Talk:History of Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Peaceful History?

I think the problem is that there is a theme running throughout the article about how peaceful Canada's history has been, and that included the whole Quebec independence issue. I then added a little comment to the article that pointed out the FLQ's brief terror campaign, which doesn't really fit with that overall theme.

Bloodless Birth?

Canada's birth is considered the least bloody of any nation's.

Oh? How about Slovakia, or any number of minor island nations (Britain pulling out of the Caribbean, for example, or the countries formed out of the former American Trust Territories in the Pacific)? The statement above may have been true before the wave of new countries that started in the late 1950s, but I can't see it being true any more. -- Paul Drye

Hey, and what about Australia... our origins are even less violent than Canada's! We were never involved in the French-Indian war, in the American Revolutionary War or in the War of 1812... -- SJK

Er, perhaps if we qualify nations to mean those with a certain amount of economic/military clout. Most G-8 nations fought quite hard to get where they are. Colin dellow

Joke

I do not think that '[Canada] is not part of the United States' is the type of in-joke many people outside of English-speaking Canada will understand.--branko

Dominion of Canada

This seems to be the talk space for Canada/Government, so I'll put this here.

I have removed the term "Dominion of Canada," which has not been used officially in decades. It began to fade in the 1930s. The federal government does not use Dominion of Canada for any purpose anymore. Dominion Day was renamed Canada Day in 1982, the same year as the repatriation of the constitution under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Cite - note items 27 and 28 of the bibliography. For another example, the term dominion does not appear anywhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a search of the Government of Canada website does not turn up any current official usage of the term "Dominion of Canada."

I am a little insulted that it was changed back so soon after I edited it the first time, with no explanation. If you feel compelled to ignore the foregoing and change it back, I would appreciate an explanation here in /talk.

- montréalais

The original source for this page is the U.S. government which feels that the formal name of Canada is the Dominion of Canada. They could be incorrect. Just because a name isn't used anymore doesn't make it incorrect. We should probably ask the Canada government on this. --rmhermen

I did, and I'm correct.

As I say, it's true the name was formerly used. Therefore, I will update the entry to read, "Formerly Dominion of Canada". But it is simply wrong to quote an obsolete name as if it were current.

FWIW, the CIA World Factbook says Canada and not Dominion of Canada. [ cite ] montréalais

Quebecers vs. Quebecois

Actually, all Québécois ARE Francophone. All Quebecers are not, however. A Québécois, in English, is one of the inhabitants of Quebec descended from the French colonists thereof. I, for example, am a Quebecer but not a Québécois. - montréalais

I disagree with this definition - I have generally found that the term "Quebecois" implies a separatist/Quebec-nationalist sentiment, especially when self-imposed, while the term "Quebecker" is sort of synonymous (though less formal) than "French Canadian" or "Canadien/ne Francais/e".

Also, not all descendants of the French colonists are francophones, even if they live in Quebec.

- Bergevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.96.99 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Do you say in English that a "Français" is a french speaking-nationalist inhabitant of France while a "French" is any inhabitant of France? With the same logic, do you say that a "Mexican" is an English speaking person living in Mexico and a "Chinese" is an English speaking living in China? Certainly not. It's the same thing for Quebec. The primary definition of the word Quebecer is an inhabitant of Quebec. "Québécois" is the translation of this word in French, just like "Ontarien" is the French word for someone living in Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorxd (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada's Paramount Political Problem: Language

The last paragraph mentions that Canada's 'paramount political problem' is the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I seem to have heard somewhere, though, that it is more the treatment of French-speaking minorities in provinces where the majority speaks English, and the treatment of English-speaking minorities in predominantly French-speaking provinces, that forms a problem.

It seems that Canada tries to present itself as a bi-lingual country, yet in almost any text I read on Canada, the tone seems to be 'Canadians speak English—and oh yeah, we've got some quaint French-speaking folk who have their own province, but don't worry, as long as you stay in Montreal, everybody will be able to speak English with you.'

Perhaps this is just to pacify US American tourists, who would perhaps dread to go a country where they cannot speak the language. It is the same tone that any tourist brochure for Amsterdam uses. Still, in how far is Canada really, deep-down bilingual?

Also, a question for JHeijmans: what age would you compare the pre-European settlers with, if not stone-age?--User:Branko

Canada is bilingual in that it contains both anglophone and francophone regions. The majority of Canadians are English-speaking but the French-speaking population is significant both numerically and historically. For that reason, all federal services are available in both languages. However, it is much easier to get services in English in Quebec than services in French in (say) Saskatchewan. But the characterization you mention - especially the first clause - is unfair and is probably advanced for the reason you suspect. French-Canadians do not constitute some quaint backwater - Montreal is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world.

Please note also that this isn't "Canada's paramount political problem" and hasn't been for a number of years. It's simply the most famous. Medicare, unemployment, housing, education, and the environment are regarded as much more urgent by many more people. - montréalais

Pictures

Now that this article is getting to be rather long, it seems like it could use some pictures to make it more interesting...I don't really know what kind of pictures, or where to get them, etc etc, but hopefully someone will have some ideas. Adam Bishop 22:01 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Addition

Alright, I added everything I thought was appropriate...everything since about 1900 may be too much, I think I compensated for my lack of real knowledge by just writing a lot. On the other hand, maybe everything before about 1900 just needs to be expanded. I still think it could use some pictures of some kind. I also noticed when I was editing that the page is now over 32 kilobytes or whatever the magic number is, so perhaps it should be split into smaller articles (and those could be expanded, I guess). Adam Bishop 23:00, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1937 Royal Vetos?

Royal Assent says that the (British) Crown vetoed several bills in 1937 and dissolved the Canadian legislature, but nothing of particular note in 1937 is mentioned here. What happened in that year? --Delirium 09:40, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

No idea...I'll see if I can find some more definite info, but a quick Google search says the Alberta legislature was dissolved in 1937, not 1936. So it would seem those two lines in Royal Assent refer to the same thing. Adam Bishop 15:12, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Canadian political scandals

For those familiar with the political history of politics, the list of Canadian political scandals is in need of lots of help. Thanks! --Alex S 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat

French & Dutch, Champlain 1604

This whole article is duplicated by the Pre-Confederation and Post-Confederation sections. Why not merge, rather than repeat the same material? How do the Dutch figure in the history of New France? Maybe further south in the American colonies, but I have never heard of them having any significant role in the history of New France. Since 2004 is the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain's arrival, how come nobody has mentioned his arrival in Ste Croix, Acadia in 1604 with Pierre Du Gua de Monts (c1558-1628). They have erected statues in Paris and in Nova Scotia this year to Champlain. --142.154.32.56 18:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New France Nouvelle-France

Re the recent change of wording to "England and the thirteen colonies". I can't see how this improves upon "the English" since up to the American revolution they were one and the same. To be picky we could say "the British" since Great Britain took effect in 1707 with the union of Ireland to form the United Kingdom. Since a history of Canada is written from the viewpoint of Canadians, New France called their opponents "les Anglais" (the Québécois still do, regardless of whether English-speakers are of English, Chinese or Polish origin), and I think it is better to use this term. Also "the English" matches the "Hurons" and the "Iroquois". There is no doubt that American colonists were particularly hostile to New France, but the elimiantion of New France also served imperial interests. This is a potted history. For more detail see Pre-Confederation History.

Is there really a need to enumerate every ethnic group that lived in the 13 colonies who wanted New France destroyed? Why not also mention the Irish, the Germans, etc. Indeed one could mention other Indian nations besides the Hurons and the Iroquois. Enumerations make articles lengthier than they need to be. The people of New France called their enemies "les Anglais" pure and simple. The settlement of Quebec was not a city in 1608 and using such terminology is anachronistic. Nor were the so-called St Lawrence lowlands (St Lawrence Valley?) settled in 1608. If you want more detail, see the section on Pre-Confederation History before making changes here. Also be careful about names like Quebec, Canada, New France and Acadia. New France includes Acadia, Canada, Louisiana and the Missisippi Valley. Read the French equivalent articles in Wikipedia français before making changes to the English versions. Quebecers know their history. And as with all history, there are different takes on the same event - an American sees certain events differently from a Canadian and a Québécois sees them differently from an English-Canadian. We can accommodate different points of view, but should try to arrive at a common terminology if that is possible. --BrentS 04:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We don't really need to add anything here at all, deeper details are for the pre- and post-Confederation pages, that's why the page was split up in the first place. Adam Bishop 16:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Constitution 1867 significance

Message sent to Vasile. History of Canada. Perhaps both points of view could be accommodated without lengthening the article too much. The fact of a constitution being granted is merely that, a fact. The significance of the BNA Act is that it granted virtual independence - the British expected Canada to pay for their own military, and reserved only foreign affairs to London. Foreign affairs were taken over by Canada between 1919-23. It was also Canada's choice to allow the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to remain the final court of appeal. Canada had the power to end appeals.

By the BNA Act (1867), there is no diminution of the legal British authority over the new entity. --Vasile 15:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree that the BNA Act granted "virtual independence." It was not only "foreign affairs" that London reserved for itself. Until the Statute of Westminster, London could still legislate for Canada in Canadian domestic matters. Canada's highest court was still in London until 1949. Canada could not amend its own constitution in 1867, nor was there any such thing as Canadian citizenship. Canada was still a colony in 1867, just one that had won a degree of autonomy within the empire. This does not, however, mean that it had "virutal independence." HistoryBA 19:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Vasile. I was wondering why you changed "granted viritual independence" to "granted a Constitution". I had chosen the previous wording with care as most people outside Canada think Canada had little independence after 1867. In fact one of the motivating factors for the British was to reduce their military expenditures in Canada and they withdrew their armed forces as soon as they could in 1871 (only the Red River Rebellion of 1870 prevented an earlier withdrawal). That really left only foreign affairs which was not resolved until the early 1920s. Of course the BNA Act was a Constitution but it was written by Canadians, not UK parliamentarians who took almost no interest in the bill, and certainly did not draft it. To say the UK parliament granted Canada a constitution implies that it was gracious of them to do so, when in fact they merely complied with Canadian wishes, and were anxious to avoid any further expense in Canada. I wish you would restore the earlier wording. Persons who want to know more about the constitution need only consult the more detailed articles listed at the bottom of the page or via links. The agreement has been to keep this page to a bare minimum.--BrentS 03:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Some discussion of what the phrase "self-governing Dominion" meant would be welcome from history students. Apart from foreign affairs (and that often included fishing treaties, commercial treaties, boundary settlements, etc.), are there any examples where the British interfered with Canadian domestic affairs, except at the specific request of the Dominion government? It would be better to keep this section short and to the point, and transfer lengthy analyses to the Constitution articles. the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a case in point. Perhaps a law student could tell us if the Dominion government had the power to end appeals to the Judicial Committee from 1867? For example, when Alexander Mackenzie created the Supreme Court in 1875, could he and the Canadian Parliament have ended Privy council appeals then? Was the decision to continue appeals more political in nature, or was there a legal impediment? Just curious. --BrentS 17:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pilots in the First World War

What evidence supports the assertion that Canada produced more pilots during the First World War than any other country? HistoryBA 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that could be proven, or if it may even be true, but wouldn't one standing fact be that we had the great dogfight pilot Billy Bishop?

1920's and 1930's

Something about the 1920's and 1930's needs to be added into this article. There are somesingfancgent events that happened in this time, including the Mantioba General Strike and the Great Depression (which is a very major event in Canada's history)--JesseMueller 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might give it a crack but not right away. What themes have you in mind? the usual ones are economic (post-WWI depression, prosperity, Great Depression, rise of automobile, petroleum & pulp and paper industries), social (political participation of women, waning of temperance movements), political (expansion of federal govt, diplomatic autonomy, Rowell-Sirois Commission, nationalization of railways, creation of CNR, CBC, protest parties - Progressives, Social Credit, CCF; Maritime Provinces dissatisfaction). A lot of possible themes but very little space. How many of these topics are already covered by articles?--BrentS 18:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added a moderately sized bibliography Rjensen 07:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of books on Canadian history. Should we have some sort of criteria to govern what we will and will not include here? For example, do we really need a book on Mackenzie King and the prairies? HistoryBA 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed because there are thousands of books the user needs help. The bibliography should cover the major issues and the major books. I expect users will browse through looking for topics of interest. So I recommend adding good books rather than deleting good books. Rjensen 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Publisher makes the case for broad interest: "Guiding us through a maze of western issues, from tariffs to freight rates, Wardhaugh analyzes the political management of the prairie west by Canada's longest-serving prime minister. He argues that Mackenzie King courted the prairies as long as western settlement was central to national economic development, but changed his attitude during the Depression years when the region became a financial burden. King's sympathy for western concerns abated even further, says Wardhaugh, during the years of war and post-war reconstruction, when the emphasis was on industry and, more precisely, the manufacturing concerns of central Canada. The decline of Liberal Party's influence in the west thus paralleled the growing divide between the region and central Canada. This study provides a meeting ground for a number of interlocking themes. In analyzing Mackenzie King's treatment of the prairies, Wardhaugh creates a comprehensive view of the process of western alienation, at the same time clarifying the differing political interests of the three prairie provinces." Rjensen 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still searching for some criteria here. Do you agree that there are thousands of books on Canadian history and that we should not include all of them? If yes, which books do you think we should include and which should we not include? You seem to be suggesting above that we should include any books praised by their publisher. Or am I misunderstanding the principle on which your previous argument was made? HistoryBA 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right about publisher blurbs (I only used it to show the Prairie book was very broad). To find the best books I rely heavily on Taylor ed. Canadian History: A Reader's Guide. Vol. 1. 1994. and v2 by Doug Owram, (also the older A Reader's Guide to Canadian History: 2 vol (1982)] and The Dictionary of Canadian Biography, plus book reviews in the journals, as well as the bibliographies in recent textbooks, and the footnotes of scholars. Lots of people have worked over these and we're on solid ground recommending what they recommend. One problem is that books may not exist on topics we want to see covered. (A solution: dip into the journal articles, especially using ABC-CLIO. Would that be useful to users?) Of course selection is the name of the game in writing encyclopedia articles--otherwise the main text of the article could easily be 100 pages! Rjensen 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Some missing bits

---

Someone should mention the Metis revolts and Papineau's revolt. Maybe minor but...

---

Does anyone else here feel qualified to discuss Louis Riel and the Metis? Or shall I dig out my one book on Canadian history? -- Vicki Rosenzweig

Go for it. I think I can get to the 1837 rebellions in a day or two. -- Paul Drye

Great. I wrote an article on Riel; now I need to put something in the Canada article. --Vicki Rosenzweig

---

Lacking, so far, a section on the Northwest Rebellions, I added "see also Louis Riel. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

I've just expanded parts of the article...I can go up to the North-West Rebellion pretty well (which I will do later), but anything after that is not really my strong point. I'll see what I can do...this article really should be more complete. Adam Bishop 19:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Should "Basque exploration" really by first? Should we not cover some native history after the lead?

Also why not the Viking settlement in NFL? Et ou sont les images? And why do I keep asking questions but not making statements? Marskell 11:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It also strikes me as an utter oddity that the History of Canada begins with mention of the likeliness of Basque fishermen crossing the North Atlantic. These vessels probably had all-male crews and did not establish any permanent presence in North American lands whatsoever. Why not mention the activities of medieval Breton, Icelandic and Galician fishing ventures as well? And why no mention of permanent Norse settlements in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence centuries before those fishing (ad)ventures? And why no mention of what is known (or hypothesized) about human migrations and societies before Norse, Basque, Breton, Galician and other Western European explorations? Big Adamsky 10:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact is going to be mentioned, L'Anse aux Meadows (the viking settlement in NFL mentioned above) was the first, and therefore, the most important. Basque whalers who spent 200 years fishing off the coast get a whole section, but the first nations who arrived 16,000 years ago get half a sentence? I'm going to try to fix it, and we'll see what happens. -- TheMightyQuill 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should also be some consideration of John Cabot? Maybe at least mention his name? His exploration was the beginning of Canada's economy under Harold Innis' Staples Theory which is still relevent today. Besides, he got a Heritage Minute; I think he at least deserves mention here. Kireton 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if I hadn't just yesterday discovered Pre-Confederation history of Canada which does mention John Cabot. Obviously I'm not the only one to miss the pre & post confederation history pages. See my comments under "Organisation" below. -- TheMightyQuill 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Organisation

This article should be broken down into series like History of Germany. Please propose a division so we can do that. --Jiang

---

I realise now that I didn't need to write whole new sections for First Peoples or Pre-Columbian Contact, since they already existed on Pre-Confederation history of Canada. The overlap of this page with Pre & Post Confederation pages is really bizarre. What decides which topics are listed here? The talk page is full of people asking where this or that are, since they aren't listed here, and the rather small template links are barely noticeable, and not integrated into the article. Can we organize these pages differently? Strictly by dates rather than by issue? -- TheMightyQuill 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is my Proposal for serious changes to this page, and related history of Canada pages. History of Country pages are supposed to be divided into periods with links to the main pages. Redlinked pages will be separate, but the first two will just be paragraphs on tha main History of Canada page.

Sections:

• Pre-Contact
• Early Contact
• New France
• Canada under British Imperial Control (1764-1867), including:
  • French vs. English Wars
  • The American Revolution
  • The War of 1812
  • The timber trade
  • "Responsible government" and the Rebellions of 1837-38
  • Lord Durham's report
  • Act of Union (1840)
• Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914), including:
  • Confederation
  • The Red River Rebellion
  • Expansion westward
  • Macdonald's "National Policy"
  • The North-West Rebellion
  • The Manitoba Schools Question
  • Population of the West
  • Red River Rebellion
  • The Boer War
  • North West Rebellion
  • Laurier's Government
• Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years, including:
  • WWI
  • Halifax Explosion
  • Great Depression
  • Ww2
• History of Canada (1945-1960), including:
  • Canada and the Cold War
  • (?)
• History of Canada (1960-1981), including:
  • Flag Debate
  • Quiet Revolution
  • October Crisis
  • Trudeau and the 1970s
  • 1980 Quebec Referendum
• History of Canada (1982-1992), including:
  • Patriation
  • Mulroney & Free Trade Agreement
  • Meech Lake
  • Gulf War
  • Oka Crisis
• History of Canada (1992-Present): including:
  • Chretien
  • 1995 Quebec Referendum
  • (?)

