User talk:147.147.221.229

Military history of Canada

So I'm just going to go over why I reverted you here.

1. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Canada's defense was maintained by the British Army which fought in several colonial conflicts, including four major colonial wars between New France and British America.

Seeing as how for most of the 17th and 18th centuries, most of Canada was part of New France, one would think your addition of "In the 17th and 18th centuries, Canada's defense was maintained by the British Army" would qualify as "introducing inaccuracies". The British and French were responsible for the defence of their respective colonies in what we now know as Canada at this time, not the entirity of it (and the actual colony of Canada, which made up of most it settled Canada in this time, was French...).

Also, in Canadian English, it's spelt defence, not defense (also in just any English, it's spelt millennia, not millenia.

2. ... New France and British America. The conflicts, which spanned nearly 70 years, also involved various First Nations and colonial militias.

The issue I had here was adding colonial militia. This is redundant with New France and British America being mentioned previously. One would assume their colonial militias are involved if we're speaking of conflicts between New France and British American colonies.

Also, just speaking semantics, the colonial militias would not be "also involved" in the conflict between New France and British America, as they're components of the named belligerents (NF & BA). Conversely, various First Nations were "also involved" as nations independent of the colonial entities. Reworded it so as to include the link anyhow.

3. British Crown. United States armed forces

Honestly, I was fine with the British Crown addition (I changed it to The Crown for brevity but w/e). The issue I had here was changing Americans to United States armed forces.

Ignoring that USAF is typically spelt as a proper noun, for the past few months, editors including myself and Moxy and the WP:GOCE have made calls, and made efforts to shorten the article for brevity. Americans in place of "United States Armed Forces" is more than adaquarte in providing context for the reader, seeing as how we also use "British" is used interchangably for British Armed Forces in the same paragraph, and aids the wider project's attempt to achieve a smaller article size to bring the article in line with WP:PAGESIZE.

4. In 1871, the British Army ceded defense in North America over to the newly-founded administration of Canada. A full-fledged professional Canadian Army was established following Confederation. This was in line with other British dominions such as Australia, which was required to create its own defense force following the departure of Imperial units in 1870

I'm fine with the substance of this (and have readded it post-my reversion), minus Canadian Army being an anarchronism. We use the term "Canadian military" here previously and not "Canadian Army" because the Militia was not renamed the "Canadian Army" until 1940, well past Confederation.

Also, Australian comparative is unnecessary fluff (going back to brevity point, and introducing WP:OVERLINKing), seeing as how the principal fact of concern (1871 withdrawal) was already conveyed. Also, the Australian part is nowhere in the article body, which is a requirement for content inclusion in the lead (see WP:LEAD).

5. Canada's newly-founded military forces participated in the Second Boer

The professional Active Militia was not newly founded by the Second Boer War (as it predates Confederation), and the wider Canadian military forces was even older.

I've readded the things that didn't have issues with (linking First Nations, pretty much the other edits after the point 5 minus the overlinking of UK. Leventio (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]