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 ~ Archive 9

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

Russia-Germans in Canada

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.

I would like to know more about Russia-Germans or German settlements in Canada! Friede sei mit Euch, Simon MAYER

You can read the German-Canadian 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. - SimonP 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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.--MarshallStack 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Article layout

According to the Wikipedia:Guide to Layout 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. heqs 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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). Rjensen 09:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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. heqs 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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. Rjensen 09:54, 18 June 2006 (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. heqs 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba bilingual?

According to our Manitoba article, the province is officially bilingual. We should fix that if it isn't true. Jkelly 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And under the Bilingualism in Canada article, only New Brunswick is. I've never heard of Manitoba being officially bilingual. Hmmm.... -- Jeff3000 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's policy rather than law. See here.

Found some info here 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. -- Jeff3000 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I'm slightly tempted to footnote that here. Manitoba's article should probably be clarified and referenced. Jkelly 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. -- Jeff3000 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bearcat made an adjustment at Manitoba. Jkelly 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The province of Manitoba was declared to be Officially Bilingual under the Manitoba Act. The case Reference re Manitoba Language Rights says that the supreme court upheld that. Although ever since the Manitoba Schools Question, 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.Royalguard11 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

References

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. -- Jeff3000 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. -- Jeff3000 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. Rjensen 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. -- Jeff3000 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. Rjensen 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. -- Jeff3000 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate and outdated on the powers of the Territories. The Yukon 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. Luigizanasi 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. -- Jeff3000 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. Jkelly 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Change of emphasis in Military section

The emphasis in the military section was changed, and I changed it back. Such a change needs discussion first. This is the new version

"In addition to major participation in the Second Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean War, Canada has maintained forces in international missions under the United Nations and NATO since 1950, including peacekeeping missions, various missions in the former Yugoslavia, and support to coalition forces in the First Gulf War. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (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 Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, after the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005 and after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia."

and this is the old version

"In addition to their peacekeeping missions, Canadian forces have served in various military actions including World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the First Gulf War. Canada has also participated in a variety of capacities in NATO operations such as in the former Yugoslavia. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (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 Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, after the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005 and after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia."

I really believe the old (and current version) is more appropriate. -- Jeff3000 00:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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.Michael Dorosh 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.Michael Dorosh 00:26, 23 June 2006 (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. -- Jeff3000 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.Michael Dorosh 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. -- Jeff3000 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.Michael Dorosh 00:34, 23 June 2006 (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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.146.208 (talk • contribs)

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 mainstream views from reliable sources. Using personal experience to inform one's editing fails our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Jkelly 01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Wikipedia, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Wikipedia as a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.28.146.208 (talk • contribs) .

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 [1] which describes the CF as a Defense oriented organization. Zertz 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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. Jkelly 03:01, 23 June 2006 (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. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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.Michael Dorosh 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Jeff3000 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So presumably that means that the whole section needs a rewrite rather than just the one paragraph. Oh dear. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that: "Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Wikipedia, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Wikipedia 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. -- Zertz 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.

That would be okay as a rewrite. Mind you, I thought that Michael Dorosh's formulation was quite acceptable too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:30, 23 June 2006 (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.Michael Dorosh 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a big fan of Michael Dorosh's paragraph. Anyone else concur?--Zertz 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, count me in. That section's been needing a tweak like this. heqs 05:15, 23 June 2006 (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. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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 :). --Q Canuck 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada Day comes early! Our home and native land! -- Samir धर्म 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd that...or 3rd =] LG-犬夜叉 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My theory is that this was chosen for today because yesterday's article was Ku Klux Klan. After something evil it's a relief to have a feel-good article on the main page. Anyway, w00t for Canada! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 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. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 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. Wikipedia made me do it. 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)~

Woo-hoo!! Vikramsidhu 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. --Q Canuck 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Canadian Citizens swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. WilyD 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The last Queen of England died in 1707 so best of luck swearing allegiance to her... -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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 --JimWae 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 1931? ... I'll try to fix it. But since it's vandal day, who knows? WilyD 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think an argument could be made that Canada was independant as of the Balfour Declaration 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 Canadian Confederation and the Canada Act 1982 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?--thirty-seven 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". -- Jeff3000 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 1867 to 1982 or something such as that? WilyD 18:38, 23 June 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.(Cabin Tom 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

I think I've fixed it now. Thanks -- Jeff3000 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Amazon Online Reader and WP:RS

GraemeL - 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, WP:RS#Finding a good source may require some effort 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. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL 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. --GraemeL ^(talk) 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 WP:EL#What should be linked to). WP:EL#Links to normally avoid, 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. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the statement in WP:RS#Finding a good source may require some effort 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff3000 (talk • contribs) .

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. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up on the WP:RS talk page, since this seems to be more of a policy question, rather than something specific to Canada. You are encouraged to share your opinion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 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? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 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? WilyD 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Occupying most of northern North America" is direct and clear—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. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 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. WilyD 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't add anything. My initial comment was unclear—it would have been much simpler to say "the phrase is wordy". Anyway, fixed now, in both places. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 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. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 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 Talk:Canada's name), 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. DJ Clayworth 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. WilyD 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. --thirty-seven 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. WilyD 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 --JimWae 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"?Michael Dorosh 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. -- Jeff3000 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! DJ Clayworth 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. --thirty-seven 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who think that 'Federal union' is redundant, see this page 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.DJ Clayworth 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. --thirty-seven 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 federation or federal state (and 'federal union' is prolixity at its finest). For naysayers, please consult the appropriate articles dominion and Canada's name: 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 sourcing to support this are, frankly, farcical. 142.150.134.50 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 Commonwealth Realm.

--thirty-seven 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 farcical. Wonderful stuff! --JimWae 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... and you've done nothing to refute the points above rationally. If you wish to be accorded respect, reciprocate. Otherwise, refrain from commenting. 142.150.134.50 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

No comment. 142.150.134.59 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 consensus 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.Sunray 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 verifiability is even more basic than that of consensus. Proposed changes and subsequent discussions are generallt rooted in false assumptions and general lack of citation. Numerous government publications indicate the country as both a federation and -- yes -- a dominion (see Canada's name). 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. 142.150.134.59 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 --JimWae 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Prior to this edit it had long been called a federation. This was not a simple copyedit. --JimWae 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is little point in the above riposte. John Q. editor strides in and makes changes based on subjective, 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 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. 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. 142.150.134.52 19:02, 25 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.--MarshallStack 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone removed it - there is already an article on the flag in any event.Michael Dorosh 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.--MarshallStack 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 Union Jack had been used to varying degrees as well as several designs of the Canadian Red Ensign. Both of these were very unpopular among French-Canadians due to their incorporation of the British flag. Finally, in 1964 the present-day Canadian Flag was adopted by the Pearson 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 Flag of Ontario; Flag of Manitoba). The Flag of British Columbia already had the Union Jack incorporated into its design. Canadian law still allows for the Union Jack (known in Canada as the Royal Union Flag) 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 Flag of Quebec. Former Quebec Premier and hardline separatist Bernard Landry stirred controversy in 2001 by calling the Canadian Flag a "red rag".[2] 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. --thirty-seven 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 - Flag of Canada. A flag is a flag, it represents us, it doesn't define us.Michael Dorosh 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 History of Canada article. -- Jeff3000 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.--MarshallStack 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

MarshallStack, 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. --thirty-seven 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. -- Jeff3000 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that MarshallStack's proposed contribution is too much for the Canada article, it is well written and would fit very well in the introduction to the Flag of Canada 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. Luigizanasi 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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? --nlitement ^[talk] 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

WilyD 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." Statistics Canada added "Canadian" as an ethnic group on the census and 39.42% of Canadians chose it as their ethnicity. (Demographics of Canada#Ethnicity) --chris 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? --nlitement ^[talk] 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, French famers weren't the first to populate the area we call Canada. Jkelly 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. Peter Grey 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 Cultural mosaic. MisterSheik 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. Peter Grey 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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? -- Jeff3000 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. Jkelly 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, seeing as the concensus for country articles Hong Kong, South Africa, 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). Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 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. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 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. --thirty-seven 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thirty-seven, so do you like the left/right arrangement better? -- Jeff3000 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the left/right varied version. --thirty-seven 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. -- Jeff3000 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. -- Jeff3000 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. Jkelly 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost every other article on Wikipedia 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. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 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. -- Jeff3000 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 --JimWae 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any other comments? -- Jeff3000 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 reference from the Government of Canada website. And here's another from the Canadian encyclopedia. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)