Talk:Canada/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

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

subterranean Arctic Molemen

I believe the subject of the attempts by the subterranean arctic molemen to form an independent nation should be covered, as well as the efforts by the Canadian government to oppress them while keeping their existence secret from Canadians and the world at large. I'm going to start a rough draft and hopefully have something to post soon. Anyone care to collaborate with me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Battleloser (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I look forward to reverting reading what you come up with. - Eron ^Talk 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll take care to use verifiable information citing reliable sources. Avt tor 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Digging up inforamtion on a cover-up of this magnitude would indeed be a coup for the project. In the spirit of collaboration, I'm unilaterally declaring consensus to facilitate a deep analysis of the subject. All Wiki "codes" (WP:NOR, WP:EL, WP:ABCDEFG..., etc.)]] are hereby suspended so that nothing will impede this potentially ground-breaking research. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN! Carson 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada is still a UK territory

Seems like everyone forgot this, but Canada never became independent. Even though they act mostly as a free country, they were forced to ask the Brits to change their constitution sometime in the 70s. Plus, when moving to Canada, an immigrant must pledge allegiance to the Queen, and there is no such thing as a Canadian passport, just a UK one. Combat52

Huh? I hope you're not planning on adding that to the article.Bobanny 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

-looks at her passport- ... ? Disinclination 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be a little behind the times. While achieving full constitutional independence did take decades, Canada has been an independent country for quite some time. The passage of the 1982 Constitution Act did require co-operation from Britain, as the act it replaced - the 1867 Constitution Act, also known as the British North America Act - was an act of the British Parliament. (It had to be, really, as Canada didn't exist as an independent political entity until the Act itself was passed.) British approval in 1982 was little more than a formality. You can look it up. As to pledging allegiance to the Queen, you are correct, Canadians do - specifically, to the Queen of Canada. (She's a busy lady, with several other roles.) For passports, I'm currently on my fourth one - so if they don't actually exist, someone at the Passport Office owes me $360. Can I respectfully suggest that you find a Canadian history textbook published some time after the Second World War? - Eron ^Talk 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll be the son of a queen...I must have a fake passport...wonder how I got to travel across the country??? (RiseAgainst01 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Thats what I'm wondering! Disinclination 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Combat52 my good pal, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK you'll see that it has nothing about Canada being in the UK present day, and if you look at the map you can see that Canada is not coloured green! WOW!...that Canadian History coarse I'm doin must be United Kingdom History. (RiseAgainst01 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Is it not still a commonwealth realm!??!?!?!?! I'm not arguing that it's still controlled and operated by the UK, but nonetheless. Recently, Australia has been pushing to change itself from a commonwealth realm (like canada) to a commonwealth republic (similar to India and Pakistan) because it would be true independence. The Queen is still the head of Canada, similar to the UK. Combat52

And that's significant ... why? Nonetheless...what? I'm all for doing away with the monarchy, but really, aside from having Stephen Harper's mug instead of Lizzie's on our coins, would it really make a big difference? If Canada's got some kind of sovereignty deficit, it's to do with the US, not the UK.--Bobanny 09:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a Commonwealth realm does not make Canada not an independent country, any more than being a member of the United Nations reflects on a country's legal or political sovereignty. Canada and Australia and other Commonwealth realms are not subordinate to or divisions of the United Kingdom under law; the Parliament of the United Kingdom cannot pass a law that is meant to be applicable in Canada or Australia. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of "one person, many crowns"; Queen Elizabeth has separate roles as queen of each Commonwealth realm that recognizes her as its head of state. It may seem like a hard distinction for you to wrap your head around, but she is not Canada's head of state by virtue of Canada being a British colony; she is Canada's head of state by virtue of holding the title "Queen of Canada" as a role separate from and independent of her title as "Queen of the United Kingdom". Bearcat 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Some might even argue Canada is more of a US colony today than it is a British colony and its modern institutions increasingly reflect that orientation. British heritage though is ingrained in Canadian institutions, while much British heritage has been pretty much forgotten or ignored - unlike native and french cultures which receive considerable formal government support.

While a sociological argument can certainly be made there, Canada is not a colony of the United States legally. Bearcat 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bearcat is correct. "Colony" means that legal authority resides with the mother country. "Commonwealth realm" is merely one type of Commonwealth member, distinguishing it from Commonwealth republics and countries with their own monarchs. By definition the Commonwealth is an association of equal members linked by history and culture, not by modern colonial authority. Avt tor 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the British Monarchy still has any form of power in Canada simply because the Queen is conisdered a head of state out of respect for Canada's previous relationship with the UK, let us see what would happen if the Queen announced that she was changing a Canadian Law or policy. I would suspect her image would be immediately booted from the Canadian Currency, and the Governer General of Canada would be stripped of her title, and the position would be buried. (Not to mention the fact that I believe such an action would be deemed illegal by the current Canadian political system.) SJM 8 February 2007

Ok, now we're simply beating a dead horse. Notice how Combat52 never responded to any replies. I suspect he obtained the reaction he initially sought and is probably laughing everytime an insulted Canadian comes along to express our independence. I suggest we let this go now. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Errr... can we all say Troll, anyone?--Ramdrake 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the original statement is highly inaccurate and in fact completely opposite to reality. It just so happens that the Queen of Canada also rules the United Kingdom. By my impeccable logic, the United Kingdom is an overseas colony of Canada! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.23.254 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Canada is a country because they have French speaking people... the British hate the French and therefore wouldn't want Canada as a territory. Drrake 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Canada Independent?

I understand that this is a highly emotional issue for Canadians. But I will present an appeal to logic: Imagine a hypothetical scenario where the Canadian Parliament declares war against the UK. Alright, let's see... The commander-in-chief of Canadian troops is Queen Elizabeth II acting in her role as Queen of Canada. OK. But the commander-in-chief of UK troops is ALSO Queen Elizabeth II because of her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. The above scenario describes a rebellion that could potentially establish independence. I hope it is now obvious to all that it is impossible for Canada to have independence so long as such DEPENDENCIES exist. There is no such thing as partial independence. It is an all or nothing concept. Tdadamemd 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Load of crap. First off, you do realize that the Queen as head of the country (both the UK and Canada) is now an entirely ceremonial thing, right? While the Queen technically has the right to deny acts of parliament (actually, In Canada, I believe that the Governor General, while supposedly subordinate to the Queen, could ignore her words, if she wanted to, and in actuality, the head of state in Canada is really the Governor General), in practice this cannot be done. As such, the fact that the Queen is the ceremonial head of the country makes no difference to the state of affairs of Canada as an independent nation--we act independently of the UK, and so we are independent of it. End of story. However, let us assume that you are correct, and the UK and Canada were "headed" by the same person. Would that make Canada non-independent? I don't see how it would. If the United States passed a constitutional amendment that allowed non-residents to be elected president, and Queen Elizabeth II was afterward elected president of the United States, would that make the US non-independent from the UK? I hope you wouldn't think so. Having the same head of state (ceremonially like Canada, or in actuality like the very ridiculous, but wholly logically possible scenario above) does not equal a lack of independence. The country is not synonymous with its leader, whether that leader is a republican figure, a sovereign, or whatnot. Lexicon (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the suggestion that Canada is not an independent country is clearly erroneous. I would suggest taking a look at Personal union. Duke of Whitstable 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Remember that Scotland and England actually fought a short war in 1639 despite having the same monarch at the time. Thus proving that two countries can be independent even when they both have the same leader. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And during World War Two, Canada issued a seperate declaration of war against Germany. Oh well... Duke of Whitstable 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada in 1983 was an example of where 'technically' QE II was at war with herself. —MJCdetroit

I thought Grenada was Reagan v Crown. — Tdadamemd 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica and Barbados, both Commonwealth countries, were part of the invading coalition. Not that it really proves anything (though, I hope you realize by now why Canada is a fully independent nation). Lexicon (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When Her Majesty is not present in Canada, the Governor-General exercises the authority of the Crown. So the ceremonial Commander-in-Chief cannot issue orders in any event, and the Queen cannot exercise whatever authority she has in Canada when she is not here. More importantly, any of the organs of state of the UK have no authority in Canada. Even the Crown of the UK has no authority over Canada even though the head that wears the Crown also wears the Crown of Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The "personal union" concept where two states are held to be independent even though headed by the same person strikes me as fatally deficient. Consider the fact that the label itself contains the word "union".

As to your own rebuttal, I see it as this: "The Queen of Canada has no power in Canada, and even if she did it doesn't mean that she can't rule Canada independently from the UK."

As a counter to the first part, there are several key examples to how the Queen has maintained her authority over Canada. (As I have stated elsewhere, it would not surprise me if she still called the country British North America!) Regarding the second part, that again falls under this concept of personal union. Again I would point to the hypothetical war scenario. It is clear to me that such hostility would constitute a rebellion. — Tdadamemd 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then find reliable sources. Personal unions can easily be between independant countries - and a Canada/Britain war would not be a rebellion. A rebellion would be if we tried to overthrow the Queen of Canada - but since she's (consitutionally) obliged to act on the advice of her respective Prime Ministers, if they advised war, she'd be compelled to go ahead with it. WilyD 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone would like to offer a source that elucidates how "union" and "independent" do Not contradict each other, I would be very glad to check it for validity. — Tdadamemd 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I you want to provide a source that goes against the countless arguments above, we would gladly check it for validity. As noted, the Queen does not equal the United Kingdom, so even if the Queen actually had power over the government of Canada in actuality (she does not), then you still would be nowhere in your argument. She is, again as noted, Queen of Canada as "Queen of Canada", not as "Queen of the United Kingdom and its Possessions". Again, as mentioned, Canada is no more a part of the UK as the UK is a part of Canada. The article on personal union pointed out should be enough to explain to you why Canada is not part of the United Kingdom. Read up on why England and Scotland are part of one country (they were once in personal union like Canada is with the United Kingdom, but they have been, since 1707, a single country). We are united in having the same PERSON as Monarch (you know, PERSONal union), but not as NATION. Lexicon (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We are in total agreement that Canada is not a part of the UK and that the UK is not a part of Canada. They have become two separate and distinct countries. And certainly, the Queen does not equal the United Kingdom. I was not saying that Canada is united with the UK. The point was that, while most all measures toward independence have been gained by Canada, there remains the one vestige of a bond in having the same person as Queen. Another clear indicator of such dependence is in her title:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms..."

Her very title as Queen of Canada lists Canada after the UK. — Tdadamemd 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, at least one person has seen my statement above [tagged 22:42, 5 April] to be inconsistent, so here is a clarification:

• Canada is not part of the UK, but
• The Queen reigns over Canada
• The Queen reigns over the UK (among many other countries)
• Therefore, the dependency of Canada rests solely within the Queen herself.

