Talk:Canadian Expeditionary Force

message: "Despite systemic racism, a significant contribution was also made by First Nations peoples and Afro-Canadians."
:This also apparently contradicts the previous couple of lines. These list the different races and ethnic groups/nationalitites which served with the Canadian armed forces under British Imperial command! Yet there was systemic racism? This really ought to be corroborated with something resembling evidence. Joel Howells (joelhowells)(@)(hotmail).(com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.87.139 (talk • contribs) .
::It's no big secret that racism was the norm in Canadian society during that period and that First Nations peoples and Afro-Canadians, among others, were considered second-class citizens.  Despite this, members of both of those communities served in the CEF.  Afro-Canadians were barred from serving in combat units (although a few apparently did) and instead had to serve in the No. 2 Construction Battalion.  Members of the First Nations were given a little more leeway, and were recruited into many combat units, being sought after in many cases because they were considered to be good shots.  But they continued to face discrimination, and following their service these First Nations veterans were often unjustly treated by the government the fought for.Kscheffler 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence has been bothering me for a while as well.  Firstly the word "systemic" to me implies that the racism was offical policy.  I don't know whether it was official or not (in which case the word "widespread" might be better) but if it was we could probably use a reference.  Secondly, how could black soldiers have made a "significant contribution" if they were restricted to serving in a single construction battalion? Cjrother 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Racism was official policy.  There is an article on systemic racism which may clear things up a bit for you.  Interesting that you'd question the existence of systemic racism in Canada at that time, but then acknowledge that black were "restricted" to serving in a construction battalion.Kscheffler 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now read the systemic racism article and I'm afraid I'm not much clearer on the meaning of the term.  The article seems to imply that an institution doesn't need to have racist policies in order to have systemic racism.  In that case I would probably change the word systemic to widespread in the article to elimanate confusion.  (Hopefully this clarifies my point - I wasn't questioning the existence of racism in 1910s' Canada, just whether or not it was official policy) Cjrother 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is quite clear on what is meant by systemic (institutional) racism and I'm not sure how it's existence during that time period can be disputed since the business, political and educational systems in Canada were dominated by white men.  Using the term "widespread racism" suggests that while many people in Canada at the time were racist, Canada was still a nation open to peoples of the world and all ethnic minorities legally had the same rights and freedoms.  That was hardly the case.  When the Canadian government sought settlers for the prairies (after the Indians had been subdued and shunted away to reserves, let's not forget) they looked to Europe; at the same time the arrival of people from Asia caused widespread hysteria and governments on all levels workd to restrict or deny entry, and if they did enter, restrict and deny them  their rights (Asians, for instance, could not vote until the late 1940's); visible minorities were denied entry into educational institutions, into the business world, and government and politics.  This just does not happen in a society if the racism is not systemic. Kscheffler 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to offer proof that is was "official policy" not just declare that it was so. Do you have a reference?Michael Dorosh 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're actually asking for "proof" that racism was official policy during this time period?  Very interesting.  It's not exactly a declaration on my part, rather a statement of an excepted fact (well, to most at least) and as such doesn't really need to be referenced.  There are a number of studies that have been written on the history of race relations and the government's racial policies in this country, and most libraries should have a reasonable selection with which one can derive a better understanding of this issue.  Two books that may be of particular interest are: White Canada Forever and Colour-Coded. Kscheffler 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm actually asking for "proof" that racism was official policy. This is an encyclopedia, not "a website about stuff that Kscheffler knows about and expects you to as well." I'm not interested in reading the books in question, I'm interested in you asserting your claim by using them to provide proper references in the article - just like every other wikipedia editor is expected to do in every single other wikipedia article. This isn't about educating me, it's about you standing behind your claim and improving the article through verifiable sources - just like everybody else.Michael Dorosh 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for proof, you got proof, but the fact of the matter is that indisputable facts such as systemic racism existing in Canada during this period don't need to be referenced or "verified".  This has nothing to do with me trying espouse what I "expect" others to know "as well".  I simply made a factual statement and you suddenly came here and started fomenting about something in which you've now essentially claimed have little knowledge or interest ("I'm not interested in reading the books in question").  This seems to be about more than simply trying to get me to live up to wikipedia's standards. Kscheffler 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So are you saying that those two books explicitly state that it was official policy that blacks were only allowed to serve in No 2 Construction Bat? Cjrother 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I provided those two titles in response to a request to "prove" that systemic racism existed in Canada during that time period.  The topic of why blacks were initially (with a very, very few exceptions) barred from serving in the CEF but later allowed to enlist in a segregated non-combat battalion is dealt with in books about that unit. Kscheffler 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good points. I'm not a CEF expert but the question can be raised at the CEF Study Group; perhaps they might like to participate. I'll ask. Segregtion was official policy in the US military, it may have been in Canada but I'll like for a source. You're correct that if it is was not official policy, it can not be described as "systemic". Good call.Michael Dorosh 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant POV in:

message: Only 50 percent of the CEF was British born by 1917; Morton confirms this in WHEN YOUR NUMBER'S UP.Michael Dorosh 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: Is all the information re: guns, trucks, knives, uniforms etc. really necessary for the article? BC 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks horrible. I'm for removing it also.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment details 

message: I've just redirected the above article here.  Text was as follows:
The 109th Battalion CEF was a unit of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the men of which saw active service during World War One.
The Battalion was formed from volunteers from the Ontario counties of Victoria and Haliburton. It was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel J.J Fee and headquarted in the town of  Lindsay prior to embarkation.  
By the spring of 1916 the Battalion had reached a strength of 1050 men and was embarked for England.  On arrival in London the Battalion strength was reallocated as reinforcements to replace the dead in the 20th, 21st, 28th and 124th Battalions. 
It was an orphan in need of love.  Maybe some from here can be lavished upon it.  Please feel free to undo the redirect and take it under your wing. Hiding T  20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[109th Battalion, CEF]] 

message: I see from the referenced enrollment documents for some of the soldiers that it was for the "Canadian Over-Seas Expeditionary Force";  e.g. http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc011/521286a.gif.  There should probably be some mention of this name in the article. I hesitate to do it myself because I lack sufficient background in the material to put the name variation in proper historical context. Eclecticology (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Force 

message: "...the Canadian Corps was regarded by friend and foe alike as the most effective Allied military formation on the Western Front." 
Oh, really? The United States Marine Corps has been known to make the same claim. It's the kind of chauvinist bull-byproduct that should be left back in the barrooms that spawned it. This statement (and the like of its ilk) is not only inherently NPOV, it's unfactual fanboy puffery. 
We are not spawning opinions here, folks; that goes into a blog or op-ed page somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia where we deal in fact.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, or Tell it to the Marines 

message: This article conflates the CEF with the Canadian Corps. The Canadian Corps was a formation within the CEF.99.248.240.61 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it's excessively focused on the Canadian Corps. I will try some quick improvements. Ultimately I think a good structure for this article would have these headings: Canadian Corps, Canadian Cavalry Brigade, Canadian Independent Force, Reserves and training organization, Recruiting organization, Siberian Expedition. Indefatigable (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: CEF or Canadian Corps?

message: :The Germans went so far as to call them "storm troopers"[2] for their great combat efficiency.
The source says they were called that "because they came on like a storm", not necessarily because of great efficiency. In general this seems either questionable or misleading. "Sturmtruppen" and "Stoßtruppen" are general terms used by the Germans for both their own and enemy troops. It's a general description of the combat role of a unit, not any special nickname or "award". "Sturm" is the German word for "assault" (but can also mean and probably originally derived from the weather phenomenon "storm"), like "Sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". This is probably a similar NPOV brought up in an older discussion: Talk:Canadian_Expeditionary_Force#NPOV.2C_or_Tell_it_to_the_Marines  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.76.148 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm belatedly coming to this, but am indebted to the above editor for pointing out the problem. I agree that the sentence was notNPOV and have modified it accordingly. Sunray (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "storm troopers" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canadian Expeditionary Force. 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/20090406170330/http://www.greatwar.co.uk/westfront/armies/britishunits/1cdndiv.htm to http://www.greatwar.co.uk/westfront/armies/britishunits/1cdndiv.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , you made a significant addition that focuses a great deal on Bermuda, goes back in history 300 years, has sections that lack sourcing, (while one section has 7 refs in a row), and has some issues with the writing. As such I've reverted it, and started this discussion in hopes of addressing these issues. Thank you - wolf 13:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda content