Talk:Canada/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Yukon uses hydroelectricity.

After reading this wiki, I noticed that Yukon Territory was omitted in the list of provinces who employ hydroelectricity as a major source or electric power. Perhaps this could be added?

Refs:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yukon - "Economy... follows in importance, along with hydroelectricity"

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yukon_Energy_Corporation - "YEC has developed a grid that connects hydro facilities in Whitehorse (Schwatka Lake Dam - 40 MW from four wheels, the fourth added in 1983), Aishihik Lake - 30 MW, and the YECL facilities at Fish Lake near Whitehorse. The communities on the "Whitehorse-Aishihik-Faro" grid include Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Champagne, Carcross, Tagish, Marsh Lake, Johnson's Crossing, Teslin, Carmacks, Faro, and Ross River." "The Yukon has no connections to the continental power grid, therefore, YEC cannot sell to or buy from networks"

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/renewable/hydro/ - "facilities have the ability to generate 75 megawatts (75 million watts) of power. That’s more than enough to currently serve all our customers."

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/non-renewable/ - "we rely on hydro for our energy supply"

Thanks,

Tyler

added Yukon to the list. naturalnumber (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporters sans frontiers ranking

Currently on the Reporters site it has Canada ranked at number 13 but on this page it states that canada is ranked at number 18, I'm not sure if it's just that the 2008 report has been released or not, but can it be updated to the current standing based on the site.Otonabee (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated this and some of the other rankings. naturalnumber (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Long and "complex" relationship?

What does "complex" exactly mean? That is a judgment, not a scientific fact! And frankly speaking, compared to most countries in the world, the relationship between the US and Canada hardly seems "complex" to me. Look at Europe. --Fertuno (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Or long, for that matter, compared to European countries. ðarkuncoll 12:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought Canada & the UK got along quite well. Jeepers, their Heads of State have a strikeing resemblance. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think long is justified, as it spans centuries. While it is true that it isn't long compared to some European countries, but there are things much longer still. Can a large number of generations be sufficient for long?

Also, as for complex, I would hope going from being federated as measure to protect ourselves from Manifest Destiny, to being the fractious hyper dependent economic partners we are now, qualifies as complex. (Also, both points are oversimplified, and much happened in between.) Again, I suppose if you try to compare it to Britain and France, who have also been blood enemies and staunch allies, they may win out, but the 'long' argument from above comes into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalnumber (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on "Quebec nation" on Quebec page

An RfC on the significance of motions on the so-called "Quebec nation" has been posted here. All are welcome to comment. --soulscanner (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{editsemiprotected}

I was going over this article, and it said that Canada "Joined" the U.N., this does give off the wrong impression since Canada was a founding member of the U.N., and a Canadian did right the universal declaration of Human Rights. But that's a different story, the matter is, Canada was a founding member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammergitis (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have refined that sentence to more accurately state that it was a founding member. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much

Sorry but it is also mentioned in section 5: Foreign relations and military, that's where I noticed it myself. Grammergitis (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! [1] Franamax (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One last time: Dominion of Canada

This is not original research. This is simple reasoning.

This is a no brainer. While there may be argument against the point made by ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!, It can not be said that Canada is not a dominion. Canada was formed as the first dominion of the British Empire in 1867. While some may argue that the empire is long gone, I, and many others, say that it is alive and well in the form of the Commonwealth of Nations. Also, the Dominion of Canada was the name designated for that country by the Fathers of Confederation, as thought up by Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley. If there is any citizen of Canada that thinks it should be named "the Dominion of Canada" than it should be at least mentioned on the page.

(Eli McNeil (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707

"... One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ..."

British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_North_America_Act,_1867

"... One Dominion under the Name of Canada..."

If Great Britain (1707-1801) is refered to here as

Kingdom of Great Britain or,

United Kingdom of Great Britain

here at Wikipedia,

then why is Canada (post-1867) is not refered to here as

Dominion of Canada

here at Wikpedia.

Why not?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the geographical and political meanings of the term "Great Britain" need to be disambiguated whereas the geographical and political meanings of the term "Canada" do not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Derek Ross.

How is Great Britain any less clear than Canada?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't use simple reasoning here, we use verifiable and reliable sources. We have yet to see a source, much less an official one, saying that Canada has a long-form name, nor that that long-form name is Dominion of Canada. Reason by analogy is not proof. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason by analogy is not proof?

Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707

"... One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ..."

British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_North_America_Act,_1867

"... One Dominion under the Name of Canada..."

So from 1707-1801 then Great Britain and not the Kingdom of Great Britain is the "legal name"?

Well Franamax?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as per Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You are analyzing primary source material, without referencing it to a secondary source. Then there is the issue of undue weight; virtually all sources use the name Canada as the sole name of the country, and that's what Wikipedia uses. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So Jeff3000,

From 1707-1801 then Great Britain and not the Kingdom of Great Britain is the "legal name"?

Well?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Analogy is not proof. In any case, the true analogy would be; 'Kingdom of Great Britain'; Canada is a monarchy also Therefore, 'Kingdom (not Dominion)of Canada. Armchair, if I might suggest, you rely a lot on supposed analogies with other countries. As Jeff, Franamax and others have said, you need a source. If the title Dominion of Canada is just as valid as the term Kingdom of Great Britain, then it should be easy enough to find that title used in a legal document.--Gazzster (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster, nice to hear from you indeed.

British North America Act 1871 (Clause 2)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/British_North_America_Act,_1871

... The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said Parliament. ...

How it that for a "legal document"?

(The BNA Act 1871 is the first amendment of the original BNA Act 1867).

Well?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the above Wikipedia policies? Secondary sources are needed, not primary sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeff3000.

Yes, I did read the "above Wikipedia polices"?

As for "Secondary Sources" there are a myriad of books published

between 1867 to the 1950s entitled the Dominion of Canada.

Well?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I for one congratulate Armchair on producing a source. Though I wonder why his tone always appears so aggressive. I've never said hewon't find a source. Now, the question we need to ask is, is that the name Canada goes by now?--Gazzster (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

I apologise for my aggressive tone to you. I am sorry. I am frustrated.

Nobody questions the "legal name" of the Commonwealth of Australia, or it constituent parts,

State of Tasmania,

State of Victoria

State of New South Wales,

State of Queensland,

Northern Territory,

State of Western Australia,

State of South Australia,

Why do people challenge the "legal name" of the Dominion of Canada, or its constituents parts, such as,

Province of Ontario,

Northwest Territories,

Yukon Territory,

... etc.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted.--Gazzster (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, the Dominion of Canada was the old name for Canada, as it existed under the power of the UK. However, as Canada slowly moved out from under the control of the UK, the name changed from 'Dominion of Canada' to just 'Canada'. Finally, in 1982, the Constitution Act, 1982 was passed, making Canada entirely independant of the UK. Since then, no official source has referred to the 'Dominion of Canada', it's just 'Canada'. For example, a quote from the Constitution Act:

"(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."

Canada is called Canada, and that is its only current name. I can agree that in the past it was a 'dominion' but it has not been so since 1982. Cheers, —fudoreaper (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As Armchair points out, the British North America Act, 1867 gives the name of Canada as "... One Dominion under the Name of Canada...", and not under the Name of the Dominion of Canada...". The name, therefore is "Canada". It was common for the first 60 or more years for it also to be called "the Dominion of Canada", as the 1871 BNA Act reference shows. But the 1871 BNA Act does not change what the 1867 Act said about the "Name of Canada". The use of "Dominion of Canada" is not incorrect, because, after all, i is a dominion, and its name is Canada, but the common usage is now "Canada, which makes Armchair very unhappy, so he comes to Wikipedia to try to argue for his preferred name. All of his examples of other jurisdictions that have legal long form names or continue to use long form names simply are not relevant to the question of whether Canada has a legal long form name or not. It simply does not have one. Ground Zero | t 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is, but suspect it's not, the last time. Despite my belief that Canada is entitled a dominion, it is just not used anymore and the references back that up. The article on Name of Canada is the best place for this kind of detail about its name, use of dominion, and history. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe it is long held consensus on this article that Name of Canada is the place to discuss the topic of Canada's name. --soulscanner (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How fortuitous. I was reading some of the correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, one of whom referred to the King's "Dominions". The term was clearly used to refer to the King's possessions. You can't simply point to the parallel between the language of the Act of Union and the BNA without looking at the difference. "Kingdom" and "Dominion" are two different words. It would have been nonsensical to call Canada a Kingdom in the BNA, because it did not confer full independence. Instead, Canada remained a thing over which the British crown had, you guessed it, dominion. There's an important distinction in there. It was not just a possession of the monarch separate and apart from Britain; Canada was subject to the authority of the Westminster Government and the Westminster Parliament. Why didn't Canada change its name in a later act? Who knows. The important point is that a strong argument exists that Canada is no longer a dominion, thus "Dominion of Canada" doesn't fit anymore. It would be analogous to the people of the Kingdom of France overthrowing their King and declaring "France is now a republic" without changing their name to the French Republic. It would be bizarre to insist that this polity would still be called the Kingdom of France, despite its lack of a monarchy, just because no law had been passed changing the name.

Even if you do not agree with this argument, you have to acknowledge that it is reasonable enough that a mere analogy between the wording of the Act of Union and the BNA is not enough. You need actual proof that "Dominion of Canada" is the official or long-form name of the country. -Rrius (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rius.

Americans and English-Canadians are "separated by a common language".

Oy.

Let me see eh, hmmm "King's Dominions", could it be a "King-dom" ... a "Kingdom"!

A Dominus rules a Dominion (Latin),

A Lord rules a Lordship (English),

A Seigneur rules a Seigneurie (French),

A Herr rules a Herrschaft (German).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It would seem, from a strict reading of the law, that the official long form name of the UK remains the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. See, for example [2]. In short, that Act changed the name of the UK parliament to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but nowhere does it mention the name of the state itself. What should we make of this? ðarkuncoll 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Eureka!

Hello TharkunColl.

You are 100% correct!

In 1927 the Name of the Parliament was changed.

In 1927 the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was offically changed to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This had the implicit effect of changing the country's long-forn name from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so the words may share a common lineage. Obviously, they mean exactly the same thing. Thanks for setting me straight. I'm still waiting for you to explain what on earth that has to do with Canadian versus American English. Seriously, this is a stretch even for the Dominion of Canada argument. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In German, Herrschaft Kanada shows up as well.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Herrschaft+Kanada%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd moved on, from this Dominion stuff. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Columbia?

A map has been placed at Spanish Empire suggesting that British Columbia was once Spanish. Whilst I realise that the Spanish made some far-fetched claims about their rights to the Americas and the Pacific coastline, the way it is depicted on this map is a little ridiculous. Unfortunately the user who placed the map there is - shall we say - rather averse to providing inline citations. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the territorial disputes on Wikipedia lets just say are becoming somewhat skewed as an observation I've had. Many of these disputes were settled via past conventions or meetings of the colonial powers. For example the Treaty of Paris comes to mind between the European powers.

I believe Spanish Colombia was what is current day Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, etc. See this map [3] (Yes I meant to use a URL because the image is way--- too big for this talk page.) The only thing I can think of anywhere near to that far north would be Washington, District of Columbia. (But that is named after Christopher Columbus. CaribDigita (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

a picture of Winnipeg and Quebec City's skylines should be added to the demographics section, it makes canada and these cities look better

Winnipeg

Quebec City

-- January 8, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.53.10 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics (GTA)

Why is Mississauga it's own city in the graph? It is part of the GTA isnt it? 5.1 million already indicates that North York, Scarborough and etc were added to the population so I'm wondering why Mississauga has its own city status on the graph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (Although it's a table, not a graph; and Scarborough etc. are actually part of the amalgamated city now, as opposed to Mississauga, which is an almagamation of its own but still counted in the GTA) This seems to be part of a well-meaning series of edits by an anonymous user. Much like yourself 99.241 :) - I didn't check all the figures the anon changed, I just responded to the apparent error you pointed out, where one metro area is subsumed into another. If you want to check more deeply into the numbers, please do so and fix what you think is wrong. (Use edit summaries and sources though, please :) Better yet, sign up for an account and pitch in where we can welcome and talk to you! From what I see, you spotted an error and pointed it out - we need that kind of help - thanks much! :) Franamax (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mississauga is not in the list because it is not considered to have a Metropolitan Area it is within the GTA so this make's the city exempt from the list.Kyle1278 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis And Clark: The Unknown Explorers

Many people do not know this, but the Louis and Clark expedition of 1804 was meant to go to Canada, and to take control of their embassy. However, Sacagawea's husband, Toussaint Charabonneau who was traveling with them, did not believe in violence, so the president agreed to let them explore America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.120.153 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's Louis and Clark? GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many images...

Over the past year or so, the number of images on this page has grown larger. In my opinion, the number of images crowds the article text, especially on smaller displays, and do not significantly add to the quality of the page. What do others think in removing some of the images, and if there is consensus to remove some of the images, which should be removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The sections which have more then 1 image, should be reduced to 1 image. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

It is incorrect to capitalize common nouns in this sentence: "Canada was formed as a federal Dominion of four Provinces."

The correct version is "Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces."

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) says:

Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult MOS: Proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.

It does not provide any exception for common nouns that describe territories. It addresses similar circumstances, such as titles and the names of institutions:

Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context.

Proper names of specific institutions (for example, Harvard University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College, etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization. However, the words for types of institutions (church, university, college, hospital, high school, bank, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name.

So "the Dominion of Canada" and "Canada is a dominion" are correct, and "Canada is a Dominion" is incorrect. "The Province of Ontario" and "Ontario is a province" are correct, but "Ontario is a Province" is incorrect.

If you disagree with this conclusion, you must provide explicit references to WP:MOS or associated manuals. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ground Zero.

I do disagree. I am going to give "this-a-try", and discuss this with you.

First things first. There are,

(1). two main forms of English, namely British English and American English,

(2). the former is governed by the Oxford Style Manual (2003), and the latter is governed by the Chicago Maunal of Style,

(3). the English used in Canada is a mixture of British English, and American English.

GroundZero ... do you agree with the above three points (i.e., (1) to (3))?

To illustrate ...

In British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have

"...the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have

"...the island of Great Britain and island of Ireland and its adjacent islands. ..."

Similarly, in British English the Oxford Style Manual (2003) [Chapter 4] would have

"...the Government of Great Britain and Government of Ireland ..."

in American English the Chicago Maunal of Style would have

"...the government of Great Britain and government of Ireland ..."

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous Stuff

FWIW, they should not be capitalized. No offense to anyone, but I'm getting tired of this pushing of Dominion and Province stuff on this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ground Zero's second to last paragraph sums up the whole Dominion/dominion capitalization problem nicely. Gopher65_talk 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which leaders?

I note that the main page for the United States lists in the Government section of its Infobox Country, the leaders of all three of its branches of government: the executive (headed by the president); the legislature (headed by the heads of the two legislative branches, the Vice-President as president of the Senate and the Speaker of the House); and the judiciary (the Chief Justice of US Supreme Court).

At present, Canada's section lists only its sovereign (the monarch and the governor-general) and the head of its executive (the prime minister), but not the head of Canada's legislature (which I take to be the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Canada) and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Canada)), nor the head of Canada's judiciary, the Chief Justice of Canada.

Query: Should we include the heads of Canada's legislative and judicial branches in the country's Infobox?

I think that ultimately, whether we do depends on whether we think that Canada has separation of powers. In the US, the three branches are considered co-equal and each branch is supreme in its own domain, so only listing the President as the Head of Government would be inaccurate. Does the same concern exist with respect to Canada?

I refer you to this article in considering this question.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick hint: don't equate Canadians with Americans, and don't ask "why aren't you all the same?" :) That said, the structure of government is radically different between the countries - republic vs. parliamentary democracy &c. The separation of powers is there but quite different in fundamental nature. The comparison would need an article in itself, and that article would need to delve into how effective the contrasting systems are at getting results. The various governing structures are just not the same. Also, we construct our own style guidelines for articles pertaining strictly to Canada, with reference to wiki-wide policies, but not necessarily with adherence to those guidelines adopted by our neighbours to the south. :) Franamax (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the gyst of my question, that being: Are separation of powers principles sufficiently advanced in Canada that we should recognize the leaders of all three of the branches of government in the Infobox? The article I linked to suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that separation of powers is an essential part of the Canadian constitution. On the other hand, that separation doesn't go as far as it does in the US. Does it go far enough that we should recognize leaders of the legislative and judicial branches in the Infobox? Adam_sk (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer is no. The head of the legislature is the Prime Minister, Steven Harper, and not the leader of the Senate (which BTW the Prime Minister appoints). In fact, the Senate in Canada has a generally very minor role in the government, and many believe it should be abolished. Note that the ceremonial executive is the monarch and their representative, the Governor General, while the political head of the executive is the Prime Minister who is also the head of the legislature. A little bit of reading would have made it apparent that the American division of powers does not equate to the Canadian division of powers. As for the Chief Justice of Canada, that position does not hold the same importance in the functioning of government or the separation of powers as it does in America. (Another style note, in Canada the terms "executive/legislative/judicial branches" are generally not used, and that's why you won't don't see those terms in this article). Thus the main positions of power are already in the infobox, and others should not be added. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And expanding a little, based only on my own understanding: the Supreme Court is completely autonomous (although the Chief Justice is indeed first among equals, and perhaps holds the prerogative of the deciding vote). But the Court is ultimately subject to the will of the people, so an act of the Legislative Chamber can overturn decisions of the court - so long as the legislature says that's what they're doing (i.e. the "notwithstanding" clause). So no, we're not "sufficiently advanced" here - we think that actual people should have a say, and we don't have that neat thing where criminals get pardoned in mid-January. Yeah, it's quite a bit different. (If I'm wrong on the details, please correct me - I can only learn!) Franamax (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This reflects an implicit misunderstanding of the American system. First, the Congress can overturn the results of court decisions unless they are constitutional cases. Second, the judiciary was considered a co-equal branch before the Supreme Court invented judicial review. Third, the President of the Senate in the United States is effectively chosen by the President of the United States. Fourth, the Chief Justice of the United States is merely first among equals, yet has been considered the head of the judiciary since before the job took on its current administrative roles. Fifth, the ability of the President to pardon and the fact that politically unpalatable pardons are granted when the President is no longer accountable has nothing to do with separation of powers, but with the different election systems.

On a different note, Adam_sk asked a reasonable question and received inexplicably heated responses for it. Jeff3000 noted, "A little bit of reading would have made it apparent that the American division of powers does not equate to the Canadian division of powers." Since Adam_sk pretty clearly set out that he saw a difference between the level of separation of powers, this was a rude and misplaced comment. He was not advancing the position that because the US article does it, Canada should; he was pointing out the situation and asking for comment. Also, Franamax took "sufficiently advanced" as a comment about Canadians and responded with an attack on the American system. Adam_sk's question very clearly was asking whether the level of separation was sufficiently advanced, not Canadians. Moreover, there is no reason to look at "sufficiently advanced" as a normative judgment; rather, it appears to me to "advanced" is referring to the greater amount. Put differently, "advanced" is being used as it is in "a person of advanced years" rather than in "an advanced civilization". -Rrius (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your analysis Rrius, my comment was neither rude nor misplaced. While Adam was asking for comment, he was indeed advancing the position that because the US article has done something this article should do the same thing (Adam specifically made the following statements 1) Since the US has the leaders of the branches in the infobox. 2) And Canada doesn't have all three. 3) Should the others be added to this article's infobox.) Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he asked a question, which is not the same thing as advancing a position. -Rrius (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While, as I noted above, I disagree with some of the points made by others, I do agree that the Speakers and the Chief should not be in the infobox. It was put above that the PM is the head of the legislature. I think the point being made is that the PM is the de facto head because he decides what legislation is considered. To the extent there is a de jure head or heads, it is not at all clear the Speakers are it. They lead debate, but that is about it. The Leaders of Government Business in each house could be considered de jure leaders, but that doesn't seem quite right. To the extent a case can be made for putting the Chief in the infobox, I think it would be undercut by the lack of representation for the legislature. Perhaps the fact that the Crown is a part of Parliament and is the fount of justice, can help calm the minds of people who think those branches should be represented in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister and the Queen are probably sufficient. One could argue for the Governor General, but she's really just the Queen, so there's probably no point ... WilyD 14:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The GG is important as the acting head of state. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a big to-do about the Queen and Governor General in the recent past, so if there is no compelling reason to drop the Governor General, we should probably let sleeping dogs lie. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahem ...

(1st Order-of-Precedence), Queen Elizabeth II, (Head-of-State)

(2nd Order-of-Precedence), Governor-General, (Queen's Representative)

(3rd Order-of-Precedence), Prime Minister, (Leader of the largest party Elected in Parliament).

That is our system.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Monarch, Governor General, Prime Minister. Yep that's how the Infobox is & should be. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed :) ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add my brief response to Adam_sk's questions. As he said, the Queen, governor general, and prime minister are all listed in the Canada infobox and they are part of the executive branch, but what about the heads of the legislative and judicial branches? Are those branches separate enough in the Canadian system to warrant their heads also being listed? I think that's an excellent question and a good suggestion. I would say that the separation of powers between the judicial branch and the other two branches are definitely as large in the Canadian system as in the US one. But by the defining nature of a parliamentary system, there is a dependency between the government (what Americans call the executive branch) and the parliament (legislative branch) - the government (prime minister plus cabinet) must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, meaning that if the House of Commons votes that it does not have confidence in the government or if they refuse to pass the government's proposed budget, then the government is removed from power and either a new one from a different party is appointed or (much likelier) there is a new election. So in this way Parliament is supreme over the government, but the seemingly paradoxical effect of this is that usually the government can get any agenda they want passed through parliament when the government's party has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. The executive and legislative branches in Canada are separate branches - the government can exercise certain powers, make many appointments, and has big royal prerogatives that it can exercise without parliamentary approval - but at any time Parliament can press the "kill switch", so certainly the separation of powers between Parliament and the government are not as "advanced" as in the US.

So by analogy to the US article's infobox, the separation of powers in Canada justifies putting the head of the judicial branch in the infobox, and it is not clear if putting the head of the legislative branch in the Canada infobox is justified. The de facto head of the judicial branch is easy to identify - the Chief Justice, who in one sense is an even more important position in Canada than in the US, since the US Supreme Court sits atop the federal court hierarchy and decides constitutional cases, but the Supreme Court of Canada sits atop the hierarchy of all federal and provincial courts. The de facto head(s) of the legislative branch is much more difficult for me to identify. The Leader of the Government in the Senate and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons work to plan and manage the legislative agenda, but the prime minister and cabinet really make the big decisions to set the agenda. And the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons preside over debates and proceedings (in a very non-partisan way) and ceremoniously act as the representative for their entire chamber to outside groups/branches. Ah... but the United States article infobox does not list the de facto heads - it lists the de jure heads, as shown by its listing of the Vice President and not the Senate Majority Leader. The Vice President's role as President of the Senate is very much just a ceremonial role, aside from casting a tie-breaking vote. So if we were to follow this example in the Canada article infobox, identifying the de jure heads of the legislative and judicial branches is very easy. The Queen is the de jure head of each branch: she is one of the three branches of the federal parliament and is considered the fount of justice - prosecutions are made in her name and judges make rulings and administer justice on her behalf. So I think that the current infobox for this article is about as close to the US infobox as the Canadian system allows, even taking into account the amount of separation of powers between the branches, which is quite large in the case of the judicial branch. --thirty-seven (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Full/Proper Name for Canada?

Is the complete name for Canada "the Dominion of Canada"? 24.80.236.14 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• No the full name is just Canada. Read this Kyle1278 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada is the full name of this country (whose short-form name is just Canada).

Beginning around 1960, revisionist-historians and the French-Canadian statesman of Canada successfully changed the "usage", and the long-form name (i.e., Dominion of Canada) of this country has been systematically suppressed.

The majority of Wikipedians polled here support its systematic suppression.

"Alas ... the Tyranny-of-the-Majority"

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear suppressed at the link given above: Name of Canada. We simply haven't the room for a complete discussion of the arguments for what is the complete name of Canada in this overview article and use what is clearly the consensus both here at Wikipedia and used in the real world today and, instead, link to the Name article for further details. I agree that the name is Canada but it is entitled the Dominion of Canada much like the Republic of the United States of America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No.

The Dominion of Canada is long-form name of Canada.

The United States of America is long-form name of America.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is long-form name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The usage of the Dominion of Canada has been systematically suppressed so as to not upset French-Canadians and the Irish-Canadian Republican faction of English-Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blatant appeals to anti-French and anti-Irish racism aren't going to help an argument already so thoroughly discredited. The long for name of the country is Canada, and a) every editor here knows this, so consensus will always be on the side that Canada is the full long form name, and b) the real world knows this, so every good outside source knows this. Thus gone are the two major avenues for getting information included in Wikipedia. Your best bet remaining is to write a book on the subject, find a respectable publisher willing to publish it, then appeal to that source. Cheers, WilyD 11:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this before, months ago. CANADA, is the country's full name. Continuing this argument, is merely grinding an axe. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!, "United States of America" is not the long-form name for America. America is a common name for "United States", but can also mean the Americas. United States is the short-form name for "The United States of America", which is the long-form name. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Cambay, I spotted that too! I just didn't want to see more double-spaced blue-fonted reprises if I pointed it out. I was really hoping this would all just go away. Did you notice how no current and reliable sources were advanced to support the necessity of a "long form" name?

Don, maybe you should head over to Glasgow, someone over there is insisting that it is actually "City of Glasgow" in the absence of any current evidence. Franamax (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Name of Canada article has nothing at all about the Dominion of Canada name being suppressed by the French/Irish Canadians. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairDon has been pushing his original research on this for ages, and has never been able to present credible enough evidence to convince the Wikipedia community of his view, which is clearly based in his opinions about French/English relations and Irish/English relations in Canada. There is no point in reopening this issue again. It has been argued to death. You can review the archived discussions on this linked from the tiop of this page. Ground Zero | t 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read them all as they were created. I know I shouldn't have replied but the USA comment was so obviously wrong that I had to. The whole naming thing reminds me of the never ending football/soccer/association/gridiron discussion. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello CambridgeBayWeather.

I wrote this,

"The United States of America is long-form name of America."

to which you commented was "so obviously wrong".

Firstly, the United States of America is a (official) long-form name.

Secondly, the (un-official) short-form name(s) are America, the United States, or simply the States.

One more thing CambridgeBayWeather,

"America the Beautiful"

Perhaps being a "musician looking for lyrics" you might look that one up.

