'd it? We could just blank it and redirect it I guess; but.....it's weird that someone wouldn't authorize the deletion...who said no?Skookum1 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was Bbb23 but I used the "no content" delete tag (db). Technically there's content, just not a lot of it. Still learning the various db tags. Thanks for your input on this! Kobuu (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh wiki-technicalities only; damn why people can't loosen up and recognize garbage when they see it and not fuss over "rules" (which do not exist, per the Fifth Pillar). I dunno, try a {{prod}} tag or just a {{db}} tag...and hopefully someone less ana1 won't be the next person who looks at it.Skookum1 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah hahaha. Well, I've done the PROD tag now. We'll see. From what you're telling me, the little bit of text on that page isn't even relevant, nor correct. So having it deleted seems the best option. Again, thanks! Kobuu (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a Prod if we redirect it to here.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Redirecting here. That should take care of it. I've also removed the merge request from this article. Thanks both!! Kobuu (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the redirect can also be marked for deletion; nobody will ever search for that, except perhaps the page's author, and it's incorrectly spelled anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just browsing the content, which I note is much longer than the one in French Wikipedia - that one could use expansion based on what's here but I'm not the guy to do it; and it needs someone who knows Canadian French; I'm not sure if French Wikipedia has the same parameters in observing distinctions between forms of the language, as we do here in Wikipedia for Canadian/UK/US/Indian English, but you'd think so.

Anyways the point of this section is that song or quote that was made to J.H. Baker that's near the top reminded me of the huge collection of voyageurs songs, which are (or were) part of the educational curriculum for even anglophone Canadian children. Paddling songs, in other words. "V'la bon vent" is the one I remember most; I haven't ever looked to see if there's an article in English on the Quebec folk tradition, and by that I mean the "stock" songs identified with canadiens - "Alouette", "A la claire fontaine", "un canadien errant" (actually originally "un acadien errant") and more; the voyageurs songs are a subset, but a huge one. Some may survive in Metis communities in the Prairie West, but in my time (I was in elementary school in the '60s) they were part of the anglophone school curriculum in a big way.Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE "that sets them apart from the coureur des bois.", other than italicizing the French term, shouldn't that be coureurs des bois?Skookum1 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm assuming that you mean the singular/plural aspect. I think it would take someone who knows French to tell us whether or not coureur des bois is singular or plural or both. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In French, "les coureurs des bois" can be used, but "le coureur des bois" is still more common as a generalization. The French Wikipedia article title is "Coureur des bois", and uses the typical singular third person style to describe them. The French Wikipedia article for "Voyageurs" uses the title "Voyageur (fourrure)" too. I hope this helps. BTW, I have just read those two articles today on the English Wikipedia, and they were a good read. Great thanks for your work. For more opinions or details, if required, possibly that Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language could be used. PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks!!!!

So they are both OK, and coureur des bois is better. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehement no: response to very old and very wrong answer: it is always coureur(s) de bois regardless of number. The unit here is coureur(s) (runners, fig.). Considers how wrong "guns runners" sounds, for an analogy, or "Doctors of philosophies". If I see coureurs des bois I will kill it with fire Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed statement that the fur trade "developed alongside the coasts of North America." I assume they mean "along", but more to the point, isn't this factually wrong? I can't quite put my finger on how to phrase or even research my objection, but I am fairly certain that the fur trade was an inland phenomenon. Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]