Talk:Canada/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Imperialist Royal Union Flag

It's not an official national flag. While it "may be flown" in Canada, it's not recognized as an official flag. It would likely be considered as the British flag (because it is). As for, Commonwealth day is not a recognized statutory holiday so the link is saying "go ahead" but you don't get a day off. Find a source that says that it's an official national flag before adding the imperialist Royal Union Flag again. I'll let others revert if it comes back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Union Flag is an official flag of Canada. In the Canadian symbols page, it is listed as a symbol of Canada alongside the National Flag and Canada's Arms.[1].
Thus, it deserves some sort of secondary recognition in the article. --RaviC (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Edit: it seems that the user has some kind of WP:COI or strong opinion towards the flag by his use of "imperialist". The truth is however, it is an official symbol in Canada in the same way that GSTQ is as a Royal Anthem. --RaviC (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Quote CANEY - "With the adoption of the maple leaf–based National Flag of Canada in 1965, the role of the Royal Union Flag changed within Canada. On 18 December 1964, Parliament resolved that the Royal Union Flag would continue to serve as a symbol of the nation’s allegiance to the Crown and of the country’s membership in the Commonwealth" Norman Bonney (16 May 2016). Monarchy, Religion and the State: Civil Religion in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the Commonwealth. Manchester University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-1-5261-1155-5. .--Moxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Government of Canada states that "On December 18, 1964, Parliament approved the continued use of the Royal Union Flag as a symbol of Canada’s membership in the Commonwealth of Nations". As such, it is an official flag in Canada, but not of Canada. It does not represent the Canadian nation (not a national flag), but only Canada's membership within the Commonwealth, which has also since largely been replaced by the Commonwealth flag, for example the Parliament of New Brunswick during Commonwealth day.
It is inappropriate to use it as a symbol of Canada within the Canada infobox. trackratte (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The world is coming to an end. I agree with Trackratte! Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
And no. I have no conflict of interest other than being Canadian and the Union Jack is not really a recognizable symbol of Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Union Jack is the British flag which was flown over the colonies and when Canada got its own flag continued in use in limited cases. It is not a Canadian flag. Even if it was, it is so rarely used that it would be confusing to put in the infobox. TFD (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Union Flag is still a flag used in Canada, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it as an official symbol in the infobox. Being authorized to fly on three or four days of the year at government buildings doesn't mean that it should be included in the infobox. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I do believe it should get a mention of sorts, perhaps in the 'Symbols' section. --RaviC (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)



Add with details about Quebec, where the civil law system is based on French law while the rest of Canada maintains a system of government based on English common law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Common law prevails everywhere except in Quebec, where civil law predominates. Criminal law is solely a federal responsibility and is uniform throughout Canada.[142] Law enforcement, including criminal courts, is officially a provincial responsibility, conducted by provincial and municipal police forces

--Moxy (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

The TFA for this article now says " Its advanced economy is the eleventh largest in the world" ... and links to a page showing it's the tenth largest :). FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed--Moxy (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

July 1

We will have to keep an eye on this article today as its the featured article on the main page. I expect lots of pointless and small edits will happen all day.--Moxy (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: Well, look at the section I opened below. Dr. K. 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to tag obvious and well-known facts

Edit-warring to tag obvious and well-known facts is not constructive, especially in an FA article, currently on the main page. Instead of edit-warring to tag these well-known facts, I suggest copying and pasting the sources for these well-known facts from the articles that they appear in. Dr. K. 01:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy to source.....will add some. As mentioned above....need to watchout for stupid edits.--Moxy (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Dr. K. 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
And tagging to wellknown facts is not constructive either. Granted a linked article is not a substitute for a reference. A reference is not always designed to reference every statement in a section so tagging the specific content not supported is a better option than tagging the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Btw, I never said that a linked article is a substitute for a reference. What I said was that instead of taking the easy way out and tagging, it is far more constructive to get a reference which is so easy to find. Dr. K. 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said that linking was your claim, but a general template is not helpful in this case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Walter, I never said that you said that about me. I said it because the reverting editor quoted "WP:CIRCULAR". I fully agree with you about how tagging is supposed to be done. Dr. K. 01:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Congratulations and thanks to the editors who have worked on this article preparing it to be today's featured article for Canada Day in Canada 150. Great job. —  AjaxSmack  14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ottawa should be more prevalent in lead

The statement that Ottawa is the capital is clearly an afterthought in the lead paragraph. It's also a bit troubling that it is mentioned after the "One third of the population lives in the three largest metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver." statement. This reeks of Toronto based editing and the relentless humble brag editing they exhume. The fact that Ottawa is the capital should be more prevalent and come before the pretty useless fact that 1/3 of Canadians live in... Which IMO shouldn't even be included. Like who really cares, how is that important to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Anon from Kanata wants their hometown to be more prevalent in the lede. We had discussed this a while ago. It's likely in the archives. So here are the non-Toronto-based numbers
rank city population cumulative population percentage of population of Canada
1 Toronto 5,928,040 5,928,040 16.86%
2 Montreal 4,098,927 10,026,967 28.52%
3 Vancouver 2,463,431 12,490,398 35.53%
4 Calgary 1,392,609 13,883,007 39.49%
5 Ottawa–Gatineau 1,323,783 15,206,790 43.26%
6 Edmonton 1,321,426 16,528,216 47.02%
7 Quebec 800,296 17,328,512 49.30%
8 Winnipeg 778,489 18,107,001 51.51%
9 Hamilton 747,545 18,854,546 53.64%
10 Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo 523,894 19,378,440 55.13%
What wording would you suggest? "More than half of Canada's population live in the eight largest metropolitan areas." ? How would you suggest we format it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
First of all there is no need to be a dick. Relax with the attitude there internet tough guy. LOL. I'm fully aware of the population figures. But thanks for your nerdy unsolicited chart, LOL. I'm not trying to make my hometown more prevalent. The capital of a country should be premonient in the lead. Plain and simple. Perhaps try reading the US, or Australia's articles for starters. Secondly, find me another article with the wording "One third of the population lives in the three largest metropolitan areas: ...." What a pathetic line that is. LOL! Totally useless fact. It screams of desperate attention grabbing. (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
What bout 'Canada's capital is Ottawa, and its largest urban areas are Toronto, Montreal, and Vnacouver'. Sounds a lot better. (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
So me being helpful and supply facts to help us come to a good decision is what you consider as someone being a dick. OK. You've lost any interest in making the change from me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No suggesting that I'm trying to promote my hometown is being a dick. And clearly childish as you are now pouting about it. (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
IP, the U.S. and Australia articles mention the nations' capitals in the lead, but nothing more. TFD (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. That is exactly my point. The nation's capital should be mentioned before some arbitrary population stat and partial city list. I was never expecting some elaborate write up on the capital in the lead paragraph. Also the partial list of cities follwing that stat is odd and out of place. Top 9 largest cities? Some of with are barely 700k in size. It's just weird. (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reworded the content in question to be more aligned with other nation's (Australia, US, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand). I agree that the partial top 9 list is a bit strange and out of place. Maybe it would be a better fit in the demographics section. IP, perhaps a better explanation would have gotten a swifter and friendlier response. Saboteurest (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

O Canada audio

I realize that this issue has been brought up many times before, but it seems that the only reason the electronic piano version is favoured over the U.S. Army playing the instrumental version is because it's the U.S. Army playing the instrumental version. That's not a very unbiased or a very good reason to not upgrade the audio to a better and more professional performence. I feel that the best outcome would be to just simply get rid of the anthem audio, and just link the O Canada article, or upgrade the anthem audio. Dr. BusFreak (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not the entire reason. The American version using a different harmonization, or, if you're a guitarist, different chords. It's not familiar to most Canadians. Otherwise, it's a good recording but does not correctly represent the national anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the arrangement is different than what you're used to, but as it is for a brass band, naturally it will differ from one for solo guitar. I don't think the arrangement can be fairly called unfamiliar to most Canadians; I believe most people will find it sufficiently similar to performances they've heard before. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
As a musician I can confirm what you just said is nonsense and I bear some of that blame. The melody line is the same, but the chord structure or harmonies for each note are not the standard arrangement. They have the right to use different colour like that and we have the right to say that it's not familiar to most Canadians and not use it. Most people will say it's wrong and we're not going for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you feel that there is a single standard arrangement, but as a musician I can tell you that there can be different orchestrations depending on the instruments for which the arrangement has been written. I appreciate we disagree on what most people will say regarding the two versions; perhaps some others can weigh in on what they think. isaacl (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The government of Canada has an official arrangement. Anything else is musicanship, but this is not the official one. It's not orchestration. It's not the selection of instruments. If you check O Canada on the government of Canada website (I believe it's referenced above or may be in the archives already) you can hear the official version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only arrangement that could be called official is the one printed in the National Anthem Act, which consists of the melody line only. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz I personally think that as long as the audio is played respectfully and professionally, and is recognizable for the most part, I really don't see why we should get bogged down because couple of notes were played in a different rhythm or manner than the official anthem. If the U.S. Navy version isn't official enough, then you're implying that the solo piano version is more official then? I'll say this: the U.S. Navy version is a heck of a lot better than the solo piano version. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Coat of Arms

Like the Australian and New Zealand articles, can we add the Canadian coat of arms next to the Canadian flag in the beginning of the article?

The arms contains material which are subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Pls see File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg--Moxy (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
And are subject to Crown Copyright as well. The 1957 version, which is still in current official use as well, is a more suitable replacement in other articles as an official state logo of Canada. However, it was decided on multiple occasions that the Canadian Flag is the most appropriate symbol here, and the Arms are not critical to illustrating this article's topic. Of course the Arms are available for anyone who is interested to see via blue links within this article. trackratte (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I do believe this article is the only on Wikipedia for a nation state that doesn't display that country's coat of arms/seal/emblem/equivalent in the infobox. That's a significant inconsistency however. --RaviC (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
How so? It's not material to the nation itself. It may be an issue for those who are interested in heraldry or similar, but for the average reader, it's not a loss. doesn't list either and it's fairly useful. Why is it needed as opposed to just nice to have? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not that's so, current consensus for the use of non-free content does not permit using the coat of arms in this article. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just one last question then, in the link provided: File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it is indicated that the coat of arms can be used as long as it appears "unaltered, in a non-commercial, educational context is specifically allowed by the Canadian government." Considering that we have a Wikipedia article: ( where the coat of arms is displayed, could it not be displayed on the beginning page of the Canada article?

Because it's copyrighted, it must have a fair use rationale. You'll see one for Arms of Canada and Monarchy of Canada. There is none for this article and because we don't discuss it in the article, and it doesn't make sense to discuss it in an encyclopedic way, none can be provided. So we can't use it even though the government of Canada allows for its use, "unaltered, in a non-commercial, educational context". Its use here is not educational but informational at best and more like decorative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia licenses its content for others to use, even for commercial uses. Thus, in general, content incorporated in Wikipedia must be freely reusable. There is a list of specific criteria that, if met, can be used to justify using non-free content. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. Criterion 8 requires that the non-free content is essential for a significant increase in understanding for the topic in question. While this is true for the Arms of Canada article, it does not hold for this article. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In traditional European heraldry, the definitive reference is the textual blazon, there can be multiple equivalent artistic renderings of a coat of arms, and anyone who makes a new artistic rendering based on the blazon owns the copyright to that particular artistic rendering. AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

However, when a coat of arms is also a state logo, only the official depiction is appropriate. trackratte (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly this. So a different rendering – for example, this one – could, and should, be used instead. Jon C. 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
No, that rendering is not the state logo for Canada, and as such is inappropriate in the same way as using this rendition of the Canadian Flag would be inappropriate, even though it is 100% inline with the blazon. There is a difference between what is acceptable in heraldry, and what is acceptable as an official logo to represent a state or nation within an Encyclopedia.
As a result, when we are talking about state logos, like a flag or other symbol, any discussion about what is "heraldically correct" is completely irrelevant. As another example, as we can see here there are numerous different way to render the American Flag, all of which are heraldically correct, however there is only one rendering of the American Flag that is acceptable to use to represent the USA on Wikipedia, and the exact same thing applies to the Canadian Flag and to the Arms of Canada.
Besides, both the 1994 and 1957 renderings are in current use within Canada, so we already have an official version of the coat of arms for use as a state logo within Wikipedia which Commons considers as "free use", and is therefore available for unlimited usage within En Wiki. trackratte (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What is a state logo? We're talking about a coat of arms here, which do vary depending on who they've been rendered by. Most other CoAs on Wikipedia aren't taken directly from a government webpage or similar, but are created by WP editors. I don't see why Canada is the exception. Jon C. 14:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A state logo is a specific and often legally designated symbol used to officially represent a country, state, or nation. As such, one cannot simply change them and use them in the same way as this is likely to cause offence, such as changing the Canadian flag to the image found in the table in right hand column and using it in the "Canada" page infobox, it would be offensive and inappropriate.
To use a different analogy, there is no "right" way to spell a name (for example Isabelle, Isabel, Isebell, etc) in the same way as there is no "right" way to render a blazon in heraldry. However, when it comes to representing a specific person there is only one way to spell their name (if someone's name is Jordynn for example, purposefully spelling it as Jordan is both wrong and insulting), this in the same way as using a random rendering of a country's flag or arms to represent that country is equally wrong and insulting.
This is what I mean when I say that the rules of heraldry are irrelevant when it comes to state logos (official and specifically rendered symbols to represent a state) as state logos and heraldry are really two separate subjects. The fact that a state logo can be a coat of arms serves to blur the distinction and has been a cause for confusion here in the past as the rules of heraldry do not apply to the rules governing state logos.
If you want to test this concept in practice, replace the Flag of Canada on this page's infobox with this heraldically correct version and see what happens.
State logo (specific symbol approved and used to represent a country) vs Heraldically correct but wrong logo (image which is not the specific symbol used and approved by a country)
Arms of Canada, revised in 1957 (current official symbol of Canada) Not the Arms of Canada (Arms never used nor approved by Canada)
Coat of arms of Canada (1957-1994).png
this image is free use on Commons
Coat of arms of Canada (1957-1994).svg
May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of Canada.
Current National Flag of Canada (current official symbol of Canada) Not the National Flag of Canada (Flag never used nor approved by Canada)
Flag of Canada.svg
Flag of Canada (1964).svg
Is heraldically correct, but is still not the National Flag of Canada.
Current Flag of the United States Not the Flag of the U.S. (Flag never used or approved by the United States)
Flag of the United States.svg
US 51-star alternate flag.svg

May be heraldically correct in that it more closely aligns with the
blazon of the Arms, regardless it is still not the Flag of the U.S.

trackratte (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, but the field in the infobox is for the coat of arms, not the "state logo". The UK doesn't use the same rendering of the coat of arms as we use here – does that mean it's wrong?
That aside, is the 1957 arms really still used officially in Canada? Jon C. 16:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If a coat of arms is used to represent the state, and has been officially or legally specifically designated to do so, then it is a state logo. Most countries use coats of arms inline with traditional practices, although this is not universal, for example China's use of a "national emblem".
The 1957 arms are still used officially. See here for the official table of symbols, and you will see both the 1957 and 1994 revisions listed.
I'm not familiar with every single countries specificities. If the UK is using an exact rendering then it may or may not be a copyright violation. Or maybe the UK does not have a specifically designated rendering and the state uses a variety of different versions, I think it is specific to each country. In Canada's case, there are specifically prescribed logos and a precise version legally adopted for use. As you can see in the link I just gave you, as well as other examples such as this one here for the Canadian Flag. trackratte (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but most other countries also have renderings in 'official' use. For example, here is the UK's; compare to the SVG image on royal arms of the United Kingdom. Here's New Zealand, as used by government; compare to coat of arms of New Zealand. Here's the Republic of Ireland's, which is quite different to the one at coat of arms of Ireland.
In each instance, the blazon is the same but the rendering is different, as with the Canadian one above. What makes Canada unique in this instance? Jon C. 09:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────1. This isn't a discussion about hobby heraldry, so once again I see arguments revolving around the finer points of blazonry as entirely irrelevant to the discussion of specific and legally defined symbols used to represent Canada.

2. Similarly, if you wish to discuss the finer points of British or New Zealand state symbols I suggest you bring it up at those talk pages, as this page and discussion pertains to Canada only. If you wish to make a Wikipedia wide standard to not use the actual state symbols but to instead use renderings made by hobby heraldists contributing to Commons, you are of course more than welcome to make such a proposal at the appropriate place.

3. What is clear to me, and I think we can agree, is that an Encyclopedia should endeavour to use the proper symbols when pictographically representing a country. Once again, I think we both agree which rendering of the Canadian Flag should be used here, despite the fact that other renderings are entirely appropriate within the norms of heraldry, and this applies in the exact same way to other symbols such as the coat of arms as well.

4. Finally, a point upon which I think we can similarly both agree is the fact that there is no reason to use incorrect symbols (again, incorrect not in terms of the tenets of heraldry generally, but incorrect in terms of a state's specifically approved image) when we have the appropriate symbols at our disposal, such as the most commonly used 1994 rendition, and the still current 1957 rendering, both of which are representative of Canada, approved and identified as such, and both of which were designed and rendered by professional state heralds for the very purpose of symbolically representing Canada.

The bottom line is I take issue with someone passing off something which is not the Flag of Canada to represent Canada on this wiki regardless if such an image is in line with its blazon, in the same way as the Arms, in the same way as someone purposefully spelling a name wrong. The point being that an Encyclopedia endeavours to portray knowledge and facts, not creative self-made images or caricatures. trackratte (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017 Drooski1 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

My minor edits were obliterated by the following edit: 20:48, 16 July 2017‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (190,248 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (restore) (undo | thank)

When I started to edit the article I noticed and read the boxes at the top, in particular, "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. ..." As near as I can tell I am an "autoconfirmed user" and therefore am allowed to edit the article. My edits consisted of moving some images to improve the layout of the article and one copy edit. E.g. the climate map currently interferes with the gallery of leaders on my monitor.

Is Moxy the "gatekeeper" for this article?User-duck (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Canada is a founding member of the United Nations.User-duck (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see all the test edits finally the future if the 2 of you could preview before saving it would save us from having to fix formating issues. And yes as mentioned in the article Canada was one of the founding member of the UN. --Moxy (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
First point is that Canada still is a member, was is past tense. Past tense would be appropriate if Canada was no longer a member or the United Nations no longer existed.
I continually preview my edits. Only when I saved the original did something fail and I undid my edit immediately. I then started to redo my edits piece by piece. There were no reasons given for the reversions. remove gallery and restore may be satisfactory summaries. For my personal education what were the "formating issues" with the 20:03, 16 July 2017 version?
Finally, is Moxy a group account ("save us")User-duck (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You were suggesting a time be more clear pls.....Us here at the Moxy group cant guess what your thinking. --Moxy (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like:

"Other provinces have no official languages as such, but French is used as a language of instruction, in courts, and for other government services, in addition to English."

changed to:

"Other provinces have no official languages as such, but French is used, in addition to English, as a language of instruction, in courts, and for other government services."

I believe it is a much better sentence grammatically.User-duck (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I am not sure that the two sentences are equivalent.User-duck (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: removal of "Benjamin West 005.jpg"

I feel that [[File:Benjamin West 005.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Benjamin West's "The Death of General Wolfe" dying in front of British flag while attended by officers and native allies|[[Benjamin West]]'s ''[[The Death of General Wolfe]]'' (1771) dramatizes [[James Wolfe]]'s death during the [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] at [[Quebec City|Quebec]].]] should be removed. Neither "General Wolfe" nor "Battle of the Plains of Abraham" nor "Benjamin West" are mention in this article. The image is already more appropriately used in other articles.

I know there is an aversion to removing content but, as stated at the beginning of this page, this article is much to big.User-duck (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

During the FA review we decide to put this info in picture format (one of the most famous Canadian images) about the main people of the seven year war here in Canada (that we mention). That said do you have a suggestion for a replacement image that is this famous?--Moxy (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I was only expressing an idea to improve the article, trying to make it more concise. I had no idea that this painting was related to the Seven Year War. Not being Canadian, I am not familiar with Canadian history. I was seeing the painting over and over in the Canadian articles and thought deleting this one occurrence would not detract from this article. Lack of knowledge helps me to be an objective editor. Without a more direct reference to the body of the article, the painting might be more appropriate in the Arts section. I like the image.User-duck (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

removing (most) uses of px

I would like to replace uses of "###px" with "upright=#.##". As per Wikipedia:Image use policy, Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. I am willing to do the job, my arithmetic skills are quite good. User-duck (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Would be a good idea if the recently add gallery had alll the same size images in it.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually the images were very close to the same size, they had the same height. The wikitable cells were different widths because of the captions. This introduced side margins of different widths. I used the "Multiple image" template and adjusted the total_width until the captions fit. Luckily caption text is smaller than normal text. This would have been much easier if the original images were the same size.
Moxy, do you have an opinion about changing to "upright"? Unfortunately, the "Multiple image" has no provisions for upright and would continue to use pixels.User-duck (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New additions

I have reverted the big change in the military section that removed sources and expanded the text with no sources....and regurgitates some information from the History Section. Lets review the additions see what we can use.--Moxy (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The separation of the foreign affairs and military sections would allow for further elaboration on each. The current composition wherein the text flows back and forth between the (admittedly related) topics can be improved upon. The Wikipedia pages for other countries often separate these sections to great effect. Moreover, the events mentioned are not consistently in chronological order (see the jumps from 2003 invasion of Iraq, to the Suez Crisis of 1956, to the 2001 war in Afghanistan). The allegation that the edits were unsourced is not entirely true, as the content contained a significant number of hyperlinks to existing Wikipedia pages which elaborate further on those events. The facts mentioned are sourced from those Wikipedia articles, and the citations could easily have been transferred to this page had the changes not been reversed so quickly.
I believe we should examine the edits to ensure that positive changes are retained. As user Walter Gorlitz commented on my edit, the changes "are clear, correct and clearly an improvement." --Xenos_io26 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
We need sources were the info appears....we dont make our readers search for sources on other pages. As for expansion....much of what was added is already covered in the history section. --Moxy (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, Canada is not a particularly militaristic nation and so expanding this section in a general article on the subject is likely adding WP:UNDUE weight to the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Geometric accuracy and wikilink

Please note the absolute truth is more important than the so-called "relative truth". Canada is objectively located in the northern half of the North American continent, and "North America" is a completely relevant wikilink. See the Mexico article. I am a human editing Wikipedia currently located in the territory of the United States. I will not be leaving U.S. territory at any point in the near future. I am the state (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So "absolute truth" is an rhetorical ploy. Your preferred version, "is a country in the northern half of [[North America]]" is not more correct than the original version, "is a country in the northern part of North America". First, what constitutes is North America? Some definitions only include only Canada and the United States while others don't include what some geographers would call "Central America" so, "half" is up for debate. Since it's up for debate, how can using "half" be more accurate?
Conversely, would you rewrite the article on the United States to state it is in both the northern and southern halves of North America?
Canada is the most northern nation in North America, and that might be a better lede. However, there are several discussions in the archives that have helped us to arrive at the version of "is a country in the northern part of North America". Please acquaint yourself with those discussions and then try to seek WP:CONSENUS before continuing your three-day-long edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on neighborhood notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are individual neighborhoods always considered to be notable? Many WP:AfD discussions have been submitted for various neighborhoods, all located in Alberta. These discussions were for Sage Hill, Calgary, Legacy, Calgary, Nolan Hill, Calgary, and Hays Ridge, Edmonton. While WP:GEOLAND states that subdivisions must be supported by independent sources, most of these articles do not meet WP:GEOLAND. So, are neighborhoods automatically considered notable? SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 19:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


No. Policy says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include...unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." (WP:GEOLAND). I suggest too that you close this RfC. TFD (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, how about those articles that were nominated at AfD? Those articles (save for Legacy, Calgary) were all closed as keep due to consensus that all Calgary/Edmonton residential neighborhoods are de facto notable, despite the fact that GEOLAND states that they still have to meet GNG. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objective truth, personal information sharing, and opinion sharing

The objective truth states that the country Canada is in the northern "half", not the northern "portion", of the North American continent. Therefore, in the first sentence of the article, the word "half" should replace the word "portion". I am a human citizen of the United States and I am located in the United States (which to me means U.S. airspace), and I am a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism is pluralistic. I am not a human citizen of Canada. I am not leaving the United States. I do not want to become a human citizen of Canada. I do not like the fact that Canada lets the United Kingdom keep members of its military in it. I do not want to see members of the human military of the United Kingdom. As I am not a human citizen of the United Kingdom. I want to ensure that Brexit does not happen, as Northern Ireland and Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Although Wales did, Northern Irish human citizens and Scottish human citizens did not, and they are minorities (that are also human citizens) within the United Kingdom. Welsh human citizens unfortunately voted for fascism. But they're human citizens, many of whom live in hilly and/or coastal isolated areas who don't have access to the luxuries the European Union provides to its human citizens. Although personal information sharing and opinion sharing should be considered inappropriate on Wikipedia, I am doing it anyway. Violating rules should not be done, although it is done anyway. Give me a MetroCard worth $20 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"Rescued" links

How many of those archived urls are in google books? It seems to me that those are unnecessary if they refer to real books, which are copyright. Can we trim all that? Alaney2k (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No will just add them now linked under "History" for all pages. (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

it's vs its

The article says "except for the power to amend it's constitution". It's its, not it's. I don't have the right to edit the page, can someone change that? It really bugs me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicLoss (talkcontribs)

 Done Simplexity22 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

@Patar knight: The google book urls don't make any sense. The book urls are previews, not sources for this article. Alaney2k (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of having a further reading section is that we want people to actually read the sources. The previews allow readers to read some pages of the work we're recommending online via Google Books and then make a decision on whether to buy or borrow a copy of that book based on how they enjoyed the page they saw on Google books. The Google Books previews have long been held to be legal, and in this day and age, one of the most accessible ways to access short pages of books. Guidelines and essays back this up as well. MOS:FURTHER specifically says that works in Further Reading should be cited like like other sources, so WP:BOOKLINKS applies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I was mistakenly objecting thinking it was a commercial link, which I felt was inappropriate. But it's accepted. I'm always learning something about Wikipedia. It was a bad judgment call. Thanks for reverting. Alaney2k (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why are you going out of your way to make it hard for our readers to view research material Alaney2k????? Not sure what you have been doing but at this point I think it's best you propose any changes to the article before hand. Thus far most of your edits have been disruptive or needed to be reverted seem not to know about some basics like WP:LEAD, MOS:SANDWICH, WP:BOOKLINKS. This FA article may be a bit out of your league.--Moxy (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the rant. :-( You're going way overboard. Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Canada is in the northern half of North America

The word "part" should be changed to "half" in the first sentence of this article. First past the post (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed and debated before. Check Talk:Canada/Archive 26#New additions for the most recent and search the archives for all the previous times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bearcat for PM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Metis: First Nations and Inuit in the Red River Valley?

The passage which we're having the dispute about is the statement that Métis in the Red River Valley were descended from Inuit and First Natinos. My understanding is that Métis can be descended from First Nations or from Inuit, but the citation in question did not support the position that there were Inuit in the Red River Valley.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The sentence reads,
"Indigenous peoples in present-day Canada include the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, the latter being a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit people married European settlers in the Red River valley."
In context it reads,
"Indigenous peoples in present-day Canada include the ... Métis, ... a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit people married European settlers in the Red River valley."
All I see in the source is p. 366 and it does not begin to discuss Métis. So if the issue that it doesn't mention Inuk people, remove them, but the Red River Valley is one of the first places in Canada where Métis were located. Abd for the record, it's WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted and you it's not appropriate to revert again until discussion. Suggestion that there should be a discussion is not the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Your misreading is clear above. Fix your reading of the sentence, not the sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Or more to the point, it's poorly worded, "Métis ... a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century ... in the Red River valley." Feel free to reword so it makes more sense rather than remove the correct origin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
No thanks. You've chased me away. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Anyone else want to try to clarify the sentence? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed "Red River valley" as this is 100 years off. Métis moved to Red River valley because of fur trade.....first Métis were from around were Oka Quec is now.--Moxy (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
They were from the Red River Valley as well, and I don't believe the Upper and Lower Canada Métis moved to Manitoba, they were a separate group. We should really find out what the source says. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

indigenous relations

So, I added text updating content on indigenous peoples in the lead and was reverted. So, how do we update the lead to include information on indigenous peoples in the lead? They seem to disappear after the one sentence. Which leaves it incomplete. Alaney2k (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1870, the Dominion purchased the lands under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, to begin an.....

Various indigenous peoples have inhabited what is now Canada for thousands of years prior to European colonization. The indigenous peoples assisted the first European settlers and set up trade with Europeans in exchange for European goods. After the British consolidated their hold on Canada, it negotiated treaties and land purchases with the indigenous peoples and set up reserves. After Confederation, Canada took over relations negotiated by the British Crown and the indigenous people and passed the Indian Act of 1876 imposing federal jurisdiction over the indigenous peoples. Under the Act, the Government of Canada defined the terms of status Indians, how bands operate and the rights of individual natives. The Government of Canada set up the now-denigrated residential school system partly to force the assimilation of indigenous peoples. Canadian citizenship and the right to vote were extended in the middle of the 20th Century. As protests by indigenous peoples grew, the latter half of the 20th Century saw the closure of the residential school system and attempts to reform relations, negotiate treaty rights and land claims and extend self-government with indigenous nations. An attempt to include First Nations formally in the Canadian Constitution, however, failed in the 1990s. The 21st Century has seen a renewed interest in resolving issues, evidenced by the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", while serious issues and land claims remain.

WP:BRD is a good start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No need for any relations in the lead especially on a topic that only cover less then 4% of the population and only about one time period. Lead was written after 2 long RfCs....dont think too many up for a RfC so soon--Moxy (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed by your comment. Canada has often been compared to South Africa, when it comes to indigenous relations. Apartheid was based on what has been done here. The number of indigenous peoples populating Canada would almost certainly be much more except for European colonization. Lead sections should not be just positive text. Alaney2k (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You got the wrong article.....this article is about a country.--Moxy (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See the lead for Venezuela. I don't know if this is cultural bias, or North American viewpoint, but we should not white-wash. Alaney2k (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No need to overwhelm the article with more stuff...

Although not without conflict, European Canadians' early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively peaceful.[36] First Nations and Métis peoples played a critical part in the development of European colonies in Canada, particularly for their role in assisting European coureur des bois and voyageurs in the exploration of the continent during the North American fur trade.[37] The Crown and indigenous peoples began interactions during the European colonization period, though the Inuit, in general, had more limited interaction with European settlers.[38] However, from the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged indigenous peoples to assimilate into their own culture.[39] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration and relocations.[40] A period of redress is underway, which started with the appointment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada by the Government of Canada

--Moxy (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not summarized in the lead. Something more than one sentence does belong, to provide balance. It's kind of weird to have the one sentence hanging out there. The indigenous people are integral to the country, and current. Quote: "one of Canada's greatest domestic challenges – its relationship with Indigenous peoples" see Italian professor's comment on Trudeau's speech at the UN. Alaney2k (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Its all about balance ...not whats making the news this month. Pls review an article with similar demographics at the FA level Australia or even GA articles with similar demographics and histories like United States or New Zealand. In fact we here at this article are the only ones that mention Aboriginal law...guess who added that paragraph years ago with a nice pick. I also added the language info..and so on. I take my heritage very seriously thus way i created Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, Index of articles related to Indigenous Canadians, Indigenous Canadian personalities and even got Indigenous peoples in Canada to GA level with lots of help from a mentor a decade ago. I telling you all this because even I think the lead is good and the norm for our best articles of this nature. That said.....what sentence(s) do you have in-mind?--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I used that article for the quote. The professor called it that, not Justin. I have heard about indigenous issues since the 70s. Thinking of the mercury poisoning in Dryden. First, how about adding an indigenous section to the Further Reading? If I put that in, will you revert? Alaney2k (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure lets add books for the English, French, Scottish, Irish, German, Italian, Chinese all of which have bigger pops lets move Bibliography of Canada here. Oh wait bad idea lets just post books with overviews of all of them. Oh wait we do that already do with Cohen, Andrew (2007). The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are. McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 978-0-7710-2181-7 and Magocsi, Paul R (1999). Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples. Society of Ontario, University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-2938-6.--Moxy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You have issues. Why do you hate the indigenous people? Canada is on their land, which was taken. Taken. A French guy puts a cross on the beach and claims all of Quebec and the Maritimes. Then that guy's country gets defeated in war and British say the land is now theirs. They were nearly decimated by wars, disease, government policy. And something like 90% of treaties made with the indigenous peoples have been broken by various governments, colonists, and on and on. The Toronto "purchase" was settled over 200 years after the fact. Everywhere east of Eastern Ontario has never been resolved. Here in Ontario where I live the Algonquins and the governments are resolving all of Eastern Ontario. The Mi'kmaq's traditional territory is all of the Maritimes. Not resolved. How is that -at all- the same as the demographics of the European colonists? Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
pls dont call me a racist --Moxy (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Like I said. Issues. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There's absolutely a place on Wikipedia for content about Canada's complex and evolving and problematic relationship with our indigenous peoples. But the place for that isn't the lead of the base overview article on Canada as a whole — it's in the many other articles that already exist on the subject of Canadian First Nations and Inuit and Métis peoples. It's not that the content is inherently invalid, it's that it doesn't belong where it was put. As important as things like the Indian Act and residential schools and Chanie Wenjack are, they're not so critically important that they need to be addressed before we've even told the reader that Canada is a parliamentary democracy. They're an advanced course in Canadiana, not the introductory lecture to Canada 101. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Image spam

Just removed the addition of several ramdom images. I think it's best we discuss any image before it's placed in this FA article.--Moxy (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok so let's set some facts straight:
  • I added an image of Toronto in "Demographics" because I think that on a country's article there should be an image of its biggest city.
  • I added four images of various Canadian landscapes because it is the world's second biggest country and there was no landscape picture at all on the article I read.
  • I added an image of Old Quebec in "Culture" because I think architecture is part of a country's cultural identity and it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

What is wrong with that? How is it spamming?

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Toronto, city at the heart of Canada's biggest metropolitan area
    Although an FA image its so small its not even recognizable as a picture or a painting.
  • An image gallery of this nature is generally discouraged for all articles especially in FA and GA level articles about countries i.e Australia and United States. In fact only 2 percent of articles have them because of image sizing problems in mobile vs desktop modes WP:IG. That said and as I have said in the past if all could agree on 3 or 4 national parks in different seasons that would be a good idea....if the idea of a gallery will even fly with the old-timers.
  • It's just a semi-random selection of images. Granted it covers the various regions and seasons, but why these particular ones? They're not iconic or particularly recognizable places. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Old Quebec and its 17th-century architecture, nowadays a World Heritage Site
    Not sure how a rain bleak image full of people and cars represents Canadian culture?
What do others think?--Moxy (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The pictures removed from the article and reproduced above tell me more about Canada than most of the pictures that remain in the article. When I look at the picture on the right, I don't see a rain bleak image full of people and cars, I see an interesting roofline and some old facades, and realise that I'd much rather visit Québec than Calgary. I see that Mont-Tremblant looks like a French ski resort (which in a sense it is). That's way more helpful than three pictures of Canadian soldiers fighting overseas. Sure, I appreciate what the Canadian Armed Forces have done, and they deserve to be honoured for it; but those military pictures do nothing to increase my understanding of Canada. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Mont-Tremblant and PEI are NPs, the two other Canadian well-known lakes. Toronto's skyline and Old Quebec are (in my opinion) relevant as Maproom argumented. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC).
  • Oppose gallery and excess images: Articles such as these are at least as much for the information of others as for the local inhabitants. As a UK visitor to friends in Canada, I see the pics in the current version do what they are meant to do: complement the text. A gallery of selected landscapes/ townscapes would not improve the article content. Maybe in Tourism in Canada, or in Wikivoyage[1]. The Old Quebec pic is not representative of anything in particular, could be a wet day street scene almost anywhere in a similar climate zone across the globe. Why Toronto (the image can be easily enlarged by click)? Why not Statue of Ilanaaq the Inunnguaq, mascot of the 2010 Winter Olympics[2] or Butchart Gardens[3] ? Toronto and the four other largest cities are listed at the end of the first paragraph, and their images can be seen by a click on their inline links. Likewise Rocky Mountains, and pics of the mountains and other features in "Geography and climate" can also be viewed by inline links. The pictures removed do very little to represent the great variety of Canada's scenery or the way the inhabitants live in their cities, towns or great outdoors. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with much of what Qexigator stated. I just checked a smattering of articles (United States, United Kingdom, England, France, Italy, Germany and India) and they use images to illustrate the text, not the subject. In one article, there are images of the country's climate zones and in another, its geographic diversity. There aren't images of the largest city in those countries for the sake of including an image of those cities. If Toronto is important (not simply big) it should be represented in images that display that importance. And for the record, I'm opposed to calling the images SPAM as well. The word was poorly chosen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with images is that in a country as large as Canada, there are quite literally thousands of images on Wikipedia or Wikicommons that we could technically add to this article. Why Toronto and not Montreal or Vancouver? Why Quebec City in culture and not, say, Gord Downie or the Royal Ontario Museum or the National Gallery of Canada or the Château Frontenac? Why not the Canadian Broadcasting Centre? Why not all thirteen provincial or territorial premiers alongside JT? Why not Highway 401 as a transportation image, and then why not nine other provincial highways and 15 shipping ports and 27 international airports and a glut of road bridges and 27 different images of trains too? Why not an image of Sudbury, such as the Big Nickel or the Superstack, in the section on economy and industry — and then why not the Oshawa GM plant next to it, and then the Athabasca Oil Sands next to that, and then a wheat thresher on a Manitoba farm field after that, yadda yadda? And on and so forth: in a broad overview article about a country as big as Canada, the array of images that could be added to the article is immense enough to vastly overload it — so we shouldn't just be adding images willy-nilly, but should seek consensus before adding new ones. So I'm not necessarily opposed to the images WhatsUpWorld added — but they should have sought discussion first to establish a consensus for them, because when it comes to the selection of images in this article the potential for "why this and not that too?" editwarring is just too insanely high. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Those !voting "Oppose" above are correct. It is Wikipedia policy that images should illustrate the text (even if they contribute nothing useful). I am reminded of this BBC sketch. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, your call guys! WhatsUpWorld (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor has requested comments from other editors for a discussion about Charles, Prince of Wales in its talk page, under "RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession?" Feel free to go there and join the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Coat of arms redux

To help facilitate the end of a recent edit-war, I start yet another discussion on Canada's COA. There have been multiple past discussions on the COA, which have resulted in a hidden comment against including the COA, but the new spate of edit-warring has taken to removing the hidden comment and revealing the flawed COA behind it. As this is a featured article, I find editing tactics based on edit-warring and removing hidden comments, as failing to safeguard the WP:QUALITYCONTROL required to maintain its featured level. So, please discuss, instead of reverting, and try to reach consensus for the inclusion of the COA rendition. Dr. K. 14:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

*Remove. The two COAs are quite different as shown by the following two images: Official COA versus unofficial rendition. Dr. K. 14:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Omit both. We cannot use the original, as it fails WP:FUR. We also cannot use the rendition as it is not accurate enough. Clarified my comment above. Dr. K. 16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Keep The two images are different and the official one is the only one that should be included here. The fact that there is a version that is correct to heraldic standards is nice, but it would upset any Canadian reader or other reader who is familiar with the official coat. By removing the comment misguided editors are informed of the current WP:CONSENSUS and are give the opportunity to avoid an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Clarification: By my "remove" comment, I meant "remove the rendition COA from the infobox". Not sure, what you want to "Keep" Walter. Dr. K. 04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion. I want to keep the hidden comment and keep the heraldic version away from the infobox and the copyrighted one can't be used. I thought we were discussing the hidden comment, not the images as there is clear consensus on excluding both and the reasons for doing so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just the official COA If we can't use the official one under Wikipedia terms, if that is the problem, then continue to omit both. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Omit both - It is present on the Arms of Canada and Monarchy of Canada pages. That's enough. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit both. The one we can use, we cannot use; and the one we cannot use, we can not use. Or the other way around... --T*U (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Omit both. The user made rendition is wholly inappropriate, and discussing the finer points of heraldry is irrelevant as the discussion is one of state logos, not of heraldic practices. trackratte (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to get editors to respond, you need to explain what the dispute is about. For example why are there official and unofficial versions and how do they differ. TFD (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That's easy. The official one is the one that was commissioned by her Majesty's government. For some reason, they placed a copyright on that version. There is a copy here, but apparently, the presence of that copyright prevents it fair use in any article where it is not discussed at length. We cannot simply elect to display it everywhere we would like. However, that commissioned work was based on heraldic principles. That is a description that someone who is interested in flags, coats of arms and the like, can use to describe such a work. That work is not a sufficiently recognizable representation. Most who have seen the official version would consider that to be a poor copy. As it's not needed to understand the subject of Canada, there is a consensus on the page, not to include any copy. This discussion is designed to determine if that should or should not continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment on above, from an entirely disinterested reader's (occasional editor) npov:
  • The flag, as in the infobox of the article's current version, is both well suited to the article, and elegant in itself; it is visually better without being cluttered with an heraldic coat of arms alongside, whether the "official" copyrighted version or any other available heraldically correct one. To my mind that is sufficient reason against putting any such coat of arms in the infobox.
  • However, it is not self-evident that the "unofficial" version is unworthy of use, nor why it arouses such feelings of distress in its opponents, or can truly be denounced as "not a sufficiently recognizable representation". Qexigator (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It is unsuitable and offensive in the same was as the Canadian flag representation below is unsuitable for the Canada page, or as this US representation (also below) is unsuitable for the United States page, although both are fine images, and both are perfectly heraldically correct, but such a discussion is irrelevant once again as we are not just talking about pretty pictures, or what is correct according to heraldry, but very specific state logos. trackratte (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Flag of Canada (1964).svg
US 51-star alternate flag.svg
Perhaps I should clarify that my above comment was about the Coat of Arms not the flag. But then, while "representation of the flag below/(adjacent) may be "unsuitable for the Canada page", to whom would it be"offensive", outside a snowflake location? Is the flag heraldically regulated, as the blazon of arms is? The image of "One possible design for a future 51-star United States flag - circular star pattern" has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and why would anyone in or outside USA find that "offensive"? Display of the royal arms of England instead of Scotland in an article about Scotland (or vice versa) would be unsuitable, and in some circumstances would be seen as likely to give offence. And if there is a notable Canada "state logo", should not something about it be added for the npov information of visitors to the article? Qexigator (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Clarification:Is this not something a Canadian government official, or representative of the College of Arms, would be willing to discuss, given the scope of Wikipedia and amount of people who rely on it to provide information in all areas, not to mention Canada itself? I mean, what is the current deal with the United Kingdom's standard COA, is there a copyright on that one? UnknownBrick22 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2017 (GMT)

Representative democracy

@TheCorduroyEffect: added the term "representative democracy under" on November 21. While it was done without explanation, it was obvious why. This change was also made on the Australia article. I saw it and thought it was a good addition. I suspect many other editors saw it and left it in-place. @Bokmanrocks01: saw it and modified it so it read "representative democracy under a" on November 25. Again, no change and no reverts from the regulars. I assumed it had attained a silent consensus. December 5, Bokmanrocks01 then removed it without explanation first at Australia and then here. I reverted both and tagged the editor's talk page for unexplained changes. Shortly after, Bokmanrocks01 reverted me, stating "Democracy" is too broad a term to use. Other const. monarchies like the UK don't use "democracy". First, arguing that another article does or doesn't have a term is not a reason to add or remove a term from the infbox. The only question is whether it is supported in the article , which it's not but clearly should be, and whether it applies to the country, which it does. From what I understand about infoboxes, that it's a broad term is immaterial. Both federalism and parliamentary system are broad terms, and they have been linked in the infobox and are not discussed in the article. That the UK doesn't have it is similarly immaterial. Should it stay or should it go or should we re-craft the infobox, again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I belive I removed this once before years ago....but left it there in the past few years because it is correct. That said the linked article needs so real help.--Moxy (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC) the nation's official website

Is it the official website or does the nation even have one website? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, just the main website portal of the government. I've removed it again as it is against the use of the field on Infobox country which explicitly states not to link to a government website as that isn't the country's website. "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. for countries (e.g. United States)." Canterbury Tail talk 00:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Are we about to see an edit war over the selection of orthographic projection used in the infobox

I just saw an editor add File:CAN orthographic.svg and remove File:Canada (orthographic projection).svg. I'm pretty sure I saw the reverse a few days ago. For those of you who can't tell the difference, let me tell you what I see. The CAN image seems to have Canada centred, there is greater detail of features (lakes, islands, and borders) and the non-Canadian features are similarly details and shaded a lighter grey and at 551 × 551 pixels is 1.83 MB. The other image at 541 × 541 pixels is 487 KB, or more than a quarter of its size. I'd be interested in why the images where switched, but I can't see any reason to restore the Canada file as the CAN file is overall better and when pushed to my infobox is 220 pixels in size, so even smaller. Registered editors can determine the size of their thumbnails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

rfc: Remove "representative democracy" from infobox government classification

Consensus was reached to remove the term. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Government Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy

I propose we use the terms in the infobox I included, because the term "democracy" is too subjective, especially in the context of modern rhetoric where "Democracy" is held to be the greatest ideal. I think using "democracy" causes bias where a supposedly neutral encyclopedia article is effectively calling a certain country a "good" country, which in that case you might as well officially define the United States as a free country in its article, or using opinionated terms like "evil" in Nazi Germany's article. My point is, Wikipedia should be neutral, and even if you agree that Canada is a democracy, or the US is a free country, or Nazi Germany was evil, which many people including me do, it is not up to Wikipedia, which its only role is to provide objective facts.

I also want to note that pretty much all of what would be seen as free democratic constitutional monarchies also don't use "representative democracy" in its infobox including United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, or Luxembourg. Neither do other commonwealth countries with Elizabeth II as its head of state such as New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, The Bahamas and others. Australia also uses "democracy" but I'm willing to bet its the same person who added it to Canada. I'm told its irrelevant what other articles do, but I think a hint of consistency is also good sometimes. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I might also add that articles for the United States, France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, and Japan among others also don't use "democracy" even though I think we would all agree those countries listed are generally liberal democracies as well. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Reasons provided in the discussion above. BTW, when a discussion can't come to a consensus, then you start an RfC. They are not created in lieu of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Follow sources. This is not something for editors to decide based on their own opinions. If the notable majority of independent RSs call Canada a "representative democracy" then it goes in, else it doesn't. Other arguments are basically ILIKEIT. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is, how do you quantify? You would need to provide sources that clearly state it is not a representative democracy. This is from a quick Google search: [4] [5] [6] (they call it Representative Government rather than representative democracy) [7]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"How to qualify quantify"? Well, you certainly don't use Google. And you don't look for some kind of odd anti-supporting sourcing, just for sources that support, like normal. There's no special "problem" here. Any and all unsourced information in the infobox gets removed, period. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, quantify. I understand the difference and I know what I wrote. I was aiming at addressing WP:UNDUE. You're argument is nonsense. Google is perfectly fine and it yielded good sources. Based on your logic, most of the other terms in the infobox are not supported so they can be safely removed. Also, please learn how to correctly indent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(Corrected my misspell above; sorry.) Google trumps reliable sources? Saying it doesn't is "nonsense"? Seriously?
Since the infobox is in the lede, per MOS:LEADCITE, it does not need refs that are repeated in the body, but it needs sources, as any part of WP. So, yes, anything without sources can be deleted, infobox or not.
(BTW, this is a normal threaded discussion about a bullet point, not more points on the list. Please don't modify others' comments.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove It adds nothing. All modern democracies are representative. TFD (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Indenting style is an exception to the modification of others comments rule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove. TFD is right about this. While it's certainly true that Canada is a representative democracy, it's not a characteristic that requires singling out as if it set Canada apart from other democracies — there's no such thing in today's world as a non-representative democracy, so being "representative" is not a thing that makes Canadian democracy different from American or British or German or New Zealand or Australian or South African or French or Belgian democracies. Certainly there are aspects of democratic governance that do differ from one country to another — but "representative" is not one of them. And at any rate, editors not removing content immediately does not automatically equal consensus to keep it — sometimes it just equals "nobody actually noticed it until the discussion was raised". Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only "federal" and "representative" are sourced in the article (see "Federalism and Representation in the Theory of the Founding Fathers: A Comparative Study of US and Canadian Constitutional Thought"). The rest, "parliamentary", "democracy" and "constitutional monarchy" are all gone. That was easy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And the consensus of silence was supported by follow-up edits without removal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Followup edits without removal" don't in and of themselves demonstrate that those people noticed that it was there. I've made edits to one part of an article, such as correcting a mistyped link, lots of times without necessarily always noticing if there were problems with other parts of the article that I hadn't examined in depth. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove I prefer to avoid subjective characterizations in info boxes. Billhpike (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove (summoned by bot) - Looks like a storm in a teacup. "Parliamentary" already implies representative democracy. Why belabour the point? In terms of style, "Federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy" sounds like the right wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove and I support the phrasing put forward by Kautilya3. AdA&D 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canada's territory is objectively located in the northern half of the North American continent

Let's be real here, folks. Geographic accuracy and truth is what we strive for on Wikipedia. And now I'm shooting for consensus too because that's what Wikipedia is all about. That's the reason why I put this on the talk page. InterestingCircle (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What's geographically accurate and true about North America is that it includes Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and the Caribbean Islands. Which is why Canada is described in this article as "northern part" rather than "northern half" — if you draw a line from Ellesmere Island to Panama, Canada does not span half of that line. It would be half of North America if you defined North America as ending at the Rio Grande, sure, but North America does not end at the Rio Grande. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, being in the northern half of North America is not the same as being the northern half. Master of Time (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Then it would be entirely unnecessary to insist on the word "half" over the word "part" at all. There's not enough difference in meaning between the two words for it to be worth raising a dispute over "part", if "North America ends at the Rio Grande" wasn't the intended implication — the only possible semantic reason to insist on "half" over "part" is if you're trying to hammer on the literal implication of exact fifty-fifty halfness. There's no reason to take issue with "part" otherwise, because if you take away the implication of precision carried by "half" then there's no actual difference in meaning left at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@InterestingCircle: Consensus has not changed since the last time you raised this issue. You can continue to be the only one who holds this opinion, but it has not changed my understanding of the geography of North America, nor where Canada lies in relation to it. And for the record, Canad is not objectively in the norther half of North America. There are parts of it that are below the half-way mark of North America. Of course, it depends how one determines the bounds of North America, but that's another discussion altogether. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"Half" is unhelpful. More significantly, it's unsourced. There is no agreement on what exactly defines the "half" point of a continent. Suggesting this is a waste of time, at best. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor who posed the question has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. I think it's safe to close the discussion unless a different editor supports this idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Northernmost point of North America, 83°40′N. (Extreme_points_of_North_America)
Southernmost point of North America, 5°31′8″N (Extreme_points_of_North_America)
Midpoint line of North America, 44° 35′ 34″ N (calculated between those two extremes)
Most southerly point of Canadian territory (waters off Middle Island) 41°40′53″N.
Southernmost point of Canada is south of the midpoint line of North America. So stating Canada is in the north half of North America, while factually correct, is not the whole story because it's also in the southern half of North America. Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
True, but if we take this away from Motivação, et al, it will be harder to find and block each new sockpuppet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Original 10 year old FA lead still at P:CA.--Moxy (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

Please change the current file of the Canadian anthem ("Fr-Ô_Canada.ogg") to ("United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.ogg"). It's because the old audio is in very poor quality" CrAzY eDiToR (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done The US Navy version does not have the commonly used chords or harmonization. While the melody is correct, the rest is not an accurate representation of the anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Whatever your problem is with Fr-Ô_Canada.ogg, in what possible way could United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.ogg be better? Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm with @CrAzY eDiToR:. Grainy 111-year-old recording < Clear modern recording. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 08:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Remove current version of national anthem from infobox (as somebody already said, "Not right that only the French lyrics [are being sung], especially on [English!] Wikipedia"). Do not replace as there is no consensually satisfactory versionReplace with the previous standing version (i.e. the midi version) (rationale for my earlier proposal: readers could click the link to the article about it (which has no less than 6 versions) if they wished to hear it.) (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before making this request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the current version is undeniably unrepresentative of Canada... (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How so, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Why was it even changed from the piano version to begin with? I don't see any sort of consensus for that. Cryptic Canadian 05:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Have no clue. The piano (i.e. midi) version at least isn't unrepresentative (though it's still not the best option in plenty of other ways). (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template., this needs consensus as there has been a dispute about which anthem version to use. Maybe we should start a request for comment. — MRD2014 Talk 00:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I support the OP's suggestion. No audio file in the infobox is better than a rubbish one. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 09:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


"The majority of the country has a cold or severely cold winter climate, but southern areas are warm in summer." Oh come on! All parts of Canada are at least warm in the summer if not hot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that that sentence in the lead should be changed in some way. It is inaccurate. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Replaced with.....

    Canada's climate varies wildly across it's vast territory ranging from arctic weather in the north, to four distinct seasons with hot summers in the southern regions.

--Moxy (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Check out the tweaks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect....I fixed my typo widely not wildly.--Moxy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Within the information box on the right, add the Coat of Arms next to the Flag similar to the pages for the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done The correct coat is copyrighted and no fair use rationale is possible for this article. The other is not sufficiently accurate and its use has been excluded several times. Feel free to review the archived discussions for both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC: National anthem

There is a consensus that because none of the files meet all of the desired criteria (quality, accuracy, professionalism, etc), that no file should be used. If and when a file can be located that does lend itself to "properly" portray the anthem, it can be added. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current sound file of the national anthem in the article's infobox is File:Fr-Ô Canada.ogg, a recording that is over a century old. It has a bitrate of 100 kilobits, which, combined with its vocals, makes the melody rather difficult to hear. The entire thing is very out of place, given that a) the vocals are also from the French version of the song rather than the English version, which would be easier to understand for most visitors to the English Wikipedia, and b) on the infoboxes on articles for other countries, instrumental versions of their anthems seem to be far more common.

There are some alternatives available, but usually whenever someone adds them, they get reverted on the basis that consensus has already been established. Going back through the archives of this talk page, there have indeed been discussions on the issue going back to at least 2012, but it seems to be a very weak consensus. One of the main contenders for the replacement is the higher quality File:United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg, but this has proven somewhat controversial: see exhibits A, B, C D, among others I'm likely missing.

The other alternative is File:O Canada.ogg, a simplistic but recognizable piano version, which existed on the article for some time before it was removed a few months ago without any explanation, but no longer seems to be the de facto replacement for the US Navy version.

This seems to be a persistent issue that seems to challenge the consensus that has apparently been established so I've decided to open this up to RFC. Cryptic Canadian 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I'm seeing that the consensus was decided and continues to be enforced by a small group of 2 to 3 different editors. I observe the recurring presence of one particular editor who seems to have a particular vendetta against the US Navy recording going back to 2011, which makes me all the more skeptical that the apparent precedent isn't just a mildly welcomed opinion from half a decade ago passing as consensus.
It perplexes me that, out of all of the available renditions of a national anthem, the best version that we can come up with for a featured article on a country is one that's outdated, too poor in quality to be recognizable to the public at large, and just outright cheesy to the modern ear -- all while being held back by a half decade-long pissing contest that appears to be bogged down with the subjective opinions of a few different editors. Cryptic Canadian
The US Navy rendition, like it or not, has flourishes and filigrees that aren't actually part of the real melody but are not harmonically or instrumentally distinct enough from the main melody for anybody who isn't already familiar with the song to know which parts of it don't belong there. Thus, it is not an accurate or suitable representation, and the fact that anybody could possibly think that version should be preferred is simply mystifying, frankly. Of the three versions that have actually been proffered for discussion here, the existing one is actually the best and most appropriate choice among those options — cheesy or not, it's at least accurate, unlike the US Navy one, and the toy piano one is significantly cheesier. Would a better rendition be welcome? Yes, absolutely, if somebody can actually find and upload one. Would we love it if Michael Bublé or Charlotte Cardin or Alessia Cara recorded a new performance of it for contemporary pop cred, and gave us a high bit rate copy under a Creative Commons license? Sure, we'd die of joy. But we haven't had any better rendition than the existing one uploaded to Wikipedia as of yet — all we've had is people who, for no reason that they've deigned to actually explain, hate the existing version with a capital what-the-actual-fuck-is-any-sane-person's-problem, to the point that they're willing to upload worse versions to replace it with. By all means, find a better version. But there hasn't been a better version provided as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
With all of the people who've tried to add the US Navy one back in, it's clear that there's still not agreement on whether a bit of exaggeration is a bad thing. I would be surprised to come across an anthem at the top of an article that didn't deviate from the original to some degree. If we're going to go full Puritan, why not just put the piano version back? Cryptic Canadian 04:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, who said anything about Puritanism? Secondly, the piano version is the worst option in the mix. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You made your appeal against the Navy version by denying its authenticity. If we disregard every reasoning against the piano one except how it lines up with the melody of O Canada, then how is it not the best option? Cryptic Canadian 05:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Because it sounds like it's being played by a six-year-old kid on a Meowsic, maybe? Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
But it's an accurate representation of the melody of O Canada, right? That's my point. Cryptic Canadian 05:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Which means you're not understanding mine, if you think that's a clever retort to it. There are two criteria that both have to be met by the recording of choice, of which the second is sounding like it was recorded by an actual professional musician. Navy band passes that criterion but fails the accuracy, piano passes accuracy but fails the professionalism, and the existing recording passes both. Not that hard. At any rate, I'd still like to see anybody provide an actual explanation of why the navy band version should be preferred — people just revert-war over it, but not one person has ever actually provided an explanation of why it was somehow better to them, or preferable to the existing one. It's always been just "replace because I wanna, bye", or "the current version is unrepresentative of Canada" with no explanation of either how that's true or how the navy band version is somehow more "representative of Canada". Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be "clever" about anything, but your defensiveness here is certainly speaking for itself. Your primary issue was its difference from the "official" melody. Consequently, the piano version seemed to be the closest thing to satisfy that. I would have thought for sure that professionalism stopped being a priority when we began debating the merits of using a carbon microphone recording to present a national anthem to the world in 2018. The "why" question is beyond my comprehension, because I'm not educated enough to explain to someone how our audio receptors are wired to our brains differently. But while we're on the subject, could you explain to me why people don't appreciate the sounds of a nail dragging across a chalkboard? What about it makes it less preferable to the sound of using straight chalk instead? I know we're all wiki-crats here, but good lord, we have to draw the line somewhere. What kind of reaction would you seriously expect if you presented both recordings to 100 random people who aren't part of this debate? Cryptic Canadian 05:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A similar situation occured on the page of the national anthem, O Canada. The most recent discussion (involving me and the above mentioned editor, and a few passing remarks from some others) ended without consensus. The situation was boldly resolved by adding the official melody in lilypond format in the article and completely removing the anthem audio from the infobox, since obviously consensus couldn't be reached about which version to have. That solution, although quite practical, cannot be applied here (the most obvious reason being that this article isn't actually about the anthem...). I've also made an objective analysis of the available recordings in that discussion ([8]) - in the process, making comments about harmonizations and familiarity - comments which I'm not really keen to repeat since I think there's a chance they might fall on deaf ears. But just for the sake of it, flourishes (which are actually mostly in the bass line or in the harmony - you'd need to have really no musical ear no to distinguish the lower voices from the melody) are perfectly acceptable. (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
After reading that, I'm convinced that this editor is walking a fine line between WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:BATTLE. I have a hard time believing that something like this can persist for years in the name of making these articles useful. Cryptic Canadian 05:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You obviously haven't listened to the US Navy rendition if you think "lower voices" or bass lines have anything to do with it. In several places, the same instruments just keep waltzing past the end of melody line, with no bass line or harmony voices or lower voices, or any other form of differentiation whatsoever, present to mark it as anything distinct from the real melody — the same instruments just keep going into fantasyland for a bar or two before coming back to where they're supposed to be. Nobody who didn't already know what they were supposed to be hearing would have any way to know they'd been taken on a joyride, because there's no hint whatsoever of the harmonic or instrumental distinctions that you describe. What you're describing is one thing, but what the US Navy band does in that rendition is an entirely different thing that bears no relation whatsoever to your thing. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's called suspension - it's the lower voices (or more properly, the resolution of harmonic cadences which is delayed at the end of phrases), not the melody - see the middle section of this piece by Bach for an example of "suspension" - (see wikitext ). (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about notes being "suspended" or "delayed", or notes being played in "lower voices" — I'm talking about several places where the main voice melody line simply inserts several extra new, unsuspended, undelayed and unlowered notes that aren't supposed to be there at all, and aren't resolving any cadences that weren't already resolved. I may not have a Ph.D. in music, but I do know more than you seem to think I do. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The navy version has the correct melody - there are, as I said, occasional flourishes (for example, at the end of the 7th phrase (first occurrence of "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee"), where there is clearly a non-melodic scale passage in the lower voices). Concerning your comment above "There are two criteria that both have to be met by the recording of choice, of which the second is sounding like it was recorded by an actual professional musician." - the current french version in the article is not accurate since it's, well, only french (and has the 4th verse which is never sung), and the sound quality is worse. (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • No stated before we have a page for this. Sound file does not help readers understand Canada.--Moxy (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I would find this preferable to the current situation. Cryptic Canadian 23:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I also support this option (no file) - I think the US Navy version is good enough but obviously there's always gonna be someone who disagrees so better just solve the matter once and for all. (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated more than once, the United States Navy Band version uses a chord structure that is not familiar to Canadians and is therefore wrong. This is what Bearcat is saying. In the past it has been suggested that a RS be provided to support that, but no RS has been provided to support the case that the proposed version is a correct version and not an interpretation of it. The current bilingual version, as archaic as it may appear to some editors, sufficiently represents the anthem and being bilingual is a plus. I would sooner have those who want a change to an improved version make the effort to find one that isn't a recording of the performance of the score used by the United States Navy Band. In fact, I'd be happy to have it an all versions based on that score be deleted from Commons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your first assertion is challenged by the fact that this seems to be a repeated and controversial issue among Canadians maintaining this page. On what authority, exactly, can you dictate what is and isn't familiar to people? I happen to be a Canadian who finds it familiar. Cryptic Canadian 00:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As stated above I belive no file is best.......but do agree the US NAVY version is simply way off the mark.....almost any other file we have is better.--Moxy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Your first response is challenged by the assumption that it's Canadians who want that incorrect audio file to be included. On what authority, exactly, can you determine that all those who complain here are Canadians? That you finds [sic] it familiar is because you are likely not musical.
Also, what you belive [sic] is immaterial. That the melody may be familiar to you does not mean that it is correct any more that a jazz arrangement of a song may be familiar but not correct. We are not debating the artistic merits of the song but its accurate representation of the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I'm more concerned about your attachment to the matter rather than the matter itself. "These people disagree with me? They're probably not Canadian. They're just not musical, either." It sounds like it's from a position of smug superiority. Is this how you respond to everyone who prefers the Navy sample? Here's an idea: play both clips to 100 random people in Toronto or something, and see what kind of responses you get when you start questioning the national backgrounds and musical tastes of people. These aren't exclusive clubs for people who might be as "enlightened" as you seem to be. Cryptic Canadian 03:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no more attachment to the matter any more than you do. I suggest you comment on the content not the editors. You're attributing motivations to me that are in no way representative. What I do have is a knowledge of music and a good ear. If that's enlightened, I'm sorry you feel that way about me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to recap, I've listed some old talk page threads going back many years and saw another discussion linked by the IP above where you've constantly been quick to show up and crush dissent. You then came here, made condescending remarks on behalf of an entire nationality while questioning others' musical preferences, and even pettily misattributed someone else's spelling error to me. This isn't the kind of history and conduct I would normally expect from an apparent third party who didn't intend to participate in bad faith. I highly recommend leaving out the snide comments and combative attitude if this was not the intent. Cryptic Canadian 07:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to reframe. I do this for fun. I spend a lot of time doing it. I notice when changes happen. I have had this article on my talk page for many years. When something is wrong, in my opinion, I offer my opinion. I didn't misatribute someone's spelling error to you. I simply commented on it.
Now let's talk about you. No, that's against WP:NPA and WP:DNFTT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:DV. Cryptic Canadian 05:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"I have had this article on my talk page for many years. When something is wrong, in my opinion, I offer my opinion". "Offer an opinion" is a pretty weak way to describe whatever it is that happens. Oh, by the way, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE (if one can even call the present situation a (very weak) consensus in the first place). (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"been provided to support the case that the proposed version is a correct version" - if anybody wanted to use that argument, it would be attacking a straw man since I never said it is the correct version, my argument is (quoting from Talk:O Canada) "neither the US Navy harmony or the [supposedly] common harmony is official, therefore we are free to use whichever we happen to have a better recording of available" - which is undoubtedly the US Navy version (per arguments linked earlier). "The current bilingual version" - the version currently in the article is in French only. "That the melody may be familiar to you" - the melody is not "familiar" to me; rather, it's the same melody as the one that is officially approved by Parliament (the nearest thing to an "alteration" are short breaths not indicated on the score taken in the middle of the longer middle section (i.e. covering the 3rd through 7th lines), which is usually done in vocal versions as well). The embellishments added in the US Navy version do not affect the melody or the ability to clearly hear the melody. (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As I argued on that talk page, we are not free to use either version. The US Navy version is incorrect and disorienting. It is incorrect recording quality notwithstanding. Since breath marks are not indicated in the score. The changes in the Navy version are not merely embellishments, they're entirely incorrect and unfamiliar. You can try to justify it, but it will not fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Breath marks need not be indicated in the score - at least, they breath at the end of phrases, which is quite a logical (and musically justified) thing to do. Another example of short breaths at the end of phrases: ( ). And File:O Canada English Weir 1928.ogg and probably all other versions... (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC) And the french language version currently in the article also has non-indicated breaths, actually even right after the first phase (i.e. O Canada! [breath] Terre de nos aieux [...]) (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No change The other versions presented don't seem to be true renditions to my ears. Although I am not a professional musician, I can recognize the current version(while, yes, historical) instantly. If it must change the us navy version is closest, but in my opinion not quite right. Outback the koala (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you stand the historical instrumental version (i.e. File:O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg), which doesn't have lyrics and thus doesn't pose any problem on that front (though, it is of markedly inferior sound quality and has real differences from the official version in the melody...)? (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IMO, I think none of the versions belong in this article. Until such time as a fully acceptable, meaning widespread consensus, version is available, leave it out. I think we should investigate where it might be possible to retrieve a new version. It may be possible that the Govt of Canada will commission one, as there is now a new legal version of the lyrics. I;ll mention this to my local MP. Alaney2k (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not suitable for use on WP, per this earlier discussion. (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary of positions

The above thread is getting a bit hard to follow, so I'd ask everyone to also summarize their preferred outcomes here:

Further discussion

So really no concensus for a stuck with the status quo. --Moxy (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how my or Cryptic's comment can be possibly construed as supporting "no change". (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to link WP:NOCONSENSUS.--Moxy (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, so far, the only two persons who have given a summary here seem to support a change. And, especially for contentious matters (whether it's living persons or a country, though arguably countries can be construed as being "living"), when there is no consensus, it can also be removed. (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I would love to see it removed....but the "living persons" clause is about liability. Places are not considered living. One of the downfalls about no consensus is were are normally stuck with the status quo if it's not inflammatory or liable.--Moxy (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you want it removed, then that is a valid option. Your earlier comments lead me to believe that is what you wanted. (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yup hate any playable files in the info box....been trying for years to get anthems removed. But I understand that there is a clear concensus to have them. No file would is my "vote" but will not I am hoping for is a recognizable version.--Moxy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, there is consensus, if nothing else, to remove the current version (i.e. "remove entirely"). (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is to what? No file is a winner. I could see us reverting to the older file that was stable for years because it did not cause as many problems.--Moxy (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your comment seems a bit confusing. I never talked of any problem. And, "not cause as many problems" means that there still were some, right? And the best long term option would be to completely remove it until a suitable option comes up (given that the nearest thing to a suitable version we have seems to be opposed for arguments which clearly fall outside the scope of reasoned discussion - i.e. appeals to tradition and nationalism) (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Not you ....this file that was added seems to be a problem over the past year. No file would lead to endless editwars with others always trying to add one because they think its missing.--Moxy (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That can be fixed by putting a nice notice: "<!-- do not add audio file without obtaining consensus, see [[Talk:Canada#RFC:_National_anthem|the talk page]] -->" (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I should remember not to take long weekends off. I agree that there is no consensus except that the anon wants it to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:IPHUMAN. And somehow, I am the ONLY person that says it must change? That's incorrect. (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't be a META:DICK friend. I never implied you were not human and playing the "poor me" card doesn't fly so stop it. I have, in the past, taken a stand against an editor who wanted to prevent any IPs from editing. I am fully cognizant of your contributions but without a user name, I will only be able to refer to you as anon, unless you would like me to call you, "Gatineau". It's your call. Again, the use of anon is simply a name for you and not an attempt to degrade.
And allow me to clarify what I was trying to say. Other editors have commented on the change, but you're the only editor who keeps pushing for one. You did so on the "O Canada" article, but you're not getting traction here as there are more editors who are discussing it here.
Finally, you've used this tactic in the discussion on "O Canada" as well: you slag the person you're discussing with and attempt to make it seem as though they have something against you and play on their sympathies. I don't care for that tactic. I don't care if you do or don't get an account (but I do have questions as to why you don't, but would never assume you must have one to participate). So stick to the actual discussion: does the anthem sound file need a change? If so, why? If so, to which should it be changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Then I misinterpreted your comment. I am pushing for a change because there's a problem (obviously, I'm not the only one who says there's a problem, there have been discussions about this for years...). I objected to your comment because you also say I'm the "only" one. Look, I actually tried arguing my case (didn't work with you) so I went for something bold and it worked. I'd have gone for the same here because it's exactly the same problem as at O Canada, except of course for page protection. So we come here again, with the same arguments, obviously because nobody else is welling to be bold and do the right thing, and then we're stuck with a fight between somebody who wants to do it once and for all and, on the other side, what appears almost as a WP:IDHT attitude. (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This is entirely a false dichotomy. That there may be a problem for some is no reason to introduce a worse problem (a version that is not correctly representative of the anthem, or remove the anthem completely). That you don't hear that is self-evident. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, and in that of others, no anthem is not a worse problem, or even a problem. Don't say I am not "hearing you" - I can't make the make the same change to an opinion twice (i.e. I already agreed (implicitly, in the previous discussion; and explicitly in this one) that including the US Navy version might not be the best, since it creates conflict - I don't need to agree to that again, my opinion hasn't changed). (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
So you're ignoring me in this? I definitely want it to change. The only reason I now primarily argue for its removal instead is to placate the kind of person who gets belligerent over this sort of thing. Cryptic Canadian 23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Let the record show that I want it to change as well; so that puts me in the same boat as @, @CrAzY eDiToR:, and @Cryptic Canadian: (making at least four of us that wants the current status quo to be changed). Personally I'd prefer the USN or USMC versions since they're clear, modern recordings done by professional bands, but if that's not possible then just have no audio file at all. No audio file is better than a rubbish one from 111 years ago that's barely audible. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 08:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Version on

The government has released mp3s of the anthem with the French lyrics, unofficial bilingual lyrics, and post Feb 7 2018 English lyrics plus an instrumental on their website. [1] Seeing as these are coming from the Canadian government they're probably our best bet compared to the other versions that have been suggested. I haven't been able to get any of these on the commons without being automatically flagged so if anyone can get them up that'd be appreciated. NuclearElevator (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear that the media files are being released under terms other than the "terms and conditions" link at the bottom of the page. Since commercial reproduction is not allowed, the files cannot be used on English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
They're copyrighted, IIRC (unlike the U.S. and the Philippines, whose government works are public domain). They were uploaded on Commons and removed for that reason, unfortunately. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 08:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the copyright status was already discussed earlier. (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
These are new files, so I checked again to see if anything had changed. There is still no explicit copyright or licensing information that I can see, other than the link at the bottom of the page. I downloaded the instrumental version to see if there was any embedded information in the file's meta data tags, and did not see anything. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Barring a clear and concise statement from the Canadian government saying "This is free and public domain, do what you want with it!" we have to assume it's copyrighted. While there are nations whose governments' works are automatically in the public domain (such as the U.S. and the Philippines), Canada is unfortunately not one of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did in fact assume this, in addition to assuming that the terms and conditions link was applicable. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


At the very least, it seems that there's consensus around removing it entirely. This seems like the least controversial option, so I just went ahead and did it. If someone else is interested in putting up one of the others discussed above, then I'll stand behind it. Cryptic Canadian 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to this move. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 06:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Is actually pronounced Caan-nada //greetings from Sweden Bomanski (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in Swedish but not in Canadian English. freshacconci (✉) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal Arms

Hello, I feel that the artist did a good job at staying true to the blazon of the Arms of Canada, and strongly feel that the rendition (commons:File: Coat_of_Arms_of_Canada_rendition.svg) should be allowed on the article, just like the arms of the United Kingdom is on their page. It isn't the official arms, and just a rendition from a picture and also from blazon drawn by Sodacan.
Thank you,
Kingdom of Baustralia (talk)
We have discussed this several times and it‘s not a close enough representation to the official, copyrighted version and feel that it would confusion Canadians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I do protest, as a Canadian myself, I feel he did a wonderful job. My opinion still stands about the UK arms as well. They are written from the blazon and is in fact accurate. But who am I to argue.
Thanks anyway,
Kingdom of Baustralia (talk)
I thought that I addressed this, but I guess I deleted that portion of my comment before saving. Please do not confuse "doing a good job based on the rules of heraldry" with "a representation that would be recognized by most Canadians". I recognize that you are interested in heraldry so I appreciate that you think that the original was correct based on the rules. The version may be sufficiently correct to someone, like you, who is interested in heraldry, but you'll see that the version that's there has garnered some changes over time. It's definitely not one that would be recognizable to a Canadian, as least not when compared with the copyrighted version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)