Talk:Canada

Notice: This overview 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., Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. Thank you.

Archives: Archive 1 ~ Archive 2 ~ Archive 3 ~ Archive 4 ~ Archive 5 ~ Archive 6 ~ Archive 7 ~ Archive 8

Discussion of Canada's official name: Canada's name ~ Official Name 1

Commas and spaces

There is no clear rule in WP:MOS and there is a clear Canadian style in this manner. Just as Canadian english is used in this article, Canadian style should be used in the article. Commas are a cause of confusion in Canada because they can also mean periods, especially for english-speaking people living in Quebec. The space involves no confusion, and is not specifically against the Manual of Style (the manual of style says "may"). I will be changing it back. -- Jeff3000 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should get a clear consensus here on this issue before you make such a change. Pourquoi? Because if you don't you will forever be changing these figures back and forth. Someone will come along and change them. Also, keep in mind that one reason that spaces are a bad idea is because they cause breaks unless you place a nonbreaking space tag in there. MJCdetroit 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it wasn't I who caused the first revert. As I was fixing the numbers I noticed the lack of Canadian style, and changed it, and it was others who reverted me. The breaks issue is valid in general, but not in the infobox which has a set width; try making the browser window narrower and the infobox will retain its width until the infobox goes well past the Wikipedia right column navigation links (user's would never make it that narrow). -- Jeff3000 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar—sure use the Canadian (British) style. However, on the numbers, I think you should be prepare for an up-hill battle. It is going to get changed...a lot. My friend who lives in Windsor said that the spacing is more of a French Canadian style than a Canadian style and sent me a link to an article in today's Windsor Star Newpaper to prove it. I don't personally like the numbers with spaces, but I won't change them—especially if a majority of the editors to this article want the figures shown with spaces and not commas.—MJCdetroit 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever consensus is. I don't feel too strongly for it, but it does remove the possibility of any confusion. -- Jeff3000 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such uniformity in Canadian style. Canadian writing in English use commas much more often than spaces.

Furthermore, it's even more confusing when you change decimal points to spaces as well, as you (Jeff3000) did in this edit, changing "$1.167 trillion" to "$1 050 trillion", just arbitrarily making it 900 times as big. Gene Nygaard 05:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What are stating Gene, that I made the mistake on purpose to increase the GDP numbers? I was moving to remove the commas, and sure I made a simple mistake, but that's it. I'm sure you've made typos as well. -- Jeff3000 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I make simple mistakes every once in a while.

But aside from misinterpreting the dot, I think you were trying to decrease the number. It probably would have been to make that change in an edit separate from one characterized as being a punctuation change. If you weren't intending any change in the number, then 1.167 trillion should be restored. Gene Nygaard 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize that even you make some mistakes. But back to the point, the number was being corrected to that which is cited by the IMF (the old number before the switch to the CIA number was not sourced, and not verifiable, and couldn't be included.) The CIA number is valid, but given that Canada was listed at number 11, that would go with the IMF numbers. Even MJCDetroit confirms that above. And as I mentioned above (please read my statement) I said that while I was changing the number to the verifiable number I noticed the difference in style and changed it. Could you assume a little good faith? -- Jeff3000 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We've got to go with commas between the thousands and periods for the decimal. This is the most common style in English Canada. If you have any doubts, pull five random Canadian books off the shelf or look at five major Canadian newspapers. As for the argument that things are done differently in French Canada, I can only respond by pointing out that this article is in English. HistoryBA 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Five articles from five different Canadian English newspapers using comma separation. They were all taken off of today's front pages and were not AP wire reprints. Here are the links: Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, St. John's The Express, Calgary herald, and The Vancouver Sun——MJCdetroit 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine change it back, like I said I'm not that for it, but I still feel it removes any ambiguity. -- Jeff3000 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Canadian style regarding numbers and it's achieved using spaces as per SI (Metric) standard, but allows for variation based on readership. Now, what's more Canadian than making sure everyone is happy ;). [1] CMacMillan 18:14 4 April 2006 (UTC)

STATS

I think it's about time to revamp all the stat's. Some are listed at 2003, when there's already 2005 info. The GDP is cleary not of 2006 etc.....--24.80.25.37 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, be bold. Andrewjuren(talk) 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples"

Without wishing to be too nitpicking 'all countries were 'originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples'. That's what aboriginal means. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Template?

Firsly, there was already a discussion of the commonwealth template (among others) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada/Archive3#Templates

Since the Commonwealth Realms template is featured on Monarchy in Canada and since the Commonwealth is featured here already on Template:Canada ties, I think it should be removed. -- TheMightyQuill 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the G8 Template. I'm going to be bold and remove them both. -- TheMightyQuill 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Right on! There are way too many possible templates that could be used in the Canada article. The purpose of the Canada ties template was to reduce the clutter in the article. Thanks for being bold, Quill. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

History

I have made efforts to consolidate the history section in my sandbox area User:Maclean25/sandbox#History. The changes include removing unnecessary sub-headings, improving the conciseness of the writing, covering broad topics w/o going into details (that should be in the sub-article), and using strategic wikilinking (to avoid going into further detail). As this is supposed to be a summary style account I limited the structure to one paragraph for each of the following:

• pre-history to European exploration (1630s),
• French/British/Indian wars/relations (1689-1763),
• American Revolution and War of 1812 (1775-1812),
• 1837 to 1867,
• 1867 confederation,
• 1867 to WWII,
• WWII to 1982,
• Quebec (1960s to 1997)

I considered everything after 2000 to be recent (ie. not history) and so should be placed in the appropriate section elsewhere in the article. There are several wikilinks that I could not figure out how to get in there. If there is any interest in working these ideas into the main article please contact me. --maclean25 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I did make some edits to it, I hope you don't mind. Maybe others might want to review it first but I think it's okay to bring it in. I especially like what you did with the Quebec soverignty issue, and , of course, mentioning the Yukon up front. ;-) Luigizanasi 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing it. The only way these things improve is with many different people reviewing it with fresh eyes. --maclean25 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now all that needs to be done is fix the actual History of Canada page(s). =) --TheMightyQuill

It looks good to me. HistoryBA 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to move the version by maclean25 into this article to get rid of the subheadings. One more step toward getting this page to Featured article status. -- Jeff3000 01:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian celebrities section

411junkie (talk • contribs) added the Canadian celebrities section. At best, I think this belongs in Portal:Canada, since this appears to be an attempt at using Canada as the "main page" for the subject of Canada and this is the entire purpose of wikipedia:Portals. Also note that the first article in the list, List of Famous Canadian Actors, is authored by the same user and so inserting the link into a prominent place here is a species of vanity. I haven't looked too hard at that article, but the miscapitalisation and redness of the user's name indicate that they're simply inexperienced in these things. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: this is too much information for an overview article that is (arguably) already loaded. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Jkelly 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper picture

Is there a reason why the Harper picture is so big? -- Jeff3000 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the thumbnail size was set to 240px. I reduced it to 125, the same as the pictures of the Queen and the G-G and it certainly seems to sit better on the page. Eron 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thumbnails usually don't specify a size. The size of thumbnails is controlled through each user's preference settings. When specifying a size like 125px or 240px in the code you override the preference feature. See Wikipedia:Images#Image preferences. --maclean25 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this one already had a size specified. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Referendums or Referenda?

Which version of the plural of referendum should we use in this article? (I started this discussion previously, but it is now archived.)

I recognize that both versions are acceptable in English. My preference is for referendums, because, as the referendum article states, the OED considers referendums to be preferable. I realize that this is not a big deal for this article, but I would like to settle this through discussion and consensus. Replies like "both versions are acceptable, so we must use 'referenda'" are unsatisfactory.

It is possible there are overlooked and uncorrected spelling errors in the above paragraph. Please do not dismiss my entire point if you find any. --thirty-seven 06:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As before and above, I believe either form is acceptable ... and particularly in this situation. Dictionaries generally do not make the distinction above, even my single-volume New Oxford Dictionary of English. The two referenda, the first in 1980 and the other in 1995, concerned different and arguably complex issues (entailing 'sovereignty-association' and 'sovereignty', respectively) and posed different questions. I can be compelled otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that point, that the two questions (1980 and 1995) were significantly different. However, it is clear (to me) that the sentence under discussion is specifically referring to the fact that there were two "popular votes" or plebiscites, and not to the fact that there were two different questions. --thirty-seven 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

They were completely different questions and, arguably, different issues with different proposals. And what's good for the goose may not be for the gander: to me, all of the nuances above may be relevant. Each referendum entailed multiple issues and (also) uncertainties with what was meant by the term 'sovereignty'. Otherwise, I defer to prior comments but can be compelled otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't worth discussing. If you want to change it, thirty-seven, then change it. I for one don't care which you choose. I do care that people are wasting time discussing it though, because it won't make the article one whit better or worse whichever form is eventually chosen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Here here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for referenda. President Lethe 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I solicited for opinions, and I got them. One for referenda and two I don't cares. I'm content to leave it as referenda in this article. --thirty-seven 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of God Save the Queen

The Royal Anthem was replaced by the Canadian National Anthem. Probably it was still used in some schools intitially afterwards, but today there is virtually no one who sings the Royal Anthem, so a star or note should be put underneath saying that it is not practicised in public institutions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.162.140 (talk • contribs) .

According to Canadian Heritage "God Save The Queen has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors." [2] It is used on public occasions as part of the protocol for musical salutes to the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, and the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. [3] Eron 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I attended a Duke of Edinburgh Award ceremony in Calgary during 2003 at which the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta was present. God Save The Queen was certainly played at that ceremony, so unless things have changed in the last three years, I would suggest that the Royal Anthem is still alive and well in appropriate Canadian situations. In most situations of course the National Anthem is more appropriate than the Royal Anthem and so it is the anthem which is played. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced images

The images of the canadarm and montreal biosphere seem out of place.. should they be removed? this article has quite a few pictures as it is. Mlm42 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the other day. Unless someone wants to write a subsection called "Canada's Space Program" I don't see why the article should have a photo of the Canadarm. -- TheMightyQuill 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the biosphere picture seems out-of-place. I would prefer it replaced with a more "standard" photo of the city of Montreal. However, I think the Canadarm photo should remain, although it could be moved to a section talking about science, technology, or industry. --thirty-seven 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these two photos (although I wanted to keep the Canadarm, I couldn't fit the image into the article nicely anywhere). I added another Montreal photo into the Language section. --thirty-seven 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada Article Featured?

I think that this article should be featured. The League of Crazy Men 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

British defeat at Yorktown in 1781

This subsection should be renamed and simplified. Since our goal is a very brief overview of the most important aspects of Canadian history, I think the focus on direct Canadian involvement should be removed. Although this is an interesting and important aspect of Canadian history that was previously unknown to me, I don't think it belongs in this article. Rather, this section should be pared down to focus on the most important effects of the American Revolution on Canada: namely the United Empire Loyalists and their impact on Canada. I have made these changes to the article. --thirty-seven 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the subsection completely (I opposed this before), and use Maclean25's suggestion at User:Maclean25/sandbox#History. This would be one step further toward applying for featured article status. -- Jeff3000 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose the use of Maclean25's suggestion. If no one does, I'll go ahead and put it up in a day or so. -- Jeff3000 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed in principal. I took at look at Maclean25's suggestion, and I think it could use some minor tweaks - but nothing that couldn't be done after it is integrated into this article. --thirty-seven 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made the change. If you are very much against it, please go ahead and revert my change, otherwise, let's work on improving this version. -- Jeff3000 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The misconception that Canada was build by a victory over the French deserve to be explain.

