Talk:Population of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Population of Canada by year)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
 

Lack of source.[edit]

There wasn't really any source for the projection that "canada's population will reach 40,000,000 by 2010" so I deleted it. 11 million population of canada

the size (area) given to metro cities in the US is much different than in Canada making Canadian cities slightly underrated in population[edit]

checkout cities like Denver, Houston, even Philadelphia. they are given areas more comparable to the horseshoe area around Toronto than metro Toronto. by that measure Toronto is a lot closer to being the 4th largest city in North America that includes Mexico, USA, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talkcontribs) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in lead section - What does it actually mean?[edit]

The more I look at this sentence from the lead section, the less I understand it.

Canada makes up 0.5% of the world population, and Canadians make up 0.53% or 1 in 189 globally.

What's the difference between the first part and the second part, they have the same meaning to me. And why are the numbers different (0.5 vs. 0.53)? The sentence seems to be inconsistent. In other words, Either Canada makes up 0.53% of the world population, or Canadians make up 0.5% or 1 in 189 globally. And what world population was used to compute 1 in 189? Why say it both ways? It's unverifiable as stated, except with a number of assumptions. Any suggestions to improve this? DonToto (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done..made it short and added ref. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Title[edit]

"List of population of Canada by years" is ungrammatical. Page should be redirected to Population of Canada by year. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done..i will start to fix redirects..if someone got a bot for this that would be great.Moxy (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Title[edit]

....All those dead babies..... My problem is with the paragraph: "The year with the most population growth was during the peak of the Post-World War II baby boom in 1956-1957, when the population grew by over 529,000, in a single twelve month period.[8] The Canadian baby boom defined from 1947 to 1966, saw more than 400,000 babies born." ...so one year (1956-1957) 529000 babies are born... and the period encompassing that year 1947 to 1966 there are a total for all those years of 400000 babies born. What that means is 529000-400000=129000 babies died and the other years from 1947 to 1966 there were no babies born (but wait, we can do this other ways) 529000 + 2000 babies born every year minus a catastrophic meteor crashing into the earth killing 165000 babies gives us a total of 400000 for the period from 1947 to 1966. ...The numbers add up wonky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.90.234 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) If you're trying to figure out why our population is incredibly low compared to say "Russia" which is in the same geographical situation and still a super power.. it's because when the globalists started introducing population control.. we fell for it hook line and sinker. Only instead of castration we opted for birth control including vasectomy ... smaller families.. or no children at all. May as well have lined up to be castrated.. it's the same basically. Even if you get the math all straight on this .. it still doesn't make any sense except in that context. The lack of population growth in such a large and rich country stands out like a sore thumb. http://www.theriseofthefourthreich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.228.44 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with intro about arable land (can it be removed or reworded in the intro)[edit]

Implying that Canada has a modest population density when taking out non arable land is wrong. Canada contains over a third of the world’s boreal forest, one fifth of the world’s temperate rainforest, and a tenth of the total global forest cover. Canada has the second major repository of northern forests, after Russia. Canada’s boreal forest is one of the three largest ‘frontier forests’ remaining on the planet. Canada’s relatively undisturbed forest areas are sufficiently large to maintain all of their native biodiversity.

Forests comprise 45% and freshwaters comprise 9% of Canada’s area. The timber productive forestland totals almost 2.5 million square kilometers, or about one quarter of Canada’s land area.

Global Forest Watch: Canada - Index

in some provinces like Nova Scotia 77 % of the area is considered forested and that doesn't include tree cover in urban areas. altogether it could be as high as 85 %. New Brunswick it's 90 % http://www.new-brunswick.net/new-bru...gentravel.html the area of dense forests in Quebec is the size of Norway and Sweden combined. 33 MILLION HECTARES OF FOREST LAND IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORES http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages..._a_forest.aspx


tree cover in Australia is 5 % tree cover in Canada is 45 %

Canada's forests occupy 1.5 times the land area of the entire European Community (EU 300 million Canada 34 million there's a big difference in population density). "North America's forests are abundant and growing. Between them, Canada and the United States contain 15 percent (10 percent in Canada and 5 percent in the U.S.) of the Earth's forest cover" that means there are more trees in Canada than the USA. http://www.hpva.org/products/facts.aspGrmike (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmikeGrmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike

Reworded last sentence of the intro based on NB and NS. Combined they have about 80-85% forest cover but their population density is less than that of Sweden which is described as having a lot population density in its wikipedia article. NS and NB are ranked among Canada's most densely populated regions but they still pale in comparison to European countries even the low populated ones.Grmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (discussion ran 49 days). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Population of Canada by yearPopulation of Canada or Population history of Canada – This article has evolved to be not just a year list but a page discuss population growth etc... and leads to all the other Canadian population stats articles --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest Population history of Canada instead as Population of Canada implies the scope is current population. Hwy43 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow its very disappointing to see all those population articles named demographics. Population density is just a part of the demographics of a country - like ethnicity, age etc.. I would never recommend we redirect Population of.. to Demographics of... . WOW seeing that above leads me to believe there's lost of work to do out-there. Cant believe the Americans dont have an article on Population history wow just wow. -- Moxy (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, your just made reference to "an article on population history". That is exactly what this article is. Have you given any thought to what I suggested above? Hwy43 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry yes Population history of Canada would be fine with me - just saying demographic is a much broader topic then just population. -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree demographic is too broad for what is presented here. I would support the requested move if the target is formally changed to Population history of Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I understand what your saying - you think its best we merger this page with the demographics page? I see this as a stand alone topic that merits its own article as per sources Michael R. Haines; Richard H. Steckel (2000). A Population History of North America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-49666-7.  and Riley Moore Moffat (2001). Population history of cities and towns in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: 1861-1996. Scarecrow Press.  -- Moxy (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No. But I think the demographic history of Canada is a notable topic, and I think the population history is part of the demographic history. So I'd like to see this moved to that broader title to allow room for growth. Does that make sense? An article whose coverage is narrower than its scope usually needs either expansion or a narrower title; I think the former would be to the readers' benefit in this case. --BDD (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The heading - Aboriginals[edit]

Shouldn't the heading for section 1.1 read Aborigines (noun) and not Aboriginals (adjective)? Melbourne3163 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Aboriginals is often also employed to stand as a noun . "Aborigines" is a term normally used for Indigenous Australians. Also have to remember Aborigines has some derogatory associations... (Source for these POV,s - Bill Ashcroft; Gareth Griffiths; Helen Tiffin (2000). Post-colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. Psychology Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-415-24360-5. ) -- Moxy (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)