So, (Canada 1945-1960) and (Canada, 1992-Present) clearly need more subsections. Can you make some suggestions before I divide them up like this? -- TheMightyQuill 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You have the right idea,. However, I think the page was divided the present way because the subject in often taught in Canadian high school and universities broken into pre- and post- Confederation. However, I much prefer your system, but because it is just one person's idea rather than a common practise, it will be harder find and maintain agreement among editors. For example, I could argue that your division is an example of recentism by relegating the entire 150 year New France era to one section, but giving ten years between 1982 and 92 a whole section as well. So be prepared to defend every conceivable choice to make changes to your plan. Kevlar67 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's a valid criticism that it focuses a lot more on 20th century history than anything before that, but I don't think that's the concern mentioned in Wikipedia:Recentism. I wouldn't be writing about current events. How close to the present should the history go? The year 2000? Or right up to the present? The histories of both Germany and the states divide up the 20th century while leaving huge eras of the past as single sections. It's hard to avoid. If anyone has other divisions please suggest them. Otherwise I'll make these changes next week. -- TheMightyQuill 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've prepared it. Please see Wikipedia:Sandbox/History_of_Canada. The connected pages (listed above) have been created. It needs some work before we replace the original pages. Please help. -- TheMightyQuill

The History of Canada should not be broken down. (The History of Germany is a poor example--they were a dominant European power for 1000 years.) The point is that users come for different purposes and all of them should be served. Some want a 5-minute summary (they get that at Canada). Some want the 20-minute summary (they get that here at History of Canada). Some want bibliography and guides to reading. They get that here. And some want in-depth discussion of particular points. They get that in the subarticles. The Wiki goal should be to serve all groups simultaneously, which is what we do now. Rjensen 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The current article is already too long. A number of people have come and wondered why things are missing. The History of the United States is no older than Canada's, yet it is broken down. The History WikiProject also encourages a summary style. I think the Summary Style Wikipedia:Sandbox/History_of_Canada article could provide (with work) the 20-minute summary you suggested. My two sentence summaries should be much longer. Currently, this page leaves too much out to be considered the whole history of canada, but no one seems to notice the subsections, because the main article isn't in summary style. I'm not suggesting we need to have a tiny page here (seriously, look at History of the United States - it's huge). -- TheMightyQuill 12:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For instance, you just added details, including a quotation, to the main history of canada page, that are already listed on Post-Confederation history of Canada. This is creating two totally redundant pages. -- TheMightyQuill 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

French Can in ww1

"The very real enthusiasm French Canadians had expressed at the beginning of the war was quickly dissipated and even transformed into icy hostility." Brown and Cook Canada 1896-1921 p 264 For many French-Can the enemy was here at home not on the Western Front: Bourassa was the leader, saying in 1915:

"The enemies of the French language, of French civilization in Canada, are not the Boches on the shores of the Spree; but the English-Canadian anglicizers, the Orange intriguers, or Irish priests. Above all they are French Canadians weakened and degraded by the conquest and three centuries of colonial servitude. Let no mistake be made: if we let the Ontario minority be crushed, it will soon be the turn of other French groups in English Canada." [in Mason Wade v 2 p 671

Rjensen 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide your sources. HistoryBA 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Split

Actually, it's not exactly a split I'm suggesting, but a reorganisation. Please see the discussion above at Talk:History of Canada#Organisation. I thought this might draw people's attention. -- TheMightyQuill 10:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Themightyquill's proposal: create a structure similar to that dealing with the history of Germany. HistoryBA 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's support from User:Jiang, User:Kevlar67, User:HistoryBA, and from the History Wikiproject. Rjensen has opposed, but not responded to my arguments. I'm going to be bold and change it. Hopefully it won't be reverted without discussion. -- TheMightyQuill 09:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad mistake in my opinion to not have a history of Canada article that people can print out and read. Many users will be frustrated and as far as I can see no one is going to gain from it. The Sanddbox proposed text tells so little--it will not be of much value to anyone interested in an overall view of the country--and that includes I suggest most people outside Canada. Rjensen 12:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The sandbox article should be extending into a full summary the history of Canada "that people can print out and read." But the summary style is still important. Each of those sections can be much longer, and still describe a given period. If you're willing to help improve the sandbox article, I'm more than willing to wait until it's decent before switching, but an underconstruction template should be added to keep people from working on the existing page. -- TheMightyQuill 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2 Problems with the Article

there are too problems: short summaries are not what readers need, and 2) the underlying subarticles are very old fashioned and do not reflect the surrent state of textbooks and classes. Rjensen 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then lengthen the summaries. Which subarticles do you think should be updated? Should we start a History of Canada Wikiproject to work on this? -- TheMightyQuill 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

European Contact

I think it's a bit of an understatement to saying that smallpox killed off whole villages, when this page says:

The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people—in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."

But still, thanks for contributing postively. -- TheMightyQuill 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing Items

There are a number of items in Category:History of Canada that have not been mentioned anywhere in the history of Canada series. Please check and add them to the appropriate page. -- TheMightyQuill 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada under British Imperial Control 1764-1867

bad summary that looks at 1760s and ignores 95 years out of 100. -- Rjensen 13:01, 12 May 2006

Yeah, somehow I totally left out the U&L Canada rebellions, not to mention the act of union. I'll try to add them in if I have time, but if you feel like it, please do. -- TheMightyQuill 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Post-Confederation Canada 1867-1914

pretty old fashioned summary that leaves out social and cultural history--as well as woman;s huistory, urban history, education history, cultural forces and immigration. Poor job. -- Rjensen 13:01, 12 May 2006

I agree. This should definitely be improved. -- TheMightyQuill 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada in World Wars and Interwar Years

Canada's involvement in the two World Wars demonstrated its increased importance on the world's stage, --which is not true at all-- but intensified conflicts at home. in ways we do not explain The interwar years Great Depression had lasting results on Canada's politics and economy. but we do not tell what they are we tell zero about social history, women, ideas, culture here.-- Rjensen 13:01, 12 May 2006

I agree again. Please feel free to expand. -- TheMightyQuill 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

topics that need to be covered

Each section needs to have a coverage of topics in social, economic and cultural history. For example for early 19th century:

• Loyalists
• First Nations
• Social, cultural and demographic history
• middle class
• working class
• population change, health
• Women
• Education
• Culture
• Economic history
• Railways
• Lumber, Fishing, Mining
• Banking and merchants
• War of 1812
• Constitutional history
• Reponsible Government
• Hudson's Bay Company history

Sure thing. Topics like middle class, working class, population change, women, culture, economic history, and first nations should probably be mentioned in each sub article as well. -- TheMightyQuill 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Intercolonial Wars vs European Wars

French and Indian Wars states that they were known as the Intercolonial Wars. I'm okay with calling them the French and Indian Wars, or Intercolonial wars, but to say "Canada's Role in the European Wars" sounds like Canadians were fighting in Europe, and doesn't specify which European wars. As far as I can tell, there is no term describing this series of wars in Europe. Are they are only seen as a series in the North American context? I'll make it clear in the article that they were connected to European Wars, hopefully that will satisfy everyone. -- TheMightyQuill 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

intercolonial wars suggests that two colonies went to war with each other. That did not happen. Instead Britain and France went to war with each other in Europe, and their colonies tagged along. Rjensen 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. -- TheMightyQuill 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vast Bibliography?

Is this bibliography not a little long to be on this page? Is there any way we could trim it, or better yet, split it into List of Books on Canadian History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs)

I agree. I raised this issue above under "Bibliography", but didn't find anyone else who agreed with me. HistoryBA 19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry for not signing. Anyway, there's a Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide and a Bibliography of work on Objectivism so I don't see why we shouldn't have a Bibliography of Canadian History. I'll transfer it and put in a link. -- TheMightyQuill 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a short, highly selective list of the most useful books for general readers. A separate article would run several hundred books and serve a different audience--this is for people who want to explore broad themes (rather than specialized topics). Rjensen 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with you, but a quick count shows the bibliography lists 77 books. I realise that's still very far from a complete bibliography of Canadian history, but including them all on the main page is too much. If you look around, you'll notice other history pages don't include such an extensive bibliography, or even a link to one. -- TheMightyQuill 08:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source of Images

• Library and Archives Canada - The Canadian West

Some of these might be helpful. -- 193.6.218.9 14:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

please reword carefully

The article seems to be in need of some restructuring since the choice of described facts appear to generate a biased view on Canada's history. While certainly written with honest and sincere intent some sections present polarizing opinions rather than an unbiased chronology. Please refrain from subjective judgements of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.69.83 (talk)

I am not at all sure what you are driving at. Would you mind being more specific, or providing an example? HistoryBA 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Oxymoronic

South of the border you cannot find any Canadian history. It doesn't exist. Chivista 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New Template

I've been working on a new template for the Histories of the Provinces. See here:

Do you think we need it? And is this the right format for it? Thanks. Kevlar67 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada: Sovereign or not?

I came to this article curious to learn how Canada became a sovereign nation. I think the article does a good job of explaining it for the most part. However, when I got to the British North America Acts article, I see that as late as 1975 the British parliament is tinkering with Canada's government. It would be helpful if this article could clarify exactly how sovereign is Canada at this point, and what does the British parliament retain the power do do? Sylvain1972 13:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC) British North America Acts

Technically, the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor could interfere with Canadian politics, but the last time this was done to any degree was the King-Byng Affair in 1926. More info can be found at Commonwealth of Nations - TheMightyQuill 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful.Sylvain1972 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Canada does not belong to United States... ?

I have a question regarding Canadian history that i still do not understand and in the article is written like it were something very obvious..

"It was not allowed to consider joining the U.S"

Why this statement ? If Canada were a British Colony why they do not join the United States ?

Thank you !!