The Defeat of the British is not unimportant to understand why pro-queen live in Canada and not in the US, only 2000 english came in Québec from 1759 to 1783, as oppose to 50 000 that came suddently because French had defeated the English at Yorktown...You cannot for ever hide a tsunami like this. In 150 years their was 60 000 quebecker in 1759. Suddently the Defeat of the British over the French at Yorktown (they were more numerous then the american) resulted in the same number of people comming suddently in Canada...how can you hide this fact ? Would you not talk about the hollocaust because you don't like it ?

Before their defeat the British didn't care about canada that much. After it they cared a lot. Simcoe was defeated at Yorktown that's why he made Toronto in 1783. That is also Yorktown that created Ontario ! You cannot hide this.

Yorktown 1781 is the foundation and arrival of the British defeated in Canada, it's call reality and you cannot change reality because you don't like it. How do you hide this fact that suddently 50 000 people suddently move and you don't tell why ?

I understand that this is news for you but it none the less the thruth. And people deserve to know this.

The so-call american revolution amputated all former new france territory south of the great lake area ! This is not un-important to know that it's the British defeat that lost New France Territory in the US, not Quebec 1759.

And a full regiment of Quebecker were at Yorktown it's not what can be described as neutral And a son of a quebecker was in the Navy battle in front of Yorktown. Louis-Philippe de Vaudreuil you can check all this in google.com if you dont beleive me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.115.66 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, the defeat of the British in the American Revolution, and the subsequent mass-migration of Loyalists and other English-speakers to Canada, hugely transformed Canada. It is probably the most significant event in Canadian history since the founding of New France, in my opinion. My earlier point was that, since this article can only give the briefest overview of all of Canadian history, we cannot afford to mention that Quebeckers were involved in the American Revolution. This should be explained in the full Canadian History articles, and the article about the American Revolution, but not here. Here we should stick to the most significant facts: British Loyalists settled in Canada following the American Revolution, and it had a large impact on Canada. I think your point about Britain's big shift of focus and emphasis to their Canadian colonies following the American Revolution is a very good one, and deserves mention in a sentence in the History section of this article.

To sum up:

• We should focus on the impact on Canada of the British defeat
• We should not focus on how the British were defeated

--thirty-seven 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have some verifiable and reliable sources for these points of view (not your own views) then go ahead and add them to the History of Canada page. The history section in this page is currently being shrunk to meet Featured article status. -- Jeff3000 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image suggestion

i suggest to put this picture :

Moraine Lake by Lake Louise Alberta Canada.jpg

thank you....took from the deuth version of canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.166.50 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which image you are referring too, but it may be Image:Moraine_Lake_17092005.jpg or Image:Morraine lake.jpg, both of which are quite stunning and free of copyright. -- Jeff3000 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moraine_Lake_by_Lake_Louise_Alberta_Canada.jpg presumably this is the one. heqs 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost a featured article?

I think we are almost there. What I think we still need to do:

1. Possibly get rid of the sections in the Politics sections. The Country Wikiproject recommends a summary style with no subsections.
2. Find references for the two remaining sections that are missing references (Language and Foreign Relations) see Canada/References.

What does anyone think about how to deal with the subsections in the politics section, and does anyone have references for the language and military sections? -- Jeff3000 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've some way to go still:

• I'm unsure how to restructure the politics section moreso than currently; the section headers can be removed but I do not believe the content within them can be pruned substantially without loss of information. Similarly, though I commend efforts that have significantly reduced the article's size, I believe the article can stand for more economising (e.g., a tad too top heavy on pre-1867 history; move climate details to subarticle (not prescribed in wikiproject), as well as for foreign relations, sports, and national symbols (move to dedicated subarticle?);
• I haven't forgotten about references for the two sections above, but I've been admittedly tardy and on a wikibreak of sorts ... give me a few days. And then I think we must, at least for some details, provide in-line citations/references. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree that the history section can still be shortened
• I also don't think the politics section should be shortened, just maybe remove the subsection headings
• Agree that we need more use of In-line references. Specifically, all relatively recent events should have an in-line reference (newer than 2000); also any time a specific number is quoted (temperature, percentage, etc)
• Climate should stay in the Geography section. From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries "Geography - Quick description of the country's main features, climate", so there should be a description of climate, especially given the stereotype of Canada as a cold weather country.

