Jump to content

Talk:Canada/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Archive

Archives

2003–2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22
2013
23
2015–present
24
25
26
27

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Created 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Culture

Granted, "Canadian culture" is an elusive concept, but the absence of any reference to the vast cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada -- and this is not a reference to cultural differences from a political perspective -- mis-informs. If the following phrase, "Many cultural products are now marketed toward a unified "North American" market," is included, it must be accompanied by the statement that a unified North American market does not include the province of Quebec which has had to develop, for example, its own French language "star" system that is almost entirely divorced from what could rightly be refered to as the more integrated English-speaking North American market. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start this section of the article off with one of the most interesting features of "Canadian" culture which is the fact that it is difficult to define because it is not unitary. This is to say that by creating the category "Canadian culture", the editors pre-suppose something for which there is no consensus in erudite Canadian circles; if anything, the national unifying malaise is a lack of distinctly uniform Canadian culture. --Philippe90210 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Canadian culture belongs in Talk:Culture of Canada. Remember WP:NPOV Avt tor 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there all, I just made a little bit of editing to the Culture section, I think I just added some important facts that weren't mentioned, tell me if you think the additions were bad, and someone can change it back if they really feel the need, but I thought I added some important facts. I'd like to hear other people's opinions about my additions. I also added a bit to the Demographics section, adding some important facts that I think should be mentioned. Please, feel free to tell me if you think it was a bad addition, and anyone can change it back if they don't like it, aye. RyanRP 04:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed your additions, with the exception of the bit about religious rights. Please see the "What is Canadian" section for details. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Program vs. Programme

Since this appears to be cropping up in the recent edits... on the East coast, program would be preferred over programme, however they often would carry different meanings. Programme would specifically refer to a printed listing of events or a television show. CMacMillan 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Alberta, here. I might expect a programme, if I went out to a play, but otherwise program is by far the more common usage. --Q Canuck 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Vancouver Sun would be the same - Victoria is more "Britsh" but even there programme would be rare - likely only for a play --JimWae 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Canadian spelling

Do these searches:

  • +canada +programme
    (most of the above are French)
  • +canada +program

Even

  • "toronto star" +program
  • "toronto star" +programme

Which is the more common spelling in Canada?

We do not correct spellings when they are not only correct but ALSO the most predominant in that country --JimWae 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Yes, the searches - which are central Canadian dominant - do produce more results for programme in French than the program one, however the regionalist nature of language in Canada could sway the results. Try the same search for +Canada +programme, but add +"Cape Breton" or +"PEI" and you'll see a very different result set.


Not that I'm arguing for programme over program :) ... just a comment on how "common" isn't necessarily reflected by Google searches. Use the word "tickle" in Toronto and then try it in St. John's and the response will be radically different. CMacMillan 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I am Canadian and I have always seen it spelled program. The government of Canada is required to use correct Canadian spelling by law, here are some goverment websites that use this word[1][2][3]. You will see on the french version of each page that Programme is used. While Canada speaks both English and French officially, I think the english version should be used as this is the english wikipedia. HighInBC 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, not necessarily. Health Canada, a government agency, uses Programme: [4], as does PISA [5]. Programme, by the way, is the British spelling as well as the French spelling. CMacMillan
I see the point of misunderstanding here, proper names always use the original spelling. Health Canada's Tobacco Control Programme is a name of a group, but on the same page they use program. The same goes for Programme for International Student Assessment. HighInBC 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was sitting viewing the colourful harbour and writing cheques I came to the conclusion that I was wrong editing "program" for "programme". I will make the change. However, I did enjoy the responses I evoked!--Niloc 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


One should be careful when using newspaper articles as a reference regarding Canadian spelling. For example, The (Montreal) Gazette, in its style guide, favours American spelling since it receives and publishes articles from wire services such as Reuteurs, UPI, etc. To attempt to Canadianize all these articles would be time-consuming and costly, so it settles on American spelling. BroMonque 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever read/heard program, and I live in Winnipeg. In certain areas, the variation fluctuates. Disinclination 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian government used program on all english document with the exception of proper nouns of French origin, for example Programme for International Student Assessment uses the french spelling in the title but the english spelling in regular text. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of dialect variation in English Wikipedia is troublesome. We should certainly avoid any dialectical elements -- Australianisms for example, certainly Jamaicanisms -- that would not be comprehensible to English readers everywhere. But as long as international comprehensibility is maintained, each writer should use his or her native spelling and phrasing. The idea of national claims to a particular article is awkward -- Elvis Presley is an American; should a British writer try to imitate American dialect when writing about him? Should only Americans be allowed to write about him?

This will inevitably lead to spelling inconsistencies within articles, which is a little distracting. If you see such an article you can regularize the inconsistent words to any standard spelling convention you would like -- you might take into account the overall dialectical tendency of the writing if apparent. To be polite and not waste you own time, if you see an article with a spelling different than your own, but which is none the less correct in some reasonably standard dialect, and which is consistent throughout the article -- just leave it as is.

So for this article on Canada, there's no reason spelling has to be Canadian English dialect in the first place -- whatever that is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.231.51 (talk • contribs) .

Well, one good reason would be that it is a Wikipedia convention to do so... as to your statement to "regularize the inconsistent words to any standard spelling convention you would like", again I believe the convention is to take into account the "nationality" of the topic, where appropriate, and also to respect the choice of the initial author. --Ckatzchatspy 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English. From that style guide, it states "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." -- Jeff3000 16:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kwakwaka'wakw big house

This image is currently a featured picture candidate. Due to a large influx of new candidates there are very few votes for this image. If you have an opinion on this image please go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kwakwaka'wakw big house and cast your vote. HighInBC 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The American State of Canada

File:About-our-logo.gif


"Canada became a Permanent Observer at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1972, and then joined as the 33rd Member State on January 8, 1990." (Government of Canada) http://www.international.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/around/international/aroas-en.asp

and "The Organization of American States" http://www.oas.org

Would we be able at this point to include "The American State of Canada" as the 33rd Member State? Intuitionz 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean listing Canada in the article at Organization of American States, it's already there; otherwise, I don't understand what you mean or why you think Wikipedia would use the phrase "The American State of Canada" to denote anything. I'll be charitable and assume you're aware that the OAS is an organization of all of North and South America's independent countries (except for Cuba), and has nothing to do with constituent states of the USA. Bearcat 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We should add under the Article Canada, "Canada is the 33rd member as an American State." Intuitionz 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"The American State of Canada" includes it's entity as a "member" State "Country" of Continental America, is what I was saying, which is important in disclosing Canada's LEGAL status in continental America. Intuitionz 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but in Canadian english continental America means the 48 states of the US that aren't Alaska or Hawaii. Canada thus has no legal status in continental America. WilyD 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The term "The American State of Canada" has no legal standing, any more than "The American State of Venezuela", "The American State of Haiti" or the laughably redundant "The American State of the United States of America" would. The legal names of countries do not normally include references to their continents. Bearcat 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Canada's LEGAL status in continental America" is as a sovereign nation or country. while attempts at precision and classification are welcome, listing canada as an american state makes about as much sense as listing esperanto as a canadian language. it can be argued as technically true but has no actual relevance. -- Denstat 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"The American State of Canada" refering to NOT the U.S. but to The Continent America, is LEGALY DEFINED an American State by signing and ratifying BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA with the Organization of American States in 1990. The GC's website is even called http://www.AmericasCanada.gc.ca This may not be in Canadian favor, but, by Legal means Canada has been part of America as an American State since 1990. Intuitionz 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Government of Canada's website is at [http://www.gc.ca]. Canada's been part of the America's as long as it's existed. It's membership in a particular organization has nothing to do with anything. What point is it that you're trying to make? --Q Canuck 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Correction: Canada's been part of the America's since 1990. Persuent the Organization of American States I just thought we could include Canada's recent membership of America. Intuitionz 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying Canada wasn't part of the Americas until 1990 is like saying Norway isn't part of Europe, because it's not part of the European Union. The Americas are a geographical landmass. Membership in an international organization doesn't change what continent you're on. --Q Canuck 12:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

America is generally understood to means the United States of America. The continetnal landmasses are known as North America and South America. Collectively, they are known as the Americas. There is no "American continent". Saying that "Canada is part of America" is not consistent with standard English-language usage of the word "America". It would therefore be confusing for readers and should not be used.

The term "American states" is more commonly used in English to refer to the 50 constituent states of the US. The fact that the term "American states" appears in the name of the OAS can also lead to confusion because it is not consistent with the more common usage. As a result, it is not advisable to use it here.

Why would we say "Canada is the 33rd member as an American State" rather than the clearer and more precise, "Canada is the 33rd member of the Organization of American States"?

As far as the "American State of Canada", this is the very first time I have ever seen that phrase used. I doubt that it would be easy to find many examples of it being used elsewhere. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a place of original research -- see WP:NOR for the relevant Wikipedia policy. If you want to coin that term on your own website, go ahead, it's a free world wide web. But original research doesn't belong here. Ground Zero | t 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Googling "American State of Canada" provides six unique results. Two refer to the somewhat obscure area of ethnomusicology. The other four are about the Americanization of Canada, and America as an imperial power. So there is no support for the idea that this is an appropriate way of denoting Canada's membership in the OAS. Ground Zero | t 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this confused discussion may revolve around the question of how independent Canada is -- and should be described as -- from the United Kingdom.

Canada's exact sovereignty status at the practical level is clear: it has been an independent country for a hundred years. At the theoretical level there are still constitutional ties to the UK, which are unenforced and unenforceable. At the geopolitical level it was until recently tightly in the British sphere of influence.

The fact that Canada did not join the OAS at its founding was not due to a lack of legal sovereignty, but due to tacit geopolitical alignment with the UK.

The act of Canada joining the OAS in 1990 is certainly a symbolic step away from connections to Britain. Though as the OAS is a vehicle for US hegemony, whether it is a step toward more independence, or swapping British for US spheres of influence, is questionable.

But in any case it does not have any actual legal implications in the definition of Canadian sovereignty, and the terminology "American State" is nonsense.


What does the logo represent?

The four colours indicate the four main languages spoken throughout the hemisphere: blue (French); red (English); gold (Spanish); and green (Portuguese). That all four appear in both north and south America symbolizes both the widespread use of English and French in the south, and the growing interest among Canadians to learn about Latin American and Caribbean culture.

Could you provide source?Poaseo 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The "arms" that embrace the hemisphere symbolize the sense of common purpose, the foundation of shared values, and the belief that each nation has a stake in the well-being of the others - in short, the concept of "La gran familia". http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/latin-america/latinamerica/contact/about-logo-en.asp Intuitionz 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

six quarters?

The Demographics part of the article tells that three-quarters of the population (in Canada) lives within 160km from the US. border. Then it says "A similar proportion live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor (notably the Toronto-Hamilton, Montreal, and Ottawa census metropolitan areas), the BC Lower Mainland (Vancouver and environs), and the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor in Alberta."

A similar propotion to what? to me it seems like that within the 160km and in the urban areas there live six quarters of the Canadian population, witch is a 50% more than there actualy is in whole Canada. I did not change this, since my non-english background may confuse my understanding of this sentence. Snalin 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if the statistics as cited are accurate, but the simplest explanation is that the areas described by "160km from the US border" and "the Quebec City-Windsor corridor etc." overlap. People in Montreal, for example, would be counted in both. That being said, the phrasing is awkward and redundant. I'd suggest: "Roughly three quarters of Canada's population is concentrated in the urban centres of three areas: the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor (notably the Toronto-Hamilton, Montreal, and Ottawa census metropolitan areas), the BC Lower Mainland (Vancouver and environs), and the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor in Alberta. Almost all of these are within 160 km of the U.S. border." --Nephtes 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You wouldent say the American state of the united states of america would you? so the same goes for Canada.

Gov't "intervention" in the Economy

This section states that "Canada is a free market economy with slightly more government intervention than the United States, but much less than most European nations." Can someone tell me how these assessments have been measured? Absent some supporting material rooted in a set of criteria enjoying wide consensus, this sounds to me like one of those things supposedly "everyone knows" but which might prove more complicated than it first appears.

In addition, I'm not sure the word "intervention" isn't inherently POV, inasmuch as it appears to portray an authority or outside agent inserting itself into a sphere of activity in which it is not a natural participant. I agree that this is a widely-held view of government's role in the economy, but it's hardly a neutral one. The term used to describe such activity ought to be, however, and I'd propose "participation" as a less value-laden alternative to "intervention". --Rrburke 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a good catch -- it isn't very helpful to a reader if we're just stating this baldly with no mention of what the criteria for this judgement is, or who makes it. We should attribute this appropriately. Jkelly 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Intervention" may not be great, but I think "participation" is doubly flawed because a) its positive connotation makes it POV in the opposite side of the scales and b) it's far too broad a term... just having a payroll of civil servants is "participation" in the economy; I don't think that's what's being referred to. On the other hand, completely agreed about the weaselly way of describing the relative level of intervention/participation/whatever of Canada vs. USA vs. european countries. --Nephtes 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth. This is probably a bit biased, but it should at least show that the issue is not at all clear-cut.

Globe and Mail columnists view on Canada article

This is just an FYI by the way, not a "this article sucks!". Maybe there's improvements that can be made based on this info, because although this is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be seen as boring and depressing, much the same as Canada isn't boring or depressing. —B33R(talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with such a sort of analysis on an encyclopedia page, is that the encyclopedia page is not supposed to be promotional. They have a fundamentally different purpose. -- Jeff3000 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't please everyone. HighInBC 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* It's a national pastime. Don't sweat it... wait until she reads the article on the Globe and Mail! CMacMillan 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the author of the article made some good points. There's definitely always room for improvement. There is always a tendency amongst non-Canadians to view our nation as simply existing in the shadow of the United States, and though there is certainly a great level of influence involved, as can be felt anywhere in the world, I think Canada is unfairly portrayed as such. Unfortunately, many Canadians themselves in recent years are also responsible for promulgating these stereotypes, mostly due to simple ignorance and lack of education regarding the Canadian political system. If Wikipedia can help to dispel such myths and clarify the cultural and political atmosphere of Canada, then why not take advantage of that? DragonRouge 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I can agree with this in principle, I always look askance at any kind of criticism that doesn't come with concrete, constructive ideas for improvement. What I would need to know before doing anything is, exactly what does our Globe columnist think the article should say? Bearcat 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That particular columnist is not one I would look to for constructive criticism in any case. She wasn't looking to give advice on a better article; she was looking for padding for her column. If Wikipedia hadn't fit the bill, she would probably have gone to Heritage Canada next. Eron 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, she has a point. If "Culture" is seen more as arts and less as social customs, then the section is severely lacking. No mention of museums, art galleries, literature, music and musicians, festivals, etc. As for placing sports under the culture concept (as it's done in most articles about Canadian communities)... well, that's another story. --Qyd 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with Eron about it being padding for her column, the fact remains that the majority of the page is about history and very basic general knowledge. As Qyd points out, there's nothing about modern day Canadian activities/life except for a paragraph about sport. All the other stuff seems to be sidelined onto other pages. I think 'Culture' needs a big overhaul, even if it only has a few extra paragraphs about museums, galleries, music etc. with links to the other pages for 'more info', it would be an improvement.
Anyway, I'm going to send an email to the columnist and see if she has anything else to say. If anyone wants to ask any neutral parties, who are familiar with Canada, for some constructive criticism then maybe we can get some ideas on how to improve Canada. —B33R(talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this page is supposed to serve as an introduction. It is not supposed to be all encompasing. Note the summary style guideline as well as the note at the top of the page which I repeast here:
"Notice: This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. Thank you."
I would even support shortening the history section. It's way too long. -- Jeff3000 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I corrected vandalism. Other users please note and monitor.Avt tor 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal name

I had thought that Dominion of Canada was still the formal and official name of Canada, but it is not mentioned in the first sentence. Is this no longer so? DragonRouge 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the subsection on "Origin and history of the name", and/or the separate article Canada's name. Bearcat 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I missed that! Thanks. DragonRouge 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed at great length at Talk:Canada's name, Talk:Canada's name/Archive and Talk:Canada's name/Archive2. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! Interesting discussions. DragonRouge 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, either this page or Canada's name needs to change, as they contradict one another. Carolynparrishfan 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? Both articles make identical statements that "the Canada Act 1982 refers only to "Canada" and, as such, is currently the only legal (and bilingual) name. " It's ungrammatical (I'll fix that) but it isn't contradictory. Eron 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Canada's name says "While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country". Carolynparrishfan 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That sentence is bizzare, how else can a country define it's name if not through legal documents. Surely we the treaties we sign with other countries would both be a legal document and contain our official name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also rubbish. Extensive investigation has shown that Canada's name is nothing but 'Canada'. This was settled long ago. The sentence seems to have been removed now. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "official titles of the country" is problematic. I think the point is that Canada is still sometimes called "the Dominion of Canada" or referred to as a "Dominion", although this is falling into disuse as time goes on. I think the situation is analogous to a person's name; someone whose legal name is "John Smith" might from time to time be called "Mister John Smith," or "Doctor John Smith" or "Captain John Smith." His legal name remains the same in all cases; it's simply a question of adding a title. As the BNA act referred to the creation of a "Dominion" called Canada (as opposed to a "Kingdom", or a "Republic"), the word Dominion has at times been used as a title to accompany the legal name. In our informal times (when was was the last time you called anyone "Mister"?) that title is increasingly dropped. Eron 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FROM RYANRP: NO, a dominion of Britain is what Canada used to be, it was its own country but under direct political control and financial support from the United Kingdom. This ended around 200 years ago, and the last British Dominion was the Dominion of Newfoundland, which joined Canada as a province in 1949, because of lack of financial support. Canada continues to be in the British Commonwealth, having a majority of British/French, and other western european descendants as its population, and the queen of england is still our monarch. We are officially known as just CANADA, as Australia is just AUSTRAILIA, etc. We are a British nation with a strong French minority, and we have laws that protect rights and freedoms of foreigners, letting them express their own countries so we have some elements of "multiculturalism" however our own culture is British, and French.

That's not entirely correct. Canada was a colony of Britain until 1867, when it became an independent country. At the time of independence, the country was described as a Dominion; I am not aware of any reference to Canada as a Dominion prior to that time. Similarly, Newfoundland was called a Dominion from 1907, when it ceased to be a British colony, until 1949, when it became a province of Canada. It is contradictory to say that Canada was at the same time "its own country" and "under direct political control and financial support" from Britain. While full constitutional independence was not achieved immediately, it cannot be said that Canada was under the political control of Britain after July 1, 1867. Eron 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, that old chestnut. Simply put, the concensus at Wikipedia will not allow the long form name of the Dominion of Canada to be even considered. Unfortunately, they have bought into the historical revisionism of the current times that have effectively "black-listed" the terms Dominion of Canada, Dominion of New Zealand, Dominion of Newfoundland, Dominion of India, or Dominion of Pakistan (not to mention the term Dominion Status). ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So Talk:Canada's name, Talk:Canada's name/Archive and Talk:Canada's name/Archive2 isn't enough consideration? The content and length of these articles seems to assume that it wasn't so idly cast aside without due consideration. Disinclination 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I recommend ignoring ArmchairVexillologistDon. He was one of the people arguing for 'Dominion of Canada', but since he lost the argument he is now reduced to flinging around terms like 'historical revisionism' and 'black list' to imply that the results of the debate were unfair. However I must admit writing key terms in blue in order to make them look like links is a new low. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "Canadian"

I note that "Canadian" (in parentheses) is defined as the largest ethnic group in Canada. I would like to know who qualifies as "Canadian" as distinct from "English" or other ethnic groups. Usually "ethnic" refers to national background. In this article does "English" refer to those Canadians born in England (I don't think the percentage would be anywhere near this figure) and if not, when does a "Canadian" become a "Canadian?" Dwallen11 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no standard qualification. The ethnicity reported in the census is entirely self-reported, respondants can list as many ethnicities as they choose, and (I think) it is not done by checking items in a list, but rather by writting in answers themselves. --thirty-seven 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever he/she says he/she is. The 1991 Census provided a series of response check boxes (English, French, German, Italian, etc.), but lo and behold, the most often used were the people who wrote in "Canadian", although it was not a choice among the boxes. Stats Can bowed to the inevitable and in the 1996 Census, people had to write in all their ethnic origins, with "Canadian" given as one example among 24 (see 1996 Census handbook PDF file, p.60). People were asked to write in as many as applied to the question: "To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person's ancestors belong?" "Canadian" was by far the most popular response. Same thing in the 2001 Census. So this is what people say they are. Short of doing a geneological study on a large sample of Canadians, how else is one to get the information? And who is going to decide what ethnic group someone belong to? Luigizanasi 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The census question focuses on ancestors, in what I expect is an attempt to get at the real question: where did your people come from before they came here? As one of those who wrote in "Canadian" I can only offer an anecdotal explanation for why I did so. In my case, I have to go back to one of my great-grandparents to find someone who was not born in Canada. I can go back two or three more generations and find several ancestors who were born in Canada, or in the territory that became Canada. Given that, it seemed clear that my ancestry was primarily Canadian. (This is in contrast to my wife, a first-generation Canadian, who could not list that as her ethnicity because none of her ancestors were born here - even though she herself was.)

I think the increase in self-reported "Canadian-ness" over the last couple of decades comes from two sources. There is an increased awareness and acceptance of being Canadian as a primary identifier, and (related to this) there are increasing numbers of young (or at least, young-ish)Canadians who, like myself, can trace back several generations of Canadian ancestors and so question why they should be defined as having some other ethnicity. Eron 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have written in Canadian as well, for similar reasons: for several generations my ancestors have been born in Canada and more importantly (in my opinion), at least as far back as my grandparents (and probably farther) they *think/thought* of themselves as Canadian and not English, Scottish, Irish, etc. For the same reason, I would have also written in these other ethnicities, since going back a little farther I would have had ancestors identifying themselves in these terms.
I realize this is a very unscientific and arbitrary method, writing in how I think my ancestors would have self-identified - but I speculate this kind of reasoning is why many Canadians wrote in "Canadian" on the census. --thirty-seven 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought of putting in Etruscan, Cisalpine Gaul, and Samnite but I figured that maybe it would be going too far back. :-) Luigizanasi 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a "Canadian"? Someone from Canadia, of course! Ground Zero | t 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have written in Canadian as well, for I can trace back six (seven with me) generations on my mothers side and only four(five including me) on my fathers side and all are born in Canada.I have asked my grandparents were we are from. No one is sure i hear things like - We are part german part english part french - so like most younger canadians i am not sure were I come from. So I would have no other option then to put Canadain on the census. At what point do you become a native to your land , I have ancestors that fought and died in WWI and WWII, they fought and died for they way of life back on the homestead in CANADA . Lucifers hammer 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, technically it is anyone with a Canadian passport/ a citizen of Canada. However, the RACE of a Canadian would be someone of English or French descent who has been in Canada for more than 6 or 7 generations. I myself am Canadian, as my family has been here for 100 years, making me 10th generation. They were one of the original settlers, and from English and French origins. Faught against the Americans in war of 1812, faught in WW1 and 2, and have lived in this country the whole time as proud canadians, including myself. A Canadian identitiy is anyone of British or French ancestry, as they are the majority population, who have been here for 6 + generations. These people founded Canada, built it, maintained it, and made thel aws to protect peoples rights and freedoms which is why people immigrate here from other countries, because we, the CANADIANS made it such a great country. We, the CANADIANS continue to be the majority in canada today, having visible minorities of Asians and Indians etc. A canadian therefore WOULD be concidered white, however if you are not white that doesn't make you any less of a Canadian, as it would say, in United States of America where racism is prevalent. --- Ryan RP

I consider myself Canadian, even though my family has only been here for 4 generations on my mother's side, and about... 5 or 6 on my father's side. They all consider themselves Canadians, even if some weren't born here. I don't believe their is a set generation for how you can consider yourself Canadian or not. Disinclination 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, of course. I think it's just a matter of "how far removed" someone is. I identify as "Canadian" and depending on the line, I may be as little as the third generation born here, or as much as the thousandth (roughly). WilyD 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear (wrt Ryan's comments) - there is a big difference between "race" and "ethnic origin". Now, I'm not enough of a demographic theorist to be able to clarify beyond a doubt exactly what they are, but it should be clear that what's listed in the article is from Statscan's "ethnic origin" data - not "racial" data. Particularly, it should be noted that this is all 100% self-reported: if you consider your ethnic heritage to be Canadian - then you go down as a tally in the "Canadian" column. I tend to respond to such question with: "English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French, German, American (USA), Canadian" - I'm enough into genealogy to know that I have ancestors who were born and lived their entire in each of those places. But (as you might guess from that list of countries), I can only be considered racially "white", as useless a descriptor as I believe that is. The word "Canadian" has different meanings when it describes an ethnicity, a nationality, a citizenship and a whiskey - we should be careful not to confuse them. AshleyMorton 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it does make sense, when I'm saying it was its "own country" I mean that it wasn't part of mainland United Kingdom, it was a country called CANADA, but it was a DOMINION and not a COMMONWEALTH REALM as it is now, so as a Dominion it had control over Financial and Political/Legal issues directly from Britain. When it was a Colony, it was somewhat described as an extension of Britain itself. See, I do make sense! :P Oh also, Ashley, I would concider you to be Canadian as an ethnicity, because we have developed our OWN CULTURE, and our OWN PEOPLE, over a course of over a hundred years, and we are influenced by Europe, Britain and France in particular, and you are most probably more than 5th generation? Your ancestry is from all the Charter British groups, and American (most probably British loyalists? That would be concidered Canadian right?) So I believe that your ethnicity WOULD be Canadian, but a first Generation Chinese person who rejects Canadian culture and has Chinese as his first language, or a 2nd or 3rd generation of the same case would be concidered Chinese, and not Canadian. You see we are very special to allow degrees of multiculturalism because in an other country, say, China or Iran, if you challenge the government, degrees of religious influence in the law etc., you would be shot dead by the police, however here you are free to speak as you wish, which is one thing that makes Canada so great, however if immigrants come here, and claim theirselves to be 100 percent where they came from and are against Canadian culture and history, and try to ignore it, it can dilute our national Identity a bit, which is why I am somewhat against multiculturalism, because you can come here and reject Canadian culture, and claim that Punjabi or Chinese culture is PART of Canada, although it clearly is not. So, what i'm saying is there is a nationality/race and culture of an Englishman (In England), an Australian (in Australia), AND a Canadian (in, CANADA!), we were founded by British and French settlers and contributed greatley to the World Wars etc, and that is who we are, and you can never change that, and I think "multiculturalism" should be toned down a bit, however no doubt they (foreign people) should have the right to move here and should not be judged as lower human beings, just simply recognized that they are not necesarily "Canadians" in a total sense. And these ideas are not influenced by any family member telling me this, this is my honest to God opinion, and I'm pretty sure it is the truth about Canada). However I am not saying it's limited to British or French, you know we had many influxes of German, Japanese, and Italian settlement in the 19th and very early 20th century aswell, therefor, people who descend from those groups, even though they are also, "German", or "Japanese" are ALSO Canadian! But if your family merely immigrated here, in a period of less than 70 years ago (for example), you definately are not a Canadian in the same sense at all. For instance, if I were to move to China, become a citizen, live there for a few years, and get a high place in the Chinese government, and become a high ranking general or something, do you think it would make sense if I clamed my race to be "Chinese"? No! Of course not! I am Canadian, it is its own race. I would think having "CANADIAN" as your ethnicity (and in my opinion Nationality as well), would be a timeline, and a heritage here, rather than merely having a passport/citizenship. Wouldn't you agree, Ashley? Or others? -- RyanRP 5:40pm, November 26th, 2006

I don't think there is any such thing as a Canadian "race". And I do not think it would be appropriate to say that someone's ancestors have to have arrived some set period of years ago to be considered a "real" Canadian. There's a real sense of "anyone who arrived before my people is a real citizen; anyone who arrived afterwards isn't" in that logic, which I think is at odds with Canada's culture today. My children - two of whose grandparents arrived in this country in the 1960's - are as Canadian as anyone, and would be insulted to be told otherwise. Eron 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, I wasn't even born in Canada, and I would be insulted to be told that I wasn't Canadian. -- Jeff3000 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but a CANADIAN is different than a CHINESE CANADIAN etc, like, you can't say that someone whos family has been here for 10 generations and faught in ww1 and 2 etc., is the same race as someone who is 1rst generation from China (as an example). There is a specific Canadian race, and it would be very odd to deny that, as many points in my writings above can prove to some degree. Sure, you're a Canadian NATIONALITY, but your RACE is not Canadian. I'm just saying a Canadian RACE is based on a timeline etc., however you can be a Canadian nationality while not having a heritage here, and that doesn't make you any less of a human being than a real canadian, but you can't deny that they are not the same thing. Like if I was to go to russia, become a citizen and live there, I would not be the same as someone named Vasili Zeitsef whos family has been there for 1000's of years, right? Even though Canada is a young country, it does have its own culture. And it's own people. I'm just trying to state that, and I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge. RyanRP 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such thing as a Canadian race, and I'd be curious to see any reference that claims that there is. I also don't much care for the expression "real Canadian". There are no degrees of citizenship. Canada in the 21st century is a multi-cultural country that accepts a wide range of people from a wide range of backgrounds, and I believe that is one of our strengths. Eron 04:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada has a very strong French population. Canada is officially a British Commonwealth Realm, alongside The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, our flag has the official colours of Canada given to us by King George V, our military and cultural customs are influenced from Britain, our Royal Anthem is God Save the Queen, 9 out of 10 of our provinces have some depiction of a British symbol on their flags, we have a governer general and a Prime Minister, in a house of parliament, and no matter what you say you can not deny Canada's British (and French) heritage. We officially have a Royal Family of Canada, as they are of Australia and New Zealand. You know, I am not a "die hard monarchist", but I am of English and Irish descent, and am quite proud to be in a British country, for the main reason we are not part of (or as messed up as) the United States, is because we stayed British. And the main population of Canada is British, followed by French descendants as the majority. The only reason we are what we are today, is because of actions of Canadians, not Chinese or Lithuanian people, if China colonized North America, do you think this country would be anywhere near the same country as it is today? Canada protects the ideas of multiculturalism, but it is not an official "multicultural country" per say, that is not mentioned anywhere officially. Yes, there are many immigrant communities in BC and Toronto, but over all we have our own unique culture, otherwise, why is there even a Canada? Why not NEW AFRICA-CHINA or something? Why do we speak English and French? Well, we do mostly, and Canada's language is not Chinese, Portugese, or any other language that isn't English or French for that matter. We are Canada, with our own culture, China and Russia have cultures in their own countries, and our roots are not Punjabi or Russian or Chinese--- they are British and French. That is common knowledge. But remember I am not in any way saying people who are not from that majority group in Canada are any lesser of a person as someone who is, but that majority group is what makes Canada what it is. You can not deny that. Look up the history, and look up the current facts... I did. Because if there can be a distinct culture and race of Russian or Australian people, why wouldn't Canada have one? Well, it does! Hockey, beer, maple leafs, Britain, France, and maple syrup! We are Canada! We are our own culture. And people are allowed to immigrate here and adopt it, if they are seeking a better life. RyanRP 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the "Canadian Culture" section above, I have reverted RyanRP's edits. Material of that nature should be extensively debated before it is put "live" for readers to see. For that matter, I'm completely opposed to including uncited, extremely POV material like that in what is supposed to be a professional endeavour. When RyanRP first posted his thoughts here, I refrained from commenting as I thought it would just draw attention to the matter. However, discussing it on the talk page and entering it in the article are two very different matters, and I think we would be making a very grave error to suggest that there is a Canadian "race", or that Canadians are "white". --Ckatzchatspy 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadians are not all white, and if you are not white you can be a Canadian just the same, but that's what our roots are (Britain and France), and the MAJORITY in Canada IS white. In the Demographics section, it should be noted what the majority population is, and an explanation of why. Canada DOES have a race, same as Australia has a race. When I say race, I mean national identity/history, not saying it has one specific ethnic group as counting as a Canadian. Maybe you are mis understanding me... ? :( I am not a racist. I am not stating "my thoughts" I am stating facts... when did I ever say anything like "CANADIANS CAN ONLY BE WHITE", or "IF YOU ARENT WHITE YOU ARE A LESSER HUMAN"? I never said anything of the such. My facts that I posted are from facts, and from the Canadian Demographics. Canada is a British Commonwealth Country, and there seem to be many on this page who don't even KNOW that, so I thought it would be an important fact to state on the Canada page. It's what makes us, US. Western European, Japanese, and First Nations History, primarily British and French history. I am pretty damn sure those and other facts I have posted are all well known and true, and just because you don't want that to be posted because you may be a minority and want to dilude attention to the fact of 87 percent of Canadians are white, doesnt mean you should delete such a thing. I didn't say Canadians are white people, I posted the true fact that 87 percent of them are. What's bad about that??! RyanRP 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone reading the Canada article would fail to realize the nation's British roots. Further to that, reading any of the related articles about ethnicity, demographics, and so on will provide ample detail as to the makeup of the nation. There's a big different, however, between providing statistics about the population and making broad generalizations about it. (Oh, and not that it's relevant in any way, shape, or form, but if it saves you the trouble of jumping to somewhat disturbing conclusions, my origins trace back to that just-west-of-continental-Europe nation that you are so passionate about...) --Ckatzchatspy 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, your origins are British, yeah? Well, you probably are against my edits because you think they are promoting a form of racism. This is not the case, I actually live in lower mainland BC, and unfortunately for me anyways there are not so many other English descent Canadians which gets frustrating for me, having to be the minority in MY OWN COUNTRY. I know my type is the majority in ALL of the country, but in this particular area of the Lower Mainland BC, there are many immigrants. Which makes me feel unwanted and awkward at times... Many of the people in my old school from areas like Yugoslavia would say "HEIL HITLER" frequintley, dissed Canadians, and frequently mocked Canadian veterans etc. which made me very upset and I thought "Those people shouldn't call themselves Canadian!" At my current secondary school, I'd say for every group of 30 people, 2 of them aren't asian. Yeah, another area of the lower mainland where White Canadians aren't the majority. And you know what, these Asian Canadians frequently mock Canadians such as myself, go on and on about how they hate white people, and showed tremendous disrespect at this years remembrance day ceremony. I see that Canada is 87 percent White, and is a British nation, but in areas like these you would not be able to tell if you were in Hong Kong or not! I look at the old school photographs all over the walls and see like 30 ppl and 2 of them are asian. Now, in this area at least, its flipped around! I am not against foreign people, but they shouldn't come here, reject our culture and claim their own to be ours, even when it clearly isnt, and show disrespect to our countries past. To me, those people shouldn't be Canadians. It's just really really frustrating to me, that's all. I mean, if THOSE people are Canadians, WHAT THE HELL AM I?!?! I frequently go to my home town NewMarket, Ontario every summer, and every 2 winters, and i'd say around 89 percent of the people in that town are English/French descent, and then I am reassured that Canada isn't all like the area I go to school in (that's not WHY I go there, I go there to hang out with my Dad and stuff haha but that's something that happens, I forget about the Asian thing because I am NOT the minority there, same as when I went to Victoria, or Calgary), but when I come back to Lower Mainland Vancouver, its like :( . I just question some values of our new "Multicuralism", because for instance you can not say "Merry Christmas" anywhere on a childrens show, or at school, without getting sued, but you can say "HAPPY VISARI VISHNU DAY" or "CANADA CELEBRATES CHING CHUNG FUNG DAY" on posters all over the place. Its hipocriticy (Hipocracy? Iono). I know Canada is still a British and French nation, and I shouldn't feel any hate towards people who are "foreign" but this kinda stuff just makes me feel really upset! Like, I had an Iranian friend named Aram, and untill recently he didn't even know White Canadians were from England. He just thought we spoke English because its widespread, and he thought the natives here were white. That's some scary stuff, right? I know Canada IS British, and we are 87 precent white, but its stuff like that that Aram thing, or that guy below here a few posts down who didn't know the Canadian Army played God Save the Queen, and claimed to think that we weren't British that makes me really upset! I mean I know as a fact that we ARE, but it's people like that that just sorta... well I dont know! What about all those thousands of Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in WW1 and 2, those would be "canadians" right? And then these people come here and mock them, while saying they are Canadian? what the hell? I mean I know all Asians here arent like that, or all yugoslavians here aren't like that, but from this, I can tell that many are. And I just think we're getting away from who we are a bit. Do you see my point here? I just think we should add some stuff pointing out Canada's British and Frenchness, because that is Canada right? Our roots aren't Iranian or Yugoslavian, right? I dont know, I just am frustrated about this whole thing. Just some thoughts, I'd like to see your response to this. Thanks--- RyanRP 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion board. If you want to express your views, please go to a forum. In this page, we discuss verifiable information that has been published in reliable sources that portray a neutral point of view. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And, as regards verifiable information from reliable sources, I would recommend to RyanRP that he do a bit more research before making categorical statements. For examples, you state "The only reason we are what we are today, is because of actions of Canadians, not Chinese or Lithuanian people." Research on the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway, one of our fundamental and founding national institutions, would reveal the role that thousands of Chinese workers played in its construction, particularly the western portions of it. From the CPR's web site: "Up to 9,000 of them worked building the railway for the federal government... They helped greatly to achieve a united Canada." You also say that "Canada protects the ideas of multiculturalism, but it is not an official "multicultural country" per say, that is not mentioned anywhere officially." The Canadian Multiculturalism Act says otherwise. This is an act of Parliament and has the force of law in Canada, and it states, in part, that it is "the policy of the Government of Canada to recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society [and to] recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future." It is gratifying to find any young Canadian with an interest in this country's great history and culture, and I encourage you to continue to pursue this. But I also encourage you to dig a little bit deeper before making pronouncements on who is and is not Canadian, and on what is and is not Canadian culture. Eron 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Saying there is a Canadian 'race' seems way too off. What makes us different from a proverbial melting pot is that we accept, not assimilate. Our 'national identity' (or whatever you want to call it) is our ability to have many cultures living side by side. I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer, but saying there is a Canadian 'race' makes my hair stand on end. Disinclination 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what anyone's opinion is. As Luigizanasi points out, this is about the census terminology, not long-winded blah-blah-blah about what we each feel in our hearts. I concur with EronMain and others about WP:V and WP:CITE. Is there a WP:Sheesh guideline? Avt tor 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, well, I know my heritage is here, and my history is here, and when people ask me: "Oh, are you French or something?" I say, "No, I'm Canadian" and they go, "Ya, but what is your home country"... its freaking pathetic, man. There is a Canadian identity, and it's definately not "every single country in the world", its one country. Canada. Maple syrup, anyone? Molson beer! And it makes my hair stand on end to think I would not be considered unique, that I can't call this my home country without like... well u know they made 2 years ago Canada day they got rid of the fireworks and replaced it with "SALUTE TO NEW CANADIANS" give me a freaking break. What about us Canadians who were always here. Makes me sick, to think that I am not my own unique people. And trust me, I know way more than you ever would "Eron" whatever the hell name that is, about Canada. I am a Canadian. I know about the Chinese slaves that were forced to work on the railroad and underpayed and then sent back to China. So what? Canada was already a country before that. I'm just saying that it's unfair an Englishman or an Australian can be recongnized as a certain people, but Canada is supposed to be EVERYBODY? Doesnt make sense. What about us? What happened to English and French? Don't discriminate, but don't replace! Who are these people? English? No! Canadians! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_tank_and_soldiers_Vimy_1917.jpg RyanRP 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First, watch your language please. It's rude to assume that you "know way more" than Eron does. He told you to go look up your info, and come back with more stuff to make a valid argument. As to which I am still perplexed about. So are you saying that, just because I know someone who came from Russia, and they now live here, and call themselves Canadian, that they arn't really Canadian? What is really Canadian? Just English and French? I honestly thought being Canadian was being welcoming of other cultures, considering how, when Canada was formed/founded/etc, it was a group of entirely different cultures as well (English, American Loyalists, Canadiens, and French(you could include that with Canadians.. somewhat))? Please do not assume that I am ignorant, I am just trying to understand your position a little better by asking. Disinclination 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you see that there, When the country was first founded, Canadien (French Canadian) and French, are the same thing. English, and the American loyalists are the same thing. Because both peoples were in the continent/country whichever you seem to be talking about, for many years and weren't all brand new, and were from the exact same origins, same language etc. Canada is a British Commonwealth country. Please tell me, is that true or false? True! It's also got the strongest French population outside of France itself, in the whole world. It's also had a very long and unique history of English and French people working hard to mkae a great nation and making a great democracy. It has a parliament democracy, and a governer general ETC., and is loyal to Britain. But it is 100 percent home ruled, and is not part of Britain itself. English and French are not ONLY what Canadians are, but they ARE the majority, the heritage, and the language. The rediculous idea of "multiculturalism" was only introduced in the 70's because people introduced "biculturalism" to help the French be less ignored repressed etc., and then to improve human rights and try to make things more fair, "multiculturalism" was introduced. Canada's status as an English and French country, did not change. I personally think that multiculturalism is going too far in some places, as you can come here, and claim to be your own seperate ethnic group or heritage, and not be a "canadian" for race per say, which is actually dividing the country into seperate groups, instead of all being "CANADIAN". English (and British) and French are who founded and are the majority, and the languages of this country, and I am just I am merely saying that there is not enough mention of this, because it is making an image saying Canada is CREATED apon every countrys people arrivinv here, but that is not factually true, and the population doesn't show that either. I'm just saying its depicting it a bit as a FORMER british french country, and saying taht it is now equally EVERYBODY in population, as if it were another SOUTH AFRICA (which has 16 official languages lmao and white are less than 15 percent of the ppl), its just not , from what I see anyways, showing Canada as it really is. It should also maybe mention some stuff about maple syrup! seriously! So, just saying its not really depicting it as well as it could, and giving it too much of a sense of "multiculturalism" which is part of our modern society, sure, but its not really what the country is. Thanks, hope that makes some sense to you, just, yeah... ok thank you, peace RyanRP 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well.. the Americans and British had completely different ideals. Loyalist and Republican Americans had (think around the War of Independance) different ideals as well. They weren't "the same". Just as the Canadiens and the French were slowly growing apart; France had become less detached, and it was finally broken apart after France lost the war in the New World. The influx of Loyalist Americans helped further Canada. I think it should be also noted, that aparthied was recently abolished in Southern Africa, as well. Yes, you are correct in saying that Canada was founded on French and British ideals, but in the present, we also have to accept other cultures as well. Canada is multicultural, and we respect that someone can be Canadian, and have a completely different culture. I think thats what makes Canada different. We accept. To generalize, America is an ever-forward moving nation; thats what makes them special. However, I think American ... assimilates a bit more than we do, while Canada general strives to perserve. Sorry if I wasn't politically correct. Disinclination 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiculturalism is one of the ideals which the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all share. In a sense it's part of the "Britishness" of all these countries. The two concepts are in no way opposed. In fact when multiculturalism is suppressed, a country becomes markedly less "British". Think of South Africa when the Boers had control. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can say what you want about multiculturalism and Canada, but Britishness is definately NOT made from multiculturalism. BRITISHNESS, is the culture of BRITAIN. It is spread throughout the commonwealth countries. English language, democracy, industrial revolution etc... Britain, is not an official multicultural country as Canada is. Neither is New Zealand. South Africa's oppression to balcks and dutch people was horrible yes, but now that South Africa is "multicultural", it has stripped itself of all signs of the British Monarch, has less than 15 percent of the population as British etchnicity, and English is a minority language. Canada has made another language official besides English, and has changed its flag to exclude the union jack. Britishness, is NOT AT ALL "multicultural" I'm sorry but that has to be the most stupidest and most incorect statement I've ever heard. That would claim there is no British Etchnicity and British culture is a whore for every single other culture, which is really really not true. Go to Britain, you mean to tell me that is every other culture? no, it is British culture. Australia and New Zealand have some degrees of it, but their "Britishness" is from history of Britain influencing them! You are a complete moron if you think "britishness" means multiculturalism. That would mean my background is everyone elses whore. Which it most definately is not. Please, apologize and correct yourself, I feel very insulted.RyanRP 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. Calling people morons, etc will get you blocked. -- Jeff3000 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright fine, but will somebody agree with any flipping thing I've said so far, I think I've made numerous points and I don't even really want to talk about this stuff anymore, I'd just like someone to agree that "BRITISH CULTURE" is not made from multiculturalism, even if canada's is (which I dont think it is! :( :( ) but that doesn't matter, I'd like someone else's agreement that "BRITISH CULTURE" in Britain AT LEAST, is not made from multiculturalism. Because that to me is so completely obviously false. :( RyanRP 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am British. I have lived in the UK for 45 years and in Canada for only 3. I can assure you that a country made up of four constituent nations (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) with two very different legal, religious and educational systems (Scottish and English) was inherently multicultural long before the immigration from overseas that followed after WWII as a result of the Empire's free trade zone. If it had not been the Union would have collapsed long ago. The British government was pragmatic with regard to local customs and legal systems throughout the Empire as long as people kept good order and paid their taxes. I am sorry to hear that you think it false that multiculturalism exists in Britain but a few years living in London or Edinburgh would very soon convince you far better than I ever could. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant besides the British countries themselves. And I did not question if some degrees of other cultures EXISTED in BRITAIN, but rather if BRITISH CULTURE was made from "multiculturalism" (besides the British nations themeslves; Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales). I am correct, then, right? Britain's culture is its own, right? RyanRP 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RyanRP, I think you need to calm down and realize that Wikipedia is not the place to push a Point of View agenda. You are young and with experience you will learn how to reason more clearly. You make completely contradictory statements. First you say you are "quite proud to be in a British country" (Canada) and then you say "We are Canada! We are our own culture." You need to make up your mind. You say "There is a specific Canadian race" which is just nonsense. Race is a dead concept, utterly devoid of scientific credibility. Get with the modern age, for your own health and sanity.
File:Influencegraph.PNG
Influences in English Vocabulary
That said, I will address the point about British culture. British culture is inherently multi-cultural, due to the historic influx of cultures into Britain. These influxes have dominated the very foundation of its culture, namely the English language. Britain has been successfully invaded multiple times (by Picts, Celts, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, and Norman French) and that has left its mark on the people and the culture. Britain and the british are not in any way pure. British invasions of other countries have similarly enriched Britain with a diverse variety of immigrants and influences, the vitality of which is saving Britain from declining into dinosaur-like senility and obsolescence.
If you really believe in the ideals of British fairness, democracy, and jurisprudence, you would not care that most people who uphold those ideals are not born in Britain and don't have British parents and don't have british ancestry. It does not matter if Canada or Britain or California become majority non-white or non-british if those ideals are upheld and if the land is carefully stewarded, unless some wierd notion of racial superiority is invoked, and that is not Canadian, as I understand Canadian. Hu 06:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Hu. You have hit the nail on the head better than I did. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, you are correct that Britain has a distinctive culture. But it is a multiculture drawn from elements of the four constituent nations and to a lesser extent from European immigrants and from the Empire. Liberal democracy, curry, independent courts, tea, coffee, presumption of innocence at trial, branch banking, bagpipes, pubs, the English language, fast food, and a tolerant "live and let live" attitude all form a part of it. And that tolerance, initially for our internal differences, flawed as it was, set the stage for our tolerance of other cultures. Britain's culture is certainly its own but it has now been spread across the world to so many countries by the Imperial project that this is not always recognized. For an interesting discussion of how British (or at least Scottish) culture became Global culture try reading "How the Scots Invented the Modern World". Written by an American, Arthur Herman, it's a very interesting read. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is all still off-topic. If people want to rant go on at length about their own personal heritage, let them do it on their own user page! The text relates to the census question, which relates to how Canadians as a whole define their own ethnicity, which is not a function of how Wikipedia editors define their own ethnicity. Avt tor 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And the census question makes it clear that how anyone defines their ethnicity is irrelevant to the census. That's not what the question is.
In 2006, question 17 on the long form was as follows: "17. What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors? An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent. For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi'kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Salvadorean, Somali, etc. Specify as many origins as applicable." The 2001 question was similar, except that it did not specify ancestor as being more distant than a grandparent.
So what does question 17 tell us about how Canadians define themselves? Nothing. It is solely about how they define their ancestry. Which, in a country that is predominantly composed of immigrants (especially if we go back three generations) is something completely different. Eron 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I sympathize with your frustration in your neighbourhood, but try hard not to judge people of other ethnic backgrounds by a nasty, vocal few—"pure" Canadian whites have been guilty of such behaviour and worse too, believe me.

And I'm sorry you're frustrated that no one agrees with your conclusions here. You make a lot of points, but your argument is not solid. You cite a lot of facts about history, demographics, politics, parliamentary tradition, the Commonwealth, military service, and language, but none of these things makes a Canadian race. People's citizenship, traditions, language, and ethnic background are different things, most especially in Canada.

If you want to make a solid argument, first get all the facts straight, then make solid connections between them. (Take an introductory logic course or join the debating team.) Facts which you didn't quite get right:

  • According to Statscan, people who consider themselves having at least some British Isles blood comprise 1/3 of Canada's population,[6] not a majority
  • Many (or perhaps most) Canadians of British or French ancestry wouldn't agree with you that the two constitute a single race. In fact, the majority of the house of commons seems to feel that Québec is a nation within Canada.[7]
  • There are races native to Canada, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada
  • Multiculturalism has been official federal policy for over a generation, since 1971
  • Who fought or died for Canada in wartime has no bearing on a "Canadian race" (but see Tecumseh, Regiment de Meuron, Filip Konowal, Peter Dmytruk, Tommy Prince)
  • If someone is a tenth-generation white Canadian, that means at least one of his 7×great grandparents lived in Canada, out of 512! So they are defining their identity by 0.02 percent of their ancestry. So what percentage of their ancestry do you think came here more recently, from other countries?

Get the argument straight first, or reformulate your conclusions, if you want a chance to convince anyone else.

And although the editors here have been very indulgent, as mentioned above, we are here to compile an encyclopedia using verifiable published information. The chat belongs at some forum elsewhere. —Michael Z. 2006-11-28 18:26 Z

Colonial empires edit summary didn't display properly; confused.

In the introduction "[[ colonial empires|Canada" was the original markup, which simply made a mess, displaying the two opening brackets due to no closing brackets. I removed the space and changed it to "[[colonial empires|Canada]]", which simply resulted in "Canada" being displayed as the link ... so I removed the pipe and now colonial empires displays properly. But I'm not sure if that is the proper markup, as it may refer to any colonial empires (with no Canadian context).

Sorry, but my editing comprehension around the possibly billions of internal links, pipes, etc., isn't up to speed with the potentially billions of hours it'll take me to ever figure it all out.

If anyone could help to clarify or fix up the edit, well at least it reads properly now instead of showing markup brackets and right in the intro within 10 seconds of reading. Someone must know how it was/is supposed to be. Thanks in advance for taking a peek. --S-Ranger 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

History section: "Although" seems misplaced

"Although Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada for a long time, some archaeological studies date human presence in northern Yukon to 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario to 9,500 years ago."

Although what? It's a challenge: "Although Aboriginal tradition holds ... the proof is that they were here 26,500 years ago". Huh? "Although Aboriginal tradition holds ... archaeological studies prove otherwise," would make sense: if it were true and it's not. --S-Ranger 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how these "studies" prove "otherwise", and I also don't "get" the although. Sfahey 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Anyone else? And looking at it, the whole paragraph has to be rewritten to remove "Although" at the beginning, in which case it will state nothing. Suggestions? WP:BB and all, I'm supposed to "be bold" and just change it, but I've looked it over a dozen or three times and don't even know what it's trying to state. The only solution I have (as yet) is to remove it all. But I didn't add it, am just one person and whomever(s) did add it must have meant something and just got the wording a bit mixed up. --S-Ranger 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what the sentence is trying to imply is that the First Nations tradition states that they've always been in this region, but that archeological studies only date back to X amount of time (which is less than forever). -- Jeff3000 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily; it depends. For example, the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, could be a long time, or a billion years ago could be a long time. -- Jeff3000 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and sorry for no five colon indentation (a bit much) but I am responding to the above. ;-)

Is it true (and verifiable) that Aboriginal tradition holds that "they" (any humans) have been anywhere on this planet forever? This planet hasn't been around forever (nor can humans truly comprehend forever/infinity), but 26,500 years pretty much amounts to "forever" in this hemisphere. 15 minutes in a line-up amounts to "forever" to busy folks who have "a billion" things to do every day and/or night. :-)

We'd need a reliable citation for verifiability if it were going to be changed to:

"Although Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada forever[citation needed], some archaeological studies only date human presence in northern Yukon to 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario to 9,500 years ago." (Bold for emphasis only.)

Where are we going to get the verifiability about what the Aboriginal peoples believed, 25,000 years ago or even 9,000 years ago? Where would they even get the verifiability from? "It was passed down from our ancestors" (which ones, from where, and for how long?) doesn't amount to it being accurate/verifiable. So then it has to be changed to:

"Although current Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada forever[citation needed], some archaeological studies only date human presence in northern Yukon to 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario to 9,500 years ago.[citation needed]" (Bold for emphasis only.)

And is it accurate to claim "tradition" as opposed to "traditions", plural, given how massive this country is and that the Aboriginal peoples who migrated to south Ontario sometime between 26,500 years ago to 9,500 years ago (and I haven't seen any sources/verification for the alleged archaeological studies either; but haven't looked yet either) have held the same, whatever singular "tradition" is supposed to mean (beliefs), possibly ten thousands or so years after they had no contact with one another?

"Beliefs" might be more appropriate, because it's what is being claimed. Tradition can be belief, but it can also be a ceremony, like poker night, happy hour, etc., or a totally irrelevant Governor General and Lieutenants Governor, that we have in Canada for traditional reasons only; not beliefs that we're still part of the British Empire, or that the British Empire even exists anymore.

Sorry. I'm not trying to be impossibly picky, but am just trying to get it right. "Long time" (which means nothing; 15 minutes can be "eternity" depending upon what is happening to whomever, with their personality and perceptions) is stated: not "forever." And 26,500 years is certainly a very long time compared to Christian beliefs, for example, which are only 2006 years old (give or take) at best.

"Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada for a very long time and some archaeological studies prove so, dating human presence in northern Yukon to 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario to 9,500 years ago.[citation needed]"

I'm not exactly happy with it, but it's better than what exists now and makes some sense, so rewording it further should be much easier. I just don't want to see "Aboriginal tradition holds" being tread upon: nothing personal, it's just that their "tradition" (faith, beliefs; why "tradition"?) are correct; as usual -- if "long time" (as stated now) is what their traditions, plural, hold.

And if not, it doesn't really say anything. "Very long time" is eye of the beholder and I can't imagine anyone claiming that 26,500 years isn't a very long time: as opposed to forever, in which case we need to get verifiability and from all of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, or a study that they participated in and supplied the answers to.

Thoughts? --S-Ranger 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the last wording; I would go ahead and change it to it. -- Jeff3000 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the input. It can always be reverted, so, as suggested, I'll just change it to the above for now and see what happens. --S-Ranger 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just made a minor change: I thought the phrasing "... studies prove so, ..." was a bit stilted, so I changed it to "... studies support this belief, ...". Besides, I think "prove" carries a sense that finality that I'm not sure is warranted. --Nephtes 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! I wasn't happy with that either but couldn't get the right words out (too many ales last night, I think). ;-) Thanks for the help. --S-Ranger 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the point of the sentence "Although Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada for a long time" is being lost on people, I belive they are saying since humans have been in north america they have been native without interaction or help from the rest of the world. ---------The Aboriginal were the first to inhabited parts of Canada, with some archaeological studies support human presence in northern Yukon to 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario to 9,500 years ago.------------- Lucifers hammer 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User Anonymous 57

User Anonymous 57 has added non-referenced tags to a whole bunch of sections. I've reverted him three times, so I can't do so any more, but this page is very-well referenced. All the general statements are in the books at the bottom of the page, and all the specific numbers and controversial statements have a ref tag. No where in Wikipedia does it state that every single statement has to have a ref tag. Other forms of referencing which this pages are acceptable, and this page has passed through featured article status. I would recommend other editors revert his changes. -- Jeff3000 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If "all the general statements are in the books at the bottom of the page," then each of the general statements must be followed by the appropriate <ref name="..." /> tag. Until each statement is matched to the corresponding reference, the "citation needed" tags must remain. Please see WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. Anonymous 57 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to cite a source that says Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskachewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island are provinces of Canada? This goes beyond common sense into a ridiculously literal reading of a guideline. Sorry, such strong words are required to be used in this situation.--physicq210 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR, yes, these bald assertions must be backed up. If you know which of the sources already listed under "References" can be used to support them, please use the <ref /> tag as already described. Thanks. Anonymous 57 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:UCS. A literal reading of rules will not be beneficial to anyone nor the encyclopedia. --physicq210 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:CITE:
"Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article."
So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary. -- Jeff3000 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:There's no common sense. There is no such thing as common knowledge. Now, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, so I'm not in a position to match statements to sources. If you have the books listed under the "References" section, why don't you? It would vastly improve the quality of this (currently almost entirely unsourced) article. Anonymous 57 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's no such thing as common knowledge, why does Wikipedia policy explicitely use it in their policy pages. If you're not familiar with the subject matter, you are in no position in doing what you are doing. -- Jeff3000 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'm far better equipped than you to judge what is and isn't "common knowledge" regarding Canada. Just because you know that Canada is separated into twelve provinces (or whatever) doesn't mean that everyone knows the same. These bald assertions need sources; they are not common knowledge. Anonymous 57 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The reference is there, you just choose not to accept it because it's not in a ref tag style. I would suggest you go read it. -- Jeff3000 21:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Then what's the point of using footnotes at all? Might as well just have a monolithic "references" section, because backing up individual statements is too much trouble, right? I hope you can see why your reasoning is wrong. Anonymous 57 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous 57, may I suggest instead you copy a leaf from WP:UCS. And yes, "UCS" stands for Use common sense. Respectfully, Ramdrake 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought we already went over this. There's no such thing as common sense. And even if there were, it's far from "common sense" that Canada has twelve provinces. Perhaps in Canada, but certainly not in the rest of the world. Anonymous 57 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you are not far better equipped. If you were, you would actually be referencing the "unreferenced" statements rather than leaving others to interpret your vaguely worded "warnings." And, I really don't want to invoke this, but please read m:Don't be dense. --physicq210 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't reference those statements because I'm not familiar with the texts, so I leave it to others to match statements with their references. Honestly, how hard can this be to understand? Anonymous 57 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot find the references yourself, then don't go around needlessly peppering every featured article with {{unref}} tags. How hard is it to understand that? --physicq210 21:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
So anyone who can't find references should refrain from removing unverified, uncited content? That's contrary to policy and common procedure. I suggest you rethink that statement. Anonymous 57 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been more clear, but do not misinterpret my statement. If you so wish to go into semantics, notice that I used the words "needlessly peppering" to describe your current actions. Adding a few {{unref}} tags when needed is helpful (I have done that myself), but "needlessly peppering" FA's is not. --physicq210 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the references are there. You choose not to look at them. Also read the quoted section from WP:CITE again, not everything needs a footnote, there are multiple ways of citing content that is acceptable to Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous, one simple principle of civility: if you can't or won't do it yourself, you're not in a good position to demand that others do it. You can always suggest, though. --Ramdrake 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm demanding nothing. By leaving "citation needed" tags where appropriate, I am suggesting to contributors that they provide sources for presently unverified text. No more, no less. Anonymous 57 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A final time, the references are there. Not everything needs to be in a ref tag. -- Jeff3000 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, most editors believe (with reason) that your "citation needed" tags are not appropriate. --physicq210 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not edit other people's comments, Anonymous,. unless it is a personal attack or legal or death threat. It is rude. --physicq210 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
3 editors have told you in about an hour that those tags are inappropriate. How many more do you need???--Ramdrake 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
How many more? A majority of the editors, if physicq210 wants his statement to stand that "most editors believe" these citation-needed tags to be inappropriate. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a reference. Anonymous 57 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You have now ventured from superficially interpreting policy and guideline to a ridiculously literal interpretation of people's comments. Again, Don't be dense. --physicq210 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And, no, you do not "have to ask for a reference." You can supply one yourself if you so wish. --physicq210 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Or I could have just reverted your edit for lacking factual references, as happens every single day here on Wikipedia. This would have been standard operating procedure; don't pretend otherwise. That I refrained from doing so was simply a courtesy to you. Anonymous 57 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Revert what edit? My reverting of your editing of my comments without prior permission? Or the removal of your {{unref}} tags that have been backed by two other editors? --physicq210 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The edit which contained the assertion that "most editors believe (with reason) that your 'citation needed' tags are not appropriate." Though I could just as easily blank the majority of this article for being unreferenced, and that, too, would be within policy. Really, you should be grateful I haven't; again, as a courtesy to you. Anonymous 57 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No. That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and is forbidden by policy, and could get you blocked. Please, WP:DBAD.
Courtesy? Nay, thou wouldst be blocked for disruption and/or gain even more the ire of others. --physicq210 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. Improving the article by removing unverified information is "disruption." Thank you both for that valuable insight. Anonymous 57 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. "Improving" the article by needlessly adding {{unref}} tags contrary to WP:CITE is disruption. --physicq210 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone please read WP:NCR and please calm down. Stormscape 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a certain irony here, that people who seemingly think Canada has 12 provinces are getting into such a froth about how to best ensure the accuracy of this article. Timminspress 11:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this "Royal's Anthem" idea started?