(CambridgeBayWeather's music lyric site http://www.alansim.com/ )

You might want to add "America the Beautiful" to your list, since you appear to be ignorant of its existance eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding this topic

I don't want to shut down a valid debate, but... having reviewed some of the extensive history regarding this topic, it does not appear that there is any support for what AVD is proposing. If there is actual support for continuing this discussion in perpetuity, please let me know. Similarly, please advise if this matter has reached the point of becoming disruptive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no support. No reliable sources exist that back up AVD's claim regarding the current existence of a long-form name for Canada. The matter has long since reached the point of becoming disruptive. - Eron^Talk 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No support for continuing, since RS have never been shown for such usage since at least the Constitution Act. Disruptive since the same -stuff- happens over and over, started by an IP this time. AVD is a predictable distraction, but these repeated threads keep the rest of us from more serious work. I'm happy to consider actual evidence, but otherwise I'd support action under WP:DE. Franamax (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Shut down debate and protect from re-creation. (sigh! If only we could!)--Ramdrake (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply "Canada" has been the official name of the country on all federal and legal documents since the 60's, so that is the name of the country, like it or not. It's not short for a longer name for the country. We're not the "Federation of Canada" or the "Canadian Federation" or the "Dominion of Canada", even though these (except the latter) could be valid names for Canada. As a Canadian citizen who has never left the country, part of my public school history class taught us that after the Constitution Act, 1982 the name "Dominion of Canada" was no longer the official title of the country but instead it became simply "Canada", because all references to Canada in the constitution AND the charter simply call it "Canada", thus adopting it as the official name of the country on all federal and legal documents since then. There's no debate here, the country is simply called "Canada", unless you are referring to the pre-1982 "Dominion of Canada". There's no in between, that's just that way it went in my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.137.24 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go. An anonymous editor's elementary school teacher said it's so. The debate is over. Thank goodness. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That was unnecessarily bitey. Anonymous editors have as much right to contribute to the discussion as the rest of us. - Eron^Talk 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not mean to imply that. I simply meant that the source of the wisdom was somewhat vague; i.e. the teacher. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I comment on this?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

*Add Human Development Index rank*

{{editsemiprotected}} The requested edit is to add the sentence "Canada has the third highest Human Development Index rank in the world." just before the last existing sentence which begins "It is a member of the G8, NATO..." The idea for this new sentence came from reviewing similar statements in other country descriptions. See Ireland's for example. Paul David Robert (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.

The HDI is a moving target. Canada was number one for a while, as I recall. I'd support something like "In recent years, Canada has consistently ranked near the top of the HDI.[source]" - but it may need to be balanced by negative views as well. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it is a moving target but I'm not sure why there would need to be negative views added for balance. Canada's consistent high ranking on the HDI is a matter of verifiable fact, not opinion. - Eron^Talk 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree we should stick to the facts. In checking precedence set by several other country introductions, including US, England and Ireland, we see moving targets abound. Examples include % Purchasng Power, GDP and previously mentionned Ireland which has a number of ranks. The vast majority state the year of the ranking rather than generalise with a la "in recent years..." So suggest we follow existing norms and amend simply to "In 2008, Canada had the third highest Human Development Index rank in the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul David Robert (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the facts are still facts and it's easy to show Canada's consistently high ranking. It's a little silly too, since the HDI is not designed to pick the "best" country, all the ones at the top are pretty darn close. Rather, it is an index to show progress in the less-developed world. Also I note that Iceland is currently at the top of the index - but anyone familiar with world news is aware that it is a well-educated and literate country whose GDP is plummeting while external debt has soared. It sure won't be number one next year. :(

More generally, and in respect to my comment about needing some balancing, my concern there is cherry-picking of the "good" numbers, aka creating a "puff-piece". Especially in the lede, this seems to be WP:UNDUE. There are many world rankings where Canada does not score so well, per-capita energy use for instance or energy use per unit-GDP; poverty rates; competitiveness ranking; days-on-strike per unit labour; condition of indigenous peoples; economic productivity; Olympic performance for that matter. Picking only the best measure, and a diffuse one at that, seems a little much for the lead.

Also note that the HDI rank is already shown in the infobox. How many times does it need to be mentioned? Franamax (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody Cares?

Canada is frequently referenced in pop culture as a country no one cares about (c.f. Daily Show, South Park, etc.). I think this deserves a reference. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that this was accompanied by the addition of a tag requesting that the article as a whole be checked for notability, I have my doubts as to the good faith of this comment. But hey, if you think something needs to be added, and if it is verifiable and supported by reliable sources, then go for it. - Eron^Talk 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No one cares about? I don't know about that. CNN, heavily covered President Obama's first foreign trip (which was to Canada). In fact, Larry King Live did a special on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone actually believes shows like South Park and the Daily Show they are very close minded. I almost pity them.Kyle1278 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say most people don't care much about any country but their own unless it effects them. Canada is no different to any other country in that way. Little Tuck (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See Canada on Strike! and the George Carlin quote "And while all this is going on, Canada burns to the ground, but nobody notices.". 128.146.46.2 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

its called a joke its not true. Your very narrow minded. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note: I was joking about CNN coverage of Prez Obama's Canadian trip. CNN (and other American networks) gave it little-to-no coverage. But, had it been another country??? GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You could equally say the same about any country you can say everyone hates America. That has defiantly been in pop culture but you don't see anything about it on the United States article so i thing it would be inappropriate to put something like that on any article about any country especially an article of FA class. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

/* Nobody Cares? */ Who cares? No country's citizens should feel they have to be validated by those of another. That would be an excercise in unending frustration. In reference to CNN as a barometer of what matters, I remember not that many years ago in London a million people marched against the war in Iraq. CNN's coverage gave it not a mention. No, this self-proclaimed "most trusted" news outfit instead provided several hours of looping Micheal Jackson arrest clips. Now there was a who cares moment. And for the edification of the American who started the silly recommendation, who cares in the USA would have to include Obama who spoke in very complementary terms of Canada and its people and recognising the USA's biggest supplier of imports, biggest supplier of oil, biggest supplier of natural gas, etc. Fox news coverage was quite complimentary also noting Canada's serious fighting contribution in Afghanistan. Who cares in USA?: American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan alongside Canadians ensured they ended up being presented medals at the White House. If we do go down the road of pop culture, lets include the recent movie "In Bruges"'s depiction of the widely held view in many cultural forums that Americans are ignorant and crass.

Why are you taking this seriously?—One anonymous idiot made an idiotic comment. -Rrius (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sub-CANADA

Canada is north of the usa

Your point? Kyle1278 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada is in fact north of every country except Denmark. We should chip that piece of Greenland off, or build an island to settle things once and for all. :) Franamax (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter point is why the North Pole may belong to the Danish, see North Pole may belong to Denmark, early mapping data suggests: scientist (CBC News). --Natural R_X 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's going on?

Have I missed something lately? The PQ haven't won the last elections and I thought Quebec's liberals were against sovereignty, are they still? I've heard people this weekend saying Quebec's government is to declare its independence from Canada soon. Should we talk about that in this article? --Shalloom (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any news articles supporting what you say so i can not be sure. Kyle1278 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We should write articles on the basis of verifable sources, not on the basis of what you hear people saying. Not everyone knows what they are talking about. The people you are listening to clearly do not. Ground Zero | t 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they clearly do not know what they are talking about because this might be true without us knowing it. They could've get privileged information. But I agree with you on adding information from verifiable sources only. --Shalloom (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly unlikely that you're actually palling around with people who have access to privileged information from inside Jean Charest's office; far more likely is that your friends are either misunderstanding something or talking out of their hats. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Quebec's secession from Canada is spelled out in the Clarity Act (Bill C-20). The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that Quebec does not have the right to unilaterally secede from the Canadian Federation, but if a majority of Quebeckers choose to go down that path they can enter into negations with the Federal Government. That is not going to happen under the Quebec provincial Liberals and the modern sovereignty movement has lost almost all of its steam, meaning forcing another referendum will likely result in a defeat similar to that of 1995 and 1980. AndrewMcinally (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Party

Does anyone else believe that the political party of Stephen Harper (Conservative) should be stated on the right side of the Canada page? I saw many other country profiles on wikipedia that state the political party of their Presidents and Prime Ministers... should the Canada page do this too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect 'Canadian' to 'Culture of Canada' instead of 'Canada'

'Canadian' is redirecting to 'Canada' article and allthough there is the complete history and culture of the Canadian society to be found at numurous locations, internet, libraries and even the government of canada's heritage website http://www.pch.gc.ca/index-eng.cfm 'Canadian' should at least be redirected to 'Culture of Canada' not this article, as when we say "Canadian" we are talking about heritage and culture not demographics. Therefore 'Canadian' should not direct to 'Canada' article.

Also, 'Canadian' is not a disambiguation, and deserves it's own article and not just a redirect. (I.E. Canadians are Ex-Americans)

So I say we redirect 'Canadian' to 'Culture of Canada' instead of 'Canada'.

American(Can) (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Canadians are Ex-Americans" means. As to the rest, I don't think there is any more justification to redirect "Canadian" to "Culture of Canada" than there is to redirect it to "Canada". Perhaps what we should do is just eliminate the redirect completely and send it to Canadian (disambiguation), just as we do with other articles such as American, German, Chinese, Russian, etc. - Eron^Talk 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree.. It's all or nothing. (I threw in by hypothetical means "Ex-Americans" btw to let you know there is rich heritage and culture behind the word 'Canadian') which the article 'Culture of Canada' can dub as the article 'Canadian' just nicely. The justification of the move is to distinguish the word 'Canadian' as a culture and heritage and not to fall into the hands of demographics.

So, the reason why we shouldn't direct 'Canadian' to 'Canada' is because of the demographics, which does not reliterating the society that is rich in culture and heritage which the 'Culture of Canada' can duplicate itself as the 'Canadian' article.

btw: what is so disambiguous about Canada? Clearly Red and White bud, with no objections. ;)

American(Can) (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

.

National Sport

Canada's national sport is curling not hockey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.29.100 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

nope: Lacrosse is the national summer sport of Canada. Hockey is the national winter sport of Canada Cheers Kyle1278 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Curling is the national winter sport. Hockey might be confused as Canada's national winter sport because it is very popular, but it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.154.156 (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. See Sport_in_Canada#Official_sports, or take a look at the National Sports of Canada Act, which reads:

"The game commonly known as ice hockey is hereby recognized and declared to be the national winter sport of Canada and the game commonly known as lacrosse is hereby recognized and declared to be the national summer sport of Canada."

- Eron^Talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

cual es su comida favorita de canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.14.92 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha thats an interesting question if you search for poutine its one of the most well known.--Cheers Kyle1278 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hors d'oeuvres of wild cedar-planked Pacific smoked salmon and seared Digby scallops; Nova Scotia lobster bisque; bison and Canadian back bacon tourtière, with a saskatoon berry coulis; Nanaimo bars; lots of Okanagan valley wine, Quebec cheeses, shared with good friends. Pas de poutine. 24.69.250.80 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Multicultural Canada

Would qualified editor review and post link under "External Links" to our project [4] If you have any question about our website please do not hesitate to contact us thru support area of our website or wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoiscan (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Most of North America"

Greetings. Apologies if this has been asked before, but why does the article start by stating that Canada "is a country occupying most of northern North America" when in reality it doesn't even cover half? Or am I missing something here? 68.149.163.122 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, just realised it says most of NORTHERN North America. Strange fact to start with, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.163.122 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It does leave one to wonder where the border between northern North American and southern North America is. Thankfully, at 40% of the all of North America, any fair boundary would leave Canada with more than half. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the vague wording on that little pokey-thing at Lake of the Woods, giving up on the Aroostook War, rolling over on the Alaska Panhandle, and the stupid British captain who wanted a "victory" at Fort Astoria in the war of 1812, my home and native land would probably surmount the 50% barrier! And who was bidding for us when they sold Alaska?? :) Franamax (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Head of State

Why isn't there a picture of the Canadian Head of State on the main page? I think there should be. Afterall, she is the head of state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckish (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce term

Hi are there any Canadians here who can help me as to what truce terms Canadian children did or do use - preferably with sources! A truce term is a word used by children in games, usually under the age of about 11, to call a temporary halt to the game because they need to tie a shoelace or go to the loo or argue some point about the rules or something.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The traditional call to temporarily halt a game of street hockey is "Car!" (i.e., a warning that a car is approaching and that the players should vacate the street), and I've seen this jokingly extended to other contexts. However, in most situations, "Time out!", "Time!", "T.O.!", or simply "T.!" (and occassionally the accompanying 'T' hand-sign) are used. I live in Southern Ontario, so there may be other regional variations I'm not yet aware of. EhSeuss (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the US time-out and variants has pretty much supplanted the old terms as well. I'd love to know what terms the Canadians used to use before the advent of timed televised sports. You don't happen to have the Canadian Oxford Dictionary handy do you? There may well be an entry. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The article states that "Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored. . ." The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in the eighteenth century. Shouldn't this state "English and French expeditions?" Can anyone back this up?

Also - should it not make mention of the Spaniards? They explored the west coast long before the French or British. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.172.231 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The section on controversy over the 1995 referendum corruption by the PQ should be hyperlinked and added. Photos of 'spoiled' ballots are available from 'Alliance Quebec', which took the PQ to court, proving the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.232.229 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1775 american invasion

I think this article should definitely at least mention the 1775 American Invasion, especially since the American nearly successed in taking over the colony before the british reinforcements came. It is also interesting to note that this invasion took place before the American Declaration of Independance was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.155.98 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that it should mention the 1775 invasion, if we put down everytime the American's ALMOST succeeded in an invasion there would be no room for relavent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.39.222 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Terms

Nothing to do with improving this article

DEFINITIONS: Safe, to say as times change definitions change also... Canada not only is a country, but is also an american term of a country in America, who's inhabitants are loyal to the British Crown, just like a Canadian is the american term for a loyaist of the British Empire in America. I would just like to say that "Canada" can be, as well as "Canadian" be used to describe this article and can include such terms if need be or wanted as american types. So, considering this the article can read for example... Canada (pronounced /ˈkænədə/) is the american country in the British Empire occupying most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward.. so on and such forth. And remember, we are all Americans in this Continent. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Canada is part of the British Empire? News to me...Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I'm affraid so, also Canada has it's own American thing going, so I would include such terms. American(Can) (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Show me a reference to Canada belonging to the British Empire, one that is newer than say 1931... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Forget the British Empire, it's illrelevant to the discussion. My point is that Canada is an American country like Germany is a European country like China is an Asian country. It is disrespectfull and misleading not to include "what type of country" Canada is. Also, it is a better descriptive term then to say just somewhere in Northern North America. Is Canada a European country, or a Russian country since it's so far north in Northern North America? No, it's an American country and we'd like to express that. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Most Canadians wear European-style clothing, eat a European-style diet, speak European languages, have a European form of government, European forms of legal system and European ancestors. The only American bit seems to be the location. Mind you I suppose that you could say the same things about the USA. Maybe the truth is that they are both European settlements in North America. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, you are right. They are both European settlements in North America. (persay) Now, considering North America all citizens and countries of North America are American otherwise North America wouldn't be North America and also would not exist as North America if it were any other way. You can't have America, North America or South America without it's American inhabitants. So, as North American countries are, such as Canada, USA, and Mexico the citizens are American, otherwise it would not exist. Just think of Europe, are any European countries exempt from being European? No, because they would not be in Europe. Same goes for America, no country in America is exempt from being American. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) This discussion in not a useful discussion. No reliable source calls Canada an American country and thus advocating for its use here is original research and not permissible. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Calling a Canadian an non-American is like calling a Canadian un-canadian which would be liable to get you into a fist-de-cuff. Remember, there are NO EXCEPTIONS to Canada being an American country and/or it's citizens being American. It is a plain centuries old knowledge and usage. If it is the fact that Canada is in America offends you that is a personal porogative issue and has nothing to do with original research. Regards, American(Can) (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Also, if that is the case, no reliable source calls the United States of America an American country as well and thus advocating for its use here is original research and not permissible. Remember, we are all Americans in this continent. If Canada is not in America, North America and Northern America and not an American country there shall be no such thing as America, as it would not exist. Regards, American(Can) (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Canada showing, is clearly in America and an American country. American(Can) (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I think we need a map to proove Canada is in America, the Americas, North America and Northern America and therefore American by virtue of. American(Can) (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, is there a point to these discussions? Canada is in North America, already mentioned, and there is a map showing it's location. Canterbury Tail talk 10:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Yes! The point is, as a Canadian Citizen, my country Canada and myself are American by virtue of America. American(Can) (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) There is no point continuing this discussion. Americancan, if you are in earnest, then take note that the precedent set in Wikipedia is to describe countries as occupying an area rather than by an adjective derived from the continent. You say Canada should be described as American, just as Germany is described as European and China as Asian. Well, take a look at the articles for those countries. "Germany is a country in central Europe." "China is [...] [an] entity extending over a large area in East Asia." Hence, "Canada is a country occupying most of northern North America." OK? p.s. Canada is a Commonwealth realm, not a part of the British Empire. Hadrian89 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Fine. We'll just assume Canada is in America and leave it at that, while others assume Canada is in northern North America as you suggested outside the American realm. American(Can) (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, what?? What is the 'American realm'? I know I said to discontinue the discussion, but you have now completely confused me. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, for not being technical. I mean't outside it's own American realm. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Canada is not in America (i.e. United States). Canada is in North America, or if you prefer 'the Americas' (when including South America). GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC) This entire matter is already dealt with at American (word). --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I agree, it is an American (word) and doesn't matter anyway, Canada as a different country in America (The Americas) North America, or wherever in America you want to place it, Canada still shares the same nationality as the rest of the countries in The Americas, as fellow Americans by nationality. (Canadian by Ethnicity) Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure which Point of View you are here to push American(Can). A continent is not a nationality, therefore, as a Canadian I cannot share a 'nationality' with people from the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica or Belize. We all live on the same continent, but our histories and ethnic backgrounds are very diverse. Canadians are, technically, 'Americans' in the broadest and not the usual sense of the word, because we inhabit the Americas. However, the overwhelming majority of English speakers, uses the term 'Americans' to refer to persons from the United States, to call Canada an 'American' country is not helpful. If there's a movement to 'reclaim' the term 'American' and claw it away from people of the United States, then so be it, but at the moment it would be original research and not helpful to the article to do as you suggest and would probably offend the PoV rules. Perhaps we need to coin another term, distinct from 'American' to denote people of the Americas to avoid confusion. Something like 'Americanos' (to borrow from the Spanish) or 'Ameriquean'. Corlyon (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaders, Redux

Well, earlier in the year, I posted here this comment in which I mused on the question of whether we should add more leaders to the Infobox that sets out the leaders of the Canadian government. In particular, I noted that the United States infobox lists not only the U.S.'s Head of State and Head of Government, but also the heads of their legislative chambers and the Chief Justice of their Supreme Court. Which conversation basically involved a lot of people accusing me of not understanding the Canadian constitutional system and saying I didn't understand the differences between Canada and the U.S., and I basically got annoyed and didn't follow up. So, before I broach the subject again, let me freely admit that I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I have read Senator Forsey's The Royal Power of Dissolution in the British Commonwealth (many years ago at this point, though it is still, in my opinion, the definitive treatment of the King-Byng Affair), and I think I have a basic understanding of Canadian government.

To the degree their was consensus in the previous discussion, I think everyone came to the conclusion that the leaders of the Canadian senate and House of Commons don't have enough power to warrant inclusion in the Infobox because the Canadian system basically fuses the legislative and executive branches of government. But, I'm still wondering if we shouldn't include the Chief Justice of Canada. John Roberts gets a mention in the U.S. infobox. And I think it's hard to argue that Elizabeth II or Michaëlle Jean actually have a more important role in the Government of Canada than Beverley McLachlin and the Supreme Court of Canada. (And, yes, I do understand that, given the notwithstanding clause, the Canadian Supreme Court doesn't have as much power as the U.S. court, but I still think it's pretty important.)

What do people think about adding the Chief Justice of Canada to the Infobox? Adam_sk (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would look and see what happens at Australia and New Zealand. The former is like the Canada article, the latter, is like what is being discussed. I don't think the Speakers ought to be listed, but, perhaps the Chief Justice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada's social ills

I think it would be a good idea to discuss Canada's social ills under this article. Under this article there should be a special subsection about 1) Canada's internment camps during WW2: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment 2) There should also be a special subsection about the internment of Ukranian-Canadians during WW1: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internment 3) I also think it would be a good idea to discuss Canada's treatment of indigenous peoples under the Canada article and discuss why Canada's natives population has the highest suicide rate of all ingigenous people in the world, 2x higher than Native Americans in the United States: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_nati.htm 4) Why is there not subsecion about Canada's seal hunt, which is the largest mass slaughter of marine life on the planet? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2008_Canadian_commercial_seal_hunt 5) I would also like to see a subsection in this article devoted to Canada's controversial "human rights" courts: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine 6) There should also be a subsection regarding Canada's crime rate, which is not so much better than the United States. There is a special wiki section about crime in canada, which has interesting data considering everything I have read on the Internet and seen in statistics charts shows that Canada has one of the highest rape and burglary rates in the world, yet it compares with the United States as lower. All data shows otherwise. 7) There should also be a subsection about racism in Canada. Nothing about racism or discrimination is discussed in the Canada article.

Why does the "United States" article have special subsections regarding all these things and Canada not? Why is there a subsection about McCarthy in the United States article, but nothing about Canada's "human rights" tribunals? Why are native people only discussed in the United States article, but not mentioned in the Canada article except to mention that, yes, there were some living there when the white man came? Where is the harsh treatment discussed? Just something to ponder.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.131.220 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are individual articles about the Japanese and Ukrainian internment issues. On the suicide rate among First Nations people you will need a better source I think. The MacLeans human rights complaint issue is a rather small tempest in a rather large teapot. The crime article, apparently, already exists. The seal hunt, has an article, and again, is a very small thing in a rather large country. I would also hardly call a seal hunt a 'social ill'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada has one of the highest rates of *reporting* of rape, burglary, vandalism, etc. I live in Saskatoon, which statistically has one of the highest gang, drug, and violent crime rates in the world. But I can walk home from work through the most dangerous parts of the city at 1am with ease, while I would *never* consider doing that in any large American city (and yes, I lived in the US for two years). And it would be suicide to try that in Mexico (and really, the US is a safe place to live, and Mexico is quite reasonable compared to most of the rest of the world).

I apologize for the fact that people in Canada actually report crimes to the police, instead of just huddling in their hovels waiting to be gang raped yet again like they do in "low crime" countries in the middle east:P. I apologize for the fact that the police in most countries are so corrupt that they constitute nothing more than another organized crime syndicate, so that people don't bother reporting crimes. I also apologize for the fact that spitting on the sidewalk is considered a crime in the city where I live (I'm not joking. $100 fine per offense), whereas in Iranian cities you can spray paint a swastika on a government building and not even get a citation. Different countries consider different levels of deviance from the norm in different ways. In other words "Vandalism" in Saskatoon does not mean the same thing as "Vandalism" in Tehran, even though they're counted the same way on international crime reports (when they get reported at all).

I'd also like to note that this is similar to the Swine Flu pandemic reporting issue. People in poverty stricken countries die in their homes and no one even notices :o(, whereas if someone tests positive on a known-to-be-flawed testing method in Australia everyone panics. It's just a difference in the reporting infrastructure, not a difference in the actual number of cases per capita. Gopher65_talk 00:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

However, that said, I would see nothing wrong with having a "Criticism of Canada" section (or something similar) that links together all the existing and future articles talking about things that Canada has, or will do, wrong. Often times I go to a Wikipedia article looking for an off-subject topic like this, and I find the articles lacking (as a possible example, going to the Canada article looking for a hint on where to find information on Canadian internment of Ukrainians during WWI). It'd be nice to have links to as many Canada-related articles as possible in this article, in my opinion.

I agree with Dbrodbeck that many of these topics probably aren't large enough in scope to talk about in-depth in a general article like this, however. Gopher65_talk 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that many of the proposed issues here are too minor for inclusion on this page, and many major (although for the most part not earthshakingly so) issues sport their own pages somewhere or other on here. In any case Canada is also documented as one of the greatest reporters of crime, and is said to be one of the countries with the highest chance of a given incident being reported in the world. This means not that the number of incidents is greater but simply that more go reported. MasteroftheWord (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree all around. This article, as an overview article about Canada, is already long enough and cannot go into detail about issues but rather mention issues and link to them. There does need, however, to be a better link from this article to the issues mentioned. It think the article Human rights in Canada needs to find a link in this article. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Howabout our weak Justice system? cuddle the criminal, ignore the victim. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in Chicago for 10 years and the only crime and violence I see are from Hollywood TV shows. My mother is from Sweden and she says that the streets of the US are far safer than the streets of Europe. Statistically this is true. It is also true that Toronto's overall crime rate is 18x higher than New York Ciy's. All this is relevant because if the "United States" article justifies discussing crime and violence, then surely so do the articles of other countries considering their overall crime rates are higher than in the US, including canada. --anti-Americanism is a disease of the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.131.220 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

the self reports are not reliable sources. It seems to me you ought to worry about the United States article then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving readability of lead

I've been trying to make some minor edits to the lead to improve readability in keeping with editing guidelines. This involves reducing the amount of linking (particularly long piped links), and shortening words and sentences. For example:

"... This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."

Observations:

• This is a run-on sentence.
• Long links such as: "accretion of additional provinces and territories" should be avoided (WP:PIPE states: "Avoid making links longer than necessary").
• The phrase "accretion of additional" is repetitive ("accretion" is a synonym of "addition").

To address the above, I split the sentence in two and edited it as follows:

"... Thus began the territorial evolution of the country and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom. This widening autonomy was highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and culminated in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."

Bosonic dressing reverted me. This is not the first time he's done this and I want to hear his rationale here before he reverts again. I have been copyediting this article since before it reached FA status. I try to make continual improvements so it will keep that status. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the long-standing version because your edits were substandard and verbose: the edit comment is succinct -- the flawed first sentence read more like a government marketing brochure (beginning with 'Thus', no less), the second sentence lacked parallelism (in/of), and edits also very slightly lengthened an already bloated article. Was the former version less readable? Arguably no. Your prior edits (which you presumably are referring to) were just as well. The current introduction has persisted for months consensually (during which time you could've presumably made these edits, and perhaps already tried), and the article currently has FA status based on that content. I'm open to change, but not if it's a regression. Your bold edits were justifiably reverted and then -- assumptions of good faith aside -- proceeded to leave a gibberish warning about article ownership on my talk page. I don't care who you are or what your contributions have been, frankly, but anything else like that won't be tolerated. Anyhow, I've insinuated an alternate, more natural, and equally long reconstruction in the lead. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Won't be tolerated???" By whom? If the other editors appointed you guardian of this article, I would like to hear it from them. You are pretty new here, so I will cut you some slack. But that warning on your talk page was about as clear as it gets: You do not own this article.

That being said, your recent edits were not a "partial revert" as you called it. They were edits pure and simple. That is how articles are improved. So lets move on. But please stay out of my hair. I am back; this article needs some copyediting; I will be doing that. I get cranky when someone reverts an edit I've put some thought into. But if anyone with the requisite skills wants to collaborate with me that will be fine. Sunray (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? It was a partial revert, as it more closely retained the former syntax, but split the sentences in two as you had done. You falsely accuse me of owning the article, after correcting/reverting your substandard edits. I am simply correcting them, with deliberation, as the boilerplate message on any article indicates: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you make additional substandard edits, to consensual long-standing content no less, I will continue to do so. I do not need your consent or approval for edits, or vice versa; nor do you have some entitlement to 'steward' the article over anyone given your tenure here. (So, who 'owns' what?) I'm all for collaboration, but anymore 'crankiness' (as you were also warned) won't be tolerated. Moving on. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Have it your way about the "partial revert" I was trying to make a point that seems not to have been evident to you. If my accusation of "ownership" was incorrect, then by all means prove me wrong. I base my judgments on evidence. And I must say, statements such as this or that "won't be tolerated" do not give one a good impression of your willingness to collaborate. As far as your comment about "substandard edits," what are your special qualifications to make that judgment? I have professional off-wiki editing experience (i.e., get paid for editing). Finally, about the crankiness. You have not seen that yet. I try hard to be civil. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If I truly 'owned' this article, which implies substantial investment in it (not really), I would be reverting any and all edits to it or enforcing some other cryptic standard. I have no intention, not to mention time, of further explaining my intentions or trying to 'prove' anything. No, as explained, your edits were substandard. I'm all for collaboration, but am surprised by your tone and approach given your tenure: a simple talk page comment, without a bollocks warning on my talk page, would have been sufficient. And, to be clear, I will not tolerate incivility: which means, if you continue to be ... unnecessarily 'cranky' as such, I will escalate. (Necessarily is fine. :)) If you are disturbed by that, then act more judiciously. I don't really care what your off-wiki experience is, as I also get paid for writing, editing, and production of items. And, since the content issue seems to be resolved and too much time and effort has been devoted to this thread already, I am ending this discussion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am relieved that you will discontinue this discussion. However, I am concerned about the tone of your last post, which I see as a personal attack, accompanied by a threat. I will pursue this on your talk page. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity

I'm a great fan of the tv series How I Met Your Mother and I noticed that in one or more episodes the characters states that "Canadian are afraid of the dark"...

The fact that this is true or not doesn't interest me at all... I just want to know why/where this stereotype is born...

If anyone knows please write me a message at my talk. Thank you.

--Lessio (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke. I'm a minor fan of the show and the things they say about Canada are purposely misinformation. Pretty much every "fact" you check you will see is false, and I guess that's funny for people who know. The satellite signal is usually pretty good from my igloo on these 24 hour nights. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of me saying (I actually do say this) that "Nothing bad happens in Canada" since you never hear about it in the news, just a joke purposely with misinformation. @DoubleBlue: Haha, well played. And on a side note, I used to watch the show but haven't for a few months now, but I'll never forgot the episode where Neil Patrick Harris (forgot his characters' name) shows show girl his entire porn collection and she doesn't care. Hilarious!--Giants27 (c|s) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

canadian facts

A common misconception about Canada is that their alphabet is the same as ours. But in 1937, in a demonstration to prove their uniquness to the world they omitted Z from the alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.88 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A curious misconception about the United States is that their alphabet is not the same as ours. But in reality, they just don't know how to pronounce the letter Z. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

factual omission in paragraph three

French and English are the official languages of Manitoba. This fact has been mentioned in these notes before. (French Language Note, archive #2)

This sentence should be amended: "It is a bilingual and multicultural country, with both English and French as official languages both at the federal level and in the province of New Brunswick."

suggestion: "It is a bilingual and multicultural country, with both English and French as official languages both at the federal level and in the provinces of New Brunswick and Manitoba."

French is the official language in Quebec and English in the rest of the provinces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Lockhart (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

not according to the Manitoba article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

From the Manitoba article:

Although French is an official language for the purposes of the legislature, legislation, and the courts, the Manitoba Act (as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada) does not require it to be an official language for the purpose of the executive branch of government (except when the executive branch is performing legislative or judicial functions). Hence, Manitoba's government is not completely bilingual, and as reflected in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, the only completely bilingual province is New Brunswick.

Singularity42 (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dominion

There is a paragraph in the article that states that the federal government phased out the use of Dominion in the country's name. However, in the constitution, Canada is still a Dominion, therefore the official constitutional name is the Dominion of Canada. How come that isn't listed as its official name in the title of the article?

Dabmlgnker (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Likely because the government phased out the use of Dominion. If the government was still referring to the country as the Dominion of Canada, it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe the opening should read, "formerly known as the Dominion of Canada" or "also known as the Dominion of Canada". Blackjays1 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The only name in the 1867 constitution is "Canada". "Dominion of Canada" does not appear anywhere in the 1867 constitution. It appears in the 1871 Constitution Act and several official documents, but all nouns were capitalized then. The article correctly says that "usage" of "DoC" has been phased out. It never says "DoC" was ever the "name" of the country --JimWae (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethno-cultural percentages

There does not seem to be a single ref that can spport the ethnic % given in the info box. One must hunt the ref 2 source to get absolute #s (not %) and not ALL the categories (eg aboriginal) are given there. This is a slightly better source for %s and this gives text that partially supports the figures too --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal Template mess

Can somebody fix the Template? it has messed up the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please, GoodDay? I temporarily rm'd the portal template, but the article seemed okay both ways. What are you seeing exactly?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer that: I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, but a while ago there was a mess of wiki-markup visible at the top of the page right below the merge tag. It doesn't show up in the article's history, which suggests to me a problem with a template or a tag as opposed to the article itself. Anyways, it seems to be gone now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria! I've been making various improvements, so maybe something I did worked? At any rate, I'm glad you don't see the mess now. Best of everything to you and yours!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks, 'tis well again. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Admin. divs. of Canada" into this article

• Not Supported. It has been suggested that the Administrative divisions of Canada article be merged with this article. When you look closely at this article, you may realize that it is already long and a bit unwieldy for general readers. The idea then is, rather than merge articles with the Canada article, more spinoff articles ought to be created and expanded into articles that are as good as they can be.

Also, there is an invisible comment at the top of the Canada page that goes like this...

“ Notice: This overview article is already too long and should serve only as an introduction for Canada. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about Canada linked from this article, e.g. Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. See the List of basic Canada topics for the rest of them. Thank you. ”

That "List of basic Canada topics" Redirects to "Outline of Canada", and I have added a link to the "Administrative divisions of Canada" article on that page in the following section: Government and politics of Canada. If anyone thinks there are better places for such links back to that article, then by all means correct my edit.

So in light of all this, the Merge templates will be removed from these pages in a few days, unless there is strong opposition to it. Thank you very much for your help to improve Wikipedia!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'Administrative divisions of Canada' should remain a seperate article. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Given that we've expanded the footnoted references to such an extent that they cite the bulk of the article, would anyone object if I were to rename "References" to "Further reading"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, go ahead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, great job on getting this article properly referenced again. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographics - "Canadian"

All the statistical sources for the demographic entry of "Canadians" say just that: "Canadian". This means is that 32.2% of the population self-identify as "Canadian". Therefore, when reporting it in Wikipedia, that's all you can say. You can't interpret it to mean "indigenous" - that's your own interpretation, and is original research (and, in actualy fact, incorrect). Singularity42 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, alright. But it's not incorrect, it is a true fact. Flosssock1 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no chance that 32% of Canada is indigenous. This really is an issue of self-identification. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

StatsCan refers to "Canadian", with no 'indigenous' modifier before it. Case closed, in my opinion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As Oreo said, there is no way 32% of Canada is indigenous. Aboriginal peoples in Canada includes a sourced population of 1,172,790 (out of Canada's total population of almost 34 million). Hayden120 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the StatsCan link above, there are 1,253,615 total responses under the 'North American Indian' ethnic group. So, very clearly, there is a difference between the two groups. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not interpret, it just shows what is found in other sources. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. But the only people that can be truely 'Canadian' can only be Indigenous Canadians. As I said any other would be French-Canadian etc. So what is this big 32% Canadian then, who are they? It says English etc below.. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just people who, when asked by the census people what their ethnicity is, they answer "Canadian". That's all it means. It means that 32% of people say they are "Canadian" without necessarily identifying themselves as "indigenous", French-Canadian", etc. (BTW, not that it's relevant, but I would fall in that 32%, and I am not indigenous, French, etc.). Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it is the same as people that answer "American" in the US census. It is not a "true fact" that 32% of Canadians are aboriginal. It is demonstrably false, and indicates you are either completely misunderstanding the information or you are trying to wind people up. TastyCakes (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So what are you then? My parents were born in Canada and they think of themselves as English-Canadian (because their roots both come back to England) however I was born and raised in England, I think of myself as English. My family just spent what was like a long holiday in Canada. Just to note, I'm not arguing for the 32% to be changed. But I'd just like to say that I think it's important for people in Canada to class themselves as English-Canadian etc because it can help future generations track their roots. If you know what I mean? Flosssock1 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently 32% of us think it important to call ourselves Canadian. Remember, this is supposed to be a discussion about improving the article, not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How Statistics Canada Identifies Aboriginal Peoples Over the years, the census has collected data on Aboriginal peoples using different questions. Presently, there are four questions used in the census to identify Aboriginal peoples:

• Ethnic origin (including Aboriginal ancestries);
• Aboriginal identity;
• Registered or Treaty Indian; and
• Member of an Indian Band or First Nation.

There is no single or "correct" definition of Aboriginal populations. The choice of a definition depends on the purpose for which the information is to be used. Different definitions are used depending on the focus and requirements of the user. Each question will yield Aboriginal populations with different counts and characteristics

Ethnic origin Input obtained during consultation confirmed many participants agreed the ethnic origin examples should accurately reflect Canadian society. Sensitivity was noted regarding the use of ‘East Indian,’ as ‘Indo-Canadian’ was preferred and new examples, such as ‘Arab’ and ‘Newfoundlander,’ were suggested.

The example of ‘Canadian’ as an ethnic origin was debated. Some researchers expressed concern about the comparability of data over time and the value of the ancestry data since ‘Canadian’ was included. On one hand, it was argued the ethnic origin question, as it is currently formulated, confuses ancestry with identity which can vary depending on factors such as social pressures. On the other hand, it was contended that for some respondents Canadian may be the most accurate cultural identity of their ancestors.

Other comments on ethnic origin include the following:

• exclude Aboriginal people from responding to the ethnic origin question. The Aboriginal identity questions provide sufficient information on this population
• introduce a new ethnic identity question and remove the reference to Canadian from the current ethnic origin question
• clarify the definition of origin—how far back do you go?

Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada clickable map

I recently created the following map which allows the reader to click Canada's provinces and territories (and the capitals of those). It may be useful within this article, although I'm not sure if there is a suitable place for it to fit. Any suggestions? Hayden120 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's neat, I would think it would fit in the provinces and territories section instead of the existing map there, no? TastyCakes (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that, but the existing map appears to be more detailed (more cities, the surrounding region), whereas this is a less 'busy', simplified map of just Canada and its capitals. My suggestion would be to have both; the simpler map is probably more suitable for the layman within the bulk of the text, and the detailed map could perhaps be included in a collapsing template. Hayden120 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, or the more detailed map (it doesn't seem that much more detailed...) could be moved to the Geography section... TastyCakes (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I've gone ahead and put it in. It can always be reverted if there is a disagreement. Hayden120 (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this should have a few more details before being added, but it is a very good idea. Ptolemaios I (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A clickable map of Canada, exhibiting its ten provinces and three territories, and their capitals.

Clickable map of Canada exhibiting its ten provinces and three territories, and their capitals

A clickable map of Canada exhibiting its ten provinces and three territories, and their capitals.

FA reassessment

We are looking for help with keeping this Main article on Canada at its FA level.....if you wish to help or would just like to see whats going on with the article and the FA reassessment process pls stop by here--->Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1 Buzzzsherman (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

Canada is sometimes referred to as this. Could it be said somewhere that it is? To avoid confusion. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It already does. From Etymology:

Upon Confederation in 1867, the name Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country,[14] and Dominion was conferred as the country's title;[15] combined, the term Dominion of Canada was in common usage until the 1950s. Thereafter, as Canada asserted its political autonomy from Britain, the federal government increasingly used simply Canada on state documents and treaties, a change that was reflected in the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982.[16].

Hope that answers the question. Singularity42 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Singularity42,

After reading through the archives of this page, I have to say that there is by no means any consensus whatsoever (even among Canadians) regarding the official name of this country. Is it "Canada" or is it "The Dominion of Canada"? Does anyone in Canada have any thoughts or opinions on this subject? Please post.

Was Michaelle Jean correct when she announced that she was head of state? Or is Queen Elizabeth II the head of state of Canada? Michaelle Jean acts on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. Jean is simply HM's appointed rep in Canada, due to the Queens limation of governance. Epigenetic transmutation (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mardiste (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What was chosen was Canada because it is now what the government uses on all official documents. Plus the fact that if someone is searching for info on Canada the odds are they are not going to call it anything else then just Canada....Most if not all Canadians would refer to the country simply as Canada...but you are right there is still a debate going on i guess. We made any article to cover this fact pls see Name of Canada for what the general consensuses and evolution of the name.

In all its forms it has always has Canada in the name. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Was "Dominion of Canada" ever officially abandoned? We should reflect what the actual name is, so is it Realm of Canada, Kingdom of Canada, Dominion of Canada or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was never officially retired per say..however the Canadian government has set the presidency of just using Canada as the name on all official documents. So as a rule of law, all contracts with the Federal government state that you are dealing with 'Canada implied as a sovereign nation ..not Canada as a Dominion of the commonwealth or Realm etc......Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you go through the archives of this talk page and of Name of Canada, you will see a lot of discussion on the issue. The consensus has always ended up with relying on the 1867 constitutional documents that specify that the name of the country is "Canada", and not the "Whatsit of Canada" or anything else, although not all editors accept the consensus. The fact is that the only name that is used for the country by its government now is "Canada". Ground Zero | t 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the 1867 foundation documents, the ONLY official name there has ever been for Canada is "Canada". Though a stylized variant "Dominion of Canada" (thus including what some call "Canada's official title") was used by both Canadian & UK gov'ts for some years, that style has been phased out for at 3 to 5 decades.--JimWae (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only legal name for the country is 'Canada', but others (as above, including the legal/official title) have had official sanction, which is outlined in the relevant article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Misreported minority statistic

According to Statistics Canada's forecasts, the number of visible minorities in Canada is expected to double by 2017.

That immediately struck me as implausible. The doors are open, but not that wide.

From STC's Media Room - One-fifth of population by 2017

Under the scenarios considered for these projections, Canada would have between 6.3 million and 8.5 million visible minorities 12 years from now. They would represent between 19% and 23% of the population.

Depending on the growth scenario, this would be an increase ranging from 56% to 111% from 2001, when their number was estimated at about 4.0 million. In contrast, the projected increase for the rest of the population was estimated at between only 1% and 7% between 2001 and 2017.

This was a 2005 report stating that, in the high scenario, the number of visible minorities could double between 2001 and 2017.

Also, 16.2% of the population belonged to non-aboriginal visible minorities.

On the high side, 23% is only a 50% increase from this number in the article text shortly above. It's a bit confusing to have possibly different definitions of visible minority juxtaposed together. It appears many online journalists rushed to sensationalize this without understanding the claim. It seems the phrase "12 years from now" unnecessarily confused matters, since no statistic from 2005 is reported here. — MaxEnt (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Plunged in with a change to "According to Statistics Canada forecast from 2005, the number of visible minorities in Canada could rise as high as 23% by 2017." — MaxEnt (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should a statement like what you added or was there before even something that should be in a encyclopedia? Do encyclopedia deal with projections in general? +++++ we need to trim article...an would guess most of all that info could be seen on MAIN demographics page...just a though...Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would say not, but Canada is a world leader in the immigration dept., a statistics Canada projection of this nature would be more reliable than most (it's a direct input to present policy), and changing world immigration patterns is of significant interest. I was only concerning myself with factuality here, so it's not for me to say. MaxEnt (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but I think I agree with Buzz. Such projections belong in the Demographics of Canada page and this article should detail what is now, not what some think will be in the future. TastyCakes (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Montage

Do you guys think it would be suitable to put a montage for the Canada page? The country is pretty large with different landscapes and such

Don't think it's necessary. There is a main article about geography of Canada. You could say it there. No need because this article is "general" terms of Canada. Rlentle2s (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations and military CF-18

Under the Foreign Relations and Military Category, I believe that the Canadian Aircraft next to the Russian Bear aircraft should be a CF-18 and not a CF-188 as shown. 66.222.161.252 (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian F/A-18s are officially designated CF-188s. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The link for the census population of Canada 2006 is a StatsCan link which is either blocked from this address or it's a dead link. This error should be corrected. 206.126.80.161 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is right all statscan links went dead on the 18th of this month...I and anyone who wishes will search for links or the book it comes from Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)