Talk:Culture of Canada/Archive 1

American Bias

I am deleting the part of the opening paragraph that centers around the US for these reasons:

1. There are no cite notes.

2. It claims 'that Canadian culture is simply the northern progression of American culture' which is most certainly wrong (see Quebec: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec )

3. It also wrongly states that '90% of Canada's population is within a few miles of the American border'. The correct statement is that 90% of Canada's population leaves within 160 km (100 mi) of the Border 90 percent of the Canadian population is located within 160 kilometers (100 miles)(please see http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/Canada.html )

I am unsure who wrote that section however judging by the use of 'miles' on can be rest assured that it was written by an American who has most likely never set a foot on Canadian soil.

For those who wish to read it here it is:

It has also been strongly influenced by that of its linguistic, economic, and cultural neighbour, the United States.While there are some things considered "exclusive" to Canadian culture, most if not all of these things can be found in areas of the northern United States. The most accurate way to define Candadian culture, is, in reality, simply the natural progressive transition in culture as one travels north when on the continent of North America, and especially when in the United States or Canada. Canadian culture, is, in essence, a type of American culture; simply the most geographically northerly located of such, just like any other part of the United States is a version of American culture. This also does not mean that Canada is one homogeneous culture, but that Canadian culture is simply the northern progression of American culture wherever a particular Canadian population resides along the United States border, (90% of Canadas population lives within a few miles of the United States border) and that Canadian culture is really just the same as the American culture that borders it, with exceptions depending on geographical differences that are likely to have a slight effect on culture in those populated areas that are further from the US border than others. Because Canada has traditionally been under the power of Britian during a long period of time when the United States was independent, there are some things that remain more exclusive to Canada; they are, however, next to irrelevent when one compares the daily cultural lives of a Canadian or American.

Regards,

JackRendar (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

I just bet that this was written by a canadian

I just bet that this was written by a canadian. It starts with a self-deprecating joke. I'm also going to say urban; but, hipness runs from sea to sea to sea cause of the CBC ;-}. Good article so far but I am immediately thinking of the millions of Ukrainians and others brought to the country under Clifford Sifton's direction. This article needs to be several pages long Two 16

Even if it's only dealing with artistic culture (which is how the author is interpreting it) then it needs to be about five times the size. Let's put the Ukranians in a separate article (Dhoukabours?). Even so, will somebody who knows something about it please, please, write and article on the Canadian Stage. I know its good, I know its out there, but I know nowhere near enough to write on it. Especially what's going on outside Ontario. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

strike avril from the list of famous artists, please. I do not think she is famous, just you wait. Give her one more year and then she will be gone.

I'd like to see a verification of this change; also, a reference to the original Ralston Saul source would be helpful to add. --bleh fu talk fu 15:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

One matter of contention in the effort to study Canadian culture rests in the fact of Canada's bilingualism; there is little reason to question the distinct identity of the English- and French-speaking peoples of Canada. However, John Ralston Saul conjectures that Gabrielle Roy is better known in anglophone (???) Canada than in France, and more French-Canadians than anglophones know of Margaret Laurence and Atom Egoyan.

Suggest merge from Canadian identity

These two articles seem to be about the same thing. The title of this one seems to be the most accurate. It seems, to me at least, a lot in the Canadian identity article is by nature POV--reading more like one person's essay (or a collective's essay) on "What it is to be Canadian." where quite a few values-based assumptions have entered into it as a sort of "weasel word" kind of bias (see the "Multiculturalism" section for instance). Maybe merging here will weed that out and we can have an encyclopedic article on Canadian culture.--Ben 01:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and history are connected, but I like the format as is, where Canadian identity is separate from Canadian culture. Culture gives someone an identity, so examinimg culture on the Canadian culture page with a link to Canadian identity seems like the way to go.

I tend to agree that they should be separate articles, however, the Canadian identity article is in need of cleanup. I've added a tag to that effect and begun working on improving the "Canadian identity" article. Sunray 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Picture

There has to be something better than the man-in-a-snowman-suit picture to lead the article with. I'll be looking for pictures that better summarize Canadian culture. Lithoderm (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, Regional Cultures, and Freedom from Culture

The article currently reads like Bumpf from the culture/heritage ministry about what we're supposed to be, plus the obligatory list of artists. Discussions of regional cultural differences and distinctivenesses are noticeably absent. Have we been so fully homogenized that any mention of the cultures that have been submerged into Greater Toronto's don't even deserve historical mention?Skookum1 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful: Wikipedia:Canada collaboration. Mind matrix 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing industry with culture

It's not clear to me why the X-Files, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, and The Outer Limits are mentioned in this article. Those are notable products of Canadian business and industry, not Canadian culture. --Ds13 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equally confusing is why 80% of the article is geared towards TV and movie actors and comedians that have "made it" in the US. If we need to struggle to write an article beyond the trivial, it's probably non-existent. Actors do not represent a Canadian culture but rather an ability to entertain. Most listed are more about American culture than Canadian culture. By the way, the entertainment industry is not the only indication of a people's culture (I hope!!). Where is literature, art, music, social values, religion, political values, etc.? Where is Emily Carr, Arthur Erickson, Trembley, Suzuki, Group of Seven, the Friendly Giant, Chez Helene? Finally, this article is mostly about English Canada- where's French Canada? THere is much more to Canadian Culture (or Cultures) than what we can offer across the border. 207.6.233.239 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased/incomplete lead

The initial paragraphs of this article show several glaring points of error, omission, and bias, specifically:

ignoring British influence (!)
overstating "Celtic" influence (might be big in the Maritimes, but the Orangemen kept Irish influences out of Toronto until recently)
identifying major cultural factors as "points of contention"
ignoring geography and climate influences, and urban/wilderness contrast
not mentioning anti-Americanism as a driving force in some cultural areas
not mentioning pacifism/anti-imperialism
political influences (government policy)

It seems like the article is responding to an unstated assumption that there's no such thing as Canadian culture. That is a peculiar (and non-neutral) POV. The opening paragraphs require a massive rewrite to be more complete, accurate, relevant, and impartial. The introduction should be an executive summary of the rest of the article. (This is not a request for someone else to do work, this is a request for comments before I start hacking away at bad prose.)Avt tor 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more about your points, but just in quick-passing the second one struck me as very offbase: the Orangemen were inherently Celtic; Protestant Celt, that is; it was Catholics they were keeping out; Anglo-Irish were the founders of the organization, plus Scots Presbyterians and CoE (or, I think, in Scotland, CoS). Out here in BC the UEL/Orange thing was less pronounced until maybe the 20th Century, but the heavy Celtic flavour of the early province was dominantly Scots, including the Anglo-Irish Protestants (among the elites, that is), a smattering of American-Irish Catholics (left over from the gold rush), and a large contingent of Welsh and Cornish...and I'm not speaking of only the gold rush and pre-railway period, but of the post-railway: until the Great War, it was often observed that Vancouver, in sight and sound, bore a striking resemblance to Glasgow, as Scots were so numerous (the city has had iron-grillwork of the same kind favoured in Scotland, until it was all melted down for bullets for the war). And since then the presence of both labour and elite elements from Scotland and Wales is notable, as well as further waves of Anglo-Irish and Catholic Irish as well...there's also an argument to be made that Metis culture is more than a bit Celtic in ethnic origin as well as in culture.Skookum1 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture is not racial or genetic, it is learned behavior, and in the Centre of the Universe, which of course influenced the rest of Canada, the Loyal Orange Order that ran the town for two centuries explicitly promoted a British version of Canada. I attended Toronto's first St. Patrick's Day parade in the early '80s. Point is that while Celtic immigrants very strongly influenced certain regions of Canada, these influences were almost all regional and not national. Truly my intent is not to be exclusive; I was merely questioning comment about highlighting one source of influence and ignoring several other comparable ones; you can't discuss the Prairies without talking about Ukrainians and you can't talk about BC or Toronto without mentioning the Chinese, if one gets down to regional influences. I'm not sure the lead requires a lot of detail about regional subcultures. The reason the lead requires a rewrite is not so much the specifics as the overall apologetic tone of the introductory section.

You also can't discuss BC without also discussing the British - the multiple flavours of British, and the different layers (fur trade colonial, railway, ex-American, colonial, remittance/gentry, labourite and more - all different historical eras/types); or for that matter the Scandinavians and Germans (likewise the Prairies). BC's history is all too typically presented as having more to do with the Chinese legacy, or the anti-Chinese legacy, but there's a lot more to it than that. It's not reflected in contemporary curriculum, particularly post-secondary curriculum, except in a negative light. But the special nature of the British flavour of British Columbia is unique within Canada, and still a defining element; and the Chinese presence from colonial times onwards is an expression of the British imperial links, likewise the early Australian presence and others such as the South Asians, Kenyans and so on; the Chinese presence in Toronto does not have the same roots, nor as much influence on the common culture of that city as it has had in BC (even in the smallest towns!). As already alluded to re the Prairies, the Ukrainians are only the most visible element; the Scandinavians and Germans (other than Mennonites and Hutterites) wilfully assimlated; not as British, but as Canadians. You may want to read my posts on a recent forum at http://thetyee.ca, a political webzine from BC: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/11/28/Quebec/ (use "Find on this page" under Edit, if your on a PC, and search for my username). Focussing on only two ethnic groups in western Canada (note the small-w, as there is no one "Western Canada" just as there is no single "English Canada") does a disservice to all the other ethnic groups, "white" or "coloured", whose mark can be seen and felt in the societies of the Prairie Provinces, and (separately) of BC and of the remaining territories. The Prairies aren't only about the Ukrainians; BC isn't only about the Chinese; in addition to the Germans and Scandinavians there's also other "invisible minorities", variously the Dutch, Yugoslavs, Poles, Finns, Hungarians and especially Italians (unlke Toronto, as with the Chinese, BC's Italian population is historic rather than recent in origin). There are also important Hawaiian and West Indian legacies here, as well as freed-black (including the first governor's mother...); much more submerged but still part of the milieu. The nature of cultures in the westenr provinces is about the emergence of a collective, but diverse, English-speaking society very different from that of Upper Canada or the Maritime/Atlantic, despite in-migrants from those areas being numerous, particularly in recent decades). Skookum1 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in BC there's the important cultural/social distinctions between the Lower Mainland, the Island and the Interior; with certain towns and the regions having important ethnic components - Hungarians in Prince Rupert, Doukhobbours in the West Kootenay, expat Americans throughout (with the new wave of draft-dodgers focussed in the West Kootenay, and in Vancouver), Italians in Revelstoke and Trail, Germans in the Okanagan and South Cariboo, South Asians throughout, and more (the Chinese in the 19th Century, and up to the '20s and '30s, were present in large numbers throughout the Interior, with some towns dominantly Chinese until - like so many BC boomtowns - they were abandoned). I'm not meaning this in terms of ethnicity or race, but in terms of the influence these various identities had on the life and mentality (the culture) of the towns/regions they helped form. The much more pervasive culture and population of the First Nations is also more strongly felt in BC than in Ontario or Quebec or elsewhere, with many important towns having distinct First Nations flavours (I won't start a list as it's very long); and the manufactured identity (government/tourism culture) of the place focusses on that a great deal, and nearly all of us who have grown up here identify with the imagery of totem poles as being part of where we're from. Traditions from different peoples mingled along with their families, a common identity developed that wasn't British or white or anything else; it included everyone; there is no Chinese vs everyone dichotomy, not until lately anyway.Skookum1 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Irish vs Celtic thing, Orange culture is an outgrowth - perhaps a contrary one - of Celtic realities; it is inherently Celtic. It's true that the Loyal Orange advance(d) British culture; but their sense of "British" includes Protestant and CoE English, and the "British" throne is seen (by them, perhaps) as also including the former realms of Ireland ("former" because the other three ancient kingdoms of Ireland are a republic now). And, as already described, the Celtic (read Scottish) influence in Western Canada is inescapable, in any period (Gaelic was as often heard in the goldfields as Canadian-style English, and also in Vancouver pre-Great War; it's also mentioned as having contributed words to local varieties of the Chinook Jargon, BC's early lingua franca, but none are recorded in the lexicons, which focus on the Columbia River version of "lalang"). As with the Metis there's also a notable Celtic strain in Quebec, not just because of the emigre Catholic Irish there and Quebeckers' own taste in Celtic-style dance music, but because of the Breton foundation of Quebec society, so clearly heard in its accent, which resembles Brettonais a great deal, and for good reason).Skookum1 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you have enough material to create a subordinate article about multicultural or immigrant influences on Canadian culture. I think you're basically agreeing with my point that many different immigrant communities influenced the culture of various regions, so it would be odd to single one out. British and French influences are overall more relevant historically, because the colonial powers could use government institutions to distribute their cultural models. Avt tor 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will prepare a draft before replacing this section. I'll post a link here to a user page, for comments, for a few days before I paste it over the existing text. Avt tor 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My draft replacement for the lead of this article is at User:Avt_tor/draft/Culture_of_Canada. It includes references. This is not intended to delete or replace the sections of the existing article; I only intend to replace the lead. Comments welcome. It is a major rewrite and I would prefer not to waste time with a bunch of reverts. Avt tor 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Idol

Why is there a picture of Canadian Idol suggesting American Influence. This program is British and surely shows the neo-colonial influence that the brits still maintain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.134.187.50 (talk • contribs) 16:26, February 8, 2007 (UTC).

Even though the American show was based on a British show, the Canadian one was based on the American one. If we can find a good image that doesn't have the British connection, we'll replace it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's utter rubbish. The original British version influenced both the American and Canadian version therefore showing British influence over both.86.136.2.66 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey?!?

A page about Canadian culture has only one reference to hockey (and in parentheses in a section called "American influence", no less!)??!? This is absolutely insane and needs to be fixed ASAP. Hockey deserves its own subheading in this article, for pete's sake. The Chief 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do you know much about how hockey relates to Canadian culture? If so, you should write a section on it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Hockey is, arguably, Canada's most successful cultural export and is a major part of modern Canada's cultural landscape. One only has to look at how much top players are paid to see how popular it is. If someone wanted to know about modern Canadian culture and only read this, they would only get about half the picture. In fact winter sports in general probably deserves its own section due to the popularity of activities like skiing and snowboarding.--Chrisofadelaide (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And hockey comes from Quebec, and some parts of Canada. So I don't think it has been influenced by Americans... Jimmy Lavoie^talk 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great artist....

In the cinema part, where they say that Bruce Wullis was in Montreal, we should add Heath ledger, Richard Gere, Brad pitt, KAte blanchette, plus this summer Tom Cruise. Movies like '300' and 'sin city' were editated in Québec also.

Edits to this page

I have read this article several times and the more I read it, the more unsatisfied I become. First of all, as a Canadian, and someone who live in the midst of Canadian culture, I find it very offputting how so much of this article constantly refers to the U.S. As mentioned above, why is the Canadian Idol picture put up, with the caption talking about how this is an example of American influnce? The article began by mentioning American culture. I am in no way a hard-core Canadian nationalist, and it is obvious to anyone living in Canada that American culture does weigh heavily on our own, but for God's sake, must we constantly describe our own culture by referencing American culture? This article stated very early on that Canada's culture is influenced by the U.S., and went on mentioning it over and over. Should people go into the articles on British culture, French culture, Mexican culture, and the culture of most countries for that matter, and add in statements on how much they are influenced by U.S. culture? The British listen to just as much American music as we do; the French are just as mad about American fast food as we can be, but what is the point? Should we go on and on about how Australians have become more "americanized"? The point of articles such as this one are to inform people about the culture of a nation, not to present a biased opinion on what or who has influenced it. Our culture has British, French, Aboriginal, Immigrant and American influence. Let's state it, and move on.

Picture of Bonhomme Carnaval

I don't think Bonhomme Carnaval should be the first picture to show Canadian culture. First of all, it only applies to the French province of Quebec. Secondly, people from Quebec don't consider it a major aspect of their cultural identity. Aikaterinē 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest as an alternative? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music section

The music section has this one paragraph that's now a sprawling list of bands and solo artists. It's unsightly and unnecessary (there's tons of list of musicians articles for this). It needs to be gutted, so before that's done, what should be kept (say half a dozen entries) should be discussed.--Boffob (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to write the same thing. It's got way out of hand. I would suggest ten entires from a variety of genres, and a strict limit that no more be added. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've changed my mind. Articles on other countries don't seem to have such a list, and I'm not sure how we can whittle it down without a big fight. I suggest we remove the entire list and just provide a link to List of Canadian musicians and List of Canadian bands. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last chance to disagree with me before I implement this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list as it is now has to go. It would be nice if we could replace it with a couple iconic groups, but I doubt that's possible without a fight. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it too. I notice that the Culture of England list is building up. It's still much smaller than this so far, but growing steadily. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I should point out that the list has been pruned several times before, and over a period of a few months, readers that happen upon this article add their favourite band. So long as we continue to retain this as a simple list, this will continue to happen. Either the whole list should be deleted, or we expand the section to describe the influence of each band (with citations) on Canadian cultural development, or as an important factor in Canada's cultural identity. I prefer the latter, but since I have no intention of making such edits to this article, I won't impose my view here and instead offer it as a suggestion. Mind matrix 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes a lot of sense to say that any band added has to have a good reference saying how the group relates to Canadian Culture. Groups like Tragically Hip or some notable francophone bands might have that, but random pop singers would not. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital media section

I'm a bit afraid this may turn the video game crowds, but it looks to me that with Ubisoft Montreal and Bioware's games (not to mention not as widely known, but just as good studios) conquering the world, should we have a section mildely named "Digital media" to cover items like this? --Cyberodin 11:06, July 1, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something similar just today, so I went and added a small section on video games. I'm not familiar with any other digital media aspects that would be worth mentionning, but if anyone knows more than what I've put in there, please feel free to rename the section from "Video Games" to "Digital Media" and expand it! 139.18.198.30 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boncop.jpg

Image:Boncop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Red Maple.jpg

The image Image:Red Maple.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Influence on American Culture

I think the section on American Influence seems to portray it as a undirectional when Canada has in fact greatly influenced American Culture. In sports, television, music and cinema, Canada has had a lot of influence on American Culture (often feeding back in Canada). Even the Acadian influenceo on New Orleans is ignored.

I think this is somethign that should be explored further.

Outside Views

The "Outside Views" section is biased, negative, and represents only one viewpoint by one person. This section should be filled out with several more quotes from varying perspectives in order to give a more fully developed glimpse of "outside views" of Canadian culture.207.216.214.132 (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted, there isn't an 'Outside Views' section on any other country, for example England (my country) doesn't mention how much English culture has historically been derided continental Europeans, esp. French, and America doesn't have one either and their culture is constantly being criticised. The section is totally unnecessary. 91.104.93.243 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sausage, dance, dress, or anything?

Most legit cultures have a distinct variety of food and dance! If I say a German sausage, or beer, or French bread, you know what I am talking about. The same with a cheese or style of dance. Even a style of dress. Most cultures have a distict landmark or two. Where are these things in this article? reading it, one would think that Canada has no culture at all! Surely Canada has it's own cheese, bread, beer, sausage, dance, dress-style and landmarks? Why are none of these things mentioned? mention of a Jazz festival is fine, and so is a pic of the chinese architecture, but those things are American and Chinese respectively, where is the traditional Canadian architecture and Canadian music festival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.50.181 (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I just wrong, or is this guy really looking for sausages, bread, and beer?! Might not a restaurant--or a supermarket in fact--be a somewhat likelier place to find what you want, than a Wikipedia article on a nation's culture? I bet you'd even spot the one or other Canadian product, which, of course, doesn't mean one had to depict those as culture. Just because you're hungry, I mean...^^ Zero Thrust (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i know right

2012

Article has been updated as of Feb. If you would like to help = Pls make sure the spelling of English words consistent with Canadian spelling. Also a copy edit by a third party would be good. As per the norm pls make sure refs are ok.Moxy (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Over time" the culture was influenced by aboriginals?

This is not worded well. The cultural mixing began immediately, with Champlain himself living with aboriginals, and intermarriage or cohabitation happening from the start. The Quebec legislature's face is covered with reliefs indicating this mixing of New and Old World cultures and peoples. There were few French women in Canada until much later than Champlain's day, when the Filles du Roy were sent to counter the trend towards Quebec becoming a metis culture with divided loyalties. The most quintessential Canadian traits and traditions are often Aboriginal in origin: things like snowshoes, canoeing, lacrosse, hunting and fishing, the outdoors and survival ethos present in most literature and much artwork, and some have argued deeply held attitudes regarding consensus, multiculturalism, medicine, collectivism, egalitarianism. I'm writing this as a non-aboriginal, Canadian high school teacher with an M.A. degree. When I studied Canadian history, and I studied a lot of it, the native peoples were about a quarter of the story! Even English Canada was founded and preserved from American conquest by an alliance between the British and the Iroquois, with Joseph Brant the Iroquois Haudenosaunee leader being memorialized all over Southern Ontario. Even the Loyalists were primarily Americans, bringing with them a culture already influenced for hundreds of years by interaction (both hostile and peaceable) with Amerindians. The Prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were founded by a metis leader who later led a rebellion and was executed. Even today, geographically speaking, the native languages of Cree, Inuktituk, and Ojibwe cover an enormous area where they are the predominant tongues.Kozushi (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change seems reasonable.Moxy (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

An editor was attempting to remove gun control as a part of Canadian culture in the lead section. This section is sourced. Once that was explained, the editor has turned to replacing the statement with its opposite, that there are 2 millions gun owners in Canada, using a statistic as a source. The problem is, the paragraph in question is discussing Canada's reputation as progressive and lists items considered progressive, same-sex marriage, gun control and so on. This is sourced. Throwing in some information about gun ownership makes no sense in the context of this paragraph and as well, it is original research as the only source given is a statistic. Just because this editor claims that gun ownership is part of Canadian culture does not make it so. If there are published sources that convey gun ownership as a part of Canadian identity or that the claiming of progressive causes as Canadian identity is flawed, this can be added to the article if written properly. But just adding an editor's own POV because he doesn't like something is not the way to go. He has been warned about disruptive editing and edit warring but edits from different IP addresses. freshacconci talktalk 15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See ongoing talk at Talk:Canada#Culture section and strict gun control - IP is making assumptions based on stats not RS. They must also understand what the statement says - social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman L. Lunger (2002). Big Bang: The Loud Debate Over Gun Control. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-7613-2260-3. U.S. gun-rights activists found it hard to understand Canadians' acquiescence to such far-reaching gun controls. ... To many Canadians, the nation's strict gun controls are a prime reason why gun murders are rare in Canada
Gary Kleck (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Transaction Publishers. p. 360. ISBN 978-0-202-36941-9. As in Great Britain, after Canada implemented its more stringent gun controls, its homicide rate advantage over the United ... therefore cannot conclude from such simple cross-national comparisons that stricter gun controls reduced violence
Gregg Lee Carter Ph.D. (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8. Historically, Canada has had stricter gun control legislation than the United States, as well as lower rates of criminal violence and a higher suicide rate
Jack Reynolds (2003). A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment. AuthorHouse. p. 233. ISBN 978-1-4107-4545-3. They point to other countries, such as Canada and Japan, that have strict gun control laws and much lower rates of shootings, asserting that gun control therefore must work to reduce violence
Constance Emerson Crooker (2003). Gun Control and Gun Rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-313-32174-0. Gun control proponents often point out that countries such as Great Britain and Canada, which have strong gun control laws also have lower rates of violent crime.
Patricia Cormack; James Cosgrave (2013). Desiring Canada. University of Toronto Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4426-6330-5.
Joseph Heath; Andrew Potter (2010). The Rebel Sell: Why The Culture Can't Be Jammed. HarperCollins Canada. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-55468-918-7.
Jean Chretien (2010). My Years as Prime Minister. Knopf Canada. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-307-36872-0.

--Moxy (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic film, magazine and web content

Culture encompasses representations of eroticism in the culture. Why would it not?{{unsigned|| — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this person is referring to this and related removals...he does have a point. A lot of the porn industry features Canadian performers, and sex worker issues are a regular part of news/social issues coverage.....is it only prurience that says this doesn't belong in an article on teh national culture? "Culture" is such a difficult word, sometimes I feel like quoting Goerring on the subject because of all the ways it's used and misused....Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since he put the question in this article's talk page, I would think that he is talking about this edit [1] Four different editors have removed the edit. So far there is no concensus that this material should be in the article, or that similar material should be in articles on the culture of other countries either. Meters (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with porn being part of culture. In the broadest sense it is. I think my main objection to it being on this article is the specificity. Is this a particularly notable part of Canadian culture? Are Canadians renowned for their porn? I don't see how this is a particular instance of Canadian culture other that the fact that porn is produced in Canada. But I'm guessing it's pretty much produced everywhere. This article doesn't cover absolutely everything that's produced in Canada and I think it's a bit of undue weight to include it here, especially with the only source provided being a general study on the porn habits of men. freshacconci talk to me 15:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is not a good addition here or replacing Oscar Peterson at the Canadians article anyone can see this. -- Moxy (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, duh......but at the same time Peter North is an example of how prominent Canadians are in the porn industry; to the point that he's actually something of a national icon within Canadian porn fans (not that I am one, I'm relaying what I've picked up from friends...original research I know); including Dorothy Stratten from long ago..... (Hugh Hefner's girlfriend from Coquitlam who was murdered).... how to put this in the article, and how to cite it, I don't know, but I do know that some of the largest porn producers/websites are Canadian owned/started and that for a long time Vancouver has been a very busy porn production centre, online and otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best any into of this nature be in the Cinema of Canada. NO one when writing about Canadian culture talks about the porn industry as being a part of Canadian identity. As for "Peter North" in Canada the politician is more famous to the average person then this old porn star. As for Worldwide Pornography Revenues Canada is not even in the top ten - We make more money selling pot to the Americans. -- Moxy (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography doesn't belong in the Arts section. If it shall be included it must be treated as a social phenomena or similar. The edits by BetterThanSuchAsYou seems to make pornography more mainstream than it is. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: to suggest that pornography is part of Canadian government policy as it pertains to culture is ridiculous. The only government policies regarding pornography in Canada are about restrictions on content (eg - novice actors unaware of their circumstances being restrained during scenes) and its dissemination. The government or constitution do not specifically grant rights to owning pornographic material. They restrict rights on who can acquire it, and where. Mind matrix 00:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that it was part of government policy, by no means; the confiscation and destruction of books imported by Little Sisters Bookstore in Vancouver is rather infamous as far as censorship goes. And since when did this article get defined by what is government cultural policy? Culture is not just a creature of federal funding (or you'd hope that's not all it is).Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to your comment, but rather the edit to the article that adds non-minor acquisition of porn in a sentence about government policies. Mind matrix 03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Canadian Press article ~~today (March 7)~~ this week saying that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will be investigating several X-rated cable TV channels for having insufficient Canadian content. So much for the argument that Canada is such a huge part of the porn world that porn needs to be considered a noteworthy part of the county's culture. Meters (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Post article link from Mar 5 http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/05/your-porn-is-not-canadian-enough-crtc-warns-erotica-channels/ Meters (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That surprises me a bit, but on consideration it's a truism that a lot of porn industry work is under the table and the monies earned are quite probably kept in cash or offshore; so if a production is not registered as being Canadian by incorporation or tax reasons, it won't be acknowledged by the CRTC. Pretty funny that they're basically calling for more porn production so that "we" aren't only seeing foreign-made productions and foreign stars.Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some stuff (sources) as seen below ...can we do anything with it? Do we have the proper sources to make statements of a cultural nature? So lets look at the source that I can find!!!! What do others think - is porn a part of Canadian culture that needs representation here? Is it of political concern...as in a partisan topic that divides the parties? Is it a main concern in the courts? -- Moxy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William H. New (2002). Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada. University of Toronto Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-8020-0761-2.

Dany Lacombe (1994). Blue Politics: Pornography and the Law in the Age of Feminism. University of Toronto Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-8020-7352-5.

Lance W. Roberts; Rodney A. Clifton; Barry Ferguson (2005). Recent Social Trends in Canada, 1960-2000. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 515. ISBN 978-0-7735-7314-7.

Thomas Waugh (2006). Romance of Transgression in Canada: Queering Sexualities, Nations, Cinemas. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-7735-7680-3.

Dr Yaman Akdeniz (2013). Internet Child Pornography and the Law: National and International Responses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 152. ISBN 978-1-4094-9607-6.

Saw this at ANI - it's not really theirs to fix, though. IMHO the topic of pornography should be mentioned, and perhaps its limitation by the ban on child pornography (giving a chance to link that article) but only briefly in the "Media" section. There's no sense in setting it up as a social phenomenon apart from other sorts of film. And the total amount of text given to it should be very low - this article is an overall summary of the entire culture, after all, and there are specific articles for detailing all these little bits and pieces. Ideally, we should just barely alert the reader that porn is discussed in Media in Canada, and the reader should click on that article and get something more like this section. The caveat being that that article doesn't contain the word porn, strangely, so I'd say send this section there, give it a wring to deal with some issues (moderately POV wording, and the BLP implications of putting a guy's picture under a main article: child pornography in canada template) and you should be good to go. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt question about ANI reply "it's not really theirs to fix". Where should one go when we have a disruptive editor that seems not understand consensus and not talking to use while we are try to figure out what should or should not be said? On a side note need to work on the Pornography in Canada article as it does not help our readers at all with no content or sources etc. -- Moxy (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the 3RR breach but someone there apparently did and "blocked them for a few days". I'm surprised they did anything, but in any case, I doubt it will be the end of the argument. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I just looked on the main ANI board, I don't see it though do see a listing of deleted titles concerning porn. Which board is the item mentioned above on? Curious as to what whomever is saying. Surprising to me the paucity of material on Pornography in Canada, given the amount of news coverage on various aspects of this, and also the numerous (if not overwhelmingly so) notable Canadians who are porn actors or otherwise engaged in the industry, is surprising; the Little Sisters Bookstore case should be mentioned there in the passage about the Border Services Agency; the case was a long time ago but seminal in Canadian pornography and human rights law.Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster University Wikipedia Visiting Scholar position

Of possible interest to editors of this article: McMaster University is accepting applications for a Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position with a possible focus on popular culture in Canada. Through the Visiting Scholars program, educational institutions provide experienced Wikipedians with remote access to their libraries' research resources. The Wikipedian is given an official university login and agrees to create/improve articles on Wikipedia in a subject area of mutual interest. The positions are unpaid, remote, and usually go for 6 or 12 months. If you have at least 1000 edits, an account at least 1 year old, and experience improving content, you're eligible. For more information see Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars. Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ update: position filled. feel free to archive/remove. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided article

I find this article to be belligerently biased toward U.S. cultural imperialism.

Way too much speculative language is used to "validate" the implicit uselessness of Canada's attempt to produce, promote, and reinforce Canadian content in an era of U.S.-dominated media. Almost everything in the article reads as a reaction to the United States. For instance, why do the film, media, and television sections speak of Canadian English-language content as if it were inconsequential (or even nonessential) to Anglo Canadians? I mean, the inference here is that this content would not exist at all without the CBC or the CRTC regulations, in turn propagating the falsehood that Anglo Canadians by nature are uninterested in if not lack artistic expression (and therefore require their UK and U.S. neighbours to provide them with some form of culture for them to consume). In reality, there is a great deal of Canadian television available in English, and Canadian media is substantially different from its U.S. counterpart, particularly in news reporting, which should warrant inclusion in this article. Oh, and what about the influence of Canada on the U.S. (and world culture[s])?

As well, problematic wording is rampant throughout. For instance, the subsection concerning identity reads:

[T]he issue of Canadian identity remains under scrutiny, perhaps more than the identity of the people of any other modern nation.

The word "perhaps" is problematic here because it is elusive rather than encyclopedic. Has a formal study been undertaken to justify such a claim? There is no question that Canadian identity has always been under scrutiny, yes, but framing it within the context of "modern nations" (by the way, what does modern even mean to the reference's author?) only serves to perpetuate stereotypes and surely mockery rather than foster a deeper understanding of Canadian sensibilities.

There is still a laundry list of other issues. Where is the section on the culturally celebrated RCMP uniform? How about the traditional music styles of Acadia, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia proper, Newfoundland, and Quebec? Why are endemic Canadian foods given limited coverage? Why is multiculturalism, a phenomenon that began in the mid-1970s, treated as if it has always defined Canada? I could go on for hours.

This article is currently a piece of propaganda and requires heavy restructuring. 216.191.43.98 (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recognition of regional cultures

perhaps worth a short section? There's almost nothing in here about Atlantic Cdn culture, for example (even in the music section!). Might be worth a short section on the cultures of specific regions of Canada with links - right now there's a lot (and most of the images) from Toronto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.22 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723221908/http://www.cst.ed.ac.uk/2005conference/papers/Newhouse_paper.pdf to http://www.cst.ed.ac.uk/2005conference/papers/Newhouse_paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved image

I have move the image to the right out of the lead into the section on sports. Not sure this hard to see image is representative of Canadian culture as a whole to be the first thing readers see. --Moxy (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Culture of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone see whether an archived copy of this exists:http://205.193.6.64/ev_en.php?ID=9417_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC, http://culturescope.ca/ev_en.php?ID=9417_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC