Talk:Military history of Canada
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date
 | Military history of Canada received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Independence
The article implied that independence came in 1867. The closest thing to Canadian independence came in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. So I changed it to read confederation, instead of independence.
- I've noticed the use of this word before in articles about Canadian history, presumably written by Americans. It bears mentioning that Canadians don't use the word 'Independence' in reference to the situation with the UK; in fact, it's odd to see that term used at all in reference to Canada. When you say 'closest thing', you presumably mean the nearest technical analogue to American 'Independence', which is a distinct concept from that obtained by Canada. Canada never really had a problem with being in the Empire or Commonwealth, and never really actively sought 'Independence' as it is understood by Americans. Such a concept as understood in the context of American History simply doesn't exist in Canada. Americans 'achieved' 'Independence' through conflict with an imperial power, while Canada became a nation through the drafting of the BNA Act, and then the patriation of that act as a Constitution.Sigma-6
Gaps
Why is there nothing here about the Red River Rebellion, and much more importantly, the North-West Rebellion? Fawcett5 18:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dunno. Could be because no-one has written about them in prior edits of the article. Be bold in updating pages! :) Cheers, Madmagic 09:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- On a closer look, they are both linked from the main Military history of Canada article. See the Civil insurrections section. It may be a Wikipedia convention within national military history articles to keep the insurrections out, I don't honestly know. Might be an idea to check the US and UK articles to see how they do it? Cheers, Madmagic 10:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I think they should be added here IF the military was involved, which it was. If it occurred and was ended without military intervention (by negotiatios or police for example) it shouldn't be.say1988 13:42, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
English-French Conflict?
Why are "The American Threat", "The War of 1812" and "British Withdrawl" under English-French Conflict? I don't see the Americans as French and by the time of these conflicts Canada couldn't be called French.say1988 13:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I have split the English/French conflict into one section, with sub-sections for the 17th and 18th centuries, and I've given the American Threat its own section. I think this is a more accurate split, and I hope other editors agree. --Scimitar 23:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Haiti
I think some info should be added about Canada's role in Haiti, and about how the "peacekeepers" there are systematicaly murdering and inprisoning as many supporters of Aristide and the Lavalas party as they can. The corporate media in Canada is completely silent on the issue, despite mounting evidence of very serious human rights violations commited by both the U.N "peacekeepers" as well as the Haitian police force which got their training from the good ole R.C.M.P.
By the way, the Haiti page itself needs a serious update to deal with what's been happening there since the U.N. began occupying it.
-> Haiti was invaded by a small group of U.S. Marines armed with about fifteen rounds of ammunition each. One resistant group of 300 people was able to take a city of over two-million people. Haiti has a problem in that it is apathetic, unwilling to participate in government processes, and then condemn anyone who does manage to form a government. I've seen the film of the few government leaders on the streets with M-16s acting like regular combat troops instead of leading as officers. Haiti has a serious attitude problem and lots of whining for a nation with millions of people.
Minor changes
As a big fan of commas, I couldn't help but add several. I found this sentence in the Seven Years War section confusing and I'm not sure what it's supposed to say: "The French numbered no more than 3500 and before the British withdrew at the end of the day they had lost about 2000 men, mostly regulars, for a total French loss of about 350." DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that that sentence is pretty ambiguous. I have tweaked it, and hopefully it now makes sense. - SimonP 12:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The following is inaccurate and biased: "The victorious Americans looked to extend their republic and launched invasions in 1775 and in 1812. On both occasions, the Americans were rebuffed by British and local forces; however, this threat would remain well into the 19th century and partially facilitated Canadian Confederation in 1867." - As the article points out elsewhere, not all residents of the 13 colonies favored separation from Britain. The term "Americans" is misleading and prejudicial. Further, those in the US after the revolution had real fears that Britain would attempt to re-take the colonies. Britain committed what many US residents at the time considered provactive acts against the US and US citizens. This article, seemingly anti-American in its bias, suggest the US was operating out of an imperialist urge. - 1775 was prior to the start of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Indpendence by the 2nd Continental Congress. - The 1812 raid on York was by Kentucky militia. It has not been established they operating under federal command. - "Threat" implies an intent by the US Government to invade Canada. The US and Britain had boundary disputes during the 19th Century. Britain claimed some territory now in the US. These disputes were worked out diplomatically. The wording of the above passage suggests hostile intent on the part of the US against Canada (a nation which did not yet exist). No evidence is given for such alleged intent.
20th century
Should we mention funding levels for the military? It seems germaine to a discussion of the Canadian military, but perhaps there is a feeling that we should stick to harder events in this sort of article. I am not sure, but I thought that it is fairly well acknowledged that the Canadian military took a funding cut in the years after the cold war, resulting in a decline in standards throughout the military, personnel cuts, closing of overseas bases in Germany, etc... However, I don't know hard facts on this, so, rather than risk turning it into a National Post editiorial, I leave this for comment before making any substantial edits. Peregrine981 12:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- If there was a way to really get at it without it being POV (as you say, we don't want it to look like a National Post editorial), but I'm not sure that would be possible. The questions are, does that really stand out as anything particularly notable? Every NATO force took a pay cut after the Cold War, and for good reason; there was no Soviet threat anymore. Military funding tends to reflect threats to the nations doing the funding. Canada's military has arguably (the argument continues, and will continue) been able to meet its objectives since, and is, in fact, still sixth in NATO in overall funding. The 'underfunding' debate in Canada is also virtually identical to the 'underfunding' debate in every other NATO country, including the US. Certain political sectors insist that it is, and others insist that it isn't, because of their own varied understandings of the situation, and their widely divergent definitions of whatever perceived (or real) 'threat' might or might not exist.
- The other question would probably be: by what criteria is 'underfunding' defined? Is the definition political in nature, relative to a political stance, and therefore necessarily POV? As in, do people on the other side of the debate also believe that it is not 'underfunded', or that the funding cuts were necessary? (AFAIK, this *is* the case) In that case, the discussion of it in the article would have to be separated from the political debate; rather than acknowledging 'underfunding', it would have, to be NPOV, to describe a *political debate* about whether or not underfunding existed, or whether post-Cold War cuts were necessary. For example, for a defensive force to have an overseas base (Like Lahr, in Germany, as mentioned) which existed to defend Western Europe against a Soviet advance when the threat of that advance had completely evaporated is arguably an unnecessary expense (to say nothing of doctrinally unsound). The debate then, is one of definitions, and is political in nature.
- In the context of the fact that such cuts were universal in NATO, and that the 'underfunding' debate is universal in NATO countries, I'd be inclined to think that this would be more appropriately discussed in an article about NATO. Sigma-6
Time to summarize and section off?
The Military history of Canada article length is now at 51 kilobytes. Should we start breaking the sections up into different articles and work on summaries? Cheers, Madmagic 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes: I believe so (perhaps breaking it up by centuries to start, e.g., "Military history of Canada in 20th century") or similar, and particularly if it becomes a featured article, with all the richness and detail that entails. :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the first thing that should be done is to move the WWII section to a separate Military history of Canada during World War II, and replace it woith a brief summary. Canada is one of the few major participants without a World War II national military history article.- SimonP 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey! Perhaps both categories would work: by century and by event/era? They're separate but equal, and both allow for further expansion and consolidation. E Pluribus Anthony 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really think there is any need for such a major change. 50kb is not a major problem, and it cleared FA at this length. - SimonP 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey; no problem ... perhaps this can be a preliminary discussion for a time when the article does grow to an unwieldy size. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really think there is any need for such a major change. 50kb is not a major problem, and it cleared FA at this length. - SimonP 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey! Perhaps both categories would work: by century and by event/era? They're separate but equal, and both allow for further expansion and consolidation. E Pluribus Anthony 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the first thing that should be done is to move the WWII section to a separate Military history of Canada during World War II, and replace it woith a brief summary. Canada is one of the few major participants without a World War II national military history article.- SimonP 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What about Kosovo?
I noticed that the article included a sentence which read "Since the Second World War, Canada has been committed to multilateralism and has gone to war only within large, UN-sanctioned coalitions such as in the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan." I find this interesting because Canada joined Nato during the "Kosovo Conflict" in 1999, which was never sanctioned by the U.N. I also find it odd that there is no mention of the conflict at all in the whole article (as far as I can see). I remain your obedient servant, Wright Andrew 20:05, Novemeber 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Nato action in Kosovo was done as enforcement to UN Resolution 1244, which in part calls for Deployment in Kosovo under United Nations auspices of effective international civil and security presences, acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of common objectives. Raul654 05:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the mentioned phrase before reading the discussion page here. Now I am confused. But I suppose the most direct thing to note was that UN Resolution 1244 was adopted on 10 June 1999: the day the war ended! --M4-10 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Which clearly indicates that it refers to the U.N. sanctioned peacekeeping operation which happened after the war that Canada participated in (and which was not U.N. sanctioned). --M4-10 07:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The quote I mentioend comes from Annex 2, which was adopted by the G8 in early May. So it wasn't UN sanctioned, per se (although one could argue it was retroactively sanctioned) but it was still mutli-national. Raul654 07:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Which clearly indicates that it refers to the U.N. sanctioned peacekeeping operation which happened after the war that Canada participated in (and which was not U.N. sanctioned). --M4-10 07:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the mentioned phrase before reading the discussion page here. Now I am confused. But I suppose the most direct thing to note was that UN Resolution 1244 was adopted on 10 June 1999: the day the war ended! --M4-10 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
10,000 years?
"For at least 10,000 years, the area that would become Canada was the site of intertribal wars among First Nation groups" - How can that possibly be known? We have no history that dates back to 10,000 years. In fact, it contradicts biblical accounts of the earth being closer to 6,000 years old.
- We have no history that dates back to 10,000 years - incorrect. There is no *written* history that goes back 10,000 years; there are plenty of other sources of information, however. Raul654 08:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, it should contain facts. People shouldn't be reading something that may or may not be true. If it is debated material, than it cannot be represented as fact. ShoeShane
- I am failing to see the point you are trying to make. That the native americans warred with each other for thousands of years prior to the arrival of europeans is not in question by anybody. In fact, they were the most warlike of all the stone age cultures. However, prehistoric 'war' has little resemblence to what we would call war today. "Even the most warlike of old stone age people, the indians of North America, regarded warfare much more as a ritual activity - part art form, part healthy outdoor exercise - than as a practical instrument for achieving economic and political aims..." (Gwynne Dyer, "War", 10) Raul654 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- PS - "Old stone age", in this case, refers to the Paleolithic period of human history (from about 2 million years ago to 10,000 years ago) Raul654 10:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the mention is a little out of context. Can it be described as military history? I would have though this implied both a dedicated organisation (a military!) and a more complete knowledge of the history- battles/reasons/etc. Biblical Accounts hold a little less water than Archeological ones, so I support the move to allow prehistory if everyone thinks it has a place in this article!
- YHBT, perhaps? Adam Bishop 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, native americans did war with each other for thousands of years, but the article states "at least 10,000". There is absolutely no possible way to know that. So i am failing to see your point, you have no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason for that statement to be a part of the article. ShoeShane 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'll take the word of the military analyst quoted above over your "There is absolutely no possible way to know that" statement. Raul654 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- As long as this is citable and verifiable, and Gwynne Dyer is well-known (I have the volume here!), there should be no problem with including it. E Pluribus Anthony 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose the problem is that there is no "history" as such from 10 000 years ago. No matter what Gwynne Dyer says. Although I still think the original comment was trolling (and here we are still arguing about, good job everyone), they were right in that one aspect. Adam Bishop 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- We agree to disagree. Anthropologists and archaeologists would beg to differ: history can predate traditional written and recorded accounts. Perhaps the phrase can be massaged, but I would take Dyer over varied user interpretation any day ... and citing such reputable works is all that Wp requires. Oh: I believe 'Creation' occurred on 23 October, 4004 BC ... or thereabouts, right? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 14:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose the problem is that there is no "history" as such from 10 000 years ago. No matter what Gwynne Dyer says. Although I still think the original comment was trolling (and here we are still arguing about, good job everyone), they were right in that one aspect. Adam Bishop 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- As long as this is citable and verifiable, and Gwynne Dyer is well-known (I have the volume here!), there should be no problem with including it. E Pluribus Anthony 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'll take the word of the military analyst quoted above over your "There is absolutely no possible way to know that" statement. Raul654 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, native americans did war with each other for thousands of years, but the article states "at least 10,000". There is absolutely no possible way to know that. So i am failing to see your point, you have no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason for that statement to be a part of the article. ShoeShane 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- YHBT, perhaps? Adam Bishop 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the mention is a little out of context. Can it be described as military history? I would have though this implied both a dedicated organisation (a military!) and a more complete knowledge of the history- battles/reasons/etc. Biblical Accounts hold a little less water than Archeological ones, so I support the move to allow prehistory if everyone thinks it has a place in this article!
- PS - "Old stone age", in this case, refers to the Paleolithic period of human history (from about 2 million years ago to 10,000 years ago) Raul654 10:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am failing to see the point you are trying to make. That the native americans warred with each other for thousands of years prior to the arrival of europeans is not in question by anybody. In fact, they were the most warlike of all the stone age cultures. However, prehistoric 'war' has little resemblence to what we would call war today. "Even the most warlike of old stone age people, the indians of North America, regarded warfare much more as a ritual activity - part art form, part healthy outdoor exercise - than as a practical instrument for achieving economic and political aims..." (Gwynne Dyer, "War", 10) Raul654 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, it should contain facts. People shouldn't be reading something that may or may not be true. If it is debated material, than it cannot be represented as fact. ShoeShane
Vandalism
Could someone more knowledgeable than me please 'freeze' or 'lock' this page for a while to stop this rapid vandalism war? --thirty-seven 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- User:EveryKing, thanks for locking the page. However, there is still minor vandalism. Under the external links section, it says: "Canadiens ar estupic sissys" --thirty-seven 00:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Military history of Canada did not begin "millenia ago"
I find it highly inappropriate to date the beginning of Canadian military history back 10,000 years ago. I do not dispute that there were wars between native tribes or even with native tribes against Vikings (though there is no definitive proof of this; just strong evidence), but the nation of Canada did not exist until the nineteenth century. I would think it fine to mention any wars starting from European settlement in the sixteenth century because there is a link between then and the modern nation, but combining any engagement beforehand would not fit with the article's title. Consider, it would be equally inappropriate to find mention of pre-Colombian tribal wars in the military history of the United States of America, or Etruscan wars in the Military history of Rome. It can't be denied that former civilizations do leave lasting impressions on later nations' military, but it seems that those histories should be reserved for another article. Perhaps the Military history of North America, which would include wars of Native Americans inhabiting modern day Canada and the northern US, would be more appropriate considering the natives of the land did not see a border distinction between Canada and the US (there was no 45th parallel to them), though there was a difference in cultural identity between them and say- the Great Plains Indians.--Acefox 19:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)