Talk:Canada/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Canada  (Redirected from Talk:Canada/Archive7)
Jump to: navigation, search



Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Canada's area

Hello! Can someone clarify and provide authoritative figures for Canada's total area – and, as well, subtotals for land/water, and provinces/territories? There are discrepancies between figures in the Template:Canada infobox and Geography of Canada, et al., and I've seen both figures (for total area) in various sources. Have I missed something? Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone shed some more light on this apparent ... discrepancy? Help is appreciated. E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Further to this, I will investigate the varying figures and make appropriate editions to appropriate articles ... you're all warned! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my prior queries (unanswered! :(), I've investigated and reconciled figures regarding Canada's area. According to the Canadian Oxford World Atlas (upfront, p. 11), The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2005 (p. 760), and the Britannica Book of the Year, 2003 (pp. 573-4), Canada's total area is 9 984 670 km², with a land area of 9 093 507 km² and water area of 891 163 km² (8.92%).

I observe that, in the Canadian Global Almanac, 2005, another figure of 9 976 140 km² for the area is noted (p. 1), which was in the Geography of Canada article; however, this does not agree with a total of 9 984 670 km² which results from totalling the total areas for the provinces and territories (pp. 25-31).

To ensure agreement and consistency, I've made appropriate editions incorporating the larger figures (for which I've found more information) to the Canada, Geography of Canada, and United States articles.

So: in totality, Canada ranks second (to Russia) and is slightly larger than the US which is also slightly larger than China; however, Canada is somewhat smaller than both in land area (China is 9 596 960 km² and the US is 9 161 923 km²), ranking fourth.

Edits to other articles may also be required, or the above ones can be changed if the information can be refuted. Anyhow, please let me know if you've any questions. Happy ho-ho! :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the area should be in square miles as well...
I agree, but you cannot put it into the infobox, because it stuffs it up (it doesn't allow for sq miles to be inserted). If you desire, insert it into the main article text. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Or put it into Geography of Canada - use the detail articles for specific details. enochlau (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree: due to length, these details might be more fitting in the subarticle Geography of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to move the note about Canada's second-largest size status out of the opening paragraph, but was reverted. In my opinion, that kind of minutiae shouldn't be given such prominence, as it degrades the quality of the article by bombarding the reader with some fairly irrelevant trivia before relating the more important points. It's kind of sad, actually, and reminds me of the penchant that each U.S. military sub-organization seems to have for defining itself in some sort of obscure superlative--such as "first Air Force installation on the Thames" or "longest flight line of all midwestern bomber bases!"... you get the idea. --Yath 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguably, this is merely a point of view: what you may consider minutiae may be considered by other editors to not be. And it is wholly appropriate for the intro: this is a significant geographic superlative regarding countries, particularly when others are mentioned in the lead for comparison/context. And if it's so minute a point, the notion wouldn't have entire tables and articles/sections devoted to it. In fact, I think such commentary is rather out-of-whack: as the US Air Force says: Aim High! You get the idea. E Pluribus Anthony 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As to "minutiae" and "obscure" superlatives: often (though not always), a superlative is what makes something stand out instead of remaning obscure, and can serve as a definitional mnemonic base around which to remember other details about the topic. As to the arguable point of whether such things deserve placement in the very first paragraphs of encyclopedia articles about countries: here is a posting I made last year in a discussion of whether it was "POV" to include the United States' superpower status in the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's "United States" article:
1. I used the word superpower in the introductory paragraph: "Also referred to, with varying formality, as the United States, the U.S. (or the US), the U.S.A. (or the USA), the U.S. of A. (or the US of A), the States, and America[1], the superpower consists of fifty federal states and one federal district."
2. It was removed as being point of view.
3. I specifically linked to the "Superpower" article—which readers should see, along with many other sources (too numerous to list; both in Wikipedia and without), to determine the term's validity when it's applied to the U.S.
4. I inserted the term as a relatively agreed-upon fact. My insertion is not meant to say that superpowers are good or bad, and is not meant to say whether it is good or bad that the U.S. is a superpower. It is simply a thing that most persons familiar with the word would agree on. If you ask "What nation or nations is or are superpowers in the world today?", the first answer almost invariably will be the U.S., in whatever country you ask the question.
5. I inserted it in the introductory paragraph for this reason: it seems to me reasonable that an encyclopedia article's opening paragraph on a country should provide four basic bits of information: (a) the name by which the country is generally known in the language of the article; (b) the general form of the country's government; (c) the general geographic location of the country; and (d) anything that is highly likely to be considered a defining characteristic of the country, such as some sort of extreme (largest population, smallest area, northernmost, southernmost, coldest, rainiest, only one with absolute monarchy, whatever, ... or superpower).
6. The opening paragraph gives common names of the U.S. in English; gives a very basic description of the form of government; offers the general location on the globe; and describes a feature that, in this case, is not only a defining characteristic but, indeed, is considered by many to make the country unique (the only one of its kind) in the world. In introducing a country, it's likely to be interesting, informative, and useful to the reader to offer some detail that sets the country off from most, or all, others. We could point out the United States' high rank in land area or in population; but the U.S. is only close to the top in those areas, not actually superlative—while it is a superpower, and is very often defined, by experts and laypersons alike, as the single superpower in the present world.
7. Later in the same article are the words "Since the mid-20th century, following World War II, the United States emerged as the dominant global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs." That's a pretty good definition of a superpower. But, in the opening paragraph, we might want to be more concise, offering simply the word rather than the definition—and, as I said, the word superpower itself is a cross-reference to the "Superpower" article. There are many defining characteristics of the U.S.; but one of the most significant, and the one that may well make the U.S. unique in the present world, is the country's superpower status.
Please, consider these points. If there is disagreement, let's discuss it.
Thanks to all for their efforts with this article.
The first response to the posting:
The USA is as superpower. That is a significant and distinguishing status, and therefore appropriate in the introductory description. --StanZegel (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The second:
This is not a matter of American nationalism; the United States is objectively the nation with the world's largest economy and military-industrial complex. It's the country's most defining characteristic, and deserves lead mention. Austin Hair 20:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Before someone jumps up to ask why I'm discussing the U.S. on Canada's page: the U.S. is incidentally the country at hand in my example—an example that, I feel, could or should be used with each country's article. Perhaps it's worthwhile in considering any reworkings of opening paragraphs about countries in Wikipedia, including Canada (which, by the way, from my POV, is a lovely country).
President Lethe 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Today, in Talk pages for the articles on both Canada and the United States, I'm just trying to make it clear for anyone who has doubts again; all figures from CIA World Fact Book as of 17 March 2006; top five countries by area:

Total Area:
1. Russia: 17,075,200 sq km (includes 79,400 sq km of water)
2. Canada: 9,984,670 sq km (includes 891,163 sq km of water)
3. United States: 9,631,418 sq km (includes 469,495 sq km of water) ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")
4. China: 9,596,960 sq km (includes 270,550 sq km of water)
5. Brazil: 8,511,965 sq km ("includes 55,455 sq km of water) (includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")
By Land Area Alone:
1. Russia: 16,995,800 sq km
2. China: 9,326,410 sq km
3. United States: 9,161,923 sq km ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")
4. Canada: 9,093,507 sq km
5. Brazil: 8,456,510 sq km ("includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")

President Lethe 17:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PM bias

There appears to only be liberal PM photos featured in this article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

...Are you saying we should include photos of the Conservative, NDP, and PQ Prime Ministers?  — Saxifrage |  01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There are only two photos of Prime Ministers - one being the current PM and the other (Pearson) included to illustrate his & Canada's role in UN Peacekeeping and the Suez Crisis. Those seem perfectly reasonable, it is incidental that they are/were both Liberal PMs. But, in fact, further representations of PMs appear in the images of Canadian banknotes: 2 Liberal, 2 Conservative. I don't see any "PM bias" in this article. Pinkville 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Pinkville addresses the anon's comment well. Notwithstanding that, would it not make sense to include Sir John A. Macdonald, not for the purpose of providing political balance, but because he was our first prime minister? Ground Zero | t 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pinkville. If anyone should be depicted it's Macdonald – he was a 'Liberal-Conservative' initially – but he's also depicted in the article on the $10 dollar bill (as are others). Moreover, 9 of Canada's 21 PMs (or 12 of 26, if you count terms) since Confederation have been Liberal, so I don't see this as bias per se. The article, and everything depicted, can't be everything to everyone. E Pluribus Anthony 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't bias. From an international perspective, Pearson is well known. When you talk to foreigners, the other one they always mention is Trudeau ... that doesn't solve the bias. There does appear to be a problem in the article, in that Trudeau is referenced - but only by last name, and with no link? I can only assume someone deleted an earlier reference? I added a picture of Macdonald ... I don't think this should offend anyone! Nfitz 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Someone deleted the reference to St. George's Day which is a stat holiday in NFLD, because they claimed (on behalf of all BC'ers ...!!) that "no one in BC even knows what day it is on." As well, as a 42 year old Canadian, I have never celebrated St. Patrick's Day (and never will), so by this person's logic I should delete the reference to St Patrick's Day. But I won't. In NFLD SG Day is a stat holiday, and many thousands of people in Toronto celebrate it (I know this because I grew-up there). I suggest that other Canadians celebrate this as well, and that it should be included. TrulyTory 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Because St. George's Day isn't an official national holiday in Canada there's no reason to include it in the article on Canada. It makes perfect sense to include it in the article on Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, since it is an official holiday there. Pinkville 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, P. (this coming from someone for whom one parent is from Corner Brook); nix it. Also note that there are subarticles where such elaborations are more appropriate, if not already – Holidays in Canada, et al.
Again: this summary/overview article can't be everything to everyone: the article remains unnecessarily excessive and, given the abundance of information in it and redundancy with (underused, methinks) subarticles, this one needs a thorough pruning. I'll get around to this (again) at some point. E Pluribus Anthony 15:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine then. I will nix St. Patrick's Day which is not a stat holiday in any of the three provinces I have lived in. (Although it is in NFLD.) To include it would be to show a certifiable bias. Fair is Fair! TrulyTory 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes: actually, arguably all of the unofficial holidays listed needn't be mentioned in this overview. For instance, what of holidays in other calendars/religions (e.g., according to my almanac) that aren't mentioned? Thus, unless there's substantial objection, I'm gonna remove them and revise that statement. E Pluribus Anthony 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Remembrance Day? It's observed, but I wouldn't call it a holiday. The schools are always open this day in any part of the country I've lived, and businesses are open. Perhaps it's a provincial or bank holiday in some places ... but should it be on the list? Nfitz 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it is NOT a Holiday, but a Day of Observance. Until recently is was a statutory/mandatory DOO in Western Canada (MB to BC), and most citizens (other than retail workers) still get the whole day off. My family goes to RD services in Manitoba each year, and wherever we go, the Service is packed. BTW, I like the latest edit that generalises the unofficial Holidays. TrulyTory 18:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, Remembrance Day is included among the "Government, bank and other holidays" listed in the Canadian Global Almanac 2005 (p. 911), so I don't see there being an inherent problem in including it here.
Moreover, I made a mild edit to the Easter Monday ref in the article: the former is the traditional and commonly observed holiday, while the latter is by statute; feel free to revise it with parentheses (around (Monday?) or what have you. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whose to say Canadian Global Almanac is correct? We can't start going by bank holidays, or else we'd be listing January 2nd (or January 2nd and 3rd this year, as January 1st was the Sunday). Remembrance Day might be a local holiday in some provinces, but in many of the provinces, even the schools are open! I'm not sure how full a religious service is, is a guide, as we would be having to add Yom Kippur and Maundy Thursday as well! In terms of Easter - Easter Monday? Well, the schools might get it off, and perhaps government workers - but it's hardly a wide-spread holiday, hence my putting it in brackets next to Good Friday. Nfitz 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's correct per se: I'm citing it as an example of what holidays to list without rationalising such a list into oblivion or overanalysing its components. Perhaps just Easter, no parentheses, is sufficient? One or the other. Remember, we need to brief here: wikilinked subarticles yield more than enough information. E Pluribus Anthony 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this GOC page ( there are only 5 statutory holidays in effect across all jurisdictions in Canada: New Year's, Good Friday (Easter Monday in PQ only), Canada Day (Memorial Day in NL only), Labour Day and Christmas Day.
There are a total of 4 additional statutory holidays in Federal jurisdictions, but which may not apply to places of work that fall under provincial jurisdictions: Victoria Day, Thanksgiving Day, Rememberance Day, and Boxing Day.
There are also various other statutory holidays in other jurisdictions.
Note that there are some quirks. For example, consider the status of Rememberance Day in NS. The Statutes state that nothing can be bought or sold, and no employee can receive pay in exchange for work performed on Rememberance Day, except for the provision of essential services. But there is no entitlement to holiday pay on that day unless the employer makes special provisions. (However, employees in essential services who have to work RD are entitled to another day off with pay in lieu.) 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! The current article lists the major holidays above, and I think it describes the topic of Canadian holidays accurately yet succinctly. Perhaps you should add details to the holidays in Canada article? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Someone had deleted the entire article and wrote just "Canada sucks". being a canadian myself i find this to be pathetic. Since a lot of people seem to have a unwarranted vendetta against Canada,I think this page should be checked on often. I know I will. Pure inuyasha 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is oddly vandal-prone. Please do add it to your watchlist! Jkelly 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really find it odd. A lot of people seem to hate my country. Pure inuyasha 00:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't read too much into vandalism: it's a weapon of idiots who have no other forum to express their opinions. And here you can easily revert such nonsensical crap. Ask yourself this (whimsically): what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't? :) E Pluribus Anthony 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea, pure stupidity. I added this to my watchlist. I am Canadian, but guess to has kool hacking skills and can trace this stupid guy - w00t w00t!! lol jk. paat 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking up this page at work was a rather tramatic experience with that recent vandalism of the Canadaian Flag.--AlphaTwo 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't?" pops? :D We must have some kind of frozen treat here that others don't have! bcatt 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Most of these people don't even have a valid reason to hate Canada, yet many still do. I agree, Pure inuyasha. --Von 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tourism link has taken all of the link to tourism for every country (Canada, france, Turkey, ect. ). Should we put the link back? paat 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked, but it isnt restored. Ill add it myself, since it seems that it would be a good thing to have it. I wonder what will happen to the other country pages... paat 17:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm; on second thought, why should we include that particular link, and not another one regarding Cdn. travel, if at all? E Pluribus Anthony 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If you come to a consensus to include the link here, then that's fine. Please don't go adding it back to all of the other articles. The anon's only contributions were spamming links to that site. --GraemeL (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I added the link in Canada, but not in the other countries. I just thought that maybe it was a kind of vandilism, since every other country was prived of its tourism link. paat 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[Go back to E Pluribus's comment on 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
I dont understand what you're trying to say. are you asking why put that one if there others out there? paat 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the flip-flop/confusion. I thought SimonP's revert was originally to restore that particular travel link when, in fact, he removed it (i.e., is it spam?) When you mentioned it, P., I didn't (and don't really) think there's a problem in including it ... and especially (as per GL) if a consensus supports it. However, upon probing, the link doesn't seem particularly notable – there are a plethora of, and perhaps better, travel sites out there to include (Fodor's etc.) – so I'm neither here nor there regarding that specific link. I hope this clears things up. E Pluribus Anthony 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you revert?

I've been correcting a few vandilism acts in thsi article (surprisingly, its sumone that really linkes douches (showers in french... lol), but i havent been reverting, i just delete and correct. I would like to know how to revert any edits paat 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find this article helpful: Wikipedia:Revert. --Ds13 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect

Given the rash of vandalism, it may be time to semi protect Canada? Astrotrain 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think so. No more vandalism than the michael Jackson or Britney spears page. not unusual for an item with a lot of haters. Pure inuyasha 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree: Admins should block the offending users instead. E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it because of a rash today. This allows registered users to continue to edit, but prevents unregistered and new users from doing so. The IP was different for each vandalism, but the vandalism didn't change, so blokcing would not be useful. It should be unprotected tomorrow, which I'll do if I'm around, or another admin can do if I'm not. Of course, if you were an admin, Anthony, you could take care of it. Ground Zero | t 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Since I removed semi-protection yesterday, the article has been edited 12 times by various unregistered users. All 12 of the edits have been low-level vandalism. It's a waste of editors time to be constantly reverting. Ground Zero | t 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Names in intro

I'm going to remove the titles and names of the executive branch in the intro of this page. The United Kingdom, Australia, United States and France all don't have them (the only ones I checked). The paragraph is also just full of blue links making it extremely hard to read. -- Jeff3000 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud you for your recent edits, J3000. I don't necessarily disagree, but read above and you'll note that it is/was a somewhat conciliatory approach to delineating Canada's government upfront. That's why I restored it; try to balance the two.
Moreover, I feel that the article can be pruned additionally/significantly, with much of the text being redundant: much of the content does (or should) be found in the appropriate subarticles. Good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on making the intro better (hopefully tonight), because as it is, it's too short, compared to other countries. We can possibly have the titles, but we should definitely not have the names, because Canada is more than just the current leaders. The overview section is also kind of weird, given that that the intro should be the overview. I was thinking last night that some of the overview text should go into the introduction, and the rest spread over the rest of the article.
And yes, a lot of this article should be pruned. The Culture section especially. -- Jeff3000 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've worked some more on it. The intro section is more diverse now, and contains some text from the overview section, which I've removed after making sure the info was in other parts of the article (except for the location of the official residences). I've also shortened the Governor's General article, which has some triva in it, and the culture section which was full of stuff that wasn't culture. The article, and intro, I think, still need some shortening. -- Jeff3000 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Great. I've mildly tweaked the intro a bit, importantly to include/retain notions of the upcoming election and dominion. I removed the immigration blurb as it's fairly nondescript. Thoughts? More to follow. E Pluribus Anthony 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

  • since it is pretty clear who the new prime minister is, I've edited the article to show Harper is prime minister Pure inuyasha 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, why not wait till the results are in. There are variables that could alter your prediction (even the possibility of a coalition, for example). Plus, until it's a fact, such a change should not be entered in an authoritative encyclopedia article. Indefatigable has already reverted the changes. Pinkville 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Martin is PM until he resigns and the GG appoints somebody else. Although it will probably be apparent by the end of today what resignations and appointments will take place over the next few weeks, let's wait until it actually happens, so that Wikipedia remains verifiable. Indefatigable 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You need to wait until a new prime-minister selected by the Governor-General. If Harper doesn't win a majority, there is nothing to say that Martin, despite not having a plurality of seats, will attempt to continue to govern with a coalition - a bad idea I except, but it is Martin's to make - not yours. Also, as the polls are still open, and the polling has been very volatile, there is nothing to say the result is pre-ordained! I'm really not sure what is going to happen tonight, and it should make for great TV! Yeah, a lot of this other have said already, though they hadn't when I started typing! :-) Nfitz 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, but if Stephen Harper wins, i get to revert it. Pure inuyasha 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Only after Martin resigns, and the GG chooses and swears in a new PM. This process typically takes 10 to 15 days (10 days in 1993, 13 days in 1984, 15 days in 1980, 16 days in 1979 ...) Nfitz 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nfitz is right: if you put Harper in as prime minister before he is sworn in as such by the Governor-General, the article will be wrong. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. Even if Harper wins a convincing minority or a majority tonight, he will not be prime minister tomorrow morning. Check Kim Campbell. Her term as prime minister extended beyond the election day because she remained prime minister until Chretien was sworn in. Please don't put falsehoods into Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Though by the end of the night, it might (depending on Martin's speech) be possible to add a note on who the next prime-minister will be ... Nfitz 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The commonly-accepted term is "Prime Minister-designate". The American term "-elect" is incorrect because the PM is not elected. "PM-designate" is not official, but it is commonly used. Notwithstanding the notes I have added to the article, I would have no objection to adding Stephen Harper as "PM-designate" to the article, as long as it is clear that Matin remains prime minister until a new one is sworn in. This is just a matter of accuracy, not politics. Ground Zero | t 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
With that said, what is the problem with putting Paul Martin as PM and under it putting Stephen Harper as PM-designate on the column to the right? Wikipedia is here to provde information to people about Canada. While Martin is still the PM until the swearing-in ceremony, it would also be proper to list Harper's position to let people know that a new leader has been elected. Is this unreasonable? -- 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You'd get no ojections from me. Ground Zero | t 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it's not what was being done. The editor who started this discussion stated a specific intention to edit the article as if Harper were already PM. We go through this every time an appointed or elected office changes — people start editing the articles as if the change were effective the moment the result is announced, even though there's always a transition period first. Michaëlle Jean did not become Governor General the minute her appointment was announced. Dalton McGuinty did not become premier of Ontario on election night. And on and so forth — the prior occupant still holds the title for about a week or two. Bearcat 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  •  :::You shouldn't yet change the pm section because even if harper won he is just PrimeMinister-Elect Stephen harper until he gets sworn in by governor general Michelle Jean.
  • For those of you who have been chomping at the bit to add Steven Harper as PM, please wait until this is a fact. He will be sworn in at 11:00 am EST today (6 February 2006). Listing him as PM right now is not a fact - it's anticipation, which has no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Pinkville 14:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

added information about stephen harper becoming prime minister.

  • all of this information has been gathered from the news. Pure inuyasha 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the wording. There is no "announcement" that Harper will become prime minister. There is no one to make such an announcement. The new wording reflects the actual situation. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Referendum totals

"with votes of 59.6% and 50.6% respectively"

The percentages should be different, this doesn't add up right. I think instead of 59.6, its 49.4

You've misunderstood the sentence: 59.6 is the No total from 1980 and 50.6 is the No total from 1995. They're not supposed to add up to anything; they're the results of two different votes. Bearcat 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the vandalism lockdown

Since there is has been a paucity of vandalism, it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these vandals have had their accounts either banned or expunged from Wikipedia. Please remove the vandalism. It makes our country looks bad.

Ontario help

Is Quetico Provincial Park in Western or Northwestern Ontario? It actually looks like Southwestern Ontario to me, but I don't know how it is referenced in Canada. Any help? -Ravedave 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the stub I added to that article, it is in fact in Northwestern Ontario (the image clearly shows it to be on the northwest edge of Lake Superior (at the Minnesota border), which itself demarcates the northwest coastline of Ontario. Mindmatrix 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'll go with what you say. To me its the south part of the west part of Ontario. -Ravedave 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It may seem a bit tricky to an outsider...but southwestern Ontario means the London-Chatham-Windsor area. It's not the southernmost end of the western part; it's the westernmost end of the southern part. Southwestern and Northwestern Ontario actually don't even touch each other. Bearcat 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys really are loonies :P -Ravedave 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Try living in really falls off the Ontario map. (Stormbay 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

New PM

Stephen Harper is the new PM since Jan. 24.

  • No, that is a common misconception. He does not become PM until the new government is worn in by the Governor-General. This will happen within two-three weeks. Until then, Paul Martin remains prime minister. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

army vs. navy

"At the end of World War II, Canada had the fourth largest army in the world, behind the United States, UK and the former Soviet Union, including Russia." Surely this can't possibly be true. I think this was meant to say "fourth largest navy in the world". Or perhaps it was meant to say, "per capita". Is there a citation for this? Ah, now I see this is a very bad cut-and-paste from the article Military history of Canada, which states: "By the end of the war Canada was the fourth strongest military power in the world behind only the USA, the USSR and Britain." (my emphasis). I'll change the wording in the Canada article for now, but even this is vague and - I suspect - misleading. Pinkville 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at the end of world war 2, Canada was indeed the fourth strongest military power in the world. This happened thanks to the immense war effort of the country, and the unofficial conscriptions that happened in some places. Additionnally, most military world powers before the war were european. Once the war was over, Europe was devastated. The only really significant armies remaining were the US', USSR's and China. Canada was mostly a distant fourth. Or, rather fourth "by default". Canada's military importance greatly diminished after the rebuild of Europe. As for saying the UK had greater military power, it is mostly because the entire Commonwealth's military was actually considered the UK's. More accurate and reliable sources are however needed. Dali 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. It demonstrates why it's important to be careful with wording: "fourth largest army" has a very different meaning from "fourth strongest military power". But the latter, although as you confirm, is accurate generally, it doesn't explain much. "Fourth strongest power" in what terms, exactly - does anyone know? And I think it would be a good idea to indicate that Canada was a distant fourth, as not doing so is quite misleading. I don't have any real expertise in this matter, but hopefully someone who does will expand and clarify this section. Pinkville 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Provinces and Territories - with map - needs to come earlier in article

People who do not already know place names - especially not whether they refer to a city, province, or region - will find many sections of the article mysterious -- particularly the geography section -- unless the section on Provinces and territories (with the map) is moved up. I've done this twice before, but it keeps getting "revised" over time --JimWae 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a potential argument for any country. The proposed ordering might be inconsistent with the section order indicated in the WikiProject Country article template – actually, the 'Geography and climate' section should be moved down below the 'Province and territories' section to conform to that (and would thereby move the P&t section up one). I see no pressing reason to buck the standard (and would instead advocate for that order); however, this isn't a clincher for me and I'll gladly defer to a consensus regarding this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, "subdivisions" comes BEFORE geography in the template-- thanks for pointing that out -- JimWae 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. If I recall correctly, the provinces/territories table was previously included right AFTER an 'Overview' section (and essentially before anything else) with the remaining section in its current spot; this is somewhat inconsistent with the template. Indeed, there are many ways to skin a cat – by analogy, Australia is different yet again, with details in the appropriate subarticle. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Government, new agenda

the Canadian government currently supports universal health care, same-sex marriage, and decriminalization of marijuana. All of these issues are of varying contention amongst Canadians.

Should the above be revised or deleted now that there's a new (conservative) government in power? We know that they're opposed to same-sex marriage, and are luke warm at best to the idea of decriminalizing marijuana. 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. ♠ SG →Talk 20:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I have inserted what? into the sentence describing the special Irish connection to Newfoundland. There is something missing, but I don't know what it is. Someone knowledgable, please correct :-)

Hi, I've recovered, replaced and slightly reworded the missing information you were looking for. Ciao! Pinkville 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite the sources, make Canada a Featured Article!

As per the peer review of this article, as well as simply taking a look at the article itself, it's clear we need citations or references for many parts of the text. I'm asking you, my fellow Wikipedians, to help each other find proper sources for the statements made in this article. If there's no possible citation, rephrase or remove it please. If you're sure there is a possible source out there somewhere, but you can't/won't find it yourself, add {{fact}} temporarily. If no one can find a source after a while, rephrase/remove.

We also need to reduce the number of one-sentence paragraphs. Once again, rephrase or remove them if possible. Move these sentences into other paragraphs or add information to make it longer. Thanks! Hopefully we can turn Canada into a featured article by the end of the month! ♠ SG →Talk 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada depends on the USA for security

From the article introduction: Its diversified economy relies heavily on an abundance of natural resources and trade, particularly with the United States, on which Canada arguably depends for its security and with which it has had a long and complex relationship.

At best, this is "arguable", as the statement currently says. And although Canada's relationship with the US is very relevant and belongs in the intro, the military aspect of it is not nearly as important as the economic and cultural aspects. So I would say that even at best, this part of the sentence does not belong in the intro.

At worst, the statement is purposefully inflammatory. My opinion is that, for any meaningful interpretation of the statement, it is false. What threats are facing Canada, against which it depends upon the United States for security?

If there are no objections or other suggestions over the next day or so, I'll remove this statement from the sentence. --thirty-seven 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed this sentence in the article. --thirty-seven 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! Agreed! Much better. Pinkville 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a point to consider is that, if a group did have ill intentions against Canada—intentions that could best be defended against by the military—, and if Canada did not or could not depend on the U.S. for added security and protection, then that group would probably be a lot less likely to think twice before attacking. If someone felt like doing Canada some harm and did not see the U.S. sitting next to Canada as its buddy, the attacker would probably feel a lot bolder; on the other hand, if the U.S. were standing by Canada, the attacker would probably think harder before advancing.
A second point: I agree that the introduction may not be the place for mentioning it. Incidentally, my idea of a good encyclopedia's introductory paragraph about a country is that it provide four basic bits of information: (a) the name by which the country is generally known in the language of the article; (b) the general form of the country's government; (c) the general geographic location of the country; and (d) anything that is highly likely to be considered a defining characteristic of the country, such as some sort of extreme (largest population, smallest area, northernmost, southernmost, coldest, rainiest, only one with absolute monarchy, superpower, whatever—especially anything that is a verifiable superlative).
And a third: we should all be careful about speculating on the purposes and intentions behind texts. When I mention the fact that Iceland has never had its own military, and that the U.S. military has provided Iceland's military protection since World War II, and that the Icelandic government is disappointed by the United States' decision to withdraw its military presence from Iceland in 2006, my only intention is to inform. President Lethe 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Largest cities

Previously and currently, I've decided to nix the section regarding largest cities (recently re-added) for numerous reasons:

  • (1) The section was placed somewhat illogically, at least to me, between 'Language' and 'Aboriginal peoples'; if anything, it should be a subsection in 'Demographics' or 'Geography and climate'. The prior placement would also be inconsistent with that presented in the country article template.
  • (2) Arguably, the in-text descriptions (e.g., "nearly world-class cities") are rather subjective and require refinement.
  • (3) Importantly, insinuating this level of excessive detail (also noted above) is unnecessary for a main article: there are a number of subarticles, appropriately wikilinked, with this information. This article is already much longer than recommended; by analogy, the US article is twice as large as recommended precisely because it contains everything with the kitchen sink ... which is also evident in the section order.

Perhaps this is better dealt with in a succinct single sentence in the 'Demographics' section where urban areas are already treated, which I've done. However, unless there's a groundswell supporting the inclusion of this table and related information, I see no reason to retain these atomic details in their current form. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Great edit, Anthony! I think the single sentence conveys the right amount of information for an overly-long summary article like this one. Ground Zero | t 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TY! That being said, the wikifying of terms in that sentence may not be ideal as of yet (e.g., city, urban area, metro area, Toronto vis-a-vis GTA, etc.) and could undergo some tweaking/wordsmithing, but you get the idea. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the article lacks information on cities, particularily the fact that it doesn't even have a photo of it's arguably most important city: Toronto. The extra largest cities section was fairly brief, just enough to give room for photos.
    • Your first point merits that the section be moved, not removed.
    • Your second comment means that the wording should have been changed, not deleted.
    • Your third argument is rather strange. A small addition of only ten cities is excessive? The recommended size is exactly what it is, a recommendation. We aren't writing about the history of pancakes here; a country's article will obviously be much longer than your run-of-the-mill Wikipedia page.
    As I was writing this next point, I started to stray off-topic and decided "the hell with it." I'm going to list the problems this article has with photos. United States is, in my opinion, excellent, because of the fact that it has many photos which complement the article perfectly. Take a look at the photos on Canada again.
    1. We've got a bunch photos of politicians.
    2. A rather poor photo of Parliament Hill.
    3. Another bland photo of the SCC.
    4. A large badge of the Canadian Forces, which, if made smaller, would give room for a photo of another CF-related photo.
    5. A good photo of Dawson City in the Provinces section is out of place. More of a history photo if you ask me.
    6. Demographics has room for a small photo.
    7. The photo of downtown Montreal in the Language section is way too long.
    8. The Wayne Gretzky picture is of poor quality and could be replaced by a better free license sports photo.
    The extra section not only skimmed on the topic of Canada's cities, but it gave room for city photos, which, as you can see from above, are not well-shown. That can't possibly be too ridiculous of an idea. Anyways, I have a job to get to, so I'm not going to bother making large additions to an article if someone feels they can simply remove it as they wish. ♠ SG →Talk 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If every Wikipedian decides to make "small addition(s)" (as is, arguably, the case with the current article, which is in need of improvements as both you and I have suggested), the article loses its utility as an overview. Should we also include a listing of the country's largest companies (given the importance of private sector investment in the economy) or, in the current zeitgeist, expand on the recent federal election and aftermath? No – there are a plethora of subarticles that, effectively wikified, better treat this information. There's no fundamental reason why this or any country article needs to be longer than others. If we want to recall "pancakes", does one rehash everything about them or provide a link to the Wp article about them? The same is true here – there are numerous lists of Canadian cities (proper and agglomerated) in Wp, as listed in the 'Demographics' sxn – and little of your commentary acknowledges that. IMO the cumbersome section/table added little value to the article, and the sentence I added fulfills essentially the same function (and was at least acknowledged as such). Hell, let's be bold and create an integrated article about Cities in Canada or Urbanization in Canada and then link to it from this article.
I'm truly sorry that you feel as you do; as for my points above, all three of them merit a reminder of one of the notations below the edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." I can be compelled otherwise, but haven't been yet. Yes, we are not talking about pancakes ... but we needn't drown in syrup to appreciate them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Plural of "Referendum" to use in section on Quebec seperatist movement

In the English language, "Referendums" is at least as acceptable as "Referenda". Furthermore, according to the BBC's experts, in Latin there were two distinct meanings for the word "referendum". One, meaning the process of carrying out the vote, had no plural in Latin. The second meaning meant the actual question on the ballot, which had the plural "referenda". Since it is the first meaning that corresponds to the modern English word, it makes sense to use the English form of the plural, especially since there was (apparently) no Latin form. See this post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by thirty-seven (talkcontribs) .

You're worrying about which of the two perfectly acceptable English plurals of "referendum" to use, when you can't even spell "separatist" correctly ? I think that you have more important problems to deal with. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC).
Ditto – any English dictionary will indicate the propriety of referendums OR referenda for the plural. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Are you sure that this GDP estimate is correct at 1318 billion? State your references. This would put canada's per capita PPP at a higher level if correct. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

You should probably use the cia factbook as a general economic reference, regardless of it's accuracy. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I to am quite concerned about the GDP given, considering that this peculiar reference page is used extensively when conducting research.--Vancouver123 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you still have the 2005 estimate on, it's 2006 buddy! -- 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Has the 2006 estimate been created? You're welcome to add it then. — Saxifrage  03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Can anyone explain how and why Canadian airports got stuck with the Y prefix? Steelium 3:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In Canada and most of the United States, an airport's IATA code is the same as the last three letters of the ICAO airport code. So, since almost all Canadian airports happen to have ICAO codes beginning with CY, the IATA code just drops the C. (Technically Canada has the whole letter C at its disposal, but the convention was basically established as CY — I believe to minimize conflict with Canadian television and radio call signs, but I'm not absolutely sure of that.) Bearcat 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Map problem

The big map in the "Provinces and territories" section of this article, Image:CanadaMap1.jpg, is a fair use image, which means that Wikipedia does not control the rights to it and is thus severely limited in our use of it (and thus our use of this article, for example in a possible print version). Would one of the editors watching this page be willing to create a map, perhaps using one of the maps at Wikipedia:Blank maps, that could serve in its stead? There's really no reason for us to be using a fair use image to convey information of this type. When a new one is created, let me know and I'll replace all of this links to the current one and delete it. Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You might also edit from this one or this one or perhaps even this one. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There's also this one which is a cropped version of the CIA fact book one (which I find is too wide. -- Jeff3000 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Image:Canada provinces english.png looks like a perfect replacement. Shall we just replace the existing image link with that one? I don't think it needs any editing as it's already clearer than the existing "fair use" image. — Saxifrage  11:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
We should probably have more detailed maps (with adjacent territories) in this main article and the Geography of Canada articles, but simpler ones (like above) elsewhere. I'll work on a more detailed, but simpler, replacement for this political map. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To that end, I've updated this map to start, based on one above with tweaks. Enjoy, and more to follow! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that image, is that it doesn't show the surrounding countries. Given that those surrounding countries give a perspective to Canada I think it's necessary. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know; didn't I say that? :) I haven't changed the maps in the two articles mentioned above because of that, and I've only included my brainchild (an initial stab) in articles where depicting adjacent territories is not necessarily important (e.g., Provinces and territories of Canada, List of regions of Canada). I'm working on one that is more detailed and shows adjacent territories ... I'll have it ready in soon. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

I removed a paragraph from this section, as the section was already too long, and that information is not fully relevent to the Canada of now. It should go in a sub-article. -- Jeff3000 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Would anyone be against me shortening the article in some parts including the Monarchy of Canada. If we ever want this article to reach feature article status, we need to cut things out. -- Jeff3000 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for pruning. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Me too. HistoryBA 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and shortened the article a bit. Before I do more, please check the removals and bring anything back that you think I took out that I shouldn't. -- Jeff3000 17:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since no one has commented I've cut down the provinces and territories section which had too much info about the government structure of the provinces, that info is now in Provinces and territories of Canada -- Jeff3000 11:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Good job, Jeff. I'm with Anthony and HBA. This article needs regular cutting back. Ground Zero | t 12:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto: if only I had the will/time. Keep it up!  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That should be keep it down! :-) Good work! Luigizanasi 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for editing it! :) However, should we just mention Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch rather than saying "the monarch"? I think it would give everyone a good overview. That's just in my humble opinion though. Thanks! YMT

Four more sections done (even though I couldn't cut down the Geography and Climate section much). A couple sections to shorten at the bottom of the article, and then back up to History. -- Jeff3000 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I took out an edito by User: earlier today, but he has added some indecency to my talk page [2]. If he adds more material as so, can someone else please revert his edits so it looks like I'm not being heavy handed. -- Jeff3000 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Making this article better

Now that I've shortened most of the sections there are signficant things that need to be done to make this a featured article. I've read much of the discussion above, and I'll note what has been commented above that I really think we need to focus on:

First of all, great work on pruning! As well, I'll comment as needed below for expediency: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. References: This article is very very weak on references. Need some
    Agreed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Images: As noted above, too many people, not enough pictures that show what Canada really is. Canada is more than it's current leaders.
    Agreed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Holidays: Do we need this section?
    This is indicated in the Country wikiproject, so a consensus is arguably already in place. While it is not essential to include it, IMO, it is brief enough that removing it wouldn't really serve much purpose. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cities: I think we need a section that lists the major cities.
    As indicated above, I disagree with this (or at least the prior table): this is fulfilled by the current 'Demographics' section/statement, with multiple links to numerous lists, and listed capitals in the province/territory table. As well many other country articles, far more urbanized – like Australia – do not possess atomic details regarding cities nor is it noted at the wikiproject. While this is perhaps begging for a standard, I do not see a need for it if the wikinlinks (as for other topics) generally suffice. Perhaps a subarticle, Cities in Canada or Urbanization in Canada, should be contemplated instead. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My recommendations to fix the above

  1. For the references we can divide the sections and each one of us can find references for our assigned section.
  2. For the images, make a listing of them here, and we can determine which ones are necessary, and which ones should be ditched, and possibly note new ones.
  3. Holidays: First try to build consensus, and then vote
  4. Cities: First try to build consensus, and then vote

-- Jeff3000 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz disambiguation

User Jcuk has twice recently added a disambiguation note to the top of the article about the section of the Auschwitz death camp nicknamed Canada. I removed it again. This definitely should not be a disambiguation statement at the top of the page. 99.9% of people looking for "Canada" are looking for information on the country. Anyone who knows that a part of Auschwitz was nicknamed "Canada" would know to look in the Auschwitz article. Since this has been twice added and twice reverted in rapid succession, I suggest that any further changes about this be discussed here before they are made in the article. --thirty-seven 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree: the Canada (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion; I suggest additional feedback take place there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Given many recent additions to the Canada (disambiguation), which is no longer the pathetic dab it once was (thank you User:Mindmatrix!), I've re-added this to the article. It can stand for some pruning, but please discuss before removing it as before. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- the new disambiguation page is much better, and certainly a big improvement over just specifically listing the Auschwitz reference at the top of this article. Personally, I still would prefer not to have the disambiguation at the top of this article, but there seems to be a consensus that the new disambiguation page is very good and belongs here, so I'm fine with that. --thirty-seven 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. I think the current dab, particularly with notations of predecessor jurisdictions called Canada in one way or another, now requires such a hatnote. Take a glance at a number of country articles, like Japan, and you'll note that it is somewhat common and the current hatnote is as simple as can be. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm creating a list with the different sections that we need references for. Please sign your name beside it indicating that you are willing to take it up. I've started it out. -- 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Oh: I plan on collecting references in the next week and some. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks Anthony for all your hard work, plus I've found a book that I think covers all the things I signed up for just now. I just need to go through it to be sure, hopefully by tomorrow night, and then we'll be well on our way to having these references done. -- Jeff3000 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • NP ... ditto! It'll take me some days to round out everything (and to double check some facts), but this is a worthwhile undertaking. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Let's see if we can decide on which images to keep and which ones to replace and with what. Please comment below about each image, and what new images we'd like to see. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • History
    • Image:Death-wolfe.jpg Plains of Abraham
      Keep - Good Photo -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Important moment in Canadian history --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep – germane. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - though it would be better in my opinion if perhaps an image of the battle itself were included insteadsay1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - one of the most important historical paintings in Canada. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg John Macdonald
      Keep - Not bad -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - First PM important --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      weak keep – though germane, this is covered off with 'Canadian bills' picture in 'Economy'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Delete- perhaps one of the less attractive looking people on the page
      keep - Cant think of a better person to include for historical reasons say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Delete - Perhaps if there's a pic floating about of Sir John A. with Cartier or or De Cosmos or some other Fathers of Confederation, it would be nice to spread the glory around a little. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Canadian Red Ensign.svg
      Remove - Not that imporantatn -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove -- HistoryBA 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove - Not hugely relevant --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      removeE Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove. This belongs in a separate article. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep- Good image to show the stage of British colony
      Keep -- variations of this were used as the country's flag for 50 years or so. Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      Delete - It's already in the flag of Canada article, which could be referenced (can't recall if it is or not). Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Government
    • Image:Canada Parliament2.jpg Parliament Hill
      Replace - Parliament Hill is the right idea, but need a better photo -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep -- HistoryBA 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Though open to idea of replacement with a better image --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep, or replace – with better picture; perhaps with one of all of Parliament Hill and or central Ottawa vista? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace. shot needs to be taken from closer to the building. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace- agree with above
      Replace - something just looks off to me when I see that picture.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - per the reservations of Gbambino. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Monarch
    • Image:Queen of canada wob.jpg Queen Elizabeth
      Remove - Not that important in the general in Canada -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove -- HistoryBA 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - If images of other occupants of offices to be kept, Queen should be there as well. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep – germane (as with GG and PM below), but also on the $20 bill image in 'Economy'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep per Gbambino
      Keep -- Oh for heavens' sake, she is our head of state, even if just as a figurehead. How can the article not have the head of state in it? Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      move or keep - I think this section needs either this picture or the one of Jean removed and this one could probably be integrated elsewhere in the article, while I could only see Jean's picture removed. Just think there needs to be more space in this section.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - she's the head of state - 'nuff said. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Governor General
    • Image:JeanSmile.jpg Michaelle Jean
      Undecided - Face of external affairs, but in grand scheme of things not important in day to day activites -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Same reason as above and below. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep – I see no reason to nix pictures for current leaders. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep- per Gbambino Astrotrain 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep -- Exercises powers of the head of state -- important even if largely ceremonial. Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      Undecided see comments above about picture of queen.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - per E Pluribus Anthony. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Executive branch
    • Image:Harpes.jpg Steven Harper
      Replace - A specific prime mininster doesn't define Canada, nor the office. I don't know what would be better though -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Current occupant of the office should be illustrated. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep – as with GG. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep per Gbambino Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      keep no reason not to say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - with a better, more formal photograph of him. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Judicial branch
    • Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg Supreme Court of Canada
      Keep - Good photo -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Ditto --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keepE Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace, perhaps with a photo of an interior area. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Comment: perhaps with one depicting the bilingual sign out front? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Delete- not important Astrotrain 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep -- Supreme Court of Canada is very important in the running of the country. Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep unless a better picture perhaps an interior (as stated above) is used to replace it.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - per Jeff3000. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Foreign Relations
    • Image:Lesterbpearson.PNG Lester Pearson
      Undecided - Would like to replace with something more familiar, but can't think of a good one. US article has Statue of Liberty -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - With a picture of Peacekeepers? --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep -- Only Canadian to win a Nobel Peace Prize, inventor of peacekeeping, one of the most important Canadians in history
      weak keep, or replace – with image of UN peacekeeping operation somewhere, which would cover off on 'Military' picture too. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Delete- unknown outside Canada Astrotrain 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Delete -- Being unknown outside of Canada is not a good reason, but Pearson does not really represent current foreign affairs, nor is foreign affairs the only thing he represents. Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - per the comments of E Pluribus Anthony and Ground Zero. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Military
    • Image:Canadian Forces emblem.svg Canadian Forces Emblem
      Replace - With an piece of equipement or some army personel -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Symbol of the institution works --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace, or delete – consolidate with UN peacekeeping picture in 'Foreign relations'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - per Jeff3000. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep Astrotrain 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      It has be changed but I hate the current one as little can be seen, there must be a better picture somewhere.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      weak replace - if we replace Pearson's pic with peacekeeping ops, we'll have our pic of the military.
  • Geography and climate
    • Image:Canada-satellite.jpg Satelite Photo
      Keep - Proximity to other map is a problem thogh -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - Too similar to map. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      strong keep – germane: this is the geography sxn, which entails more than just geopolitical boundaries and is dissimilar from the map. Similar images appear in various other territorial/country articles and, given the country's size, it and the caption provides a brief overview of the country's diverse physiogeography. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Can't think of anything better or representative of the country as a whole. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:MountLogan.jpg Mount Logan
      Replace - With forest and water picture-- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - With something less specific --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep – germane: this is a notable geographic feature not treated in text, and replacing it with a "forest and water" picture would be without purpose. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      'keep - but then, I'm in the Yukon. :-) Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace. The hues are strongly skewed to purple. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Comment: there was another one in place previously, but it was nixed due to sourcing issues. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      keepsay1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - nothing really "epitomizes" Canadian geography, but its highest mountain is definitely notable. Fishhead64 00:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Economy
    • Image:Canadian_bills.jpg Canadian money
      Keep - Very good image -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Good illustration. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      strong keep – germane, but more because it fulfills many functions, especially in depicting notable leaders current and prior. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace. though I wouldnt mind it if the big SAMPLE could be removed and perhaps have the bills lined upsay1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - per E Pluribus Anthony. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Language
    • Image:Montreal-mcgillcollege.jpg Downtown Montreal
      Move - To culture section, doesn't fit in language -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove - Montreal doesn't define Canada's language --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      remove – et seq.; non-descript. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove. Not really needed. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove Fishhead64 00:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Montreal-Place Vauquelin, Note.jpg Bilingual old map in Quebec
      Replace - Need a more modern sign -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep - Better illustrates bilingualism, though open to idea of replacement with different sign. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace, or weak keep – perhaps replace with something with bilingual sign as per the Federal Identity Program (e.g., Supreme Court picture)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Maybe replace with a bilingual Stop/Arrêt Sign. Can be taken at any airport. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace with a sign that you can see the different languages on. SUre you can read it if you click on it, but you should be able to see the difference in thumbnail form.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - with a better image, such as one in front of a government building, at an airport, etc. Agree it needs to be both readable and more generic. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Culture
    • Image:RCMP2.jpg RCMP
      Delete - move Montreal photo year -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove - Too stereotypical. Don't know of an image that sums up Canadian culture. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace, or remove – With musical ride picture? Perhaps just one picture can hark of this and everything below ('Sports', 'National symbols') ... like another/single hockey picture? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove. I don't know what could be used to replace it. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Keep- a recognisable cultural aspect of Canada to international world. Astrotrain 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      replace - there must be a better picture of a mountie, could be one of the musical ride, though mountie is good as a major symbol of canada.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - this doesn't really epitomize Canadian culture. How about a reproduction of a Group of Seven or Emily Carr painting? Or a photograph of a Canadian writer, artist, musician? Or both? Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sports
    • Image:CanCup87.jpg Wayne Gretzky
      Replace - Better more modern picture of hockey -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - Agree more up to date picture could be found. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      keep, or replace – while not ideal, I'm sure such a single picture would be germane for this sxn, 'Culture', and 'National symbols'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Remove -- copyright infringing, no fair use rationale for this article. Jkelly 23:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace -- e.g., with 2006 women's Olympic team. Ground Zero | t 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      move the new one down slightly or to the opposite side of the text (or moving mountie accross would work too.say1988 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      Replace - with something more timeless and generic. How about kids playing hockey? Or a photo of a curling or lacrosse game? Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • National Symbols
    • Image:Common Loon head sideways.jpg Canadian Loon
      Keep - Can't think of a better one -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Undecided --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      as per Sports
      Replace with a beaver -- HistoryBA 23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      weak keep, replace, or remove – with the beaver? Perhaps one picture can hark of this and everything above ('Culture', 'National symbols') ... perhaps a hockey picture? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace with maple leaf and/or beaver. Those are official national symbols, not the loon. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace per Luigizanasi, though I like this photograph. Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Delete- not well recognised to me. Astrotrain 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      Replace with beaver or maple leaf. Fishhead64 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Would like to see
    • Image of CN Tower -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not sure more images needed, seems to be enough already. --gbambino 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems like one picture a sxn works (for the most part). However, consider:
      • some picture depicting UN peacekeeping operations to substitute Pearson ('Foreign relations') and 'military'.
      • a single (hockey?) pic to cover off on 'Culture', 'Sports', and 'National symbols'. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • More landscapes. See United States and Australia. -- Jeff3000 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed on more landscapes, Atlantic fishing village (Lunenburg?), Quebec, Ontario, Prairie farm scene, BC mountains, etc. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm unsure; I think this was in place long ago and it became a matter of 'regional' representation, which might become divisive: the geography of Canada article seems more apt. If this is done here, it would probably be best to somehow consolidate pictures with themes or include memorable art works, e.g., moose in mountains, bison on prairies? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I think it's important to show some landscapes of Canada. Forests and landscapes can in most forms be non-regional. For example the Canadian shield goes through most provinces, and the praries go through three provinces. Also to counter the rural vs the urban we need some photos of some distinguishing parts of urban canada. That's why I'm not in favour of removing the Montreal picture completely. Maybe even a photo of Chinatown in Toronto to show the effect of immigration. -- Jeff3000 21:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I guess my point is this: for this overview article, we should be as judicious with images as you've been/we should all be with text. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but excess of anything is counterproductive. If we can kill two birds with one stone, so much the better. For example, a prairie is a specific vegetation/landform type. However, stereotypes aside, some famous depiction of the Canadian Prairies with grain elevators (harking of Canada's economy and history, or even a painting of same) would be much more appropriate. Similarly, the current Montreal picture is fairly non-descript: something which clearly depicts Mount Royal (note pic), Olympic grounds, or Expo 67 would be much better. Hell, even Cirque du Soleil is an option. And a picture of Vancouver or Toronto or whatever locale (with either skyline or diverse neighbourhood in background) can communicate multiple themes all the same. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a photo of a technology developed in Canada (or an implementation thereof). Mindmatrix 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Niagara Falls
    • Louis Riel Fishhead64 00:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sponsorship Scandal

If you read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources everything in an article has to be cited with a reliable source. It is not acceptable that a source is somewhere else. The Gomery Report is a reliable source that talks about the sponsorship scandal, and unless you can find some other reliable source, I will be putting it back all the time. This is general Wikipedia policy. Further, instead of spending time removing references from this article, please take some time adding references to this article which is sorely lacking. I would encourage you to sign up for a section.-- Jeff3000 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." -- Jeff3000 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Where does it end? When we have every book on Canada in the reference section? Is there any dispute that there was a sponsorship scandal in Canada? Wikipedia:Cite_sources makes it clear that you need not cite a source where there is no factual dispute. HistoryBA 02:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no dispute, but what do you have against having a reference. Does it hurt us? No, it makes the article stronger. Regardless of if you are conservative or liberal, seperatist or federalist, the report is a neutral fact-filled source that is good. As to where does it end; to be a featured article we must be able to back up what is the article with references. That doesn't mean that every book that mentions Canada has to be in the references, but precisely the opposite, everything in the article must be referenced. As mentioned before, if you can find a better reliable (i.e. published source that won't disappear tomorrow, usually things that have ISBNs) that mentions the sponsorship scandal then go ahead and replace the Gomery report, but I mention again, the Gomery report is fact-filled and probably the best primary source, as others books will reference the Gomery report. -- Jeff3000 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the reference one more time. The most important thing against Wikipedia is it's lack of verifiability. The refernce does not hurt the article, and a fact-filled enquiry adds a NPOV and strengthens the article. -- Jeff3000 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What is this reference supposed to be verifying? The only thing the article states is that there was a sponsorship program, and a scandal about it. A scandal is a public artefact that the Gomery Report is part of, so it can hardly contain any text that supports the statement. This reference belongs in sponsorship scandal, not here. Please don't edit war to get your way. — Saxifrage 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference corroborates two things about what is in the article
  1. The sponsorship program existed. That is in the article, must be referenced. The Gomery report corroborates that information.
  2. That there was a scandal. The scandal is not a public artefact, but something that did occur, by some people siphoning off money that was supposed to go to ad agencies back into their pockets and the liberal party of Canada. That there is a scandal is in the article, and it must be referenced. The Gomery report corroborates that information.
Thus both statements that are in the article are corroborated by the Gomery report. Again I don't understand why you are against having a reference such as the Gomery report. Everything in Wikipedia must be referenced if a reference exists, and I will take this to mediation if you keep removing the citation, which does nothing to hurt the article, but makes it stronger. -- Jeff3000 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You perhaps misunderstand what a citation is. It is a reference to a specific passage of a text that explicitly supports an assertion in an article or paper. The Gomery Report's mere existence does not qualify as a citation, and the assertion in question is not in need of a citation to support it. If you like, this would be appropriate in the External Links section, or perhaps the See Also section. So, your point (1) is unfounded.
Second, check the definition of scandal. It is not the event and actions, it is the public reproach called out against those actions. A scandal is something that exists in the minds of the population; a crime is what you're talking about. Again, there is no dispute that such exists and the assertion that there is/was a scandal and that the scandal was about something does not need to be supported by a credible reference. Thus, your point (2) does not stand.
Lastly, be careful of shooting yourself in the foot: when you mention that an article must be complete according to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, you possibly forgot that it also needs to be stable, which means free from edit warring. Also, you should assume good faith and avoid accusing other editors of political agendas (which qualify as personal attacks), especially if you want to bring mediators in and have everyone's conduct scrutinised.
Personally, I don't care if the link is there or not. I do care that all policies and guidelines are respected, not just selected ones. — Saxifrage 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." (emphasis added)
So "a bicycle has two wheels", being a fact, requires a reference? — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." (emphasis added)
"It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important."
Regarding the sponsorship scandal, Wikipedia is publishing the statements, (and here I went to the article to copy-paste something, and found nothing). Amazingly, nothing. The article states that there was a sponsorship program, and directs readers to sponsorship scandal for more information. This article doesn't even say that one existed, let alone any details. How does a non-existent statement require a verifiable source? — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Citing sources:

"To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor."
"Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources."
"If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source" (emphasis added)
"You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia"
"When there is no factual dispute: Think ahead: Try to imagine whether people might doubt what you wrote or need more information. Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution." (emphasis added)
Do you think that "a sponsorship program existed, see sponsorship scandal for more information" is really a statement that requires one to think ahead to it being disputed? — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding last comments made by Saxifrage

The word citations or references mean different things in different fields. For example, references might mean direct quotes, and bibliography any books you used in writing an article/essay in a humanities course, but bibliography in engineering means any statement you make needs a different reference. Citing in Wikipedia, if you read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources means using citations, sources, and references. The above quotes should make it clear enough, especially the think ahead one.
As I wrote above, there are no facts in this article regarding the sponsorship scandal that could possibly require a verifiable source to back it up. As nothing in the article is referencing the Gomery Report, how can it justifiably be included in the list of referenced sources? — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the word scandal, if you read the Sponsorship Scandal page you will notice that the word scandal is not used at all in terms of what the public thought of it, but instead it is based on the actions of the people. For example quoting from the article "Gomery Commission which has uncovered the details of the scandal".
Words get appropriated, particularly by the media. Furthermore, sponsorship scandal is hardly the OED and is not authoritative as to what the word means. However, this is a tangent and doesn't actually have anything to do with my request for justification of the reference, so it's of no matter. — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I, among others, have tried over the past week to make this article better. I really have to thank Anthony as he's the major person who has stepped up in trying to better the article. Instead of trying to remove references which do not hurt the article, I suggest that people chip in, sign up for a section, and find references. -- Jeff3000 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to remove references. I am trying to get you to justify a reference. Are you suggesting that the statement "Canada is a country in the north" requires a reference? Your very narrow reading of the policy would require such.
Your hard work is appreciated. However, hard work does not excuse editors from being civil and assuming good faith. If you would read wikipedia:assume good faith as studiously as you have wikipedia:verifiability and wikipedia:cite sources, you'll find that your assumption that I and the other editor who have objected on this matter have nefarious motives to be entirely inappropriate. You can't just pick the rules you like (Verifiability and Cite Sources) and ignore the ones that you don't.
Let me remove the need for assumption. Here is my motive for getting you to solidly justify this reference: in an article that makes no statement deriving from the Gomery Report, a reference to such could easily be seen as superfluous. An astute reader, noticing its listing as a reference without it's actual use as a reference in the body of the article, might well wonder what motivated someone to add it, or at the most generous, simply think that it's unprofessional. As such, if it is not actually used as a reference, including it in the list of references actually makes the article worse and less worthy of Featured Article status.
What do you think this adds to the article? — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also in regards to the personal attack that Saxifrage states I made, I want to make it clear because you are smearing me by stating that I attacked someone, and I will not stand for that. If you go back and read what I wrote you will note that I did not accuse anyone of a POV. I only stated that the reference only hurts people who have a political POV, and otherwise it's a great NPOV reference. -- Jeff3000
Bringing politics into it at all in a dispute with another editor, over an issue that is politically loaded, is a particularly subtle breed of personal attack. It is uncalled for, and is at the very least incivil. Refrain from commenting on or even suggesting what the motives of other editors might be, and you will not run afoul of that policy. — Saxifrage 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll be brief in this post, as I think I've proven the usefullness of the reference based on Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, I would ask you to take it up in mediation. And regards the personal attack, I consider your statements a personal attack, insinuating that my motives for a statement was a low-blow. Your statement regarding my statement "Refrain from commenting on or even suggesting what the motives of other editors might be" can be applied as much to yourself because you are bringing up what you think my motive was, which is in fact wrong. So thus your statements are also uncalled for. -- Jeff3000 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the policy doesn't work that way. Using the personal attack policy against a critic to silence their validly pointing out a personal attack doesn't work. I have not insinuated what your motives were, and in fact I don't think you actually intended to make it an attack. I am assuming good faith on your part, assuming that you honestly didn't intend anything bad. However, the actual words you wrote, for whatever reason you wrote, were unacceptable and I warned you against doing so and removed the offending text as per policy. Don't shoot the messenger, and please assume that I'm acting in good faith.
If you want to bring in mediation, you've that right and you're welcome to. I have more experience and confidence that I am within both the letter and the spirit of the policy and guidelines. If you're going to though, just do it and stop just waving it around as a threat to make me go away. — Saxifrage 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As for you having "proven the usefullness of the reference based on Wikipedia policy", you've not; you've just ignored my points about how it fails to follow policy and in fact possibly makes the article worse. You're also ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is a consensus based encyclopedia, not a proof-based one: you have two people opposed to the edit and no-one supporting your edit, which is hardly a consensus either way. In fact, it is a lack of consensus that calls for continued discussion. — Saxifrage 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely now facts that are in the article that need to be referenced. (1) Sponsorship program existed: for anyone outside Canada this is not common knowlegde and must be cited. (2) Illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed. Again this is a fact and must be brought up. Gomery reports validates both of these. -- Jeff3000 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was asked to comment here. If the Gomery report is being used as a citation for a particular point in the article, it should be referenced as a footnote, an embedded link, or Harvard reference (Gomery 2005) after the sentence or paragraph it is supporting. If it's not being used as an actual reference, but is just some additional reading material, it should be listed in a Further reading section. I see in the article you have References, Notes, and External links sections, which means you have one too many. If you look at WP:CITE, the sections should be References (for material cited if you don't use a footnote system, or Notes (for material cited if you do use a footnote system), and then Further reading (formerly called External links), which should list everything of interest related to the topic but which was not used as an actual reference, whether online or offline.
As for whether mentioning a scandal needs a citation to the Gomery report, I would say it does. The Gomery report was about the scandal. It became part of it because it confirmed there were grounds for the scandal, but its purpose was to report on the scandal, not to become it. It's the best source there is on that issue, and if the issue is mentioned, it's appropriate to cite a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the expertise SlimVirgin. Yes, I agree that if there's a mention, there should be a reference. It is now mentioned significantly enough to require a reference so I'm satisfied, whereas before only the program was mentioned and the reader was directed to sponsorship scandal with no statements that merited references. I'll leave the style of citation and whether the current wording of the mention is acceptable to other editors. — Saxifrage 17:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording in article

I wish to register my strong objection to the way Jeff3000 had handled this dispute. We were back and forth many times (see above and the edit history on the article) on whether the Gomery report needed to be included in the list of references. He then added more material to the article on the Sponsorship Scandal and argued (see above) that "there are now facts that are in the article that need to be referenced" (without mentioning that he added these facts). It seems to me that he has put the cart before the horse. References are added to back up facts. Facts should not be added to justify a reference -- particularly in an article that is already too long. I would appreciate hearing the opinion of others on this issue. Let's try to come to a consensus here. HistoryBA 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cart and horse order doesn't really matter in this case, since it's the end result of what's in the article that matters. (jeff3000's conduct should be discussed elsewhere if it's necessary, as it's not pertinent to the contents of the article.) What is your opinion of the current wording of the mention of the sponsorship scandal? — Saxifrage 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the wording, the old wording was confusing linking the October crisis to the sponsorship program. The new wording which was only one line longer was more clear (I specifically tried to keep it short, so as to not add stuff to the article). It also, being under the Quebec Sovereignty movement section, needed an explanation as to why it was mentioned; which is that that the sponsorship program (through its illegal activity) has caused an increase in support for Quebec seperatism. The old wording makes it sound like the sponsorship scandal was used to reduce the support for Quebec seperatism, but in fact it has backfired, so to make the text convey what has truly happened, the actual outcome should be mentioned. -- Jeff3000 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that HistoryBA has already reverted to the previous wording. Before getting into another edit war about it, I suggest you both discuss here until you have a wording you both can live with. For starters, here are the two versions:

  1. "The cornerstone of the ideology for a sovereign Quebec was a strong impetus for the October Crisis and the need to counter Quebec sovereignty through a "sponsorship program" engendered under the administration of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. See sponsorship scandal for more details."
  2. "The cornerstone of the ideology for a sovereign Quebec was a strong impetus for the October Crisis. Under the administration of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a "sponsorship program" was instituted that rationalized an effort to raise Canadian patriotic sentiments to counter Quebec separatism. Since illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, support for sovereignty in Quebec has increased to 53%. [4]" (note that this version is after I moved the link to sponsorship scandal from the "sponsorship program" text to the "illicit and even illegal activities" text)

I know you both feel justified in reverting, but it's damaging to the stability of the article. If you can reach consensus here on the talk page and then paste that version into the article, everyone wins and the article doesn't suffer. — Saxifrage 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you, Saxifrage. I have only two objections to the second text: (1) "Administration" is an Americanism. Canadian prime ministers don't have administrations, they have governments. (2) I do not believe that you can say the Chretien government "rationalized an effort to raise patriotic sentiments." First, I am not sure the average reader will understand what this means. Second, I don't think this was really the goal. The objective was merely to raise the federal government's profile in Quebec.
Finally, I continue to believe that there is no particular reason to include a reference to the report in this article. No one disputes that there was a sponsorship program and that funds were misused. The only dispute is over responsibility, an issue this article doesn't address. As I have pointed out before, Wikipedia policy does not require the inclusion of references on undisputed facts. Of course, if there is a consensus that the reference is needed, in the spirit of Wikipedia goodwill I will not remove the reference.
Thanks again to Saxifrage for your common-sense solution to this problem. HistoryBA 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this. I removed the administration in favour of government, and changed the second objection (which by the way I took right out of the Sponsorship scandal article).
  1. "The cornerstone of the ideology for a sovereign Quebec was a strong impetus for the October Crisis. Under the government of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a "sponsorship program" was instituted that tried to raise the federal government's profie to counter Quebec separatism. Since illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, support for sovereignty in Quebec has increased to 53%. [5]"
This paragraph removes the objections by HistoryBA, uncouples the October crisis from the sponsorship program, and explains why support for Quebec Sovereignty has increased recently and is only one line longer. Even though no one disputes the material, people who are unfamiliar with the topic need references and as written in Wikipedia:Verifiability "When there is no factual dispute: Think ahead: ... Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution." -- Jeff3000 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Regarding the reference, it will be clear from the final wording whether it's needed or not (that wording would require it in my judgement, while the original didn't).
I think "The cornerstone of the ideology for a sovereign Quebec was a strong impetus for the October Crisis" is not great: I can't figure out what cornerstone and what ideology is being referred to from that line, and impetus is just the wrong word for the causal factors of a crisis. — Saxifrage 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, and I think the cite should be added as "program were revealed (Gomery 2005), ..." — Saxifrage 19:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff3000's proposed text (with one amendment: "profie" should read "profile"). As for Saxifrage's comment, I don't think the revelation of the misuse of funds should be credited to Gomery. It was revealed by the media years before Gomery reported. As for the issue of references, I know that Jeff3000 has asked other editors to comment. Why don't we wait to see what they have to say before reaching a decision. As I've said repeatedly, I am happy to honour the consensus, but we don't have one yet. HistoryBA 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right Saxifrage, the first sentence regarding the October Crisis is not a good one. How about this change, which moves the October crisis into the first paragraph in the sentence to make things cronological. Further, I've combined the two short paragraphs into one, to work towards reducing the number of short paragraphs in the article which is one suggestion made by the Peer Review:
"The Quebec sovereignty movement, which led to the October Crisis in 1970, has since led to two referendums held in 1980 and 1995, with votes of 59.6% and 50.6% respectively against its proposals for sovereignty-association. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unilateral secession by a province to be unconstitutional. Since then, the question of "national unity" has been raised in federal elections, in particular, the 2004 and 2006 federal elections. Under the government of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a "sponsorship program" was instituted that tried to raise the federal government's profile to counter Quebec separatism. Since illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, support for sovereignty in Quebec has increased to 53%. [6]" -- Jeff3000 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the first sentence, which links the sovereignty movement too closely with terrorism. Sovereignty does not, in my view, lead to terrorism. I would propose this instead: "The Quebec sovereignty movement has included those who advocated the use of violence, as in the 1970 October Crisis and those who preferred a peaceful separation from Canada. In referendums in 1980 and 1995, 59.6 percent and 50.6 percent of voters rejected proposals for sovereignty-association." HistoryBA 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, with those changes, are we ok with this version:
"The Quebec sovereignty movement has included those who advocated the use of violence, as in the 1970 October Crisis and those who preferred a peaceful separation from Canada. In referendums in 1980 and 1995, 59.6 percent and 50.6 percent of voters rejected proposals for sovereignty-association. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unilateral secession by a province to be unconstitutional. Since then, the question of "national unity" has been raised in federal elections, in particular, the 2004 and 2006 federal elections. Under the government of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a "sponsorship program" was instituted that tried to raise the federal government's profile to counter Quebec separatism. Since illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, support for sovereignty in Quebec has increased to 53%." -- Jeff3000 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. As per SlimVirgin's advice on citations, now we only need to incorporate the Gomery Report citation somehow. I like the Harvard style, but the footnote style might work better to keep the reader from thinking that Gomery himself revealed the mismanagement. The inline link to the reference for the 53% figure needs to be re-included, as well. — Saxifrage 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to link the text with the Gomery Report directly, which is what the Harvard style does. The references serve to back up the material in the article, and looking through a lot of books there are no specific footnotes, just a reference section. Given the current style of this article, I'm fine with the reference just being in the reference section. If we want to change the style of the article to be more specific where notes are included throughout the article, I would also help towards changing the article style. -- Jeff3000 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

New References

I have just added two new references. The first is

  • Bickerton, James & Gagnon, Alain-G & Gagnon, Alain (Eds). (2004). Canadian Politics (4th edition ed.). Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press. ISBN 1551115956. 

and it covers most aspects of Canadian politics and the underlying systems. It is a recent book and covers the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. More interestingly it covers in depth also the role and value of multiculturism in Canada which I have been struggeling in even knowing where to look for a reference for. Thus it covers any note of multiculturism in the article. What it does not cover well is the role of the Monarchy and the Governor General in Canadian politics. Thus I have also added another reference

  • Brooks, Stephen (2000). Canadian Democracy : An Introduction (3rd edition ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press Canada. ISBN 0195415035. 

which gives a better understanding of both the Monarch and the Governor General. There is a 4th edition of this book, but it seems most of that discussion (including charts) has been taken out of the new version, so thus I'm using the 3rd edition as the reference. What is still missing in the Governor General section is the naming of Michaelle Jean as the new GG. -- Jeff3000 16:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do either of the references in the "Investiture of the 27th governor general" section of the Michaëlle Jean article work for you? — Saxifrage 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the first one is pretty good. The second one is GlobeAndMail so it needs a subscription. I'm worried that the National Post link will go away after some time, so once a book comes out, maybe as a biography, which seems to always be the case when someone gets a high position, we should use a new reference. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
From the Government of Canada Newsroom (which looks like an excellent resource that I found via this link): Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin at the installation of the new Governor General and Appointment of New Governor General. Oddly enough, my search didn't turn up a press release for the actual investiture, only Martin's speech during it and the press release for the appointment. In any case, those links will be more persistent than the National Post article. — Saxifrage 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Great, much better reference. Ok if I replace the current reference (National Post) with this one Appointment of New Governor General. -- Jeff3000 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest! — Saxifrage 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Images, Part II

I think commenting on the images has completed, and my reading of the decision is as follows.

Keep everything the same except,

From what I see above 6 photos should be replaced, and by the comments I see the following categories that may be added:

  • Better symbol of Canada
  • Better hockey image
  • Peacekeeping picture
  • One or two of
  • Canadian Prairies with grain elevators
  • Mount Royal (note pic)
  • Olympic grounds
  • Expo 67
  • Vancouver or Toronto skyline
  • Technology, possibly The Canadarm, Avro Arrow.

Can people check that I haven't analyzed the comments inappropriately, and if I'm wrong, please change the above. Otherwise let's decide on the new images, and more importantly find them, and help take the article one more step towards being a featured article. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the hockey picture, there are a couple options
  • On the Wikicommons page [7] there are a couple pictures
There's also this one which is under the GFDL
While I don't really have a strong preference I like the goal picture [13]. -- Jeff3000 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Shouldn't we include images that depict important moments in, yes, hockey history as they relate to Canada ... not just any old shot? To that end, I've uploaded a couple of hockey images that are, perhaps, more germane regarding this:
I tried to find online a screen capture of Paul Henderson's 'famous' winning goal during the Summit Series, but couldn't find one of sufficient quality.
Whatyathink? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Those would be great, if they were not copyrighted. We need a photo that is released under the GFDL, which those from wikimedia are all. Usually that means a photo that someone has taken themselves from the stands and releases it to Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 14:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. This shouldn't be problematic: both images are clearly indicated as copyrighted (uploaded and tagged as 'promotional photos') with source. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, Wikipedia policy is that copyrighted images, unless in fair use, can be deleted at any time. To see what's accetable look at Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Licenses. Notice how Non-commercial licenses, Educational licenses and Typical commercial licenses are not allowed except for fair use. Fair use states that if no other free image is available to portray the person/event, then Wikipedia can use a copyrighted image, but only in the article that is specific to the event/article. For the images you uploaded, my understanding is that they can be used as fair use only in the Summit Series page. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Images and Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy for more information. I have seen many images deleted because they were not really fair use.
Particularly for featured article status, the images need to be free (as in speech). Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates where statements like "The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration," "Plus too many copyrighted images to be reasonable", "uses a large number of fair use images for decorative rather than explanatory purposes", and "Fair use images are well chosen and used sparingly - fair use rationales seem to be good" lead to the images being replaced/removed or the article being rejected for Featured Article Status. We need free/non-copyrighted images in this article for things that are not specific. And as much as I like the Summit Series pictures, hockey in Canada is not specifc enough to warrent their inclusion here, and it will be shot down. -- Jeff3000 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Noted -- I shall endeavour to find fair-use images of major events like these for inclusion here, because I feel that non-descript pictures should not be used to exhibit these sorts of things in an overview. Arguably and appropriately, however, many would identify the Summit Series (which implies notions beyond mere hockey (e.g., geopolitics)) as a defining moment of Canadian sport/culture and germane for this article section. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the above, and assuming that the image isn't used elsewhere, I will place one of these pictures in the article and see what happens. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't think this is wise, the fair use provision is clear, it wouldn't be fair use in this article, but only in the Summit Series page. Let's try to find GFDL and public domain images for this article. -- Jeff3000 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Canadian and American politics compared