Does anyone know where this idea/discussion for the addition of the British Monarch's("Royal anthem") came from?

Was there discussion/vote on adding the Royals' song to other countries outside of the United Kingdom? It's giving the song a bit more credit than it is really worth. I contend this song is not officially recognized as such in those countries, it is no longer even taught in schools as such. I think the song should just remain on the Queen's page as her song. True-- countries in the commonwealth and elsewhere may play her song if she visits (because it is her song.) but many countries will also play the US national anthem if a diplomat from the US comes to visit too. It doesn't make the US national anthem every other country's "Royal anthem" either though. CaribDigita 21:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do any other countires have a "royal anthem" in addition to the "national anthem"? This may be a uniquely Canadian thing. There is a group of monarchists who have repeatedly tried to re-write the article to blow the role of the monarchy in Canada out of proportion. This may be a vestige of one of those attempts. It is correct, however, and I don't think it's doing any harm here. Ground Zero | t 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the Royal Anthem for the Canadian Monarch, and is played at official functions at which the Queen is present. It also forms a part of the Vice-Regal Salute played for the Governor General and lieutenant-governors.
I think it came about purely through inherited tradition rather than by any vote.
Australia has the same Royal Anthem, it's one of two national anthems in New Zealand, and is the royal anthem in Norway. The article on God Save the Queen tells it all. --gbambino 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Gambino I did have a chance to read the "God Save the Queen" article and saw that as well. However specifically in Barbados' case- the official code of etiquette says that even in the presence of the Governor General or Monarch the Barbados National anthem shall be played. The Constitution [8] which I thumbed through a few times has no mention of a Royal anthem either. Basically any diplomat or foreign team is going to have their song played, not just the queen but the lyrics aren't taught anymore for it to be considered as either a national symbol or emblem. CaribDigita 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the Royal Anthem and the National Anthem ideas started in the UK and it used to be the only country which had either. Now every country has a National Anthem even if they don't have anything else. Generally only monarchies have a Royal Anthem but there are exceptions: For instance the US has a Royal Anthem (alright a Presidential Anthem) too in Hail to the Chief. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Canada says "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors." Note the lower case on "royal anthem;" it seems to be more a matter of tradition and protocol than any legal status. Eron 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Which makes Canada exactly the same as the UK. "God Save the Queen" has no legal status as an anthem there either. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a British Commonwealth Realm, alongside the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and our heritage is British (and French). All commonwealth realms have God Save the Queen as the royal anthem, you should know that or else you aren't much of a Canadian yourself, eh?? In Canadian Army or Cadets services, the raising of the flag plays "O, Canada!" and the lowering plays "God save the King/Queen", for we are still British, even though we have many protections for human rights which make us a shrine to foreign peoples which promotes to some degree "Multiculturalism" however Canadian culture as a hole is concidered British and French, and those people are the majority of Canadians. Canada is British, and that is our royal anthem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanRP (talk • contribs) .

The Canadian Forces do not play "God Save the Queen" when the flag is lowered. And Canada is not British. Eron 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, actually yes they do, I am in the Canadian Forces and everyone stands on parade for the raising of the Flag and the lowering of the Flag, and during the lowering they play God Save the Queen. We also play God Save the Queen at events concerning the British Monarch (which is also our monarch). God Save the Queen is our Royal Anthem as well. You're dead wrong. And Canada is British, we are in the Commonwealth and the majority of people are British descent. The reason we are what we are today is because of our British (and French) roots. Why do you think we speak English? Why do you think we have a House of Parliament with a Prime Minister and Lieutenant General? Why do you think we spell things similarily to British English? (IE Colour, not Color). Look up some facts before you post B.S. Canada is British and French. RyanRP 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am the person you referred to further up that page who "didn't know the Canadian Army played God Save the Queen." I think you'll find I said no such thing; what I said was that the Canadian Forces do not play "God Save the Queen" when the flag is lowered. I stand by my statement (and I'll ask you not to call what I say "B.S." even if you happen to disagree; that's just rude). You'll also find that I have provided verifiable government sources stating both that the anthem is considered the royal anthem, and that it has no official legal status in Canada. Regarding its playing, you refer to your experience as a member of the Forces. As you note elsewhere that you are a high school student, I assume you are either a Reservist or a Cadet. I myself spent over ten years in the Canadian Army, and am a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada. I have participated in countless parades and have witnessed the raising and lowering of our flag on many, many occasions. The appropriate musical salute to the lowering of the flag is "Sunset". This is not to say that "God Save the Queen" has no part in the ceremonial of the Canadian Forces; it is played to recognize the presence of the Sovereign or her representative and, combined with part of "O Canada", forms part of the Vice-Regal Salute. All I am saying is that it is not played for - or perhaps I should say, it is not the appropriate ceremonial music for - the lowering of the flag.
As to Canada not being British, I am referring to Canada, today. Canada's British heritage is obvious, of course - as is our heritage from many other parts of the world. Eron 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just was reading this, but yeah, the guy's right Canada is British. Speaks English, majority population from british descent, has house of parliament etc etc, sure, its not 100 percent british in every way, Britain is, but Canada IS british. Seriously, why would you deny that, shouldn't you be proud of that? Isn't that what makes you NOT american? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.218.171 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read my comments again, you'll see that I do not deny that Canada has British heritage. I'm just saying that British heritage isn't the only heritage. I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you say that Canada is not "100 percent british" and then say "Canada IS british. Which is it?
As to not being American, that isn't really how I define myself as a Canadian. And, as both Canada and the USA are former British colonies - with many aspects of their culture and political systems descending from that - I don't think Canada's British heritage is the greatest distinguishing factor between the two countries. Eron 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How many religions to list in Demographics paragraph

Hi all. I just removed Judaism from the paragraph regarding religions under Demographics. I want to be clear that this is not anything to do with any desire to decrease the profile of the religion. Here's my rationale: First, stats:

Christianity: 77% Islam: 2.0% Judaism: 1.1% Buddhism: 1.0% Hinduism: 1.0% Sikhism: 0.9% Other: 0.3% None: 16.5%

See? Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are so close by numbers that unless we're going to list all four, I don't think that we should list any. ...and if we're going to list all four, then we should just have a table. I think there would be a valid argument to remove Islam as well, as it's one-thirty-eigth the size of the first place, but there is an argument for it as it does have almost twice as many as the rest of the "pack". AshleyMorton 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the demographics section is too long (as are some others). The religion paragraph is OK, but I would trim down the Christian/Catholic/Protestant phrase. Such fine-grain details belong in the Demographics of Canada article. Mindmatrix 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and I would support the cutting down of other sections as well (especially the History section). -- Jeff3000 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Demographics Math Problem

I just noticed that the list of ethnicities in the demographics section adds up to Canada having %126.6 of a population. Is the census wrong, or do people get listed as multiple things (i.e., Irish-Scottish)?--Moncubus 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From the source of the data Stats Can, you can notice that all the ethnicities adds up to 44,099,260, much higher than the total population of 29,639,035, so that would imply that people could check multiple ethnicities. -- Jeff3000 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's correct — a person of mixed Irish/Scottish heritage would count as one Irish and one Scottish in the demographic data, so it adds up to more than 100 per cent. Bearcat 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Quebec's sovereignty movement

I believe that it is important to indicate or at least to think about why there are so many issues between the English and French culture in Canada. Without saying that one group is better or worse than the other one, and without denigrating each other, I just think that we should write on why the Quebec's sovereignty movement exists, and why it is so omnipresent in the province of Quebec. There is misunderstanding between both groups. The reference about that issue is everywhere in Quebec, ask any sovereingtists and you'll get the answer. It is not summarized in only one book that one person wrote. We only have to watch TV and watch the political debates about that issue.

As a Quebecer myself, I can tell you the view of a French Canadian. I'm not a sovereigntist and I've never been one, but I can tell you that I'm an activist and even though French and English are both official languages, Canada is not a bilingual country. As French speakers, we are not even able to travel around Canada and easily live in French in other provinces, whereas an English speaker can easily live in English anywhere in Quebec, no matter how big is the majority of French speakers in the city where he or she travels. As former Prime minister Trudeau has already said, Canada would be a bilingual country if Anglophones made as many efforts to learn French than Francophones do to learn English. With that in mind, how could a French speaking Quebecer be attached to the rest of Canada if he or she is not even able to live in French anywhere in its own country?

Canadian politics doesn't considered the French Canadian culture at a fair value because the English Canadian group is much greater than that of French Canadians. Therefore, in that political situation, democracy alienates the French Canadians, especially the Quebecers. And true liberal democracy is not omnipotent. Why does Quebec mostly stand as a dissident in most interprovincial and federal collaborations? Because the decisions are made in accordance with the majority, and since the nine other provinces are English provinces, they have similar views on many issues that differ from the French view of Quebec.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.210.166 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:No original research -- we cannot come up with our own arguments and ideas from our general background knowledge. We attempt to create an encyclopedic summary in our articles, citing references for the views and facts that we include. Also, keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia:Summary style article about the entire country. Detailed analysis, properly referenced from reliable sources, should go into the Quebec sovereignty movement article. Thanks. Jkelly 22:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you can find already published sources regarding these ideas. HighInBC 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i don't see Italiophones from Switzerland complaining because they only live in a small area. Zazaban 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The responses to the first thoughtful comment in this section suggest a bias on this page which is in fact borne out by the way the Supreme Court's decision on Quebec's right to separate from Canada is presented. Specifically, the paragraph states that the Supreme Court held that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to secede but that a separatist movement nevertheless persists. One would conclude from the phrasing that even if Quebec voted to separate it would not be able to do so legally. This paragraph, and the sentence in particular, in order to provide a balanced perspective, should include the fact that the rest of Canada would not have a basis to refuse to negotiate Canada's separation in the event of a successful referendum. This point is critical because referenda in Quebec have sought to provide the provincial government with the authority to vote to negotiate secession from the rest of Canada; these referenda have not been a vote on something like a unilateral vote of independence. --Philippe90210 07:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well mainly, it would be because during the colonialist days, England and France had a war to see who would own Canada, and guess who won--- The English! So Canada has ever since been a British Country to some degree, and unfortunately the British Government (When we were a Colony, and not yet a Dominion or a Commonwealth Realm, (From confederation) therfore they had complete control over our laws), was very mean to the French Canadians, and didn't give them all of the same voting rights etc. Canada was strictly English only for a very long time, but after a while and some degrees of Liberalization, French is now the second official language, after English. Although British descendants number greater than French descendants, the French community still exists quite strong and proud. Due to past issues between the two, a hatred somewhat exists and an endless rivalry exists as it always has between the French and British. Because of Canada's (as a whole, generally speaking) mainly British history, the French Canadians sometimes feel that they should be a seperate country, and want to split from Canada. However I think that would be quite stupid, really... --RyanRP 5:37pm, November 26th, 2006

Bilingual Province(s)

As far as I know, New Brunswick is the only legal province that is bilingual (has both French and English as official languages. Is this not a good fact to include in the introduction when it talks about Canada being bilingual? btg2290 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article. The lead should be a general description, and such details are left to the body of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank-you for your speedy response. btg2290 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a bilingual country. In 1968, the Trudeau gov't passed the bilingual act making English and French the offical language of the federal government (Canada being federal) This means that French and English are used in federal institutions in Canada. The province of New Brunswick is offically the only bilingual province, meaning that services in the province are both in English and French, that is the difference between Canada and NB being bilingual.

Manitoba is also a bilingual province. However, after the Constitutional Act, they were permitted to... by-pass? ... that requirement. It is mentioned on the Manitoba article as Official languages English and French, per mandate of the Constitution Act 1982. Disinclination 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Constitution Act 1982 has nothing to do with it. Manitoba is not officially bilingual, but (like Quebec) it must publish its laws in both languages. See Manitoba Act and Reference re Manitoba Language Rights. Indefatigable 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I really should have edited that. In any case, its all a matter of -where- French is used officially, or not. I still think it should be noted in this special case. Along with other articles on bilingualism. It should be mentionable enough. Disinclination 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying a place is bilingual or officially bilingual do not necessarily mean the same thing. Montreal is bilingual despite being in an officially french province, and many other areas are similarly bilingual without a law telling them that it is so. In BC, being in a bilingual country doesn't mean a whole lot in everyday life, except for what I read on cereal boxes, and personally, I try not to spend too much time in federal institutions. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia on government, and I believe articles should similarly be general, (and agree with Jeff3000). Bobanny 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana?

I've heard that marijuana may or may not be legal? Can anyone clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.253.171 (talk • contribs) .

It's not legal as of yet, though some political parties are pushing to decriminalize possession of small amounts of it. -- Jeff3000 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe--in Ontario at least--that marijuana was decriminalized (for small amounts) about a year or a year and a half ago. However, the news reports that I'm remembering were stressing that while it was being 'decrimaninalized' it was not being 'leagalized'. kev. 09:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there was some federal legislation introduced a few years ago to decriminalize possession of small amounts (and to increase penalties for dealing), but it died because it didn't get passed before that session of Parliament ended. It certainly wasn't Ontario-specific. Generally, in Canada the federal gov't has exclusive power to legislate criminal law. --thirty-seven 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Harper Government scrapped the laws for decriminalizing it at the federal level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.20.10 (talk • contribs) 15:49, October 30, 2006

We should keep an eye out for any news on this topic, though. Out here in BC, marijuana legalization is always being tossed around. Supercraft99 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Images.

ALL of the images are broken. on every page on this site.... Zazaban 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is working now. HighInBC 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What vandalism has anybody done, if it's an insult to Canada by probably Americans, then screw them.

Yeah! You're right! I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but to those that vandalize stuff like that, they are retards! I don't wanna swear, cause I might get blocked, but the thing is, they're are disrespecting Canada! You can't blame me for saying mean things, because it's harsh to hear that kind of propaganda towards the peaceful country. Basically, (Most)Americans are dumb. I'm saying most because there are some Americans on my fav NHL team. An example of a good American is Patrick Eaves. Basically, America sucks. Oh yeah, I wish I could vandalize the America page, it's just that I'll get blocked.... That's be a taste of their own medicine!Hasek is the best 20:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the vandals, folks. Just watch the article, revert their changes, and warn them (warning templates can be found at WP:Templates; if they do it too often, report them to WP:AIV and they're likely to be blocked. They're just vandals, nothing serious. I also recommend not being insulting about other nationalities, or anyone, really. It's not really productive. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lets remember to remain civil...even in the face of uncivil behavior. Furthermore, making "personal" attacks is not helpful...It would be best of follow the vandals and file a complaint to get the person(s) blocked. I agree with Tony Fox on this. DPetersontalk 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, good points, but I think the original poster - from Surrey - is likely just trolling. That comment seems a little misplaced. CMacMillan 01:34, 25 October 2006

(UTC)

Okay, sure then. Hasek is the best 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Provinces

You know, if I came to this article looking for the names of the provinces of Canada, it could take quite a while. Lots of place names are used with the assumption that a reader will already know whether a city, province, or whatever is being referred to. And once I find a link to the provinces of Canada article, it still takes quite a bit of scrolling and reading to find them. --JimWae 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And personally, I find tables much easier to find & to read than paragraphs - but there seems to be a presumption against tables on many articles. Many print encyclopedia use tables though --JimWae 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's not even an entry in the TOC for provinces. Administrative divisions? I thought (at least some) provinces JOINED confederation, and were not administratively divided up by the federal gov't after joining --JimWae 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I sound annoyed, it could be because I've brought this up umpteen times before --JimWae 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad suggestion, and yes, provinces joined confederation, not administrative divisions. They just may not have been provinces of Canada at that point. CMacMillan 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
While the section can be named Provinces, people who don't know that provinces are administrative subdivisions may find it initially confusing. As for the tables, if I remember correctly, featured articles recommend prose instead of tables or lists. -- Jeff3000 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just looked in vain for any mention of tables in featured articles guidelines - it may of course still be a common objection - based on personal tastes. Should personal tastes rule over readability and editors decisions? --JimWae 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Other countries, including the United States, have "administrative divisions" (not, for example, "States"). Seems to be a Wikipedia standard, in other words, change to be discussed at a higher level than this Talk page.Avt tor 20:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe that's because the same name would not apply for every country so a generic name is used in the outline - but that does not mean we need to be restricted. The US article does not even list the states in that section - rather talks more about non-states that are part of the USA --JimWae 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What I would hope is that someone coming ot knowing the word 'provinces' they would click on 'administrative subdivisions' in the contents. If they know the word it appears in the introduction, with a link to Provinces and territories of Canada. DJ Clayworth 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd be wary of hoping that too many assumptions are fulfilled. I do not think the article is "user-friendly" in this regard. Nor, once the link is found, is the Provinces and territories of Canada article much friendlier. In a table NL is obviously 1 province - not so clearly in a paragraph. I still do not understand the resistance to tables by so many editors. --JimWae 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the "Administrative divisions" section reads "Canada is composed of ten provinces and three territories. The provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. The three territories are the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon Territory." I'm not really sure how that could be made any more clear. Eron 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everyone is willing to read that far down into the article to find out the names of the provinces - nor which names used earlier in the article refer to provinces & which refer to other things - and the TOC is not much help. Unless you already know early in the article what some of the place names refer to, much of the rest of the content is useless --JimWae 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Our audience is not solely to Canadians, and I would doubt that most English speakers in the world, and/or all Wikipedia users know that Provinces are the subdivisions in the country, so I believe that the current title is the appropriate one. And I find tables ruin the flow of the article, especially given the relatively large table that would be produced by the provinces and/or territores. -- Jeff3000 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe I am too just modern - but if I want to organize information & be able to find & retrieve the information quickly, tables are indispensible. Rather than interrupting the flow, tables are far easier to skip over (if one wants to do so) than several paragraphs on the same topic that have no clear demarcation of a start & a stop. And maybe I am also too spatially oriented - but if I am going to read a bunch of place names, I want to know which are for cities & which are for larger areas (like provinces or whatever) - and maybe a map showing the political & topographic geography so I know where they are. And it seems to me that precisely the same thing would benefit non-Canadians reading a bunch of place names in the Canadian history section. (I see there is no longer a model for section order for paragraphs in country articles.) So early in the article one points out that the next smaller political entity in Canada is a province & then you produce the list/table. 13 rows is not a large table - but large enough to be quickly found when needed again though. I also find nothing deadens the "flow" of text as quickly as a list in paragraph form does. --JimWae 05:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like tables or lists, and would rather have prose, even it's a list that's written like prose. From Wikipedia:Embedded list "As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. ... Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text." Also this is a summary style article; not all that information should be included. The tables are available in the daughter article Provinces and territories of Canada. -- Jeff3000 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I recall that there used to be a table listing the provinces, but it made a real mess of the article. --gbambino 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there some ambiguity as to what the term "administrative division" means? It's the sixth item in the table of contents, and one can easily click on it if one would like to know the names of Canada's administrative divisions. As Eron noted, its opening paragraph is very straightforward; there's even a map. There's no need to include a table for a mere thirteen provinces and territories. -- WGee 01:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look here you will see there was little or no consensus for the wholesale changeover to "administrative divisions". My objection to the terminology would be lessened if that section appeared earlier in the article AND if it were in list form, as it would be easier to find - even if one were NOT ALREADY familiar with its being a kind of wiki-style. I do not see how the history section can be very meaningful to someone not already familiar with how the place names are being used. And yes, there is some ambiguity - many provinces existed as entities before joining Canada - and so to call them "administrative divisions" - as though they were divided up into such sections by the federal gov't for ease of administration - can be misleading. Political subunits might work better for all countries, and Provinces & Territories still works fine for Canada. --JimWae 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm surprised to see that this is already being addressed. I was reading the article and thinking about "Administrative Divisions" which just sounded wrong in my ears. I think I know why - Canada only has three administrative divisions - the territories. Canada is not divided into provinces, but rather provinces are united into Canada. The point is somewhat subtle, but it's clear that provinces are not ways the country is divided for administrative purposes, but their own entities. Cities are administrative divisions of provinces - provinces can create and eliminate them, merge or divide them, change their boundries on a whim and force them to do whatever else they please. The federal government has no such power over provinces, because provinces are not administrative divisions.

Hmmm... I definitely Support using "Provinces and Territories". I think that having a general rule is silly - some countries shoot directly to the county/municipality level from their national government (meaning they may have hundreds of first-level divisions). At the other extreme, Belgium has only three. Clearly, for Belgium, all of the divisions should be listed and discussed in the main article. For Russia, their 88 "Federal subjects" should not even be listed. However, Canada lies in between, at a level (10/13) where we should probably be listing and giving basic information, but not really discussing. In addition, I would suggest that it is too narrow a definition to suggest that Provinces are just *not* administrative divisions. I believe that calling something an adminstrative division necessarily makes no comment at all about it's existence as it's "own entity". AshleyMorton 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Many Americans don't even know that Canada has "provinces" instead of "states." We are targetting a world-wide audience, and in my opinion the best terminology to use so that most people understand what the section is about is the current title. -- Jeff3000 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly Support the useage of Provinces and Territories. Yes, we are targetting a world-wide audience. But they are referred to as territories and provinces respectively in Canada. I don't want to dumb down this information just so people who are, quite frankly, too ignorant to learn it. Disinclination 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the recent change of the paragraph format to list format is justified. JimWae's edit summary reads "Administrative divisions - per Wikipedia:Embedded list and talk." I would note that Wikipedia:Embedded list explicitly states that "having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better." It does go on to say that "in some cases however, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence," (emphasis mine) but it doesn't detail what those cases are. I don't think the original format here was problematic, and I think it read better as a paragraph than as a list. I also do not think that the change can be justified by referring to this talk page as, by my reading, there was no consensus here in favour of the change. I'm not going to revert it right now, as I'd like to hear what others think, but if there isn't more support than just a single editor's opinion, it should perhaps be changed back. Eron 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The majority, if not all, country articles use administrative divisions as the section header. I randomly searched Turkey, Iraq, Portugal, Mozambique, and Argentina. Why sould Canada be an exception? Joelito (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Eron is right. There was no consensus for the change, and Wikipedia:Embedded list explicitly states that "having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better. I'm going to revert it back. -- Jeff3000 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, Wikipedia:Embedded list states:

"Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better. In some cases however, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence, compare:"

Both are lists, but list style rather than paragraph style is easier to read & find --JimWae 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the list style breaks up the article, and makes it look unstructured. In my opinion it makes the article harder to read. -- Jeff3000 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Like someone said earlier in the talk, it had been done before, and it made the article, to put bluntly, ugly. Disinclination 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Also of the six editors who have commented above about the way the paragraph is structured, list in prose or list in list style, five of them are ok with the way it is currently. -- Jeff3000 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do style preferences merit a revert? Wikipedia:Embedded list clearly supports the change I made - and the flow of text is not blocked by having a list (with no easily identified start & end) within a sentence. --JimWae 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpreation of Wikipedia:Embedded list. In fact I read the opposite way, and as mentioned above the consensus is to keep it the way it is. -- Jeff3000 04:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we make one of those seperate discussion/vote (don't know the actually name, sorry) pages where everyone can vote and decide on what to do, and make a reference back down to this specific point of the talk page. Disinclination 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "Canada" in French

I added some un-necessary corrections about the "Canada" IPA in French, editing [kanada] to [känä'dä], as that vowel in more or less centralised in French (as in most other languages). I also added a stress mark because words do have an inherent stress in French, but it's only pronounced when the word is at the end of a group of words.

Call it zealotism, but I strive to make IPA transcription the more complete possible.

Valkari 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, in Canadian French "Canada" is pronounced [kanadɑ](which is considered archaic in France.) Should this be the pronunciation listed at the top? Confiteordeo 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's how I pronounce it and have always heard it pronounced in Canada. Luigizanasi 01:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to change it, then, since I think the Canadian pronunciation is more appropriate than the European one for this article. I also found a reference for it, but it's in print... Confiteordeo 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please update International rankings table with new data

In the International rankings table there is an updated Press Freedom Index for 2006, canada is not 16th place out of 168

hogangeo 11:01, 2 November 2006 (EDT)

Template creep

It appears that this article is slowly accumulating more footer templates, yet again. We've already had this discussion, but...which templates do we eliminate, if any? Some can and should be moved to sub-articles (for example - countries of the Atlantic Ocean to Geography of Canada, or something similar). Opinions? Mindmatrix 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it is below the content, why does it matter if there is alot of it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Brevity. Relevance. Readability. Avt tor 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the navbox galore is getting ridiculous. Many would better be suited for sub-artilces (like Geography, Politics, History, Military or Culture). --Qyd 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
They are annoying, but I've converted the final few that weren't by default in their closed state to being closed, and thus limited their annoyance. I do favour moving some out though. -- Jeff3000 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Animated GIF

The animated gif of the territorial evolution of Canada is messing up the formatting, causing a gap in the text between the "History" heading and the text of that section. I think this is a cool animation, but I don't know if it belongs in a brief summary-style article like this. --thirty-seven 07:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it better belongs in History of Canada. -- Jeff3000 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that animated GIFs do not resize well, if it is disruptive to the formatting it should be removed. Perhaps somebody can resize it with an external program? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How would this work? Image:Canada provinces evolution-250.gif --Qyd 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It cetainly is less obtrusive, but the text is meaningless. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GIF files are not allowed in GNU sites becuase of the LZW Algothithm used for compression Zack3rdbb 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The GIF patent is now expired; are you sure that your statement is still correct? If so, given that the patent is no longer an issue, why are GIFs not allowed? --Nephtes 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We use GIFs all the time here, there are thousands of them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if anybody was considering adding a picture gallery? I saw some in other country's articles, like Serbia, Spain, and Bulgaria and believe Canada deserves one. Lt. penguin 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Motto

In the moto it is not from sea to sea. It is From coast to coast or From an ocean to the other Ad mari Ad mare means Coast or Ocean not sea Usque means The other. I'm latin so I know that :oP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.215.22 (talk • contribs)

No you're not ;)

I have no idea what an exact Latin translation of "A Mari usque ad Mare" would be. However, I do know that "Canada's motto, was derived from Psalm 72:8, which reads in Latin "Et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae," and in the King James version, "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." - Eron 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do they teach youngsters at school nowadays ? 

  Latin    -> English
  a        -> from
  mari     -> sea (ablative singular case because of "a")
  usque    -> all the way
  ad       -> to
  mare     -> sea (accusative singular case because of "ad")

Not Latin it appears, <grin>. -- Old Fogey 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Not for the translation (though that's nice too), for calling me a youngster. That hasn't happened in years - Eron 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada: "American Sovereign State" or Not?

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 sovereign states."

One of these sovereign states is Canada. Now, looking at the list of Monarchys in the Americas, Canada is the sole American Sovereign State (Monarchy) (State). Isn't the Queen of Canada the sole American Sovereign since there are no other Monarchys in the Americas which their Government recognizes? NOTE: I am emphasizing "American Sovereign" as she should be recognized as a "European Sovereign" just as alike as a "American Sovereign" respectively.

Bottom line: She should be included as an American Sovereign and Canada as the American Sovereign State (Monarchy) respectively.

I find no reason to as the United States being allowed "Super-Power" and Canada not mentioned as the "American Sovereign State". Intuitionz 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Great circuitous logic-izzle. Now 533 WP:TROLL CMacMillan 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The term American Sovereign State is rarely used. The context that you appear to be using it in would be a Constitutional-Monarchy with the British Monarch as its' figure Head-of-State. In North America and South America there are several British Dominions (i.e., a Dominion), prime of which is the Dominion of Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I am a bit confused by all that. Can someone please translate? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Which part? My biting the Troll, or what he's trying to push? CMacMillan 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A: Canada is a member of America. (North America) B: Canada is a member of The Organization of American States (OAS) C: Canada aknowledges it's membership as an American Sovereign State [9] Intuitionz 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A+B+C cannot = D unless a reliable source has already made that assertion(atleast on wikipedia), see WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the website of the Latin America and Caribbean bureau of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs. And, in normal Canadian usage, Canada is not part of 'America'; Canada is part of 'the Americas'. And, all states are sovereign states, not just those with sovereigns. And sovereignty and monarchy are separate concepts. And... what was the point again? Eron 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my fault, I shouldn't have fed the troll, but everyone has a judgement slip. This is a "user" who usually shows up after previous discussions are archived to offer semantic piffle. Such as The American State of Canada or a proposal that United Empire Loyalists were Loyalists of the United Empire (a precursor of the United States), rather than Empire Loyalists who were United. Get it? . CMacMillan 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree "Canada" YES, Is part of The Americas (North America) Americas or whichever version, but since when is Germany not a European State or France or England just as alike in Canada's case considering the Americas? So you are saying YES Canada is in America, North America, the Americas but it is not one of it's States? Please clarify WHY? You cannot be apart of the Americas and disclose immunity at the same time. Either Canada is part of the Americas or it isn't? If so, shall be in fact an American Sovereign State. I agree there is no reference as of yet except the Canadian Government (http://americascanada.gc.ca) but can we use PLAIN ENGLISH SENSE PLEASE in this case? Denial and NPOV don't cut it. Intuitionz 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to vote if Canada is in the Americas? Intuitionz 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, you need a reliable source making this claim, or it is original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Final Offer of Sources:

I'm sorry there is nothing else I can do in plain English common sense to prove Canada is a Sovereign Government (Country) of the Americas. (American State) Intuitionz 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Canada is a sovereign country of the Americas. However, the term "American ... State" is going to be interpreted as one of the United States, of which Canada is not. It would be semantically confusing to refer to Canada as an "American Sovereign State". Obviously. Avt tor 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to my message to you earlier[10] regarding original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Comment:If my memory serves me correctly. I believe the " http://www.americascanada.gc.ca " was launched as a portal for the summit of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) when it was held in Canada. As far as Canadian "gc.ca" URLs I've explored these before, they go to a bunch of cities across the world where Canada has a presence.

US cities - example

etc. etc. etc.

Caribbean countries' example

etc. etc. etc.

CaribDigita 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I cannot for the life of me figure out what Intuitionz's point is. Yes, Canada is a country in the Americas. I don't know of anyone with any knowledge of geography who would deny that. But... so what? What specifically do you think needs to be changed in this article? Do you have a suggestion for an improvement, or are you just trolling? Eron 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

War of 1812

"Canada was a major front in the War of 1812 between the United States and British Empire..."

This should more clearly describe the US attempt to invade and annex Canada.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.6.227 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All that is covered in the main article on the War of 1812. Eron 14:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't know if anyone's caught this yet (but I assume so judging by the fact that the article is locked): "America is way, way more important to Canada and to the world in every possible conceivable manner. America is a superpower, Canada is... not. Canadians are jealous that they will never reach the height of their superior neighbors and cling on to fugs like Celin Dion, Avril Lavigne and that guy from Beverly Hills 90210 who had a car accident a couple years ago, what's his name. Sad people."

It's at the very beginning of the article, at the end of the third paragaph (just before the table of contents). As I am not registered, I'd like to ask that someone remove it.

Thanks, someone fixed it. You don't have to be registered to make changes, only to create new articles. So you are welcome to fix things like this yourself. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't apply when the article is protected, as this one is currently. Mindmatrix 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation of "Canada" as shown in the IPA is highly irregular, mixing phonemic and phonetic transcription. The use of the IPA on Wikipedia is normally restricted to broad phonemic transcriptions (when showing the pronunciation of a name, at least), and should follow the traditional use of symbols diacritics as used for the particular language. What I mean by this is that we have too much irrelevant information in the transcriptions right now. I know that a previous editor purposely added the centralizing and stress diacritic for the French pronunciation, but this really should be removed. Since stress and centralization are not phonemic in French (all /a/ vowels are more-or-less central in French, and all content words have final stress when in isolation), these extraneous diacritics should be removed, in keeping with the concept of phonemic (contrastive segments only) transcription. With the English, aspiration is not phonemic (it is totally predictable given the phonological and morphological structure, including stress), and thus that should be removed as well.

You can check out the transcriptions of Copenhagen, for example, to see how only the contrastive elements of English and Danish are encoded. The aspiration and nasalization are not shown for the English, as they are predictable. If you need examples of phonemic transcriptions on other Wikipedia pages, let me know and I can show you. Remember, there is no limit to how many diacritics you could put on a phonetic transcription (nasalization before the /n/ in the English, dental bridge under the /d/ for the French, etc.), but we are not trying to transcribe that. We are making a phonemic transcription, and should limit our use of the IPA to exactly what is needed for each language. I am changing the transcription to keep with Wikipedia guidelines. --SameerKhan 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the current "broad a" low-back vowel [ɑ] to a more exact "open o" mid-back vowel [ɔ] because as a Quebec French native speaker, I know it is pronounced like that. "Canadâ" sounds weird to my ears, but "Canado" sounds just fine. ;)

[ɑ] is used in very "formal" (or trying to be) Canadian French while [ɔ] is what one will hear almost everywhere from everyone, on the road or random informal settings. Correct formal usage is something between [ɑ] and [a] anyway. When I speak formally (ie orals or with strangers) I tend to use [a] more than [ɑ] but [ɔ] is what I almost always use and hear.

Valkari 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New Canadian Banknote Designs

The image of Canadian banknotes is, I believe outdated. I Know for sure that the part of the image with the Canadian five-dollar bill is of a previous version of the bill. It stands to reason that the portion of the image with the Canadian ten-dollar bill is also outdated.

NAJohnson 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly are you propsing to change, and what is the problem? I looked under the Economy section, and it has a picture of all the updated banknotes. Whats the problem? Disinclination 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. These are the current banknotes, according to the Bank of Canada. Mindmatrix 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The differences are present in both the five and ten dollar note. It is not the design of the note but the presence of a thin security strip on the notes. It is present in all denominations currently but was not present in the five and ten dollar notes untill recently. It is situated to the imediate left of all the faces. Mindmatrix, the link that you supplied does show current versions of the bill with the security stripe. Looking at the image on the main page clearly shows no security strip. I propose compiling images of all current banknotes into one image and replacing the current one. I am unable to do this because I am using a shared IP that has been blocked indefinatly. --NAJohnson 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have been nice to know that was the problem. Telling us they are outdated, then giving us links to an outdated picture, without telling us what was outdated, doesn't help much. But thank you, NA. Disinclination 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the link I provided shows that both versions are current. There are two versions of the $5 (2002 and 2006) and $10 bills (2001 and 2005) that are considered current - the latest was the $5 released just over a week ago. If someone wants to update the graphic, by all means do so, but its not really outdated per se. (I do agree that having the most recent versions would be desirable.) Mindmatrix 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if what I implied was that the bills shown were no longer in circulation. They are still legal tender, but they are no longer being manufactured, and since the average life of a bill in circulation ia about one year, they are an endangered species. I replaced the image. The only downside is that there is no real detail. I think this is because the mint does not want to supply high enough definitioin images that they may be counterfeited.--NAJohnson 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The licensing of the new image is not the same as the old one. Should they be the same? Can the new image be uploaded to commons given the license agreement with the Mint? -- Jeff3000 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the Dominion?

Wasn't Canada called The Dominion of Canada at one point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justin Herbert (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Look further up this page under the heading Formal name for discussion of that issue. Eron 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Also go to the Canada's name article for a disucussion. Luigizanasi 04:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Johnson

I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada/Archive_10&oldid=1136331479"