That (poorly worded) sentence actually referred to just Newfoundland, not all of Canada. They could technically have tried to join the United States, but it wasn't popular enough to make it an option on the Newfoundland referendums, 1948. As for the rest of Canada joining the United States earlier, it's more or less the same... they could have joined, but it wasn't popular. Many United Empire Loyalists actually left the United States and moved to British North America (which would later be Canada) out of loyalty to the King. - TheMightyQuill 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people in Newfoundland considered joining the US after ww2 but they did not have democracy or a voice in their own future, so the option was not offered them. Rjensen 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel like re-writing that section to make that more clear? It isn't stated outright even in the Newfoundland referendums, 1948 article, i don't think. - TheMightyQuill 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I just now revised the 1948 article. Rjensen 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Important Canadian Historians

I noticed that my work indetifying some credible historians has been removed. I selected these individuals based on field of study, publication history and, to a lesser extent, institution of employment. Since the majority of this article is based on the work of popular historians, I thought it would be beneficial to add some credibility to the article by at least providing the names of properly trained historians. I covered a broad range of topics (poltical, environmental, educational, medical, martial...to name a few.) No reason for this to be removed. I would happily work on the biographies of each historian to flesh out the section and give individuals a chance to locate some of their books/articles.

Should be included based on the weakness of the "list of canadian historians." Too many people that are merely authors, and not trained historians, appear on the list (Conrad Black, Peter Newman). This would allow those interested in the "history of Canada" to actually see what historians are important NOW, and where they are employed. I'm just stating this based on the last edit, which stated something like "why include this when we already have a list of canadian historians." It simply makes good sense to include those who are trained to write the history of Canada in a discussion of the history of Canada. I think it should be included and that anyone willing to add a page with citations for a historian, illustrating their signficance and publication history, should be included.MedievalScholar 20:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are an enormous amount of well-trained, well-published historians in Canada. I can think of at least a half dozen that are as respected and more famous than the ones you selected. Anyone who has tenure in a History department in Canada (or elsewhere) then has a right to be listed. If you want to fix List of Canadian Historans, I'm sure that would be greatly appreciated, but this is not the place for it. - TheMightyQuill 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say fame necessarily corresponds to importance, but yes there are some other prominent historians that were not mentioned that deserve to be. Particularly Granitstein (sp?), Forbes, Buckner, Reid etc. It'll be a massive task to spruce up the list of canadian historians. Perhaps I could do my best to complete flush out the list, and others could assist in providing pages. I am familliar with many historians, but certainly not all of them. You seem quite knowledgable TheMightyQuill, would this be something you are interested in working on?MedievalScholar 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I could probably be talked into it, but I'm not sure our efforts wouldn't be better spent actually writing articles for some prominent canadian historians who don't have articles. - TheMightyQuill 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Vikings

I think the article is slightly misleading as it jumps from 1000 to the 15th century, giving the impression that the Vikings didn't come on present Canada in between. Strong evidence suggest that at least Markland, nowadays Labrador, which was very close to Greenland, was sporadically visited up until Vikings left Greenland, near 1450.

Evidence from the continuing trips in Canada include the following: a Norwegian coin from King Olaf Kyrre's reign (1066-80) was found on an Indian settlement in the state of Maine, suggesting an exchange between the Vikings and the Natives after the 11th century. In addition, large numbers of Norse objects including a small carving depicting a Norseman have been found in sites in regions of arctic Canada which the Norse called Helluland. Different authentic runes dating from the 13th century was found on North American soil. Finally, an entry in the Icelandic Annals from A.D. 1347 referring to a small Greenlandic vessel with a crew of eighteen aboard that arrived in Iceland while attempting to return to Greenland from Markland with a load of timber. Because no further details were provided, this reference may indicate that voyages to Markland were relatively common.

Here are some external evidence.

From http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/NFLDS/article/viewArticle/140/236

"Sporadic voyages to relatively nearby Markland continued, and there is some evidence for forages, both planned and unplanned, into the Arctic (Gad 1971: 123, Schledermann 1996, Sutherland 2000)". Gad, Finn. 1971. The History of Greenland, vol. 1, Earliest Times to 1700. Montreal: McGill University Press Schledermann, Peter. 1996. Voices in Stone. A Personal Journey into the Arctic Past. Komatik Series no. 5. Calgary: The Arctic Institute of North America and the University of Calgary. Sutherland, Patricia. 2000. “The Norse and Native Norse Americans”. In William W. Fitzhugh and Elisabeth I. Ward, eds., Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, 238-247. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institution.

From http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/markland/archeo.html "Findings dating to the four centuries after the Vinland voyages are found in Dorset and Thule Inuit sites in the Canadian Arctic and northern Greenland. A variety of Norse artifacts, including pieces of wood and iron, a bronze pot fragment, and a Dorset pendant made of Norse copper, and a piece of woven cloth containing fibers of sheep, arctic hare, bison, and goat have been found in Dorset sites in Hudson's Bay, Baffin Island, and northwestern Greenland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.202.95.16 (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold - TheMightyQuill 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese discoveries and colonies

Hi. I see that this article does not speak of portuguese explorations and colonies in Canada. Cabot's voyage did not leave any imprint in Canadian cartography and exploration. It is with Portuguese explorers that Canada becomes well known to Europe. Much more important than Cabot voyage are the voyages of the Corte-Real brothers (1501-1504) (Gaspar and Miguel) that cartographed and claimed North Newfoundland and South Labrador to Portugal. Do not forget that Cabot thought that he arrived at Asia, but the Corte-Real knew it was a new land. In the first maps these lands were known as Land of the Corte-Real, and this name remains until late XVI century. Other portuguese voyages in the first decade of this century are less/not documented (Vasco Anes Corte-Real?) but king Manuel I created taxes for the codfish in Newfoundland in 1506, a sign that maybe more voyages were launched. João Álvares Fagundes somewhere between 1516 and 1519 explored the southeast Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and St. Lawrence Gulf, as far as Prince Edward Island (at least). In 1521 king Manuel I granted him the captancy that did not included the lands of the Captaincy of the Corte-Real: from Cape Race in Newfoundland to as South as Spanish Hemisphere (South Nova Scotia). He created the first colony in Canada, in South Newfoundland or East Cape Breton, for a year, and moved then to West Cape Breton. The colony is referred as late as 1570 by Francisco de Souza (see the Portuguese Empire discussions page for this reference). The extent of the Portuguese colonies is not known, for example if actually the Corte-Real family did created any settlement or how far Portuguese explorers may have explored (Hudson Bay?) or if other Portuguese tried to establish colonies. I put here a gallery that the Portuguese empire discussion page has:

• 
  Cantino 1502
• 
  Reinel 1504
• 
  Kunstmann Map 1506
• 
  Maggiolo 1516
• 
  Reinel-Lopo Homem 1519
• 
  Reinel 1535
• 
  Viegas 1537
• 
  Lopo Homem 1554
• 
  Lazaro Luis 1563
• 
  Lopes 1570
• 
  Teixeira 1570
• 
  Teixeira 1573
• 
  Lasso 1575
• 
  Vaz Dourado c.1576
• 
  Lopes 1583
• 
  Lopes 1583

Câmara 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

-And Labrador is also a Portuguese name from João Fernandes Lavrador(Explorer of Newfoundland and Labrador-1495(?) to 1500s(documented))as Oficial recognized - or from King Denis`s Cogname from ancient traditions about 1341 voyages - Sancho Brandão(from Vatican document and oral English popular medieval Poetry)

Why did the Canadian colonists join in the American quest for independence?

Before European contact

Canadian history goes back a lot further than European contact. The landscape is at least two billion years old..... Black Tusk (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, Black Tusk; it's a convention in English that "History of France", "History of Canada" refers to human history, not natural history....

Hmmmm...well not all the time. I myself would rather call it "History of Canada" and no page exists titled "Natural history of Canada". I'm not trying to make this into an attack, but it's not my fault most people don't realize Canada is more than human habitation.....and without natural material nothing would exist, including Earth.... Black Tusk (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rupert's Land and the Pacific colonies/possessions

As always, it seems difficult to insert proper descriptions of the historical experience of "the West" and the Pacific Slope into the Canadian chronological paradigm. I'd expand the following setnence quite a bit but it doesn't really belong chronologically in the section it's in "Canada under British imperial control 1764-1867":

Once the United States agreed to the 49th parallel north as the border separating it from western British North America, the British government created the Pacific coast colonies of British Columbia in 1858 and Vancouver Island in 1849. They were eventually united in 1866.

Sigh....I don't even want to start on this paragraph's many flaws, though there's a few short tweaks I'll make on it in the article. But how to account, briefly, for the protracted and complicated imperial geopolitics of the region, which was part of, respectively, New Spain and Russian America, and the dry but complex technicalities of the Nootka Convention and the treaties of 1818 (with the US) and 1825 (with Russia) that preceded teh 1846 settlement at the 49th Parallel. The paragraph also reads like the 49th was a one-step line-drawing, but it was two; this paragraph should state clearly that hte Americans claimed all of what is now southern British Columbia, and that the drawing of the 49th Parallel saw the loss of British control, and British protection of native peoples, north of the Columbia River. This is not a "blip" to Canadian history, it's a major thing; unless "BC history is not really CAnadian history" as is sometimes implied to me along with "BC is just like everywhere else in Canada". I'm thinking that what's needed is a separate section or subsection gtivein a running account of how British possessions on the Pacific and north and west of the Great Lakes evolved - there doesn't seem to be much at all about Rupert's Land here; the "Canadian" obsession with the St. Lawrence Valley and Maritimes as "real CAnadian history" is always borne out by the constant oversight concerning Western/BC history. yes, I know, "be bold" and "just fix it", but there's so much material that needs inclusion that it doesn't belong in a section whose dates-of-outline are proscribed by events in Central Canada only. Suggested title for two new subsections: Rupert's Land & the North-Western Territory" for east of the Rockies and what became Yukon ,and "(Evolution of )the Pacific possessions 1756-1846" ("possessions" because not all were colonies, though really 1818-1846 they weren't "possessions" either)...1756 I picked because it's the first Russian voyage which prompted the Spanish voyages, which brought in Capt Cook to investigate, and Vancouver after him.....not having all this in a History of Canada arguably implies that the history of BC is not part of the history of Canada.....'nuff said, I'll fix the basic errors in the paragraph but won't expand it for now, until I hear some suggestsion on how to fit in the much-needed content about hsitory "West of the Lakes" in the overall structure of the article.Skookum1 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions and Questionable Content

This article needs some work.

