Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Canada/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Military history of Canada

An article I started back in 2003 that has since been much improved by a number of editors. In the last few weeks I've worked to cover the last omissions and bring it up to FA standards. It recently went through peer review, and all concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. What can I say, this is a really good article! Very well written, very articulate, and quite comprehensive. Really deserves to be on the main page. --Mb1000 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the only thing thats a bit flat is the opening sentence. Otherwise its a great article--nixie 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - good stuff. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object - Although the article is well written and comprehensive I can't help but notice that it seems a little bit to positive at times. I'd like to see less emphasis on the 'for a country of only ... inhabitants' aspect, however unique it might be. The sentence 'Canada fully committed itself to the alliance against Communism being a founding member of NATO and signing the NORAD treaty with the United States' should be rewritten in my opinion, since it was an alliance against the threat of the Communist bloc and its sphere of influence, not an alliance against the idea itself. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War, 'thousands of Canadians joined the American armed forces and served in Vietnam' which should be mentioned in the article. Regards, Lankhorst 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I have cleared up the Communist wording, but I am not sure about your other suggestions. With the WWI section I do think it is worth noting that the numbers are "remarkable." Close to ten percent of the Canadian population upped and went to fight in Europe. I also don't think more mention needs to be made of the Vietnam War. It is only one of many conflicts that have seen significant Canadian participation, despite official non-involvement. The Crimean War, the U.S. Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, and likely the current war in Iraq have also all seen thousands of Canadians participate. Overall Canadian participation in these events had little effect on the military history of Canada. The issue is also well covered at Canada and the Vietnam War. - SimonP 14:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't really specific in my objections. My general objection with the article is that its tone strikes me as biased in favour of Canada. Not that it is that nationalistic but consider:

  • “Once engaged, the Canadian forces performed admirably in South Africa.“
  • “The Canadians were well known for their trench raiding skills, and were often used by Allied commanders in difficult and demanding missions. “
  • “Canadian, along with British and Polish troops, were subjected to attacks from the strongest and best trained German troops...”
  • “...and Canada has a long and honourable history of participation in these missions. “

I'm not an expert on the field, but try to prevent the article turning into a summary of Canada's heroic feats of war. (On a sidenote: I'm from Holland and I deeply respect those WWII veterans I see walking by every year in Wageningen or other places).

Other sentences you could look at are:

  • “Countless others shared the suffering and hardship of war.“ - seems self-evident to me
  • “A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 66,655 gave their lives and another 172,950 were wounded. Nearly one of every ten Canadians who fought in the war did not return.”

Seems like even more than 10%!

Good luck, Lankhorst 16:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being more specific. I agree a number of these sentences are problematic, less because they are inaccurate and more because their somewhat flowery language is unencyclopedic. I have gone through and changed the sentences you mentioned, and several others that were similarly written. One remaining sentence that I am not a big fan of is the opening one. If someone could think of a better opening I would be much obliged. - SimonP 16:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

My compliments! About the opening sentence: why not try the approach as used in Military history of France which is neutral and informative about the articles' contents.

