Talk:Canada's Hundred Days

message: First comment added 02:14, 8 August 2007 
Comment deleted by poster 02:00, 23 June 2008  
(This note added by Xyl 54 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First comment

message: A user posted in the article:
"Canada defeated 49 divisions wikipedia"
Can someone check if this is correct?  I don't have the time to do so just yet.  --Bowlhover (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  46 Divisons, or 49? 

message: Any particular reason this shouldn't be merged into the hundred days article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bureaucromancer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is that when stuff like this becomes politically motivated, 'lies of omission' become simply lies, and then you have books claiming Canada won the war alone. Quite honestly, I have met more Canadians who over-emphasise their own contribution than I have Americans, who are the subject of a quite unfair stereotype. It's their neighbour to the north who is more deserving of it. Alooulla (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: "Cent jours du Canada" is a literal translation of "canada's hundred days" (or "100 days of canada"... same meaning). Is there really any value in stating that this is what the period is known as in obviously French-speaking areas? Why wouldn't they? Now if it had a French name that meant something completely different, that'd be noteworthy. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the content. The source was an article about a movie and it didn't seem trustworthy.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  um... 

message: Saying that it resulted in the collapse of the German Empire seems a bit...pompous. It was an important factor, certainly. But it was part of a larger Allied operation. Could someone change it to something a little less overstated? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure on how to word it.  -64.56.133.146 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I amended it to alled victory, to mirror what is stated in the Hundred Days Offensive article. the better question is whether an infobox is required at all, I'm inclined to say no, but that's just me. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I removed the info box. I couldn't find any articles that separated out the Canadian participation for the hundred days offensive but focus on the amount of Canadian participation during that time period.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the article itself, "Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played in causing the defeat and/or retreat of the German Army in a series of major battles from Amiens to Mons which along with other Allied offensives ultimately led to Germany's final defeat and surrender.". To suggest otherwise is a gross insult to the nearly 50,000 Canadian troops who died. 70.78.8.214 (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not with the level of Canadian participation (Canada's Hundred Days) but rather that it was not a separate battle from the Hundred Days Offensive. As such this is an article about the Canadian participation during that period is not a sub-battle of the offensive. This is unlike say the Battle of Vimy Ridge vis-a-vis the Battle of Arras.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, this is also a larger concept then a single battle participated in by Canada such as the Battle of the Canal du Nord, which has an infobox anyways. 08:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox deletion 

message: Whilst Canada's role in the victory on the Western Front is substantial, and therefore this article is warranted, the narrative seems to put Canada's role above those of other Empire forces in an unbalanced way. For instance, this article doesn't reference at all, the equally important role played by Australian forces on the Western Front, and the victory in the Hundred Days offensive. Nor does it properly play heed to the US-French efforts elsewhere. Having the infobox refer the outcome as a "Canadian Victory" seems biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.64.28 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst the article does mention the British, it seems to do so begrudingly. But WW1 content on Wikipedia has a large Canadian bias in general. Alooulla (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Narrative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canada's Hundred Days. 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/20050325172453/http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca:80/general/sub.cfm?source=memorials/ww1mem/le_quesnel to http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=memorials/ww1mem/le_quesnel
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that the Canadian corps at amens was part of the British fourth army not the first Fouris17 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The corps was moved to the First Army after Amiens.  I'll make the correction. Indefatigable (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  British army number 

message: The Canadian corps activies in late August and early September involve breaking the drocourt-queant line.  I think this battle is linked (in the introduction) as part of the second battle of the somme, but may be in actuality part of the second battle of arras. Fouris17 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For the 1918 battles, the battle nomenclature used here at Wikipedia is rather confusing, and I don't understand it came to be this way. It would make more sense to me if it more closely followed the tables created by the British Army committee after the war. But probably the editors who created those articles know more than I. In any case the article Second Battle of the Somme is the one that covers the family of battles that include Battle of Drocourt-Quéant Line. Indefatigable (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second battle of arras