Talk:Canada in World War I

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada in World War I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: History High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

Military history: Canadian / North America / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War I task force

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

On 24 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Military history of Canada during World War I to Canada in World War I. The result of the discussion was moved.

Royal Canadian Navy

This article should be updated to include Canada's naval forces during the war. Although modest, Canada's naval program was of serious debate during the lead-up to the First World War and its contribution is worth mentioning. A good source is Canada's Navy: The First Century by Marc Milner, a book I'm reading now. If no one updates by the time I'm finished reading I'll update myself. OhlundFan2 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION

How do you link this page into a Wikipedia page? I'm having troubles with that. Somebody please help!!!

Writing and Grammar

No offense to anyone involved in this page but it needs very serious revision. It is riddled with spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors. --Ggbroad 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troop Numbers

I havn't noticed one consistent number of troops that the Canadian Army had, or how many were in active service in the war. Somebody should do some research and look into the number.

You see different figures in different sources. One interesting question: when do you start and stop counting? It's not like people stopped serving (or stopped dying) on November 11, 1918 (and the standard figure for losses in WWII, 42,042, for instance, is computed to the end of 1947). The CEF recruited in 1919 and 1920. Col. Nicholson in the Official History gives a figure of 614,964 to the end of 1918 (619,636 to the end of 1920) of whom 470,224 served overseas. This is much higher percentage of overseas deployment than in WWII, incidentally. But a colleague of mine who is doing research in this area finds all sorts of cases of people enlisting, being discharged, and then enlisting again under a different name or just in the different place, so we can be sure that double counting went on, etc. So, you'll notice some recent sources - like Granatstein's "Hell's Corner" - avoids giving a precise number. Over 600,000 is a safe bet, of whom around 470,000 served overseas.--Ggbroad 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

i found these numbers in one of the links and find they should be included in the article on WW1 "For a nation of eight million people Canada's war effort was remarkable. 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."

That number 619,636 is the number who served in the CEF to the end of 1920, not just during the war. It doesn't include Canadians who served in, for instance, the RFC but never the CEF or Canadians who fought in other armed forces. I wonder. Is it really a "remarkable" effort for a nation of 8 million? It's a mobilization rate of about 8%.

I should think 8% is pretty good indeed for a mobilization rate even with conscription later in the war. I don't know what the population of the United States was in 1941, but I should be very surprised indeed if 8% of the American population was in uniform during WWII. Tim from Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.131.132 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers game

The original author of this article may notice the major change made in the section on the Second Battle of Ypres. The last paragraph stated, "Over 6,000 Canadians lost their lives before the reinforcements arrived." According to Veterans Affairs Canada, and a number of notable Canadian war historians, during the 48 hours of the Second Battle of Ypres from 22 to 24 April 1915, the Canadian Expeditionary Force suffered roughly 6000 casualties, of which over 2000 died. Considering it would appear the majority of the information in this section (I didn't have the time to reread and compare it all) is taken almost word for word from the Veterans Affairs Canada website...it might be best to avoid such glaring errors. For example, compare this text from VAC to the first paragraph of the text on this site: "In the first week of April 1915, the Canadian troops were moved from their quiet sector to a bulge in the Allied line in front of the City of Ypres. This was the famed—or notorious—Ypres Salient, where the British and Allied line pushed into the German line in a concave bend." Just a...suggestion. Wikigi39 16:29 AST 5/07/07

Move back (June 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved, no consensus. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Canada during World War I → Military history of Canada during the First World War — Lets put this back the way it was..The old title is what is used in Canada [1].(its not WW I) Move was done in good faith by new editor that does not realizes we have talk about this before. just like Military history of Canada during the Second World War.. Question Y cant i just undo this move ??? Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- The new name is better because it is more commonly referred to as "World War I". It should also be this way because the Wikipedia article on World War I is called "World War I", so this is more consistent. Since World War I was a "World War", it doesn't have enough of a strong national tie to suggest that the Canadian name be used. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been surprised that the tile of the main article is not the full proper name "First World War" . Its odd to have the abbreviation as the title in an encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - is there good evidence that one is favoured over the other in reliable sources about Canada? I would hazard to guess that FWW beats WWI in most academic histories and possibly popular history as well. Plus it has a more serious, encyclopedic tone. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While either term is used colloquially in Canada, most official and historical references would appear to use the term First World War. Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This goes against the convention for other similar articles, and "World War I" is used twice as often in Canadian websites as is "First World War":207,000[2] vs 104,000.[3] Fences&Windows 00:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (November 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Canada during World War I → Military history of Canada during the First World War — As this was the original title, and the article Military history of Canada during the Second World War appears to be stable there and has never been moved, and seeing as this article was moved without a discussion, and an attempt to move it back reached "no consensus" with three in favour (incl. nominator) and two against, even after relisting, I think it is due to be moved back, even if just on procedural grounds. No consensus ought to favour the original title, but let's see if we can get a consensus. In my opinion, "First World War" is more encyclopedic and also more distinguishable from "Second World War" than "World War I" from "World War II". Consistency should also be taken into account. Srnec (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support Lets put this back the way it was for years. No need to match the other abbreviated articles. As an encyclopedia we should use full proper title/names and not abbreviations when it comes to historical events. Dont need to follow other article as per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Best to use what Canadian uses. Plus all the other article were moved to what they are called now as this one was...again with no talk by a user that is now banned User:Qajar .... Moxy (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed name is not consistent with similar articles of other countries, Commonwealth included. See: History of the United Kingdom during World War I, Military history of Australia during World War I, Military history of New Zealand in World War I, Military history of France during World War II, History of Germany during World War I, United States in World War I, Japan during World War I, Montserrat in World War I, Brazil during World War I, Bulgaria during World War I, etc. To be honest, it looks like Military history of Canada during the Second World War is the one out of line.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Labattblueboy. Should be consistent with other articles. If you want this carried out wholesale for all related articles then you'd better raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Personally I see no problem with "World War I" and "World War II" as general names. — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I would say it is the World War II article that should be moved, not this one. Reso lute 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can anybody oppose the move on grounds of consistency? The articles Labatt linked are all inconsistently titled. Some are "X during World War I", some are "X in World War I", some "Military history of X during World War I", and I presume that most of the "History of X during World War I" articles deal with a different topic than just the war. Instead of just voting on this proposal, does anybody want to propose how we should structure this part of the encyclopaedia? The article title has to make clear whether the article is about the history of the nation during the time period of World War I or about the nation's involvement in World War I. "X in World War I" and "Military history of X during World War I" accomplish the former, while "X during World War I" and "History of X during World War I" suggest more than just a military history. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "First World War" is standard in UK/Canadian English. "World War I" is standard in U.S. English. Since this is an article about Canada, it should use Canadian English. (Yes, I realise that Wikipedia doesn't yet reflect the common usage for Commonwealth countries in this respect. But I think it should start to.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both History of the United Kingdom during World War I and Military history of Australia during World War I pased GA without the name being brought up as an issue. So, I am more inclined to believe that World War I is still the prefence for Commonwealth.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if you survey general usage outside of Wikipedia. The fact that the issue wasn't raised within a WP discussion is hardly indicative of reality. It's a minor point, but one that I have looked at, and "First World War" tends to be favoured in the UK, especially in more formal writings. It is less dominant in other Commonwealth countries, but the contrast with American usage is relatively major. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aboriginals

Were Canadian aboriginals ever formally forbidden to serve at the beginning of WWI or even put into special battalions? They certainly served in regular New Brunswick regiments and battalions and I have never seen a newspaper article from the period questioning their right to be there. Tim from Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.131.132 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

This article is missing many key dates. When did Canadian troops first arrive? What was the date of the first battle? The furst casualty?77Mike77 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Military history of Canada during World War I. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041217024007/http://www.collectionscanada.ca:80/firstworldwar/051806/05180602_e.html to http://www.collectionscanada.ca/firstworldwar/051806/05180602_e.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of Canada during World War I. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Military history of Canada during World War I. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military history of Canada during World War I. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011143957/http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2004/05/the-original-rainbow-warrior to http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2004/05/the-original-rainbow-warrior/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Canada during World War I → Canada in World War I – The history article covering WW2 has already been moved to Canada in World War II. Moving this article would add consistency, and be more concise. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a more concise title, and more accurately describes the content. (I have a slight preference for Canada in the First World War, but I won't complicate the move request.) Indefatigable (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have Bulgaria during World War I, Japan during World War I, Spain during World War I etc, but also United States in World War I, Netherlands in World War I etc, so there is a lack of consistency in the titles. Canada during World War I is currently a redirect to Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years#World War I. Mellk (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Especially since it's not just about the military history. And redirect Canada during World War I here too, obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anyone will object to that, so I've changed it to redirect here. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.