Talk:History of Canada/Archive 2

To do list since GA review
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
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, 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
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
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???
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: 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)
 * 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.

Unsure of who's meant by this phrase
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)

Fur trade
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 " -- 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
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
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)

European contact - missing information
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:

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?


 * 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
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:

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

Recent changes
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)

Must be a typo
In this quote, "Public support for Canada's foreign policy big came unstuck. Foreign-policy, from being a winning issue for the Liberals, was fast becoming a losing one," I assume that "big came" was originally "became". I don't have the reference to check, though. Jerri Kohl (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, . I found the source (used just above, but not repeated as a ref name for some reason) and fixed it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)