Talk:Canada/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Canada  (Redirected from Talk:Canada/Archive2)
Jump to: navigation, search



Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Decentralized federation

Some clarification issues: the opening sentence describes Canada as "a decentralized federation". In terms of decentralized, is it refering to a decentralized federal government? Another note: The Liberal party is centre-left, not centrist. - anon

That's pretty POV. Except on certain social issues, I don't see the Liberals as left-wing at all. - Montréalais 17:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this, how IS our government decentralized? We HAVE a capital, it's called "Ottawa", doesn't having a capital make a country centralized? --Maxwell C. 23:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Progressively, Canada became less centralized that it was in 1867. It's written in the endnotes. --Vasile 02:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GDP Check

The article List of countries by GDP is wrong, completely wrong. I live in Mexico (and I'm Mexican) and according to the official stats, the GDP of Mexico is 1/1000th (it'ld be great to have that rank and GDP :-P) of the shown there, so the ranking is wrong. The same happens to Spain, and many others, so it would be great to re-make the ranks and the list itself, or remove the rank of every country. Re-making probably taking the GDP from the Human Development Report 2004 of United Nations for the Development Programme UNDP, which features the GDP of 2002 for most of the countries with official numbers. --phil_websurfer 06:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Largest Canadian city

I have read various websites referring to Timmins, Ontario as the largest city in Canada although both Canada and Ontario's pages refer to Toronto, Ontario as such. One such source was an Ontario government website that made this claim. I would change the referrences to largest cities on both pages but I wouldn't want conflict because I think many people just assume Toronto is. SD6-Agent 15:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had never even heard of Timmins until seeing your note. A quick peek at its page here suggests it is relatively small population-wise at under 50,000 people, but that its land area is quite large (perhaps due to some quirk of the regions geography, or the way the city was incorporated). When people speak of the "largest city" I always assumed that they were speaking of population, but I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Saucepan 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Largest city," unmodified, is almost always understood to refer to population. Toronto is Canada's most populous city. Timmins is (or was) Canada's largest municipality in land area, though I seem to recall hearing it's Greater Sudbury, Ontario now. - Montréalais 15:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The 'Municipalité de la Baie James' covers 350,000 square kilometers. Greater Sudbury only claims to be the largest municipality in Ontario, not Canada (according to their official site). I once heard (no proof, mentionned for 'fun') that the James Bay Municipality sent a 'cease and desist' to Timmins about making claims of being the largest city (landwise). However, I do agree that the "largest city" in the article should refer to the most populous. jag123 11:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i am from Timmins and I have heard that our town is not the largest in Canada anymore. At one time, it was thelargest in canada and the second largest in the world but now, I guess many people think that it is Toronto because it is the largest population wise.

Introductory paragraph : Article Needs a heavy hand

Geez, i just returned from a nice visit to your country and went here to read up on it. This article isn't up to par. I made a few obvious minor edits, and then realized it needs a bold and more knowing (native) hand to whack all the (good) info into shape, starting with the meandering introductory paragraph.Sfahey 21:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you find lacking? I am Canadian and see nothing not up to par --Will2k 22:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
As Sfahey noted, the introduction could be worked over. Compare to the United States entry, for example. Having said that, the major sections are all 'hit' in the entry; how much more can you add before spilling over into the sub-articles, eh? So aside from fleshing out the intro with a bit more, it looks alright. The population factoid at the end is such a little orphan, I'll tidy that up... Krupo 02:05, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
As a result, the country has mixed results on the world stage: its artists achieve world renown, while the under-funded military is stretched thin.
This seems rather POV to me. Also, is the bit about the economy supposed to suggest that our economy is larger or smaller than might be expected? It's unclear. - Montréalais 04:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, that's definately POV, take it out --Will2k 15:17, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

"With a population one-tenth that of its southern neighbour, the United States, Canada might be expected to have an economy one-tenth as large. In practice, Canada's economic leverage usually exceeds this ratio."

Why might one expect Canada to have an economy comparable to any other country simply based on size of population? Using this method, what can we say about India or China in comparison to the United States? Hate to say it, but this POV seems like a rather veiled poke at its southern neighbor.

It is not only POV, it's just wrong. Canada's GDP per capita is slightly lower (check Gross domestic product). (But income is much more evenly distributed: GINI-Index 31.5 v. 45, check CIA World Factbook). I suggest replacing this passage with something like: "Canada ranked fourth on the 2004 list of nations with the highest standard of living, behind Norway, Sweden and Australia."
Comments? richarddd 23:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User Sfahey is right. The introductory paragraph is leaden, arranged around marginal links like that to Earth. Where else would Canada be on? Mars? The Governor-General is mentioned five times in the article including the photo (the PM 13 times), and gets more mention than is really necessary. As to the PM and GG living in the capital Ottawa, where else would the head of state and government live? Why is it so significant to mention the northernmost nation? What about Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway? Why "sovereign" country? Is this some obscure reference to Greenland?. Another example of questionable links is "contiguous" in Geography. The link to the article titled "International Boundary" is bizarre - what two countries do not have an international boundary? You would think this was unique to the US-Canada border. If the template allows, why not separate Government from Politics (one the mechanics, the other the real world). One could go on, but I agree that the first three paragraphs need reworking and reduction in repetition and questionable links. --BrentS 00:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

National Parks

Canada's national parks are known worldwide, therefore i think there should be an addition to the article pertaining to theses parks. p.s. does anyone know what the first canadian national park is?--Larsie 18:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Banff National Park was Canada's first (and the world's third) national park. [1] Darkcore 19:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics)

I haven't yet looked into the standard of living statistics that you posted for this year. What i do know is that they are very selective on certain factors. For all of those years that Canada was ranking first if you put gender in as a larger factor we dropped below the top ten. I think that some type of discussion of what type of statistics should go on here, or alternate statistical views. Yes its nice to put us 4th in the world and a well intenetioned thing to add---but is it the best way to write the article?--Marcie 14:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed "standard of living" to "UN Human Development Index." It is not NPOV to say that the Index is an objective measure of "standard of living." The UN does not make this claim (which is why it is called the "Human Development Index" rather than the "Standard of Living Index," and many, many commentators dispute whether it is an accurate reflection of a country's standard of living. HistoryBA 15:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Northernmost Country in the World

On what basis do we say that Canada is the northernmost country in the world? Aren't there several countries that claim sovereignty to the North Pole? Is there anything special about Canada in this regard? HistoryBA 14:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean it does not count as land, so it doesn't really matter whether anybody claims sovereignty over it or not. In order to be the northernmost country in the world, a country needs to have land further north than any other. That land is Oodaaq Island which belongs to Greenland, a Danish dependency. However see the earlier section on this page which discusses whether Greenland really counts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:39, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Photo possibilities?

The 'Demographics' section of this page has lots of white space ripe for a photo insert. Any ideas on a good picture to set this off? Radagast 15:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth Template

Why was the template for Commonwealth nations removed? Isn't Cananda still a member of the Commonwealth? Edwinstearns 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has long been the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that footer templates for random international organizations do not belong in country articles. - SimonP 20:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I personally resent that any other group's consensus has any more authority that a consensus reached here. Unless it is a Wikipedia policy the consensus reached for a project has no binding to this article. --metta, The Sunborn 21:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have not seen a discussion on the Canada talk page that reached a consensus saying that the Commonwealth Template should be here. I even took a few pokes in the history just to see if I missed something. So, it appears that SimonP made a bold change to make the Canada page more consistent with other countries on Wikipedia. Unless I am pointed to a discussion that reached consensus otherwise, I believe that the Commonwealth Template should stay off this page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems poor of an encyclopedia not to strive for consistancy. What's the point of having a Commonwealth template if it's not applied to ALL the Commonwealth nations' articles? Canada IS STILL IN the Commonwealth.[2] Do not be fooled by the fact that they changed their flag to a maple leaf!  :) -- Eric 10:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Consistency is exactly why the commonwealth template appears in no country articles. - SimonP 18:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


In the Provincial and territorial government section, what does this sentence mean? "Due to the reduced political powers, many people say that the Canadian territories have not received proper and equal representation in the Canadian Parliament." The three territories should have more MPs and Senators? I find it obscure. What about the question of representation by population?--BrentS 22:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population 2003

Where did the 2003 population figure come from? Statistics Canada on its website shows an October 2004 population of 32,040,292. So, where does the inflated 2003 figure come from? Also, the article seems to be duplicated twice now, scroll down. --BrentS 17:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come See Canada---Venez nous voir!

Really, after reading some responses, I am convinced that the non-Canadians really have to come and see Canada for themselves! Our country has so much to offer, especially for the naturalist! Please verify facts prior to writing something. A book is the best place to start--the internet cannot always be trusted!


I also read from someone that Canada is not the 2nd largest nation in the world---well WE ARE!!! (SECOND TO RUSSIA)

Are you involved in tourism industry? ;) Frankidou, 23-05-2005.

You say come and see Canada, but do you have any idea how much it costs to get to Canada from London. I would love to see canada but unfortunatley i dont have the money to get there, so im going to have to wait for a while. Tony Jones

anglo chauvinism's recent edits to this article (e.g. [3]), which minimized American influences and utterly erased any mention of French Canadian culture, make me think that one of the articles (either Culture of Canada or Canadian identity) ought to discuss the phenomenon that is this kind of Anglophone chauvinism—if it has any significance, which I'm not sure it does. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply put; my deletion of the mention of French culture was done so partially because of the wording not because I believe it to be false. It is true that one province in Canada has a strong French cultural presence. But the fact is, this culture has little barring on the lives of Canadians out side of Quebec; the same way that Mexican culture has little influence on American culture despite the large majority Mexican population in some areas of the southwest United States. It is not as though Canadian culture is some sort of blending of British and French culture as it is portrayed to outsiders. Canadians outside of Quebec know very little of French culture and language.

Because the Liberal government decided to call Canada a multicultural nation in official government policy, does not make it so. Partisan policies can not decide the culture of a country. That is up to the people. Canada is a nation whose seeds were planted in war, rose during war, was born during war and has grown during war. To simply make Canada out as being a liberal-socialist nation because of the fragmented resistance to liberal ideology is unfair if not un-ethical. Canada has a strong history and development (as noted above) as well as its own unique culture. Do you believe that our ancestors who fought in Canada's many wars, especially WW1 and WW2 thought that they were fighting for a socialist multicultural Canada when they were dying in freedoms cause on Europe’s battle fields? They did not. They were fighting for there ideals, their culture, their country.