Prehistory: Really reads like the authors are rushing to jump over anything to do with the indigenous people. There should be some general discussion of what cultures and linguistic groups were found where and some general description of cultural attributes.

European Contact: This section starts discussing colonization at the end and sort of overlaps with the next section. No mention is made of English attempts to colonize Newfoundland in the 1600s, which contributed to the French/English conflict. Is Newfoundland not considered Canadian enough? But wait, I sense there's a theme.

New France 1604-1763: Here the authors fall into their own trap, because they have already discussed the founding of Acadia in the previous section, but they don't want to give up on the 1604 date. So they start with Champlain in Quebec in 1608 and then ignore anything to do with Acadia, as if it wasn't part of New France, because what's really important is the St. Lawrence Valley in the Central Zone and the first hospital and the trade in kettles, and the taxes paid in geese and the recalling of Jacques Duchesneau to France for unspecified troubles. (Something to do with the geese?)

Wars in the Colonial Era: There's a big chronological problem with this section in that it currently leaves the reader with the impression that Fortress Louisbourg was founded by the French in response to the "Great Upheaval". In fact the French began construction on Louisbourg in 1719, decades before the deportation of the Acadians. In some versions of history, the British concerns about the Acadians were heightened by the presence of Louisbourg. And was Halifax not founded in 1749 as a response to the 'threat' of Louisbourg? But wait, Halifax is in Nova Scotia, not the Central Zone, so we don't need to mention it. Unlike Fort Cataraqui, which became Kingston, which IS in the Central Zone, and therefore gets included. Is "Great Upheaval" really what English speaking people call the Deportation of the Acadians? If so, when did this change, as I never heard of the term in English before Wikipedia.

Canada under British imperial control 1764-1867: The title makes a nice contrast to the 'happy habitant' title and theme of the section on 'New France', and lets us know how domineering those Brits really were. This section does a nice skip from 1763 to the War of 1812, hopping right over those pesky Loyalists who, after all, did end up being the reason for the creation of New Brunswick and Upper Canada/Ontario ('Loyal She Remains'). But wait, New Brunswick is...outside the Central Zone. The article really needs to say something about the arrival of the largest group of English-speaking immigrants to what would become Canada, as much of our subsequent history results from the English/French population split and the Loyalists contributed to the government and culture of large parts of eastern Canada. And what about subsequent British and Irish immigration to Upper Canada, further tipping the balance in favour of the anglos? Our history is our people, and we have to get them here to make sense of what happens. The Pacific Problem To address the lack of any reference to the Pacific in previous versions, the article now goes on at length about the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Never have so many words been used on so few colonials. We're losing sight of the forest for the trees (easy to do on the Wet Coast). But there is no mention of Captains Perez, Cook or Vancouver, or the Amazing Adventures of Alexander Mackenzie 'From Canada, By Land'. Now, if he had gone 'To Canada, By Land' his exploits would have been given pride of place along with the discussion of Sieur de la Salle who, after all, discovered Texas and therefore deserves to be mentioned in a survey of Canadian history. The Spanish actually had a fort at Nootka Sound, and but for a bit of good old British imperial bullying, British Columbia might have been called "Really New Mexico". And we have poor debt-bedraggled British Columbia being shephered into Confederation in 1871 (pushed by Mother England's Imperial Control, more likely) before the article's discussion of the Central Zone has even had a chance to catch up to let the reader know that there is a Confederation to be shepherded into. Whoa Nellie.

Okay, that's as far as I've got. Ladies and gentlecanadians, sharpen your pencils. Oh... I shouldn't have glanced ahead to all this discussion of the Kingdom of Canada. And wasn't there just the tiniest rebellion at Red River before 1870? Friendly Manitoba didn't just wander from a cold prairie blizzard into the warm embrace of Confederation. Corlyon (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Lemniwinks who've made excellent contributions to this article over the past couple weeks. Please keep going and continue your good work. I wouldn't assume intentional political motives for the unbalanced content and gaps, so much as a simple lack of expertise. Moreover, please don't forget the sub-articles which are often much longer and more complete. They may contain some of the information you feel is lacking. This article is meant to be in Summary Style. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I will try and add references and relevant links for the material I added yesterday before moving to the next bit. I didn't mean to imply that the article was overly political -- just a little gentle chiding. : ) For a truly 'political' take on the history of Canada, go to the page on Canada in the French language Wikipedia. The phrase 'Neutral Point of View' doesn't seem to be part of the authors' frame of reference whatsoever. Corlyon (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh... I expect the different wikipedias offer an amazing number of POV forks, not just in Canada. I expect if historians around the world had to agree on a single highschool history textbook to teach from, highschool history would just be dropped completely. I look forward to reading your further contributions. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some info to a real lacking portion of the article, and I'm sorry if I missed some stuff like you pointed out. It wasn't meant to purposefully ignore parts of Canada's history, believe me Lemniwinks (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article. With several people working on it we should be able to make some improvements and do some tidy up. Corlyon (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

have filled in the 1763 - 1812 gap a bit. Will add references and links next. So much to say. One could write a book. Who knew it was so interesting? Corlyon (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe too much? The section "British imperial control 1764–1867" with sections looks really long to me for summary style. Perhaps some of the details would be better off merged into Canada under British Imperial control (1764-1867). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps a little more than needed. Rjensen has made helpful edits to trim down my wordiness and I think the subheadings are a good idea. Corlyon (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the subheadings are a good idea. Each of the sections could have its own {{main}} link or be expanded, which would undermine the existence of Canada under British Imperial control (1764-1867). It also looks strange to me to have subsections for the "British imperial control 1764–1867" section, but not for any of the other sections. But maybe those 100 years are too much to be summarized. After all, other articles about 20th century Canadian history are divided into 10-20 year groupings. What about splitting Canada under British Imperial control (1764-1867) into two separate articles? Before and after 1837? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to reduce the number of subheadings by combining the Revolution and the Loyalists; the 1837 Rebellion and the Durham Report; and the Pacific Coast and British Columbia. I am also inclined to think that breaking down some of the other sections with subheadings might also be helpful. "European Contact" could have subheadings for the Vikings, Basques, Cabot & Cartier. (It would be good to mention the Arctic explorers & Hudson too, at least in passing). Perhaps the description of the Viking settlements, as interesting as it is, is overlong for this kind of summary style article. And the connection of 'Fusang' to Canada is so speculative, as to be almost in the realm of Hy-Brasil. The founding of Acadia by Champlain would perhaps be better placed at the beginning of the next section as part of the discussion of New France. That would eliminate the inconsistency of having the title to the New France section refer to the 1604 date, while those events had already been dealt with in the preceding section. New France could then have subheadings for 'Acadia' and 'Canada' or something like that. As for the title "British imperial control 1764-1867" I wonder if a better title might be "British North America 1764-1867" I've checked a few other "History of..." articles (US, Mexico, South Africa, India, Australia) and the colonial period is typically referred to with just some reference to the 'Colonial Period' or 'European Colonization' or 'British settlement and colonisation' (for India there's a subheading 'The British Raj'). The title "British North America" would be a good balance to the "New France" section. Corlyon (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, History of British North America is probably more accurate than (teleological) "History of Canada under British Imperial control". The only problem is that it only becomes British North America after 1776, not after 1764. We could try to adjust the dates, but that would mean using 1776 as a major marker in Canadian history. :There's no reason not to split it, though, if it's long enough to support two articles, even if other history articles haven't done so. The Colonial history of the United States is actually quite long and should probably be split. And over the same time period 1776-1867, the History of the United States has three separate articles. Rjensen has already divided the period (in this article) into two sections... why not divide split Canada under British Imperial control (1764-1867) into two articles? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image of Sir John A. Macdonald

I added an image of JAM, but as it's left placed it breaks into the title for the next main section on the post Confederation period. I don't mind this myself, as I prefer the look of articles that have a little more visual variety to them, but if others feel that it looks awkward by all means remove it or reposition. Corlyon (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fusang & San Juan Boundary Dispute

I deleted the reference to Fusang because, as tantalizing as it is to think that the Chinese may have visited 'British Columbia', the truth will probably remain as highly speculative as the voyage of St. Brendan. I also deleted the discussion of the San Juan Boundary dispute (despite the semi-comical Pig War), as the land 'lost' by Canada on this occasion to the grasping Yankees was fairly small. The article has bigger fish (or bacon) to fry. : ) Corlyon (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

United Province of Canada: Quasi-federal?

I don't understand Rizla's recent edit to refer to the 1840 United Province as 'quasi-federal' and there is nothing in the main article on the United Province of Canada that assists me, nor in any books I have available (which I admit are limited and not detailed discussions of the constitutional framework of the 1840 Canada colony). Nor is any reference cited for this statement, so there is no way to try and track down what is intended. I know that Canada 1840-1867 functioned somewhat differently in practice from other unitary colonies, having seats allotted equally to each 'section' East and West and a de facto 'leader' from each of Canada East and West, but there were no prescribed separate legislatures for East and West. Nevertheless, I am no constitutional expert on 1840s Canada, so if there is a reference to some analysis by an historian or credible author to support the label 'quasi-federal' then let's see what it says. But 'quasi-federal' without more elaboration is a label that may not help the average reader of this article and this survey article probably isn't the place for a lot of intricate explanation. I will put the article back to 'single colony' for now, but am open to further ideas. Corlyon (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Head Tax of 1885 (Post Confederation)

My source for my addition of the reference to the 1885 head tax on Chinese immigrants (Barman, West Beyond the West) indicates that the head tax was imposed by Ottawa despite BC's request for an exclusion act, such as the one the US Congress had passed in 1882. An exclusion act would have 'stopped' Chinese immigrants; the head tax 'restricted' immigration by imposing a hefty charge ($50 in 1885) on anyone coming in. Ormsby (History of British Columbia) indicates that this 1885 tax was not successful in stopping Chinese immigration ("...did little to check immigration from Hong Kong..."), which Barman corroborates, indicating that the population of Chinese in BC continued to rise in numbers (but drop as a percentage of the non-Native population). So unless there is another good reference to support the statement that the 1885 head tax was intended to 'stop' immigration, I think we have to go back to the former wording of 'restrict'. Much later Parliament did increase the head tax significantly, and then passed an Exclusion Act as well. As it is I can't leave my reference as it doesn't support the rewording. I also think the link to be to the article on the Canadian head tax, rather than on head taxes generally, as that is more pertinent to this article. Corlyon (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Barman's book is a travesty and full of errors and misconstrued conjecture loaded with p.c.-think and revisionist apologisms; the best source for this material you can get is Beyond the Sea of Sterile Mountains by Joseph (john?) Morton, publ. 1976. In it you will find that BC tried several times, unsuccessfully, to pass its own head tax, and had also at the onset of the Mainland Colony had tried to impose a head tax on Americans (clearly a racist manoeuvre huh?); all were turned down first by the Privy Council/Foreign Office (the British one, when it was a colony) and after 1871 by the Canadian counterpart. The labour riots in Vancouver that year may have helped tip the scale with Ottawa, I can't remember if they were before or after the passage of the head tax but they were a response by unemployed workers to having much-needed work given to a specific group willing to work for lower wages....Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Earliest British colonies

I cannot find mention of the first British settlements/colonies. From what I see here so far, the earliest British colonies were those taken from New France after 1763 --JimWae (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have recently tried to redress the absence of reference to the English/British (among others) by including reference to Sir Humphrey Gilbert (1583/Newfoundland); the founding of Halifax by Cornwallis (1749/Nova Scotia) and the arrival of New England planters to Nova Scotia in 'Wars in the Colonial Era'; I added discussion of the Loyalist settlements in New Brunswick and Upper Canada, including York/Toronto; and added a reference to the Highland Scots settlement of Nova Scotia. I also added a reference to the Red River Colony (Manitoba) and founding of Fort Victoria on the Pacific (1849/BC). The article already contained references to British settlements in Newfoundland in the Wars in the Colonial Era section. So which early 'British' colonies are we missing? Specific reference to the English settlements at Cuper's & Ferryland & Avalon, Newfoundland could be added but I didn't want to go overboard on the details. I tend to think the part of the article on New France contains more detail than is probably ideal in a summary article, but I'm ok with leaving it in because of the fact that the French founding of New France/Canada was pretty crucial. But I suppose something about the beginnings of colonization in Newfoundland could be added. Is the article missing another early colony that you think is of significance for the survey article? Corlyon (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on first settlements seems to be only about French colonies - and the text seems to say that all British colonies were formerly French--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia/PEI/New Brunswick/and the Canadas were 'formerly French' or at least highly disputed, but with strong French claims and presence, as in Acadia. Even Newfoundland was disputed. Corlyon (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I found some stuff on early British "contact" in the "European contact" section. Perhaps a subsection on Earliest Euroean settlements will make the info easier to find - settlement is more than "contact"--JimWae (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the way the article is structured tends to present the history of Canada from a French exploration and settlement perspective, with the English involvement having to be squeezed in around the sides of the presentation of New France. There is some merit in having a significant focus on New France, as originally 'Canada' referred to what we also think of as the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes region where the French were legitimately the first explorers and settlers. However, the downside is that the history of the English colonies end up being treated as side shows. But really, as far as modern 'Canada' goes, before 1713 there wasn't a lot of British settlement going on at all. Some in Newfoundland, where the French also had a presence. Even by the 1755 British settlement was pretty restricted and small scale. A lot of settlement happened as a push out of New Englanders into 'Nova Scotia' before the American Revolution and then a migration of Loyalists during and especially on the heels of the Revolution. Is it the early settlement of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that you think needs to be set out more clearly? Do you have any suggestions for what might be cut back to avoid making the article overly long? Corlyon (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Split European Contact?

This section is very very long now and could easily support its own article. Any title ideas? European exploration of Canada? Strangely teleological but... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is isn't it? (teleological). "contact" vs. "exploration" are two different things too, and "exploration" as any FN person will tell tell you is a somewhat POV term. The exploration/claiming of the Prairie West and the largely separate exploration/claiming of the Pacific slope are distinct from what went on in the Great Lakes-Atlan, though Prairie exploration is closely related to "the Canadas", but not exclusive to outreaching from Montreal....Pacific contact is a very separate story, though and deserves more attention/coverage (this lapse is quite usual in most pan-Canadian histories). Similarly indigenous history west of the Rockies is pretty terse here; there's a lot more to it. More on this in the previous discussion. NB British colonization of the Americas, British imperial control of Canada (or whatever that title is) and New France and Rupert's Land are already separate articles (note also History of the west coast of North America, which is very broad in scope). Also the history of the Thirteen Colonies can't really go unmentioned, and it DOES date to earlier times, parallel to New France; much the same as British history in the Pacific Northwest can't be told without reference to the Columbia District or the Alaska Panhandle....Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So (how) do you think it should be split? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Move what's here now to its own article. I agree with European Exploration of Canada as the title. It avoids the "discovery" issue and the article would then focus on contact with 'Canada' by 'Europeans' and the exploration of northern North America by 'Europeans' (with mention of FN and Metis guides as appropriate). This article should contain a summary of the voyages of the most important explorers, and include brief mention and references to:

1. the Vikings; Basque & other fishermen;
2. explorers who were the first from or on behalf of their nation to reach 'Canada'; (Cabot, João Fernandes, da Verrazano;)
3. explorers who made major contributions to mapping the geography; (Cartier)
4. explorers who set the stage for future follow-up discoveries and settlement and claims; (Cartier, Hudson)

I am of two minds about whether Humphrey Gilbert belongs here or not. He should probably appear somewhere in the article, and I put him in here because the time frame seemed appropriate. As interesting as they are in their own right, I don't think the descriptions of the Vikings and the Portuguese explorations need to be set out in detail in this article as they seem to me to be a bit of a detour, and don't really serve to advance the overall survey. Corlyon (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Split done Augst 2009 new section in first nation article

Main artical: First Nations and European contact

also new article about pre history

Main article : Lithic and Archaic periods in Canada (18000 BCE - 1000 BCE)

Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Title Modification

This article, is essentially a "Political" and to a lesser extent military history of Canada. The assumptions, organization and conclusions, fine as they are, are therefore limited to "political/military" concepts. Therefore it would be appropriate to modify the title to read, "Political History of Canada". A true "History of Canada" would be much more sweeping in scope and include the domestic and international treatment of topics such as, the environment, technology, economics, cities, society, philosophy, scientific research, the arts, invention, etc., in an integrated fashion and draw conclusions based on this integration.

Jeff Atkins Chelsea, Quebec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.239.48 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the article focuses largely on political and military issues and these other topics should be covered somehow on Wikipedia. However, this particular article is very consistent with other 'History of...' articles (I just had a quick look at H. of Algeria, H. of Brazil, H. of England, H. of France, H. of Germany and H. of Thailand) which do not seem to get into these other topics in any way, except sometimes where the country in question becomes a leading player on the world scene. There is a discussion of the French philosophes, for example, but none of the Impressionists in the H. of France article. On the other hand, the H. of England article doesn't even mention Shakespeare under the 'Elizabeth' subheading, or any specific breakthroughs in technology or science, with only a brief mention of the Industrial Revolution. The H. of Germany article makes no mention of Germany's huge contributions to classical music, philosophy or science.

The H. of Canada article does deal very briefly with some of the issues that you flag in your comment, in a cursory way, with references to the founding and development of some cities, major economic trends (industries; depression); society (ie Quiet Revolution); and some reference to Canada's involvement in environmental treaties, such as the Acid Rain Treaty or Kyoto Accord. This article spends some time also talking about the 'people' including the indigenous peoples and the arrival of waves of non-indigenous people to Canada in a more specific way than other History of... articles tend to do. In a survey article of this size, (and this article is probably already as large as it should be-see above discussion) it is difficult to integrate intelligent discussions of the other topics you suggest without first having the political background established.

The discussion of the more national history is going to be dominated by the evolving relationships between the centralist forces (federal government; Ontario) and the de-centralist nationalist or regional or forces (Quebec, Alberta & the West, First Nations, Newfoundland, Inuit). The article could do a better job of pointing people to other articles that can take the space to discuss some of these other important elements of Canadian history, such as the articles on Canadian inventions or Culture of Canada but I don't see how this survey article can expand to include significant discussions of these other topics. Corlyon (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic hyperbole?

"...with the four Canadian divisions defeating well over 40 German divisions during this period..."

Canadian units really "defeated" forces "well over" ten times their size? Sounds like creative history writing to me…

"Canada is sometimes considered[by whom?] to be the country hardest hit by the interwar Great Depression..."

I had always heard this to be Germany…perhaps the person who made the assertion could back it up with statistics?

Historian932 (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nationalist breast-beating is too common across many, many Canadian history and other articles. I can't speak to the war record, but re the Great Depression thing, one cite might be Ten Lost Years by Barry Broadfoot or one of Newman's or Berton's various books. Per capita unemployment as well as the disappearance of communities was, proportionately, worse than in the US and elsewhere....Germany was, because of military spending, on recovery in the 1930s when other countries were hit by the Great Depression; the interwar economic collapse of the Weimar period was in the early 1920s and is not part of the Great Depression; it may have helped cause the latter because of the corrosion of the global economy that spun off German indebtedness, but that's more theoretical; anywya as far as 1929-1939 goes, there are statistics and analyses out there about that; whether they're just more nationalist citations and not written by non-Canadian-agenda academics/journalists is something to consider; but Broadfoot's book may suffice.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian track record was actually rather stellar during WWI - I can't think of a battle that the Canadian Corps actually lost. It got to the point where they had had to send decoy forces off to convince the Germans that they were somewhere else, because the Germans would not attack if they knew the Canadian forces were around. They suspected, with considerable justification, that they were walking into a trap.

Unlike other allied forces, the Canadians didn't think that getting out of the trenches and walking very slowly into the path of machine gun fire was very good tactics. They preferred to sneak around the German machine guns and hit them from behind, which was rather revolutionary at the time. Canadians devised the "storm trooper" and "blitzkrieg" tactics which unfortunately, the Germans copied successfully in WWII. Canadians used them just as successfully against the Germans in WWI as the Germans used them against the French in WWII.

It is not surprising that in the last days of the war they defeated 40 German divisions because, by then, the Germans were out of reinforcements, out of supplies, and retreating in disarray.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing History

Shouldn't there be something in between the attempted Viking Colonization of North America and the French fur trade? That's about 600 years of history there. I realize you can go to the New France article to read about this period more in depth, but even the New France article starts at the year 1523...what happened over 500 years between these two events? Lemniwinks (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Confabulations and not much else. What there is no record of cannot be included here.Skookum1 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are, however, known eras/dates/events in aboriginal history, approx eras of migrations etc....in BC's case there are known events like the Cascadia earthquake of 1700, the smallpox plague of teh 1790s, the migration wars of the Southern Kwakiutl, the destruction of the Nisga'a villages by Tseax Cone, and more.....there's also since-Contact events like Nicola's War and the war between the Huron and Iroquois; but speaking as a normanna (someone of Norwegian descent) who's been interested in "Viking" history since childhood, the idea that the "attempted Viking Colonization of North America" named as such gives the notion taht there was political, rather than personal, colonization/settlement is just puff and stuff; there was an early 1500s expedition from teh King of Sweden, the Knutson expedition, but there is no record of it actually reaching North America, though some theorize it as connected to the Kensington Runestone; there's other than that spurious interpretations of the sagas by Farley Mowat and others but no specific locations can be talked about. Whatever happened to the settlers at L'Anse aux Meadows is not known, and there's no proof, either, that it was Karlsefni's Vinland colony; all that is known is that it was Norse, and is not proven to be associated with any known name. BTW the proper term is "Norse" - "Viking" properly refers only to raiders/traders/adventurers; these were settlers and, from what is known in the sagas, more refugees from the old country rather than "colonizers"....."Viking" is not an ethnic, not even a political, term. It's a profession....Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

History generally means "recorded history". The problem is that the aboriginal people had no writing. There was nothing recorded about Canada between the attempted Norse settlement attempts around the year 1000 (recorded in the Norse Sagas), and the arrival of John Cabot in 1497. There is some archeological evidence that could be used, but that is sparse and somewhat speculative.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

rmv evolution map

This didn't belong in the See Also section; it maybe belongs on this page but it doesn't belong in the See Also section, where it was clutter:

An animation of the evolution of Canada's internal borders, from the formation of the dominion to the present.

It's also inaccurate and does not show the changes to the BC boundary or the component parts of BC as it was formed (e.g. the amalgamation of the Colony of the QCI, and the addition of the Stikine Territory and the northeast, nor the claimed-by-BC southeastern part of the Alaska Panhandle (which the UK surrendered to the US in 1903 rather than risk war).Skookum1 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Decade of discord: errors and omissions

I fixed up/expanded the Oka section, and gave it a section heading, but in reviewing what's in the previous passage I'm a bit shocked that the Meech Lake Accord isn't even mentioned, and that the facts of Charlottetown were actually mis-stated; teh implication that the Accord was rejected because of the distinct society clause is entirely spurious, though a popular media fabrication; voters rejected the process because it was widely seen as being shoved down people's throats by the politicians and the pundits, and containing too much in omnibus fashion to be voted on; e.g. special clauses for women, natives and Quebec were lumped in with clauses entrenching more power in the first ministers and also creating what since has been (illegally) created as the Council of the Confederation. There are surveys out there showing people who voted against the accord were willing to support greater rights/fair settlement for natives, support for women, even support for the distinct society, or for Quebec sovereignty in general, but they rejected teh accord because of all teh self-serving power clauses concocted by the governments; in the wake of the vote's failure all the pundits and their pet politicians sat on TV for a few nights saying "why didn't they (the voters) do as we told them?" and "how can we get them under control again" and the like; this wasn't a vote against Quebec, it was a vote against the way things were (and are still) done in this country. Needless to say you won't find many citations for that in mainstream media sources because they've been involved in the spin doctoring since; similar problems exist with any materials on the Meech Lake Accord. And re Oka, Meech/Charlottetown and western/regional alienation, the Spicer Commission and Charest Commission were big to-do affairs meant to solve these problems by seeking public input; and as always with public input in this country the outcomes were ignored (as with the Ledain Commission). The sucking-up to Washington by Mulroney is also downplayed in this section, which puts it as "under Mulroney, relations between the US and Canada improved"....without mentioning the widespread contempt against Mulroney for the way this was done.....most Canadian history articles are soft-soaped and overly POV to the point of numbness; but these omissions are too important to leave out; as was my change of wording cocnerning the military's presence at Oka, which was originally a peacekeeping measure to keep the Mohawks and the SQ apart (and it was teh SQ who had attacked).Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Question,, I would love this map in..is it just me or has it stooped working??...Moxy (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we add?

Should wee add something along this lines below, not sure if its really relevant considering the numbers...What do you all think??.. We do have the article Slavery in Canada that covers this i guess...Plus just not sure were it would fit in? ...Moxy (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Act Against Slavery of 1793 legislated the gradual abolition of slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire. Historian Marcel Trudel has documented 4,092 recorded slaves throughout Canadian history, of which 2,692 were Aboriginal people, owned by the French, and 1,400 blacks owned by the British, together owned by approximately 1,400 masters. Trudel also noted 31 marriages took place between French colonists and Aboriginal slaves.

Also i would love to talk about terry fox..!!..Moxy (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Section copied from Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#History of Canada - Copied so i can refer to it easier. copied over most text so the context to what is being said....Moxy (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the current problem with the article is that a lot of the references are either considered unreliable or do not state what they are citing. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok could you be more specific there is over 120 refs,,i am not sure the ones you mean...there were some there before i started that i have not even put into templates yet. as for "state what they are citing" this i dont understand? if a ref is at the end of a stament one can presume its for that statement, what do you fell is missing all the template parameters are filled.Moxy (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, examples of unreliable sources:

• http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ – This seems to be an interactive page, anyway. It'd be better to get a static article to replace this.
• http://albertajasper.com/Alberta-History-pre-1800.html – Not an official site for Jasper; nothing really reliable about it, either.
• http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/bluefishcaves.html – A university site. Okay, that's good. But this looks like a student assignment or something.
• http://www.taiga.net/wetlands/oldcrow/oc_gen.html – Again, not reliable.
• http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html – Not sure on the reliability of this.

Also, I mean, there are some references that supposedly cite some information, but the reference does not mention any of that information. Examples include:

• In http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/woodland.htm , I can't find any mention of "Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime regions"; the article seems to talk a lot about American locations.
• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/61411/Beothuk only talks about the Beothuks; there is no mention of the Mi'kmaq and Abenaki languages.
• http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC894794 – No mention of the Wendat (or the Hurons) in here.

The above are just examples, but you see where I'm getting at. Some might be incorrect on my part, however, so feel free to correct me. And finally, some of the books are missing page numbers. There are also some paragraphs with no references. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the man ..thanks ..i will start to go over all of them soon, but this realy helps as i can see what others might not like as a references, I am having some hard times finding some references, as most of the original text is still here just cuddled and copy edited...So i guess some refs are pretty lackadaisical..sorry i will work on all above... I am getting there...Lets move this talk to the article talk page...I would guess most here don't really care about the Little things about the article ...See you over there,, pls stick around and point more out : ) Moxy (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure that sounds great. I will post on Talk:History of Canada when I find other stuff like this, and I will continue to monitor your progress on the article. I appreciate your enthusiasm with the article thus far. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here instead of just copying it so that there aren't two discussions going on at once. A few more things:

• Please use Show Preview more often so that you need to make fewer edits. It makes it easier for those of us watching the article so that we don't have a ton of edits coming from this one article.
• For unreliable references, you can just tag them for now instead of removing them (if you want to do it this way), by marking them with the {{rs}} template. Use {{fv}} for information that is not found in the reference.

