Talk:Technological and industrial history of Canada

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article appears to be an essay, entirely without references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know - it was original part of one article that was 3 times the length - and I split it down to make it easier to try and work with. However, I don't seem to be able to get anyone from other the wikiproject science or Canada to take a look. Frankly my interest in the subject is very limited and I while I'm happy to attempt some clean-up, I struggle to know where to start - this really needs some expert input. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

technology came from time in new france it has been there for years and in history but personally idgaf

I'm wondering if it really needs to be here. The number of cases where technology appeared at different times in Canada from the US is pretty small. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

This is a copy, with variations, of Innovation, invention, and industrial research in Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He re-added all the content after I spilt into sub-articles! I'm open to suggestions! --Allemandtando (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm now entirely confused - Science and technology in Canada was the article I chunked off in the hope it would be more easy to manage and edit - but your redirect has erased one of the articles and now I'm totally confused about what goes where or what content is copied from where. We get paid for this right? there is just too much content for me to keep it straight in my head --Allemandtando (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

My name is Jeff Atkins, I am the author of the one original, now three, articles on Science and Technology in Canada. You are making a mess of articles that are perfectly coherent. If there are problems with references in the article on Diffusion of Technology in Canada then let’s add them. However to merge or redirect the articles on the Diffusion of Technology in Canada on one hand and Innovation, Invention and Industrial Research in Canada on the other hand constitutes most grievous vandalism. This is what happens when non-experts start to edit things they know nothing about.

Definitions

Diffusion of technology in Canada

The story of the spread of technology, in this case in Canada, no matter where it comes from, in the domains of transportation, communication, energy, materials, industry, public works, public services (health care), domestic/consumer life and defence.

Innovation, invention, and industrial research in Canada

The story of innovation, invention by Canadians only, in the fields of transportation, communication, energy, materials, industry, public works, public services (health care), domestic/consumer life and defence.

The spread of technology is one separate topic. The innovation and invention of technologies is another entirely separate subject. However there can be confusion with these two concepts.

Example

The steam locomotive was not invented in Canada, however it was introduced and used by many companies including the CPR. The article on the Diffusion of Technology in Canada therefore tells this story as well as hundreds of others relating to technologies that were not invented in Canada. It tells how they were introduced to Canada.

The BlackBerry on the other hand was invented in Canada. Therefore there are two stories to tell:

- One about its invention which is described in the article on Innovation, invention and industrial research in Canada. The invention and innovation article deals only with the story of Canadian innovation and invention - snowmobiles, BlackBerrys etc.

- And another about its introduction and use by the public and business, which is described in the article on the Diffusion of Technology in Canada.

The sections have similar divisions, Stone Age, Age of Sail etc. because people spread and invented similar technologies at the same time. However as pointed out above, diffusion on one hand and innovation and invention on the other are two different things and therefore need two separate articles even if the divisions in the articles are the same. The content of the two articles is almost totally different.

This can be seen in the length of the articles.

In terms of the number of technologies discussed, those in Diffusion of Technology in Canada far outnumber those in Innovation and invention in Canada because most of the technologies diffused in Canada came from other places and therefore the article is much longer than the one on invention and innovation.

Furthermore one of the benefits of the article on diffusion is to juxtapose technologies and in this way create insights into the type of life experienced by Canadians at given points in time as these technologies were introduced. Attempting to rely on what has been written on technology in the US in an effort to gain this appreciation is folly.

The article on innovation and invention is obviously intended to provide a summary of what was invented in Canada without having to search in many places to find the story.

Therefore please remove the redirect from the "edit this page" tab of the article on Innovation, Invention and Industrial Research in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.100.51 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this eliminates confusion.

Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.100.51 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a mess of articles that are perfectly coherent. actually by our standards they are not - leaving aside the current confusion caused by the redirect, there are a number of problems with the articles:

They do not confirm to our WP:MOS in terms of language use, tone etc.
they are overly long and either need to be edited or cut down into further sub-articles to increase the readability
The referencing needs to be sorted - it is currently impossible to tell what books you have supplied for what statements. Those all need to be turned into in-line citations.
There seems to be elements of Original research, inference and synthesis of sources to reach your own conclusions - all things we do not do here. There are other issues that need to be sorted but those are minor things at the moment. In their current state, it is likely that those articles could be send to our process for removal - which is called "AFD". So I strongly advise, you do not continue to add content as you current are and instead, work on turning to retify the current issues with the articles. I am going to try and get some additional manpower because as they currently stand, they are so long, they frankly overwhelm me.

On a more general note, I *think* you have an account, please log into it when you edit because it helps to co-ordinate communication. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Jeff Atkins Again

Dealing with the length is simple.

Break it into sections using the headers that are already there. Stone Age, Age of Sail etc.

I would do this but do not know how.

Include the references in each section and I can winnow out the ones that that do not belong.

Simple.

Of note. I have been editing the sections for style for several days. That is why you see all the changes in the history section.

Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.49.54 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Atkins - Hello Again

As stated earlier it is a mistake to consider that the article Innovation, Invention and Insustrial Research to be a duplicate of Diffusion of Technology in Canada. They are totally different in concept and almost totally different in content. Therefore please remove the redirect from the former to the latter and let the public see Innovation, Invention and Industrial Research in Canada.

Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.239.143 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made the redirect, and I'm mainly backing up what Allemandtando said.

First Jeff, it would make life very much easier for editors who want to interact with you if you created an account. I understand some people want to edit anonymously, and it's a Wikipedia principle that people can edit anonymously. However you have already told us who you are, and editing anonymously effective removes any claim to history or reputation you have as an editor. If you want to establish credibility an account would help.

I will add more comments later. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big issues with the article (this and the others) is that they don't start with an introductory paragraph explaining what they are about, as WP:MOS says. That makes it hard to work out what the subject of the article actually is. Also the first section is just talking about technology in general - clay pots, stone tools, etc. without actually saying that these are diffused technologies. It just describes what technologies were there. The article goes off-topic in many ways, for example talking about the introduction of an organised military (which isn't a technological innovation). It reads like a general essay on technology in Canada rather than one focussed on technology diffusion.

But the most important issue is the lack of references. The things described are mostly purely factual and so easy to reference. I would strongly recommend working on supplying references to back up what is already stated rather than expanding either this article or the other one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I will start on the references. There is a learning curve because I do not know how to make references,(ie I think what you mean are footnotes), which is why there aren't any. However I will figure it out.

Jeff Atkins unsigned contribution by User:64.230.38.218

Hi Jeff

First please sign your userid when you write on a talk page. Please do this by putting four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of what you write. Please do this even if you write your real name in the post.

Back to the answer: the citing of sources is described at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The short guide is that you do it like this: "Something was invented in Canada. <ref> All Canadian inventions. B & D MacKenzie. 2008 p24</ref>". Then in its own section called "References" you write {{reflist}} and all the references (footnotes) will be expanded. I hope that helps. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference and wiki link for Jacques Ellul whom I have read but did not add a page number. I am fairly certain this is what is in that book as I have read it. I am just studying for job tests in the Canadian Government, so added a wiki link to Jean Talon too. May be I will add more references but it could be I have to read the article more for easy ones for me like the Jacques Ellul which I knew right off. I sometimes cover technology and innovation in my present government work. Pete (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikibooks instead?

The article is large enough to be moved to Wikibooks, since it's very long, but coherent in its content (after some of the glimpses). When I think of the diffusion of technology in Canada, the article should instead link to the current content in Wikibooks and then concentrate on recent (living) history and companies. This should avoid the hassle of how long the article is and loss of useful article content after someone eventually decides to downsize it. -Mardus (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.88.44 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am the author. I have cleaned up the copy and the continuity and added footnotes. I think it is time to remove the tags. Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.37.226 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you are free to do so. PK T 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Today, I have rated this article C class due to the article's apparent completeness. I would like to see more in-line referencing/citations before B class is achieved. Also, please ensure referencing follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style. PK T 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I can start copy-editing it now? Does this artical count as "stable" ? I will put up the "{{GOCEinus}}" flag anyway and start. Glubbdrubb (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

A partial solution to the problems with this piece would be to create a template linking the different segments of this article, much as it is done in History of the petroleum industry in Canada. This is not difficult, Jeff; the easy solution would be to copy the oil industry template, rename it, modify as required and create appropriate links. Once the article is developed in this way,it would be easier for other Wikipedians to work on.Pmbcomm (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

between the Stone Age and the Age of Sail

It's not like First Nations people were living in caves before the arrival of the sailing ships.....there's various technological innovations that are part of the Canadian identity/legacy which are decidedly FN in origin: the travois, tumpline, canoe (both the birch-bark and the big coastal cedar ones), post-and-frame/beam housing, quiggly holes and tipis, all kinds of unusual instruments of war/killing (particularly on the west coast), cooking technology (waterproof basket weavery, e.g. - which were fire resistant enough to be able to use for boiling, in fact...); not sure where to look for resources on this, just noting its relative absence. Also the introduction of certain mining techniques in the gold rush era in BC by Chinese is noteworthy, and the curious presence of smelted iron on the Northwest Coast by the time Cook/Vancouver et al were on the scene, ditto copper....Skookum1 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technicaly all these (verifable) technologies are Stone Age technologies but I see your point. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Carlaude, Boy did you make a mess of a fine article!

Jeff Atkins Chelsea Quebec Author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.130.225 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been made aware before, your treatise was too long for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. Likewise, it was too long for some browers software to handle well. In fact, this article and Technological and industrial history of 20th-century Canada are still too long, but if you want to discuss how it/they could be divided in a better way, this space is for discussing how to improve article(s) and I would be glad to bounce ideas around with you. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again

The article is about the history of technology.

The main section headings and their timings are determined exclusively by the introduction of technological innovations.

Introducing headings based on arbitrary chronological concepts such as 20th century or 21st century is artificial, meaningless and confusing.

If you want to make changes, then return the article to its original state and break it into parts using the original section headings. Forget about the 20th and 21st centuries.

Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.130.225 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]