If Queen Elizabeth had no loyalties outside of Canada, then I would be in total agreement that Canada is independent. But Canada is not even at the top of her list of priorities. This is indicated in her very title as Queen of Canada. She rarely steps foot on Canadian soil. And when she does, it is referred to as a "visit". — Tdadamemd 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"...the Queen cannot exercise whatever authority she has in Canada when she is not here."
The Queen appoints the GGs of Canada. And she does so from her comfy chair in London. But the most blatant authority she has is demonstrated in the Oath of Allegiance where key members throughout Canadian government and military profess their loyalty to this prominent British citizen. — Tdadamemd 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Queen appoints the GG chosen by the Prime Minister. And where she sits is irrelevant. Lexicon (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or should that be "the Oath of Allegiance where key members throughout the British government and military profess their loyalty to a prominent Canadian citizen" ? Maybe it's the British who should be worried! Of course, a flaw in both these arguments is that the Queen is neither a British nor a Canadian citizen -- she's a monarch. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While that might help the argument if true, it is in fact not. The Queen, and other members of the royal family are, in fact, citizens of the United Kingdom. Lexicon (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop encouraging this fool by continuing to argue with him. He's just trying to be a pain. Nathanalex 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This world has no lack of people adhering to deficient beliefs who consider it "a pain" to have their beliefs challenged by those seeking truth. — Tdadamemd 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as Canada pays for its own foreign defence, can negotiate its own trade deals without the need for assent from the United Kingdom Parliament *and* as long as Canada doesn't have to adhear to any mandated British Empire immigration quotas, it is an independent state. CaribDigita 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The point made earlier is that you can meet all criteria for independence except for one, and that lone dependency means that you are Not independent. Furthermore, it is clear to me that giving a foreigner ultimate authority over your country is FAR from a minor lone dependency. — Tdadamemd 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when does the queen have 'ultimate authority'? Disinclination 20:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Oath of Allegiance one more time. If tomorrow the Queen of Canada declares that all of her Canadian subjects (the word 'subjects', meaning subjected to her authority) will, let's say, wear purple tunics every third Thursday of each month, then having sworn their allegiance to her will, all members of the government and military who have taken such oath are bound to do so. — Tdadamemd 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To Tdadamemd: No, I consider it a pain when someone who has no other motive than to rile people up comes here and puts forth a baseless opinion. Unfortunately for you, this isn't a debate forum. Your opinion doesn't count in Wikipedia articles. You have no intention of meaningfully contributing, so please find another forum for your inane thoughts. Thanks. Nathanalex 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already indicated that my motivation is the quest for Truth. You see that as trolling. I suggest to you that Truth is a much more powerful concept than that. Of course, many will react with fear toward anything that calls their tightly held beliefs into question, by Zeus!

Ok, here's what I find so puzzling...

Australians seem to be very clear that independence requires definitive restructuring of their constitution. Canadians, who are in a parallel boat, appear to believe that all they need to do is keep repeating that they already are independent, and that is sufficient. This also requires persistent attack in anyone who calls their claim into question, regardless of logical veracity.

...so here is my challenge to all who are adamant in the position that Canada is independent: Find ONE SINGLE QUOTE where any Canadian has told the Queen to her face that they are independent. If you are going to assert your independence, then I consider it to be far more important to assert it to her rather than to anyone like me. — Tdadamemd 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another illustrative thought experiment: Say that Canada were to vote for eliminating the Queen's position entirely (as Australia did in 1999). Say that such a vote passed. For it to become law would require the Queen's assent! And if she were to decline, then Canada would be looking at a rebellion. Lizzy has the authority to call all UK forces, all Aussie forces, etc, to quell such a rebellion. I'm sure that it would be very clear to all involved that the attempt to pass such a basic piece of legislation was NOT an independent act made by an independent country. — Tdadamemd 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the queen does not has the authority to order a commonwealth nations military at will. That decision is made by the parliament of the country and agreed to and given assent by the queen. She does make the final decision, but her disagreeing is extremely rare. In Canada's case, a vote on becoming a republic would be given assent by the Governor General, not the Queen. I'm sure if Canada did decide to become a republic, the queen would accept that fact and let us go. She has no reason to resist it. But likewise, we have very little reason to do so. The monarchy isn't holding us back as a society so why go through the effort to change what isn't broken? It would be a waste of time and money on our part. Vidioman 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Liz would let you go. But the issue at hand is that it is her call. I agree that the GG is the one who has the authority to assent. But the Queen has authority to dismiss the GG at any time for any reason.

I certainly see the don't-change-what-isn't-broken point of view. And I can easily see that change would not be seen as cost-effective. But what is, and has for many years, been working well in Canada is one step short of independence. I'm sure that this will all become a moot point throughout the Commonwealth after the reign of Elizabeth II ends. I thoroughly expect it to be the end of a long era, and the start of fresh independence for many countries across the globe. — Tdadamemd 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The US actually has more control over Canada than the UK does. Here's an analogy: George Bush is Willy on Wheels, and Stephen Harper is a mere sockpuppet. If the Canadian government makes a trade embargo against the US, us Canadians get pwn3d, literally. 64.180.173.214 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly plenty of INTERdependence between independent countries. — Tdadamemd 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, us Canadians are dispensible to the US, and they only need us for our oil. 216.232.204.77 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a debate forum. Nathanalex 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where DO WE debate??? 216.232.204.77 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go find a message board somewhere on the web. Bearcat 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, even if we debated and came to a decision, it would be original research and we could not use it. Reliable sources, that is what we work with. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The same sources being cited in discussion here are perfectly suitable for correcting inaccuracies in the main article. Below, the Constitution is quoted making it clear that there is still one dependent tie remaining through the Crown. — Tdadamemd 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Dominion of Canada (i.e., short-form name Canada) has been an independent country since its founding on July 1, 1867, via the British North America Act 1867. The Dominion of Canada is a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations. We choose to have the British Monarch (Queen Elizabeth II, post-1953) as the symbolic Figure Head-of-State of the Dominion of Canada. The Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada acts solely as the British Monarchs Representative (i.e., a Figure-Heads' figure-head!).

Queen Elizabeth II is our Head-of-State, not the Governor-General (He/She is just her "Post-box").

The Dominion of Canada since July 1, 1867, has voluntarily shared the same Head-of-State (i.e., the British Monarch) with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland. This is known as a Personal Union.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else in this discussion actually READ what it says? The Constitution of Canada is perfectly clear about the country lacking independence:

"...federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland..." (ref-http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/c1867_e.html#executive)

Those are the words as passed into law in 1867, and as they still stand today unamended. — Tdadamemd 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unamended? Really?Joevanisland 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, how about you read this bit (see ceremonial?), then here for "public representative", then this for where it says "full sovereignty", and lastly brush up your definition of Sovereignty. Joevanisland 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That link to the 1982 Canada Act is a perfect example of what I've been saying. Just look at the picture. Canada flew a foreigner in to sign this document. That foreigner is the Queen of the UK. It is clear to me that this entails plenty of potential for conflict of interest. That illustrates lack of independence. And the article goes further to state: "Her constitutional powers over Canada were not affected by the Act." Once again, reference the link above to Section III if anyone isn't clear on the fact that she has FAR MORE authority than just a figure head. I myself happen to consider the Commander In Chief of all Canadian armed forces to be more important than some mere "public representative" role.

As for the concept of sovereignty, it simply means that no one rules over you. We all appear to be in agreement that the Queen reigns over Canada. The problem, as repeatedly stated above, is that she has a primary sovereign relationship over the UK. — Tdadamemd 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Those specific words I quoted have Never been amended.

The link provided takes you to the official website of the official document, all 1982 amendments included. The current Constitution of Canada clearly states that the entire country is the dominion of the woman who wears the British Crown.

The Queen has beaucoup authority that people here do not seem to be aware of, as enumerated in Section III citing Executive Powers. For one more hypothetical, the Queen could wake up one morning and decide that the seat of Canadian government will pack up from Ottawa and move off to somewhere like Westminster Abbey, BC. All members of government who have sworn their loyalty to her as their oath will be obligated to follow her will and leave Ottawa. — Tdadamemd 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I know this isn't a forum, but your hypothetical is wrong because Canadians do not actually swear an oath to the Queen. I don't believe you are understanding the concept of a Sovereign Personifying the State. We swear to our own laws and Constitution as embodied by the Monarch [1]. The Sovereign, in all references, is a representation of Canadian law. We are not obligated to follow the will of the actual human being Elizabeth Windsor, in any capacity. Joevanisland 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This "Talk" page is not taken to be a forum? The very purpose of this page is for us to discuss ironing out discrepancies found within the article, and that is why the tab at the top says "discussion". Now you have posted pages for me to read, yet I wonder if you've read them yourself. You say that you don't swear an oath to the Queen and then provide a reference that clearly states:

"...all swear allegiance to The Queen (not to a flag or constitution)..."

There are many telling quotes in your last reference as well, such as "The Crown retains a prominent place within the Canadian Forces. The Constitution Act, 1867 states that the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is vested in the Queen." It is clear to me that swearing allegiance to the Queen is swearing allegiance to a person who has the authority to make critical decisions such as whether or not to assent to legislation or whether or not to launch a military attack, etc.

As previously highlighted, the Canadian Constitution does not mince words about Executive Authority. It all belongs to the crown. — Tdadamemd 11:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am not being open minded enough to your point about "embodied by the Monarch", your point might come through more clearly if you'd provide specific quotes from the pages you are citing. Perhaps your point is that the Executive Powers have been transferred to the Governor General, therefore the Queen herself has been cut out of the picture. If that's what you're saying, a point made previously is that the Queen has retained authority to dismiss the GG whenever she wants, for whatever reason that she wants. And those who believe that Prime Ministers exert power over the crown by advising the Queen on who to appoint, let's not forget about King-Byng, or for a more recent example from down under there is the Whitlam dismissal. — Tdadamemd 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the problem is that you insist on your own definition of the term "The Queen" and then impose that definition over the legal defintion when you read Canadian law. Yes, we swear allegiance to "The Queen" as a substitute for how another country would swear allegiance to its laws and democratic process by swearing to a literal flag or constitution. In all these examples, people are swearing to a representation or symbol of their country's laws and principles, and the citation you are misunderstanding was provided to you to help explain how our symbol is not a flag or document but a role embodied as the Queen Of Canada. Further citations were provided to help explain the symbolism here, but you refuse to apply that symbolic understanding to all further references to Queen or Sovereign.

A good example of you doing this is here: "...the Canadian Constitution does not mince words about Executive Authority. It all belongs to the crown."

Yes, but "The Crown" isn't a monarch, it's the statehood of Canada. Again, you are imposing your definition of "The Crown" over that as defined by Canadian jurisprudence. You are attempting to say "the legislative powers of Canada lie with the legistlature" which is redundant.