Now that my objection has been taken care of, I Support.Lankhorst 17:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. I'm sorry I missed this on peer review, but although the article has some really good sections, I'm afraid as it is now it has too many questionable statements, significant omissions, and some nationalistic bias. And that's only up to 1815. Some examples:
  • "In 1763, the British emerged victorious, and the French were almost completely expelled from North America."
They were? Actually, I believe many or most of them stayed put.
  • "In 1754, the Seven Years' War spread to North America,"
I thought it spread from North America to Europe.
  • "...the French had begun to challenge the claims of the New England colonists for supremacy in the Ohio Country to the west of the Appalachian Mountains, into which increasing numbers of the latter were moving to find cheap homesteading land."
Homesteaders in the Ohio Country in 1754? Fur traders, yes. Homesteaders, not so much.
  • No mention of the French-Indian victory over the Braddock Expedition?
  • No mention of Six Nations activities during the American Revolutionary War??? The split of the Iroquois into "Canadian Iroquois" and "American Iroquois"?
  • No mention of the Loyalist exodus from the U.S. to Canada after the American Revolutionary War? The article seems to imply that all the Anglo-Canadians had lived there all along.
  • Pretty good coverage of the War of 1812, although the coverage of American Indians is perhaps too terse, and does not put the British-Indian alliances into a wider context.
  • But the 1812 coverage stumbles badly when it comes to summing it up: "The borders that had existed before the war remained as they were... [A]lthough the war had been won largely by British regular troops and by her navy, it has long been seen as a Canadian victory."
Seen by whom? Canadians of course! This should be clarified -- the British did not win the war, but the Canadians had dodged a bullet, and could claim with satisfaction a sort of victory. The footnote seems to imply a historical debate, but leaves the reader hanging. (And by the way, not all the footnotes work -- and that footnote style makes the numbers up in the text illegible, in my opinion).
  • "Canada has the reputation of being one of the world's most peaceful nations."
This may be true, or it may be PR. Is this a verifiable statement? Source?
[this unsigned, from User:Kevin Myers 16:05, 26 July 2005]]
You raise some valid points, and I have corrected sections. I disagree that mention needs be made of more minor incidents. We must remember that this is a summary article, and it has already reached 44kb. Smaller incidents and more specific detail should be confined to sub-pages, as is standard practice. For instance the Braddock Expedition should be mentioned in French and Indian War, the Militia Myth should be discussed at War of 1812, and the Iroquois participation and UELs at American Revolutionary War. - SimonP 16:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I have to agree here. Unless you can demonstrate that the minor incidents are in fact more important than what is in the article now, it should be left out. Summarizing a big topic requires leaving some things out. The key is to balance it properly of course, and cover every important truly topic without covering every detail. - Taxman Talk 22:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is also important to note that there is an important difference between the French and francophones. The French left but the francophones stayed. It is true that some are unaware of the difference, so I have rewritten that section. The Ohio Company, founded in 1749, was primarily concerned with settlement, the fur trade was only a secondary concern. It should still be noted that the numbers were quite small, and I have now written that the potential for settlement rather than much actual settlement that was the main issue. You were correct that a couple of the footnotes were broken, they are now fixed. I'm not sure what you mean about the footnotes being illegible, the page uses the standard footnote format used throughout Wikipedia. - SimonP 16:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
(Just so you know what I mean: this article uses footnote style #3 I believe ("ref" and "note"), rather than "fn" and "fnb", which I find superior and more legible -- purely personal preference which I should not have brought up here. I'm not sure if there's actually a "standard" format, but of course this ain't the place to discuss that...) --Kevin Myers 02:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'll note that I still believe the article has serious problems; most of my previous objections remain. The article is fixable, but not yet fixed. For instance, consider this revised sentence: "[T]he French had begun to challenge the claims of the New England colonists for supremacy in the Ohio Country." The principal rivals to the French in the Ohio Country were Virginians, Pennsylvanians, and Marylanders; none of these colonies are part of New England. To some this may seem a trivial detail; to me it suggests that more scrutiny is needed, and that the article is not quite ready for "prime time." --Kevin Myers 03:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Ohio history, but I've always heard New England. This view seems to be supported by several websites, e.g. this one states that "most of these first settlers were farmers, and came from the New England area of the United States. In later years the immigrants/settlers were from Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky." - SimonP 13:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
That website is talking about post-Revolutionary settlement, about 35 years (and four or five wars!) later than the period in question. On the frontier, that's a world of difference. I don't want to belabor the point (too late!) -- I just cited it as an example of something that was to me clearly wrong. The sentence is easily fixable like this: "[T]he French had begun to challenge the claims of Anglo-American traders and land speculators for supremacy in the Ohio Country." To simplify things for everyone, I'll just fix what I think needs fixing in the article, and leave this page alone. --Kevin Myers 13:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. --Scimitar parley 19:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now, but I anticipate supporting. 1) Ok, in relation to my comments above, I made them in general, but I do agree at least some mention should be made of any major conflicts Canada had soldiers in. Vietnam is the one missing example I can see (the fact that they did not send troops directly, but did contribute supplies and support is notable), and it and any other conflicts with thousands of Canadian soldiers involved do meet the level of importance criteria to at least be mentioned briefly, even if you summarize all of them in one decent paragraph. In relation to that, some of the other sections are unecessarily long, such as the 'American threat' and perhaps WWII. 2) The one and two sentence paragraphs should be eliminated, especially in the lead. They cause poor prose flow and show areas that should either be expanded, eliminated, or merged with related material to flow better. Other than that, great material, and good overall structure, writing and coverage as far as I can tell. - Taxman Talk 22:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've made some of the easier fixes. There are fewer short paragraphs, and I have mentioned some conflicts Canada has indirectly participated in, though I have mostly just added links to the relevant subpages. I think 'American threat' is of appropriate length as it covers almost a century from 1776 to 1867. In the past I have considered moving the WWII information to a separate article and replacing it with a summary similar in length to the WWI section. I raised the issue in the peer review, but no one commented on the idea. - SimonP 02:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Those were good, but now digging into this, I'm getting moe concerned about the POV, especially in the American Threat section. Even the title is a little worrisome. Was American truly a threat to Canada for a hundred years? Was America's goal really to invade and take over Canada? The summary of the War of 1812 seems to promote that and is a bit at odds with the summary of the reasons for that War in the full article on it. Calling the Fenian invasions an "American invasion" seems to imply government support. Is there evidence to back the claim "...it ignored the Fenians openly organizing and training to invade its neighbour."? Then Fenian section seems to give a lot of coverage to what seems to be a minor affair. - Taxman Talk 16:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Historically the primary, and realistically only, military threat to Canada was from the United States. Up until the late nineteenth century there was a long series of incidents where war seemed possible and Canadian forces were mustered. See articles such as Trent Affair, Fifty-Four Forty or Fight, Aroostook War, Caroline Affair, and War Plan Red. You are right about the War of 1812. While the Americans did plan to annex Canada, it was far from their only goal one, and was an idea that developed once war with Britain seemed inevitable, rather than a major cause of the war. The Fenians Raids are a fairly important event. They defeated a Canadian force at the Battle of Ridgeway and the attacks were an important impetus for the creation of Canada in 1867. The American government did ignore the Fenians, and some local politicians even gave them tacit support. Later, once the raids caused something of an international incident, the American government did move against them and confiscated their weapons. You are right in pointing out that there is no need to call it an "American invasion," which could imply a government operation. - SimonP 19:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but a lot of that needs some additional backing up, that annexing Canada really was one of the aims of the War of 1812, similar to the reference you added to the Fenian section. For example, I don't know for sure you are right about your characterization of the Fenian affair, but having that reference makes it a lot easier to check. Is that reference also the support for the American government ignoring the Fenians? - Taxman Talk 23:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • The book cited is a pretty standard text on the subject and covers all the generally accepted facts on the subject, including the involvement of the American government. Rather than return to the library to get a reference for 1812, I've added one to the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on the subject. It's is pretty clear on the matter, stating that "like many other Americans, [the War Hawks] believed that it was the "manifest destiny" of the United States to take over all of British North America. Here was their chance to do so." - SimonP 23:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
That particular quote comes from the "junior" version of the Canadian Encyclopedia, which takes a complex historiographic debate and reduces it to a simple statement for kids, which is, alas, so simplistic as to be misleading. For more nuanced interpretations, see for example Canadian historian Reginald Stuart's United States Expansion and British North America, where he writes about the invasion of Canada in the War of 1812: "But what seemed like [U.S.] territorial expansionism actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation." British-American historian Reginald Horsman has a slightly different take: "The United States did not declare war because it wanted to obtain Canada, but the acquisition of Canada was viewed as a major collateral benefit of the conflict" (from "On To Canada", listed in the references section in the War of 1812 article). Some U.S. politicians called for the annexation of Canada, and many would have welcomed it had the U.S. invasion been successful, but very few (and certainly not War Hawks like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun) claimed to be motivated by the annexation of Canada.
And I do think the heading title "The American Threat" is clearly POV, since from the American POV of the time, the war stemmed from "the British Threat." (As Reginald Stuart says, Americans considered the War of 1812 to be a "defensive" war.) A neutral heading might be something along the lines of "Border Conflicts" or "Troubles along the U.S. Border" or whatever. --Kevin Myers 06:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It was dumb of me to not notice that was the junior version, oddly the real encyclopedia has virtually nothing on the causes of the war. I have gone back to the library to find a better source. Chartrand states the "the Americans initial ambition was to invade and conquer Canada." Desmond Morton states that "seizing Canada would avenge British inspired Indian wars and provide rich rewards in fertile real estate." Even Roger H. Brown, who is one of the main proponents of the war being a defensive necessity, is also quite clear in his Republic in Peril that the War Hawks were dedicated to taking Canada. He states that "Republican congressmen discussed the concepts freely and openly during the first weeks of debate" and quotes several of the speeches discussing the benefits of taking Canada. I also don't think either of the quotes from Horsman or Stuart contradict the current wording of the article. - SimonP 22:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, covers all the bases. TomStar81 05:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fierce object 1. Article is marred by nagging pockets of amateurish and unencyclopaedic quality. Sentence construction, tone, diction, and grammatical integrity are often questionable:
    • "For nearly all of the first century of its existence, the chief threat to the inhabitants of New France came from a mighty confederacy of Native tribes, the Iroquois, and particularly from its eastern-most component, the Mohawks."
    • "In the earliest battles, superior French fire power rapidly dispersed massed groups of Natives, but the Natives soon changed tactics. They adapted centuries of skill at hunting and an intimate knowledge of the terrain with firearms obtained from their British allies into a highly effective form of guerrilla warfare that threatened all of New France except for the fortified cities."
    • During the seventeenth century, there were only minor skirmishes between the two great powers. (...) During the eighteenth century, matters became much more serious."
    • "This expedition was poorly organized and had little time to do its work, having arrived in mid-October with little time left before the St. Lawrence would freeze over."
    • "Yet by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle that ended the war in 1748, France got Louisbourg back..."
2. Too many factual inaccuracies. Evolution of native tactics, measure of "safety" afforded by fortifications in 17th century, British nomenclature of French and Indian Wars, etc. Some serious and thorough fact checking would not be a luxury.
3. Amazingly bad wikification throughout. The Battle of St. Foy makes a good example; also, the editors inexcusably fail to link to any battles of the American Revolutionary War (which certainly deserves its own heading), Quebec, St. Jean, Trois-Rivieres, Cumberland, etc.
A cursory read of the article – stopping at the War of 1812 section for lack of time and temperament – produced the above objections. I think it a reasonable assumption that similar problems persist throughout. Albrecht 06:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed some of the things you pointed out, you are correct that adjectives like mighty don't belong in an encyclopedia. I've also added some links. I'm not sure about the errors you claim exist. The nomenclature French and Indian Wars was perhaps unclear that it was referring to the British colonists, rather than the British in Britain. This has been fixed. It nowhere claims that fortifications were particularly effective, it claims that the fortified cities were fairly secure, which is true. I'm also not sure what is wrong with the evolution of tactics. That section is quite close to the Morton reference which is given. Traditionally there was a view the Native tactics of guerrilla warfare had been practiced since time immemorial, but that view is today universally rejected. - SimonP 12:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support User:Nichalp/sg
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Military_history_of_Canada_archive_1_4ff4.html"