So keeping in mind the truth about Canadian history and culture, one may realize why many Canadians have a hard time accepting the policies of a government who claims that "Canada has no culture" (1994- Sheila Finestone). 14:28 MT

Since you're obviously spinning your wheels here, I suggest you try to find a compromise wording that will be acceptable to others watching this article. You've already broken the Three-revert rule, so you are liable to be blocked by an admin. If you think another point of view is important, try to add that information, in an encyclopedic fashion, instead of deleting what's here. Michael Z. 2005-02-5 23:53 Z
1) You may be right about the ideals of those ancestors fighting in WW1 and WW2. Nevertheless, Canada (and the world) has changed a lot since 1945. 2) I don't think that the Mexican culture has not an important influence on the American culture; anyway, it is not an isolated phenomenon.--Vasile 00:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you were to look farther back in the history of the article, you would notice that the article I keep posting is a basically a compromise reached between me and various other users a number of months ago. It was another user who deleted this article and replaced it with one of the pre-compromise articles. I am simply posting the article people seemed to agree upon (with some minor modifications including some of the more recently posted information such as the cultural symbols). 17:22 02/05/05

Okay, I apologize for coming in late. Anyway, instead of reverting so much, some discussion, lobbying, or further compromise may be necessary. I guess Vasile has gotten started. Is the previous discussion still on this talk page? Michael Z. 2005-02-6 00:36 Z
Since I introduced the apparently unacceptable concept of Canada having two main cultures (the two solitudes - also read historian Arthur Lower who was an early historical proponent), I wonder if I live in the same country as some of the above. The anonymous 14:28 MT seems to think that Quebec and French Canada are of no account in Canada or Canadian culture. This simply seems outlandish to me. I prefer the two cultures approach, as does the Government of Canada (Radio Canada, CBC; NFB two sections; National Arts centre English & French theatres, alternating GGs, alternating National Archivists and National librarians, etc.). The music scene, literary scene and popular culture in Quebec have little to do with that of English Canada. So we ignore them, because this article is written in English. Little wonder Quebec wants to separate with Anglo-chauvinism alive and well.--BrentS 03:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about (post above). "I prefer the two cultures approach, as does the Government of Canada" --BrentS As I have said before because the Government says it is so, does not make it true. I agree that the French culture is strong and alive in Quebec, but the fact remains that French culture has almost no influence on the lives of Canadians out side of Quebec. There are more Mexicans living in the United States than there are French people living in Canada. In the article on American culture, should we refer to America having two cultures? No, we don’t because of he fact that this Mexican culture has little barring on the lives of Americans out side of the southwest. --


Some thing you said really interests me. You said, "So we ignore them, because this article is written in English. Little wonder Quebec wants to separate with Anglo-chauvinism alive and well." Are you suggesting that we should include Quebec to a greater extent than they deserve to appease them and prevent them from separation? Well that is what the Canadian government thinks. That is precisely the problem. It is because we did so in the very beginning that Quebec is in a position to separate. (See Samuel P. Huntington's "Hispanic challange") As for you wondering if you live in he same country as me; unless you live in Quebec, you most likely see the same thing I do. The problem is that you look at Canada through a multicultural lense. Try studying Canadian history. You will see there is a lot more to it then we are lead to believe. At all the critical moments in our nation’s history, only the very beginning had anything to do with the French. So what is the point of including it in an article of Canadian culture? That is why we have a different article for the culture of Quebec, because it is different than Canadian culture in general.-- 09:19 MT 02/06/05

I don't live in Quebec, and I sure don't see the same thing you do, 157. The influences of Franco-Manitobain, Mennonite, Jewish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Filipino and many other cultures, over the last century or more, are pretty visible and accepted by most people here. If you think that a multicultural lens is a problem, then maybe you are wearing blinders. Michael Z. 2005-02-6 18:06 Z

How are all of the cultures you have mentioned above visible in Canada? Do we speak any of those languages? No, we speak English. Do we practice Spanish law or Napoleonic code? No, we practice British Common law. Do we have Vietnamese style government? No, we have responsible government based on the parliamentary system. Is our head of state a French national? No, it is the British Queen. Do we celebrate Ukrainian Christmas? No, we celebrate Christmas on the same day as most other Western nations. My point is: just because you have a Ukrainian, Vietnamese or Filipino restaurant in your neighborhood, does not mean that these groups have made any major contribution to Canadian culture. --

As for you accusing me of wearing blinders because I view multiculturalism as a problem, perhaps you should think about what you seem to be advocating. Do you not think Canadian culture is valuable enough that we should protect it and cherish it? I feel Canadian culture is worthwhile enough to protect. Your advocating of multiculturalism is at the expense of Canadian culture. This article is about Canadian culture, not about the cultures of all the peoples who have come to Canada in recent years.-- 11:28 MT 02/06/05

Yes, blinders. You're factually incorrect on several points. In fact, I speak Ukrainian with my family and some friends, and in several shops in Winnipeg. I celebrate Ukrainian Christmas according to the Julian calendar with my family and my church, as do many friends, and also with my girlfriend's family on the Gregorian calendar date. The orange ribbon I wore in support of Ukrainian democracy started a few interesting conversations with strangers, in both Ukrainian and English. I've also attended my friend's family Passover Seder, and helped celebrate Chinese New Year.
Yes, many of our government institutions were brought here from the United Kingdom. And my province's democratic tradition goes back to a bilingual governing council established by Louis Riel. And some law breakers in my city now have their sentences influenced by traditional First Nations practices.
This is exactly why I cherish Canadian culture so much. It's valuable because it gives us each the freedom to socialize, celebrate, and worship as we wish, without having to be persecuted. And to celebrate what's unique about others, as well as ourselves.
Your statement about peoples who have come to Canada "in recent years" is poorly thought-out. The Métis were the first people to hold European-style land tenure here in Manitoba, and still have a strong community. When mass immigration to Manitoba started in the 1880s, Germans, Mennonites, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews were as well represented as Irish, Scots, and English. The multicultural nature of this province continues to be evident [edited 2005-02-8 15:07 Z, —MZ]
So you actually do think multiculturalism is a problem? I find that near incredible. You think that Canadian culture equates to only Anglo-Saxon culture? You think that "advocating" other cultural practices, which were here before, during, and since the arrival of the English is a threat? I doubt that many people think Anglo-Saxon culture in Canada is threatened. I would say that you represent a fringe point of view, to put it politely, so no wonder you feel threatened.
I'm not "advocating" anything, but you certainly seem to think it's important that others think the same way you do. I guess your Canada doesn't include me and many others who were born and raised here. Michael Z. 2005-02-6 20:17 Z

Anonymous 11:28 MT makes some good points, but when you are writing an article on Canadian culture you have to have some idea what "culture" means and who you are talking about. As we can see there is no consensus. Still it is somewhat presumptous for one person to say that the elected government of Canada is wrong in its cultural policy and to present that opinion as the opinion of all Canadians. If this view were the majority one, we would have a different government and a different policy. All we are saying is that you must present the differing points of view. Interestingly this morning on CBC, one of the three health experts (Raclis?) said "Canada in not a country" when it comes to health care; reminds one of former Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard's similar comment a few years ago that Canada is not a country. It seems to be post-national now. Our ten fiefdoms cannot agree on much. The federal government doesn't have much else to do but "official" culture, immigration and criminal law, since it has no money for defence, and hence declining diplomatic influence. The article on Canadian culture must acknowledge these cleavages and differences of opinion as in Canadian identity. You may not like multiculturalism but it exists. You may not like Quebec's cultural tenacity but it exists and its culture is not confined to the borders of Quebec. It is alive and well in the national capital, in parts of Eastern Ontario and Acadia. There seems to be a big difference too between "official" high culture subsidized by governments and popular culture which in English Canada is much influenced by the US. Some thoughts for those brave enough to revise the article. It is far too contested a space for me to make any more revisions to the actual article. Good luck.--BrentS 18:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael Z:

You claim that I am factually incorrect on some of my points. Interesting, did the people who established Canada celebrate Ukrainian new years? Did they speak Ukrainian? Because you do, does not mean that the majority or even a large minority of Canadians do. There are large groups of Poles and Ukrainians in the USA who still celebrate their respective cultural and religious traditions and that is fine. This does not mean that American culture is influenced by these groups on a large scale. Like you have mentioned; in Canada we have the right to be who we want to be, practice the religion we chose, ect. with out being persecuted. This is a valuable gift, especially since it is such a rarity in the world. But what about the group who founded this country? What of there culture? Should it be trampled over to make room for new cultures? I do not think so. Certainly there are various ethnic groups in Canada (and the US) who still retain their ancestor’s cultural identity in this new land. This does not mean that there is some sort of blending of all of these cultures that made a new Canadian culture as you seem to suggest. Once again, the fact remains that these various cultures affect the average Canadian to a very small degree.--

It is amusing that you say that my statements are "poorly thought out". You claim that "in the 1880s, Germans, Mennonites, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews were as well represented as Irish, Scots, and English." That statement is factually incorrect. As is commonly known (will provide sources if requested) the first wave of people to come to Canada (as we know it) were overwhelmingly British. The second wave included many Germans, other Europeans and Americans. This group also helped to pioneer Canada. This wave successfully assimilated into Canadian society and adopted Canadian cultural norms. It was the next wave which did not begin until the 1900's that included significant numbers of Eastern and Southern Europeans. It is preposterous to claim that Jewish people were as well represented in Canadian immigration as British people during this period. Surely you know of Canada's questionable immigration policies regarding Jewish people? There numbers were never of any significance, even to this day! It appears that you are the one making factually incorrect statements.--

Interesting. You don’t believe that multiculturalism is a threat. Have you looked at most conflicts occurring in the world today? Perhaps my view feels like a fringe view to you because you are not used to hearing it very often. When multiculturalism became an official government policy in Canada (to appease Quebec) it was highly unpopular. People ultimately accepted it because they believed it would appease Quebec. It didn’t. Quebecers’ didn’t like being regarded as one of many cultural communities present in Canada. I am not the only person who feels that multiculturalism is a threat. Please do not misunderstand my statements. I do not believe that allowing others to practice their culture is a threat. I do believe that encouraging chasms in a society is a threat, especially when it is at the expense of the historic and predominant culture. I feel threatened when my culture is taken away from me and my fellow Canadians. When we must surrender our culture to appease other cultures, certainly that is a threat. Would you not agree? As for me wanting other people to think the way I do; that is not the case. But once again, when talking about Canadian culture it would make sense to talk about the culture of Canada and not Ukrainian culture or Vietnamese culture, ect. Those would be better suited for discussion in there own respective articles.-- 14:41 MT 02/06/05

The first major wave of European settlement was French, the second was German. The Foreign Protestants arrived long before major the period of Anglo-Irish settlement began. - SimonP 14:24, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Multiculturalism a threat? To what or whom? You mention conflicts around the world. Look again. Most of these have a religious basis rather than simply an ethnic one. Many nations have relatively harmonious relations between different ethnic groups: China and India for example. India is a patchwork quilt of ethnicities. The groups in conflict in South Asia tend to be religious ones: Hindu-Sikh; Muslim-Hindu/Sikh. You say that multiculturalism became government policy to appease Quebec. Not so. In fact it was quite the reverse. Multiculturalism was developed to counterbalance Quebec nationalism. Sunray 16:10, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? 157 is citing a concrete example: Canada and other countries with an official policy of multiculturalism or ethnic tolerance experience more conflict and violence than others. Um... Also, that someone is taking away his Anglo-Saxon culture. Somehow. ... Michael Z. 2005-02-7 16:31 Z
Ah irony! It's the stock in trade of the true Canadian (ref Canadian humour). Sunray 16:53, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Lots of good points being made here if one cares to think them over. I tend to agree that the policy of multiculturalism was favored by Pierre Trudeau because it countered Quebec ethnic nationalism which he despised. But there were other forces at work in the 1960s, notably the post-war emigrant Ukrainian nationalists (the pre-WWI Ukrainians had been largely assimilated and were not as well educated as the post-WWII ones). Ironically many Ukrainians now find that they have been submerged by the waves of non-European immigrants and no longer carry the weight in Ottawa they once did. There are always unintended consequences to any policy. Has anyone read the book by the Trinidadian-Canadian Neil Bissoondath entitled Selling illusions : the cult of multiculturalism in Canada? I haven't. He now lives in Quebec and is a proponent of Canada's two founding cultures. For what it is worth, I have found that new cultures assimilate by the second generation, some more than others depending on the strength and cohesiveness of the community (Germans very quickly, Italians more slowly because of sheer numbers). By the third generation culture is often limited to food and religion only.--BrentS 17:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are right that there were other reasons for the Trudeau policy of multiculturalism. I didn't mean to imply (or shouldn't have implied) that Quebec nationalism was the only factor (though it likely was the motive behind Trudeau's thinking). I also agree with you that the cosy picture (mosaic)[4] of all these cultures happily snuggling up together is not quite how it is. Neil Bissoondath is a keen observer of ethnicy and and the problems of ethnocentrism. Nevertheless, we are one of the most multicultural nations on Earth, to our great benefit. Sunray 18:06, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)


When I say that traditional Canadians view there country as a strong independent nation with its own unique cultural traditions stemming from there Anglo-Saxon/Celtic beginnings, I am referring to the ideas that came from the Anglo-Saxon peoples pre-Norman Invasion. The traditions I am referring to are those political and legal traditions that did not come necessarily from the modern British tradition, but from institutions forced onto the non-Anglo-Saxon British monarch. Ideas such as those of the Magna Carta and the Glorious revolution. The rights re-affirmed by the Americans in the revolution. Many conservatives, especially out West feel this way as do many pro-monarchist groups such as many of those opposed to the adoption of the maple leaf flag. I am simply trying to mention this group and it is commonly being reversed. I was under the impression that we were to present all the major view points. We have mentioned the others, why not this one? --

There is only one point of view represented in this article, the "culture of Canada" as it was defined in 1982, by Liberals. You probably want to add the Conservative point of view about the "culture of Canada". While this article is heated by political efforts to define its object, the article Culture of Canada doesn't say too much. About those nice impressive buildings of Calgary and Vancouver, regretably it says nothing. You may use a more positive aproach to define the "culture of Canada" from that article or even better, in that article first, developing from the pre-Normal ideas and traditions. --Vasile 06:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we should find some pictures of an Alberta rancher, a maritimes location and mabey a Saskatchewan farmer or something. --

Simon P:

You are right; the first major wave of Europeans to the area was French. But this was to New France (hence, my wording of "Canada as we know it"). In the immigration patterns I outline above, I am speaking of the immigrants coming after this (to British North America). Next were British, and then "foreign Protestants" (including post revolution Americans). Not Eastern and Southern Europeans as was claimed by mzajak. --

There was no large scale British immigration to Canada in the years before the foreign protestants. - SimonP 15:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

lol... you dont consider the loyalists British? They sure considered them selfs as such.--

What do you mean? The loyalists began arriving several decades after the Foreign Protestants. - SimonP 23:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


I did not mean to imply (looking over my wording, I think I did) that multiculturalism would make Quebecers happy. I kind of meant that it would be acknowledging them (not to the extent they desired) with out having to give them too much power (which is what I meant by appeasing). As for your statement that many nations with diverse ethnic groups living in harmony; this is laughable. I assume you have heard about the ethnic discrimination present (remnants of the old caste system) in India and the violence that often results from it? As well, there has always been ethnic violence in China between the majority Han and the various ethnic minorities ( Another thing that you seem to be over looking is the fact that these groups are also somewhat similar, as opposed to the differences between, say, British culture and Arab culture. Also, when I speak of the conflict that could (and most likely will) result from multiculturalism, I am not only talking about ethnic conflict, but also religious (from fundamentally different religious groups) and cultural conflict.--

You are really not dealing with the facts that have been presented here about Quebec and multiculturalism. I suggest you read up on it. Your strong POV seems to be causing you to read things in a highly selective way. For example you referenced an article from BBC News on China. It supports the point I was trying to make: The article talks about "(a)dding race and religion to an already explosive mixture of economic and social grievances..." As to your comments about India. Are you equating caste with ethnicity? You need to separate ethnicity, race, religion and socio-economic status when you make your claims. Sunray 05:28, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Oh, so what you are saying is that multiculturalism only becomes physically dangerous when economic and social probles are present? Well then I guess the government of Canada should just continue down its path of displacing Canadian culture for foreign ones and pray that no social or economic problems present them selfs. Obviously when economic problems are present, violence is more likely to be the result. But why are the Han not in huge violent conflict with other Han? There is also non-violent conflict that results from diverse cultural groups that can present major problems. If you are thinking even somewhat objectively, I am sure you can recognise this.--


As for your sarcasm regarding my claims on multiculturalism; I did not even imply what you say I have. I said that countries with large amounts of cultural diversity living in close proximity with one another in the same governmental jurisdictions will result in conflict, which could possibly be violent. Look around the world. One does not have to look hard to find proof of this. It is an increasingly studied topic that many people feel strongly about. By looking at the former Yugoslavia, one may argue that diversity is certainly not a strength.--

Brent S:

I have read parts of the book you have mentioned. It seems fairly interesting especially given who the author is. There are many academics who feel multiculturalism is dangerous. One of the most notable is Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington.

It's starting to get hard to tell who wrote what here. Please sign your posts by typing "~~~~". Sorry about the sarcastic tone. I tried hard to resist, but the target as presented was just too tempting. And it's just a bit harder to feel a lot of personal empathy for someone who's first name is 137. Why don't you register? And please spell my user name correctly, "Mzajac". I've taken care to spell correctly.
I don't know much about China, but all the examples cited seem to be cases where one group was held up as superior to others (e.g., India's castes, which I think are an artifact of one culture), or where all groups were denied their identity ("pan-Slavic" former Yugoslavia). Islamic extremism is another example where some members of one group are trying to impose its culture violently upon others. These are all examples of the opposite of multiculturalism. It's not too hard to cite better counter-examples.

This is exactly my point. This is what diverse cultural groups do when they live together. If it is not to hard to site examples of various groups living in harmony, please do. I would be very interested (seriously). I have a feeling you are the "if we all hold hands, no one can make a fist" or "we can't huge each other with nuclear arms" type. You are painting an idealistic picture of the world, which simply is contrary to reality. Reguardless, this has gotten pretty far off topic. Also, I will register soon.--

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, but in reference to mass immigration I was specifically referring to Manitoba, in the years after the railway came in 1881, the example of Canadian culture I'm most familiar with. Michael Z. 2005-02-8 15:07 Z
To the person who said that Germans assimilated faster than Italians because of the sheer number of Italians thats not the reason. There were, are and probably always will be more Ethnic Germans than Ethnic Italians in Canada. The reason Italians didn't assimilate fast and still havent is because they look different, sure Bavarians don't look very anglo-saxon but, about half of Germans look just like any old anglo-saxon... Italians don't look anglo in anyway whatsoever. There also not as nice looking as anglo's.

Off topic discussion

This discussion is all very well in its way but it is difficult to see how it can be used to improve the article. Could participants please remind themselves that this discussion page is here to allow discussion of how to improve the article. It is not supposed to be a substitute for Usenet. Please bear this in mind when replying to other contributors. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:02, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

SimonP's deletion

Good job on the deletion, Simon. That paragraph is an obvious source of trouble here, and did not meet the NPOV standard. In particular, it is not just "government-funded media outlets like the CBC" that hold the mosaic view of Canada: the Toronto Star and arguably the Globe and Mail do as well. Furthermore, are there any government-funded media outlets other than the CBC? This is best left out. Kevintoronto 16:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino's actions

People in Canada don't generally describe themselves as a Kingdom. Kingdom is really an outdated word, and if they have to talk about it Canadians would say they are a constitutional monarchy, which is said about two sentences after the kingdom reference I deleted. The title of the country is "the Dominion of Canada" which is also said shortly after. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also there is no official residence of the the Queen in Canada. DJ Clayworth 20:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino: What's up with your changes to the article? People have been trying to talk to you about this (see above). If you continue on this path, it will not add to your credibility in Wikipedia. Some people would regard what you have been doing as vandalism. It is a good idea to discuss reverted edits on the talk page. Please discuss. Sunray 20:44, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

No, Canada isn't generally referred to as a kingdom, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. It's quite simple really -- Canada has a monarch, ergo, Canada is a kingdom. Simple. I was never advocating that Wikipedia should refer to the "Kingdom of Canada", as such a title doesn't exist, but merely point out that Canada is, by nature, a kingdom. It's a term people understand better than constitutional monarchy (though, it is important thay Canada be referred to also as a constitutional monarchy as it makes clear that Canada is not an absolute monarchy).
Also, Government House, AKA Rideau Hall, is the official residence of the Queen in Canada. It says as much right on the Wikipedia page
As for my changing the Canada page-- it was just my ignorance about the system here. gbambino
That's ok. I dread to think of the accidental mistakes I made when I was first here! Hopefully you will find that most of us are a welcoming lot (even when we disagree with you), though from time to time matters do become a bit heated. All the best, and keep contributing! jguk 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Governor General not head of state

As it is Queen Elizabeth II who is Canada's head of state, I am altering the following sentence: "Canada's capital is Ottawa, home of the nation's Parliament, as well as the residences of the Governor General of Canada (who acts as head of state as the representative in Canada of Queen Elizabeth II) and the Prime Minister (the head of government)."

It should read as: "Canada's capital is Ottawa, home of the nation's Parliament, as well as the residences of the Governor General of Canada (who acts as the representative in Canada of Queen Elizabeth II, Canada's head of state) and the Prime Minister (the head of government)." gbambino

That sentence reads OK by me. DJ Clayworth 22:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I partly agree with you, but I note that as far as I am aware "Head of State" is not used in the constitution (either in describing the Queen's position or anyone else's). Whether the Queen or the Governor-General is "Head of State" pretty much depends on how you define "Head of State". As it is not clear to me exactly how "Head of State" should be defined, unless someone can show me a universally accepted definition, I'd remove the reference to that term completely, to give:
"Canada's capital is Ottawa, home of the nation's Parliament, as well as the residences of the Governor General of Canada (who acts as the representative in Canada of Queen Elizabeth II) and the Prime Minister (the head of government)."
I'm mindful of the position in Australia, where many monarchists will refer to the G-G as Head of State there - though I accept there are differences between Australia and Canada in this regard, jguk 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's true that Canada technically does not have a head of state, per say, but a Sovereign and a Governor General. As I understand it, 'head of state' was a term coined to apply to the President of the United States, so as to differentiate between the one person acting in separate roles as head of government or head of state.
I also understand that there is no universally agreed upon definition as to what a head of state is. Basically, it's up to each nation to decide for themselves. This is seen in the example of Australia.
However, the use of the term has become so prevalent that it can't help but be applied to a monarch. So, even though there is no mention in the Canadian constitution (or Canadian law anywhere, as far as I know) of a head of state, because the constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen, she is the only person who can logically be deemed as a head of state. This is why I think, personally, that the logic of Australian monarchists is a little flawed.
None the less, I think your proposal for the sentence is an accurate one. gbambino

Literature section

This section has the potential to grow exponentially. Literature has other meanings. Should it be Bibliography, Further Reading? Is is limited to history, or any book on any topic about Canada? I have not read the Chodos book, but I vaguely recollect that he is not noted for his NPOV. If his book, why not also Susan Mann's much more scholarly The Dream of Nation on Quebec? Do other country articles have similar sections? Any thoughts on this section?--BrentS 01:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it could get to be a very long list, if titled "literature." I've changed it to "References." Maybe "Further reading" or "Bibliography" would be still better. Perhaps we should drop the Chodos book and add Mann's. Sunray 03:20, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Left and Right for Political Parties

The classification of Canadian political parties as "left" and "right" is misleading, especially when taken from an American perspective. As it stands, the article claims that the NDP are left wing, the Conservatives are right wing, the Bloc is liberal democratic, and the Liberals are roughly centrist. I think that classification needs some enormous qualification, because all three parties are even with or to the right of the American Republican party on most economic issues (even the NDP supports balanced budgets and cautiously supports trade liberalization beyond either of the major U.S. political parties) and all three parties are even with or to the left of the American Democratic party on most social issues (Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's stand on same-sex marriage, for example, is almost identical to U.S. Democratic candidate John Kerry's during the last U.S. election, and the other party leaders are to the left of that).

I've taken a couple of stabs at clarifying this point in the article, but they've been removed fairly quickly. I think we either need some kind of qualification in the article, or we have to remove the left/right classification altogether and simply list the parties. I'd be interested in hearing suggestions. -- Dpm64 20:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like User:JimWae's edit on 20:31, 26 Feb 2005; it might be a reasonable compromise -- Dpm64 21:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think Canada is to the right of the United States economically. They have nationalized health care and more government programs and regulations. If balanced budgets were the way to determine left/right classification on economics. Bill Clinton and howard Dean would be on the right with Ronald Reagan on the radical left fringe.

Thanks for the comment. Socialized medicine might not be the best example, because the last time I checked (a few years ago), U.S. governments were spending the same amount per capita on healthcare as Canadian governments anyway. A better example would be the entertainment industry, one area where Canada is very protectionist relative to the U.S. I'm not doing too well thinking of other examples, but I might come up with one or two later.
Are you sure that Canada has more government programs and regulations? As someone who does business on both sides of the border, I haven't seen that, but that's obviously only a sample of one.
I would agree, by the way, that President Clinton was further to the right economically than President Reagan on most issues, though he was still very protectionist. -- Dpm64 00:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You also have to differentiate political policies and results. I've had the impression that Canadian federal and provincial Tory governments are very fiscally conservative, but they just don't know how to handle money, and end up wasting huge amounts of it. For example, privatization is often claimed to be a money-saver for government and consumers, but in practice can end up totally the opposite. Michael Z. 2005-02-28 17:57 Z

I'm not sure that's a distinctly Canadian phenomenon, though, or confined only to the area of privatization. Getting back to the original point, I'm fairly happy with the way the page is right now -- I think it's nicely balanced. -- Dpm64 19:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
===scrappy the history in favour of the internal link===

the heading on the "edit this page" for the article that reads that the article takes up too much memory needs to heeded, doesn t it? why don t we just remove the "history" section, and refer readers to the "history of canada" article matthew

Most expansive country?

Second most expansive country? What does this mean? Is it supposed to mean broad or wide? If so, that is a mistinterpretation of the adjective expansive which is normally applied in a metaphorical way to people, not geographical entities unless they are planning to expand their territory. Check several dictionaries and thesauri to come up with a better adjective. What is it with these superlatives in the first sentence - Canadians must have a real inferiority complex. Do articles on other countries begin with "poorest, smallest, richest, most greedy, most militaristic, westernmost, most anti-American" country etc.? A bit of modesty wins more friends than boastfulness.-- 03:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about "second largest"? I'm pretty sure it is, in land area. I just changed it. Antandrus 03:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean that we have an inferiority complex? That is just a statment of fact, not bragging about the size of the country. I don't know about you but I really don't base my ego on the amount of land upon which my country stands. Most of the other characteristics you list are unmeasurable quantities, we can not find statistics on the greediness of the country. I don't know why this one fact makes you so angry.


I hesitate to venture into the introductory paragraph again, but it seemed a little ridiculous. Mentioning our Head of State, HM the Queen, in the intro para makes sense, but bringing in our membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and the fact that Canada is a "Commonwealth Realm" is overkill. These facts are mentioned in the third paragraph, and do not need to be in the very first paragraph. Our status as a COmmonwealth Realm may be of consititutional interest, but does not define us as a nation in the eyes of 99% of the population. (Did I mention that reference to the Queen is still in the para? -- that is surely more important.) Our membership in the Commonwealth is also not very important when compared to our membership in other international organizations that are (a) more important to Canada and (b) that are not mentioned in the very first paragraph - the UN, NATO, NORAD, and NAFTA. Membership in the OAS and the Francophonie are not mentioned here, so why the Commonwealth? Membership in the C'wealth is mentioned two other times in the article, so I think it can be left out of the first para, which is getting to be lengthy. Thanks. Kevintoronto 00:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for messing up the article last night. I don't know what happened, but it seems that parts of the article were deleted while others were duplicated when I saved it after making changes. I want to assure you that it was inadvertent. Thanks to User:Hallmark for fixing the problem. I have taken another run at the intro paragraph to try to make it more balanced in its emphasis. As it was written, it seemed that Canada's relationship to the monarchy and the the UK is of paramount importance. This is POV and not reflective of the reality in Canada today. The reference to "Commonwealth Realm" remains in the third paragraph of the article, and does not merit repeating in the the very first paragraph. I have left in the links to QEII and "Queen of Canada", and that surely should be more than sufficient for addressing Canada's relationship to the monarchy and the UK in the intro paragraph.
Let's keep in mind that the introductory paragraph need not and should not be loaded up with every bit of information that someone thinks is important. There is a whole article to deal with Canada -- we don't have just one paragraph here.
Someone in editing last night suggested that "Commonwealth realm" be replaced by "former UK colony", but then we would have to include "former French colony" as well as much of the inhabited parts of the country was at one time under French control. But then both of these facts are mentioned just two paragraphs later, so they don't have to be in the intro paragraph. Kevintoronto 14:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well Kevin, I [--JimWae 19:52, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)] had a lot to do with that wording. I am not married to it, but I will point out that
    • with current change (omitting Commonwealth realm), 4 of the first 5 sentences now start with the same word
    • the way it is now, a "non-Commonwealth" person could be excused if they thought that there was some queen (perhaps even another one that just happens to also be named Elizabeth) actually residing in Canada. I put Commonwealth realm as a hint as to why Canada might have a Queen, since some people might be familiar with "Commonwealth". "Commonwealth country" might do the same thing - OR " A former British colony, Canada continues to recognize..." (but the latter would require raising the floodgates)
    • as far as federal gov't is concerned, being a former English colony explains a lot more than (just some parts of Canada) being (before that) a French colony.
    • I do not think first paragraph should be written with the expectation that any links will actually be clicked on in first read.
    • I think it is seldom possible to avoid some repetition of what is in first paragraph - and one good writing style is the "spiral approach" in which you generally introduce what you are going to say, then repeat it with details later
    • I was not familiar with "Commonwealth Realm" before this myself, being more familiar with "Commonwealth of Nations". I also think it's time for Canada to look at alternatives to the present monarchy.
    • I do not think 3 extra words ("A Commonwealth Realm") are anything to get very concerned about one way or the other.

Thanks for your comments, Jim. I'm glad to know the thinking behind what you wrote. I understand your point about confusion about QEII, and will try to come up with something to address that point. I don't think "Commonwealth Realm" quite does it because I think most people will just utter a "huh?" and move on (as I did the first few times I encountered that). If it doesn't add information, except in a quite indirect way, I don't think that it is worth having. The problem that I was having is that it really did read like some granny from the Monarchist League was trying to get the point across that Canada is and always will be blahblahblah (cue "The Maple Leaf Forever"). I now understand that this was not the case. Perhaps we can work together to come up with something suitable. How about:

Canada is a consitutional monarchy. The Queen of Canada is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

this should make it clear that the QofC and QEII are one and the same, and if someone wants to know why she's the Queen of effing everything, they can read on to the later paragraphs or click the links. Your thoughts? As far as our former status as a British colony explaining our arcane parliamentary system, I think that would make more sense in the section about our arcane parliamentary system where the connection can be drawn directly, rather than here. Kevintoronto 20:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How's this sound? It at least suggests the queen is not home-grown --JimWae 01:24, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Great work, Jim. That's much better. I made a minor change: using "both" before a list of two items is redundant, so I've removed it. Otherawise, I think the intro is reading much better now. Kevintoronto 14:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Due to its excessive length, I'm going to go out on a limb and move some text from the main article to other sections. For example; there's NO reason that ad nauseum details regarding where English and French are spoken should appear in the main article but not in the 'Language' section. The intro paragraph is looking good, though, JimWae.

User:E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: In the "History" blurb, why is an event that had relatively little effect on Canada (the Viking settlement) mentioned, while two events which had tremendous effects (the World Wars) are ommitted? --BillyL 07:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French language note

There is mention of "widespread" use of French in Quebec, New Brunswick and generally elsewhere, but Manitoba should be listed specifically as only New Brunswick and Manitoba are officially bilingual provinces with all that entails. See Re Manitoba Language Rights ,[1985] 1 SCR 721. -rjk


I don't think that adding "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth Realm" tempaltes is a good idea. this article is already too long. If we add templates for every major international organization to which Canada belongs, we would really be in trouble: UN, G7/G8, NORAD, Organization of American States, La Francophonie, OECD, NATO, APEC, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we would quikly be swamped. Comments? Kevintoronto 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think these ones are different.
Firstly "Commonwealth Realm" is not an international organisation. This template exists to show the reader what other countries share Canada's Head of State, which is unique for most countries.
For "Commonwealth of Nations", this is again different from other organisations in that it is an historic organisation and the successor to the British Empire. Again, almost all the members have this template on their respective country page with the exception of Canada.
You are right in that we can't list at all the organisations that Canada is a member of (although I think G8 is a good one come to think of it), however exceptions can be made where there is a good reason. Astrotrain 21:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that these are different.

  • First of all, the "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth Realm" articles are both linked from the article, like the other international orgs.
  • Secondly, the point about Canada's Head of State is made clearly in the article, including in the very first paragraph. And the Head of State is not really that important in the functioning of the country, except for in an almost exclusive symbolic way.
  • I don't see why historic organizations like the Commonwealth is more imporant than the UN, G-8, OECD, NATO and APEC, which have a bigger impact on Canada's politics and economy, or like important defence organizations like NORAD and NATO. Surely the symbolism of our previous colonial ties is not more important than the realities of trade and defence.
  • Many of the Commonwealth Realm sand members are small countries that are involved in relatively few international organizations, unlike Canada.
  • Finally, the success of a few editors in getting these templates stuck on articles of other countries should not determine whether Canada's main article should carry them.

It may be that the solution is to create a link from the main page to a page entitled "Canada's membership in international organizations", which would be a repository for the numerous templates that could apply, as well as room for text about Canada's role in the various orgs. Kevintoronto 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The templates are good for guidance to see who else is a Commonwealth realm, who else is in the Commonwealth of Nations. As these groupings have more historical roots than the UN or NATO for insatnce, they are more likely to be used. Astrotrain 22:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

But my point is that they're not really relevant. I'm sorry to be harsh about it, but the Commonwealth is nice talk shop that has little real impact on anything. Once in a while it does some good work by putting pressure on a rogue government, but the UN does that every day. And often, TPLACs like Zimbabwe just ignore the Commonwealth. Oh, the Games are nice, too, but notice how its usually the B-list cities that bid for them, not the ones that can compete for the Olympics?

And the tie to the monarchy is real, but not very relevant in Canada's political structure. When was the last time that Her Majesty had any role in a political issue in Canada? Oh, right, it was never. To the extent that the Crown exerts any influence, it is done by the Governor-General, who is usually someone of whom Her Majesty has never heard until the Canadian Prime Minister informs her whom she is to appoint as G-G.

Finally, the article is not about other countries who might be a C.R. or a member of the C of N. It is about Canada. Your argument about the templates being helpful to people who want to know who are the other CRs or C of N members applies equally to the alphabet soup of other international organizations to which Canada belongs. Therefore, it is an argument for loading this article up with a dozen different templates. If people want to find out who else is a C.R. or a member of the C of N, they can follow the links that are helpfully provided to those articles. Kevintoronto 22:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I checked: the reason that most other C.R.s and C of N countries have these templates is because you added them today'. Please don't make it sound like they've been there for a while and you are just bringing Canada's article in line. Kevintoronto 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Only the Commonwealth Realms template was created yesterday, the Commonwealth of Nations template existed on the other pages for much longer. It was when adding this new template to this page, I noticed that it lacked the CofN template, so I added it also. I think your argument about the Q's role in Canada is irrelevant for this point, because Canada is a Commonwealth Realm, and uniquely shares its head of state with 16 other nations. It is helpful to list them as a template to show the reader the other territories with which Canada shares its head of state, regardless of whether he or she actually excerices politcal power. Astrotrain 10:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yuo haven't added any new arguments. These templates duplicate links that already exist in the article to the Queen and the Commonwealth. There is not room for links to all of teh international organizations to which Canada belongs. The Commonwealth is not more important than most of them, and is arguably less important. I think that the proposal made at Template talk:Commonwealth of Nations is a sound one: put the templates for all international orgs on a page entitled "Foreign relations of Canada". Most importantly, you have reached you limit for the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR). This is clearly a contentious change, and I am not the only one who thinks so, so this issue should be decided here before the change is made again. Please do not revert again or action will have to be taken. Kevintoronto 12:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The template Commonwealth realms is not a "foreign relation" of Canada, and not an "international organisation". It is a category of countries to which Canada belongs. It is right for it to be on this page. Astrotrain 12:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • All of the countries listed on the template are considered to be foreign countries to canada, even though they share the same head of state. A list of these is provided on pages linked from the article in several places. Ground Zero 13:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (formerly Kevintoronto)

How is Canada pronounced?

I've not found any country entry that includes pronunciation. It seems to me that putting it here just clutters up the intro paragraph. This is not a dictionary. If someone wants help pronouncing a word, would they go to an encyclopedia? And without a key, it is quite less useful. I think that part should be deleted. --JimWae 04:19, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Including pronunciations in Wikipedia is not standard, but it's certainly done (and takes up very little space). Here's a meta article on how to handle pronunciations in Wikipedia: The IPA is the most common system used for English, though not the only choice. --Ds13 05:16, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Pronunciation. Michael Z. 2005-04-8 06:18 Z

I've looked several times now & still cannot determine if "(pronounced /ˈkʰænədə/ in English, and /kanada/ in French)" is right. I do not think I pronounce the last 2 a's the same way. I know what the schwa sound is, but not the ae.--JimWae 06:55, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) International_Phonetic_Alphabet_for_English helped a bit -- but NOT completely - I pronounce each 'a' differently --JimWae 07:09, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that IPA forces us to over-specify the pronunciation because, when using it, we cannot give "the" English pronunciation of Canada, we have to give the Newfoundland English pronunciation or the Ontarian English or the Albertan English pronunciation and there are subtle differences as Jim has pointed out. As a Scotsman I would pronounce it /ˈkʰanəda/ but that doesn't mean that my pronunciation is wrong, just that it's Scottish. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the IPA pronunciation deleted by JimWae. I think this is important information in a bilingual country like Canada. To say that languages is not an important issue in Canada, which was the excuse for removing it, I find that a bit amazing!! If languages are not an issue in Canada, then where are they??? Also, if you think the first sentence is "cluttered" with the IPA pronunciation, then just check the Spain article, and tell me how "cluttered" is their first sentence. Finally, about differences in pronunciations, yes, there are always slight differences in pronunciation from people to people, but here we can only give a standard, and the pronunciation given here is the standard North-American pronunciation, which comes closest to how each different person from BC to Halifax actually pronounces it. Hardouin 00:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think it is needless clutter - anyone who can read the first paragraph will have no trouble pronouncing the word - the only time I'd advise anyone on the pronunciation would be if they pronounced the C as an S--JimWae 01:46, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

I've put the pronunciation into the section on the name, and the article about Canada's name.
I'm convinced the three A's are pronounced differently. Should it not be /ˈkʰæ.nə.dʌ/ in English? Which syllable carries the stress in French? I think it's the first, but the amount of stress seems very subtle to me.
Regarding over-specific pronunciation, the /slashes/ mean that it's a general phonemic pronunciation, not a very specific phonetic pronunciation (which would be in [square brackets]). E.g., if you're Scottish, you can look at the phonemic pronunciation of the letter r, and pronounced a rolled r the way you normally would, etc. Michael Z. 2005-04-17 02:38 Z

Also, realize that pronunciation isn't just about isolated phonemes; it's also about syl-LA-bles and em-PHA-sis. One can get every phoneme "correct" but still butcher the pronunciation of a word. Perhaps a link to a typical pronunciation in a wave file (in English and Quebec French, if that appeases people) is of more use than variants in symbolic phonetics. --Ds13 04:51, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

French has no tonic stress, only a very slight stress on the last syllable, which is a regular pattern, and is never indicated in IPA. Also, please note that there are no dots in IPA, so it has to be written /ˈkʰænədə/ , not /ˈkʰæ.nə.də/. An audio file with pronunciation by native speakers is an excellent idea. This feature is already frequently found on Wikipedia. But remember that the audio pronunciation should be done by a person speaking with as standard a Canadian accent as possible (i.e. no English /ˈkʰænədə/ with a strong local accent, and no French /kanada/ with a strong, say, Saguenay accent). If anyone here knows someone speaking at CBC/Radio-Canada, they would be perfect for that. The two audio files in English and French could be put just below the word Canada, on top of the infobox, as is frequently found above the infobox of other countries (check Egypt, Japan, and so on). Hardouin 10:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

First off, sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm new at this. My issue is in the Politics section when it discusses the patriation of the Constitution, the article states that the constitution was patriated in one night (kitchen accord). While the patriation was agreed to that night, the actual format of patriation had been negotiated for months at that point. I think this statement (as well as the use of the term Night of the Long Knives without explaining the context) is very misleading.


occupying most of the North American land mass

it doesn't seem right to say this when Canada makes up about 40% of North America with less than 10 million km^2 of North America's 24.5 million km^2

Well, 10 million divided by 24.5 million does equal just over 40%. Sunray June 30, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I think the objection was to the use of most, when 40% does not represent most. A more accurate statement would be that Canada occupies the largest proportion of the North American land mass, but not most of it. Mindmatrix 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Canada is a kingdom

I'm proposing that the page containing information about Canada ( should include the fact that Canada is a kingdom because... well, Canada is a kingdom.

The 1931 Statute of Westminster ended the British Empire and elevated the former Empire dominions to an equal status with Britain. Thus, because the Crown in these now equal nations could no longer be seen as purely British, the Statute created a singular Crown which is shared amongst all the Commonwealth Realms, while still acting distinctly within each jurisdiction. Thus, for Canada the Crown operates as the Crown in Right of Canada, or, for simplicity's sake, the Canadian Crown.

The fact that Canada is an independent kingdom was hammered home with the 1982 patriation of the Constitution. This meant that the constitutional laws outlining Canada's system of monarchy, including the Statute of Westminster, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Titles and Styles Act, etc., were now all purely Canadian laws.

Thus, with no legal link left to Britain, Canada is completely independent and, having a Crown and a Monarch, is a kingdom.

Therefore, I think it is correct and pertinent to point out that Canada is a kingdom. gbambino

Gbambino, you are the only person who argues that Canada is a kingdom. I have never seen any consitutional expert, Eugene Forsey for example, make this argument. Do you really think that an encyclopedia article should make such a bold statement on the basis of a conculsion reached by some guy or woman on the internet? The rest of us don't think so. You will have to provide credible references written by other people before it will be accepted here. Sorry. Kevintoronto 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kevintoronto-- I supplied the references: The Constitution Act and all the documents contained therein. III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 (renamed the Constitution Act 1982): "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."
So, would you, or the "rest of us", care to tell me what a country that has a crown and a Queen should be called? Is the Netherlands a kingdom? Sweden? Spain? Thailand?
Also, from Mr. Eugene Forsey's 5th edition of 'How Canadians Govern Themselves' (and this is not the only source for this information): "The Fathers of Confederation wanted to call the country 'the Kingdom of Canada.'"
I'm not saying that Canada should be referred to as 'the Kingdom of Canada', but rather that it be pointed out that Canada simply is a kingdom. gbambino
The Wikipedia article refers to Canada as a constitutional monarchy. This is consistent with your reference above to the Constitution Act. As Kevintoronto and DJ Clayworth have pointed out the term "Kingdom" is generally not used. Your Forsey quote refers to a time 138 years ago. Things have changed. I'm opposed to using the term "Kingdom" to refer to Canada today as I think it confuses an already complex picture. By the way, new comments are usually added at the bottom of a talk page. That is why I tried to move it. Sunray 21:42, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Ok. I will concede that 'constitutional monarchy' is sufficient. However, it is no complex matter that Canada is a kingdom. Canada has a Queen, ergo, Canada is a kingdom. Also, I apologise for placing this discussion at the head of the list... I am only figuring out how to use this system.
Also, the full story (or at least, more of it), I have included in an article that I originated on the Naming of Canada, which is linked from Canada. The Colonial Office declined to allow the nascent country to use the title "Kingdom", which, I think, only reinforces the argument that it is not appropriate to use here. Even if you can make a technical argument for it, it is not appropriate to include in a Wikipedia article because Canada is not presented as a kingdom anywhere else. It is not the role of Wikipedia to report as fact something that cannot be confirmed elsewhere.
More importantly, thank you for agreeing to 'constitutional monarchy'. I hope that your future contributions to Wikipeida will go more smoothly. Unfortunately, your first contribution was made to a widely-watched article on a point that turned out to be very contentious. It isn't always going to be this way. I think you have already learned the usefulness of Talk pages as a way of avoiding getting into a revert war, and am glad to see that you are using them. There will be times when others will find your contributions to be contentious, and other times when you will be contributing to the great good of humanity, or at least the greater good of that part of humanity that reads English, has access to a computer and internet service, and is interested in learning about the world through Wikipedia. Welcome. Kevintoronto 23:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the story behind the naming of Canada, and why the Fathers of Confederation were told to stay away from the title 'Kingdom of Canada'. However, as I think I explained, I never felt that Wikipedia should make reference to a 'Kingdom of Canada', as, obviously, no such title exists.
All I was proposing was that the fact that Canada is a kingdom should be pointed out. Simply, "Canada is a kingdom, the second largest and the northern-most country in the world..." Or, "It is a decentralized federation of ten provinces and three territories, governed as a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and is therefore a kingdom." Or some such thing.
Canada is presented as a kingdom every day through its Crown and its Monarch, and the notion of a kingdom is more easily grasped by a larger number of people than the somewhat unfamiliar term of 'constitutional monarchy'. It might also better clarify that Canada is not reigned over by the 'British Queen', but is a kingdom fully seperate and autonomous from the U.K.
But, the pages on some other countries which are monarchies do not make reference to the country being a kingdom. Therefore it isn't necessary to mention that Canada is one.
And thank you for the welcome. I apologise for the disturbance I caused due to my ignorance. gbambino
This kingdom business is getting confusing. Other than the Manitoba historian W.L. Morton (there is no article for him yet in the Category:Canadian historians) who used the title The Peaceable Kingdom, the word kingdom has never found much favor among Canadian politicians or academics since the 1860s. Why is it so important? And is the opinion of a new-comer to Wikipedia to trump over the weight of history and tradition? Eugene Forsey is always entertaining to read, but he was always something of a lone wolf during his crusades. The Wikipedia article does not do him justice. He was famous for his letters to the editor. His autobiography is quite interesting. I have added some of his works to the article. Best to stick with "constitutional monarchy", the accepted term. --BrentS 01:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how 'this kingdom business' is confusing. It is not a matter of a "new-comer"'s opinion, of fashionable laguage, or of the official name of Canada. It is pure fact -- Canada is a kingdom.
If you can prove that Canada is not a kingdom, then please go ahead and try.
Anyway, this discussion has been about whether it was a pertinent fact to add to the Canada page. It has been decided that it is not. What more is there to say, other than I don't appreciate the inference that my "opinion", simply because I am a "new-comer", is of little value. gbambino
Must admit that I agree with gbambino (and I've been contributing for over three years if that makes any difference). I can see how a state could be a kingdom and not be a constitutional monarchy (Nepal is a kingdom but not a constitutional monarchy for instance) but I can't see any way that a state could be a constitutional monarchy without being a kingdom. So it doesn't make sense to argue that Canada is not a kingdom while admitting that it is a constitutional monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:26, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
I think the main point was not whether the term "kingdom" was technically correct, but rather whether it was appropriate to use it in the article. Gbambino has agreed to leave it out. Let's let the matter rest. Sunray

07:41, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

In a country where the monarchy is the government, then that country is a kingdom. Canada is not a kingdom because it has its own government. The Queen does not actively run the country, so for Canada to govern itself and maintain minimal ties with the monarchy (constitutional monarchy) allows us to be a country not a kingdom but with that connection. Kevin G 2005 Apr 20

I don't know the answer to this question, but the previous comment seems to make no sense. Isn't the United Kingdom a kingdom? Doesn't it have its own government? Isn't it true that the queen doesn't actively run the country? HistoryBA 23:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All true. A country where the monarchy is the government, is an absolute monarchy; a country where an elected body (a parliament) is the government on behalf of the monarchy is a constitutional monarchy. Absolute and constitutional monarchies are both types of kingdom. The UK, Canada, Australia and Jamaica are all constitutional monarchies and hence kingdoms even though all four have citizens who are in denial of the fact. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Canada is not a kingdom because it does not have a resident monarch. Astrotrain 16:46, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Belaboring any point – even if the point is completely true – can be a form of POV inappropriate for an encyclopedia or a Wikipedia article. The article makes it quickly and abundantly clear that Canada is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada and head of state. The relationship between these points of fact and the concept of a "kingdom" is abundantly clear to any reader familiar with the terms, and for those who aren't, they'll be clarified at the links already provided. Samaritan 13:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --JimWae 18:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Samaritan's comment above seems to be the most sensible contribution to this entire discussion. Why can't we just call Canada a "Constitutional Monarchy" and leave it at that? HistoryBA 23:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Elizabeth is only the Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom. Elizabeth sits on all her thrones due to the British legislation, the Act of Settlement. Thus she inherited the throne of the United Kingdom, and by defualt became Queen of Canada. Thus Canada is not a kingdom, because its monarch is set by the laws and customs of another country. Although Canada can remove the Queen as Queen of Canada, it cannot remove her from the throne of the UK. On the other hand, the UK can remove her from the throne of the UK, and automatically remove her from the throne of Canada. Astrotrain 18:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not true. When Edward VIII gave up the throne, all the separate commonwealth states had to indepedently accept the abdication and confirm his successor. In theory, Canada could change or refuse a British succession, or simply amend the Act of Succession by a specific constitutional act. The current constitutional relationship between Canada and the British throne is that the Queen is queen of Canada entirely independently of her position in the UK. The Act of Succession is Canadian law as part of the British legal code that was enshrined in Canada in the BNA Act. --Diderot 18:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When Edward VIII abdicated, a piece of British legislation, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 removed him as King for the UK as well as Canada. No Canadian law was passed. While the Queen is Queen of Canada independent of the UK, she still sits on the Canadian throne via British laws- the Act of Settlement. Canada cannot revoke or change the Act of Settlement, as it is a British law, although they could legislate it out of their constitution. The line of succession follows British law, and is automatically accepted by Canada under the Canadian constitution. Canada cannot refuse a British succession without becoming a republic, whereas the UK could abolish the monarchy for itself and Canada by default. Astrotrain 18:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The act had effect in Canada only because Canada consented (on a one-time basis) to the U.K. parliament to legislate on Canada's behalf (something that is no longer possible after the 1982 constitutional amendment). Note that Ireland did not give the same consent and passed its own abdication act, which took effect one day later, so Edward VIII was king of Ireland for one day longer than he was king of Canada. The succession laws of Canada and the U.K. are identical, but not necessarily linked: what we in Canada have is a "cloned copy" of the U.K. laws. The preamble of the Statute of Westminster suggests that all the realms change their succession laws in unison, but a preamble is not legally binding. If the U.K. changes its succession laws, the succession to the Canadian throne would still follow the old rules, and vice versa. Indefatigable 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would certainly be possible for the UK and Australia to be republics ten years from now, while Canada and New Zealand remained kingdoms. Unlikely of course but definitely possible. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Canada is indeed a kingdom. Its name was going to be the Kingdom of Canada, however out of fear that this would anger the americans, they decided on the name the Dominion of Canada.

America Jr. is not a kingdom. It is connected to the British parliament, and Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state (in name only), but it is a democracy; therefore, it cannot be considered a monarchy, which is what a kingdom is. The head of government (the prime minister) is elected by the people of America Jr., making it a democracy. Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 23:03 (UTC)
I hesitate to respond to the above comment, because I am not sure if it is intended to be serious. If it is, may I ask how Canada is "connected to the British parliament." May I also ask if monarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive categories. Is the United Kingdom a democracy or a monarchy in your mind? HistoryBA 30 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with democratic principles. Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 04:41 (UTC)
So, doesn't this contradict your earlier statement that Canada cannot be a monarchy because it is a democracy? And again I ask about the ties that you claim connect Canada and the British Parliament. What are these ties? HistoryBA 1 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
You know, this sort of problem could be reconciled with a new term for countries that are not kingdoms but then again not republics either. How about something like Dominion. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Canada Act 1982 Jarlaxle July 2, 2005 04:39 (UTC)
Isn't that the act that broke the final legal ties between Canada and Britain ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 2 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

The Canada Act just fixed some loose ends between the British parliament and the Canadian one. Canada is technically a Kingdom or Queendom for that matter. The people recognise Queen Elizabeth the second as their head of state and their ruler and all her heirs and successors. Dominion was just a new way to still show we are still loyal subjects but also shows we have control over our affairs. My old passport says the Dominion of Canada the only reason why they started using just Canada was because of the non British people living here and also to ease the tension between the separatists in Quebec. It is all just a name and most Canadians are loyal to the crown. I was just at a citizenship ceremony all the new immigrants pledged their allegiance to the Queen and Canada proudly and promised to uphold the principals of Peace, Order, and Good Government, then we all sang God Save the Queen together. Canada is a nation of many nations. Language, race, religion, and customs do not unite us the only thing that does is our laws and our loyalty to Canada. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 3 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Re Canada Act 1982 "fixed some loose ends"!! Canada could not amend much of its constitution without the assent of the UK Parliament until this act was passed, and there was no amending formula. The Act also entrenched the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and aboriginal rights. The act patriated the constitution, leaving only the Queen of Canada in place. I live in Ottawa and I don't think I have heard God Save the Queen sung here more than five times in 32 years, apart from the few bars played before switching to O Canada when the GG is present. They stopped singing it in Ontario schools in the 1960s when I was a teacher.--BrentS 4 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Official Name: Canada or Dominion of Canada?

Though the term is rarely used nowadays, Canada's legal name continues to be "The Dominion of Canada." It is established as such in the constitution, and the title has never been formally revoked. user:J.J.

This is true. However, the Canadian government, Canadian citizens and other reference works don't use that name. Thus, I'd say that the official-but-unused "Dominion of Canada" should be mentioned in the article, but not used as a heading for the table. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:26 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I checked Peter Hogg's standard work Constitutional Law in Canada and he states in sec. 5.1(e) that the use of Dominion of Canada was chipped away by the Federal government in the 1930s. If you check any laws or official Canadian web sites it is called Canada, not Dominion of Canada -- that is officially an archaic use and inaccurate. As far as the Constitution is concerned it mentions the work Dominion but nowhere is the name Dominion of Canada used in the Constitution, the law that created the independent country of Canada is called "The Canada Act" (U.K.) (1982), not "The Dominion of Canada Act" thus the British Parliament put the final nail in the Dominion name when the Constitution was patriated. -- Alex756 08:35 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I've had this argument before. As Alex correctly states, D.o.C. used to be the official name, but is not any more. The full, complete name of Canada is Canada. - Montréalais

According to William Thorsell in today's Globe we are still the Dominion of Canada. I looked it up in the 1982 constitution and he is right, there is no change of name. (And the name of the 'Canada Act' doesn't mean anything Canada's official name after 1867 wasn't British North America) SimonP 18:49 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There is a lot of blather about this, some of it even on the Government of Canada website.

The actual text of the British North America Act actually says very clearly what is the case. The "Name" is "Canada." The term "Dominion" refers to the type of country it is (i.e. a euphemism for kingdom)

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)
4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

The reason why we have this problem is not just that the wording was confusing. Legally speaking, the name was never Dominion of Canada. Simply, the monarchists amongst us have pushed us to use that term for such a long time. Think of such background parts of the constitution as somehow not law, but really just a document reflecting political positions, not absolutes. In this case, we are simply tossing around the monarchist vs. republic debate in an edge case, the "name" of the country; just like the stupid question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was an edge case to prove or disprove the effective power of god. Eventually we dropped the usage because it was impolitic; the monarchists are losing slowly.

But if you want to be legal, the name of the country is "Canada." If you want to be accurate, explain how and why the history of the country changed what it called itself. It's a good reflection of who we are. The title "Dominion" was even chosen by the British over our objections so as to not offend the Americans with our loyalism. -- SunirShah ( )

I just changed the name to The Dominion of Canada, as that IS the ONLY official, proper, name for my country. If you look up the United States, it does not just say "America", it says The United States of America. Likewise, a search for "Germany", reveals it's actual name as The Federal Republic of Germany, NOT just "Germany". The official name of a country usually tells you how it is run, id est, it's form of goverance. Canada is STILL a dominion, and the term "Dominion" the only proper name for our country and form of goverance as we are a constitutional monarchy, yet not "officially" a kingdom. This is why I changed it to: "The Dominion Of Canada, usually refered to as just "Canada", is the second.....". I ask you people NOT to change it back, as it would be quite a pain if I had to continue correcting this error! --Maxwell C. 05:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, good luck, Maxwell, but there are a lot of people who don't agree for some reason, so I think that you will have a lot of correcting to do -- talking of which, you have mis-spelled some of what you have added so I will need to fix it in any case. We managed to agree a compromise for a while which mentioned Canada and Dominion of Canada but that seems to have broken down lately as new editors have begun noticing the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Maxwell, you're going to have to come up with convincing legal arguments, not just bombast if you want to win this debate. SunirShah, above, quotes the actual text of the BNA Act 1867 to make the case: "One Dominion under the Name of Canada", not "One Dominion under the Name of the Dominion of Canada". Germany and America are officially FRG and US because that is what their governments use and what their constitutions say. There is no international law preventing Canada from calling itself "Canada". If Canada wanted to change its name to an unpronounceable symbol with no reference to dominion, kingdom or republic, it could do so, and people would end up calling it "the country formerly known as Canada". And as Derek Ross said, this debate is been around for a long time, and there will be a lot of people ready to revert to the existing wording every time you change it unless you convince us otherwise. And by the way, when a contentious issue like this arises, Wikipedia protocol is to resolve it through a discussion on the Talk page, instead of engaging in a "revert war" on the article page. Sorry, pal.Kevintoronto 14:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong on at least one account (and many more, but I'm too lazy to list them all right now). We are not "historically" the Dominion Of Canada, we are STILL the Dominon of Canada, nothing has changed. Therefore, as a comprimise, I will change it to "formally called the Dominion Of Canada", not "historically". Also, people still DO use the term "Dominion" to refer to our country, CBC's Rex Murphy used it just two weeks ago on CBC! --Maxwell C. 02:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, something has indeed changed: the government has ceased to refer to the Dominion. That's a major policy shift. "Compromise" isn't what you decide it is. - Montréalais 04:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Well, you are wrong on at least one account (and many more, but I'm too lazy to list them all right now)." That's pathetic. Really pathetic. If you're not willing to engage in logical debate and present credible evidence (Rex Murphy is your best evidence?), then you've lost, and we will continue to revert. Kevintoronto 13:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you can continue to revert all you like, but I would like to now offcicially declare my revert war upon you people. I will keep getting rid of that "historically" part, as it is simply untrue bullshit, our constitution has not changed, regardless of what some idiots in Parliament think. --Maxwell C. 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit. I am willing to listen to your argument and I might even agree with you if you present a case for your change. A number of people have presented information with sources that opposes your opinion. Until you point out a flaw in their logic or sources, I side with them. -- JamesTeterenko 00:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, here is my "case": We are not "historically the Dominion Of Canada", we ARE the Dominion of Canada, there is nothing historic about it. Nothing has changed, if you must have written proof, please read the British North America Act. And also, you stated that your edit was to make it agree with the "consensus" on the talk page. If I do not agree, then it ceases to be a consensus. I have re-re-corrected this error in the calling of our dominion "historic". --Maxwell C. 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The act should be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 3: "...One Dominion under the Name of Canada." In the first decades of the previous century, the appelation of "Dominion of Canada" was in use, especially in foreign affairs. That usage progressively disappeared after 1930. --Vasile 19:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not necessary to rescind an earlier appellation, then pass a new appelation for an official change of appelation. All that need happen is that a new constituating law be passed that uses the new name. --JimWae 05:47, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
The BNA Act 1867 established the name "Canada", but the name "Dominion of Canada" was used. There was no statute passed to enact that "change". The Constitution didn't prohibit that "Dominion of Canada" usage. The Canadian Constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" (preamble of the Constitution Act 1867). UK was appealed as "British Empire" in the 19th century, but that name became desuete soon after the end of the WWI. Something similar happened with Canada name. --Vasile 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear: "the Name of Canada", not "the name of the Dominion of Canada". The "One Dominion" part of it makes it clear that Canada is a dominion (whatever that means), but it clearly does not say that the name is "the Dominion of Canada". As far as your comment, Maxwell, that your dissenting opion means that there is no consensus, your point is taken. It seems that your view is that the article should reflect only your opinion, though, and to heck with the rest of us. With that view, there is no doubt that you will lose the revert war. Kevintoronto 16:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just checked with my Canadian History Professor, a world renowned expert on the history of Canada who has written something like 60 books on the topic. He made it EXTREMELY clear to me that the official name of our country is "CANADA" and that the "DOMINION" part of our original name "dominion of Canada" was officially dropped from usage between 1951 and 1953 sometime. Hope that Helps.-- 23:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) cshefm|Montreal

I don't think this answers the question. Where is the official name of the country determined? The constitution does not say, "The name is the Dominion of Canada", it only talks about a "Dominion under the name Canada. No one has provided any evidence of an "Offical Name of This Country Act" passed by Parliament. If the Government of Canada does not use "Dominion" anymore, then what is the basis for saying that the official name is something other than what the people who run the place use? Kevintoronto 19:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I removed TWO "dominion of Canada" mentions in the introductory paragraph, because I feel it is obviously useless anywhere else than in "History of Canada"; moreover, the phrase having officially been dropped 50 years ago, and my never having it heard anywhere else than in history books and courses, make it a thing of the past. Sorry all monarchists here, but the crown POV propaganda is utterly pointless here; Canadians are NOT New World Britons, they are Canadians. le_natch 07:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody again, I have just re-added ONE "Dominion of Canada" mention into the first paragraph, because I know that it ought to be put in there. According to "Frankidou", we should also drop the sentance mentioning how we were confederated from the first paragraph because "It is obviously useless anywhere else than in 'History of Canada'", because it happened so long ago. And you're right, Frankidou, Canadians are NOT, nor will EVER BE, "New World Britons". We are CANADIAN and proud of it, with our own monarchy, traditions, and official name for our country. This is not some sort of "Monarchist POV propaganda" here, but just the truth. Canada is a monarchy, LIVE WITH IT. If you don't like it, EMIGRATE somewhere else. Note also that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source of republican propaganda either. User:Maxwell C.

Does anyone know where "Canadian Federation" came from? I've never heard *that* one before. Two almanacs and two (print) encyclopedias say I live in "Canada". The Globe and Mail style guide speaks not on this point. The "monarchy" is a legal fiction and has been so pretty much since Confederation, certainly in my lifetime anyway. --Wtshymanski 07:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The title "Canadian Federation" is not any sort of official title, it just adequately describes our system of goverance. We have a FEDERATION of Provinces, that are "Co-Sovereign" with the federal government because they each have a CROWN (e.g. "The Crown in Right of British Columbia"). This also further proves the fact that the monarchy is part of our daily lives and not just some sort of "Legal Fiction". Anyone claiming that the monarchy is "legal fiction" is either highly under-educated or a moron who refuses to accept the truth. Maxwell C. 23:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hysterical. There's all sorts of "legal fictions" - Mcdonald's Crop. is a person, according to a legal fiction, but at least it can't vote. The biggest influence of the monarchy in my daily life is the picture on the $20. Isn't it interesting that the Queen of the UK declared war on Canada Iraq but the Queen of Canada thought this was a bad idea? Looks like "legal fiction" to me. --Wtshymanski 00:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realise that the Queen of the UK had ever declared war on Canada. When did that happen ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lol, it never did, this guy is a moron. Maxwell C. 05:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I must remember to preview. I would have been less moronic had I not been laughing so hard while typing. Legal fictions all the way - when IS the Queen's birthday, anyway? Aside from sticking the capital in the boonies, when was the last time a decision of a flesh-and-blood UK king or queen had any more relevance to Canadians than, oh, say, a Rolling Stones tour? --Wtshymanski 13:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh right. You really meant why did the Queen of the UK think it was a good idea to declare war on Iraq when the Queen of Canada didn't, since they are the same person. Well that's straightforward to answer. You just have to ask "good for who". The Queen was advised by her British Prime Minister that it would be good for Britain, and by her Canadian Prime Minister that it would be bad for Canada. Given that they trust the advice of their advisors -- which the Queen is legally forced to do -- any reasonable person would be bound to declare war on Iraq by Britain but not by Canada whether they were Monarch, President, a Committee or Chief Bottle Washer. As for "legal fiction", the only one that I can see is that the Queen of Canada is a different person from the Queen of the UK. There is no legal fiction involved in the question of whether Canada has a Queen. That's a legal fact. It does. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Anyone claiming that the monarchy is "legal fiction" is either highly under-educated or a moron who refuses to accept the truth." "Lol, it never did, this guy is a moron. Maxwell C." Maxwell, remember No personal attacks. It was a typo. Please learn to be civil, especially with those with whom you disagreee. There is no call for and no benefit from insulting other editors. Personal attacks are grounds for being blocked. Ground Zero 16:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for the personal attack. Another thing, there is nothing "symbolic" about our monarchy. It is no more symbolic than the constitutional monarchy of most other countries. Maxwell C. 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind if I ask you to explain the logic here? You seem to be arguing that Canada's monarchy is not symbolic because "it is no more symbolic than the constitutional monarchy of most other countries." But if the other constitutional monarchies are symbolic, and if Canada's monarchy is as symbolic as they are, wouldn't that mean that Canada's monarchy is symbolic? Also, I had understood that monarchists defended the monarchy, at least in part, because of its symbolic value. At the same time, the few republicans criticized the monarchy for being merely symbolic. In other words, both supporters and critics accept that the monarchy is at least partly symbolic. Am I misunderstanding the Canadian situation? HistoryBA 23:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that calling it symbolic makes it sound like it has no purpose in goverance, thus voiding the NPOV and giving the article a republican flavour. For example: Japan DOES have a symbolic monarchy becuase their emperor doesn't have any powers at all, id est, the executive authority doesn't rest with him, whereas in Canada the Queen retains all executive power and the authority of and over Canada. Maxwell C. 04:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. At the risk of responding without reading all the discussion above: but hasn't the monarchy exercised its power symbolically for a long time now, by not interfering in Canadian legislation? Is it clear that the Queen would, or even could, ever veto any legislation at this point in history? I realize that since this is an untested hypothesis, it can't be proven, but doesn't that make it effectively symbolic? Michael Z. 2005-06-2 04:46 Z
Maxwell C.: I'm not exactly sure how that answers my question. Let me try to pose the question another way: specifically what does the monarch do that isn't symbolic? From what I can see, the Canadian monarch (or the Governor General, acting on the monarch's behalf) signs legislation (a symbolic act, because the monarch has no role in drafting the legislation and never refuses to sign it), reads a speech from the throne (a symbolic act, because the monarch does not draft the speech and has no choice but to read what is presented to her), makes appointments recommended to her by cabinet (which she never refuses), and acts as commander-in-chief of the armed forces (but never actually commands them). What here isn't symbolic? HistoryBA 01:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hrmmm. Who, I wonder, deleted my previous post? Oh well, whatever. Anyways, the monarchy is symbolic, yet it is also functional. If, as you seem to be stating, all constitutional monarchies are symbolic, then there is certainly no need to state that ours is aswell in the opening paragraph. It makes it redundant. I really do not wish this to turn into a silly "revert war", just leave out the symbolic please. Maxwell C. 04:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "history" page will tell you who deleted your previous post. You can restore it if you'd like. People should not be deleting your contribution to the discussion page.
I don't want a silly revert war either.
Did I do or say something to make you believe that I do? As for the substance of the discussion, are "symbolic" and "functional" mutually exclusive categories? Isn't the monarch's function a symbolic one? HistoryBA 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The BNA Act states that the country is "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." I don't see why there' s any debate regarding the name since even the BNA Act is clear - what name does the country go by? "The Name of Canada" not "The Name of the Dominion of Canada". Indeed the phrases "Dominion government" or "Dominion of Canada" appear nowhere in the BNA Act 1867. The belief that the name of the country is "the Dominion of Canada" came later. AndyL 01:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For and against rationale for Canada's Name are all a matter of personal/user interpretation. Actually, as indicated in that subarticle, the term Dominion of Canada does appear in (for example) the Constitution Act, 1871. Also, the point is not necessarily moot since scholars such as Eugene Forsey (in 'How Canadians Govern Themselves') consider(ed) the Dominion entitlement a matter of debate and the position in the 'The Oxford Companion to Canadian History' indicates constitutional amendments to change this ... official, though disused, appellation. Lastly, Canada's constitution is comprised of written text AND unwritten convention, and 'Dominion' usage seems to qualify as one of the latter ... and especially in this forum. E Pluribus Anthony 2 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
I fail to see why this is so controversial. Dominion is simply the term describing what sort of state Canada is. It is a self-governing nation with a governor general as head of state, representing the Queen. It is not a kingdom and it is not a republic, it's a dominion. But who cares? One rarely says the "Republic of the United States of America", but that's what it is. One also rarely says the "City of Ottawa" but that is what it is. It just isn't necessary to use the term. Canada is the name, Ottawa is the name, United States of America is a name (poor one though it is (Alternative words for American). There are far more important things to get worked up about. Can we get along here? Can we all get along? DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
I hear you and completely understand; from a personal perspective, I hope to provide authoritative sources and information any which way. It is ironic, though, that individuals on both sides of this issue periodically take out their frustrations on the Canada article and others, often with insufficient information, where such detail is far more appropriate elsewhere. Besides, what's in a name? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 3 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
Anthony, I hope you don't think my remarks, though following yours, were aimed at you. I was intending to say the whole debate was overblown and unnecessary not your calmly stated and referenced input. DoubleBlue (Talk) 3 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)


is there any source indicating that the scandinavians going there were vikings? Dan Koehl 12:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan: see

Yes, I saw it mentioning norse buildings, and Viking lifestyle, whatever that is, that article, belonging to a website of national parks, doesnt describe this inovation further, or what the main parts of that life style was. Since so little is known by those colonists, Id say its vise not to speculate to much in their life styles, and even inventing new terms for that.
The colonists was scandinavians. Theres no need to confuse it by using misunderstood words from 1800´s romantic periods, afais. Dan Koehl 05:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has been mostly the history kept by the Scandinavians themselves through their sagas that claim it was the Vikings that first came to Canada. We already know they made their way to Iceland and Greenland so their saga of Vinland, and subsequent discovery of Scandinavian settlement in Newfoundland make the story credible. - Beckie

Viking is an occupation, not an ethnicity. Most Scandinavians at the time were not vikings. As far as I know, none of the Vinland settlers were ever involved in any viking raids Fornadan 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting precision. I think that out of Scandinavia, Viking is used interchangeably as an ethnicity, a culture, and an occupation. Frankidou, 23-05-2005.
It seems to me that the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement is most commonly accepted to have been established by Leifur Eiriksson. He was born in Iceland. The historic Scandanavian peninsula included Norway, Sweden and Denmark. So, is it strictly correct to attribute the Newfoundland settlement to a 'Scandanavian expedition'? If you paruse the 'Viking' article, it makes the distinction in the first paragraph that the term 'Viking' is borrowed from a Norse expression refering to a sea-faring people whose origins were Scandanavian. Perhaps a more accurate wording for the Canadaian History section might be to call is a Norse expedition. (Oh, and the grammar in that sentence could use some tidying up too.) 17:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)~~Luke