The Queen is our flag, if you will. A fabric flag is not in command of any thing. The Queen of Canada is not Queen Elizabeth the person. Queen Elizabeth personifies the Queen of Canada. Not reading the primary source through the perspective of Canadian law, insisting on your own viewpoint, leads you to errors such as believing historical authority is equitable to present power, that the Queen can literally order ministers to move offices, and interpreting incorrectly that the Queen's role as Commander of our armed forces is equitable to the American meaning of "Commander-In-Chief", or that the term "Executive" under Canadian law can be interpreted relative to the Executive branch of powers in the States. It can't.

"And those who believe that Prime Ministers exert power over the crown by advising the Queen on who to appoint, let's not forget about King-Byng" There is no logic to this point. This is not a point for your argument; it is the very heart of your error. Are you wishing to change your argument to "Was Canada a fully independent state in 1926"? No argument. We weren't. The problem is it isn't 1926. Although I could cite an online reference to old, abolished slavery laws, it would be illogical to infer from such a citation that slavery is therefore legal in America.

I respect your civility, but please respect that Canadian law has not been waiting for you to come along and interpret it for us. That has already been done by our parlimentarians and Supreme court justices. Without suggesting any malice on your part, it is significantly rude to suggest your casual interpretations of a document are somehow more valid then decades of paralmentary and legal precedent as well as constitutional scholarship. You are reading a primary source and providing your OR interpretation. None of your hypotheticals are legally valid or practically possible. They are nothing more than imagination. Orders and laws do not come from Queen Elizabeth to the Canadian people. We decide our laws and send them from us to the Queen Of Canada who signs them in her role as Queen of Canada. If she issued any order outside of her symbolic role as Queen of Canada it would be ignored no differently than any other British woman demanding we do her bidding.

No, the capital would not move. No, troops would not obey her. Nothing like that would happen. If she were to attempt the ridiculous notion of claiming her powers were literal, it would still hold no sway whatsoever over our independant constitutional authority, which we have had since 1982. Please understand why this last sentence should be the end of it. Any powers you still somehow believe the Queen has over Canadians she would have only by our will and pleasure. She can't amend the Constitution. We can. You confuse the Queen of Canada signing legislation as if she has the power to refuse. She represents the democratic will of the Canadian people and signs law on behalf of that role. She does not have the power of her own will and has no power legally or otherwise to impose or command obedience to her personal will. Impotent, historic, symbolic duties, no matter how you wish to read them, are not powers. Our constitutional authority already answers every point you've raised. You are incorrect that the Queen could block the dismissal of her role. You are incorrect that she has the ability to govern or command as a person. It doesn't matter what the 1867 act says. The Queen has constitutional powers because we continue to allow her to.

Further debate on this page is an imposition to others, IMHO. For the sake of civility, please consider that a thorough understanding of Canadian constitutional law (like American constitutional law) obviously requires many years of study and is not appropriate or possible to explain here fully. I apologize for my country's admittedly ridiculously confusing symbolic concepts. As you cannot provide any citation that supports any notion of Canada not being independent separate from your incorrectly literal reading of the language of primary sources, please concede at the least that in reality this is a fanciful debate that has no practical reasoning. No country or body of law on earth would ever conflict with Canada's right to self-determination, even if the Canada Act had never happened. Yet it did, and it would be kind of you to include it in your reading of historical, symbolic law. Yours respectfully, Joevanisland 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, Canada has a link to the Queen, the Queen of Canada. This is certainly noted in the article. There is no remaining vestige of dependence on another country, even if there is a symbolic dependence on a person. That person, being the head of state Canada, is of importance to Canada only in that she holds that office. Whatever else she might do with her time, such as holding the same kind of title in another country, knocking croquet balls around, or having tea and crumpets, is no concern to her being the head of state of Canada. Canada is not dependent in any way on another country (see the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which was precipitated by the King-Byng affair that you note above, and which shows, quite clearly, that the Governor General is a representative of the Queen only, and not of the British government). I'm sure you will not argue that simply having a sovereign of any kind equals a lack of independence, and therefore Canada is fully independent, as countries go. Furthermore, you might want to think about actualities versus legalities. While law, politics, and all that are mighty fine subjects, the actualities of the world are all that matter. In actuality, no power remains in the office of Governor General, and therefore no power remains, in Canada, in the Queen. A constitutional amendment could be passed changing the country's sovereign to a piece of moldy cheese; it wouldn't make one whit of difference to the reality of the situation of Canada's independence. Lexicon (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the Queen lacking power as she has chosen to exercise it (the actuality of the matter). The point I have been stressing is the authority vested in her person, remaining to this day. She does not have to use it in order to have such authority, but the fact that she doesn't use it does not remove it. It will always be there until the Constitution gets changed. Until the legality changes, as you say. If her authority were transferred to a moldy piece of cheese, it might not change much in practical terms, but the legal theory at the very foundation of the country would be radically altered.

I have also voiced agreement that Canada is not dependent on another country. The remaining thread that prevents independence is authority vested in the Queen of Canada. If she were to renounce all obligations to other countries over which she reigns, then this thread would be removed.

I will try one more hypothetical in the hope of being much more obvious...

Imagine some bizarre twist of history where the USofA were a dominion of the Czar of Russia. I don't know, say that instead of the US buying Alaska, Russia bought out all of the US. Say that the rest of history progressed with the President of the United States exercising Executive Authority as the Czar's representative. Also imagine that the Czar somehow stayed in power throughout the Cold War. Ok, could the United States be considered an independent country in such a scenario?

Imagine a Cold War where JFK or Reagan could be DISMISSED at the will of a person sitting in the Kremlin.

THAT should serve as a crystal clear illustration of how ridiculous it is for Canada to say that it is independent. Such distinction is blurred for Canada because its values are so closely aligned to those of the UK. The Queen has never been put in a situation where she has to choose either Canada or the UK. As stated in my first point here, if Canada were ever to wage war against the UK, this fact of lacking independence would become as clear as if one person in the Kremlin had the authority to dismiss JFK/Reagan/etc. No amount of pretending that this tie does not exist will make it go away. — Tdadamemd 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. a) The Queen doesn't have any authority. It's not that she doesn't exercise it. In actuality she has no authority. Period. SYMBOLIC authority does not mean "authority not exercised", it means "authority which can't be exercised". b) The Queen could have direct authority, and we'd still be an independent nation, why? Because, as you KEEP ignoring AGAIN and AGAIN, the Queen is NOT the UK. c) You ask what would happen if Canada and the UK were to go to war, insinuating that the Queen would "choose" the UK (as if she is able to choose one or the other, which is ridiculous). Someone already noted the fact where Grenada (a Commonwealth nation) was invaded by at least two other Commonwealth nations, and so your hypothetical which is supposed to lead to whatever it is you suggest is real independence for Canada has already happened elsewhere, and which led to nothing of the sort. And why? Because there was no lack of independence in the first place. I suggest you read Joevanisland's excellent argument above, and if you still want to argue, well, don't. Lexicon (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be rude, Tdadamemd, but if anything's "ridiculous" here it's your examples because they are not based in reality. You are inventing your own version of Canadian law and then framing examples as if your interpretation is relevent. It isn't relevent, because it's not factually correct and your interpretation is not verifiable. What you cite are primary sources to which you are attaching mistaken interpretations. As explained in my citations and links therefrom, the person who is currently the Queen does not have the power to "choose" to exercise or not exercise anything at all. There is no authority whatsoever vested in her person. Every time you say "she" or "her" you are making the same interpretive error.

"The Queen of Canada" is not a person in whom authority has been vested. This has been pointed out to you through valid secondary citations yet you insist on your OR claim which has no interpretive citation whatsoever. Use secondary sources, please, or drop the issue entirely because Wikipedia is unconcerned with your personal and casual interpretation of a country's constitutional law.

Your Russia hypothetical is absurd and fantastical as it doesn't slightly parallel Canadian law. The Prime Minister is not the Queen's representative in a literal sense; the Queen cannot literally dismiss the Prime Minister or any other elected official. We are a democracy; our duly elected leaders do not get summarily dismissed by any person's dictatorial will. There is no citation or source to back up any claim you have made that post-1982 Canada is not completely independant. If you wish to argue without using vaild citations free of your own interpretation of primary sources, is it not Wikipedia policy that you should be doing so somewhere else? Joevanisland 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that a convergence of beliefs is not happening here, so I am tending to agree that continuing this discussion will have a slim probability for agreement.

I am totally open to the notion that courts and parliaments have tweaked the interpretations so as to completely neuter the authority of the Crown. But if true, I am at a loss to explain the lack of persuasive evidence for such a position. References that have been posted here have done more to convince me of the position I've presented rather than to sway me. And all of my own searches in investigating that position have come up empty.

I will make one more point, for whatever its worth. Canada's current GG renounced her French citizenship prior to taking office. How ironic that her holding dual citizenship would have been seen as improper when the Queen herself has the strongest of ties to many other countries beside Canada.

If anyone has a clear reference explaining how the Queen's authority has been diminished to nil, I'd be eager to read up on it. I've supported the position I presented as best as I know how. I will now turn my focus to studying the counter position to see if I can make any headway in that direction. — Tdadamemd 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone. To answer directly, on your first point, the courts and parliment haven't tweaked the interpretations so as to completely neuter the authority of the Crown; "the crown" is the courts and parliment, and the authority vested therein. I know it sounds odd but "The Crown" can decide to abolish "the Queen" without a conflict of interest, because the Queen is an Office, and the government which can amend the constitution to remove any powers of that Office is something we call the "Crown". Each province has it's own "Crown", but they're all the same "Crown", even though they can sue each other. I never said it wasn't confusing -- I only said we're independent.

For your second, the GG, as the human person representing the (symbolic) Crown, which is itself Canada, can't represent that if they are a foreign citizen. There's no irony because the Queen your speaking of is a person the GG does not represent.

As far as a clear reference, you have the references, but please consider again that "the Queen" is a symbolic figure representing the authority of the state, as a totality. The Queen the person has no authority because we are constitutionally independent.

Say a culture builds a tower on a hill, and they go to this place for all their positive happenings, weddings and celebrations. Another culture comes and destroys that tower in a long war. Afterwards, the first culture perseveres and starts using symbols of that tower to represent who they are, their beliefs in goodness, strength. When someone has issue with the state, they are said to be suing "the tower"; they pledge allegience to images of the tower, put pictures of it on their money. If you replace your own arguments written above with the word "tower", the whole problem goes away. You wouldn't be insisting we acknowledge that "The Tower" might order us to war. It's really the word "Queen" that is confusing, and it's natural for me because I grew up facinated with this symbolic idea, but it must be difficult for someone who's notion of "free" gets uncomfortable when mixed with Kings or Queens. If you read your own hypotheticals by substituting the word "Tower", if you re-read the citations while pretending you have no idea what the words "Queen", "Crown", or "Her Majesty" mean, I swear in good faith what you will then have is a much better interpretation of the meanings. Joevanisland 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough in explaining your position. It goes a long way in helping me see your point of view. Now for me to take the extra step of agreeing with what you're saying, it would carry a lot of weight to see such an explanation from an official source. I have not been able to find a .gc.ca webpage explaining it that way. I have not been able to find a legal or .edu source that promotes that interpretation. It would be great just to find a page designed for explaining the situation to grade school kids in Canada! You say that you've already provided references. I've tried rereading those from such a point of view and I fall back into the mode of seeing it as speaking of a flesh&blood person.

Instead of getting into an argument mode, I just deleted a bunch of stuff that I just wrote because that hasn't gotten us very far. — Tdadamemd 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the best authorities on Canada's constitution and government was probably Eugene Forsey. His book, How Canadians Govern Themselves, is an excellent resource on the subject. From the Introduction:

"Canada is a democracy, a constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, who is also Queen of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and a host of other countries scattered around the world from the Bahamas and Grenada to Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu. Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people." (Emphasis added)

- Eron ^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, Tdadamemd. Ironically, I don't really like the definition listed above (!) as it shows just how impossible it is to speak of this when the word "Queen" is used for two different meanings. With respect to the author, it should say "Our head of state is the Office of Queen Of Canada, which is held by the current British monarch." Where it makes the error is in the word who, as the Queen of Canada is not really a person. So you see, Canadians can't even agree on explaining it! The problem with your request is that it is like asking a physicist to explain something like string-theory by using a couple of citations. There can't be a source that summizes such a difficult subject. Even if you were to undertake a degree, you would still find it difficult to explain. It really doesn't even matter though as the joy of a symbolic reference in law is that we, the people, are allowed to change its meaning as we grow historically as a country. Being allowed to do that, and having the ability to independently amend our constitution (which we could do to abolish the "Queen", however the word is understood) is in fact in my citations and is the only legal fact needed to prove independence. If I hire you at my business, you are not the King of my business. You have no power by virtue of the fact that if I don't like what you are doing, I can dismiss you. You can't have "power" if it is at my pleasure. You simply can't. The only point needed here is understanding that regardless of how we choose to define "The Queen", it is not a source of actual top-down power, thus we are as free as Americans. And do I ever agree with you about wishing there were better online sources for these explanations, not only for grade-school Canadians, but for crazy weird folks like you who for some bizarre reason are interested in what is widely considered the most boring subject on the planet earth, and a frequent cause of Canadian Constitutional Narcolepsy.

Cheers to you sir, and consensus from you only on the point that Canada is a legally free and independent country would be most desired and respected here as it removes the actual cause of this entire arguement and brings consensus to a wide and challenging debate. No hard feelings if you don't feel you can provide this, but it sure would be nice to see this great process actually come to a true end. Joevanisland 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I could list the reasons why I am not at that point of agreement, but that would probably just be stirring the pot at this stage. What I will provide is an illustration of how thoroughly confused this issue is. Here is a quote from the CIA Factbook, a reference that is broadly accepted as solid:

CANADA

Independence: 1 July 1867 (union of British North American colonies); 11 December 1931 (independence recognized)

(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html)

We all agree that Canada did not gain many significant rights until 1982. For the time being, we can at least firmly establish a consensus that the topic of Canada being independent is thoroughly confused by many. — Tdadamemd 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your confusion is my fault, I'm sure. There were many approaches taken here which can seem contradictory, like your reference above to 1931, but that's the Statute of Westminster I believe someone mentioned earlier, or it was at least suggested that there are other documents but it's more than what's fair to cover here. I can't imagine explaining our "third" constitution, confirmed by our Supreme Court though it doesn't actually exist! Seriously though, there is no confusion in so far as your link, as it confirms independence and no links exist which deny it. The '82 Canada Act was brought up to show constitutional authority as another way it can be proven we are legally independent. Other nations understood it de facto before then. Regardless, the only issue here is whether Canada is free and independent. Your own link is a valid Wikipedia source citation for proving this. You started this section; it's fair that it's your last word. Can it end with, Do you concur that Canada is a legally independent country, by its own laws and recognized as such, or not? If not, please cite someone saying so. Joevanisland 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (p.s. your civility with me noticed and appreciated)

Legal independence has been the sticking point from the very beginning of this discussion. Call me naive, but I actually thought that we could have unanimous agreement that the CIA reference that I posted was clearly in error. Here is one source from 1938 to show the view I've been maintaining:

"...Canada is not an independent nation as yet, though the ties between Canada and England are getting ever looser."

(WJ Sidis in Boston discussing the ramifications of the Monroe Doctrine as it applies to Canada, Aug1938 - http://www.sidis.net/continuitynews4.htm)

And perhaps the strongest arguments in the post-1982 era come from Quebec separatists who were adamant that an independent Quebec would not be under the sovereignty of the Queen, otherwise they would not be independent. I am fine with letting this discussion go without settling an agreement on this matter. But I will leave with one prediction:

Many of the same people who adamantly claim that Canada is independent will, at the time of the passing of Elizabeth II, change their tune to say that Canada cannot be truly independent until the country is free of the British Crown.

There it is. As with any prediction, there's the chance that I am totally mistaken, but I don't see a need for me to press this point much further if others (perhaps even some from here) at a time in the near future may be making this point themselves, especially with the Queen of Canada being at the ripe age of her 80s. So I don't expect that I'll have anything more to add here for the time being. Thanks to everyone who helped create a healthy discussion! — Tdadamemd 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I sign off, I find a quote that hits spot on. Here are words from Down Under in Kiwiland by Green Party MP Keith Locke:

"We should break free of the British Crown and become a republic. The question is not whether the monarchy has a lot of power over us. In practice it doesn't".

"The problem is that bowing before the British Queen reflects a colonial mentality. That holds us back from true nationhood".

"The monarchy is a feudal relic that has no place in the 21st century. Nobody should rule, as Queen Elizabeth does, purely because of an accident of birth".

Mr Locke said New Zealanders should act and think for themselves and not do anything "just to get brownie points from other governments".

Green Party co-leader Rod Donald also supports a republic. He said it was no longer appropriate for New Zealand's head of State to "come from another country".

(http://www.geocities.com/cox_nz/May_2000.htm)

— Tdadamemd 04:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

...and here is the Aussies' version of the same argument:

"A central argument made by Australian republicans is that it is inappropriate for Australia as an independent country to have the same person who is the British monarch also be the Australian monarch."

"They argue that a person who is resident in another country, and whose primary role is head of state of the United Kingdom, cannot adequately represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world. As Australian Republican Movement member, Frank Cassidy put it in a speech on the issue: In short, we want a resident for President."

<End quote> — Tdadamemd 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE make this your last post on this subject. This is not a discussion board, and your behaviour borders on trolling. You have taken provocative but unfounded positions for unclear reasons. Even now, you continue to discuss independence, but the quote above says "inappropriate for Aus ... as an independent country." The question of appropriateness or adequate representation is entirely different from independence.--Gregalton 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You might ask Wikipedia to change the label on the tab at the top of this page saying "discussion".

Now to address your rebuttal, the reason why it is inappropriate for an independent country to have a Head of State who is a foreigner with higher priorities to at least one other country is because in doing so you -lose- your independence. It is what is commonly known as a conflict of interest, which is another way of saying "lack of independence". Monarchists who believe that they are independent want to...

"Have your Queen and eat her too."

But you can't have it both ways, as the Republicans are quick to point out. Write my words off as trolling if you like, but it is obvious to me that there are many contradictions within Commonwealth governments. We can resolve this now, or we can wait until the next Constitutional Crisis, or we can wait until Liz dies (upon which time the Republican movement will catch fire).

...or we can keep on pretending that no such contradictions exist and see where the path of ignorance takes us. — Tdadamemd 05:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion pages are intended for discussion of the article, not general discussion. I for one recognize the contradictions, and am comfortable with them, and feel they are sufficiently well reflected in the article.--Gregalton 05:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who is not clear on the purpose of this Talk section titled "Canada Independent?", it is discussion of the statement in the Canada article:

"Canada gained independence from the United Kingdom in an incremental process that began in 1867 and ended in 1982."

That is the single point that this entire section has been going back and forth over. There is no consensus to the notion that Canada gained independence, as clearly shown in the quotes from prominent members in New Zealand and Australia (countries in a similar situation to Canada). I have changed the statement in the article to use words that NO ONE disagrees with. There are several people who have reverted my correction to the statement that is debatable, citing that I have no consensus for the change. I see that as totally backward. The article should be written in statements that are rock solid, and if anyone wants to venture beyond that then it is important to achieve consensus before doing so.

To say that Canada separated from the UK is irrefutable. We would all be on the same page for that statement. As soon as you go beyond that to claim that Canada is independent, then the article diverges from the tightly held perspective of many Republicans as well as external observers such as myself.

I will leave it to someone else to fix the article. I have said everything I needed to say here. — Tdadamemd 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Your argument all along has been that the opinion of some Republicans, unbacked by actual political actualities, that having the Queen as the head of state makes a country lack independence is evidence that having the Queen as the head of state makes a country lack independence. Your interpretation (one which is not borne out by the words quoted) that the statement above regarding the appropriateness of having the Queen as the head of state of an independent nation actually meant that the speaker was saying that Australia was not, in fact, independent, just goes to show how little you value actual fact in making your statements. Canada is independent according to the Canadian government, the UK government, the United Nations, which only admits independent nations, and international law, which only applies to independent nations. Silly us for not bowing to the views of Republicans who want to abolish the monarchy and will use the fiction that a country is not truly independent until that is done as a fallacious argument in support of their cause. Excuse us for following the written and unwritten constitutions of our country, the practice of our nation on the international political and legal scene as independent, and common sense. Honestly, we're just a bunch of stupid monarchists, blinded by our love for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Lexicon (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You can call the Republican position /my position fallacious, but the point remains that it is debatable. My perspective sees the mainstream view to be inaccurate, and the mainstream sees the "lacking independence" view to be inaccurate. The proper course of action is to correct the article to words that both sides agree upon, or as a minimum make reference to the fact that the article is promoting a concept that has been called into question. — Tdadamemd 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view as it pertains to undue weight. The point of view that Canada is not independent, because of it's relationship with the Crown, is not held by any majority, or even significant minority, of constitutional scholars - or Canadians. It does not merit being given equal weight with the broadly accepted mainstream view. - Eron ^Talk 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tdadamemd, when I reverted your change, I did not say it was due to any lack of consensus: Here was the comment I made: Changed "separated" to "gained independence" because "separated" is more vague and implies breaking from a state that it was once part of. But Canada was not a part of the UK, it was a colony thereof --thirty-seven 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that "British North America" means "that part of North America which is owned by the Crown" (and that concept of ownership and being above the law continues to this day). This was one and the same Crown that owned the UK. So I may be persuaded to a view that "separated" is an inaccurate term on the basis of the fact that the Crown itself never separated. The reaches of the Crown, to this day, emanate from one and the same person. — Tdadamemd 09:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Just to make sure everything is "on the record", RyanRP's recent changes to the lead have been reverted to the previous version by Spyhunter444. I realize that he's had this happen a lot recently, but it honestly seems that the older version was more concise, while covering the same material. I have left in a shorter version of his text about Commonwealth membership, as it was new information for that section. I've also left an extensive note on his talk page explaining what I felt the problems were with his material. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I fully agree with your reversion and your reasons for it. I have also simplified the statement about the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms in the intro. --thirty-seven 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with your reversion, the lead has to be concise. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag/Coat of Arms

lol. somebody needs to change the pictures back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.125.210 (talk • contribs) date

To what? >_> They're the correct images. Disinclination 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been changed back. They were both briefly changed to a picture illustrating the male buttocks, one of the funnier, I mean evil and unforgivable, acts of vandalism I've seen for a while.Bobanny 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The pictures need to be corrected again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.161.139 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to clear your browser cache or something. The pictures were vandalized once, hours ago, and have been fixed. - Eron ^Talk 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rofl at Bobanny. Disinclination 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Multinational

Recently WGee has made a few changes to the intro. He removed the description of Canada as a "nation", changing it to "country", commenting that Canada is not a "nation" in the sociological (i.e., the correct) sense of the term. Although of course Canada is a nation in the sense of the everyday usage of the word "nation", I agree that WGee is correct - in the formal definition of the term "nation", Canada nor other similar countries like Australia or the United States are nations.

