Talk:History of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee History of Canada was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 28, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Add a new discussion section
Toolbox


What Wikipedia Should be[edit]

If you look at the first page, you get no clue about the real history of Canada. The French Explorer Jacques Cartier is not there, the French Colony and Champlain are not there. The many British invasions of Canada are not there. The British invasion of Canada in 1759 is not there. The Treaty of 1783 that defines the border of Modern Canada is not there, The fact that the British Lost in america against the French in the American Revolution is not there. The fact that English Canada begins by the expulsion of Royalists from the USA is not there.

Of course the British were not the founding nation of Canada, they simply invaded Canada, they also lost to the French in america, but you would not learn this from this first page. What you get is the British/Canadians many lies. You can thank Moxy for this. They don't want you to know what really happened.

Here is what you get on the first page: French and British arrived together in a Canada that was never french, nothing happened and suddently France simply gave up and Canada was born by the British winning and without any wars. France never defeated the British during the revolution. The end.

This is not an article worthy of Wikipedia. Moxy threaten me after he removes those facts 3 times and he wants to block me. This is not what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is about american freedom, not Canadian censorship. Wikipedia should not be about publishing lies. What you get is Moxy censorship. One editor protecting lies on a Wikipedia page. Canada wants to lie because in a Monarchy, that is what you have to do. You cannot tell what really happened. As for discussion, Moxy delete but never argues. Because of course, he can't. And he knows it.EMvague (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Violation of Wikipedia Policies on point of view and removal of facts[edit]

Factuals and importants elements cannot be remove from a wikipedia page. I will contact the Wikipedia administrator if you continue to erase thoses facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place for misleading people.

1- Jacques Cartier went to the St-Laurence River and called it Canada in 1534 (The foundation of Canada) 2- Canada was invaded by the British in 1759 (The invasion of Canada) 3- The British lost in America against France and the USA in 1781 (The British losing in America) 4- All the territory of New France was lost by the British in 1783. (The British losing New France Territory) 5- The word Canadien was used historically to descibe french people in the St-Laurence Settlement 6- The foundation of British Canada as a Monarchy by Royalists losing to the American in 1781.

What other facts could be more important than those 6 ?

If you continue to remove those facts. I will ask Wikipedia administrator to lock this page.

The paragraph that was removed contained misleading element about the first Treaty of Paris of 1763 that was replaced by the second treaty of Paris in 1783.

Removing factuals and importants elements is contrary to Wikipedia Policy. Wikipedia do not autorized election by editors to remove importants facts. Your opinion is not a valid reason when you want to remove importants facts.

You can edit the text to make it better. You can also add whatever you want. I will not delete it unless it is misleading. But you cannot remove important facts. EMvague (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Moxy! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status, and my review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Don't include "th" in dates
 Done..i think only saw one..unless you mean the prime minister as-well like.. 10th 12th etc.. Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
For prime ministers, see the note below about numbers under 10. I think you might've also missed a few dates in References
LOL that Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser does not like me changing the th ...:( ...LOL..also funny is that one version cahnges it to date and the other to year ..keeps getting changed LOL Moxy (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Still missed some in References...
  • You should consistently use Canadian spelling - for example, you have both "defense" and "defence"
  • Be consistent in the way you write directions - north east vs north-east vs northeast and similar directions
  • "8000 before the Common Era BCE" - BCE should be in parentheses
 Done..Moxy (talk)
Are you sure? It's in quotation marks now, which doesn't fix the problem
Removed the quotes and added the parentheses. Is that what you ment. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't repeat the same wikilinks more than once or twice, especially not in close proximity
  • mdashes shouldn't be spaced, and ndashes are generally used for date and page ranges - see WP:DASH
  • "The majority of population groups during the Archaic periods were still highly mobile hunter-gatherers; but now individual groups started to focus on resources available to them locally, thus with the passage of time there is a pattern of increasing regional generalization like, the Paleo-Arctic, Plano and Maritime Archaic traditions" - run-on sentence
 Done .."The majority of population groups during the Archaic periods were still highly mobile hunter-gatherers. However individual groups started to focus on resources available to them locally, thus with the passage of time there is a pattern of increasing regional generalization (i.e: Paleo-Arctic, Plano and Maritime Archaic traditions)"
  • The first few paragraphs of Post-Archaic periods are confusing to non-expert readers, and should be reworded to be more accessible
  • "tidewater" should be capitalized and probably linked
 Done..Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Avoid passive voice and indirect constructions
  • "sagas" should be capitalized
 Done..Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Got one, missed one
Got the second one. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity
  • "Though during the American Revolution there was some sympathy for the American cause among the Canadiens and the New Englanders in Nova Scotia, neither parties joined the rebels, although several hundred individuals joined the revolutionary cause" - run-on sentence
 Done..Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "With invasions imminent as reported by "loyalist" like Laura Secord[83] and Isaac Brock's foresight meant that Canada was not unprepared for the battles" - I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, could you reword/clarify?
 Done was simply removed..the section explains it better - o need for this.Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You should mention Brock and possibly Secord in that section, though, for completeness
 Done The war was overseen by Gen Brock with the assistance of loyalist informants like Laura Secord. here.[1]..Moxy (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Numbers under 10 should be spelled out (ex. "1st" -> "first"
  • Fixed...I think. There were only two cases of this that I found, both involving Prime Ministers. If this is counter-productive, just revert :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you crazy y would we revert you LOL...thank for the helpMoxy (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "The Mounties first large scale mission was to suppress the stated desire for independence by Manitoba's Métis, a mixed blood people originating in the mid-17th century when First Nation married European settlers" - reword for clarity
Changed the Métis sentence to remove the "married" bit. It now reads "a mixed blood people of joint First Nations and European descent who originated in the mid-17th century." Hope that's OK. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in using World War I(I) vs First/Second World War
 Done...i think..was only 2Moxy (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "most of 1921 to 1948" - this phrasing suggests that he became PM partway through 1921 and remained PM until 1948, when in fact he was PM for most of that period
-- how is this The Liberals regained their influence after the war under the leadership of William Mackenzie King, who served as prime minister with three separate terms between 1921 to 1949.Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Replace "to" with "and" and you've got a deal ;-)
 Done... here...Moxy (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done reworded.Moxy (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "In 1976 the Parti Québécois was elected to power in Quebec, with a nationalist vision that included securing French linguistic rights in the province and the pursuit of some form of sovereignty for Quebec, leading to the 1980 referendum in Quebec on the question of sovereignty-association, which was turned down by 59% of the voters" - run-on sentence
 Done...here..Moxy (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

Self note copy of article with constant ref numbers as mentioned bellow (ref moving around now)
  • Refs 30 and 111 are dead links. Ref 132 timed out, but that may be temporary (or just my connection)
 Done.Moxy (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of the footnotes have strange artifacts outside of the linked text. For example, at the end of War of 1812: "[86]pp. 254–255"
This are the page numbers for the referances..in this style because we use the same ref more the a few times.Moxy (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You might try a shortened ref-bibliography form, as described in section 2 of WP:CITEX
  • "Over centuries, elements of Aboriginal, French, British and more recent immigrant customs have combined to form a Canadian culture. Canada has also been strongly influenced by that of its linguistic, geographic and economic neighbour, the United States" - normally, as this is in the lead it needn't be sourced. However, since the information is not explicitly included in the article...actually, it really should be included in the article text, but if it's not then it must be sourced
Could you expand on this...as the article mentions borders, joint military ventures, ongoing relations with the United States..or do you mean the culture because we do talk alot about the different immigrants that come to Canada over the years.Moxy (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Is that what you meant by that? The way I read it was in regards to art and popular culture or cultural attitudes. If the above was your meaning, you may wish to rephrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "New France was not fully restored to French rule until the 1632 Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye" - potentially controversial, so should be sourced
 Done,,Moxy (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Google Books is not the real publisher of that source
 Done Opps..fixed ...here will fix volume thing with all others soon .Moxy (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "signaled the end of Britain's struggle to suppress the American Revolution" - likewise, should be sourced
 Done
  • "Wilfrid Laurier the 7th Prime Minister of Canada felt Canada was on the verge of becoming a world power, and declared that the 20th century would "belong to Canada"." - source?
  • "By the end of the war, Canada had, temporarily at least, become a significant military power" - source?
 Done..removed no need to say this any was..i do have a ref it you think its worth mentioning.Moxy (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Prosperity returned to Canada during the Second World War and continued in the proceeding years. With consecutive Liberal governments, national policies increasingly turned to social welfare" - source?
 Done reworded and sourced.Moxy (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

Self note copy of article with constant ref numbers as mentioned bellow (ref moving around now)
  • Generally speaking, formatting should be more consistent
  • 6: rm double period and the part about registered trademark; Elsevier is the publisher
  • If you're going to say "Digitized online by Google Books" for one such source, you need to say so for all of them
 Done..removed..easier that way and i see there no need for it .Moxy (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're going to include publisher location for some sources, you should include it for all of them
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed last name or first name first. Don't italicize author names
Ok will do ..but the italicize of author names is done by the individual cite templates.Moxy (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't - if you look at the affected refs (for example, <ref name=Goebel>{{cite web| title=The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas| work=Ted Goebel, et al| url=http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/cfsa-publications/Science2008.pdf| format=Verbal tutorial possible| publisher=The Center for the Study of First Americans | format=PDF| year=2008| doi=10.1126/science.1153569| accessdate=2010-02-05}}</ref>), there is no "author" parameter - the author is listed incorrectly, in this case as the work
  • Remove doubled periods and commas
  • Be consistent in how editions are listed
  • 26: missing information
 Done - depended on the vast herds of bison to supply food and many of their other needs.[2] ..Moxy (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done - replaced - is thought non-existent in Inuit society before the introduction of the Canadian legal system.[3]...Moxy (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes ref 52 a reliable source?
 Done - replaced (with a change in text)[4] ...Moxy (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of using encyclopedia.com, cite the original source
 Done - I think ..Moxy (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Include the publisher for all sources
  • What makes refs 66 or 68 or 73 or 148 or 164 reliable sources?
66  Done - After Queen Anne's War, Nova Scotia, other than Cape Breton, was ceded to the British by the Treaty of Utrecht as well as the Hudson Bay territory conquered by France in the late 17th century.[5]
68  Done - led by William Pepperrell mounted an expedition of 90 vessels and 4,000 men against Louisbourg in 1745.[6]
73  Done - Treaty of Paris (1763), France ceded almost all of its territory in mainland North America.[7] (from Canada Article)
148  Done - replaced (with a change in text could be better) .[8]
164  Done - was simply removed (there was 2 of them)-- Here the one left --> In July 2010 the largest purchase in Canadian military history, totaling C$9 billion for the acquisition of 65 F-35 fighters was announced by the federal government.[9]..Moxy (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further reading and External links[edit]

  • "died by 1930" -> "died before 1930" or "in 1930 or earlier" as applicable
  • Use consistent formatting, and include publisher for all entries
  • Don't put Canadawiki in Further reading (potentially in External links)
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in either section
Further reading has been removed..not sure y ity keeps getting added back..i cant find any of the books online or at mt old university.Moxy (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Broad[edit]

  • This article's emphasis is political and social history. Perhaps add some discussion of important cultural developments? Adoption of "O Canada", Group of Seven, other cultural events or groups?
  • Could use a couple more sentences each for the Great Depression and the Second World War. Also, could mention the rise of socialism / anti-communist reactionism following the First World War
 Done-- half done The 1922 War Office report listed approximately 67,000 killed and 173,000 wounded during the war, this numbers excludes civilian deaths in war time incidents like the Halifax Explosion.[10]
The period also saw the rise of a small Communist Party of Canada, who opposed Canada's entry into Second World War and was banned under the Defence of Canada Regulations of the War Measures Act in 1940.
Axis U-boats operated in Canadian and Newfoundland waters throughout the war, sinking many naval and merchant vessels.[11] The Canadian mainland was also attacked when the Japanese submarine I-26 shelled the Estevan Point lighthouse on Vancouver Island on June 20, 1942.[12] The Conscription Crisis of 1944 had a major effect on unity between French and English-speaking Canadians, though was not as politically intrusive as that of the First World War.[13]
..Moxy (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Should mention the influx of Chinese immigrants during the BC boom years, and the related completion of a trans-Canada railway

Neutrality[edit]

  • "the only people who really lost were the Natives who fought for the British and lost their military power, their lands in the United States, and their access to prime fur trade areas" - I understand what you're trying to say, but "the only people who really lost" is not neutrally worded
 Done removed all together ..Moxy (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Be sure to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times

Stability[edit]

No issues noted

Images[edit]

  • Captions should also be grammatically correct
  • Don't sandwich text between images
 Done..from what i see with a 52 inch screen :)..Moxy (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • " "loyalist" Laura Secord" in text vs "loyalist "Laura Secord" " in caption - be consistent. Also, his Wikipedia article indicates that FitzGibbon was a lieutenant, not a general - which is correct?
 Done..was Lieutenant my fault..Moxy (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell from a Google search, Lorne Kidd Smith did not die until at least 1940 - therefore, PD-art may not apply to the Secord painting
Say "Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. 1997-229-2 Copyright: Expired (1920)Moxy (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The licensing tag will then probably need to be replaced - the current one says "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" (emphasis in original), so if the author did not die more than 70 years ago then this tag does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Double-check licensing on Fort-victoria.jpeg
 Done,,,cant find it .. Image replaced with File:JaMAC.jpg..Moxy (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Nwmp lancer.jpg - source link is dead
 Done,,cant fix it...replaced with File:British columbia 1896.jpg..Moxy (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. With a corporation listed as the author, you can't prove that the creator of the image died before 1940 - making that licensing tag questionable.
Ok what about this one File:North-western-territory.png??Moxy (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Source link for that one is dead.
 Done..File:Pacific-Northwest.jpg..Moxy (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Source link for AvroArrow1.jpeg is dead
 Done - fixed File:AvroArrow1.jpg-->- CF Photo ..link page.Moxy (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Canada flag halifax 9 -04.JPG - lacking source information
 Done --simply replaced with File:Flag-of-Canada-Vanier-Park.jpg.Moxy (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Peace Arch image could be removed, as it doesn't add very much to the article
 Done - removed and replaced with File:Sundown ceremony at Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan, July 17, 2009.jpg..Moxy (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
On going comments
Thank you Nikkimaria..there is alot here to fixup..so i guess i will work on them one by one.although Canadian vs Americans spelling i will have a problem with this. So i guess this could take me some time to do..i would guess a month or so. Moxy (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)!!!!
Okay. In that case, I'm going to go ahead and put this on hold, with the expectation of a extended month-long hold. Sound good? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good ...just <s> when concern is all ok if you like..PS i need help with Canadian spelling..I am Canadian but grew up on Air Forces bases around the world so went to Expatriate American schools...then went to University in Britan..so i will ask for help here from others on Canadian english .Moxy (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Peer Review tool will point out some of them (although it does miss the subtleties of Canadian English, since it's geared towards US/UK). You can try that, but you'll probably still need help for what it misses. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling using a Canadian English dictionary:

Article Text editor suggestion WordWeb suggestion
civilisations civilizations Does not define either one as Canadian/UK/US
archeological archaeological archaeological
centered centred centred
center center centre
Defensive Defencive Defensive, the C version is not listedA
trenchwork trench work Not listed as one word but as two
traveled travelled travelled
practice practise Does not define either one as Canadian/UK/US
signaled signalled signalled
favorable favourable favorable
fiascos fiascoes Does not define either one as Canadian/UK/US
favored favoured favoured
totaling totalling totalling
  • ^A The sentence needs re-writing I think. It reads "Defensive Salish trenchwork defences" Probably one of them should go.

Question[edit]

Well is there anything that I can do now? My internet was down for a while so I was unable to help out :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, references need to be standardized, if you've got a lot of time on your hands ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the citations? I'm blind here when it comes to that. I'll try to fix it thought.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 02:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Lots of inconsistencies of all kinds - editions, doubled punctuation, misplaced information...If you'd rather, you can take a stab at copy-editing (although I know that's not your strong suit) or at tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Re -ice vs -ise spelling: see Oxford spelling for info. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The hard ones for me are...
  1. You should consistently use Canadian spelling - for example, you have both "defense" and "defence"
  2. The article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity
  3. Be consistent in the way you write directions - north east vs north-east vs northeast and similar directions
  4. Avoid passive voice and indirect constructions....Moxy (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