Gary King (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do use Preview..but have always had a problem that it log's off if i take to long. i know its my settings , but i have never been able to fix this as i do all this from a computer at the University of Ottawa...Sorry :( PS all above have been fixed!!.. Moxy (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Contact me on my talk page if you need anything else because I'll be unwatching this page; there are too many edits from this page appearing in my watchlist. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats an odd thing to say... you have setting to change that i only see last edit.. Anyways I am done for the most part..the articles needs a third party copy edit ..and alt text all around (that i am just not good at). I have gone over the refs and replaced many as per what you said earlier.... This article was fun to fixup!! ...Moxy (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have over 2,000 articles on my watchlist, so I can't change a watchlist setting just for one article. If you want feedback from a wider group of people, you should consider bringing the article to WP:PR for a peer review. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok np i can contact the WP:PR guys...will do so after i get a few old editors here i know to look it over! PS thanks for your help!!Moxy (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Decade of Discord 1982–1992

By the previous kitschy title of this, "Decade of Disaccord", I'd have expected it to include material on the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords; it contains neither, and no mention of the Mohawk Civil War, or of the Oka Crisis, and the related Spicer and Charest Commissions. It makes reference to the Free Trade Agreement only in passing, which is really odd. Even though more of course will be on the sub-article, this section reads like it's been neutered of any relevant content, given the scope of things that went on in this period....Skookum1 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it does include both Meech Lake and Charlottetown, although I agree that Oka and related material should also be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that technical error on the HBC and NWC (this map shows it did my mistake) i will have to fix that main article to!!..As for Oak i guess you deleted it by mistake see here, Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords are both mention in the article, is something wrong with what is said?...and i shall work on the rest as i am getting feed back its getting to big!... Moxy (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's weird, the only part of that article I edited, directly, was the bit adding the Columbia and New Caledonia districts...Iv'e seen stuff like this before, with spontaneous deletions in other parts of page than anything I touch...makes me wonder sometiems if someone's "riding" my account and somehow able to intercept/chagne my edits, but I think it's a code problem of some kind....I didn't delete the Oka passage at all; and should read more closely or I would have seen the Meech and Charlottetown passages (which I honestly looked for and must have "blanked" on, though I was scanning to see what had been said about Oka....the tie in between Meech, Elijah Harper and the Oka Crisis is an obvious one for those of us who lived through that, but without a cited connection to that effect would be branded "original research" here....).Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps I didn't notice it - but I didn't delete it, that to me is certain, though the edit history says ai did - is becaues it's so brief and shallow:

On July 11, 1990 the Oka Crisis land dispute began between the Mohawk nation and the town of Oka, Quebec.[130] The dispute was the first of a number of well-publicized conflicts between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century.

It's without context or its true impact; it was a nation-changing event and launched news efforts towards "taking native claims seriously"; it also garnered major international attetntion and involved an unofficial state of emergnecy with detention of official foreign observers and a couple of hundred Canadian citizens; and during it there was teh potential for country-wide civil war (in fact, though not in those words, that was the stated reason for the military's crackdown at the end of it, which led to the abandonment of hte medical centre; "preserving national unity" was the byline fo the Forces in the bulletin in question, and also their rationale to takeover the CBC as that's also in their charter (the CBC's) when they took over NewsWorld, but tha's too invovled for here; but the lines as they stand are so neutered as to come off soft-soaped or so pointedly vague as to be POV/deliberately obscure; it wasn't just a protest/siege; at the lver least there should be a phrase "and created a new dynamic in aboriginal-government relations and an urgency to settle unresolved land claims" and perhaps, in reference to other violence, the Gustafsen Lake Standoff should be mentioned as the alrgest peace time military operation on Canadian soil in the 20th Century (though it was conducted by the RCMP not the Canadian military). Oka only came to national profile beacuse of the unique nature of NewsWorld at the time (it's vastly different since, and because of, the crisis); there never had been 24-hour live coverage of the shooting wars between natives and DFO officers in the Fraser Canyon in the '70s and before, which had ben ongong for decades....among other instances of UNpublicized protest/conflict/violence...and lots post-Oka were deliberately NOT publicized, including large-=scale ones, as the media has been "not really open" ever since; that's not a POV statement or a conspiracy theory, it's part of hte legacy of those events....Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RNWMP and North-Western Territory

this edit wasn't necessary, I think; I'm not sure in which year they assumed control, or rather in which year one of their members was despatched there, but the RNWMP did have jurisdiction over the North-Western Territory (in its most reduced state, today's Yukon) and also were the intervening authority at Fort Steele, which was ostensibly British Columbia Provincial Police turf (including and especially in colonial days; in the fur trade era policing was in teh hands of fur company officers. Point is it was fine to leave in the message of the N-WT, though there's other wording there that's problematic....what's meant by "and divide Northwest Territories"....I'll be back in the morning with various fixes; but just noting again there's something going on with my account; in the quoted passage above I'd used two apostrophes to make italics; it came out as two semi-colons and I'm pretty sure I didn't type that, though that's what displayed....don't think it was a keyboarding error, maby spontaneous edits are a possiblity for some coding reason....Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

all this sounds good...About your edit problem...my wife has the odd habit of pressing undo when reviewing others editors edits ,,She press undo then fixing edits, but sometimes reverts all by mistake!! Moxy (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

section titles

While I'm very happy with the general improvements to this article, I'm not convinced by the section titles for sections 9 and 10. This is poetic license on our part - these don't mention specific events and they don't use common phrases used to describe these sections of history. They might fit the events we have chosen to mention, but someone could just as easily write a history of Canada in the 1980s and call it "Decade of Co-operation". As they stand, they're subjective and creative. This is an encyclopedia, not a history textbook, and the style needs to be different.

I'd also like to encourage everyone, once again, to focus their attention on improving the sub-articles (which are in greater need of work) than on this article (which is already very long). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; although I adjusted that one title I was uncomfortable with it in general; the usual delineations - in the modern era anyway - are "the Trudeau years", "the Mulroney years", "the Pearson years", "the Diefenbaker years" etc. (a bit dicier to use "the Chretien years" etc). I'm also uncomfortable with "the Pacific colonies"....BC's secondary appellation, or one of them, is "the Pacific Province" (capital 'p') and while "the British colonies on the Pacific" or "British possessions in the Pacific Northwest" are more conventional, neither "colonies" nor "possessions" is apt for the state of British claims in the region until 1846, and while "possession" vaguely applies to the status of the mainland 1846-1858, "colony" definitely does not; nor to pre-1849 Vancouver Island, and the Columbia and New Caledonia fur districts were just that - fur-trade administrative divisions, and not actual land claims/ownership. "Claims" clearly won't work as a section title, but "Pacific colonies" just doesn't sound right.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When i started to fix this - the titles i did not like either..I was going to simply remove the titles and leave the years, but someone revert that so i guess we should talk more about the titles ...Moxy (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found this ..maybe use this as titles -->canadahistory.com eras and Canada: A People's History ,, In school i was tough this divide system (mind you this is long ago -- how ever I like this sites simple titles -->A Brief History as i fell there are no Official titles for the periods realy...

Dominion of Canada v. Kingdom of Canada

Re this:

The term dominion was chosen to indicate Canada's status as a self-governing colony of the British Empire, the first time it was used in reference to a country.

Somewhere out there are citations that the reason "Dominion" was used was to not rile the Yankees by creating a "Kingdom of Canada" on their north....Skookum1 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Post war section -> Suez

Somewhere in a major documentary (or two or three, book and film), it's a given that 1956 marks the disjuncture of Canada from British imperial policy, and also the seeds of the peacekeeping mission; Britain was pissed, to say the least, at Canada not helping out with the Suez Crisis; this is supposed to mark our closer alignment to the US, and somewhere in there also is the foundation of NORAD, though not tied to Suez directly.Skookum1 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also to note another common epithet for this period, other than post-war era, is "Post-war boom", though that's usually also "Post-war baby boom" but it applied to economics as much as to birth rates in the shorter form.Skookum1 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Copy edit...always better when an article gets edited by many experienced writes...Moxy (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabot

The article's section on early contact jumps from the Norse and Portuguese claims straight to New France in 1534- what's with that? John Cabot is only mentioned in passing, as if the British had never made a claim or sent explorers; "the Portuguese Crown claimed the area visited by John Cabot..." and that's the only mention at all. Clearly early English explorations are important, I don't know enough to expand this bit but it's weird the way the article obsesses over the historical dead-ends of the Norse and Portuguese fishing camps and moves right away to New France.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what more we can say...The Norse and Portuguese both just gave-up in Canada... ...iam just not sure English fishing fleets or the history of English exploration is realy that important to our history, its interesting but did not effect the country realy, perhaps an article called Early Canadian explorations or Early explores of Canada....My question would be-->Did the early English explorations have any impact on the history of Canada or did they just explore? were there any claims? because its seems like they care about the southern areas much more until 1670.... I also think size of the article is a concern, not that any relevant info should be left out. What i can find -->

Various attempts were made at settlement and exploration for the next 150 years but English colonies were only really established in the 13th colonies. Fishing stations were used in Newfoundland but the French came and settled in Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec. As tensions mounted between France and England in Europe, competition heated up in the Americas. The English opened up fur trading operations in the 1670's when the Hudson Bay Company was chartered and slowly began to move site here

Moxy (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Social History of Canada

I would like to write an article on the "social" history of Canada. It would deal with topics such as social class, ethnicity, language, religion, education, poverty and wealth, childhood, private vs public space, crime, sports, etc. However when I attempt to begin to write under the title "Social History of Canada", I am redirected to this "History of Canada" article and can do nothing. Can someone make adjustments to permit the writing of an article under the title "Social History of Canada".

Thank You

Jeff Atkins Chelsea, Quebec

I fixed it for you. There are some references of interest at Social history, and a section on social history at the bibliography at Bibliography of Canadian history. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)