Talk:List of conflicts in Canada

message: Indentation to reflect groups of battles is a bad idea as the individual battles fall under different names of wars.  For example look at these two wars
# 1754 - 1814 Sixty Years' War
# 1754 - 1763 The French and Indian War
If we indented for all the Sixty Years' War there would be many and it would be inappropriate.  Best to just keep them in chronological order by year and people can click on them for their interest.  Envelope 22:37, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
I didn't indent for those wars, did I? But it is helpful where it makes sense to do so. Fawcett5 23:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert Indentation

message: It seems the 20th Century includes every car-bombing and shooting that could be deemed to be in some way related to some conflict somewhere in the world.  I have trouble thinking of those as "Conflicts in Canada", so I'm paring the list down to the more major conflicts.  Thoughts? Geoff NoNick 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrorism is part of this list, so each terrorist act should be left alone, please do not start deleting things on the list.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My point is that individual terrorist acts should not be included because the overwhelming flood of miscellany drowns out the significant conflicts in the list.  Maybe the information should be separated somehow?  Like the man says, "Be bold in updating pages"... Geoff NoNick 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the first paragraph of the article, the list includes terrorist attacks.  Deleting a lot of factually correct information at Wikipedia is generally frowned upon.  Like the fat lady sings But don't be reckless  SirIsaacBrock 10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There's clearly a need to include major terrorist events (like 9/11 in the US, or the Air India bombing here in Canada), but every individual act of terrorism - especially individual acts that only reflect conflicts in other countries - should not be included in the Conflicts in Canada  article.  My point is that, while factually correct, the information included doesn't relate directly to the article title.  Cluttering articles with unrelated miscellany is also generally frowned up at Wikipedia.  Perhaps there would be a more appropriate place for this chronology of individual terrorist attacks in Canada (like Individual Terrorist Attacks in Canada, or the like). Geoff NoNick 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paring down the 20th C 

message: Betcha didn't know there were any, huh?  Yup.  A couple of Indian wars in BC, and of course Indian-Indian wars, some of which we know about; the Yakima War also spilled over the boundary a bit, and is connected to the Fraser Canyon War, which I still have to get around to writing I guess.  But "conflicts in Canada" - by "Canada" do you mean "what is now Canada" or should the place/events in question have been in what was Canada at the time.  Such that the Chilcotin War of 1864 should be included, or the Lamalcha War of 1863; is the Pig War listed, by the way? (only because it was resolved just at the time of BC joining Confederation, though it began a decade earlier and really was more of an armed peace.  What about the NWC-HBC "war"?  And, last but not least, the Yellowknife Mine strike during the '80s?Skookum1 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pre-Riel/Confederation Western Wars?

message: I'd just indent what appear to all be War of 1812 battles, but maybe some aren't; but I think the list would be helped out for visibility if all the War of 1812 items were subheaded beneath the main article.  But I don't know which from which well enough to do it...Skookum1 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indenting of War of 1812 battles?