...Moxy

New References
  1. ^ "Biography of Laura Secord". University of Toronto - Université Laval (from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online at Libraries and Archives Canada). 2000. Retrieved 2010-06-21. 
  2. ^ "The bison economy of the southern Alberta Plains". University of Calgary (The Applied History Research Group). 2007. Retrieved 2010-08-36.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  3. ^ "Tirigusuusiit, Piqujait and Maligait: Inuit Perspectives on Traditional Law". Nunavut Arctic College. 1999. Retrieved 2010-08-28. 
  4. ^ "Estimated population of Canada, 1605 to present". Statistics Canada. 2009. Retrieved 2010-08-26. 
  5. ^ Axelrod, Alan (2007). Blooding at Great Meadows: young George Washington and the battle that ... Running Press. p. 62. ISBN 0762427698. Retrieved 2010-08-16. 
  6. ^ Boose, Jr., Donald W (2008). Over the beach: US Army amphibious operations in the Korean War. Combat Studies Institute. p. 11. ISBN 0980123674. Retrieved 2010-08-26. 
  7. ^ "Canada: History" (html/PDF). Country Profiles. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 2007-10-09. 
  8. ^ Bosch, Núria; Solé Ollé (2010). The political economy of inter-regional fiscal flows: measurement ... Edward Elgar. p. 374. ISBN 1848443730. Retrieved 2010-08-26.  Unknown parameter |fisrt2= ignored (help)
  9. ^ "Row over Canada F-35 fighter jet order". BBC News Online. July 16, 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-20. 
  10. ^ The War Office (1922). Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914–1920. Reprinted by Naval & Military Press. p. 237. ISBN 1847346812. 
  11. ^ "The Battle of the Atlantic" (PDF). Canadian Naval Review. 2005. Retrieved 2010-24-08.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  12. ^ Yesaki, Mitsuo (2003). "Sutebusuton: a Japanese village on the British Columbia coast". Peninsula Pub. p. 122. ISBN 0968679935. Retrieved 2010-24-08.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  13. ^ Conscripts: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. Inc Icon Group International. 2008. p. 47. Retrieved 2010-23-08.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

To do list since GA review[edit]

Moxy (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting
  • Don't include "th" in dates
  • You should consistently use Canadian spelling - for example, you have both "defense" and "defence"
  • Don't repeat the same wikilinks more than once or twice, especially not in close proximity
  • mdashes shouldn't be spaced, and ndashes are generally used for date and page ranges - see WP:DASH
  • Avoid passive voice and indirect constructions
  • The article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity
Accuracy and verifiability
  • Some of the footnotes have strange artifacts outside of the linked text. For example, at the end of War of 1812: "[86]pp. 254–255"
  • "Over centuries, elements of Aboriginal, French, British and more recent immigrant customs have combined to form a Canadian culture. Canada has also been strongly influenced by that of its linguistic, geographic and economic neighbour, the United States" - normally, as this is in the lead it needn't be sourced. However, since the information is not explicitly included in the article...actually, it really should be included in the article text, but if it's not then it must be sourced.
References
  • Generally speaking, formatting should be more consistent
  • If you're going to include publisher location for some sources, you should include it for all of them
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed last name or first name first. Don't italicize author names
  • Remove doubled periods and commas
  • Be consistent in how editions are listed
  • Include the publisher for all sources
Broad
  • This article's emphasis is political and social history. Perhaps add some discussion of important cultural developments? Adoption of "O Canada", Group of Seven, other cultural events or groups?
  • Should mention the influx of Chinese immigrants during the BC boom years, and the related completion of a trans-Canada railway.
  • Also, could mention the rise of socialism / anti-communist reactionism following the First World War.
Neutrality
  • Be sure to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times
Images
  • Captions should also be grammatically correct.

Copy and pasting[edit]

Could we pls not copy and past from Military history of Canada they are separate for a reason. thank you Moxy (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added some info (with refs) that was trying to be add with the copy and past with no refs ..Pls see History of Canada#Wars during the colonial era, we cant go into to much detail as this is an overview article - not even WWI and WWII get there own section.Moxy (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

nunavut[edit]

Was content referring to the creation of Nunavut removed consciously or did it just get accidentally lost while the article was being improved? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

incorrect references[edit]

not pg2

Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America K. R. Fladmark Page 55 of 55-69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.235.173 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost entirely military history???[edit]

This article is almost 100% devoted to military events, military territory gains, military whatever. Almost all images used in it are military battles or soldiers, an air force plane, etc.. I want to see more copy given over to other areas of Canada's history: economic development, population growth, social history, Canadian culture, food, I don't care what, just something other than "Treaty signed in year XXXX, Fort Blah Blah burned in year XXXX" and so on. Anyone foreign to Canada reading this article would think it was nothing but a chain of military garrisons from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

And if no one else revises it, I might. OttawaAC (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time, it largely was, actually no there was nothing on the Praires yet, not even Fort Garry; the Pacific had barely been mapped at this point....native history is missing here though, big-time. But this is the orthodox colonialist history, and naturally about battles and forts (from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes anyway), unless detailed accounts of the native societies and wars should be added to (?).Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the article could use more information on economic and cultural history, I'm not seeing 100% military focus - I'd say closer to 50%. Still a bit much, but not a crisis. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding some non-military items -- such as 1920-39 period Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I will try to match (clean up) to new stuff to the old stuff..will get more refs for section that are missing them.
Need page rang for many of this refs pls Moxy (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Rjensen, you might have noticed that I removed some of your additions - it looks like a couple of the articles you were copying from were themselves taken from copyrighted sources. Could you hold off on adding any more for a bit, while we try to work this out? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the late 1700's most of Canada revolved around:

  • Fishing (with military efforts to maintain the ports/bases and control or contest control of the seas )
  • French empire building goals and contests (with fur trade and military being heavily involved in that)
  • Fur Trading (with the military and military posts involved in and supporting that)
  • Missionary / conversion efforts
  • Settlements were mostly to support the above four.

Not that that is an answer to your valid concern; it's just some hopefully useful information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsure of who's meant by this phrase[edit]

Maybe it's just the syntax is vague, or it's the French Canadians in Nova Scotia that's meant; the link is to the French Canadians, the pipe on the link says "canadiens" (which NB if it were to be used, should be lower case not capped).....but if it's the French in Nova Scotia, the Acadians should be specified, and "Canadian" is not an appropriate term to use for anyone in that area until 1867. But if it's the French across the board at this point, then the fur company staff and the associated traders who might have been involved in, say, Ohio and Michigan allied with the natives? So not just canadiens but also gens du pays (du pays en haut, the country on the "upper route", i.e. Upper CAnada and north of the lakes; and again "acadiens", if it's Nova Scotian French who are meant, is the proper usage; but it may just be the syntax and "French....from Nova Scotia" is not what's meant; I don't have access to what the source says, but he may misuse the terms too.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to find the phrase you were talking about, since you didn't actually put in your post or say what section it was in, but I changed it to "Acadians". Indefatigable (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Under-emphasized elements[edit]

Fur trade[edit]

During the 1600's through the late 1700's the fur trade was a dominant influence and possibly the most dominating influence, but this seems to be mostly missing from the article. If nobody else does I plan to eventually help in this area. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"In 1604, a North American fur trade monopoly was granted to Pierre Dugua Sieur de Monts" -- Moxy (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a good start.North8000 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"The fur trade became one of the main economic ventures in North America [1]" -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the history of the frontier (interior) in 1600's and first half of 1700's is mostly French and centered around fur trading, religious conversion and empire claiming/establishment, and military protection of or involvement in those efforts. Of course the central US was sort of blended into this / the same story / hard to separate. The article seems a bit short on this (west of Georgian bay) and on the fur trade. I'll try to add a paragraph or two on this over over time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good - perhaps move it below the 1608 paragraph. -- Moxy (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I was viewing it as an intro/overview, but in reality it is pretty much after 1608 so I think that your idea is a good one. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are HUGE parts of Canadian history missing from this article. I can think of a large number of things. The fur trade was not "mostly French", it was partly French and partly English. For instance the Royal Charter of 1670 from King Charles II of England gave the Hudson's Bay Company a monopoly over the region drained by all rivers and streams flowing into Hudson Bay. That included a very large part of Canada, and MOST of the fur trade, which was Canada's biggest industry for centuries. It was a VAST area which now includes 85% of the farmland in Canada! It was the real reason the British wanted to take Canada (i.e. New France) from France in 1763, but it is grossly under-emphasized in the article. Historically, Canada was all about furs. After Canada became a country in 1867, Canada had to buy all that land from the Hudson's Bay Company, which they did, and sign treaties to buy out the native rights to the region, which they did. But, apparently, it's not important to some people.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-European populations in Canada after 1600[edit]

I read in section 'Wars during the colonial era' about 16,000 French settlers in the early 1700s. But I wonder: how many Aboriginal people were living there in those same centuries? --Corriebertus (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There were some unknown number of aboriginal people in Canada at the time, maybe a million or so. Who knows? And they were actively involved in the fur trade. In fact the native people used to fight wars between each other over who got to trade with the white people. The Blackfoot and Cree were constantly at war with each other over territory, and only met to trade furs, which was a major source of value for both of them. The Cree are the largest aboriginal group in Canada and did rather well from the fur trade. But, you're not going to find much about it in this article. They get a sentence or two.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually we have numbers for Aboriginals at the time...will work on this. Rest all in the article.--Moxy (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The Blackfoot aren't mentioned at all, which is a gap since they have some of the largest reservations in Canada. I guess it is because they aren't Eastern Indians. Actually they were, they originated in Eastern Canada, but they migrated west and took over the southern prairies. Very aggressive Indians, managed to keep the white men off their lands for generations, until the buffalo ran out, and then since they were starving they had to do a deal.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes we should mention Siksikaitsitapi....just need to readup on it today first.--Moxy (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Siksikaitsitapi or "Blackfoot-speaking real people" in Blackfoot. Siksika means "Blackfoot" in the Blackfoot language. It's their name for themselves. Why do they call themselves "Blackfoot"? Some people claim it's because they wore black moccasins, but that's only one theory. Why do the English call themselves "English"?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dangler[edit]

Greatly outgunned by the British Royal Navy, the American war plans....

Grammatically, the above text says the American war plans were greatly outgunned by the Royal Navy.
See Dangling modifier. Sca (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

European contact - missing information[edit]

There is very little information on John Cabot, who should be important to Canadian history since he is the explorer who "discovered" Canada after Columbus "discovered" America. Some more information would be nice, and I have tried to add it. I might also add information about the English and Basque fishermen who some believe were fishing off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland decades before Columbus "discovered" America.

I'm not sure what the focus on the Portuguese claims is for. Certainly Basque fishermen fished off the Grand Banks, probably before Columbus, but Portugal never got very far with its claims against Britain and France. It got Brazil, shouldn't that be enough?

The Norse discoveries are important since it was actually the Vikings were the first Europeans who "discovered" Canada, almost 500 years before Columbus, and there is a strong suspicion that Columbus heard about that when he visited Iceland prior to his historic voyage to what he thought was India. He never admitted it wasn't India, which is why it is called "America" after Amerigo Vespucci and not Columbia. Canada has the only validated Norse site in North America, dated from nearly 500 years before Columbus, which is a World Heritage site, and that deserves elaboration.

