Misplaced Pages

Talk:Canada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:43, 15 September 2006 editIntuitionz (talk | contribs)75 edits →The American State of Canada← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:37, 20 December 2024 edit undoMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors129,451 edits →Integrated or cooperate?: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{featured|GA=yes}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{FAOL|Finnish|fi:Kanada}}
{{Canadian English}}
{{Mainpage date|June 23|2006}}
{{Article history
{{oldpeerreview}}
|action1=PR
{{WP:Countries|FA}}
|action1date=6 February 2006
{{WPCD}}
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Canada/archive1
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Geography}}
|action1oldid=38549737
<div style="background-color: AntiqueWhite;border:2px solid red;padding:10px;text-align:center"><font color=red>'''Notice:'''</font> This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., ], ], ] Thank you.</div>
<br>
<div style="background-color: clear;border:2px solid green;padding:10px;text-align:center">
<font color=green>'''Archives: '''</font>
] &#126; ] &#126; ] &#126; ] &#126; ] &#126; ] &#126;
] &#126; ] &#126;
]
<br>
<font color=green>'''Discussion of Canada's official name: '''</font>] &#126; ] </div>
<br>


|action2=FAC
== Ulternate Reality ==
|action2date=25 May 2006
Please, may someone add this link to the article? It provides a realistic view of canada from an immigrant's point of view. I don't consider this as biased or promoting hatred against canadians. However, 💕 means freedom of thought and speech. Regards.
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Canada
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=55201114


|action3=FAR
http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum.asp
|action3date=23:52, 20 April 2010
*Forums are typically not considered appropriate targets to external links, unless there exists a special, pressing need for one (which is, essentially, never). Misplaced Pages is not a place for free thought or speech, I'm sorry to break your bubble. ]. ] 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Canada/archive1
**I see your point. The forum is more of a survey of immigrants' thoughts and can be considered an original research.
|action3result=kept
***But most external links DO lead to sites where "original research" is displayed, so I'm confused by the prohibition on linking to forums. My understanding is that an external link is to be to a site where the reader can learn more about the topic of the WP article being linked from. I'd have thought a forum devoted to that topic would be appropriate (as opposed to commercial links and spam, which are to be deleted)? That said, I just deleted links at ] because they were to several non-notable club forums, so I can see both sides of the argument. But if someone wanted to know more about ], the best place to do that is to go to the .] 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
|action3oldid=356874494
****The link goes to a forum that describes itself as offering ''"this space to all of you wanting to say something regarding biased hiring and employment practices by companies in Canada or related issues addressed on our site."''. I am not sure that this is a forum where readers can learn more about Canada in general, which is the subject of this article. I'm not going to say that there are no forums that could contain useful information on Canada, but this one seems a bit too specific. ] 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*****Agreed, Eron, I was speaking in general as the comment caught my attention -I've seen other uses of external links to forums. You are correct about this specific instance. I've left a message on WilyD's talk page so I can continue the general topic there - thanks for indulging me.:-)] 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*****Yeah, if the link was on an article very specifically tailored to the forum's subject, I might let it slide, but for a generic article on Canada? It's unreliable, and not really addressing the subject at hand. ] 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
******Well, under economy the article talks about low employment rate. This forum would help provide some insight as to how employment rate is defined in canada: almost all immigrant professionals doing labor work is considered employment.
*******The article already provides a reference, in that section, to Statistics Canada information on employment rates, including how they are defined. ] 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


|maindate=June 23, 2006
== Russia-Germans in Canada ==
|maindate2=July 1, 2017
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject North America|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org=]|author=Staff}}
<!-- Banner project drop down section starts below here //-->


<!-- Badges section drop down section starts below here //-->
Who know anything about German villages in Canada? I think taht a lot of Germans are Russia-Germans in Canada!? Mostly they are Mennonites or Hutterer. Are they integrate in Canada? Here in Germany the Russia-Germans are handled like foreign people, although Germany is thei country of origin.
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
<!-- Featured article history section starts below here //-->
<!-- Media, press, and Style synopsis section within Badges starts below here //-->


{{All time pageviews|106}}
I would like to know more about Russia-Germans or German settlements in Canada!
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}}
Friede sei mit Euch, Simon MAYER
<!-- Proposals for references go in section below here //-->
:You can read the ] article for a start. While some Mennonite and Hutterite groups do very much maintain a distinct culture, most Russo-Germans have largelly assimilated into Canadian culture. - ] 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Other badges or page-view info go in section below here //-->
<references/>
{{annual readership}}
}}
{{consensus|<big>'''Please read before contributing'''</big><br>The ] article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. ], ], ] etc. See ] for a complete listing of topics. Why? see ].
}}
{{section sizes}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Canada}}</noinclude>
{{Talk:Canada/Archives|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 29
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Canada/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}


== "implied bill of rights" ==
I have the blood of both in my veins. My father's side of the family came from Wellesley Township, Ontario, and it's not at all uncommon to hear German there. I can speak it a bit and my father spoke it fluently. They were Mennonites, though my father left it at age 16 and I was never raised that way (I'm Lutheran and served in the U.S. Air Force, so my apple fell pretty far from the tree). My experience is that the German Mennonites/Amish around that area tend to be pretty insular in language and culture, but they do use English when interacting with other Canadians. The Russo-German/Canadian Mennonites are largely clustered around Steinbach, Manitoba. I have some very distant relatives there, according to family records.--] 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Usually Russian, German and Ukrainians world be uprooted from their lands, prosecuted and had to start their lives all over again! Obviously this doesn’t happen anymore (as far as I know), but there is a large population.


In the ''Government and politics'' section of this article, the opening text states that "an implied bill of rights" is a "founding principle of the Canadian government", with a link to ] for further reading. However, that page states the exact opposite: this theory was never taken seriously by the courts, and was in fact '''explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada'''.
-G


I am not sure what the appropriate edit to make to this article is, though, so I will leave that to someone who knows better than I do. ] (]) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
== Article layout ==


:Not sure how to reword this to be more clear....lets first look at how some sources word this....or we can swap out sources to the one below that are more extensive?
According to the ] style guide, Notes should go before References and the navigation bar should be at the very end of the article. "See also" can be omitted. ] 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:*{{cite web | last=McLachlin | first=Beverly |authorlink=Beverley McLachlin| title=Human Rights Protection in Canada | publisher= Chief justice of Canada | date=Jun 30, 2014 | url=https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ohrlp |quote=Canada’s experience with human rights. Canada’s experience can be divided into three phases: 1) Judicially implied rights; 2) Legislatively protected rights; and 3) Constitutionally protected human rights. Before human rights legislation and the Charter, courts in Canada relied on the theory of an “implied bill of rights” to protect traditional civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association. The theoretical foundation for these rights was the importance of free political speech and discussion in a democracy. }}
:The '''Guide''' says the Notes can equally well go after the References, which I strongly recommend. The Notes are otherwise confusing (since they link to sentences in the text). ] 09:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Jonathon W Penney, , 2010 34-1&2 Manitoba Law Journal 43, 2010 CanLIIDocs 229, ''Even today, the judicial work of (]) “one of the greatest— if not the greatest— jurists in Canadian history” 2 remains required reading in law schools; and many of his most important decisions retain a central place in the minds of judges and legal commentators. For example, his judgments in the so-called “Implied Bill of Rights” cases were called the Supreme Court of Canada’s “most distinguished achievements,” 3 “the ‘golden’ moments of the civil liberties decade” 4 and the theory of implied rights described as “valuable”, 5 “one of the most original and provocative contributions ever made to Canadian constitutional law''
::I know it's just a guide, but where does it say that? It's actually because notes link to sentences in the text that they should follow the text as closely as possible -- less far to travel when clicking, scrolling, or flipping back and forth. ] 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Eric H Cline et al, Case Comments: Whither the Implied Bill of Rights? - A.G. Canada and Dupond v. The City of Montreal, Saskatchewan Law Review 137, 1980 CanLIIDocs 227,''Much of the concern has focused on the court's changing approach to the Bill of Rights, but the Bill or Rights is not the only protection for civil liberties which has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Switzmann v. Elbing,1 and Saumur v. Attorney General for Quebec2, the leading civil liberties decisions of the 1950's, rested in part on a doctrine created by the court itself: the implied Bill of Rights.''
:::The Guide says "Common appendix sections (in the preferred order; it is equally valid for "References" to precede "Notes". People don't scroll back and forth--the browser should take them to the endnote and back effortlessly. In my opinion, the references/bibliography is an essential part of the article. ] 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 05:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I often scroll, especially near the end of the text when checking citations intently/carefully. And these articles do end up on paper sometimes. ] 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:Since few people know what an "implied bill of rights" is, it should be explained if it is included at all. The way the paragraph combines different claims about the country is implicit synthesis and should be re-written. It might make more sense to describe the situation as it stood at confederation, then describe the current one.
:Maybe say something like although Canadian confederation did not provide a bill of rights, Canadians were assumed to have the rights traditionally recognized by courts in England. On the other hand, some have argued that peace, order and good government was a defining principle of the new confederation.
:I suggest finding a source that mentions all these things. ] (]) 17:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Will add the following source for your synthesis concerns {{cite journal | last=Lajoie | first=Andrée |authorlink= Andrée Lajoie| title=The Implied Bill of Rights, the Charter and the Role of the Judiciary | journal=University of New Brunswick Law Journal | volume=44 | date=Dec 3, 2019 | issn=0077-8141 | pages=337, 339 | url=https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/29633}} pdf you can read <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 08:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::It should be noted that Canada does have (and had at the time) a literal “Bill of Rights”. I point this out as the language should reflect this fact (or not lose sight of it via good faith wording) ] (]) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The founding fathers also believed in the supremacy of the British constitution, which they believed guaranteed certain rights such such as the right to own weapons. ] (]) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I see there's great confusion over this so I've gone ahead and added information with sources for more extensive information at ] this way the linked article can explain better. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024 ==
== ] bilingual? ==
According to our ] article, the province is officially bilingual. We should fix that if it isn't true. ] 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:And under the ] article, only New Brunswick is. I've never heard of Manitoba being officially bilingual. Hmmm.... -- ] 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think it's policy rather than law. See .
:::Found some info here . There is a major difference between Manitoba and New Brunswick (New Brunswick has it in the constitution), but the thing is, what is the definition of an "official" language. Here's the relevent quote:
::::"''Everyone has the right to use English and French in the legislatures and courts of Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba; Laws must be enacted in both languages in Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba; At New Brunswick's request, English and French were included in the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms as the province's official languages. New Brunswick, therefore, has a constitutional obligation to provide government services in both languages; and In 1993, the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of New Brunswick adopted a bilateral amendment to the Constitution reflecting the concept of the equality of New Brunswick's linguistic communities.''
:::It seems to me that Manitoba is like Quebec, they are allowed to speak in both languages in the provincial legislature, and laws have to be enacted in both laws, but it's not an official bilingualism. If Manitoba was considered officially bilingual, then Quebec would as well, and I think Quebec is considered not bilingual. -- ] 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Hm. I'm slightly tempted to footnote that here. ]'s article should probably be clarified and referenced. ] 04:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I think a footnote is appropriate here. And as you suggested, the statement in the Manitoba article has to be clarified. I'll add a note to this article. -- ] 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::] made an adjustment at ]. ] 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::The province of Manitoba was declared to be Officially Bilingual under the ]. The case ] says that the supreme court upheld that. Although ever since the ], english is the major language of the province. It's officially bilingual under the BNA, 1867 and the Manitoba Act, but not under the Charter.] 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Just to clarify: Quebec is not bilingual, it has only one official language, French


{{edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}
== References ==
Add the term of Dominion of Canada which is still the official name of the country. (See the Constitutional Act of 1867 for references). ] (]) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. ] ] 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:: says it is still current. – <span style="font-family: Georgia;">''''']'''''</span> (] • ]), 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Update Canadian population ==
Rjensen has first deleted locations in the references, which is just bad style, then he changed the references to delete some references, make the sectioning not match the article sectioning and added another reference. I don't mind adding another reference, but please do show what fact that reference covers that other references don't, also please don't erase other references which do cover facts as can be seen from the talk pages from around 2 months ago, when the drive went on to find references. -- ] 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Rjensen, what is up with putting a reference in four places. What facts does it cover, that is not covered by other references. I will be removing at least three of them in the coming days if no good purpose for the references are there. -- ] 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Two points: location of publisher is misleading to users about half the time--it tells people to get hard-to find editions. In the age of Internet it is rarely useful. 2) As for the Canadian Encyclopedia, I used it to add information in the various sections, so it needs to be included. ] 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::We had this discussion previously, having the location of the publisher is correct academic style, and is not misleading. The publisher's themselves indicate it in their books. Secondly, you have not indicated as of yet which precise facts you used the Canadian Encyclopedia for. I'm waiting for them. -- ] 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::use of Can Ency most recently for details on territory government. For most if the article to fact check assertions made, esp in history section. It's doubtless the single most valuable reference book and editors should prefer it instead of old textbooks. ] 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::That it is ''the most valuable reference book'' is your point of view. Given that you used it for the territories section I will be keeping it only in that one. There is no use for it to be added multiple times. -- ] 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It is inaccurate and outdated on the powers of the Territories. The ] government now exercises all provincial-type powers except for criminal prosecutions with the passage of the 2002 Yukon Act. I am not sure of the situation in the NWT and Nunavut, but Nunavut was creaed as a result of land claims negotiations, and I believe they do control their land. Each territory is in charge of its own income and other taxation. So the sentence should be reverted to its original version about the territories having "somewhat" fewer powers than the provinces. ] 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Based on Luigizanasi's comments, I have removed the new territories wording, and removed the Canadiana Encyclopedia as a reference. -- ] 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:While there's no guideline about it that I know of, I'm not sure that other encyclopedias are ideal references for our articles. In this case, it isn't as bad as citing Encarta's article (which I've seen done), because we're sending the reader to an encyclopedia specific to our subject where they will be able to get more information. But it still isn't helpful for someone who wants to get to a citable source from our article, because other encyclopedias are also third-party summaries rather than secondary sources. ] 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::The reference for the 1985 encyclopedia is well out of date. This was true "federal government controls lands, natural resources, taxation, and claims of native rights" then but not any more. The Nunavut Government taxes people at 4, 7, 9 or 11.5%. We also have a property taxes. None of the other things apply either. ] ] 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}
== Change of emphasis in Military section ==
Update Canadian population from 41,012,563 (2024 Q2) to 41,288,599 (2024 Q3). It's from the same source, whic has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ] (]) 13:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
: Done ] (]) 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


