Talk:Canada

Notice: Before you edit the article PLEASE READ the following.

Toolbox
Alt text Citation bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Reflinks

Archives
2003–05 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

A non-exhaustive list of writings on the origin of the name Canada

Please find below a non-exhaustive list of writings on the origin of the name Canada (all in English language). The list includes encyclopedias, dictionaries, books and newspaper articles that go back from the XVIII century until today. The list can easily be expanded and it is easy to add other sources in French, Spanish and Portuguese. All these works have one thing in common: They all recognize that there are many theories in place on the origin on the name Canada (more or less accepted). I think the list is already solid enough to justify that the Wikipedia reader should not be lead to believe that this debate never existed and be lead to believe that there is (and always has been) a unique undisputed truth on the etymology of the word Canada.

• The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative North American Literature (2014) - Editor Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 [1] – Says that another possible explanation for the name….”aca nada”

• The Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles Online (2015) says that The etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established [2]

• The Canadian Encyclopedia (2013) says: “Cartier's may not have been the first use of the name Canada. Fishermen and whalers from Spain, Portugal, France and Britain had visited the new world before him. The Spanish experience in Mexico and Peru prompted exploration for gold and riches in other places and motivated King François I of France to send Cartier on his first voyage to Canada in 1534. The Spaniards, finding no riches around the Baie des Chaleurs, reported "aca nada" or "cà nada" meaning "nothing here" and named it "Capa da Nada," "Cape Nothing."[3]

• David DeRocco,John F. Chabot – (2008) From Sea to Sea to Sea: A Newcomer's Guide to Canada [4] says that “There are many theories on how the name Canada came into use….another theory with less acceptance suggests the name “Canada” was given by Spanish explorers.”

• Joseph Graham (2005) “Naming the Laurentians: A History of Place Names 'up North'” . This book says that “The origin of the name Canada had been a subject of debate for years before Confederation” [5] “The name Canada had been a subject of debate for years before the confederation. One story credits the Portuguese”.

• Alan Rayburn (2001) – “Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names” [6]

• Olive P. Dickason, (1984) “Appendix 1: Origin of the Name 'Canada,'” – [7] French version available online here[8]

• Mark M. Orkin (1971), “Speaking Canadian English: An Informal Account of the English Language in Canada” – this book discusses three theories about the origin of the name Canada [9]

• Marshall Elliott (1888) “Origin of the Name 'Canada.' Modern Language Notes Vol. 3, No. 6 (Jun., 1888), pp. 164-173 [10]

• Henry Beaumont Small (1868) - Chronicles of Canada: Or A Concise History of the Leading Events in the Old Provinces of the New Dominion – [11]

• Drake, Samuel Gardner (1841) - The book of the Indians, or, Biography and history of the Indians of North America; from its first discovery to the year 1841. [12]

• Forster, Johann Reinhold, (1786) History of the voyages and discoveries made in the North [13]

• An article from the Montreal Gazzete (1953) [14]

• An article from NY Times (1909) – Further conjecture on the origin of the name Canada - [15] J Pratas (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced. I looked at the first one, it's a discussion of "North American Literature". It's not historic. I can't support this nonsense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I should explain more fully, and it is in-line with what I wrote earlier and echoes what Bearcat wrote below. The additional theories should be discussed at the etymology article. The most we should do here is state that the explanation is from Cartier's journal. We might want to hint that there are other theories, but that none hold water. They should not be explained though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I. Just because some WP:FRINGE theory exists does not mean it should get any mention at all. This has been a giant waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's denying the fact that the theory existed. But the fact that 200-year-old sources can be found which demonstrate that there was a dispute about it 200 years ago does not prove that any substantive dispute about it still exists in 2015. And didja notice that the New York Times piece you linked at the end of this list points out that "aca" means "hither" rather than "here", and suggests that any Spanish claim to the etymological origins of Canada may instead be linked to Cañada meaning "glen" or "valley"?

Just a reminder that this article is a broad overview of Canada as a whole — it has to cover a lot of things from the 1500s all the way to the present day, so it's not the place to delve into extended exploration of alternative historical theories to the origin of a word. The separate article Name of Canada can do that — and indeed, it already does — but even there, it's not appropriate to give the "ca nada" theory primacy over the more generally accepted "kanata" origin. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you when you say that there is a general consensus that today the "ca nada" theory has NO primacy over the more generally accepted "kanata" origin. I understand that this article is on Canada and that there is a separate article on the name Canada (which I hope we will be able to improve by adding to it: more theories, an account of the historical debate and enrich with a list of further reading) . However if for centuries and up until today the etymology of the word Canada has been object of debate and many sources still present several theories as plausible, then the article should not ignore that such debate existed, that it still exists, and pretend that only one theory is the truth. I think our discussion is not being very helpful, I am considering opening an RfC with the following questions: Is the “etymology” section of [Canada] in line with NPOV policy? Has the etymology of the word “Canada” been a subject of debate for years/centuries? If so should we have in the etymology section a brief description of such debate? Is the etymology of Canada clearly established today? J Pratas (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, NPOV does not mean 'fair and balanced' or 'present every possible idea and let the reader decide' It means we follow what the generally accepted quality sources say. The fact that you are just ignoring what three (I think) long time editors are telling you smacks of WP:IDHT. This is all quite tiring. There is no need for an RFC or anything, your understanding of the NPOV policy is just plain wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the present version is best. Many sources do say that there has been significant debate, or that there are multiple theories. This is true, but subject to misinterpretation, as is happening here. All of the theories agree that the name comes from the word "kanata." The debate is about how a word meaning "village" came to refer to the entire country. Roches (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free content