The references to these are in the main articles which I have linked to. Remember, the lede should be a summary of the body of the article, the sections should start off with a summary of what they are going to say, and references for information in the linked articles are in the linked articles. If anybody wants more references, just flag what you want and I can add them. Google works wonderfully well for finding references.

Please don't go around deleting other authors' information just because you feel you "own" this article. Wikipedia is a group collaboration and everybody should be able to put in their 2 cents worth. Instead of deleting it, work to improve it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have revert the most recent additions as follows:

There is firm evidence of European visits to Canada before the Voyages of Christopher Columbus, starting in 1492. An archaeological site of an ancient Norse colony in Canada nearly 500 years earlier has been found at L'Anse aux Meadows at the northernmost tip of Newfoundland. Discovered in 1960, it is the only confirmed Norse settlement in North America outside of Greenland. It is now a National Historic Site of Canada and is listed as World Heritage Site.[1]

Although he is usually considered to have discovered the Americas, Christopher Columbus never landed north of the Caribbean Sea in his voyages to the Americas. In 1497 John Cabot became the first European known to have landed in Canada after the time of the Vikings. Cabot was an Italian explorer (Italian: Giovanni Caboto) working for merchants in the English city of Bristol under letters patent from King Henry V. Records indicate that on 24 June 1497 he landed at a northern location believed to be somewhere in the Atlantic provinces. The Canadian and British governments have officially deemed the landing site to at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, although other locations are possible. After 1497 Cabot and his son Sebastian Cabot continued to make other voyages, and other explorers continued to sail out of England to the New World, although the details of these voyages are not well recorded. (unsourced)


The reasons behind my edits are as follows:

  • First paragraph is simply repeating the info already here...perhaps we could mention its a Historic Site in the image?

There are reports of contact made before the 1492 voyages of Christopher Columbus and the age of discovery between First Nations, Inuit and those from other continents. The earliest recorded European exploration of Canada is described in the Icelandic Sagas, which recount the attempted Norse colonization of the Americas.[31][32] According to the Sagas, the first European to see Canada was Bjarni Herjólfsson, who was blown off course en route from Iceland to Greenland in the summer of 985 or 986 CE.[33] Around the year 1001 CE, the Sagas recount Leif Ericson's landing in three places to the west,[34] the first two being Helluland (possibly Baffin Island) and Markland (possibly Labrador).[32][35] Leif's third landing was at a place he called Vinland (possibly Newfoundland).[36] Norsemen (often referred to as Vikings) attempted to colonize the new land; they were driven out by the local climate and harassment by the Indigenous populace.[33] Archaeological evidence of a short-lived Norse settlement was found in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland (carbon dating estimate 990 – 1050 CE)

  • Second paragraph again repeats some info and has some info that needs sources .some info here is of interest like where he landed...we can use a sentence for it
  • Then we have over linking problems
  • My main question...is the editor in question reading the article before adding info and saving it?
  • As for sources pls add then to the article dont make people run around hoping to find said sources...simply not how it works
  • In general was not a positive edit....I or anyone can work on this see what source there are and trim the details. -- Moxy (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Since no reply to my concerns just another revert...I have taken the time to clean up the edits. -- Moxy (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The section on John Cabot mentions "King Henry V". If this is Henry V of England, then the mention is inaccurate. Henry V died in 1422, almost 30 years before Cabot was born. The article on Cabot mentions him working for Henry VII of England (reigned 1485-1509). Dimadick (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Was correct when re-added to article after copyedit..thks -- Moxy (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That was a typo resulting from squinting at it with only one good eye. Henry double-I looks like Henry double-square-bracket. I've replaced the lens in the bad eye with a plastic one, so I can see the error now.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Leif Erikson and the Norse discovery of Canada[edit]

Between the efforts of User:Moxy and User:Rjensen we have ended up with an almost fact-free summary of the Norse discovery of Canada, to wit:

There were contacts made before 1492. The Norse, who had settled Greenland and Iceland, arrived around the year 1000 and built a small settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows at the northernmost tip of Newfoundland (carbon dating estimate 990 – 1050 CE).[31][32]

This was an important event in global, nevermind Canadian history and deserves more attention. The first European known to set foot in the Americas was Leif Erikson in or about the year 1000. He stayed overwinter at Leifsbudir (Leif's Camp), which is believed by most archaeologists to be the L'Anse aux Meadows historic site in Newfoundland. This is an important fact in the history of Canada which should be recorded in this article. Columbus did not discover Canada. Leif Erikson discovered Canada (and John Cabot rediscovered it nearly 500 years later).

The Icelandic Sagas which record this are much more accurate than some people think. Most of the people in Iceland can trace their families back to the original Norse settlers more than 1000 years ago by reading the Sagas. They include names, dates, places, and sailing directions to places they mention. The Norse Colony at L'Anse aux Meadows was found by Norwegian archaeologists following the descriptions in the Sagas. It is now a World Heritage Site, with reconstructions of the buildings there there, which may have had 160 or more people at times, forging iron and building boats. This was elaborated on at great length in the book "Westviking" by the late and great Canadian author Farley Mowat.

After Leif returned to Greenland with news of the new land, the Norse continued to visit Canada for several hundred years and there are traces of them all over. The buildings at Leifsbudir continued to be used by subsequent Norse explorers. In 1004, Leif's brother Thorvald Eiriksson returned with a crew of 30 men to Leifsbudir. Later, at least 160 Norse, including 16 women, under the leadership of Thorfinn Karlsefni attempted to found a colony, but were driven out by the local Skrælings (Norse for barbarians). Karlsefni's son, Snorri Thorfinnsson is believed to be the first child of European descent to be born in North America, somewhere between 1005 and 1013. Snorri left Canada at the age of 3 and went on to promote Christianity in Iceland.