Remember: I'm all for pruning and not necesarily obliterating. Anything that is not prescribed can be pruned and definitely moved: if it needs to stay, one paragraph (at most) regarding climate is sufficient. And it's not necessarily a stereotype: the country, given its location and size, covers numerous climate zones ... including ones I'mnot as receptive to. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• While Foreign Relation, sports and National Symbols are not in the Country wikiproject, other featured countries have them in some sort or other:

• For Foreign Relations/Military see Australia, South Africa, India (in politics), Pakistan (in politics). We may be able to shorten it here, but given that the politics section is already so long, we should leave it as it's own section, and in that regards no use really shortening it.

Agreed; of the sections noted, this is the one that I'm most reluctant to touch, given the importance of multlateralism in Cdn. foreign affairs, et al. I believe it can be pruned, e.g., of particularly atomic historical/battle details. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• For sports Australia, India and Pakistan have a paragraph on sports in the Culture section. We could shorten the current section and do the same

Definitely as above: TMI for an overview article. Shorten. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• For National Symbols, India has a table. I wouldn't mind getting rid of this section, but I do really like the image. -- Jeff3000 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely as above: I'm all for expatiation of this and that, but there should be subarticles for relevant content – two/three paragraphs tops. And I think a better image can be had (e.g., maple tree with leaves; even a Toronto Maple Leafs image, which would kill part of the above too ;)). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

So I've moved the National Symbols section to National symbols of Canada and merged a considerably shortened Sports section into the Culture section. Suggestions still on the table:

• Shorten military section, prune of particularly atomic historical/battle details
• Suggestions on Politics sections
• Shorten History section, particulary pre-1867
• Find in-line references for numbers and recent events. -- Jeff3000 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I shortened and revised the History section. Dropped minor points and added new information Rjensen 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally an improvement, but was removing the October Crisis and adding a redlinked Manitoba Schools Question a good idea? -- TheMightyQuill 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah, my own comment just demonstrated it was only a typo, not an major mistake. I'll fix it. -- TheMightyQuill 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples"

Isn't this redundant?

Honorific Titles

On the Canada page how come the use of "The Right Honourable" is used for John A Macdonald but not for the Prime minister? Also Her Majesty and Her Excellency have been taken off. I think the proper titles should be used therefore I’m going to add them back on. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:44, 8 May 2006 {UTC}

It shouldn't be used for Macdonald. Honourifics aren't used - see Michaëlle Jean, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Stephen Harper, and any other page on a monarch or occupant of a political office. As stated in hidden text at the top of Elizabeth II's article: "A discussion on Wikipedia produced an overwhelming consensus to end the 'style wars' by replacing styles at the start by a style infobox later in the text." Obviously a style infobox isn't needed on the Canada page, but on the pages dedicated to each individual. --gbambino 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Compared to Australia

I compared the length of certain sections with that of Austrlia, and this is what I got (++ means much longer, + means slightly longer, +/- about the same, - slightly shorter, -- much shorter):

Intro: +

Origin of the name: --

History: +/- (it's a good sign)

Politics: ++

Foreign Relations: +

Geography and Climate: - (Australia has a Fauna section which I'm including as part of this)

Economy: + (from -- before my edit) This could be shortened, but I wanted it to surpass the image height at a reasonable display resolution)

Demographics: +

Culture: --

This kind of tells us where we have to work on. Culture could be expanded, the Origin of the Name can be expanded (it kind of seems like a stub right now), and poltics could be shortened. -- Jeff3000 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat: while I also tend to compare this article -- and polity -- with that of Terra Australis, I believe we've charted an appropriate course of action in sxns above. Remember that everything isn't equal: for instance,

• the name origin sxn in the Australia article is longer than it is here partially because there is no dedicated subarticle: if you took a look at Canada's name, you'd realise it's anything but a stub (too top-heavy, but necessarily, regarding notions/usage of Dominion). :)
• the geography section is somewhat different for Australia due to the fact -- and ambiguity -- of it being a country, continent (in more ways than one: Australasia, Oceania), or unique ecozone ... all of which are somewhat dissimilar. Details in subarticles: this article no more requires a fauna sxn as much as it requires a flora sxn.
• I think we've been somewhat succinct regarding culture ... which is fine, because there's a dedicated subarticle (that should be enhanced) for that. :)

Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The culture section used to mention that many Canadian cultural products (movies, music) were succesful outside Canada. heqs 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall: I'm sure this can somehow be slid into the current article, perhaps briefly starting the 2nd paragraph? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are different in many respects, I was just doing the comparison to see if we are in the ballpark, and except for politics, I think we are :) -- Jeff3000 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Great; I concur. Onward ...E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention Canadian literature. heqs 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History section revert

Would anyone be against me reverting this edit in the history section. I think that info doesn't need to be there. -- Jeff3000 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support you doing so. The population growth and Prime Minister party-affiliation information seems unnecessary. The mention of the UN is important, but it is already discussed in the Foreign Relations/Military section. --thirty-seven 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

done, -- Jeff3000 18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The history section is thin on social history so the population information should stay and indeed be augmented. International readers do not know the party affiliations very well so that should stay. Rjensen 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the statistics on population growth, immigration rates, unemployment rates, etc are the sort of thing that are far too detailed for this article. Yes, international readers (and indeed, some Canadian ones) do not know party-affiliations of Prime Ministers, but that information should not be included in this article unless it is relevant. If a reader wants to know more about, say, Wilfred Laurier or his party affiliation, they can click on the wiki-link. I do like the sentence that Rjensen added about the CCF vs New Deal during the Depression. --thirty-seven 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with thirty-seven. Country articles in Wikipedia are in the summary style, they are not supposed to be an all-encompassing statement of fact. In particular they should link to main articles as is done. Note the Australia article which has reached featured article status. The history section is already too long. I will be shortening much of the info, which anyways best fits in other sections (such has economics, demographics, etc). -- Jeff3000 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Inline references

I think for the most part E Pluribus Anthony's comments about what we are missing before we try to become featured are covered except for the length of the Politics section, and the inline references. I was thinking that I could go through and put the tag whereever I thought we need an inline citation and hopefully together we could get rid of most of them. The problem with this scheme is that for a week or so the page will look sloppy due to the many tags throughout. But I think this is simplier than listing all the places were we need inline statements in the talk page. Thoughts? -- Jeff3000 05:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment on this before I go ahead adding a whole bunch of tags. -- Jeff3000 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please go ahead. A ton of tags will look ugly for a while, but should spur people to put in proper references for this article. --thirty-seven 06:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've started the process by putting in the tags (usually at the end of the sentence where a fact is needed). I'll try to find sources for some of the statements, but help would not only be appreciated but needed. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Down to 12 references to be found. Hopefully we can get one done in a day. -- Jeff3000 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the United Empire Loyalist statement. So by your count, that should be 11 to go. --thirty-seven 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

please do not use tertiary sources for references. Not up to Wiki standards (the staff writers are not specialists in Canada). Much better is The Canadian Encyclopedia. Rjensen 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reference is better than none, so I'll revert the deletion of the reference. Please find a better one if you have one. -- Jeff3000 12:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: In this sentence:

Canadians worried about their cultural autonomy as American TV shows, movies and corporations became omnipresent, even taking over Molson beer in 2005.

is the citation needed tag regarding the assertion that Canadians worried about their cultural autonomy; that American TV shows, etc became omnipresent; or that Molson beer merged with an American company in 2005? --thirty-seven 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part of the sentence, the worrying about the cultural autonomy, needs a reference. -- Jeff3000 12:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Military references