WGee also added a description of "multinational" to Canada, with the comment Canada consists of several nations---from Quebec, to the Acadians, to the Metis, to the First Nations, etc. I have reverted this addition. I don't think Canada is multi-national to a degree that is significant enough to justify mentioning it in the introduction. For example, if Canada was a multinational empire, like the old Russian Empire, or if the nations were a major factor in organizing or sharing power, like in Belgium, then it would be significant and important to mention in the intro.

That's why I don't think this statement belongs in the intro - but, furthermore, I don't think it is necessarily a true statement. I don't think you can call a country "multinational" just because of the presence of sub-nations - otherwise even indisputable nation-states like Japan (Ainu) or France (Bretons) could be called "multinational". I think we should only call a state multinational if it has at least two nations within it of significant sizes. This is only true if some large subset of English-speaking Canadians form a separate nation. The idea that this group forms a distinct nation, with a national identity separate from over-arching "Canadianness", would be highly controversial and is, I think, without merit.

And a nit-pick: I don't think we can call Quebec a nation, even if we accept that the Quebecois are a nation. --thirty-seven 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and "nation" is really not a neutral word in Canada. In French it is generally understood more in the sociological sense, and in English it is often understood in the legal (sovereign) sense, and there are plenty of people who deliberately confuse this for political purposes. I agree with thirty-seven that English Canada is not a single sociological "nation"; it's likely several, and there are layers of nation-ness within Canada (such that central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, form a somewhat unified culture that happens to speak two languages, which is not so much the case for the Maritimes and Prairies). All of this is very much a matter of political opinion and as such should the term should be avoided where it might create controversy, ambiguity, or confusion. Avt tor 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada HDI - At the bottom of the canada article there is a number of development and social indicators in a table, the HDI index is not there and should be instead of the note below the table.

Feel free to change it, but notice that it is different information in the table than what the sentence says, i.e., how often Canada is ranked #1, not what it's current ranking is. Bobanny 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby in Canada

Can we add Rugby to the list of sports played in Canada? We're currently ranked 14th in the world? Each province has it's own union, it's a CIS women's sport and most universities have men's teams.

It's been considered before, but the reality is that rugby only ranks fourteenth for "attendees" in Canada, and isn't even in the top fifteen sports for "active participation" and "volunteers". (This is based on the Sport Canada/Conference Board of Canada survey used to build the list in "Culture".) It is, however, mentioned in Sport in Canada - perhaps you might try expanding the details there? Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

protection

Why has this been semi-protected for over two months now? I thought protection was supposed to be temporary. --74.109.173.23 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as soon as protection is lifted, the vandalism begins again, and the history page is littered with dozens of reverts of nonsense edits. This is a regular pattern - it's not just one or two vandals, but a steady stream of would-be jokers and juveniles who like to delete the page, delete sections, rewrite the page, and so on. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to work on improvements if you're constantly having to fend off attacks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long time. I am tempted to unprotect; there's not a lot of support for indefinitely semi-protecting articles just because they're a popular target for juvenile vandalism. Jkelly 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other alternatives? I can understand the aversion to extended protection if it were just a case of specific individuals. However, I've noticed that a number of articles (Canada, the planets, and the Moon are a few that I have on my watchlist) get a steady stream of vandalism. It becomes very frustrating - it's one thing to fix the odd vandal edit here and there, but quite another when the regulars have to revert ten or twenty a day, every day. I would think it drives a lot of regular editors away from working on those articles, not to mention dropping them from watchlists. Even discounting the maintenance aspect of it, though, what about the cost in terms of readers? What does it say to the general public if high-profile pages are constantly changing, and not in a positive, constructive manner? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are disadvantages to using a wiki for the project. The anti-vandal bots are becoming quite good at catching the most obvious cases. Jkelly 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with keeping protection. Bots only catch about three-quarters of the vandalism. That still wastes a lot of volunteer time fixing the vandalism, making it harder to identify and correct things like typos, grammar, and factual errors in the substantive edits. Avt tor 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bored now with unprotected vandalism from anonymous editors. Avt tor 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I didn't unprotect it. You could ask Jacoplane (talk · contribs) to reverse their decision, or go to Wikipedia:Request for page protection if you think it's necessary. Jkelly 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I can't edit this page...can someone please remove all vandalism by Fplax...thanks. Blipadouzi 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...it's already been done...my oopsBlipadouzi 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Names

Doesn't Canada have other names? Is it only referred to as "CANADA"?

Funny thing is "United States of America" as its called has like 5 names: USA, United States, United States of America, "America" (not original), and "The US". They use the name "America" in entertainment-like or "cool" stuff. And they use "United States" or "US" in more serious situations like politics, etc. Oh yeah - the world "America" is not original to the US.

I wonder why the call they're country "United States OF AMERICA" instead of "United States"... haha US doesn't have a proper name, just uses the words from the English language and calls it self "United States"... and then adds "of America". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.44.117 (talk • contribs).

Canada is by far the predominant name of the country. You can take a look at the Canada's name article for more information. -- Jeff3000 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

America is the land of the Western hemisphere or New World consisting of North-, Central- and South-America with their associated islands and region. America covers 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area) and contain about 14% of the human population

eh... Central america is part of north america, am I wrong?

Locator image

I'm confused by these edits [2] [3] by User:Quizimodo. This user is going through articles reverting the updating of maps from png to svg. We generally prefer the latter, as svg files can be edited by anyone (for example, if someone doesn't like the fact that Canada is red in this locator map, all one needs is a text editor to change it, not image software). User:Quizimodo is linking to a discussion about how best to represent the EU in locator maps, so I'm especially unclear why that "vote" might be relevant to this article. Jkelly 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm equally confused by your commentary. First, who are 'we'? Second, I believe this is under the scope of Wikipedia:Countries, where standards have been set for the contents of all country infoboxes, including locator maps. Just because there is an SVG of something (and I've nothing against them), that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the prior PNG which was in place for some time (and can be edited just as well in MS Paint). A similar effort to change the Europe/EU locator maps was discussed and voted upon, with preference given to the old maps ... hence my notation of it here. Recent maps don't have the royal jelly, or haven't been agreed upon. Thus, an inconsistent horrid hodge-podge results. And 'nullifying' input on a related vote and boldly editing is no substitute for discussion and agreement beforehand. Until then ... Quizimodo 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the new locater maps, and I'm a fan of the old ones; they seem to fit better within the infoboxes. I agree that svg's are better than png's, but I think there should be a consistency discussion before all the old locater maps are changed to the new ones. My preference would be new locater maps that follow the old colouring. Could the person who is creating the new svg files keep the same colouring scheme (green for selected landmass, and white for water)? -- Jeff3000 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Quizimodo, the consensus was against using EU maps as depicting countries as part of supranational entities not for using old PNG maps. Most of the old style PNG maps have been ported to similar SVG maps (see this). Regards, Asterion^talk 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; as discussed, my issue isn't with the the format per se, but with the maps being used: they are inconsistent (since all of the country infoboxes use maps of a consistent style) and, at least in the case of Europe, unsatisfactory or POV. Such sweeping, and (in this case) perhaps singular, changes need to be adequately discussed beforehand, which the instigator of this discussion failed to do or was ignorant of. Quizimodo 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing the History section

I don't think my edits to the history section qualify as vandalism. I agree that the history section should be shorter, but what exactly should be removed? Most of the changes I made kept the essential content but removed iniformation of secondary importance. Is more documentation required here? --Soulscanner 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm making the following edits. If you wish to revert, please have the courtesy to justify each one. --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Frobisher - Article can be shortened by removing reference to him. The first relevant explorers that layed English and French claims to Caanda were Cartier and Cabot. --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Isolation of settlements: questionable. Conflicts between French and Iroguois started as soon as Champlain arrived near Lake Champlain and threatened New France from the beginning. Sentence should be removed --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The effect of the War of 1812 is an interpretation of the event, and no matter how learned, is not appropriate in this article. It should be removed --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It's not POV, it's a conclusion about the effects of the war, and it's how this is taught in Canadian schools. Avt tor 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mention needs to made that responsible government was achieved in British North Amrerica in almost every colony. --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraser Canyon Gold Rush is not as important as the founding of British Cilumbia/Vancouver Island colonies. It should be removed.--Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Three confederation conferences can be removed; it is not neccessary to mention them to get an appreciation of the signigance of confederation--Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"formed divisions" - I'm not even sure I know what these are ... wouldn't it suffice to say that Canada sent volunteers?

Statute of Westminster (1931) granted Canada independence from Britain. Ther eis no reason to explain this very simple fact in legalistic terms. --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kings support of appeasement: not particularly relevant - there are many, many more significant things that can be mentioned here (e.g. where Canada fought)--Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War and draft dodgers: this is a curiosity - their arrival did not swell the ranks of the Canadian population or affect Canadian foreign policy; certainly, Canada's role in the Suez Crisis is far more relevant--Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Over 50,000 American refugees came to Canada in the late 1960s and early 1970s, concentrated mainly in Toronto with a smaller number in Vancouver. These people were welcomed into families and circles of friends, multiplying their political impact. This radically changed the politics of Toronto and Vancouver, two of Canada's largest and most culturally important cities. Among this group were intellectuals of a pacifist and utopian bent like Jane Jacobs and Judith Merril who helped articulate pacifist and utopian ideals that changed Canada's perspective on local and international affairs, greatly enhancing support for multilateralism, peacekeeping, sustainable development (e.g. the blocking of the Spadina expressway), etc. The number of these people was enough to shift municipal, provincial, and federal elections in some ridings towards the NDP and Liberals; it's a major reason Tories don't win seats in those cities; among the lingering after-effects would be that Harper has only a minority in the current Parliament. One of the dominant political influences on Canadian political culture is the sense of not being the same as the United States, and especially of being better, saner, and more moral than the US, and this is largely a function of the four distinct waves of American political migration to Canada in the 1780s, 1810s, 1840s, and 1970s. This is critical to the understanding of why Canada is what it is today.

