Talk:History of Canada (1960–1981)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Canada / History	(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)	CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Canada portal v • d • e 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.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is also supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for History of Canada (1960–1981):
Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Materiel

Forgot to mention in my edit summary, that it's spelled materiel to distinguish from material. heqs 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of "Pearson Pennant"?

I can't think right now what else might be a suitable image for this article, but an also-ran from the Flag Debate doesn't seem to fit the bill; especially since that particular one is an echo of the Ontarian flag, which is why the rest of us didn't like it. Given the timeframe I'd almost say that a triptych of Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau would do much better; or maybe the Katimavik pavilion at Expo '67 (the giant ashtray of the Canadian pavilion).Skookum1 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "what if" factor of the pearson pennant is interesting. For those of us who weren't alive at the time, it's a real eye-catcher. -- TheMightyQuill 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the Red Ensign, which I was used to during my growing-up years, and which was actually our flag, or used as one (technically the Union Jack was the official flag, as I recall), which the Pearson Pennant wasn't. Sure, have a page on the flag debate with all the various proposals; the Pearson Pennant in particular was unsavory outside of Ontario as eplained above, never mind the shade of blue used (the Union Jack and Stars and Stripes use more of a navy rather than a royal blue).Skookum1 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) i.e. if there is a historical flag to be featured on this page, it should be the Red Ensign; the HBC flag comes to mind as it used to wave over a good two-thirds of what's now the national territory (or more) but it wasn't a national flag; only a corporate one.Skookum1 08:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot this is a time-limited history article, so comments about Red Ensign and HBC flag irrelevant; but still think either a Pearson-Dief-Trudeau triptych and/or a shot of Expo'67 (with a diptych of troops during the October Crisis?) might sum up the era better. The flag debate was a lot of hot air, as famously lampooned by Len Norris, who drew a picture of people hanging onto flagpoles near Parliament Hill as hurricane-force winds of blather came out of the House....Skookum1 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984

I think 1984 - the year of change in governing party - is a more natural point to break up the history. 1982 events flow more smoothly from this earlier time period --JimWae (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just spend some time looking through article histories, and I'm not entirely sure why it was split at 81/82 in the first place. I'm not sure that dividing up Canadian history by the governing party is necessarily a good idea -- the series is overly focused on politics already, and has been criticized for it -- but I have no reason to defend keeping it the way it is. The resulting 84-92 seems like a pretty short timespan for an article; maybe it should be changed to 1984-Present? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to make the change, maybe post something on Talk:History of Canada before you are bold? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the most natural division point around that era would be the first resignation of Pierre Trudeau; his new incarnation after he was dragged back into the Prime Ministership, and the deal with the party over his re-enlistment, was the new Constitution and all that it has wrought since. The Joe Clark govenrment was part of the "old" way of doing things, and also was the last hurrah of old-guard Toryism (not Republicanite Toryism as under Mulroney). So maybe it's Trudeau's return as the better start point for the "New Constitional Era" ratehr tahn his first resignation, as Clark's regime wasn't part of the new era, rather of the old. 1981 also marks teh begining of the Reaganization of the conservative movements in Canada. If this were a BC-only article the division point would be 1983, but that's a side issue. Anyway, 1981/82 seems just about right to me (as someone who lived through the change); don't see the point with '92 though....Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that the 1982 Canada Act naturally falls in with discussions of the events dealt with in the section that begins in 1960. Btw, I moved to BC in 1969 (& have lived here since then) & I still consider the 1984 election an event that marked a significant change in Canadian history. I don't think that changes in political parties that are not in power are generally solid enough events to mark out historical "periods". I only got involved with this becuase the History_of_Canada#1960.E2.80.931984 section date kept getting changed &, incomprehensibly, was virtually empty anyway. --JimWae (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The change was the creation of the 1982 Constitution; and in that context given what you indicate about the events so far covered in the article (mostly constitutional, not so much about social/cultural changes except those officially mandated) it's a problem of the article, i.e. the constitutional focus of it, which isn't necessarily the most relevant (except to teh politicians and media people who like to talk about that agenda, while ignoring others). The changes in Canada (and BC) in 1984 were already manifest in 1981-82; to me it's the return of Pierre from retiremeent that began the new era and launched the constitutional changes which Mulroney ran into the ground of fiasco; the election of Mulroney was not teh change-point.Skookum1 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a section in History of Canada marked as 1981 to present and the first event mentioned is/was 1987 -- So, I would not oppose 1982 as a demarcation date - as long as those events get included SOMEWHERE in the History of Canada article -- Further, there is no point to having a 1960–198? section there if it is only ONE paragraph JimWae (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The solution is obviously to add more content; particularly 1960-198? there was a lot more that happened than just the flag debate, Expo 67, the NEP and the War Measures Act; including "provincial" events that, while off the radar to Central Canadians, are still part of Canadian history (I'd mention the Columbia River Treaty though granted that's 1958, but everything from the usurpation of Socred hegemony in BC to the growhtnot that I have time to add anything, but it doesn't take much to find stuff even nationally that's worth including; Trudeau's wage and price control, the growth in native/First Nations political cohesion arising from the Victoria Conference (1970) and Chretien's then-white paper calling for assimilation, Trudeau's resistance to Reagan and so much more. There's lots of section headings in Wiki that have "sectstub" or "sectiprove/expand" on them; making section headings based on what's only already in teh article, vs. what could and should be in it. Liberalism defined the era in question, and while it officially ended in 1984 its real ending was with Trudeau's first retirememtn; he came back in not as a political liberal, but as a constitutionalist with only one thign on his mind; he ended an era, and began one. Mulroney didn't - except by leaving it after destorying traditional Toryism; he defines an ending of an era, but not its beginning.Skookum1 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the History of Canada article, where 1960-198? is/was/will be especially weak --JimWae (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That article is (or at least was) written in Summary Style, with short paragraphs summarizing larger linked main pages. You can expand the content of that page if you find it lacking, but the sections should represent the related articles. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)