Leif's discovery is also important because, being a Viking with a fast boat, he traveled between Iceland, Greenland, Norway and America, and is known to have spent some time in the employ of the King of Norway. The information spread further. The German historian Adam of Bremen mentions that the King of Denmark told him about a new land to the west of Greenland. Christopher Columbus is know to have visited Iceland prior to his historic "discovery of America" and may have heard about the land to the west of Greenland, since the Icelanders never forgot it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

it was not an important event for Canada--it had zero impact on Canadian history. Nothing was changed or influenced by it. The deleted text makes no effort to demonstrate the importance to the history of Canada. A short mention will lead readers to the long story. Rjensen (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's rather presumptuous for an American historian to be telling Canadians what is and is not important about Canadian history. It's a good thing we're not talking about the War of 1812. The Norse explorations of Canada were important not just in the Canadian but in the global context. It was the first collision between European and Native American cultures. The Native Americans won that round, but not subsequent conflicts. Back in the 11th Century, if the kings of Norway had acted on Leif Erikson's reports and decided to try to conquer North America, rather than trying and failing to conquer England, and sent a few hundred Viking longboats to back up the settlers, the history of North American might have turned out very different than it did. The US we know is really the result of a series of outcomes at critical decision points for the people who now live there. Similarly for Canada.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Am i allowed to comment on "the global context" or is that also presumptuous? this article is not a good place to cover global history. There is limited space here. Add the Norse and some real Canadians have to get cut. As for what might have happened--do tell us how Canada might be different if something different happened in year 1001. How about year 1001 and year 1101 and 1201--don't be shy about telling us the "history" of your alternative world. Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can comment on it in the global context, but try to avoid the American stars and stripes context since Canadians learn far too much about that in school. Canadians know more about American history than Americans do (and I've had numerous conversations on various continents with Aussies and Brits and Kiwis about how little Americans know about their own country). Canadians need to know more about their own Canadian history, which is different. The key facts here are that Leif Erikson was the first European to LAND on Canadian soil. We could also name the first European SEE Canada (but didn't land, the Vikings all laughed about this), and the first person of European descent to be BORN on Canadian soil. (And then there are the Viking women). These are all significant historic facts. And then we can argue about why this was so important to Canadian history (as distinct from American history, about which I learned far too much going to school in Canada.) And then we can talk about the First Nations, but that is somewhat of Canadian concept. Got to go now, they're going to suck out one of my eye lenses and replace it with a plastic one, and that's going to put me out of the loop for a couple of days. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I added back a small sentence (sourced) showing the "possible" connection Vinland. -- Moxy (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not a possible connection, it's a "definitely confirmed" connection, based on archaeological evidence. You seem to be arguing that it might not have happened.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed that wording..I will fix it in other places..Added sources aswell. I think all the main links to sub articles are there all should be good now.-- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Canadians should study Canadian history. This is Norse history and by your attiktude Norse history issues should be left to Norse people-- Danes and Norwegians. I'm Danish so I will claim authority here and request you to not trespass. Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Canadian of Norwegian descent, and those were my ancestors trying to conquer North America. 900 years later they came back and homesteaded in Alberta, so my creds are valid. Also, one of my nieces got a scholarship to go to Iceland and study Icelandic. Now, she has a masters degree in Icelandic from the University of Iceland and works as a translator there. Icelandic is very similar to Old Norse. However, this topic is mostly important to Newfoundland, which, lest people forget, is part of Canada. The L'Anse aux Meadows historic site is a major Newfoundland tourist attraction, and if you were wondering why I mentioned the "What if the Vikings won?" scenario, two kilometres away is the Norstead (Newfoundland) Viking Village, which is a replica of what a Viking port of trade might have looked like if the Vikings had won. You should go and check it out. Also try reading "Westviking" by Farley Mowat, which is non-fiction, and "Eiriksdottir" by Joan Clark, which is a fictionalized novel about Leif Erikson's sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir and her part in the attempt to colonize Vinland. Newfoundland once had a Westviking College, later amalgamated into College of the North Atlantic. This history is important to Newfoundland and therefore Canada.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So ??? are we all ok with the 2 sentences there now? Sourced and all the main links there....if people want to know more...just a click away. -- Moxy (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point in time we have

The Norse, who had settled Greenland and Iceland, arrived around the year 1000 and built a small settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows at the northernmost tip of Newfoundland (carbon dating estimate 990 – 1050 CE).[31] L'Anse aux Meadows is also notable for its connection with the attempted colony of Vinland established by Leif Erikson around the same period or, more broadly, with Norse exploration of the Americas.[32][31]

It is lacking in names, places, and dates, and there is no point in putting in carbon dating when we know exact dates. The facts are that the discovery of Canada came at the end of the Viking push west from Norway during the Viking Age. In 874 the Vikings started colonizing Iceland, and in 985 Erik the Red founded the Greenland settlements. In 1000 or 1001 Erik's son, Leif Erikson, went looking for a land rumored to the west of Greenland, and discovered Vinland. He stayed over winter at a place called Leifsbudir, (or Leif's booths) which based on archaeological evidence has been identified as L'Anse aux Meadows in northern Newfoundland. He sailed back to Greenland with a load of timber and reported his findings. However, Leif made only one voyage to Vinland. In 1002 his brother Thorvald Eiriksson sailed to Vinland, but was killed in a clash with the native Skræling. In 1009 Thorfinn Karlsefni sailed to Vinland to found a settlement with three ships loaded with livestock and at least 160 men and women, including Leif's sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir. It appears that all these expeditions spent at least some time at Leifsbudr/L'Anse aux Meadows, although there is evidence of Viking occupation at other settlements in northern Canada. During the colonization attempt, Thorfinn and his wife had a son, Snorri Thorfinnsson, who is the first white man known to have been born in Canada. You can condense all that and eliminate some names, but you should get the basic facts in.

The main problem I have with linking to the article Norse colonization of the Americas is that there is no real evidence that the Vikings ever got south of Canada, although there is lots of evidence of their presence in Canada. Americans might like to differ, but it should be called "Norse settlements in Canada". They have speculated that the Vikings got to the US based on the discovery of grapes growing wild, but the fact is that early English settlers found grapes growing wild in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. However, the English arrived during the Little Ice Age, while the Vikings explored during the Medieval Warm Period, when it is entirely possible grapes were growing wild in Newfoundland. Don't tell the global warming controversy crowd I said that because they have been trying to get the MWP and LIA to disappear from Wikipedia. I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just saying it's happened before.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

historians with full length histories of Canada give it a half centence: eg "Native people had lived in the region at least six thousand years before Leif Ericsson's followers attempted a shortlived settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland."Desmond Morton (2008). A Short History of Canada: Sixth Edition. p. 79.  it's much less important than the centuries long contacts with Europeans on Baffin Island and Labrador. [ Terrence Murphy (1996). A Concise History of Christianity in Canada. p 1] Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

John Cabot and the English fishermen[edit]

Again, there is important information about John Cabot which is missing, and for some reason the Portuguese claims get more coverage. I don't see the point in the latter. The Treaty of Tordesillas, which arbitrated the claims of Spain and Portugal assigned North America exclusively to Spain, not Portugal. Portugal got Brazil, not Canada.

The article about John Cabot says

John Cabot ... whose 1497 discovery of parts of North America under the commission of Henry VII of England is commonly held to have been the first European exploration of the mainland of North America since the Norse Vikings' visits to Vinland in the eleventh century.

"Parts of North America" is probably the same as Vinland is probably the same as Newfoundland but despite what the article says is not part of mainland of North America. I think it is important to mention that John Cabot was sailing for the merchants of the English city of Bristol. Although Cabot wanted to find the mythical Northwest Passage, the merchants of Bristol were looking for economic opportunities. The discovery of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland with its gigantic cod fishery was good enough. See "Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World" by Mark Kurlansky for details. Cod was definitely the fish that changed Canada. Cabot's discovery caused a swarm of European fishing boats to sail to Newfoundland, where English, French, Portuguese and Spanish fishing boats competed for space. However

The French, Spanish and Portuguese fishermen tended to fish on the Grand Banks.... The English fishermen, however, concentrated on fishing inshore... These fishermen used small boats and returned to shore every day.... Many of their coastal sites gradually developed into settlements, notably St. John's,[4] now the provincial capital.

And so Newfoundland became a British colony. Other events affected the rest of Canada. :

In the late sixteenth century the Spanish and Portuguese fisheries were terminated, mainly as a result of the failure of the Spanish Armada,[2] and thereafter the English and French shared the fishery every summer....

And that's why the rest of Canadian history was dominated by the English and French, and not the Spanish and Portuguese. In summary, we need to mention the fact that Cabot discovered Cod fishing in Newfoundland in 1497, the fact that only the English fishermen went ashore, which is why Newfoundland became an English colony, and the fact that the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588 knocked the Spanish and Portuguese out of Canadian history, leaving only the English and French to settled the rest of Canada.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I seem to be involved in an editwar over the change in the lead. I keep restoring the lead as the change is not better...and in fact is a downgrade in language. Could I get a few more eyes on this...here. I personally think the wording is less informative and many good links are gone with American ones added...simply not a good change in my view. --Moxy (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Current version

Beginning in the late 15th century, French and British expeditions explored, and later settled, along the Atlantic Coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America to Britain in 1763 after the Seven Years' War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the British Empire, which became official with the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and completed in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament

Changes

In 1534, Jacques Cartier sailed in the Saint-Laurence river and name the place Canada. Canada was the name of the french settlement on the Saint-Laurence river. After many failed invasion of Canada, the British invaded Canada during the Seven Years' War. After the invasion of Canada the British renamed the place Province of Quebec and it included all the territory of New France including all the center of the USA. In 1781, the British were defeated at the Siege_of_Yorktown by the French and the American during the American Revolution. In 1783, at Treaty_of_Paris(1783), the British lost all the territory of New France and Royalists fled to the north that was still a british colony. At that time, French people called themselves Canadiens while the Royalists considered themselves british colonists.
The second version is definitely worse ... the wording sounds off, the grammar is wrong (named not "named", "many failed invasion"), and it talks more about nomenclature than events while failing to even get it right. Rwenonah (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
indeed yes the 2nd version is terrible. Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the second version is worse. Uses the French term, Saint-Laurence, rather than Saint Lawrence; "Royalists" not "Loyalists"; inaccurate - the British lost the British colonies and some of New France, not all of New France. Please keep the original. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the second version is very poor. The author seems to have a poor command of the English language, and a poor grasp of Canadian history as well. The first one is not perfect, though. France did not cede "nearly all" of its North American colonies to England, it ceded its enormous Louisiana Territory to Spain instead (and later Napoleon took it back from Spain and sold it to the United States to keep England from getting it). Describing Confederation as the "union of three colonies" is a bit misleading because the Province of Canada was already a union of two colonies, Upper Canada and Lower Canada (aka Ontario and Quebec), who did not get along very well. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "L'Anse Aux Meadows". Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved 2016-01-23.