Rjensen has added some military references to Canada/References which I'm greatful for, but I believe for the content on this page there are too many references. In the past there was too many references on Sports and it was cut down. They are not supposed to be all-encompassing. I've also reverted the addition of those references as Further reading in this article. A further reading section is amalgamated with references when there is a Notes section, as discussed already in Talk:Canada/Archive8#More reference talk and WP:CITE. Also given the short section on the Military in this page, the amount of Further reading he added was much too long. They should go in the appropriate main article. -- Jeff3000 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Govener General

This article seems to put the govener general above the prime minster. The govener general is just a formalade in Canada and holds no real power. She gets paid to go out wave her hand to a few people, and goes on living in her mansion.Just wanted to clear that up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) .

Most peacekeeping missions

I've been trying to find a reference that states that Canada has participated in the most peackeeping missions, and I haven't found one yet. There are some references that state that Canada has provided the most number of personnel in peacekeeping missions (see [4])

There also a statement in the Military History of Canada article stating "Canada participated in every UN peacekeeping effort from when they began until 1989, and has since then continued to play a major role." and attributes that to Desmond Morton's, A Military History of Canada. I can't make the leap from that statement to the fact that Canada has participated in the most peacekeeping missions (especially that recently, we haven't been participating that much at all).

Does anyone have a reference or have Morton's book to check it out for a more direct statement?. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This article [5] states more than 50 peacekeeping missions but doesn't connect that to more than any other country. -- Jeff3000 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Government Type in infobox

This is currently listed as Federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. I think this might be too much information for the infobox. Based on a small sampling, it seems like a significant majority of the articles on other Commonwealth Realms simply say "Constitutional Monarchy". This is also true for most other European monarchies that I looked at, and Japan. Likewise, most articles for democratic republics say "Federal Republic" (USA, Germany, India), "Unitary Republic" (France), or just "Republic" (Italy). Portugal does say "Parliamentary Democracy".

I am in favour of shortening the description in the infobox to Federal constitutional monarchy.

This new phrase sounds good to me. -- Jeff3000 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As above, I've nixed the abbreviation 'const.' (which is rather cryptic) and replaced it with the spell-out 'constitutional': if we are concerned about the width of text in the infobox (which isn't problematic on my monitor), we should be focusing on other entries instead or resizing the entire box and text in it. Similarly, I've also reduced the font size of this line: it is now no longer (actually, only slightly) than a number of others below in the infobox. A the 0th | talk | 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Party

I have deleted an awkward clause in the Government section that says that the COnservative Party "has formed governments in the past, as did its predecessor paries...." The modern Conservative Party is a new political party that was formed after the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party dissolved themselves. It is not the legal contiuation of either party. The PC Party wentr through several name changes during its long history, including Liberal-Conservative Party, Conservative Party, Unionist Party, and so on. But that party was dissolved in 2003. The sentence could have been re-worked to make reference to the modern COnservative Party's predecessors, but is it needed here? The section is about the current government, not about the history of Canada's government. I think the article is better off without this. Ground Zero | t 14:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, glad you took it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Government: Unionist Party

A single-term 'Unionist' Party of Robert Borden was formed as a union of Conservatives and conscription-supporting Liberals during World War I.

While this is interesting, is it really relevant to the main Canada page, rather than Politics of Canada or History of Canada? -- TheMightyQuill 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Quite right. It is too much detail for an overview article. Ground Zero | t 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, take it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My Revert

Sorry I deleted a perfectly good copyedit... That was simply an editing conflict. ^iggy_talk 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

More Photos?

I think we need more images: One in the Foreign Relations & Military section, and one in the Economy section. I haven't yet been able to find anything that is suitable, and also bright and clear (to match with the other good photos in this article). --thirty-seven 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the page has enough photos. The extra photos will not fit in the sections, and will make them instead overlow to the next section. We already have one more photo than the Austrlia article. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. There are more than enough pictures on this page. More might overwhelm the text. Incidentally, though, I like the picture under economy... I've never got a chance to see the new $50 or $100 :-). ^iggy_talk 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Jeff3000. A the 0th | talk | 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)