message: Been scratching my noggin over what to do about certain events, or near-events, in BC history; there are some that have names like the Metlakatla Incident (period spelling Metlakatlah - see Metlakatla) but there are others that are a lot more ill-defined, partly because they were shoved under the historical table, others because they were part of ongoing hostilities, i.e. internecine First Nations wars/raids.  But the biggie that I'm up against right now, and which needs an article, is a c.1877 planned uprising by the Secwepemc (Shuswap), Nicola and Nlaka'pamux (Thompson) peoples - and I think also the Okanagan people, who were planning to rise up and kill all the whites and others (Chinese and various others) in the BC Interior, esp. in the wake of their appeals to Governor-General Lord Dufferin being ignored.  References to this are in vague tidbits all over various BC histories, but nobody's ever given it a proper name.  The latest I've found is a side-ref in William Rayner's book on BC Premiers, in the chapter on A.C. Elliott (4th Premier), who cabled Ottawa asking for troops to thwart the uprising, which in Elliott's telling was to also involve a surge of native peoples up out of the US, presumably the American Okanogans and their various other allies (all crammed together onto the Colville Indian Reservation by then), maybe also the Yakimas, who by the drift of Elliott's appeal to Ottawa (which was of course ignored as most requests from BC for nearly anything are, especially back then), were to come to the aid of the Interior peoples' planned rebellion; one reason Elliott would have known more about this than coastal/Island politicians, was that he was the member for Lillooet, and it's probable that the St'at'imc people there, who had suffered greatly in previous decades at the hands of the Nlaka'pamux and Secwepemc and Nicolas (see Chief Nicola) might have warned him of the wider plans involving the American Salishan peoples; at the time in the region to be affected by the potential rebellion there were probably fewer than 2000, maybe as many as 3000, whites/non-natives, except in Barkerville which might have had that many again; BC natives along in that area numbered 10 times that many....there were other instances like this on the Coast, once in the 1860s, and another time in the 1890s (!! - even after Vancouver and New Westminster were beginning to look like cities), but volatile as these situations were nothing came of it, other than localized things like the Metlakatlah Incident.  Re the 1877 occasion, though, during the 1879 "revolt" by the sons of Donald McLean (known as the Wild McLean Boys (found this on the Allan McLean disambig page - Allen McLean (outlaw), who along with his father needs an article...) partly involved their efforts to enlist the Nicolas and Shuswap in a rekindling of their rebellion plans, but to no avail (the McLeans were a bunch of FAS-addled drunks on a killing spree, and not full-blood); the 1877 Rebellion, btw, was effectively blocked by the refusal of the Adams Lake Band to take part; they were then under the "sway" of a Christian evangelist; ironically they're one of the more politicized Secwepemc bands in more recent times.  Anyway, suggestions on how to derive titles for stuff like this appreciated (there's more.....).Skookum1 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's only hinted at in BC histories, how is this not original research? - TheMightyQuill 21:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not hinted at, it's stated clearly in all sources as an imminent prospect of open war; there's just never been a single article on it, and so no name given to it; it was just never given a name in the sense of a "headline" in the way the Riel Rebellions/Northwest Rebellion(s) have been.  It's not just in side-references in things like the bio of Elliott in Rayner's book; it's in the Akriggs and other mainstream histories as well as in populist histories like those of Garnet Basque; and also in columns by journalist-historians like Stephen Hume and Terry Glavin.  It's not original research; it just doesn't have a name; if it was only one native people in the equation that would simplify things; but there's at least four (the Sinixt/Lake and Ktunaxa might also have been involved in the war plans, I'm not sure but it's quite likely given the apparent alliance south of the border...).  I have similar problems with unlabelled political scandals, e.g. the "military clique" of Moody, Baynes, Moberley and Burnaby surveying the site of modern-day Vancouver and Burnaby for their own land allotments (this was at the same time that Pt Grey, Jericho, Stanley Park etc were created as military reserves); there were no newspapers in Victoria or New West yet to give that scandal a "tag", although it's easily one of the biggest in the colonial era given who was involved, and the nature of the sites involved; naming guidelines for stuff like that are supposed to be, when not extant, created descriptively, e.g. the Texada Island Scandal (small-s?).  I guess to prove my point about the 1877 almost-uprising is I'll have to compile my cites about it and let you decide for yourself if it's "original research" or not; sadly, most historians tend to pass over it with one or two sentences, despite the scale of what was planned.  But mainstream historians quite often also pass over things like the Oregon Treaty with one or two sentences, esp. if they're from East Of The Mountains.Skookum1 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, couldn't be the Akriggs, not the BC Chronicle anyway, as Vol 2 ends at 1871; must be thinking of something else; maybe even Barman or Bowering but someone more substantial than either of those; very likely in Ormsby but I haven't read her tome; I'll browse that JB Kerr book I found on Early Canadiana Online and see what he has to say about it.....Skookum1 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wars/conflicts without names

message: I realize not only military conflicts are listed here, but it seems odd to me to include the recent gang war in Vancouver....it's only the most recent of a series of gang wars in Vancouver, and there were others in TO and Mtl and even Winnipeg and no doubt in Hali etc....the Rock Machine v. Angels war in Quebec comes to mind.  The earlier Vancouver gang wars don't have articles; many should....but are they "conflicts" in the sense of a riot, uprising, military/police action, labour action?Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vancouver gang war(s)???

message: Hi, I believe these two battles occurred in Canada, i.e. the Province of New York a British crown territory that originally included all of the present U.S. states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Vermont, along with inland portions of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine, as well as eastern Pennsylvania, at that time.  The Canadian border was more fluid at that time.  I notice someone removed them from the list.  I would like to seek a consensus from others before placing them back on the list.
*Battle on Snowshoes (1757)
*Battle on Snowshoes
Zabanio (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a hard one - were they in Canada or in territory that was in dispute? Never the less i say add them and our readers can see for themselves.Moxy (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states at the beginning that it "is a timeline of events that includes wars, battles, skirmishes, major terrorist attacks, riots, and other related items that have occurred in the country of Canada's current geographical area." Although it's debatable whether the area where these battles took place was Canadian territory then, it isn't now, and that's the key.McMuff (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of the Snowshoes

message: Is the 1913 Vancouver Island War on the list just a nickname for a sad labour dispute detailed as per Canadian Encyclopedia? http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/vancouver-island-coal-strike/
So should it be removed or revised in the article?
And the current  reference is a dead link.
Canuckle (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1912-13 Vancouver Island War? 

message: There is a glaring lack of any wars/conflicts between the various indigenous nations. Someone somewhere must have documented some of the oral histories.
When the French showed up, they stepped into existing wars and had to choose sides. 
Just saying: pretty much all the conflicts listed here involve Europeans... 1000-1600 was not a period of pure peace... Nor were the Prairies before the settlers showed up. From the Ken Burns documentary on the West, they mentioned that the Lakota (Sioux) were likely originally from the Minnesota area, yet once they acquired horses they greatly expanded their territory. This is the type of thing missing in this list.Zapallon (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous warfare