== Integrated or cooperate? ==


The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the ]." I think reads better as "Canada's economic '''cooperation''' with the United States has increased significantly since the ]." How is Canada integrated?
The emphasis in the military section was changed, and I changed it back. Such a change needs discussion first. This is the new version
I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada.
Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(, ) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. ] (]) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. ] (]) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:"''In addition to major participation in the ], the ], the ], and the ], Canada has maintained forces in international missions under the United Nations and NATO since 1950, including peacekeeping missions, various missions in the former ], and support to coalition forces in the ]. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in ] as part of the ] and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded ]. Canada's ] (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after ] in September 2005, after the ] in October 2005 and after the ] in South Asia.''"
::A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. ] (]) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::]..... Integration is simply the term used..... electricity system in Canada and US is also very integrated as is our oil and fuel. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree that sources call the two economies ''integrated''. That's the correct term to use. —] (]) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. ] (]) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::re-wrote lead (to follow body) at ].......perhaps more clear? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Update Canadian population ==
and this is the old version


{{Edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}
:"''In addition to their peacekeeping missions, Canadian forces have served in various military actions including World War I, World War II, the ], and the ]. Canada has also participated in a variety of capacities in NATO operations such as in the former ]. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in ] as part of the ] and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded ]. Canada's ] (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after ] in September 2005, after the ] in October 2005 and after the ] in South Asia.''"
Update Canadian population from 41,288,599 (2024 Q3) to 41,465,298 (2024 Q4). It's from the same source, which has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ] (]) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Ethnic Origins ==
I really believe the old (and current version) is more appropriate. -- ] 00:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
{{resolved }} - <small>editor blocked -<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
I have reverted the change .....simply because the percentages don't match the statistical analysis that has been published . That said....I think I agree we should stick with .... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as ] (that is not a terminology used by statistics Canada). We just need to take a closer look at what has been published number wise over Misplaced Pages own calculations (that is allowed) however the past calculations don't match official publications that analyze the data. Think it's best we stick with the sources that analyze the data over analyzing the data ourselves.
Let's compare the two sets of data


Change of stats...''' South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%)''' sourced to the (that I assume was self calculated).
::It's not. Canada had 1 million people in uniform in the Second World War compared to a handful of UN missions. The Canadian Army as an institution is devoted to warfare, the article makes it seem that the military is a peacekeeper first, and a military second. At any rate, the references to WWI and WW II are wrong - all Canadian official histories use "First World War" and "Second World War" so I am going to change those, as this is a Canadian article.] 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The sentence that sticks in the craw is "In addition to their peacekeeping missions...." Canada fought a couple of wars. It reads as very silly given the enormous national effort that went into the world wars, and the relative anonymity of Peacekeeping missions, which most Canadians don't even know are happening.] 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Old stable version...'''South Asian (2.6 million people; 7.1 percent), Chinese (1.7 million; 4.7 percent), and Black (1.5 million; 4.3 percent). The Indigenous population representing 5 percent or 1.8 million individuals''' sourced to an analysis of the raw data by those who published it saying <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No doubt Canada played large parts in WWI and WWII (which BTW I've seen in Canadian articles), but since the 1960's till the Afghanistan mission, Canada has been known for its peacekeeping. -- ] 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::If the paragraph is about the 20th Century, then give the components their proper weight. If it is about post 1960 Canada, then delete those references altogether. As it is, the paragraph states the affair in a ridiculous manner. The description of the world wars as "various military actions" rather than the events that shaped Canada as a nation is jarring and unhistoric, and I'll reiterate, Peacekeeping - which hasn't been done by Canadians in any major way in 10 or 15 years, if Lew Mackenzie is to be believed - has never, ever been the primary focus of the Canadian military. Even at the height of Canadian peacekeeping, Canada had more men deployed in West Germany training to fight the next world war. As for Canadian articles using the "WWI" descriptors, they are incorrect. See Stacey, Granatstein or Bercuson for the proper nomenclature.] 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Furthermore, as was evidenced just a couple months ago, most of the Canadian public think that Canada is involved only in peacekeeping; they were under the wrong impression that the Afghanistan mission was a peacekeeping one. -- ] 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::So your proposal then is to pander to popular misconception rather than state facts as they truly are? Not sure I understand that. Don't you think an encyclopedia article should then educate on how things are rather than parrot how people might wish them to be? If so, the emphasis needs to be taken off "peacekeeping" since Canada really doesn't do that anymore.] 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


:Just reverted stating ....yet source says "According to the 2021 Census, there were 1.8 million Indigenous people, representing '''5.0%''' of the total Canadian population,''' up from 4.9%''' in 2016.". <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Just curious Jeff, but do you have any personal experience with the Canadian Military? Perhaps if you established some credentials for trying to dictate how this section is presented would help.{{uns-ip|70.28.146.208}}
::I do not believe Moxy has provided an actual basis for reverting or disagreeing with my edits. '''Please read carefully.'''
::::::::That is not at all how things work around here. We're profoundly uninterested in the personal experience of our editors. We're interested solely in summarising ] from ]. Using personal experience to inform one's editing fails our ] policy. ] 01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::''Old version:''
:::::::::Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Misplaced Pages, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Misplaced Pages as a source. {{uns-ip|70.28.146.208}}
::'''The major panethnic groups chosen were: European (52.5 percent), North American (22.9 percent), Asian (19.3 percent), North American Indigenous (6.1 percent), African (3.8 percent), Latin, Central and South American (2.5 percent), Caribbean (2.1 percent), Oceanian (0.3 percent), and other (6 percent).'''

::''My new and preferred version:''
::::::::::Personal experience to the side, it would be inappropriate to paint the Canadian Forces as a primarily peacekeeping organization - the primary purpose is warfare the very same as American and British armed forces, as stated by the Canadian government and Department of National Defense. In order to keep the NPOV the facts should be stated truthfully rather than phrased in a way that contradicts the mission statement of the Canadian Forces. What is the more reliable source, public-misconception or the official statement of the Canadian Forces and DND? I invite you to this link which describes the CF as a Defense oriented organization. ] 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::'''The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada are: White (67.4%), South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%), Filipino (2.5%), Arab (1.9%), Latin American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1%), West Asian (1%), Korean (0.6%), Japanese (0.2%), mixed (3.2%) and other (0.7%).'''

::Moxy first reverted my edits by writing ''"Where does 6.9 for indigenous come from ? https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population"''. My version, as well as the link they provided, both clearly state 4.9%. Obviously, not a basis to revert it. Despite that, Moxy still reverted the edits by writing ''"Nope looking further.... these must be all self edition that don't match publications such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm"''. Frankly I'm not sure what that means what "doesn't match" as zero information has been provided on what does not match!
:::::::::::While this isn't really the place to have the discussion, I invite you to consider the consequences of accepting assertions of expertise from anonymous people on the Internet. As for the paragraph in question, I suggest that "In addition to their peacekeeping missions, Canadian forces have served in various military actions including the First World War, Second World War..." does strike an odd tone, and that it is reasonable to discuss a rephrasing that doesn't make the World Wars seem like an afterthought. ] 03:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::Moxy has stated my edits "''don't match the statistical analysis that has been published ''" Let's have a look. Ctrl+F on The Daily "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". I wrote that 67.4% were white. Other quick examples, The Daily article also says "In the 2021 Census, just over half a million people (580,000) reported being Latin American only" which matches the source I am using and the information I had written. It also says "Just over three-quarters of the 360,000 people who reported being West Asian". I mean for goodness sake, this is government data... it is consistent, but Moxy has reverted my edits claiming they are inconsistent with other government data that is also published by Statistics Canada? I just don't understand what Moxy means by "doesn't match publications", when they have provided no examples of what does not match.

::The previous "Ethnic groups" section included continents of origin. I find it arbitrary because "French Canadian" as an ethnic origin is counted as North American, not European. "French" is counted as European - it is basically arbitrary as it depends on what one writes into the census rather than what they actually are, and I just generally think race is more relevant here. I am using to write the population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada. ] (]) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The beginning of the current paragraph which states "In addition to their peacekeeping missions" makes sense since it connects the second paragraph, which deals with Canada's historical peacekeeping missions, and it's current reduction in peacekeeping activites, to the paragraph in question. It's not stating that peacekeeping is the paramount activity. It's just good prose and style to connect paragraphs to previous paragraphs. -- ] 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::What? No explanation or example? Though I was clear. We have 2 different sets of information presented (close but different or old) .....stable version from 2022 regurgitating the vs your new calculations of the raw data that differs. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::Your free to ask for input from others ], But till you have ] best not to editwar back in your version that is contested. My position is simple.... think it's best we regurgitate over your calculation of the raw data. This would also reflect how other sources present the information.... that is verbatim because of ..like
::::::::::::True, paragraphs have to link to their predecessors but they must also be internally consistent. The current text seems to be saying that the Canadian military is a peacekeeping organisation and that its participation in the major wars of the last century was merely a harmless aberration. That may suit those who wish to portray the military as a harmless organisation worthy of funding for moral reasons but it's far from a reflection of reality. In addition, describing the world wars as "military actions" grossly understates their significance. -- ] | ] 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Meadus | first=R.J. | title=Communication for Nursing and Health Care Professionals: A Canadian Perspective | publisher=Canadian Scholars | year=2023 | isbn=978-1-77338-365-1 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tbQEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 | access-date=December 19, 2024 | page=76}}
:::::::::::::::How is it doing that? In fact the previous paragraph concludes that Canada's peackeeping activities have greatly declined, the beginning of the paragraph in question just connects the two paragraphs. -- ] 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Khosa | first=F. | last2=Ding | first2=J. | last3=Tiwana | first3=S. | title=Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Healthcare: From Knowledge to Practice | publisher=Academic Press | year=2024 | isbn=978-0-443-13252-0 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=xcIAEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA106 | access-date=December 19, 2024 | page=106}}
::::::::::::It's doing that by emphasising peaceful activities and downplaying warlike activities. And the previous para is just a listing of the strength of Canada's armed forces, so it's not a great connection... -- ] | ] 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite web | last=Little | first=William | title=Chapter 11. Race and Ethnicity | publisher=BCcampus | date=September 7, 2023 | url=https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology3rdedition/part/chapter-11-race-and-ethnicity/ | access-date=December 19, 2024}}
:::Then why not change the paragraphs around - as I did - to state our involvement in the wars, first, and then discuss peacekeeping. It would have the advantage of shortening the section also rather than mentioning peacekeeping in two separate paragraphs.] 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite web | last=Marif | first=Diary | title=Vancouver, Surrey, Calgary, Toronto, Brampton, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal | website=South Asian Post | date=December 19, 2024 | url=https://www.southasianpost.com/article/8378-ethnic-diversity-grows-greater-victoria.html#:~:text=Racialized%20groups%20in%20Canada%20are,racialized%20groups%20varies%20across%20regions. | access-date=December 19, 2024}}
::::Because the first part of the section is about foreign relations which continues from the politics section, the military part of the section continues from the foreign relations. -- ] 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite web | title=South Asians (7.1%), Chinese (4.7%), Blacks (4.3%) represent 16.1% of Canada's total population | website=Indo-Canadian Voice | date=October 27, 2022 | url=https://voiceonline.com/south-asians-7-1-chinese-4-7-blacks-4-3-represent-16-1-of-canadas-total-population/ | access-date=December 19, 2024}}
:::::So presumably that means that the whole section needs a rewrite rather than just the one paragraph. Oh dear. -- ] | ] 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You would like to ''"regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data"''. Sounds like a word salad. The source you would like to regurgitate matches the simple calculations of the raw data perfectly. ''Sigh.'' ] (]) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that: "Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Misplaced Pages, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Misplaced Pages as a source." Is not my comment. -- Perhaps we should consider: "The Canadian Forces have served in several wars from the Second Boer War, including the First and Second World Wars and in Korea. In addition, Canadian military contributions were integral in numerous peacekeeping operations in the second half of the 20th Century including Bosnia. The Canadian Forces currently has a large military force in Afghanistan responsible for the Khandahar region." -- Although of course, it must be revised as my proposed version is not especially well written. -- ] 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) -- Post Script: Sorry about the error I caused in posting, funked up the talk page. I think I've fixed it.
::::::::::I'm clearly not explaining myself well..... every number is different let's use the Indigenous one for example....our source being used says . You're using the number 1,772,025 so why a difference when you do the calculation? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::This is most likely because the source I provided only includes single race. Possibly, the difference between these two statistics is those who are mixed race with Indigenous. ] (]) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:That would be okay as a rewrite. Mind you, I thought that Michael Dorosh's formulation was quite acceptable too. -- ] | ] 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::100% in agreement with Moxy. Editors don't get to collapse groups and do new calcs based on their own preferences, {{em|especially}} when we have pre-existing analysis from the official group that gathered the data. Stats Can collects data on ethnicity, which is not exactly the same as "race", and so the stable version is clearly what should be used. —] (]) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I also dispute the stated claim that Canada has attempted to "maintain a leading position" in Peacekeeping operations - Canada has fallen behind many nations in terms of number of peacekeepers deployed- even Germany has more peacekeepers abroad than Canada does.] 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Collapse groups? I'm just taking as it is. Not making "my own calculations based on my own preferences"? This is why I stated "The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada". This is better than categorizing by continent of origin, when that is largely based on arbitrary self-identification (French Canadian ethnicity is counted as North American while French is counted as European, when these people have the same ancestry - it depends on arbitrary labels of self-identity). The population groups I am trying to have inserted are more ''objective''. ] (]) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::The categories listed by ] (White, South Asian, Indigenous, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, mixed and other) appear to come from the StatCan definitions for the different population group information used in respect to the visible minority variable (see ) and is collected for employment equity purposes.
::I'm actually a big fan of Michael Dorosh's paragraph. Anyone else concur?--] 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::The population groups previously contained in the article (European, North American, Asian, North American Indigenous, African; Latin, Central and South American; Caribbean, Oceanian, and other) are the ethnic or cultural origins from this StatCan reference , which appears to have been dropped from the paragraph sometime this fall.

:::::::::::Both references are valid StatCan resources, but the context of what is being discussed is important. If we were discussing employment equity measures, the former would be useful. If however, the paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article is referencing Ethnic origins (as evidenced by the paragraph title "Ethnicity", and the subordinate hatnote "Main article: Ethnic origins of people in Canada") then the original article categories are more applicable. ] (]) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, count me in. That section's been needing a tweak like this. ] 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::100% correct....when I stated .''stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians.'' I was referring to the OR /assumption that European Canadians (or as Statistics Canada says European origins) equates to White Canadians as a change in a link implied <nowiki>] </nowiki>. Analysis of this data separates this information vs <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Jeff seems bent on solidifying the false notion that we, in the CF, are not soldiers, but peacekeepers (small p). We are warriors and our job is war. Not peacekeepers, which is nothing more than a secondary task to keep us occupied, while we await the government's mandate to push our Canadian policy by force. It's time for our citizens to wake up, smell the coffee and move into the 21st century. Tree hugging and birkestocks are passe, as is their vision for the military. Dave

:Birkestock ? What's a birkestock ? We don't seem to have an article on it. -- ] | ] 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::He means Birkenstock sandals (see www.birkenstock.com)

I'll find the reference (The Economist), but as of July 2006 Canada only has ~63 soldiers engaged in peacekeeping in the world. Far below such countries as Bangladesh or Uganda. It would be accurate to state that while Canada was once a major contributor to UN peacekeeping missions, this is no longer true. It is a common misconception among Canadians as to how much peacekeeping their country actually conducts, and that the Canadian armed forces are primarily engaged in a protracted war since the invasion of Afghanistan.

== Canada on the main page ==

Yay to Canada on the front page! It would have kinda been nice if they had waited until July 1, though. Oh well :). --] 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Canada Day comes early! Our home and native land! -- ] <small>]</small> 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::2nd that...or 3rd =] ] 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::My theory is that this was chosen for today because yesterday's article was ]. After something evil it's a relief to have a feel-good article on the main page. Anyway, ] for ]! ] <small>]</small> 05:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: I was also glad to see Canadia (shame they spelt it wrong) on there and I'm not even Canadian but British. Good read too. Well done folks. Absinthe, Global warming, Ku Klux Klan, Canada is quite an odd progression mind. ] | <sup>]</sup> 09:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Drink Absinthe, become overly concerned with Global warming (perhaps because the liquor has made you feel HOT) in your drunken state, seek a clandestine terroist group to overthrow the government to solve Global Warming, join the KKK in hopes you can convince them to invest in carbon sinks to offset emisions from burning crosses, become wanted for hate crimes in the US, flee to Canada. Misplaced Pages made me do it. 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)~
::::::Woo-hoo!! ] 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

==Canada obtained sovereignty from the United Kingdom???==
Can the writer clarify this? Those who want to become Canadian citizens should swear allegiance to the Queen of England and become also her subjects; or contracts signed with the Government of Canada are in fact, signed with Her Majesty, etc. I as a Canadian don't see any problem with these factes, but to call these sovereignty?
:Elizabeth is Queen of Canada seperately from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. One person, many crowns. --] 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:To clarify, Canadian Citizens swear allegiance to the ]. ] 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The last Queen of England died in 1707 so best of luck swearing allegiance to her... -- ] | ] 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the last Queen of England, Anne, Died in 1714 as Queen of Great Britain. ] 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg

A country that has no control over its "foreign" affairs & cannot unilaterally change its own constitution is not fully sovereign. Canada did not achieve full sovereignty in 1867 - but in a process from 1867-1982 The intro used to reflect this, but has since been altered to make a false statement --] 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm trying to find the old intro, but I don't see it anywhere. You're right, of course, I don't think one can honestly argue Canada was independant any earlier than ] ... I'll try to fix it. But since it's vandal day, who knows? ] 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, I think an argument could be made that Canada was independant as of the ] in 1926. My understanding is that the Statute of Westminster in 1931 just codified that which had been recognized and stated in the Balfour Declaration. If I had to pick one date to peg "independence" on, I'd pick 1926. Having said that, ''we should not single out any one date'' for independence in the introduction, and we certainly shouldn't list all the significant dates in the process there, either. I think the current version, that specifically names ] and the ] is too detailed for an introduction, while also placing emphasis on those two events while skipping over important intermediate events. These sorts of details belong in (and are currently in) the History section. Either returning the statement to say "a process spanning 1867 - 1982", or just "a long process beginning in 1867" would be good. Another suggestion: Just leave out the date -- something like: "Now a federal dominion of ten provinces and three territories, Canada has full independence from the United Kingdom." Thoughts?--] 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with thirty-seven that there is too much detail in the lead. I like the phrasing "a process spanning between 1867-1982". -- ] 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the dates are important enough to be included in the opening - we can drop the specific events if you feel its too wordy - just say 1867-1982 or such. I think it's misleading to mention only a single date - since the most important elements happen from 1926-1949? (when does Canada obtain judicial independence from the UK?) using 1867 or 1982 alone is misleading, whereas trying to pick some other single date will probly never reach concensus. Would it be bad form to say ''the years spanning ] to ]'' or something such as that? ] 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Truly we are a complex nation... ] 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I and all people I know all canadians do NOT swear allegence to the Queen, she is meerly a figure head <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
::New Canadians all swear allegiance to the Queen. It's a requirement. Of course if you are born Canadian you don't have to swear allegience to anyone, but if you do swear allegiance it's to the Queen. ] 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Figure heads matter. All oaths, whether directed at a person or a legal abstraction, are symbolic. ] 14:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:: what's more, the current British monarch is Canada's head of state, not the prime minister, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
:::I think you mean the Canadian Monarch is Canada's head of state, not the Prime Minister, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy. --] 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

==Unclear sentence ==
Hey, I was reading over the histroy section and this caught my attention:
Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 with Britain's declaration of war, and sent formed divisions (composed almost entirely of volunteers) to the Western Front to fight as a national contingent. Casualties were so high that '''Prime Minister Robert Borden forced through conscription in 1917, which was extremely unpopular in Quebec, leading to his Conservative party losing support in Quebec.''' Although the Liberals were deeply divided over conscription, they pulled together and became the dominant political party.
Something seems to be missing in the sentence about conscription leading to Borden's unpopularity in Quebec. Either that, or its just worded improperly. I'm not sure what the original intent was for this sentence so I'll let the author fix it up.(] 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
:I think I've fixed it now. Thanks -- ] 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Yeah,that clarified the intent of the sentence. I hope you don't mind though, that I further played with the wording. Let me know what you think! (] 02:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

== Linking to Amazon Online Reader and ] ==
] - you removed the links from books to the Amazon Online Reader, because it was an individual bookstore. While I understand that these could be seen as advertising links, ] reccomends Amazon.com's "search-inside" function (a.k.a. Amazon Online Reader) for fact-checking in books, so that people who don't have the book can attempt to check facts. I linked directly to the AOR, not to the sales page, in order to make it less like an advertising link (hopefully it doesn't have terrible browser compatibility). And with the ISBN still there, people who want to buy the book from another vendor still have complete info. ] (]|]|]) 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:] says not to link to individual book stores and the pages contain prominent links to buy the books from Amazon. In my opinion, the advertising outweighs the benefits from the link. I wasn't accusing anybody of spamming and understand why the link was added, but the link gives Amazon an unfair advantage for any sales from WP readers. --] ] 12:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, the books are in the references section, not in the external links or books section (as they should be, per ]). ], which I believe is the part you were citing, says, "Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to". Anyways, since the books were references, and because linking to a free searching service reduces the need to buy the book at all, I feel that the links to the Amazon Online Reader are more helpful than hurtful. ] (]|]|]) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::My understanding of the statement in ] is that you can search for books through those links to find references. Once the reference is found, the link is no longer necessray and constitutes a commercial link. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) .</small>
::::That was my reading of it too. It's not praticularly clear, but to me, it seems to indicate to use those links for researching references and using ISBN linking once they are found. --] ] 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: I brought this up on the ], since this seems to be more of a policy question, rather than something specific to Canada. You are encouraged to share your opinion. ] (]|]|]) 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== leading sentence ==

The following phrase in the lead is really rather puzzling: "occupying most of the northern portion of North America." The word "portion" doesn't mean anything, so how can something occupy most of a portion? Maybe "most of the northern half" or "occupying northern North America". Any reason for this? --]<sup>]]</sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Can you clarify what you mean by ''doesn't mean anything''? Canada does occupy the northern portion of North America - since half ~ 50%, it's not a good choice, and since Greenland, the States and France all occupies other parts of the northern portion of North America, you need a qualifier like ''most'' to boot, eh? ] 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::"Occupying most of northern North America" is direct and clear&mdash;not precise, but clear. "Occupying most of the northern portion of North America" isn't precise either, and to boot it is unnecessarily wordy (the word "portion" doesn't add anything). Just like "northern", "northern portion" could mean everything north of Fairbanks, everything north of Toronto, everything north of Los Angeles, or everything north of Mexico City. If you agree, I'll change the lead and the main page box. --]<sup>]]</sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not convinced the change brings anything in, I think ''northern North America'' is as ambigious as ''northern portion of North America'' but similiarly I don't think it detracts at all. I have no objection to you changing it, though. ] 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You're right, it doesn't add anything. My initial comment was unclear&mdash;it would have been much simpler to say "the phrase is wordy". Anyway, fixed now, in both places. --]<sup>]]</sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== Odd phrasing ==

The phrase "Inhabited originally by Aboriginal peoples, ..." seems rather odd to me, and mostly devoid of meaning. Doesn't the very definition of "Aboriginal peoples" convey that such people are the original inhabitants? The phrase could validly be reworded to say "Inhabited originally by the original inhabitants, ...".

It appears that the main purpose of this phrase is to provide a link to additional information about the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. That link should remain, but the structure of the first sentence or two should be re-worked to better incorporate that link.

:I changed the wording to "first", but I agree, it's clumsy. --]<sup>]]</sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

==Dominion==

"Federal union" is a much better description of Canada than "Federal dominion". There has been a lot of talk about whether Canada is a "dominion" or not (see ]), which certainly came down ''against'' Dominion being part of the name. However it is certainly now true that Canada is a ''dominion'' only in the same sense that the UK is. In this context ''union'' is certainly the better description. ] 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with your conclusion, but not really with your reasoning. ''Union'' is better than ''Dominion'' because of the context refering to the provinces and territories, as well ''Union'' is more naturally modified by ''Federal'' than ''Dominion'' is. Canada is a dominion, but this statement is no different than saying Canada is a country - dominion and country are its types, whilst Canada is its name. ] 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think saying ''federal union'' is redundant, since a federation is a kind of union. Whereas ''dominion'' has a specific historical meaning, so it adds something to the phrase, unlike ''union''. So I think we should use the phrase ''federal dominion'', or else simply ''federation''. --] 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I would accept ''Federation'' as a synonym for ''Federal Union'' but I don't think there's a redundancy, really, since ''Federal'' can't be used alone - it needs to be modified one way or the other. ] 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

*Dominion, in this context, is a term entirely unfamiliar to a great many English readers - unless (perhaps) they are in one. It does not belong in the intro. Introductions should nto REQUIRE the great majority of English-speakers to click on a link for the meaning of the word --] 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Dominion was the official title before independence - using it in this article would create confusion based on its former historical usage. Why not "federal state"?] 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::Dominion means much more than a union, it means that Canada has a monarchy, and is a kingdom. Please review the more recent archive, there was a huge discussion on inlcuding the word Kingdom, and it was instead decided that since dominion already portrayed that point, the word kindgom did not need to be in the article. If someone does not know what the word means, they can always click on blue-link, that's what it is for. -- ] 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please do not base any arguments about the use of 'dominion' on any belief that it is any way Canada's name. Please go and see the appropriate talk page. Canada is currently '''not''' a dominion any more than the UK is a dominion. Read the pages! ] 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, Canada's name does not include ''dominion''. However, both Canada and the UK *are* dominions. ''Dominion'' is now an archaic term meaning the same thing as the modern term ''Commonwealth Realm'', which both Canada and the UK are, although of course the UK was never ''called'' a dominion historically. I am not using this as an argument to put ''dominion'' in the introduction. I am fine with just saying ''federation''; usage of the term ''dominion'' is included in the section on Canada's Name. --] 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who think that 'Federal union' is redundant, see where the USA describes itself as a federal union. If you want to include 'dominion' because it means 'monarchy', then we say monarchy about three lines down, and monarchy is a much more understood term.] 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:I've gone ahead and changed the introduction to use ''federation''. If someone thinks the word ''union'' '''adds''' something to the meaning, go ahead and change it back to ''federal union''. --] 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to 'federal dominion' (which was in place for months without argument) and I will continue to restore this unless convinced otherwise. Of course the country is a ] or ] (and 'federal union' is prolixity at its finest). For naysayers, please consult the appropriate articles ] and ]: the country ''remains'' a dominion (as indicated in the constitution, which hasn't changed in this respect), and the link elaborates upon this for those who have no idea what it is ... which is the intent of a wiki. Argumentation about correlations with monarchy etc. without ] to support this are, frankly, ]. ] 15:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::In order to avoid a revert-war, I think leaving it as '''federation''' in the introduction is the best policy for now, while discussion is going on here about whether it should be ''federal union'', ''federal dominion'', ''federal state'', none-of-the-above, etc. When some kind of consensus is reached, we can add-in ''union'' or ''dominion'' or whatever.
::Also, my vote in this discussion is that it should remain ''federation''. As I stated earlier, I think ''union'' is redundant (as is ''state'' in this context). ''Dominion'' is not redundant (and it is completely accurate: whether or not "Dominion" is part of Canada's name, I don't think it can be disputed that Canada '''is''' a dominion), however, I think inserting the term ''dominion'' into the intro is unnecessary - it is already discussed in the section on Canada's Name, and we already state in the introduction that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. If we decide that Canada's ''dominionness'' should be stressed in the intro, I would prefer doing so by adding a statement saying that Canada is a ].
::--] 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

*so your argument in summary: 1. that's the way it was 2. those who disagree with you are being ]. Wonderful stuff! --] 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes ... and you've done nothing to refute the points above rationally. If you wish to be accorded ], reciprocate. Otherwise, refrain from commenting. ] 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

*Have you even read the other comments, anonymous user who thinks all must satisfy you? --] 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:]. ] 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I cast my vote for '''federation'''. This issue has been discussed ''ad nauseum'' on this page (see archives) so rather than go on and on once more, I should like to point out that the ] from those who have commented this time around (as with last time) is to use the term "federation" rather than "federal union" or "federal dominion." Consensus on talk pages, which is interpreted as a 2/3 supermajority, is generally the determining factor for what goes into articles.] 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, scrutinise carefully and there is no consensus on this at all. The original premise is rather flawed: the fact that the initial proponent indicates that there's been a "lot of talk about whether Canada is a "dominion"" is rather moot, since the Wp concept of ] is even more basic than that of consensus. Proposed changes and subsequent discussions are generallt rooted in false assumptions and ]. Numerous government publications indicate the country as both a federation and -- yes -- a dominion (see ]). And dig back further into the archives and you'll note that this was resolved sometime ago in favour of inclusion. To use a saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it ... and little of the above changes that. ] 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

*The point is that we are talking about its use in the introduction. Nobody is claiming Canada is not a dominion. My point is that the great majority of English-speakers will not know what the term means & the intro is no place to use words that the great majority of readers will need to click on the link to understand. It is used many times later in the article, where it is also partially explained in context --] 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
*Prior to it had long been called a federation. This was not a simple copyedit. --] 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::While Dominion is correct, it simply doesn't fit in the context where its use it debated. The style of its usage there is just plain bad. Like nails on a chalkboard. ] 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is little point in the above riposte. John Q. editor strides in and makes changes based on ], flawed assumptions (and bad copyedits), others debate and -- exemplifying groupthink behaviour in this instance -- opt for changes to content due to discomfort or what have you. My point is there is little reason to change the status quo (6 months now) and reasons to do so have not been demonstrated above to satisfaction. One of the functions of a wiki is to provide links to elaborate on topics in greater detail (noted by another above) -- whether federation, dominion, union, etc. Notions of federation and federalism are not only used many times in the article but are often misunderstood ... but I see little discussion to minimise this phrasing. Hell, some sources indicate Canada as a ] despite that term's specific usage in a Cdn. context. And, regardless of whether a copyedit is simple or not, the content is sound and appropriate. I maintain my original position and little above has changed that. ] 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
*Misplaced Pages does not exist to satisfy you alone --] 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A summary of reasons why ''dominion'' should not be used:

#It's an archaic term, and simple is better;
#It has the same meaning as ''monarchy'' which we use in the next line;
#the word used to have a specialist meaning within the Commonwealth, which was applicable to Canada but no longer is; some people may think we are using the word in thos context
#the sentence it was used in was talking about Canada's national/provincial relationships, and ''dominion'' is not relevant to those relationships

With only one anon and (possibly) Jeff3000 supporting dominion, I've changed it to ''federation''. ] 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:Neither dominion, realm or kingdom are archaic words - they all mean the same thing, and are still used in modern contexts as there are many countries around the world to which any and all of the three terms can be applied. It is also correct to assert that Canada is one of those countries.
:Regardless, Canada certainly is a federated union, or federation. The United States is also a federation, but a completely different form thereof. So, it seems necessary to make clear what ''type'' of federation Canada is.
:Seeing as the majority here won't accept federated dominion, kingdom, or realm, and "monarchy" is another word that can be substituted for the former three, I'd say it's best to word this particular sentence in a similar form to what was done at the ] article, which says in its introduction: the United States is "a federal constitutional republic." Canada, therefore, should be described as a "federal constitutional monarchy." --] 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm fine with that. ] 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

==Canadian Flag==
I added the section about the new Canadian Flag in the 1960s. I believe it is valid as Canada getting its own flag was a major step in showing it is a sovereign nation.--] 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like someone removed it - there is already an article on the flag in any event.] 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, someone did remove it, but I don't know why as it was a significant event in Canada's history.--] 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, a reasonable argument can be made that Canada getting its own flag was a major step in showing its sovereignty. However, at best, this deserves a brief sentence in the History section. In an article on Canadian Sovereignty or a similar topic, it would be good to have its own paragraph or section. But this article is supposed to be a summary-style overview of all of Canada, with all of Canadian history being just one section. With, for example, the League of Nations, Statute of Westminster, Great Depression, the rise of the CCF, the Second World War, and the joining of Newfoundland all fitting in ''one paragraph'', giving an entire paragraph to the history of the flag seems highly excessive to me.
:Here is the removed paragraph:
::During the post-war years, there was much debate on a distinctive Canadian flag. The British ] had been used to varying degrees as well as several designs of the ]. Both of these were very unpopular among French-Canadians due to their incorporation of the British flag. Finally, in 1964 the present-day ] was adopted by the ] government, though not without controversy, especially from war veterans. Ontario and Manitoba responded by adopting the Red Ensign with their own provincial shields in the fly as their provincial flags (see ]; ]). The ] already had the Union Jack incorporated into its design. Canadian law still allows for the ] (known in Canada as the ]) to be flown by private individuals and government agencies to show support for the Monarch and membership in the Commonwealth. Ironically, as separatist sentiment has grown in Quebec, flying the Canadian flag has declined there in favour of the ]. Former Quebec Premier and hardline separatist ] stirred controversy in 2001 by calling the Canadian Flag a "red rag". However, most Canadians have come to embrace the Canadian Flag as neither British nor French, but distinctively Canadian, though some Canadians continue to fly the Red Ensign and/or Union Jack.
:Because of this, I have removed the new paragraph from the article. As I said, I think perhaps one brief sentence would be fitting. --] 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't an article on Canada's history, but on Canada the nation. The flag has its own article, accessible by clicking the flag graphic in the infobox, then clicking the article link listed underneath - ]. A flag is a flag, it represents us, it doesn't define us.] 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::Remember this is a summary style article, the mention of the Canadian Flag, which is a detail, should be placed in the ] article. -- ] 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war (not worth it), so thank you for at least putting my contribution on this talk page. I think I get what you're saying, though I still think it bears mention as part of Canada's history. My background is in technical writing, which makes me somewhat verbose as a writer. I did put a two-sentence line about the flag in the History section; I hope this is acceptable.--] 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:], thanks for your contribution. This article has a long history of contributors (including myself) adding longish blurbs about important topics and then having them pared back in the interests of keeping this article within a summary style and from getting significantly longer. --] 00:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

::I really don't feel the two sentence addition fits into the article. First of all it is a very short paragraph which doesn't pass featured article status, and it's placement does not have any connection to the previous or subsequent paragraph. I'm going to take it out, until a better place for it can be found. -- ] 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that ]'s proposed contribution is too much for the Canada article, it is well written and would fit very well in the introduction to the ] article, considerably improving it. I suggest that MarshallStack move it there so he can keep credit for his good work. If not, I will do it later. ] 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have moved it. ] 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to say it was me who removed this section, and my intention was to put it somewhere else and explain my actions, but I was distracted and didn't get round to it. Sorry. My feeling was that the article was already too long. ]

== Who are ethnic "Canadians"? ==

Ethnic "Americans" (not "native") are, as far as I know, Englishmen, Spaniards, Scots, and Irishmen, but who are the corresponding Canadians? --<b><font color="#FF4F00">]</font> <sup><font color="#000000">]]</font></sup></b> 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mostly it means ''I have no idea''. I usually refer to myself as an ethnic Canadian, because:
:* A lot of my ethnic origin is unknown
:* That which is known includes Norse, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, English, Portuguese, Spanish, Hebrew, Indian ... I think I'm missing one I ought to know. Anyways, the point is that this is a mouthful, easier to just say ''Canadian''
:] 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Many Canadians are multi-ethnic, so if I were so inclined (but I'm not), I could call myself "Canadian" instead of saying I'm an "Italian/Irish/German Canadian." ] added "Canadian" as an ethnic group on the census and 39.42% of Canadians chose it as their ethnicity. (]) --] 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::But, wait? Weren't French farmers the first to populate the place and stay there (some went to Louisiana, though)? Did some of them move to the west and adopt English? --<b><font color="#FF4F00">]</font> <sup><font color="#000000">]]</font></sup></b> 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:::No, French famers weren't the first to populate the area we call Canada. ] 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Canadians tend to de-emphasize ethnicity, which is actually not all that realistic. Setting aside aboriginal Canadians, an ethnic Canadian would, in theory, be someone whose ancestry was principally ''colonists'' of Canada, as opposed to ''immigrants'' to Canada, the immigrant voluntarily choosing to give up their ethnic identity. This is, of course, not a precise notion, and multiculturalism has greatly confused the issue, and typically people try to ignore the whole issue, with varying degrees of success. However, ethnicity still exists in people's heads, even if no-one can say exactly what it is. ] 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I think that Canadians avoid "race", especially in the way that it is typically used in America. On the other hand, my experience has been that culture is much more emphasized in Canada than anywhere else I know. I'm not sure that many immigrants to Canada are made to "give up their ethnic identity"--if by that, you mean, culture--good evidence for this is the wide variety of cultural festivals in our major cities (caribanna, taste of little italy, taste of danforth, indian something-or-other, etc.) Many people consider Canada a ]. ] 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:::The concept of ethnicity evolves over time. ''Today'' Canada is "multicultural" - there was a time when having English and Irish living together was considered a highly tolerant society. ] 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--] 02:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Does this article consider a "Nationality" the same as an "Ethnicity?" "Nationality refers simply to citizenship with respect to a given state (country). Since many countries have more than one ethnic group within them, one's nationality does not necessarily correspond to one's ethnicity." Based soley on Nationality, Canada isn't any more or less ethnic than any European Country or the United States. This section of the article gives me no other information other than Canada is occupied predominantly by those of Caucasian decent. In a world view, harldy "multicultural."

:Nationality and Ethnicity do not mean the same thing ... I'm not sure what you're getting at beyond that. Multiculturalism is an issue seperate from either nationality or ethnicity, however. ] 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

::For the most part, I think that many of us who have edited in areas of ethnicity within Canadian articles, and who have included "Canadian" on lists of statistics, aren't actually making any argument at all - what we are doing is using the best, most NPOV statistics that we know of - those from StatsCan - and reproducing them reliably. Since those statistics have chosen to include "Canadian" (and, interestingly, "Québécois" and "Acadian", but not, for instance, "Newfoundlander") then that's what we type in. I personally support this method of including information, because it does not say anything about how things "should" be done, only how they are. ] 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Right, that's true - I mean, anything we put in the article would be ] because the truth about it is that statscan said ''what's your ethnicity?'' and people wrote down ''Canadian'' or ''Chinese'' or '']'' and all we know is that they choose to write it down. So that is all we can say in the article. ] 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, about 13,000 people did put in "Newfoundlander". See: . :-) Other than that, ] is absolutely correct. Using anything else implies some secret knowledge of people's genealogy not available to the rest of us. Plus, the Census reflects what people see as their ethnic origin, not what someone else thinks it should be. ] 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:People are where they were born. If they were born in Canada, they are 'Canadians'. American is an 'ethnic group' :) There are no 'hispanics' in Canada or 'Blacks', there are, for example 'Chileans' and 'Kenyans'. Though I do find it bizarre whenever I come across a store in Canada that has an 'ethnic' aisle; that is redundant :) Overall, Canadians don't obsess aboot such things.