I approve of your effort to trim this article. But removing a cited comment of quantitatively and culturally political significance removes a critical point here. The long-term effect is a quarter-million new left-leaning voters concentrated in three dozen federal ridings, and that damn well has tipped the balance in several Canadian elections. Avt tor 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Queen Elizabeth is hardly relevant in Constitution Act of 1982; far more important is the legal impact of the Charter of Rights; it continues to reverberate today with the allowanc eof Gay marriageand it was Trudeau who was the architect of these reforms, not Queen Lizzie. --Soulscanner 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Condensed section on New France/ Colonization; added a few links to other Wiki articles --Soulscanner 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to remove John A. MacDonald, but territorial evolution of Canada is more appropriate in theis spot; also, John A. also had double "billing" with ten dollar bill further down --Soulscanner 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Added map of New France; Map shows location of First nations and illustrates both New France and Native peoples --Soulscanner 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction

In the administrative divisions section Yukon was listed as Yukon Territory. Although Yukon is a territory, it officially changed its name from Yukon Territory to Yukon in 2003. Therefore, in the list I changed it simply to Yukon. Moreover, the official website of the government of Canada and the official website of the government of Yukon also refer to the territory simply as Yukon. Here are the links to my sources.

The Canadian government official website: http://www.canada.gc.ca/othergov/prov_e.html

Yukon government official website: http://www.gov.yk.ca/

Scanadiense 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada-United States relations

I clicked on this page to Canada-United States relations yesterday, and was surprised to see a daughter article important enough to link from this intro in such mediocre condition. I shaped up the intro a bit, but much work could still be done on the body of it. Maybe editors here want to work there? Marskell 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I used to be a more prolific contributor to Wikipedia, but have deleted my username and all that...aside from that, I do have one thing to bring up: Does the US-Canada relations article need to be linked from the first paragraph of the article on Canada? It probably deserves its own subheading in politics or whatever, but it doesn't seem to fit in the opening one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.184.38.213 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Origin of Canada's name

I've fixed this before, but someone has decided change it back. The name Canada comes from the Native American word kanata, not kanada - this is shown in the Japanese version of this article, which features the correct spelling. -Edwin- 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed it from canada to kanada because I knew the (French) "c" could not be correct in Iroquoian. I'm sure you're right. Avt tor 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted spelling to "canada". Please read Cartier's 1545 book about his travels (see Canada's Name. He wrote that the word "canada", in the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians of Stadacona, meant a village. It is the first, and only, source about their language. No other transcription exists. As for the "kanata" saga, see the discussion page of Canada's Name. Joseph B 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Cartier was wrong, :) but I'll defer to your source. Avt tor 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the origin of Canada's name back to kanata. The official website of the Canadian government states that Canada was derived from kanata. Here is the link from the official website of the Canadian government. http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/education/prov_e.php

User:Scanadiense 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted it back. Please read the (long) discussion on this issue on the Canada's Name talk page (Talk:Canada's name). The Government's standard brochure is wrong. Cartier's book came out in 1545 and he wrote, speaking of the inhabitants of Stadacona, "ilz appellent un village canada". Can't get much clearer than that. The "kanata" version stems from 18th or 19th century transcriptions of the Mohawk word also meaning "village" (the word is written "kaná:ta" in modern Mohawk, with two accents). And, finally, the Mohawk were not in contact with Europeans (French, Dutch, English) at this time. If still in doubt, see Laurentian language and the sources cited there. Joseph B 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: IF the word "kanata" is said in a native accent, to people who have to immediately translate it, wouldn't the possibility exist that Cartier and his group heard "canada"? This could therfore mean that "kanata" is the real original word and "canada" is a 'lost in transaltion error', which is the wide believed fact that is taught in history classes accross Canada(those history book and thier sources must be historically accurate). Now, considered the fact that many different languages were spoken in the given area of where the Cartier party was, would in not be possible that one of those laungages had the word "kanata"? Just a thought and I will be changing the word back to "kanata" in a weeks time, when Wikipedia allows me to edit pages. DrewCA 14:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Change it, and it would be quickly reverted. The primary source clearly shows that it was spelled "canada" and your statements above are original research and is not permissible. -- Jeff3000 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes my ideas are arguments. I may not be able to change the word, but my arguments are, for the most part(which will soon be fixed), backed up sound reasoning(the majority of which are common sense).

One- Translation errors example: The word for kiss in German sounds like “pussy” in English, pretty big difference considering the word for kiss in German is Kuss or kussen. This happens alot, even between Canadian, British, and American English.

Two- Given the fact that the Natives had no words that conformed to the alphabet of the day and that when the Natives dialect was eventually put into words by Natives, not Europeans; the word ‘kanata’ appeared. I will find info on when the Natives first put 'kanata' and ‘canada’ as words, the former using previous arguments for 'canada'(something about 17th and 18th century Mohawk transcriptions) and the latter after some research.

Three- I used info from the Canada’s Name talk page, given by people arguing for the Cartier’s first written word, to ask the qeustion of the possibility of ‘kanata’ being in a regional language.

Fourth- It is impossible to say that the word was spelt like ‘canada’ and it is also impossible to say the word was spelt any other way, for that matter(no written language that conformed to the alphabet). So, in stating that, the first word from the Natives should be seen as the origin; not the first word from a word translated by someone else. Why? Because the original word is a Native word.

Five- According to the disscussions on the talk page, the pages where 'canada' appears, occurs several years later. The original word could have very well been 'kanata,' but then due to the same reasons languages change over time, the word could have changed.

P.S. I am allowed to change the word, because there has been ample discussion in the Canada’s Name talk page, which supports the change. DrewCA 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Cartier had no way of telling how to spell "kanada" or "kanata", he did not speak that language, and to him it would be a C, but not to the people he spoke to. So, even if Cartier had written it as "canada", that's not necessarily the right spelling, Cartier didn't speak that language, and had absolutely no way of knowing how to spell the word. Speedboxer 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole long discussion seems pointless - could we settle on a compromise and leave the argument for the Canada's name page? Cartier would of course write how it sounded to him, and French speakers would prefer a "C" over a "K". The "d/t" issue would entirely depend on the speaker of the language and the subjective perception of the listener (the issue comes up with hearing and transliterating languages now - such as the widely varying pronunciation of Toronto). Finally, these languages were not written in a Latin alphabet until later, and the choice of D or T, K or G or C was essentially arbitrary (any letter attribution is essentially arbitrary). The "correct spelling" issue could all be avoided by rewriting the first line as "The name Canada comes from a word in the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians meaning "village" or "settlement" that the first Europeans wrote as "canada." Or some such variation.--Gregalton 08:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good way of doing it. I would like to add on something about the first written words by Natives, such as the Mohawk transciptions, to show a link of some sort between written languages. That would make a more solid statement.DrewCA 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is overkill for the Canada article, which is supposed to be a brief summary-style article about Canada in general. Notes about original First Nations spellings would be useful in the article about Canada's name, but it seems way to specific and off-focus here.

I don't think the recent compromise of saying that "the first Europeans wrote 'Canada'" is appropriate here either. Anyone reading this would know that the Iroquois of that time weren't writting in the latin alphabet, and, in the context of this article, it is irrelevant how Jacques Cartier or anyone else of that era spelled the word. I do find these topics interesting, but they seem too detailed and outside the scope of this summary-style overview article.

--thirty-seven 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Canada is a summary article, so it has to agree with subordinate pages, in this case Canada's name. Given the cited source it seems like the name "Canada" comes from Cartier's (possibly incorrect) transcription of the Iroquoian word. Avt tor 10:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Motto Translation

Motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for "From Sea to Sea")

This is the current translation for the motto, but I believe it to be wrong...

If I am not mistaken the direct translation is From Sea Even Unto Sea. It just irks me a bit that Wikipedia of all places would be wrong about this.

Thanks! 24.224.180.14 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Haggan

The official translation is "From sea to sea".[4] We don't use a direct translation. Carson 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Or in French, "D'un océan à l'autre". The French refers to oceans rather than seas.--Ramdrake 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I once witnessed a white-hot talk page dispute somewhere else where one editor insisted on using a direct translation for some motto - perhaps a US state's motto? - despite the fact that the "poetic" not-exactly-literal translation was widely known and used and sourced and so on. The editor simply would not accept the "incorrect" translation. It was weird.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

darn canadians trying to copy U.S. all they need now is a retard for a leader and they are the U.S.

Niagara Falls

I believe Niagara Falls is the "greatest" waterfall in the world in the sense that it has the greatest flow (volume/time) of water. If I really cared I could look up a source... Avt tor 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be a controversial edit. Using "greatest" to mean something like that is confusing; if it is the "greatest" in that sense, the caption should be more specific ("highest-volume" or something). If that is the contecxt of the word, then I admit that my edit summary is incorrect. But in any case, this picture is just window dressing for the article, so having an elaborate caption is unnecessary anyway..... -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just changing it to "best-known" doesn't work with the specific citation used for that fact. From the source:

Niagara Falls (on the Niagara River) is acknowledged as one of the world's greatest cataracts because of its height and its estimated mean annual flow of 6000 cubic metres per second.

So if we want to use the source, maybe change it to say "most voluminous", "largest", or back to "greatest". (Disclaimer: I wrote the original text for this photo, including "greatest", and added the citation". --thirty-seven 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the caption doesn't match the source, but I still think the word "greatest" is unintentionally misleading - I have a personal pet peeve when an unfamiliar word, or a word used in an unusual context, has a cite after it; and I have to harumph and look at the reference, and figure out what the word means, when really another word would do. I'd go for "most voluminous."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "Currently between 50% and 75% of the Niagara River's flow is diverted via four huge tunnels that arise far upstream from the waterfalls.". As a results, the actual volume of water that flows over the falls is greatly diminished. No one will be able to see the falls at their full power unless they stop power generation, which considering it provides about as much power as a nuclear plant, is very doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.138.139 (talk • contribs)

biggest sector of canada's economy

95% of canada's GDP is from the government's immigration scam (from extorting money from immigrants, shelving their applications for 3-4 years, and then refusing applications based on some half-assed pretext or other)... i think this should be included in the economy section of the wiki.

i also think that "immigration scam" should be included as one of the professions in the proffessions list because that's the biggest sector of canada's economy..

they should also change their national anthem to "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, ahoy me hearties, walk the plank yer scurvy sea dogs" to more accurately reflect the country's character —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellznrg (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

What? RiseAgainst01 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, seems like that was uncalled for. Canada does not have a "Immigration Scam" and is actually one of the easiest countries to immigrate to. Please do not throw around such accusations and research a bit. Cdscottie 0:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you liar no one immagrates to Canada! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrake (talk • contribs)

More history Cleanup

Not sure if the division of the History section is the thing to do. It seem too long to be in one section for now. If you wish to delete this division, please do not undo the other revisions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I want the statement on Champlain's Port Royal foundation as being the first permanent European settlement changed. This is consistent with an imperialist viewpoint, whereby feudal Europe did not recognize the existence of communities unless sanctioned by 'God' through an imperial seal of the King of one of Europe's recognized powers; however, the existence of permanent European communities before this time in different fishing outposts, primarily in Newfoundland, is well established by archaelogical evidence. This said, the entire point can be removed by simply stating that Champlain founded Port-Royal in 1605 with no mention of it being first. -Malouin-

Table of Contents

I agree with Soulscanner that having a long history section is not optimal. I don't agree that a flat table of contents with 17 items is easy to read. A well-organized grouping of information does not have more than half a dozen items at any layer of the information hierarchy. I suggest something like the following:

   * 1 History
   ** 1.1 Origin and history of the name
   ** (other History subsections)
   * 2 Government and Law
   ** 2.1 Government
   ** 2.2 Administrative divisions
   ** 2.3 Law
   ** 2.4 Foreign relations and military
   * 3 Life
   ** 3.1 Geography and climate
   ** 3.2 Language
   ** 3.3 Culture
   * 4 Statistics
   ** 4.1 Economy
   ** 4.2 Demographics
   ** 4.3 International rankings
   * 6 Notes and References
   ** 6.1 Footnotes
   ** 6.2 References
   ** 6.3 See also
   ** 6.4 External links
   ** 6.5 More resources

I disagree. Having subsections increases the size of the Table of Contents which can be overwhelming. It also goes against the recommend template of the Country wikiproject which is what all featured articles should strive for. -- Jeff3000 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Canada (pronounced /'kænədə/ in English and /kanada/ in Canadian French)"

While strictly true, I suspect that there is an implication here that all dialects of English pronounce /'kænədə/, which isn't actually true. I suppose it is the case for American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English, but for British English, as well as in Ireland and many anglophone African countries, it is /kanada/. Anyone in agreement? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Phoenix2 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• The pronounciation is only supposed to reflect Canadian English, and Canadian French (of course, neither is uniform either. WilyD 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The transcription given for English is a broad one, and leaves out much of the variation we might expect from the different dialects of English. As far as I know from my background in phonology and phonetics, there is no (major?) dialect of English that would pronounce the name of Canada using the same pronunciation for each of the "a"s (like /kanada/). English has a very strong stress-influenced vowel system, so all native speakers of English will produce the first "a" as their dialect-specific version of /æ/, and the other vowels will be unstressed schwas. There's no need to specify either "Canadian" English or French. They're applicable for any English and French, as the dialect-specific variation has been intentionally left out. --SameerKhan 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a pronunciation key is unnecessary: "Canada" is not a difficult name to pronounce, readers do not need to know how Canadians pronounce the word (any more than they would need to know how Australians pronounce "Australia"), and the French pronunciation is irrelevant to this English-language article. -- WGee 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it should have been taken off, that anything French (or more specifically, French-Canadian) is irrelevant to Canadian articles seems a bit incorrect. French culture is just as much apart of Canada as is English culture.Disinclination 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But this is the English Wikipedia, and Canadian bilingualism laws do not apply :-) -- WGee 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking

I'd like to recommend locking this page. A quick glance at the edit history shows that there's a wave of vandalism right now. Dali 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Big changes to History section

I've made some large changes to the history (Confederation) section, condensing much and adding some. I hope they're not too radical changes. I suppose the theme that runs through this all is the slow emergence from the shadow of Britain.

I still think the section on American draft dodgers should go. The shift to the left in Quebec was way larger than anything Draft Dodgers could influence in Toronto and Vancouver, and the main shift in immigration during this era was from Europe to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America. American immigration just wasn't that important. The references, while perfectly valid, would be more relevant in Canada and the Vietnam War. --Soulscanner 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still think there should be a few sentences on it, but nothing really big. Disinclination 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "section", it's one sentence. It's at least that relevant. Avt tor 10:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Soulscanner here. The draft dodgers immigration to Canada (although significant) can hardly be considered one of the most important events in Canadian history. Furthermore, of the references provided, one is dead, while the other doesn't explain the impact of the draft dodgers, but merely talks about a group who helps them settle in Canada. I think it should be gotten rid of. Nathanalex 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

There are too many charts on the demographic page. I mean, do we need an ethnic group chart when it is already clearly stated. The section is alos very tacky!!!

Nomination for deletion of 'North America (Americas)'

Hello! Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas). Thanks! Corticopia 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Before you vote, please make sure to read the article and the sources presented (click here), since the article nomination page is very confusing and misleading, and at the moment of the nomination, the article was not finished yet. It has been improved. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Though voluminous in text, the nomination and points made therein are rather clear and, even though the article has been updated, remain unchanged. Wikipedians can decide for themselves. Corticopia 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...

Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

31.6 million

This number really surprised me. The Factbook has been estimating just over 33m for a while and I thought the country was long past 32m, at least. Where do we get the 32.8m estimate for 2007? And why are estimates coming in higher than the census? Marskell 09:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    I was also wondering how the 2006 census gives a population of 31.6 million,
 but then bam, one year later we have 1.2 million more people.
 I think this number is wrong.-- 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe, but it comes from the most reliable source there is, so we'll have to use it. Maybe it's wrong, but maybe someone's just been doing a lot of fucking. WilyD 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  

The 2007 estimate probably came from tbe 2001 Census that was adjusted by estimates of births/deaths/immigration between 2001-2007. The 2006 Census information is new...it came out last week, so the 2007 figure has not taken this into consideration. Alternatively, the 31.6 million Census figure does not include the undercount (was 4% for the 2001 Census). Census Canada will not announce the estimated undercount for some time. The most defensible figure is the 2006 Census figure with the realization that it will change when the undercount is announced. --Kariss 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Canada

Can someone please put a photo of Her Majesty The Queen of Canada in the politics section. She is the source of all constitutional power in this relam. 212.183.134.64 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Her picture would be more relevant on the Politics in Canada article (do we have one?) than this one. However, the Queen has little governmental power in Canada. Her representative in Canada, which does all of her decisions in Canada, has little power as well. All she does is ask the leader of the winning party if he wants to continue the government, etc etc... I'd hardly call her a source. Disinclination 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Area - seemingly strange figures?

Can anyone substantiate better the country area figures excluding water? Or, conversely, the water area? I have looked at the notes and the source[5], but the numbers seem, ahem, dubious. And I have not found any better sources - the CIA world factbook (from which the Yahoo table seems to be sourced) does not provide source materials[6]. See the yahoo pages - it lists rankings for Sudan and Russia that seem a bit bizarre (very high for Sudan, low for Russia). Hope I'm not provoking any disputes, I'm honestly just curious.--Gregalton 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Atlas of Canada gives the figures I see there now [7] WilyD 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't dispute the Canada figures, just that the ones for some other countries seem strange.--Gregalton 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Russia figure is about right. Don't know about the Sudan. WilyD 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CFL

The comment that the CFL is part of Canada's national identity is backed up by a reference found *on* the CFL's own website. It is a press release about some company partnering with the CFL, and the spokesperson from the company makes the claim that the CFL is part of Canada's national identity. While this may be true, I hardly think this source could be considered NPOV or an authority on the subject. Nathanalex 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove it then. Nathanalex 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the statement preceding that about CFL being the #2 sport among Canadians may also be untrue. The article (the part that I can read anyway) says that pro football is the #2 sport and that Canadians prefer CFL over NFL. This could mean that a percentage of Canadians who responded in the survey said the CFL was their fav sport, and a percentage said NFL was, and then the poll combined the two totals. Thus the statement is kind of ambiguous and I wonder if anyway who has full access to the article can confirm one way or the other what the poll actually says. Nathanalex 02:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a source apart from the CFL should be cited, and even then, I doubt whether it is significant enough to warrant a mention in the main article. Anyway, I have reverted the edit that put-back the CFL link, since the CFL article was a press release by the CFL titled "Canon scores with CFL." Although of course there is a possibility that these are peer-reviewed (by other press thingies?).

To reiterate: if this is compelling enough to warrant inclusion in this article, it should have a much better source than advertising puffery!--Gregalton 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the statement has been added back with the source being the incoming commissioner of the CFL. I think this is the same problem as the last source in that the person making the statement is not independent of the CFL. Of course the commissioner of the CFL is going to say the CFL is important to Canadian identity; you wouldn't expect him to say it is completely irrelevant! I would suggest adding something like, "According to the CFL commissioner, the CFL is an important part of Canadian identity." Although that sounds laughably ridiculous. But I would agree that it does play some role in Canadian identity in that it is yet another difference from the United States, and of course Canadians are always eager to differentiate themselves from Americans. I'm sure there is some better source available, which is independent of the CFL. I'll see if I can find something over the next few days. Nathanalex 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well that didn't take too long. I found an academic source that talks about the CFL's brief expansion into the US. So the author talks about the fans perceiving the CFL as a national institution/pasttime, but also that they should keep in mind the majority of players are American. Also, the author mentions how the CFL intentionally plays on these nationalist feelings for its own benefit. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/k481007566470u28/fulltext.html is the link (the conclusion is the place to look). I don't know how to add this as a footnote, or even if I am allowed to put this link here like this... but anyway there it is, so have a look. Many the statement could say something like, "CFL fans consider the league to be a national pasttime, despite the fact many players are American." Nathanalex 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire Globe and Mail article about the academic study is quoted here and shows that 30% of Canadians follow NHL, 24% follow pro football, 19% follow CFL, 13% NFL, 13% MLB, 13% figure skating, 7% NBA. That puts CFL as having second greatest interest among Canadians. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the academic study, but it appears to be restricted to paying users.

Apart from the fact that the statement appears to have found some source, the question remains as to whether it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main article, rather than more specific articles (sport in Canada or Canadian identity or many more). My vote would be to leave the statement out from this page - it's vague and not compelling. That said, what WOULD be worthwhile stating on the page (and I don't think would be hard to verify/reference) is that the CFL rules are unique to Canada (pace doomed expansion efforts), making it a somewhat different game.--Gregalton 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this again: is there ANY reason to have this sentence? This para is about sport, not professional leagues. Is it compelling or fascinating that Canada's second most popular professional sports league is the CFL? The part about hockey is about the sport first, and the league is only mentioned in a factual way not (directly) related to popularity. Not to mention that "second most popular pro league" is damning with distinctly faint praise, like "second best friend on a bike."

I would suggest this marketeering mass popularity phrase goes - it doesn't say anything much about culture, nor would "Canada's second favourite drug store" be interesting enough to include.--Gregalton 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It already says in the previous sentence football is a popular sport with Canadians, but maybe we could change the sentence to reflect the CFL in particular, and that it is distinct from American football. "Other popular spectator sports include curling and football, the Canadian version of which differs slightly from the American form," or something? Nathanalex 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done something that might pass; refers to CFL but avoids the puffery. Edit away.--Gregalton 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Football isn't only played in the CFL. That sentence has to go. And what's wrong with saying that it's the second most popular league? I'll make the edits myself.--J3wishVulcan 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, who cares if it is the second most popular league? The hockey section is about hockey. This CFL reference is only about the league. Which is a commercial operation.--Gregalton 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The section mentions that the NHL is the most popular. Delete that too then.--J3wishVulcan 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not dead against including that its the second most popular in Canada, I think we should at least have a source that people can read... a few comments above is the actual article. Why not use that instead of an article that is locked? But I think the sentence looks kind of odd there. What if we eliminated it and put the article as a footnote on the preceding sentence? Nathanalex 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not mention that the NHL is the most popular. It says hockey is the most popular spectator sport, the most popular sport actually played, and then discusses the NHL presence. It does not specifically mention the league's popularity. Even if it did, this article is long, and can be edited for space - official sport and national pastime are more relevant than second most popular professional league. "NHL got a mention too" is not a compelling reason for inclusion.

Given that the source is a locked article and the points above, I believe this sentence should go; I still see no compelling reason to include, and I also think it borders on commercial support.--Gregalton 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent I'm ok with it.--J3wishVulcan 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Icons in infobox

Lexicon has added icons of the flags of the cities and provinces for Ottawa and Toronto. I believe that there is no useful information added with the inclusion of these icons, and furthermore it adds to the clutter of the infoboxes. What do other people think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags.--cj | talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk to the editors of most countries, then, who put the coats of arms of the capital cities in infoboxes. See, for instance, Germany, Spain, Romania, Russia, Poland... Lexicon (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compelling reason to use them. I think it's a bad idea to take an infobox which is intended to be consistent and apply to it something which is fundamentally inconsistent. These images (flags or coats of arms) cannot be applied for all countries; for example, Australia, for which city articles cover metropolitan areas that do not have equivalent images.--cj | talk 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't work for largest city, but I'd suspect it could work for capital, which is what they're generally used for, since, from my understanding, Canberra is one city. But even if there was a problem, that wouldn't be a reason to abandon the protocol. One or two countries don't really have a coat of arms, but that doesn't mean we don't include such in our infoboxes. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that they are by and large useful and are included in the infobox proper. There really isn't a good reason to decorate the infobox with these images in this inconsistent manner. On the other hand, there are several valid reasons not to.--cj | talk 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the arguments in that essay are completely irrelevant to the current use. Unless you are ready to remove the capitals' coats of arms from all the counties whose articles have them, then consistency with a growing trend is a reason to include the coat of arms here. Also, while I understand that overuse of decoration is unhelpful, "prettification" of articles is a good thing. Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lex, I tend to agree with the others. In country infoboxes, just list the name of the capital and/or the largest city and have them wikilinked to those cities. In the Canada infobox, I can not really tell what that blob is next to Ottawa anyway. If a reader wants to know more about Ottawa or Toronto or any other city on any other country infobox, they can click the wikilink to the city article. The infobox at the city articles have specific parameters to display the flag, logo, COA, and seal for the city. Also, I would say that displaying of country and province flags in the subdivision fields of the city infobox (like Toronto) is much more acceptable than displaying flags and coat of arms for cities in the country infobox. Although, in the city infoboxes, place the flags after the subdivision names. This keeps all the names vertically lined up. —MJCdetroit 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically every country in the Americas and Europe has the coat of arms, I don't see why Canada should be an exception. Lexicon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada's coat of arms is displayed. It is to the right of the "flag" and in between "Canada" and "Motto". It is a very nice coat. —MJCdetroit 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, I obviously meant the coat of arms of the capital city. Lexicon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should probably take place over at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of Talk:Canada. MJCdetroit 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was copied to Template talk:Infobox Country#Coat of Arms images next to the names of cities-- Moved here from Talk:Canada as this discussion is about the infobox's appearance in relation to other countries. Please do not comment on this page anymore; make your comments over at Template talk:Infobox Country. Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Which English are we using?

I know that it is a standard that we use British English for British related articles, and American English for American articles.. and mostly everything else. However, Canada seems to fall into the middle. I know that colour, neighbour, etc are staples of Canadian spelling, but what about industrialisation (something I noticed from an edit today). Do we use 's' instead of 'z' in these instances? Most articles I read on Canada use the 'z' instead of the 's' but we always add an extra 'u'. Just something to bring up. Disinclination 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the intro of the article "Please use Canadian spelling." which includes adding the 'u' in colour and honour. As for the 'z' (American) versus 's' (British), both are acceptable in Canadian spelling, but I believe the 'z' is more widely used. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. Disinclination 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Canada

what is the origin of the map close to the history section of Canada,and how is the map is showing a relativly accurate drawing of the landscape of Canada, presumming it is more than a century old,I mean they didn't have satellites back then to see the shape of continents did they?192.30.202.20 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Why we have the map? Its purpose is to show a historical map, to "pretty up the article" with an image of a real map from the historical past of the country. Lexicon (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove images from article

I think all the images in this article are great. However, I think there may be too many images. Also, some of the images need to be significantly larger to see any details, and so I think they should be removed. To choose which other images to remove, I suggest some images that, although good images about important events, are not as easy to justify for a brief summary-style article like this.

• Historical map of New France - Weak Remove
• Death of General Wolfe - Keep and enlarge slightly
• Map of northern North America showing locations of the Canadas - Remove
• Animated map of territorial evolution - Remove I think this is a very cool image. However, I think it would need to be made a lot bigger to see the writing in the image - too big for this article.
• Soldiers advancing on Vimy Ridge - Keep
• Pearson receiving the peace prize - Remove A prime minister being a Nobel peace prize winner does not meet the bar to be included in a brief summary-style overview article like this - and certainly it does not justify taking up the room that this image does.
• Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Remove This is not an image of the original document, just an image of a commemorative reproduction of the Charter. Also, the charter is only one part of the 1982 Constitution Act. This image is a mostly just unreadable text.
• Parliament Hill - Keep
• Supreme Court building - Keep
• Peacekeeping Monument - Keep
• Soldiers - Keep
• Geopolitical map - Keep and enlarge slightly
• Satellite image - Keep and enlarge slightly
• Horseshoe Falls - Keep
• Currency - Keep
• Visible Minorities, Ethnic Origins, and Religion charts - Strong Remove This would be great informational aids in the Demographics of Canada article, for example. However, I think they would need to be enlarged a lot to be easily readable here. Also, the level of detail they provide is not needed in a brief, summary-style article like this. Lastly, although useful and well laid-out charts, I don't think they help to beautify this article or add to its interest.
• Montreal - Keep
• RCMP - Keep
• Big House and Totem Pole - Keep

If all my suggested removals were made, I think we could then use a new image in the Demographics section. One suggestion: skyline of Toronto, with a note about it being Canada's most multicultural city. This would be relevant and help to beautify the article. I'm sure there are lots of alternative interesting images to add, too. We might need another image in the History section too - we could keep the Historical New France map, but then the first paragraph of the History section might be overloaded with images relative to the rest of the article. --thirty-seven 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to lose the territorial evolution image. I don't know that we need the Toronto skyline here. I agree with the rest of the removals, however. Jkelly 05:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the territorial evolution animation is very cool. Perhaps, with the other suggested removals, we could enlarge this animation somewhat, since we'd have more room in the History section, with only two other images there. My suggestion of Toronto was just one idea of an image to put in the Demographics section. I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities.

--thirty-seven 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Very much agree with the removal of images; I wanted to bring it up myself, but was too lazy to do so. I agree with Jkelly and thirty-seven's suggestions. -- Jeff3000 12:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the images of Pearson and the Charter. I think the territorial evolution map is a useful image there even if the writing is not visible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the images in question from the History section, except for the animation of territorial evolution. As I thought, this seemed to leave the History section about one image short, near the end. So I introduced the photo of the Queen and Registrar General (in the presence of the PM and other ministers) signing the Constitution Act of 1982 in Ottawa. --thirty-seven 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

ArmchairVexillologistDon has added some extra detail in the lead, which I believe should not be in the lead. Firstly it's too detailed for the lead, the body of the article has the info, and secondly the prose is not up to featured article status with the use of the parenthesis and the i.e. What do others think? -- Jeff3000 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Seems AVD is bringing the dispute at Commonwealth Realm to this article.--cj | talk 02:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version.(Cj beat me to it!) I've also restored the redirects at Dominion of Canada and The Dominion of Canada. ArmchairVexillologistDon changed those yesterday, creating a small article at Dominion of Canada and a stub at The Dominion of Canada. My feeling is that the subject is better covered in the Canadian history pages, rather than through a confusing "spin-off" article at what should be a redirect. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

-groans- .... Better covered at their proper pages, than creating small little articles that.. are just going to create more angst. Disinclination 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Ckatz; the material is best presented in the articles on Canadian history that already exist. -- Jeff3000 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dominion of New Zealand article with regards to the New Zealand article set the precident for the similarily paired Dominion of Canada and Canada articles.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One article does not a precedent make. Anyway, there shouldn't be a new article, because there is not a different country. We generally create new articles when countries change, not simply when names change. Canada is the same country as when it was called the Dominion of Canada. We have Canada's name to discuss in detail the name issue, and History of Canada to discuss the history of the country. Lexicon (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon, on the contrary ONE ARTICLE does a precedent make.

Precedent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent

noun 1. an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, ArmchairVexillologistDon has removed the redirect at Dominion of Canada twice tonight. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention Stephen Harper in the lead? Surely he is more relevant than the Queen. Or we could keep both, but I certainly think he is worth mentioning. I quickly looked at the UK and Australia articles, but they don't mention Blair or Howard in the lead, which strikes me as odd. Thoughts? Nathanalex 06:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey guys. I don't mean to be out of place here, but someone has deleted the entire "Origin and History of the Name" section (if there was one), and replaced it with " They don't like puppies!! ". Obviously this is out of place, but I don't know what was there, and I don't know too much about reversing things. So if someone more involved could reverse/ replace this, I just think it would clean up the article a bit.

Thanks for pointing this out; it was caught some time before your comment, and lots of editors are indeed keeping watch over the article for vandalism. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic canadian

I suggest you put the word "Ethnic Canadian" in your description of Canada.

I know it needs a bit more work to clean it up but it belongs with your item on Canada.

Have a look let me know what you think.

MB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.Blum (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikimedia Canada Chapter

We are trying to get a WM canada chapter going. We need 10 people to get the ball rolling, in a legal sense. (The concept has been around a while -- we're trying to put rubber on the road though)

If you feel like helping, join the list at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca and drop us a hello, or chime in at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Canada. Let's get this thing going! v:User:Historybuff 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)