Regarding this edit: past discussion has determined that using the image of the Canadian coat of arms in this article does not comply with criterion #8 of the non-free content criteria policy. The omission of the coat of arms in this article is not substantially detrimental to the reader's understanding of Canada. Including the image is significant for the reader's understanding of the Arms of Canada, and so this criterion is satisfied for that article. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added a free image of the escutcheon from the arms which creates a link to the full article and also makes the infobox more in keeping with infoboxes of other countries on wikipedia - please reverse if you feel this is not appropriate - Rude-boy-wayne (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Stephen Harper is no longer prime minister 184.144.146.32 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is. The governor general appoints prime ministers; they are not elected. (So many Canadians' knowledge of basic civics is abysmal!) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done M. Please take your monarchist fantasy some other place. We're a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Prime ministers in Canada are elected. The new prime minister is sworn-in though and Mr. Harper is the prime minister until the time the new leader is sworn-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed by the governor general on advice from the elected members of parliament. A democracy tinged with monarchy, if you will. In any case, Harper is indeed prime minister until the swearing in of another. Willondon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I am responding despite M's removal of his earlier comment . I directed no bad faith remark at you at all. I made a comment that you're living in a fantasy. No bad faith involved. You have been told multiple times, by multiple editors that the Canadian monarchy is present at the leisure of the population and you insist on pushing the fantasy that Canada is an absolute monarchy: that the governor general or his master in Buckingham Palace somehow decides who leads the nation. That is the furthest thing from the truth it's not worth discussing. If Mr. Johnston were to swear Elizabeth May in in a few days, he would find himself in the same place that Australia's John Kerr (governor-general) did: dismissed and a pariah in society.

In conclusion: the people of Canada elect the prime minister of Canada and the figurehead governor general swears the people's choice in as leader of the nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: Your understanding is partially correct, but it is the leader of the party, not the elected members of parliament who give the advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted, among the elected members of parliament who give advice, the leader of the party winning most ridings certainly holds a lot of sway. Willondon (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Whomever commands the confidence of the House of Commons is appointed by the governor general as prime minister. Voters elect the Commons, the Commons "chooses" the prime minister. It's known as responsible government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is the theory and it may still be done symbolically. In practice (see 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute) it is entirely the leader of the party with the most votes in the house. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper is PM until he offers & Johnston accepts his resignation, which won't be for another roughly 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The PM continues on until his successor is sworn in, which can take weeks. The GG acts on the advice of the outgoing PM. In this case there is no question Trudeau should be appointed PM, but Harper advises the GG when that should take place. The GG has no obligation to appoint anyone as PM - the office is not even in the constitution. But the tradition is the GG will follow the advice of the PM and the PM will advise a successor if s/he is unable to maintain the confidence of the House. In some cases they may recommend an election. Byng sacked King (who came second) in the King Byng Thing when King came second and Byng offered the premiership to Meighen. But the consensus is that Byng should have followed the PM's advice. It is not that the Queen and her governor exercise powers, but that the powers the Crown held have passed to the PM. In Canadian history, the monarch has had little power, it was the King acting on the advice of the UK PM that exercised power. TFD (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

...PM - the office is not even in the constitution. This may be no more than obliquely relevant to the use of the (unofficial) descriptor "prime minister" in Canada and other realms, but helps to explain the position: in UK "The list of government ministers printed in Hansard, the official record of parliamentary debates, seems to have first used the title Prime Minister in 1885. An early internal reference to the Prime Minister was included in the minutes of the first meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1902. The 1904 edition of the Imperial Calendar (the predecessor to the Civil Service Yearbook) referred to Arthur Balfour as ‘Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury’; in the previous edition he was merely ‘First Lord of the Treasury and Lord Privy Seal’. Then in December 1905 the Prime Minister was granted a place in the official order of precedence. The first statutory reference to the Prime Minister came in the Chequers Estate Act 1917, which specified Chequers as a prime-ministerial residence. Public recognition of the existence of a ‘Prime Minister’s Office’ in the Civil Service Yearbook came as recently as the 1977 edition."[16] Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Change current Prime Minister from Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau 129.100.205.208 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

In the Government and Politics section, the number of Commons seats needs to be increase to 338. Thanks! Mabmd2000 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done  DiscantX 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Please change the Prime Minister setting from Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau because as of the federal elections of the 19th of October 2015, the Conservative party is no longer in power and replacing it is the Liberal party, its leader being the aforementioned Justin Trudeau. 198.84.255.72 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done Under constitutional convention, until Harper formally submits his resignation to the Governor General and Trudeau is sworn in, Harper remains the PM. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)