== Images ==
A user just moved all the images to the right. I liked the previous way, with some on the right, and some to the left. Anyone opposed to me reverting? -- ] 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:No. I had no idea that there were editors who preferred the all-images-jammed-up-against-each-other-in-top-right-corner layout, but I guess there are. My impression is that less crowded and more dynamic approaches to image layout are preferred by most people. ] 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

: I am, seeing as the concensus for country articles ], ], etc While I'm not entirely opposed to having left and right images, I think it looks poor in very small sections (such as the military section) as it creates an odd X shaped text block. I also went through the article, before you revert, and standardised image size, as well as where the images start (some started before the "Main article" bit, some after). ]</font> <sup><font color="ff66cc">]</font></sup> 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::: It's most definitely ''not'' a go for reverting, since I was the one who made the edits in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to a section-by-section discussion, but a blanket revert is both rude and ineffectual since there were other changes made than just the left v. right debate. ]</font> <sup><font color="ff66cc">]</font></sup> 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::If reverting all the image formatting changes would be rude, then I think that making such a large change to the entire article in the first place, without discussion on the talk page beforehand, would be even ruder. --] 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::thirty-seven, so do you like the left/right arrangement better? -- ] 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I like the left/right varied version. --] 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::So is that a go for reverting, or not. I'm a little confused which one you like better. -- ] 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I was asking Jkelly. Regarding the standardization of the sizes, they were standardized to 240px, which is just as good, and usually better for people with smaller resolution monitors. So I would like to go back to 240px. Secondly, I feel that for all sections that the images were moved to the right, the better placement was on the left. The standardization for having the images before or after the main is good. -- ] 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry I wasn't clear. I have a preference for a combination of left and right. PZFUN is right, I think, that we tend to use 50px increments for image sizing, but I don't know if there is a reason for that. ] 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
: Almost every other article on Misplaced Pages uses 250px as the standard-size. It seems a littleodd to be so particular about the 10px, particularly when we can stay with tradition. I think in general it is a bad idea to have left and right images in such a small section, it makes it hard to read because the text does not flow evenly. ]</font> <sup><font color="ff66cc">]</font></sup> 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At 250px, the images are too big. I'd like to reduce them back to 240px, or even smaller. -- ] 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Or do what has been done on the USA article - do not specify sizes - just specify "thumb" - which lets the user decide (in preferences) how big to make the image - there are too many sizes of screens & no size will be right for all --] 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. Any other comments? -- ] 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

== Motto of Canada ==

Although "A Mari Usque Ad Mare" may be litteraly translated by "From sea to sea" in English, the motto used in English is "From coast to coast". I've never heard anyone say "From sea to sea".
:Here's the from the Government of Canada website. And here's from the Canadian encyclopedia. -- ] 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've heard "From sea to sea" frequently, but never "From coast to coast" (although that expression is common in general usage). On rare occasion, I've seen ''mare'' translated as "ocean". I've definitely never heard "A Litu usque ad Litum". ] 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== Official status of Canada ==

Nowhere in this article was mentionned that Canada is part of the Commonwealth. It is said on the website of Heritage Canada that Canada is a Realm: http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/gouv-gov/section4/memb_e.cfm

:It's also a part of ]. --] 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Then again, it's also a part of ], the ], the ], etc., but the article doesn't seem to mention that either. --] 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Mentioned in the foreign relations section. -- ] 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::So they are. My mistake. --] 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::All of these are mentioned, including La Francophonie and Commonwealth; I couldn't find an explicit statement that Canada was a member of the UN, but since almost all countries are, and there are frequent mentions of Canada's contributions to the UN it can probably be left. ] 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== former British colonies ==

All British colonies had earlier been French colonies, not only some. New France extended from Labrador to Louisiana, and to British Columbia and the american mid-west. The only territories that have never been part of New France were that of the 13 new england state, that of Florida, that of the far west, and that of the Great North. (unsigned contribution by ])

*], ], the ] and most of the island of ] were never French colonies. I see from your edit, though, that the phrase in question was referring to the original union of the colonies of the ], ] and ], which had all been under French control previously. ] | ] 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::The Province of Canada, as an entity, was never completely a French colony. I have reverted my revert, but I think the previous statement was more encompassing. -- ] 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The terriory of the Province of Canada was, however, a part of the ], if I recall correctly. ] | ] 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Even the ] was a British Colony. New France was a French colony, and it did cover most of the area of the ] (and more), but regardless confederation happened to entities that were British entities, of which the ] (as an entity) was never a French colony. -- ] 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== Canada's Age ==

It's Canada Day, and I didn't catch Canada's age on a news show today. Does anyone know Canada's Age? --] 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:139 years since confederation in 1867. -- ] 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
::Just dropping by to say Happy Canada Day! :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Replace/update Army picture!!! ==

Someone really needs to change the picture of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan wearing temperate ] to a more recent picture of them wearing desert CADPAT. The current picture only serves to perpetuate a negative image of our Army. I say "someone" needs to change this picture, because I am not knowledgeable enough regarding the standards and regulations this sort of thing on Misplaced Pages. If someone does take this up, please get a proper picture of our combat arms soldiers, preferably the infantry. ---- 137.186.252.157
:This is the only relative current picture that is GFDL. You would have to find another picture that is free of copyright. -- ] 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I found some really good pictures on the CF Combat Camera site. Following is information from the Combat Camera terms of use section:

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:

* Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
* The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
* The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

: This looks good to me but maybe there is something I am missing. I have included links to pictures I believe are particularly appropriate (the best ones first):

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=10717&site=combatcamera
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=10635&site=combatcamera
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=10296&site=combatcamera
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=8670&site=combatcamera

These photos are all relatively up to date (taken in 05 or 06). Let me know what you guys think. 137.186.252.157

:Noncommericial-only images cannot be used by Misplaced Pages. ] 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, the following is also from the Terms of Use section from the Combat Camera site.:

Commercial Reproduction

Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Through the permission-granting process, Public Works and Government Services Canada helps to ensure that individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes, please go to Public Works and Government Services Canada's, Applying for Copyright Clearance on Government of Canada Works page.

Can we apply for this?-- 137.186.252.157

:Come on people, I am looking for some direction here! -- 137.186.252.157
::You'll have to forgive us for not bending over backwards to reply to some anonymous dude or dudette with no name. Why not register so we can converse like people instead of machines?] 19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:thanks for the advice Cpl.Dorosh! I have been an anonymous user for about 2 years now I think, and I dont think theres anything wrong with it, though it looks like im going to have to sign up to upload a new image! p.s. fellow (calgary)soldier here --137.186.252.157

::If you are willing to do the work, then go ahead. -- ] 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, I will apply for this. Also, just a question: where does it say that we can’t use images that have been approved for non-commercial use on wikipedia. I am not saying that this isn’t true, I am just wondering where this is written down, for my own knowledge. -- ]

::Before you start, you should know that we also delete "with permission" content. We're not only trying to write an encyclopedia, we're also trying to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia -- to anyone for any use. "Noncommercial/Nonderivative/Wikipedia-only" licenses get in the way of that goal. You'll note that ] mentions this, but I'm not sure where to point you for a more informative discussion. ] 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Canada's Human Development Index (HDI) ==

Luxembourg, which is listed as having the fourth highest Human Development Index, has an HDI of 0.949, as do Canada and Sweden, which are listed as fifth and sixth, respectively.

It looks like those three are "tied" for fourth, so to speak. So it looks like Canada's HDI should be changed from fifth to fourth, unless I'm missing something.

--] 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Alternative histories of Canada? ==

Can anyone name novels that deal with Canada and "what if" scenarios/histories? Like what if Russia had colonized most of Canada, or what if Canada was strongly anti-British in it's early days and waged war, or what if Canada become a superpower and the US a weak nation, etc.

Well?

-G

: The best one that I can think of is ], a work of fiction that hypothesizes on what the world would look like w/o Europe as a power, and where North America is colonized from the west coast. This allowed the natives (in the book) to maintain their autonomy and kept the East Asian colonies to small seaside valleys.
--] 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

: I know there are such novels, though I couldn't name them offhand. I can mention, however, that in the ] world (a collaborative AH web project), neither Canada nor the United States ever existed in their current form; instead, there are several different countries on the North American continent, some of which cross the border that we know in our world. The countries are also divided into provinces which have varying degrees of correspondence to real provinces and states: some match up almost exactly in both name and geography, others retain either the real geography ''or'' the real name but not both, and others still are entirely fictional creations. I won't get into too much detail here, but if you want to read more the Ill Bethisad article has links to the project web pages. ] 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of TYORAS and am trying to find a copy of it. Despite it being a great book, it doesn't deal with Canada... or a nation that was/could have been Canada. Ill Bethisad sounds a little closer, and interesting. I am sure both are great reads.

-G
:]'s '']'' talks briefly about an alternate history of Canada after the US collapses and becomes divided by militant religious factions. The book's postscript is a symposium taking place at the University of Denay, in ], in 2195. The keynote speaker summarises the Handmaid's Tale (apparantly now the object of study by historians), and wonders aloud if the Handmaid was smuggled into "what was then Canada." It's not clear what happened to Canada, or whether Nunavut is now it's own country, but it's something from a noted Canadian author. --] 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::I think '']'' is set in the future relative to the time the book was written, and so it is not ]. --] 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, I suppose it is more of a future history. Still kind of a "what if" though. --] 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:I actually have a copy of ''TYORAS''...which isn't to say that I've read it yet or anything. Ill Bethisad, for what it's worth, is an entire alternate ''world'', not just an alternate North America...and if you're interested, it's one you can even ''participate'' in creating. ] 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So I'm back to square one. This isn't very incouraging. Still waiting...

-G

== Moving the Capital ==

When Brown became the government for those 48hrs, could he have announced a new capital for Canada or have actually moved it before he had to leave the government? I really need to know, fast.

-G

: What conceivable reason would ] have had for doing that? Unless, in line with your previous post, you're talking about the ''possibility'' of it as a divergence point for an alternate history, in which case I'd consider it unlikely; he simply wasn't in power for long enough. ] 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning for Brown to make a dramatic shift to move the capital (to Montreal) is to appease the French conservatives. Basically, they would have their capital, the French Conservatives wouldn’t rally around John A. to throw out Brown and Brown would be allowed (hopefully) his rep-by-pop (the French possibly thinking that they would see more growth in lower Canada due to the capital, so why not?). Something along those lines. Any of what I said viable?

-G

: Well, again: if you're talking about it as a divergence point for an alternate history, it's as valid as any, but it would probably have to be accompanied by circumstances which keep him in power for longer than he really was. But if you're theorizing it as something that coulda shoulda mighta happened in ''real'' history, then we come back to the fact that there was no compelling reason to do it, nor was Brown in power long enough to accomplish anything that major. ] 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Section 33, Notwithstanding clause ==

Please correct the part on Section 33, the Notwithstanding clause.. You give it a lifespan of 5 years, but that however is not precisely the case, it has to be renewed every 5 years, IE a declaration that they are using the notwithstanding clause. Quebec French laws for example will use this clause indefinitely. The wording is not the same as the link that takes you to information regarding the notwithstanding clause, it needs to look more like that, not some fixed time period. Read http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
--] 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Greg


Greetings chaps. I just made a couple of tone changes. Please feel free to correct me if I err.... ] 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This map needs to be scrutinized regarding the marine international boundaries depicted. The map is copied from the official government , and reflects Canada's claims of sovereignty, some of which are disputed (in the case of its claims over the ], categorically refused by the US and the EU). The map should accurately note the disputed boundaries. ] 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Noted in the caption. ] 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::Until the map is updated to reflect the disputed boundaries, I don't think it's acceptable. ] 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::Feel free to find us a better one. ] 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I'll edit it myself, but was hoping someone handier with maps and graphics could do it. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left or taken a long break. ] 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Done. ] 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Section on Cities ==

DavidSpencer.ca has added a section on Cities. While I had argued for this section in the past, it was consensus that such a section should not be included (see ], ], and ]). After going through featured article, it was made more clear that such a section should not be in this article and in a daughter article. No other featured article countries have cities (see ], ], ], ], ], ]). The section should be removed and placed in a daughter article. -- ] 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:I moved it to ]. ] 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Canada is a World Power ==

Someone edited out the addition regarding Canada being considered an economic and political world power. A factual claim backed by the fact canada is a member of the G8 among the worlds wealthiest nations, Canada has been participating in the worlds most peace keeping missions and is involved in several international diplomatic efforts. It is one of the world powers <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:It is usually better to replace subjective and ill-defined statements like "Canada is a world power" with objective and well-defined statements like "Canada is a member of the G8". We already have this statement there. Incidentally you should go and look at how many peacekeeping missions Canada has been on recently. it's not as many as you might think.

:P.S. Please add to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. ] 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


-Sorry, didn't know it was supposed to be added to the bottom. However if you look at the article on Toronto it has been debated and in the end agreed to be considered of "international Influence" so perhaps then "Economically and politically, Canada holds considerable international influence" would be a viable sentence. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
::Canada is a featured article, which means that it upholds the highest standard in Misplaced Pages. Mushy statements like it is "holds considerable international influence both economically and politically" just don't pass, especially without a citation. Even with a citation, I can guarantee that there are other citations that state that Canada is not a world power. I removed the reference. Also in regards to the mention of the G8 in the lead, it just doesn't fit, and I'll take that out. It is already mentioned in the article itself. -- ] 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"I can guarantee that there are other citations that state that Canada is not a world power." You could find such citations for any article, you could find citations saying canada sucks and canada doesn't and for anything else. That's not the point. Canada is an international exporter of energy, have a massive economy and major export partners, is active in most international affairs, both diplomatic and military and thus it should be cited that Canada is infact influential in world affairs, as well as being a major economy. ] 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:That may well all be true, but you'll have to acquaint yourself with ] to discover why that can't make it into the article. ] 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose mentioning the US as a world power, mentioning China as a world power, mentioning in the Toronto article international influence is not allowed because there will be a source in the world that disagrees with the facts? Because being one of the largest economies, part of the most peace keeping missions, cited among the largest 15 military spenders, only net exporter of energy in G8 are all facts ] 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Hi. I suggest you take the time to read ] and ]; if they don't clear up most of your questions, please feel free to ask for clarification. As has been mentioned, this article is held to a higher standard than many others on Misplaced Pages, but if you see what appear to be the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors inserted into articles, please do raise the issue on that article's talk page. ] 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::Some things are facts, like having one of the largest economies, like having the most peace keeping missions (which more recently Canada has been a very very small player), etc, etc, and can be inserted into the article with a ] as a citation. Other things are points of view, like Canada being a word power because of the above facts. For these points of view, we must follow ], which among other things includes giving multiple points of view ("''All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.''"). Finally I should mention that this page is written in ], which states that only a summary of facts, events, etc are to be included in this article, and the main details are left to the daughter articles (like ]). So not everything about Canada should be included in this article. -- ] 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Canada has "most peace missions"? Sounds about right, so proving it shouldn't be hard for you to do. As jkelly stated, WP is about verifiable facts, not what feels right in our gut.] 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


http://www.edu.pe.ca/montaguehigh/grass/socialstudies/peacekeeping/missions.htm

canada has the historically he most peacekeeping missions :)

As for the above, mentioning a nations status as a world power, or as any prominent title that it holds does not belong in sub sections but the opening paragraph. That what it is for, to mention the most basic characteristics of the nation. ] 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:Trouble is "world power" is not a "prominent title" that can be verified as having been bestowed on Canada. Some people think Canada is a world power; some do not. It is an opinion. I'm Canadian, and I don't think "world power" when I think of the basic characteristics of my country. If you do, that's great - but it isn't encyclopedic. ] 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did above reword it as having "international economic and political influence" if this article cannot contain these simply descrpions then neither should the EU's, Toronto's or Americas and China's.] 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Issues with other articles should be brought up there. Misplaced Pages does not operate under the common law - we can hold the article on Canada to a high standard. ] 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is prohibiting saying that "canada holds international influence both economically and politically" high standard?] 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Because it's inclusion is original research, and portrays a specific POV, without including other POV. Both which are against Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


== "RECOGNIZE"???? ==

I have read the below sentence a dozen times over a period of days and compared it to other countries articles and it just reads "funny" to me. It sounds as if Canada woke up one morning and happened to discover or acknowlege their head of state. The UK, France, USA, etal don't "recognize" their head of state, they simply have one. Why does Canada? any comments before I make a change? --] 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy that recognizes Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952), and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government, and strong democratic traditions.