There is a see also link in the Culture section to Canadian and American politics compared. I'd like to remove this link or at least move it to the Government section. Anyone against the removal? -- Jeff3000 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No one commented, so I'll remove this now. -- Jeff3000 20:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bold with images

I've just been very bold and changed a whole bunch of images. I'm not totally happy with the result, but since no one has commented above, I felt I could go ahead and make some changes. The changes I have made are as follows

  1. Included a view of Toronto, the Canadarm and the Biosphere beside the province table (this was empty space and is being used now)
    Thanks for being bold. I like these three pictures, but feel they are placed inappropriately. Perhaps the CN Tower/Toronto picture can be placed in demographics/economy, Montreal/Expo 67 in culture, and the Canadarm pic in economy (example of high tech/industry w/caption)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Images in those sections would cause the text to have less vertical height than the image making the article look empty. -- Jeff3000 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Two points (1) the article might have too many pictures now, or at least they're not organised effectively, and (2) we shouldn't just add them for the sake of it. White space isn't a bad thing (and note that visitors with lower resolution monitors will have little or none of that): adding pictures there that are not relevant to the article section might be. I would not lose sleep if some of these pictures substituted others, but throwing in the kitchen sink is distracting. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    horrible positioning for the canadarm pic/expo thoguh I do like the toronto pic, if moved slightly (or a least remove all those blank lines.say1988 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Replaced Lester Pearson and Insignia with a Canadian Forces picture (This is a change I'm not totally happy with as I wish I could find a "peace-keeping picture"
    not sure if this has been changed but along these lines, perhaps a better pic of the soldiers, you can see nothing in this pic due to shadows/colouringsay1988 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Replaced Mount Logan with Prarie Province picture
    Given the replacement of a germane data point with a non-descript one, I'm restoring the picture of Mount Logan. Find a better picture. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree here, I don't think Mount Logan is germane. Most Canadians don't know about it, yet everyone knows about the praries, which is a significant portion of Canada and for which it defines the culture and exports of much of the country. -- Jeff3000 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, this picture and caption is insufficient. Replacement of a point that educates with one that's filler is counterproductive. There are already links/mentions of prairie/s in-text; none for this superlative. If a better picture cannot be found, I shall remove the current one. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have to support Mt. Logansay1988 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Removed the downtown Montreal picture.
    Perhaps include the Expo 67 picture here, exemplifying Cdn bilingual/cultural heritage/gusto during the late 60s? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Replaced Hockey picture with picture from showing a goal
  6. Replaced Loon with a Maple Leaf
    Given the flag, this may be redundant. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Going with the votes here, which I agree with. The maple leaf is the biggest symbol in Canada, and should be included. -- Jeff3000 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    There was not a vote to include a maple leaf picture, only suggestions to include something more appropriate. I'm unsure this is it. Adding pictures of varying quality obviates enhancements recently made with pruning text. Again, we need to be discerning for pictures here and I will prune excessive ones. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think this should be removed (as stated earlier redundant with respect to flag) pluss if the hockey article was moved to the proper location it could cover both sections and have one less picture.say1988 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes go with the above voting and comments, but I may be wrong, so please comment here regarding the changes. Sorry in advance if I've replaced an image you particulary like, but I felt I was just going with the votes. -- Jeff3000 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you prune some of the images which I added. I don't feel strongly about most of them; I was just adding what people suggested. So move them or prune them, go ahead and make changes. As for the maple leaf, it is the predominant Canadian symbol and it should be in the section on Canadian symbols. As for the Canadian Prarie vs Mount Logan, the prairie picture is not great, but it's definitely better than Mount Logan picture which shows very little about Canada; it has no context and doesn't affect Canadian identity. If Mount Logan was the tallest mountain in North America that would be something else, because as Canadians we like to say we have the biggest/tallest/most used, etc, but Mount Logan never comes up because it's not the tallest in North America. -- Jeff3000 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. My minor beef is adding images that add little value to the article or are placed awkwardly. With this overview article, we should be as judicious with pictures as with text. Pictures should relate with themes in accompanying text, and I've commented above on why a few of these can be improved, moved, or nixed.
As for Mount Logan, let's 'recap': it's the highest mountain in Canada – which is what this article is about! – the second highest mountain in North America (and if we always went for the gold, we'd frequently come up short), and reportedly does have the largest base circumference/massif area of any mountain on Earth. If I'm sounding like Joe, forgive me ... The current picture/caption of a prairie landform with elevator relays nothing beyond the current article text and replaces a wholly appropriate geographic superlative, representing another significant landform, of the country. I don't mind replacing it with something, but the current one isn't it and have yet to be convinced that this choice is better than the prior one. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not really stuck on the prairie picture, so if you feel strongly go ahead and change it back to Mount Logan. -- Jeff3000 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Done! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall I think four main changes need to be made to the images on this article.

  1. Move/remove one of the pictures of Parliament, Queen, GG, or PM, preferably one of the middle two, I think that section is just a little full of close pictures
  2. Picture of the soldiers must be changed to something we can see the people in.
  3. Canadarm/biosphere pics are just out of place. either delete or move (preferably delete, unless they take the place of a deleted image
  4. Maple leaf removed, hockey/mountie moved

say1988 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

External Relations

This mentions the UK is still canada's mother country CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!! -- 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The context of the statement is in no way invalid; Canada can be an independent "adult" country and still have a historical "mother". And besides, the phrase "mother country" is in quotation marks. Bearcat 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That term is still used where I live, not that we a less than Britain, but for historical reasons. Look at it this was when you move out of yuor home and live on your own your mother is still your mother, is she not? 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The real difficulty with this sentence is that 'the United Kingdom as its "mother country"' suggests that that there is only one mother country. France, and in another way, the First Nations would have quite understandable objections to that statement. Anyway, I've reworded and expanded the passage in question. Pinkville 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The city of Vancouver, the site of the next winter olympics, does not appear in the article at all. Montreal appears only in an image caption. Toronto appears many times --JimWae 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the article is solely lacking information on the cities in Canada, and I would like to see a section on the largest cities of Canada as is the case in the US page, but it's been shot down a couple times. I think having a table on Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver (which happen to have the six NHL teams) with a short paragraph would add a lot to the article, and allow for good placement of some images. -- Jeff3000 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This can be addressed, then, by noting Vancouver in the sports sxn or elsewhere. As above, however, I disagree with including a dedicated sxn/table regarding cities: various links/details in the demographics section et al. are sufficient without recapitulating them. To clarify: Toronto is only depicted once, as is Montreal, Ottawa is depicted thrice (but not inappropriately), and various cities/areas are mentioned numerous times ... including, alternatively, the Lower Mainland. If we wanted to kill two birds with one stone, add pictures of Vancouver or Calgary (host of the 1988 Winter Olympics) to the sports sxn. It is ironic to advocate for including a sxn on cities when other worthwhile attempts have been made to prune the article of other details that are arguably equally germane. As well, the US article is unnecessaily an example to follow (which is far too lengthy already) and Australia provides an opposing counterpoint (which is also more urbanised than Canada). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to "It is ironic to advocate for including a sxn on cities when other worthwhile attempts have been made to prune the article of other details that are arguably equally germane." pruning and adding a section are not contrary in their purpose. I would argue that the role of a Canada article in Wikipedia is to provide a good summary of the country; pruning a section means that the section in the article is important, but that there is too much detail, and adding a section means that no infomration is in the article, and for which it is important. My edits in the past have not cut out a section, because I think they are all important, but just shortened them to be a summary. The current article, provides almost no information about the cities in Canada, which as stated above I think is a very large deficiency, and adding them in a summary fashion I think is appropriate. -- Jeff3000 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a distinct difference between enhancing text to be more inclusive (as stated above) and adding sxns that are rather redundant. Most of the edits thus far have accomplished the former. Debatably, the article already provides summative info regarding cities ... in the form of wikilinks and dialogue. Adding a dedicated sxn above and beyond that is, in my opinion, repetitive and excessive and no different than adding sections about education, health care, Canada-United States relations, or any other important aspect of the country. Moreover, a section regarding cities is not prescribed in the Wikipedia country project template and – as with Australia and other articles – see no reason for it here. If something is added, something else must go. Add appropriate text or images if you will regarding major cities not already noted but, based on prior commentary and current content, additions of excessive information will be dealt with just as judiciously. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like other people to comment on the inclusion of cities. So far, I, JimWae, and SG have been for the addition of a cities section, and looking over the discussion, you have been the one who have been against it (maybe GroundZero, but I believe he was against the way it was included before) We are far from consensus here, and I would point out currently there is more support for their inclusion than against. Furtheremore I think Education, Health Care, and Canada-United States relations would be excellent sections that could be summarized and added to the article; they are all important parts of Canadian identity. -- Jeff3000 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire: you are drawing some assumptions for support that are not as clear as indicated. Not for me to presuppose Wikipedians, but JW has only indicated that Vancouver didn't 'appear' in the article (and now does, though can be enhanced) and not for a section, and GZ supported my summative edits in lieu of the lengthy section added by SG that would (I gather) resemble the current proposal. I encourage other input and can be compelled otherwise, but there are article length recommendations and a dedicated wikiproject in place for reasons (particularly for people who use dial-up/have older browsers and for consistency, respectively), and proposed sections would likely obviate not only these but recent efforts to make the article more summative ... all of which are/can be fuflilled through wikifying of dialogue. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

References in a separate page

Maybe we can put the references in a sub page like it's done in the US page. Any thougts -- Jeff3000 00:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I suggest that earlier? :) And I mean placing all the references in such an article ... the US ref page merely sources what appear to be contentious statements. I'm all for doing so as proposed if many others do not object. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't suggest that we only put references for contentious statements in a seperate page, because that wouldn't be ok for featured article status. I suggest that we move the current set of references, which while great for Verifiability, make the bottom of the page less readable. Moving them to a seperate page, allows us to keep the verifiability, and increasing readability. Still need to figure out how to incorporate the notes. -- Jeff3000
Removing everything listed in the References section that cannot be traced to a claim we are making in the article would reduce the length significantly. Jkelly 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Other than some that E Pluribus Anthony added, I've added all the others and they can specifically be traced to claims in the article. See the above references section for when they were added, and which sections they fulfill. There are still some sections that need to have references added. -- Jeff3000 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This might prove somewhat difficult: given the volume of information and refs, this would require us to backtrack (not in and of itself problematic for me) ... but I know that all the references I've added so far are omnibus sources that have various data points that can be traced backed to them. Perhaps we need to organise the refs by sxn? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Canada/References -- Jeff3000 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! A few very minor points:
  • (1) We should try to amalgmate, if and when possible, online and printed refs. For example: I think the two refs for Symbols of Canada can be amalgamated: the printed copy (which, as a geek, I also have) harks almost precisely of the website. An example of how this can be done is the Forsey ref. Actually, a few of them exist in dual formats ... just as oddly, I actually have the 1974 4th revised ed. of the deluxe The National Atlas of Canada (ISBN 0-7705-1198-8) ... which I believe is no longer printed!
  • (2) There seems to be an overabundance of sports references! :)
  • (3) Is there a way to configure this so that an editor who adds a reference to the Canada article will automatically update the Canada/References article? I think this would entail substing a template in the parent article. While this would allow for seamless integration and updates, I'm unsure what the technical repercussions (if any) are. Mind you, this might be undesirable.
Other references notwithstanding (which are still in my purview), I think we should try to assign references and notes to claims that require them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) Tried to do that with the Symbols reference
  • (2) One reference removed. The other ones back statements said in the section, which while short, takes about many things.
  • (3) The way I have it now is that the references don't even show up in the main page, and only the link is available. This way they would have to go and add it to the subpage. Having a template would allow the references to show up in the main page, but I don't think that would be any different than having the references right in the main page as the template would only be used in the Canada article.
  • (4) I agree for some statements. Some references cover a whole bunch of stuff, and thus having a note after each statement would seem to be too much. -- Jeff3000 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary style

This article's text may have to be better summarized as Wikipedia:Summary style format is used through most of the article. Specifically, I'm looking at the "History" section with its 5 sub-sections and text that provides a better overview of the history of Canada than History of Canada. Also, "Government" has 7 sub-sections (and one sub-sub-section). See Bangladesh (currently up for peer review) as an example. Typically, sub-headings are not used in summary style but are used as headings for the sub-article. The history section could be better summarized by focusing more on the history of Canada and less on pre-confederation times. --maclean25 19:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you assessment. Over the past month, the article has been extremely shortened to make it summary style, and I believe in it's current form it is in summary file. If the History of Canada article is not good, that is a problem with that article and not this one. Specifically about the pre-confederation times, I believe virtually all Canadians versed in the matter would comment that pre-confederation times are part of the most important history of Canada and is integral to it's current nature. The Government section is also in summary form, each of it's subsections is only a short statement about each part, which is integral to understanding how Canadian politics work; the subsectioning is used to make it easier to read. -- Jeff3000 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you make good points. The article has undergone recent pruning already and, while there is always room for improvement (and the history sxn, for instance, has recently crept up somewhat in length), I think the subsections currently help visitors find information more easily. On the other end of it, most of the subsections are not prescribed in the Country WikiProject.
That being said, in its current state, I see nothing wrong with the current subsections in the article: if anything, adherence to the summary 'guideline' would require the inclusion of See also hatnotes (with links to dedicated articles) atop each subsection. That would be excessive, though. If we continue to summarise and consolidate information more efficiently into even fewer paragraphs, however, there'd be more of a case to nix the subsections. If this is contemplated, I recommend testing and editing here beforehand. In any event, this also begs for improvements to (and synergy with) the History of Canada and related subarticles: I refrained from nixing some of recent additions from the history section in this article because they are not in that subarticle yet (e.g., JCPC). I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

More reference talk

I have been reading WP:CITE to understand the differences between Footnotes and references. There are, of course, multiple ways of doing things, but for this article, given the way things are structured, I think we could fall in line with the way things are cited pretty easily. I think the most important statement that is relevent to the Canada article is this one:

"Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below."

So given that this is an uncontroversial topic (generally), we should have a reference section that backs up what is in the article. The footnotes, which are used in addition to (the in addition to is italisized in the original WP:CITE article) could be included for specific statements.

Other parts of the document that I think are relevent are:

  • "Complete citations, also called "references", are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work."
  • "Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources" (the article states that the reason for this is that it is annoying to go back and forth)

So in general I think we're doing things ok, for facts that use specific numbers, it might be appropriate to use the footnote, but in general for a topic like this, I think if we have references that back up what we have in the article, that should be good enough. -- Jeff3000 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Language statistics conflicting

The "Language" section says:

Canada's two official languages are English and French, spoken by 56.3% and 28.7% of the population respectively.

But then a few lines down, it says:

...more than 98% of Canadians speak English or French or both.

56.3% + 28.7% is only 85%, so where'd the other 13% come from? I suspect that the first statistic is actually for "mother tongue" while the second is for "speaks fluently" or "speaks with some degree of fluency". This needs to be clarified (and if both statistics are given, they should be kept together, too). -- 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're correct. I just went to Statistics Canada's [web site], but it is down this weekend. I will check on Monday. Luigizanasi 07:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Government section should emphasize political power

The description of Canada's government currently begins with:

3.1 The Monarch
3.2 Governor General
3.3 Executive
3.4 Legislature

I say this is completely wrong. Canadian political power de facto is plainly centered on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, in other words the executive, and that's where the article should begin. Their power in turn is derived from the House of Commons, which should be described next. To list things in any other order, or to mention the weak Senate on an equal basis with the more powerful Commons, is seriously misleading.

The highest political forum in the land is actually the First Ministers Conferences – think about where the decisions were made to patriate the constitution, give us the charter and create medicare. You have to get those 11 guys together in the same room to create any major domestic policies. The other level of government also provides the real opposition to the federal and provincial governments. The commons and provincial assemblies do as they're told. The fact that this major constitutional change happened by stealth also says a lot about how this country actually works. If you want to talk about reality, this is where you should start. GreatWhiteNortherner 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Very good point and it should be worked into the article Rjensen 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article admits that "The role of the sovereign, which on paper seems to be all-encompassing, is contrasted with the reality that the Queen ... is ... largely a figurehead." This alone demonstrates that the monarch should not be listed first. And the GG, being a figurehead as well, should be similarly lowered in sequence.

Worse, it goes on to state that "the great majority of the Monarch's powers, prerogatives, and duties are performed on a day-to-day basis by the Governor General", and to refer to the GG as a "de facto head of state". This is just wrong. The great majority of the monarch's powers are performed on a day-to-day basis by the elected government and the adminstrative bodies that report to the Cabinet. The GG isn't a de facto anything -- the whole existence of the position is just as much a formal fiction as the position of the monarch. The phrase "de facto head of state" seems to come from the conception that the role of a head of state should be like that of the monarch in the UK -- but that's a country whose official head of state (the Queen) is not a de facto head of state. To see what a real head of state is like, look to countries like France and Russia.

I could go ahead and boldly edit the page along these lines, but frankly I don't want to do it and then get into a revert war with someone who buys into the fiction of monarchical power, which is what I see when I read the article now.

I'll just go away for a few days now, and check back later to see what people have said. -- 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it and downgraded the Queen to her actual position --let's see if people object. Rjensen 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The government section gives a broad overview of the constitutional structure - appropriate for this article, I'd say - and the reality is that the Canadian Constitution vests executive power only in the Sovereign, making her "head of state", and who has, through the Letters Patent of 1947, allowed the Governor General to "exercise" most of those powers on her behalf. The Cabinet only advises the Governor General to use her powers, though, of course, she is bound by convention to almost always follow that ministerial advice. Though this isn't blatantly obvious to many, it is hardly fiction. Pretending that Cabinet actually possesses executive power goes counter to the whole idea of the Westminster parliamentary system, and would be, at least for Canada, a blatant lie. --gbambino 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Rjensen's edit's completely, I do think the Monarch and Governer General sections are too large given their current ceremonial role (I know they have real power, but in reality they will never really use it). -- Jeff3000 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion is that all the material on the Queen can be reduced to a few sentences. Wiki Encyclopedia ia about reality not formal paperwork that -- like "Dominion" has been effectively discarded though it still exists in the attic. The goal is to be realistic here.Rjensen 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether they can be edited down is one thing, but pretending the GG has precedence over the Queen, as the most recent edits insinuate, is utterly ridiculous. --gbambino 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the people isisting that the Queen and Governor General be relegated to fourth place pay attention to the arrangement of the government sections of Australia, the UK, Norway, Jamaica, and other constitutional monarchies. --gbambino 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for or against moving the Queen and the Governor General, but the person that has the most effect on the Canadian government, on Canadian policy, and thus the Canadian people is the prime minister, and not the Governor General, and definitely not the Queen. -- Jeff3000 02:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course. That's true in all the countries where she's Queen. In fact it's the nature of all constitutional monarchies including the Scandinavian ones. Even in a republic like Ireland you'll find that the prime minister has more effect than the president. That doesn't mean that the president (or the Queen) isn't the Head of State though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by gbambino and Derek Ross. All political power in Canada legally derives from the Crown, which has the sole power to designate the executives in the provincial and federal jurisdictions. Whether or not the Crown chooses to exercise its discretion in that regard is immaterial. Legally, it has such discretion. Speculation is hypothetical. I think the difficulty here is that we're speaking about two orders of reality here - the legal and (for lack of a better term) the de facto. Given that, as gbambino and Derek Ross point out, the customary way of describing the structure of government is based on how it is legally described in constitutional documents, I think the way it was before the recent edit was preferable. Fishhead64 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said Derek. The defacto allocation of Politcal power in Canadian governement is not relevant here. This setion's topic is the structure of the Canadian government which Headed by the Monarch.--Davidmintz 01:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

subsection headings in Demographics section

Would anyone be against me removing just the extra subsection headings (not the content) in the demographics section. For such short sections, I don't think we really need the subsection headings. I'll find a way to link the "main" articles in the section. -- Jeff3000 16:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change. If anyone feel strongly, go ahead and change it back. I do think however, it looks and flows better this way, given the short section. -- Jeff3000 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many reverts

K. I know its already been discussed to lock this page, but the thing is that its only users that aren't logged in or people that don't have an account that just put stuff (ie.: Hello I like cheese). Is there a way of only letting logged in users to gain access to editing this page? paat 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is, it's called semi-protection. Read this for more info. Flying Canuck 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hockey picture

I saw the hockey picture with a goal scored against the Ducks. I'm taking for granted that it's the Anaheim Mighty Ducks That are playing, since I've checked in the OHL and WHL pages, and no teams are called the ducks. So I was wondering if we could use a diffrent picture where 2 canadian NHL teams are playing? I think it would be more symbolic for a page like this. thx paat 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The image shows the Portland Pirates (affiliate of the Anaheim mighty ducks in the AHL. You are right in that a Canadian team would be better, but we also need an image that is under the GFDL. There's a whole bunch that are available on commons.wikimedia, but none of them look that great. But go ahead and pick one, and change it. -- Jeff3000 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks Jeff I'll do that if i can find a good one. I'm still bothered though by how in the NHL (for Anaheim), their goalie is number 35 (Jean-Sebastien Giguere). + the uniform and color worn by the team is nothing compared to what the Portland Pirates wear [[14]]. I still think its the Mighty Ducks though ;) but thanks for permission to change it paat 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Annex Canada?

I've heard quite a few times where Americans talked about annexing Canada, so I'm wondering if there's such a movement within Canada itself and if such a thing is ever considered serious enough to be mentioned in this article.--Ryz05 06:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there's no need for the Canadians to annex Canada since they already control it! And annexing America sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I doubt that such a movement exists within Canada or has ever been considered seriously enough to be mentioned in the article. Still you never know. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There's an article at Annexationist movements of Canada. Suffice to say that the idea isn't entirely unknown in Canadian political discourse, but it's never gone very far or been taken all that seriously. It doesn't really merit mention in the main Canada article, though. Bearcat 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics 2

I think that the demographics section is jumpy and too large. I would like size it down a bit, but keep all the essential information. -- Galati 06:14, 29 March 2006

Please do!! -- Jeff3000 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for pruning, but I've restored much of the prior content: the syntax of the recent version was largely incoherent and recent edits nixed various germane details (e.g., about cities) not moved to or necessarily found in the subarticles. But when all else fails, try, try again. Have at it!  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
That's hilarious. The talk of Canadian annexation in the US is small-time rhetoric put forward by ultra-right "conspiracy" type discussion forums who seem to dwell on the War of 1812. Although I did see a great response that it would be enlightening to have French as a second official language in the US and return the Queen to Head of State. CMacMillan 18:04, 4 April 20065 (UTC)

GDP figures

I changed the GDP figures back. The list is available at the IMF website, but this link will take you directly there: IMF Site

I changed the GDP figures that were in the infobox to the 2005 CIA figures because I could not find the source for the numbers that were there. The numbers were:

-|-GDP (PPP)——2006 estimate
 - Total——$1.167 trillion (11th) 
 - Per capita——$35,988 (8th)

They were not IMF, WF, or CIA. If these are legitimate numbers, we should have a citation on them. I hope that I wasn't jumping the gun by changing them, but I would rather have been safe and sure with known numbers. Does anyone have a source for these numbers?—MJCdetroit 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The numbers may have been a typo in the first place. User:Jeff3000 has changed the figures to the correct IMF figures. Which is a good enough source for me. —MJCdetroit 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What's good for the goose may or may not be good for the gander. ;) Relatedly, there is currently a poll underway – without a clear consensus as of yet – to standardise said GDP values for all country articles/infoboxes. Please weigh in there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The dollars need to be identified. The IMF figures are not Canadian dollars. Gene Nygaard 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

use International dollars on GDP figures, russia doesn't use rubles, and japan doesn't use the yen.-- 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S we need to lock figures for 2005, they change too frequently-- 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What's an "international dollar"? Indefatigable 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I found the article international dollar. Indefatigable 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd mind that I linked the URL to 'IMF Site'. Sorry about that, it's just that on some browsers (like mine) it was stretching the page. --Von 10:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)