:That is the standard usage - an apt to the circumstances - I'm not sure what you want. Since she ain't really the head of state in practice, the situation is somewhat different that many other countries. ] 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a bit strange, as well. I believe it was coined some time ago by republican minded editors who view the Queen of Canada as a foreigner - ie. that's EIIR is truly head of state for the UK, but Canada only "recognizes" her as the same. Of course, such thinking is fallacious - by law (and Canadian law at that) Elizabeth is Canada's head of state - all executive authority is vested in her, the Governor General derives his or her authority from her, all laws are passed in her name, her image appears on Canadian coinage, etc., etc. No vagaries about it. The sentence should be changed. --] 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed. She is officially the Queen of Canada and head of State in what is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. ] 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:We ''recognize'' her because she has no real authority here, we graciously grant her respect as a member of the common wealth. Atleast that is what they told me in high school. Most countries with monarchs give the monarch authority, we give only token authority. ] 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::It's unfortunate that you were given such nonsense in high school. The Queen holds all authority here - From the Constitution Act, 1867: III. EXECUTIVE POWER. 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. It's disappointing enough that there are those out there who think Canada to be a headless state, but even more so when those people are teachers. --] 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Authority in the monarch in Canada is vested in her representatives, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors. Her actual personal authority is a bit irrelevant to why we grant her respect.] 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:'Recognize' is something you do to other states. I've changed it to a much more straightforward wording. ] 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think that's a good choice. While her powers are limited by the Constitution - and symbolic in nearly every aspect - the power trail does theoretically end with her. For example, the Governor General is listed as her representative within Canada, and the GG is the titular Commander in Chief of the military. ] 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::In reality the Constitution gives her all power, but at the same time constiutional convention dictates that she cannot exercise it unilaterally, unless in exceptional circumstances. It's the same situation in any constitutional monarchy, and there the monarch ''is'' head of state, not ''recognized'' as such. So, I agree that the new wording is more appropriate. --] 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input and the subsquent "concensus" for change to the noted sentence. It is apparent that not everyone is familar with the "fine balancing act" between the Canadian Government and the Canadian Head of State that, for all its' perceived inadequacies, works better than most others. --] 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Huron-Iroquois ==

I have reverted the change that removes Huron from Canada's name section. The reference for the statement clearly says Huron-Iroquous. The editor who removes the statement points to other Misplaced Pages articles which due to Misplaced Pages policy cannot be used as references. Unless you can find another ] reference that specifically says that Huron was not the source, the current version will stay because it has a verifiable source. -- ] 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:A proper source will be added in a couple of days and the correction re-enstated (as well as to the ] article). Friends, government PR is not a dignified wiki source. However, ours it but war of terms. ] (or ]) is the proper term when refering to the so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language of the Quebec City region in 1535. It's as if you were calling the Dutch language the "German-English" language. Sloppy. Hurons and Iroquois never lived in the Quebec City at this time. I understand, however, that you police the "Canada" article with a military flair. Might tone it down a bit, guys, although I surmise you're pretty much fed up with your work. ] 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'll move the discussion to your page. Your assertion merits discussion. Your comments about "military flair" and suggestions to tone it down do not. No personal attacks. Period. ] 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

==Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian==

The reference to a Heritage Canada Web brochure is not a valid source for the origin of the word Canada. A better source would have been a run-of-the-mill dictionary of Indians names, such as Bernard Assiniwi’s Lexique des noms indiens du Canada, or even Hurtig’s Canadian Enclyclopedia, but even such sources are not much better.

A distinction is clearly made in the academic literature between the inhabitants of the St-Lawrence Valley, the “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians,” and the Iroquois and Huron living near Lake Ontario. In the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” – which has perhaps 10 or 15 thousand pages – there is a revealing map (volume 15, page ix) of Indian tribes before the Europeans arrived in numbers: the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians occupy the whole Saint-Lawrence Valley, from Cornwall to the Ïle aux Coudres (other maps suggest that the Iroquoians were present as far East as Gaspé, but this is disputed). The Smithsonian map is also found, I think, in Duane Champagne’s The Native American Almanac of 1994. Jacques Cartier thus met “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” (sometimes called “Iroquians” or “Laurentians” when speaking of their language). In 1534, he met some who were traveling in the Gaspé région (but who lived up stream). In 1535-36, Cartier visited their villages. As for the more accessible books on Native Americans, such as O. P. Dickason’s Canada’s First Nations, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians are usually mentioned briefly (page 50).

The word “Iroquois” is normally reserved for the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy which, in 1535, were not in contact with any Europeans. English-language and French-language specialists insist on distinguishing Iroquois and Iroquoian. Examples : Trigger and Pendergast, page 357, referenced in article “Canada,” and Richard Dominique and Jean-Guy Deschênes’ Cultures et société autochtones au Québec (pages 33). A bit like “Germanic languages” and “German”: only one refers to English. The same Iroquois / Iroquoian distinction is found in French and German (Iroquois / Iroquoien) (Irokese / Irokesisch).

The Iroquois/Iroquoian/Huron confusion stems mostly from centuries of ignorance. For example, Henry Biggar included in his The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, published in 1924, Sir Daniel Wilson’s text “The Huron-Iroquois of Canada” which he had written in 1884. It is a speculative and totally discredited article. Later, Hurtig invited the “Former Dominion Archivist” and long-retired W. Kaye Lamb to write the article about “Canada” for his Canadian Encyclopaedia of 1985.

The word “Huron” is also excluded. In 1535 they lived in the area north of Lake Ontario. Bruce Trigger, in his The Children of Aataentsic. A history of the Huron people to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1976, pp. 224-228), makes the Huron/Iroquoian distinction and suggests that the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians were probably killed by the Hurons or the Mohawks in the late 16th century in an attempt to control the trade routes with Europeans. The Saint-Lawrence Valley was thus becoming a very dangerous area and the Iroquoians seemingly paid the price. It would also appear that some of the Saint Lawrence Iroquoian survivors were probably taken in by the Hurons, the Mohawks and the Algonquins, by force or by mutual agreement. By 1603, Algonquins and Mohawks hunted in the Saint-Lawrence Valley and conducted raids, but neither had any permanent settlements.

Next, why use imagined phonetics: “kanata” or “kaná:ta”? This practice seems to have been encouraged by Heritage Canada’s web site (referenced) and Lamb’s article in Hurtig’s Enclyclopedia (un-referenced). The only reasonably reliable source about language(s) spoken in Stadacona and Hochelaga is the writings of Jacques Cartier (or perhaps those of his ghost writer). He wrote, in his Journal of the 1535-1536 voyage which was published in 1545: “Ilz appellent une ville: Canada”. The word Canada was also on the front cover. The Harleian Mappemonde of 1536 shows “Canada” (village, region and river). Any other graphical transcription of “Canada” is pure imagination, since no other sources exist. The journal of his earlier 1534 voyage, which was published several years later in Italian, gives no additional clues. His “vocabulary” tops out at 200 odd words.

Of course, the Mohawk and Oneida dialects of Iroquois have a similar word meaning “village” or “settlement” that it written “kanata” since the 19th or 20th century when latin script was first used to transcribe them. But whether or not one believes every detail of the linguistic observations of Jacques Cartier (his list may include words from two or three dialects, or languages, used by the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians), his list of Iroquoian vocabuary is quite distinct from modern-day Mohawk (there are mohawk dictionaries for those who like word puzzles). Furthermore, Mohawk may have evolved considerably since the 16th century, especially if Iroquoian refugees were accepted into their villages. A good reference on this matter is Marianne Mithun who clearly identifies separate “Laurentian” and “Mohawk” languages (Mithun, “Iroquoian”, in “The Languages of Native America”, Austin: Univeristy of Texas, 1979, pp. 133-212). Mithun, a linguist, is not however an historian.

There is thus no apparent reason for using 19th or 20th century phonetic transcription of Mohawk when writing 16th century Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian (or “Laurentian”). This error seemingly stems of the Iroquoian/Iroquois confusion (see above). One can however legitimately underline, when discussing the origins of the word Canada, that other related languages have a similar word meaning village (Mohawk: “kanata”; Huron: “andata”). But neither is a phonetic transcription of Canada as written by Jacques Cartier. Sorry. If the navigator (or his educated ghost writer) wrote “d”, he probably meant the sound “d”. If, however, French language texts of the 16th century all used “d” when today we use or pronouce “t” in their place, then it’s a new ball game. Anyone want to try proving that?

The only question remaining is whether the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians spoke several dialects or separate languages; this linguistic diversity stems from comparative analysis of the Cartier vocabulary (linguistic comparaisons with the other languages of the Iroquoian language group) and from the observation that a single native American language was never used in 15th century woodland America over such a large area, stretching hundreds of kilometers. Its probable that they spoke at least two or more dialects or languages. But we will never know.

Thus the expression “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian,” in the singular, is included in the new text and “kanata” is excluded. The same change will be made to the article “Canada’s name” when I get around to it. Finally, the article on the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian language is titled “Laurentian language”. It might need changing, but the title follows the lead of the wiki articles on linguistics and most texts on Native American languages. ] 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's a large amount of good research and you probably are right with your conclusion, but using the groups that were in the region that Jacques Cartier arrived at to determine the source of the word Canada needs a small leap, that in my mind would be considered ]. What we need is a specific reference regarding the etymology of the word Canada, and right now the Government of Canada website is the best we've got. -- ] 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:There is not an ounce of original research in my comment. Reread the text. It's all copied from basic (and boring) academic texts. However, if someone wants to use "kanata" or "huron-iroquois", they should find a reputable source (i.e. academic research and not government PR). And freely coping text from Hurtigs Enclyclopedia, written by a nice guy educated in the 1920s, is simply not up to scratch. He had no credentials in etymology. He was a librarian. ] 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm lost on the government PR comment, and I'd have to ask you to verify '''your''' credentials in order to accept your summary dismissal of someone elses. In any event I believe the Huron-Iroquois connection was made by Abbe Etienne-Michel Faillon, a philologist. However, I believe dissent appears throughout so I'm not sure how we plan on resolving the issue here. Suggestions? ] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::When there's more than one POV on a topic, all have to be given and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I agree with CMacMillian that the government website cannot be dismissed so easily. -- ] 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::Topical information from government web-sites, unsigned, is not worthy as a reference for a Wiki. Its fun information, good for the kids, sometimes lively, but not serious. If it were serious, the civil servant who wrote it would have signed it or published it somewhere (like the statisticians of Stat Canada: all work is signed). In any case, just find some ''reliable sources'' as good the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” with it 15-odd volumes and hundreds of articles signed by duly recognized academics, experts in their fields. Or an article from a peer reviewed journal (published in last decade or two, preferably). But since only one man wrote anything about the language of the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian, I think you'll come up short. And this last sentence is ''not'' original research: I stole it from Mithun who wrote: "''All data from Laurentian are contained in two word lists recorded during the sixteenth century.''" (Mithun, page 140). Although she is not an historian, as a linguist specializing in Iroquoian languages, her opinion in this matter is probably definitive. And by the way, I am wondering if the Heritage Canada web site simply lifted the material from Hurtig's Enclyclopedia. ] 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry but you don't determine what is a ]. Misplaced Pages policy does so, and the government website easily passes. -- ] 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I decide nothing, obviously. But this is all becoming a circular argument: find a source written by a reputable scholar (etymology, linguistics) who states otherwise. Good luck, Jim! ] 03:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::As noted above when there are sources who provide contradicting views, Misplaced Pages policy is that both should be mentioned, and I will insert the government reference alongside the new reference after more discussion from other editors is made here. -- ] 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Highlights from the ] page (just a little reminder):
*''Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.''
*''Do secondary sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?''
*''Were they actually there? ''
*''With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability''
*''Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are generally more credible''
*''Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are.''
*''To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents''
*''There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Misplaced Pages. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.''
But beyond these good practices suggested by the Wiki community, which seem to apply quite well to this case, a bit of judgement is always required. Since government websites are written by PR officers, they do not pass wiki criteria (see above). You could of course quote some academic article from the early 20th century. As Trigger and Pendergast wrote in 1978, "''Unfortunately, the results of this early speculation continue to be accepted as fact, particularly by historians who are unaware of more recent work or of the slender factual basis for theses early reconstructions.''" (Handbook of North American Indians, 1978, vol. 15, p. 359). Cheers! ] 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::JoshephB, can you confirm that page number? I couldn't find that quote. ] 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Tomorrow, first thing. Might have mixed them up. ] 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Quote and page number confirmed. Volume 15 has subtitle "Northeast" and Bruce G. Trigger was the volume editor. Page 359, 2nd column. The authors are refering to the popular 19th century theory that the St. Lawrence Iroquoians retreated South to become the Mohawk tribe or West to become one of the Huron tribes. Trigger and Pendergast contend that archeological evidence unearthed in the mid-20th and late-20th century indicates clearly that Mohawks, Hurons and St. Lawrence Iroquoians "developed separately." And that linguistic evidence points in the same direction. By the way, Mithun, in her book on Native North American Languages of 1999, writes on page 2 or 3 that the extinct "Laurentian" language gave us the word "canada" (notice spelling and use of lower-case). Seems to be the clearest statement I've unearth to date. For the historical aspect, however, she simply relies on Trigger and Pendergast's text of 1978. ] 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note in defence of government web sites: ''"Since government websites are written by PR officers, they do not pass wiki criteria (see above)."'' Not all government web sites are. I'm not a PR officer, and I occasionally write copy for government web sites in my program area. It's not all propaganda just because it's on a government site. ] 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Quite true. Especially true when studies and summaries of scientific information are published on government sites. But in ''some'' cases the sources are not checked. ] 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

===St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the news!===

] are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent".

So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't.

Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. ] 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

===Silly revert war===
Sorry for butting in here, but the repeated reverting of ]'s edits is rather silly. ] has done good work researching the literature on Canada's name using scholarly sources and documenting them here, yet it seems that some editors feel a Heritage Canada web site trumps all modern scholarship. We delight when we find errors in Britannica, yet an unsourced government web site seemingly directed at children is sacrosanct????!!!! To recapitulate ]'s evidence:
#"Canada" was first used by ];
#He got the word from people living along the Saint Lawrence;
#"kanata/canada" is not a ] word, it is “andata”, hence the Heritage Canada web site is wrong;
#According to Bruce Trigger, McGill anthropologist and perhaps foremost authority on the Hurons, they did not live in the Saint Lawrence valley in the 16th Century;
#Scholarly sources indicate that the Saint Lawrence valley was inhabited by a different people, now called the "Laurentians" or “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” in the 16th Century.
#For similar reasons, it can't be a Mohawk word, as Trigger and Marianne Mithun have established they did not live along the Saint Lawrence in the 16th century and they spoke a different language.
This article is an overview article, so a one sentence statement is sufficent. Discussion of the "Huron-Iroquois" myth belongs in the ] section of the ] article. ] 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:This is about right - scholarly, attributable sources should take precendence over unattributed government websites. Whilst we all know neither is 100% reliable, the former '''is''' more reliable than the latter. Luigi is right that the issue should be explained at ], but not here. ] 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::The reverting back-and-forth does seem a bit much, particularly for a minor section of this article. There seems to be general agreement, backed by various references, on the origin of the name Canada: it comes from a First Nations word meaning "village" or "settlement" that was used to refer to the village of Stadacona. The dispute is over which of several different languages actually provided the source word.

::So, can we not say just say that "The name Canada comes from a First Nations word meaning 'village' or 'settlement'" on this page, and leave the linguistic debate to ], where it should be possible to air both sides of the discussion?

::I'd make the edit myself, but given the current revert-fest, it's probably best to get consensus here before touching that paragraph. ] 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Great suggestion Eron, I support it. -- ] 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::It would be OK with me too, but ] has reverted again. I did find another reference which I put in the article. It is by Alan Rayburn who was the executive director of Canada's Geographic Names Board, so pretty authoritative also. Ironically, I found it by checking out what an anonymous editor claimed on ]. ] 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think you're on to something. I agree that discussion of this matter would probably be better on the discussion page of ]; it would also clearup space and time for work on this article. Suggestions to the effect of eliminating any reference to ''who'' actually lived at Stadacona could be a quick solution for this article (]). Indeed, some of the academically minded seem to like writing about "Stadaconans" and "Hochelagans," in any case. Still, the new text would need to avoid using the word "kanata" for reasons explained above (Cartier wrote "canada" and no other primary source exists). Of course, at least one linguist thinks that this word was probably pronouced by the Stadaconians, in International Phonetics, as "kaná•ta{{IPA|ʔ}}" -- the final letter not being a question mark but a ] written {{IPA|ʔ}}). ] 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::By the way, Georges Sioui of the ] Wendake village, near Quebec City, recognized, in his published M.A. thesis "For an Amerindian Autohistory" (Montreal: McGill-Queen's, 1992, English translation) that the "St. Lawrence Iroquoian" label is indeed correct. He goes on to say that the St. Lawrence Iroquoian refugees that migrated to Huronia in the 16th century had such an impact on the Wendats that, when they migrated from Huronia to the Quebec City area 100 years later (because of wars), they had become "Wendat-Iroquoians". Interesting, but only relevant when discussing the 17th century. ] 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, how about this text for the first paragraph under 'Origin and history of the name':

::::The name Canada comes from a ] word meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, inhabitants of the area near present-day ] used the word to tell ] the way to the village of ]. Cartier used the word 'Canada' to refer not only to Stadacona, but the entire area subject to ], Chief at Stadacona; by 1547, maps began referring to this and the surrounding area as Canada.

:::All references to specific First Nations languages can stay at the main article on Canada's name. ] 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I would totally support such a change. In fact I would have suggested something like it if I had got round to it. ] 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Support as well. -- ] 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sort of support, but we could say ''] ]'', as it is not disputed that Huron, "Iroquois" and Saint Lawrence Iroquoian are all Iroquoian languages. ] 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, we've had yet another revert. I'm going to go ahead with the change I suggested above. I respectfully ask that editors discuss it here before reverting again. ] 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Looks good, Eron. Congrats! ] 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


== Wordmark ==

Do you think it would be appropriate if I added a low-resolution PNG of the "Canada Wordmark" to the infobox of this article, or would that violate a house style? -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> ]] </span> 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:That image is not free, and so it can be licensed under the GFDL, and therefore would require a ] rationale, which we don't have for this page. So in short, it wouldn't pass Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Royal Union Flag ==

I was wondering maybe the Royal Union Flag could be put on the Canada page? It is still an official flag of Canada at least according to the government. The Royal Union Flag is a current official flag of Canada per act of parliament of December 18, 1964, to "show allegiance to the crown and as a symbol of Canadian membership in the Commonwealth". It is required to be flown at Canadian federal goverment facilities on Victoria Day, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminister (Dec 11), and Commonwealth day. ] 8:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think we should. It is already covered in '']'', to which a link is already provided (in the infobox). The only flag that should appear on this page, in my opinion, is the national flag. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with MindMatrix. -- ] 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Slovak ==

were Slovakians immigrated to Canada? Simon Mayer.

:Pretty much everyone has immigrated to Canada at some point in it's history. Lots of Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so it would be astonishing if there were no Slovaks. ] 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:I know that at least one did: a Slovakian friend of my father-in-law immigrated to Canada in his youth. After ] ], he liked to joke that he was a "cancelled Czech". --] 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

== need clarification: Government section ==

The statement "general elections are called by the Governor General when the Prime Minister so advises, and must occur every five years or less" is ambiguous. Does it mean ''less time'' than five years or ''less often'' than five years? If I knew the answer (i.e., if I were Canadian), I would modify it to be clearer. ] 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm unclear on the distinction you are trying to draw. ] 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think it was particularly unclear, but I did try to reword the statement a bit. --] 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The distinction was that one possibility meant the exact opposite of the other. Anyway, it's fine now. ] 06:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Create some Fauna ==

Should a ] page be created, with a paragraph here, like the ] article? It seems like a ref to the fauna and flora is the only thing this page is lacking, and would be benifitial to the page. ] 15:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think a section on Fauna is necessary. The page is already too long. Write a page on the Fauna of Canada, and instead include it in the "See also" section. -- ] 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::Alright. ] 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Edit reversion ==

I recently reverted , which I assumed to be a subtle form of vandalism. I apologize if this assumption was incorrect.--] 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== first world country ==
does canada deserve to be called a first world country? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:If you are serious the the answer is ''Yes''. If you are trying to be funny the answer is ''Please stop''. I hope that answers your question. ] 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::]. -- ] 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thiss user is a VANDAL. Ignore him ] 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

== Pronunciation of "Canada" ==

The article begins with:

Canada (pronounced in English and in French)...

It looks to me like the IPA for the English and the French are reversed. As a non-Canadian (and non-IPAn), I thought I should seek comments before I edited the article.

cck
:Well, I'm not master of IPA, but in english the vowels are definitely not identical, whilst in french they are. It's fairly obvious to me () when I say ''Welcome to Canada'' and contrast it with ''Bienvenue au Canada'' ] 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::In my 28 years in Canada(since birth) the '''a's''' has always been pronounced like '''can''' or '''man'''. ] 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Really? I've never heard anyone from BC who didn't have a "Central Canadian Accent" which definitely gives the anglo pronounciation as "Can-uh-daa" or so phoentically. ] 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::When I hear "Can-uh-daa" I consider the person to not be taking the effor to pronounce it properly. As for peoples accents, that can cause all manner of variation. ] 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:::In english, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" pronunciation, only "used" or "unused" - accents do vary a bit, but you have to take the pronouncation from a specific accent (this is, I think, obvious - but we can come back to it), and ''General American'' is definitely the wrong one. The most common anglophone accent is the general ''Central Canadian'' which is found with very little variation from Montreal to Vancouver - it seems the most natural one to choose. ] 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with IPA -- it's too specific. When followed too closely it can produce a comic effect. I well remember an English conductor working on a Scottish train service who used his normal southern English accent for everything except the names of the Scottish towns that the train stopped at. Those he pronounced with a Scottish accent. While technically correct, the accent switch mid-sentence had the unintended (?) effect of making the Scottish passengers chuckle. Faced with this lesson, I will certainly continue to pronounce "Canada" with a Scottish accent to fit in with the rest of my speech rather than a Canadian one and I would recommend that others do likewise with their own accents whatever those may be. -- ] | ] 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The that appears in the article now seems a better representation of what I'm used to hearing than the that was there before. To my ear, the English spoken in Colorado, where I live, is pretty close to what I hear spoken in Alberta. The differences are more in idiom than in accent. In general, I hear more changes of accent going east or south from home than when I travel north or west.

cck

==Program vs. Programme==

Since this appears to be cropping up in the recent edits... on the East coast, program would be preferred over programme, however they often would carry different meanings. Programme would specifically refer to a printed listing of events or a television show. ] 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:Alberta, here. I might expect a programme, if I went out to a play, but otherwise program is by far the more common usage. --] 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:Vancouver Sun would be the same - Victoria is more "Britsh" but even there programme would be rare - likely only for a play --] 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

=== Canadian spelling ===

Do these searches:
* +canada +programme
*: (most of the above are French)
* +canada +program
Even
* "toronto star" +program
* "toronto star" +programme

Which is the more common spelling in Canada?

We do not correct spellings when they are not only correct but ALSO the most predominant in that country --] 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


:I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Yes, the searches - which are central Canadian dominant - do produce more results for programme in French than the program one, however the regionalist nature of language in Canada could sway the results. Try the same search for +Canada +programme, but add +"Cape Breton" or +"PEI" and you'll see a very different result set.
:* there are still 4 times as many for +program +"cape breton" than for +programme +"cape breton" --] 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:**I'm obviously here more for the discussion than the actual edit, so I appreciate that people are taking the spelling issue with a grain of salt ;) However, my feeling is that Google response count doesn't make it right, or valid. There are 4 times as many responses for +Canada +color than there are for +Canada +colour. Most of us would agree that "colour" is the Canadian spelling however.
:**The discussion, I think, centres on the fact that it's impossible to say what's right and what's wrong. We can say that program is the more common usage based on experience, but just like it isn't wrong to use "tickle" for "narrow mouth of harbour", it isn't wrong to use programme - just much less common. ]
:* However, it was originally "program" and someone came along "correcting" it for "Canadian" spelling - obviously unwarranted, no matter what region of Canada one os from --] 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:*I see the editor has reverted himslef. Since I did the work to find them, here are some style guides anyway --] 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:**http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/style/sg42.html
:**http://www.ucalgary.ca/external/style-guide.html
:**http://www.caot.ca/default.asp?pageid=1063
:**http://www.tc-forum.org/topicus/ru15spel.htm
:**http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:iTDNSDf9STYJ:dynamic.capcollege.bc.ca/AssetFactory.aspx%3Fdid%3D27283+canada+spelling+style+guide+%2Bprogram&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14


:Not that I'm arguing for programme over program :) ... just a comment on how "common" isn't necessarily reflected by Google searches. Use the word "tickle" in Toronto and then try it in St. John's and the response will be radically different. ] 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::For what it is worth, I am Canadian and I have always seen it spelled ''program''. The government of Canada is required to use correct Canadian spelling by law, here are some goverment websites that use this word. You will see on the french version of each page that ''Programme'' is used. While Canada speaks both English and French officially, I think the english version should be used as this is the english wikipedia. ] 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Again, not necessarily. Health Canada, a government agency, uses Programme: , as does PISA . Programme, by the way, is the British spelling as well as the French spelling. ]

::I see the point of misunderstanding here, proper names always use the original spelling. ''Health Canada's Tobacco Control Programme'' is a name of a group, but on the same page they use ''program''. The same goes for ''Programme for International Student Assessment''. ] 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was sitting viewing the colourful harbour and writing cheques I came to the conclusion that I was wrong editing "program" for "programme". I will make the change. However, I did enjoy the responses I evoked!--] 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


==Kwakwaka'wakw big house==
]
This image is currently a featured picture candidate. Due to a large influx of new candidates there are very few votes for this image. If you have an opinion on this image please go to ] and cast your vote. ] 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== The American State of Canada ==
]


"Canada became a Permanent Observer at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1972, and then joined as the 33rd Member State on January 8, 1990." (Government of Canada) http://www.international.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/around/international/aroas-en.asp

and "The Organization of American States" http://www.oas.org

Would we be able at this point to include ] as the 33rd Member State? ] 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

: If you mean listing Canada in the article at ], it's already there; otherwise, I don't understand what you mean or why you think Misplaced Pages would use the phrase "The American State of Canada" to denote anything. I'll be charitable and assume you're aware that the OAS is an organization of all of North and South America's independent ''countries'' (except for ]), and has nothing to do with constituent states of the ]. ] 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We should add under the Article ], "Canada is the 33rd member as an American State." ] 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

] includes it's entity as a "member" State "Country" of Continental America, is what I was saying, which is important in disclosing Canada's LEGAL status in continental America. ] 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry, but in ] continental America means the 48 states of the US that aren't Alaska or Hawaii. Canada thus has no legal status in continental America. ] 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*The term "The American State of Canada" has no legal standing, any more than "The American State of Venezuela", "The American State of Haiti" or the laughably redundant "The American State of the United States of America" would. The legal names of countries do not normally include references to their ''continents''. ] 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

::"Canada's LEGAL status in continental America" is as a sovereign ] or ]. while attempts at precision and classification are welcome, listing canada as an american state makes about as much sense as listing ] as a canadian language. it can be argued as technically true but has no actual relevance. -- ] 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

] refering to NOT the U.S. but to The Continent America, is LEGALY DEFINED an American State by signing and ratifying BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA with the ] in 1990. The GC's website is even called http://www.AmericasCanada.gc.ca
This may not be in Canadian favor, but, by Legal means Canada is part of America as an American State. ] 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the logo represent?

The four colours indicate the four main languages spoken throughout the hemisphere: blue (French); red (English); gold (Spanish); and green (Portuguese). That all four appear in both north and south America symbolizes both the widespread use of English and French in the south, and the growing interest among Canadians to learn about Latin American and Caribbean culture.

The "arms" that embrace the hemisphere symbolize the sense of common purpose, the foundation of shared values, and the belief that each nation has a stake in the well-being of the others - in short, the concept of "La gran familia". http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/latin-america/latinamerica/contact/about-logo-en.asp ] 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:37, 20 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006, and on July 1, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCanada Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconNorth America Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 106 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
ConsensusPlease read before contributing
The Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Misplaced Pages:Article size.
Section sizes
Section size for Canada (37 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 12,657 12,657
Etymology 4,831 4,831
History 106 60,879
Indigenous peoples 12,476 12,476
European colonization 8,522 8,522
British North America 10,057 10,057
Confederation and expansion 7,560 7,560
Early 20th century 5,770 5,770
Contemporary era 16,388 16,388
Geography 7,102 21,458
Climate 5,487 5,487
Biodiversity 8,869 8,869
Government and politics 25,577 55,287
Law 6,843 6,843
Provinces and territories 4,930 4,930
Foreign relations 8,972 8,972
Military and peacekeeping 8,965 8,965
Economy 18,300 27,103
Science and technology 8,803 8,803
Demographics 7,599 32,601
Ethnicity 10,450 10,450
Languages 7,632 7,632
Religion 6,920 6,920
Health 8,808 8,808
Education 8,056 8,056
Culture 8,718 41,419
Symbols 4,960 4,960
Literature 3,859 3,859
Media 5,424 5,424
Visual arts 4,308 4,308
Music 5,603 5,603
Sports 8,547 8,547
See also 180 180
Notes 24 24
References 28 28
Further reading 6,456 6,456
External links 1,922 1,922
Total 281,709 281,709
Toolbox
Archive

Archives

2003–2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22
2013
23
2015–present
24
25
26
27

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

"implied bill of rights"

In the Government and politics section of this article, the opening text states that "an implied bill of rights" is a "founding principle of the Canadian government", with a link to this page for further reading. However, that page states the exact opposite: this theory was never taken seriously by the courts, and was in fact explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am not sure what the appropriate edit to make to this article is, though, so I will leave that to someone who knows better than I do. Jamesa7171 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to reword this to be more clear....lets first look at how some sources word this....or we can swap out sources to the one below that are more extensive?
  • McLachlin, Beverly (Jun 30, 2014). "Human Rights Protection in Canada". Chief justice of Canada. Canada's experience with human rights. Canada's experience can be divided into three phases: 1) Judicially implied rights; 2) Legislatively protected rights; and 3) Constitutionally protected human rights. Before human rights legislation and the Charter, courts in Canada relied on the theory of an "implied bill of rights" to protect traditional civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association. The theoretical foundation for these rights was the importance of free political speech and discussion in a democracy.
  • Jonathon W Penney, Ivan Rand's Ancient Constitutionalism, 2010 34-1&2 Manitoba Law Journal 43, 2010 CanLIIDocs 229, Even today, the judicial work of (Ivan Rand) “one of the greatest— if not the greatest— jurists in Canadian history” 2 remains required reading in law schools; and many of his most important decisions retain a central place in the minds of judges and legal commentators. For example, his judgments in the so-called “Implied Bill of Rights” cases were called the Supreme Court of Canada’s “most distinguished achievements,” 3 “the ‘golden’ moments of the civil liberties decade” 4 and the theory of implied rights described as “valuable”, 5 “one of the most original and provocative contributions ever made to Canadian constitutional law
  • Eric H Cline et al, Case Comments: Whither the Implied Bill of Rights? - A.G. Canada and Dupond v. The City of Montreal, Saskatchewan Law Review 137, 1980 CanLIIDocs 227,Much of the concern has focused on the court's changing approach to the Bill of Rights, but the Bill or Rights is not the only protection for civil liberties which has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Switzmann v. Elbing,1 and Saumur v. Attorney General for Quebec2, the leading civil liberties decisions of the 1950's, rested in part on a doctrine created by the court itself: the implied Bill of Rights.
Moxy🍁 05:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Since few people know what an "implied bill of rights" is, it should be explained if it is included at all. The way the paragraph combines different claims about the country is implicit synthesis and should be re-written. It might make more sense to describe the situation as it stood at confederation, then describe the current one.
Maybe say something like although Canadian confederation did not provide a bill of rights, Canadians were assumed to have the rights traditionally recognized by courts in England. On the other hand, some have argued that peace, order and good government was a defining principle of the new confederation.
I suggest finding a source that mentions all these things. TFD (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Will add the following source for your synthesis concerns Lajoie, Andrée (Dec 3, 2019). "The Implied Bill of Rights, the Charter and the Role of the Judiciary". University of New Brunswick Law Journal. 44: 337, 339. ISSN 0077-8141. pdf you can read Moxy🍁 08:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that Canada does have (and had at the time) a literal “Bill of Rights”. I point this out as the language should reflect this fact (or not lose sight of it via good faith wording) 142.127.4.14 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The founding fathers also believed in the supremacy of the British constitution, which they believed guaranteed certain rights such such as the right to own weapons. TFD (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I see there's great confusion over this so I've gone ahead and added information with sources for more extensive information at Implied bill of rights this way the linked article can explain better. Moxy🍁 00:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the term of Dominion of Canada which is still the official name of the country. (See the Constitutional Act of 1867 for references). Maillymarcantoine653 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Canadian Encyclopedia says it is still current. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Update Canadian population

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Canadian population from 41,012,563 (2024 Q2) to 41,288,599 (2024 Q3). It's from the same source, whic has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done Alaney2k (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Integrated or cooperate?

The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." I think reads better as "Canada's economic cooperation with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." How is Canada integrated? I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada. Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(ref 1, ref 2) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. CaribDigita (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. Indefatigable (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. CaribDigita (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
North American integration..... Integration is simply the term used..... electricity system in Canada and US is also very integrated as is our oil and fuel. Moxy🍁 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree that sources call the two economies integrated. That's the correct term to use. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. TFD (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
re-wrote lead (to follow body) at Canada–United States relations.......perhaps more clear? Moxy🍁 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Update Canadian population

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Canadian population from 41,288,599 (2024 Q3) to 41,465,298 (2024 Q4). It's from the same source, which has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic Origins

Resolved

- editor blocked -Moxy🍁 01:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change .....simply because the percentages don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily. That said....I think I agree we should stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians (that is not a terminology used by statistics Canada). We just need to take a closer look at what has been published number wise over Misplaced Pages own calculations (that is allowed) however the past calculations don't match official publications that analyze the data. Think it's best we stick with the sources that analyze the data over analyzing the data ourselves. Let's compare the two sets of data

Change of stats... South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%) sourced to the raw data (that I assume was self calculated).

Old stable version...South Asian (2.6 million people; 7.1 percent), Chinese (1.7 million; 4.7 percent), and Black (1.5 million; 4.3 percent). The Indigenous population representing 5 percent or 1.8 million individuals sourced to an analysis of the raw data by those who published it saying Racialized groups in Canada are all experiencing growth. In 2021, South Asian (7.1%), Chinese (4.7%) and Black (4.3%) there were 1.8 million Indigenous people in the country in 2021, representing 5.0% of the total population. Moxy🍁 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted stating It clearly says 4.9% Indigenous not 6.9%, which corresponds to the first link you provided....yet source says "According to the 2021 Census, there were 1.8 million Indigenous people, representing 5.0% of the total Canadian population, up from 4.9% in 2016.". Moxy🍁 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe Moxy has provided an actual basis for reverting or disagreeing with my edits. Please read carefully.
Old version:
The major panethnic groups chosen were: European (52.5 percent), North American (22.9 percent), Asian (19.3 percent), North American Indigenous (6.1 percent), African (3.8 percent), Latin, Central and South American (2.5 percent), Caribbean (2.1 percent), Oceanian (0.3 percent), and other (6 percent).
My new and preferred version:
The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada are: White (67.4%), South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%), Filipino (2.5%), Arab (1.9%), Latin American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1%), West Asian (1%), Korean (0.6%), Japanese (0.2%), mixed (3.2%) and other (0.7%).
Moxy first reverted my edits by writing "Where does 6.9 for indigenous come from ? https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population". My version, as well as the link they provided, both clearly state 4.9%. Obviously, not a basis to revert it. Despite that, Moxy still reverted the edits by writing "Nope looking further.... these must be all self edition that don't match publications such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm". Frankly I'm not sure what that means what "doesn't match" as zero information has been provided on what does not match!
Moxy has stated my edits "don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily" Let's have a look. Ctrl+F on The Daily "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". I wrote that 67.4% were white. Other quick examples, The Daily article also says "In the 2021 Census, just over half a million people (580,000) reported being Latin American only" which matches the source I am using and the information I had written. It also says "Just over three-quarters of the 360,000 people who reported being West Asian". I mean for goodness sake, this is government data... it is consistent, but Moxy has reverted my edits claiming they are inconsistent with other government data that is also published by Statistics Canada? I just don't understand what Moxy means by "doesn't match publications", when they have provided no examples of what does not match.
The previous "Ethnic groups" section included continents of origin. I find it arbitrary because "French Canadian" as an ethnic origin is counted as North American, not European. "French" is counted as European - it is basically arbitrary as it depends on what one writes into the census rather than what they actually are, and I just generally think race is more relevant here. Here is the link I am using to write the population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada. C.monarchist28 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What? No explanation or example? Though I was clear. We have 2 different sets of information presented (close but different or old) .....stable version from 2022 regurgitating the source verbatim in the article vs your new calculations of the raw data that differs. Moxy🍁 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Your free to ask for input from others Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, But till you have Misplaced Pages:Consensus best not to editwar back in your version that is contested. My position is simple.... think it's best we regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data. This would also reflect how other sources present the information.... that is verbatim because of Statistics Canada Open Licence..like
Moxy🍁 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
You would like to "regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data". Sounds like a word salad. The source you would like to regurgitate matches the simple calculations of the raw data perfectly. Sigh. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm clearly not explaining myself well..... every number is different let's use the Indigenous one for example....our source being used says 1,807,250. You're using the number 1,772,025 so why a difference when you do the calculation? Moxy🍁 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
This is most likely because the source I provided only includes single race. Possibly, the difference between these two statistics is those who are mixed race with Indigenous. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
100% in agreement with Moxy. Editors don't get to collapse groups and do new calcs based on their own preferences, especially when we have pre-existing analysis from the official group that gathered the data. Stats Can collects data on ethnicity, which is not exactly the same as "race", and so the stable version is clearly what should be used. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Collapse groups? I'm just taking this StatsCan data as it is. Not making "my own calculations based on my own preferences"? This is why I stated "The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada". This is better than categorizing by continent of origin, when that is largely based on arbitrary self-identification (French Canadian ethnicity is counted as North American while French is counted as European, when these people have the same ancestry - it depends on arbitrary labels of self-identity). The population groups I am trying to have inserted are more objective. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The categories listed by C.monarchist28 (White, South Asian, Indigenous, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, mixed and other) appear to come from the StatCan definitions for the different population group information used in respect to the visible minority variable (see StatCan ref) and is collected for employment equity purposes.
The population groups previously contained in the article (European, North American, Asian, North American Indigenous, African; Latin, Central and South American; Caribbean, Oceanian, and other) are the ethnic or cultural origins from this StatCan reference here, which appears to have been dropped from the paragraph sometime this fall.
Both references are valid StatCan resources, but the context of what is being discussed is important. If we were discussing employment equity measures, the former would be useful. If however, the paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article is referencing Ethnic origins (as evidenced by the paragraph title "Ethnicity", and the subordinate hatnote "Main article: Ethnic origins of people in Canada") then the original article categories are more applicable. Loopy30 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
100% correct....when I stated .stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians. I was referring to the OR /assumption that European Canadians (or as Statistics Canada says European origins) equates to White Canadians as a change in a link implied ] . Analysis of this data separates this information In total, 52.5% of the population reported European origins vs Canadians self-identified as White 69.8% Moxy🍁 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: