Talk:Canada/Archive 9

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



Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Ulternate Reality

Please, may someone add this link to the article? It provides a realistic view of canada from an immigrant's point of view. I don't consider this as biased or promoting hatred against canadians. However, free encyclopedia means freedom of thought and speech. Regards.

  • Forums are typically not considered appropriate targets to external links, unless there exists a special, pressing need for one (which is, essentially, never). Wikipedia is not a place for free thought or speech, I'm sorry to break your bubble. Wikipedia specifically forbids original research. WilyD 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point. The forum is more of a survey of immigrants' thoughts and can be considered an original research.
      • But most external links DO lead to sites where "original research" is displayed, so I'm confused by the prohibition on linking to forums. My understanding is that an external link is to be to a site where the reader can learn more about the topic of the WP article being linked from. I'd have thought a forum devoted to that topic would be appropriate (as opposed to commercial links and spam, which are to be deleted)? That said, I just deleted links at Airsoft because they were to several non-notable club forums, so I can see both sides of the argument. But if someone wanted to know more about Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, the best place to do that is to go to the [Battlefront forums.Michael Dorosh 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The link goes to a forum that describes itself as offering "this space to all of you wanting to say something regarding biased hiring and employment practices by companies in Canada or related issues addressed on our site.". I am not sure that this is a forum where readers can learn more about Canada in general, which is the subject of this article. I'm not going to say that there are no forums that could contain useful information on Canada, but this one seems a bit too specific. Eron 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed, Eron, I was speaking in general as the comment caught my attention -I've seen other uses of external links to forums. You are correct about this specific instance. I've left a message on WilyD's talk page so I can continue the general topic there - thanks for indulging me.:-)Michael Dorosh 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, if the link was on an article very specifically tailored to the forum's subject, I might let it slide, but for a generic article on Canada? It's unreliable, and not really addressing the subject at hand. WilyD 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, under economy the article talks about low employment rate. This forum would help provide some insight as to how employment rate is defined in canada: almost all immigrant professionals doing labor work is considered employment.
              • The article already provides a reference, in that section, to Statistics Canada information on employment rates, including how they are defined. Eron 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia-Germans in Canada

Who know anything about German villages in Canada? I think taht a lot of Germans are Russia-Germans in Canada!? Mostly they are Mennonites or Hutterer. Are they integrate in Canada? Here in Germany the Russia-Germans are handled like foreign people, although Germany is thei country of origin.

I would like to know more about Russia-Germans or German settlements in Canada! Friede sei mit Euch, Simon MAYER

You can read the German-Canadian article for a start. While some Mennonite and Hutterite groups do very much maintain a distinct culture, most Russo-Germans have largelly assimilated into Canadian culture. - SimonP 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the blood of both in my veins. My father's side of the family came from Wellesley Township, Ontario, and it's not at all uncommon to hear German there. I can speak it a bit and my father spoke it fluently. They were Mennonites, though my father left it at age 16 and I was never raised that way (I'm Lutheran and served in the U.S. Air Force, so my apple fell pretty far from the tree). My experience is that the German Mennonites/Amish around that area tend to be pretty insular in language and culture, but they do use English when interacting with other Canadians. The Russo-German/Canadian Mennonites are largely clustered around Steinbach, Manitoba. I have some very distant relatives there, according to family records.--MarshallStack 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually Russian, German and Ukrainians world be uprooted from their lands, prosecuted and had to start their lives all over again! Obviously this doesn’t happen anymore (as far as I know), but there is a large population.


Article layout

According to the Wikipedia:Guide to Layout style guide, Notes should go before References and the navigation bar should be at the very end of the article. "See also" can be omitted. heqs 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Guide says the Notes can equally well go after the References, which I strongly recommend. The Notes are otherwise confusing (since they link to sentences in the text). Rjensen 09:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I know it's just a guide, but where does it say that? It's actually because notes link to sentences in the text that they should follow the text as closely as possible -- less far to travel when clicking, scrolling, or flipping back and forth. heqs 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Guide says "Common appendix sections (in the preferred order; it is equally valid for "References" to precede "Notes". People don't scroll back and forth--the browser should take them to the endnote and back effortlessly. In my opinion, the references/bibliography is an essential part of the article. Rjensen 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I often scroll, especially near the end of the text when checking citations intently/carefully. And these articles do end up on paper sometimes. heqs 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba bilingual?

According to our Manitoba article, the province is officially bilingual. We should fix that if it isn't true. Jkelly 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And under the Bilingualism in Canada article, only New Brunswick is. I've never heard of Manitoba being officially bilingual. Hmmm.... -- Jeff3000 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's policy rather than law. See here.
Found some info here here. There is a major difference between Manitoba and New Brunswick (New Brunswick has it in the constitution), but the thing is, what is the definition of an "official" language. Here's the relevent quote:
"Everyone has the right to use English and French in the legislatures and courts of Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba; Laws must be enacted in both languages in Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba; At New Brunswick's request, English and French were included in the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms as the province's official languages. New Brunswick, therefore, has a constitutional obligation to provide government services in both languages; and In 1993, the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of New Brunswick adopted a bilateral amendment to the Constitution reflecting the concept of the equality of New Brunswick's linguistic communities.
It seems to me that Manitoba is like Quebec, they are allowed to speak in both languages in the provincial legislature, and laws have to be enacted in both laws, but it's not an official bilingualism. If Manitoba was considered officially bilingual, then Quebec would as well, and I think Quebec is considered not bilingual. -- Jeff3000 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I'm slightly tempted to footnote that here. Manitoba's article should probably be clarified and referenced. Jkelly 04:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a footnote is appropriate here. And as you suggested, the statement in the Manitoba article has to be clarified. I'll add a note to this article. -- Jeff3000 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Bearcat made an adjustment at Manitoba. Jkelly 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The province of Manitoba was declared to be Officially Bilingual under the Manitoba Act. The case Reference re Manitoba Language Rights says that the supreme court upheld that. Although ever since the Manitoba Schools Question, english is the major language of the province. It's officially bilingual under the BNA, 1867 and the Manitoba Act, but not under the Charter.Royalguard11 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Quebec is not bilingual, it has only one official language, French


Rjensen has first deleted locations in the references, which is just bad style, then he changed the references to delete some references, make the sectioning not match the article sectioning and added another reference. I don't mind adding another reference, but please do show what fact that reference covers that other references don't, also please don't erase other references which do cover facts as can be seen from the talk pages from around 2 months ago, when the drive went on to find references. -- Jeff3000 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, what is up with putting a reference in four places. What facts does it cover, that is not covered by other references. I will be removing at least three of them in the coming days if no good purpose for the references are there. -- Jeff3000 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Two points: location of publisher is misleading to users about half the time--it tells people to get hard-to find editions. In the age of Internet it is rarely useful. 2) As for the Canadian Encyclopedia, I used it to add information in the various sections, so it needs to be included. Rjensen 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion previously, having the location of the publisher is correct academic style, and is not misleading. The publisher's themselves indicate it in their books. Secondly, you have not indicated as of yet which precise facts you used the Canadian Encyclopedia for. I'm waiting for them. -- Jeff3000 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
use of Can Ency most recently for details on territory government. For most if the article to fact check assertions made, esp in history section. It's doubtless the single most valuable reference book and editors should prefer it instead of old textbooks. Rjensen 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That it is the most valuable reference book is your point of view. Given that you used it for the territories section I will be keeping it only in that one. There is no use for it to be added multiple times. -- Jeff3000 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is inaccurate and outdated on the powers of the Territories. The Yukon government now exercises all provincial-type powers except for criminal prosecutions with the passage of the 2002 Yukon Act. I am not sure of the situation in the NWT and Nunavut, but Nunavut was creaed as a result of land claims negotiations, and I believe they do control their land. Each territory is in charge of its own income and other taxation. So the sentence should be reverted to its original version about the territories having "somewhat" fewer powers than the provinces. Luigizanasi 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on Luigizanasi's comments, I have removed the new territories wording, and removed the Canadiana Encyclopedia as a reference. -- Jeff3000 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
While there's no guideline about it that I know of, I'm not sure that other encyclopedias are ideal references for our articles. In this case, it isn't as bad as citing Encarta's article (which I've seen done), because we're sending the reader to an encyclopedia specific to our subject where they will be able to get more information. But it still isn't helpful for someone who wants to get to a citable source from our article, because other encyclopedias are also third-party summaries rather than secondary sources. Jkelly 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference for the 1985 encyclopedia is well out of date. This was true "federal government controls lands, natural resources, taxation, and claims of native rights" then but not any more. The Nunavut Government taxes people at 4, 7, 9 or 11.5%. We also have a property taxes. None of the other things apply either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Change of emphasis in Military section

The emphasis in the military section was changed, and I changed it back. Such a change needs discussion first. This is the new version

"In addition to major participation in the Second Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean War, Canada has maintained forces in international missions under the United Nations and NATO since 1950, including peacekeeping missions, various missions in the former Yugoslavia, and support to coalition forces in the First Gulf War. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, after the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005 and after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia."

and this is the old version

"In addition to their peacekeeping missions, Canadian forces have served in various military actions including World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the First Gulf War. Canada has also participated in a variety of capacities in NATO operations such as in the former Yugoslavia. Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, after the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005 and after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia."

I really believe the old (and current version) is more appropriate. -- Jeff3000 00:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Canada had 1 million people in uniform in the Second World War compared to a handful of UN missions. The Canadian Army as an institution is devoted to warfare, the article makes it seem that the military is a peacekeeper first, and a military second. At any rate, the references to WWI and WW II are wrong - all Canadian official histories use "First World War" and "Second World War" so I am going to change those, as this is a Canadian article.Michael Dorosh 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The sentence that sticks in the craw is "In addition to their peacekeeping missions...." Canada fought a couple of wars. It reads as very silly given the enormous national effort that went into the world wars, and the relative anonymity of Peacekeeping missions, which most Canadians don't even know are happening.Michael Dorosh 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No doubt Canada played large parts in WWI and WWII (which BTW I've seen in Canadian articles), but since the 1960's till the Afghanistan mission, Canada has been known for its peacekeeping. -- Jeff3000 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If the paragraph is about the 20th Century, then give the components their proper weight. If it is about post 1960 Canada, then delete those references altogether. As it is, the paragraph states the affair in a ridiculous manner. The description of the world wars as "various military actions" rather than the events that shaped Canada as a nation is jarring and unhistoric, and I'll reiterate, Peacekeeping - which hasn't been done by Canadians in any major way in 10 or 15 years, if Lew Mackenzie is to be believed - has never, ever been the primary focus of the Canadian military. Even at the height of Canadian peacekeeping, Canada had more men deployed in West Germany training to fight the next world war. As for Canadian articles using the "WWI" descriptors, they are incorrect. See Stacey, Granatstein or Bercuson for the proper nomenclature.Michael Dorosh 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, as was evidenced just a couple months ago, most of the Canadian public think that Canada is involved only in peacekeeping; they were under the wrong impression that the Afghanistan mission was a peacekeeping one. -- Jeff3000 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So your proposal then is to pander to popular misconception rather than state facts as they truly are? Not sure I understand that. Don't you think an encyclopedia article should then educate on how things are rather than parrot how people might wish them to be? If so, the emphasis needs to be taken off "peacekeeping" since Canada really doesn't do that anymore.Michael Dorosh 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just curious Jeff, but do you have any personal experience with the Canadian Military? Perhaps if you established some credentials for trying to dictate how this section is presented would help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribsWHOIS)
That is not at all how things work around here. We're profoundly uninterested in the personal experience of our editors. We're interested solely in summarising mainstream views from reliable sources. Using personal experience to inform one's editing fails our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Jkelly 01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Wikipedia, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Wikipedia as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribsWHOIS)
Personal experience to the side, it would be inappropriate to paint the Canadian Forces as a primarily peacekeeping organization - the primary purpose is warfare the very same as American and British armed forces, as stated by the Canadian government and Department of National Defense. In order to keep the NPOV the facts should be stated truthfully rather than phrased in a way that contradicts the mission statement of the Canadian Forces. What is the more reliable source, public-misconception or the official statement of the Canadian Forces and DND? I invite you to this link [1] which describes the CF as a Defense oriented organization. Zertz 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
While this isn't really the place to have the discussion, I invite you to consider the consequences of accepting assertions of expertise from anonymous people on the Internet. As for the paragraph in question, I suggest that "In addition to their peacekeeping missions, Canadian forces have served in various military actions including the First World War, Second World War..." does strike an odd tone, and that it is reasonable to discuss a rephrasing that doesn't make the World Wars seem like an afterthought. Jkelly 03:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The beginning of the current paragraph which states "In addition to their peacekeeping missions" makes sense since it connects the second paragraph, which deals with Canada's historical peacekeeping missions, and it's current reduction in peacekeeping activites, to the paragraph in question. It's not stating that peacekeeping is the paramount activity. It's just good prose and style to connect paragraphs to previous paragraphs. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
True, paragraphs have to link to their predecessors but they must also be internally consistent. The current text seems to be saying that the Canadian military is a peacekeeping organisation and that its participation in the major wars of the last century was merely a harmless aberration. That may suit those who wish to portray the military as a harmless organisation worthy of funding for moral reasons but it's far from a reflection of reality. In addition, describing the world wars as "military actions" grossly understates their significance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it doing that? In fact the previous paragraph concludes that Canada's peackeeping activities have greatly declined, the beginning of the paragraph in question just connects the two paragraphs. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's doing that by emphasising peaceful activities and downplaying warlike activities. And the previous para is just a listing of the strength of Canada's armed forces, so it's not a great connection... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Then why not change the paragraphs around - as I did - to state our involvement in the wars, first, and then discuss peacekeeping. It would have the advantage of shortening the section also rather than mentioning peacekeeping in two separate paragraphs.Michael Dorosh 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the first part of the section is about foreign relations which continues from the politics section, the military part of the section continues from the foreign relations. -- Jeff3000 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So presumably that means that the whole section needs a rewrite rather than just the one paragraph. Oh dear. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that: "Thank you for clarifying that the truth or credibility of posters is not an objective of Wikipedia, now I understand why I have seen in the news that some university professors have started to refuse papers citing Wikipedia as a source." Is not my comment. -- Perhaps we should consider: "The Canadian Forces have served in several wars from the Second Boer War, including the First and Second World Wars and in Korea. In addition, Canadian military contributions were integral in numerous peacekeeping operations in the second half of the 20th Century including Bosnia. The Canadian Forces currently has a large military force in Afghanistan responsible for the Khandahar region." -- Although of course, it must be revised as my proposed version is not especially well written. -- Zertz 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) -- Post Script: Sorry about the error I caused in posting, funked up the talk page. I think I've fixed it.

That would be okay as a rewrite. Mind you, I thought that Michael Dorosh's formulation was quite acceptable too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I also dispute the stated claim that Canada has attempted to "maintain a leading position" in Peacekeeping operations - Canada has fallen behind many nations in terms of number of peacekeepers deployed- even Germany has more peacekeepers abroad than Canada does.Michael Dorosh 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually a big fan of Michael Dorosh's paragraph. Anyone else concur?--Zertz 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, count me in. That section's been needing a tweak like this. heqs 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Jeff seems bent on solidifying the false notion that we, in the CF, are not soldiers, but peacekeepers (small p). We are warriors and our job is war. Not peacekeepers, which is nothing more than a secondary task to keep us occupied, while we await the government's mandate to push our Canadian policy by force. It's time for our citizens to wake up, smell the coffee and move into the 21st century. Tree hugging and birkestocks are passe, as is their vision for the military. Dave

Birkestock ? What's a birkestock ? We don't seem to have an article on it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
He means Birkenstock sandals (see

I'll find the reference (The Economist), but as of July 2006 Canada only has ~63 soldiers engaged in peacekeeping in the world. Far below such countries as Bangladesh or Uganda. It would be accurate to state that while Canada was once a major contributor to UN peacekeeping missions, this is no longer true. It is a common misconception among Canadians as to how much peacekeeping their country actually conducts, and that the Canadian armed forces are primarily engaged in a protracted war since the invasion of Afghanistan.

Canada on the main page

Yay to Canada on the front page! It would have kinda been nice if they had waited until July 1, though. Oh well :). --Q Canuck 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada Day comes early! Our home and native land! -- Samir धर्म 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2nd that...or 3rd =] LG-犬夜叉 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My theory is that this was chosen for today because yesterday's article was Ku Klux Klan. After something evil it's a relief to have a feel-good article on the main page. Anyway, w00t for Canada! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I was also glad to see Canadia (shame they spelt it wrong) on there and I'm not even Canadian but British. Good read too. Well done folks. Absinthe, Global warming, Ku Klux Klan, Canada is quite an odd progression mind. Jellypuzzle | Talk 09:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Drink Absinthe, become overly concerned with Global warming (perhaps because the liquor has made you feel HOT) in your drunken state, seek a clandestine terroist group to overthrow the government to solve Global Warming, join the KKK in hopes you can convince them to invest in carbon sinks to offset emisions from burning crosses, become wanted for hate crimes in the US, flee to Canada. Wikipedia made me do it. 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)~
Woo-hoo!! Vikramsidhu 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada obtained sovereignty from the United Kingdom???

Can the writer clarify this? Those who want to become Canadian citizens should swear allegiance to the Queen of England and become also her subjects; or contracts signed with the Government of Canada are in fact, signed with Her Majesty, etc. I as a Canadian don't see any problem with these factes, but to call these sovereignty?

Elizabeth is Queen of Canada seperately from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. One person, many crowns. --Q Canuck 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, Canadian Citizens swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. WilyD 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The last Queen of England died in 1707 so best of luck swearing allegiance to her... -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the last Queen of England, Anne, Died in 1714 as Queen of Great Britain. J Dogg 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg

A country that has no control over its "foreign" affairs & cannot unilaterally change its own constitution is not fully sovereign. Canada did not achieve full sovereignty in 1867 - but in a process from 1867-1982 The intro used to reflect this, but has since been altered to make a false statement --JimWae 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the old intro, but I don't see it anywhere. You're right, of course, I don't think one can honestly argue Canada was independant any earlier than 1931? ... I'll try to fix it. But since it's vandal day, who knows? WilyD 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think an argument could be made that Canada was independant as of the Balfour Declaration in 1926. My understanding is that the Statute of Westminster in 1931 just codified that which had been recognized and stated in the Balfour Declaration. If I had to pick one date to peg "independence" on, I'd pick 1926. Having said that, we should not single out any one date for independence in the introduction, and we certainly shouldn't list all the significant dates in the process there, either. I think the current version, that specifically names Canadian Confederation and the Canada Act 1982 is too detailed for an introduction, while also placing emphasis on those two events while skipping over important intermediate events. These sorts of details belong in (and are currently in) the History section. Either returning the statement to say "a process spanning 1867 - 1982", or just "a long process beginning in 1867" would be good. Another suggestion: Just leave out the date -- something like: "Now a federal dominion of ten provinces and three territories, Canada has full independence from the United Kingdom." Thoughts?--thirty-seven 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with thirty-seven that there is too much detail in the lead. I like the phrasing "a process spanning between 1867-1982". -- Jeff3000 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the dates are important enough to be included in the opening - we can drop the specific events if you feel its too wordy - just say 1867-1982 or such. I think it's misleading to mention only a single date - since the most important elements happen from 1926-1949? (when does Canada obtain judicial independence from the UK?) using 1867 or 1982 alone is misleading, whereas trying to pick some other single date will probly never reach concensus. Would it be bad form to say the years spanning 1867 to 1982 or something such as that? WilyD 18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Truly we are a complex nation... HighInBC 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I and all people I know all canadians do NOT swear allegence to the Queen, she is meerly a figure head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

New Canadians all swear allegiance to the Queen. It's a requirement. Of course if you are born Canadian you don't have to swear allegience to anyone, but if you do swear allegiance it's to the Queen. DJ Clayworth 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Figure heads matter. All oaths, whether directed at a person or a legal abstraction, are symbolic. Peter Grey 14:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
what's more, the current British monarch is Canada's head of state, not the prime minister, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I think you mean the Canadian Monarch is Canada's head of state, not the Prime Minister, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy. --gbambino 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Hey, I was reading over the histroy section and this caught my attention: Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 with Britain's declaration of war, and sent formed divisions (composed almost entirely of volunteers) to the Western Front to fight as a national contingent. Casualties were so high that Prime Minister Robert Borden forced through conscription in 1917, which was extremely unpopular in Quebec, leading to his Conservative party losing support in Quebec. Although the Liberals were deeply divided over conscription, they pulled together and became the dominant political party. Something seems to be missing in the sentence about conscription leading to Borden's unpopularity in Quebec. Either that, or its just worded improperly. I'm not sure what the original intent was for this sentence so I'll let the author fix it up.(Cabin Tom 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

I think I've fixed it now. Thanks -- Jeff3000 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah,that clarified the intent of the sentence. I hope you don't mind though, that I further played with the wording. Let me know what you think! (Cabin Tom 02:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Linking to Amazon Online Reader and WP:RS

GraemeL - you removed the links from books to the Amazon Online Reader, because it was an individual bookstore. While I understand that these could be seen as advertising links, WP:RS#Finding a good source may require some effort reccomends's "search-inside" function (a.k.a. Amazon Online Reader) for fact-checking in books, so that people who don't have the book can attempt to check facts. I linked directly to the AOR, not to the sales page, in order to make it less like an advertising link (hopefully it doesn't have terrible browser compatibility). And with the ISBN still there, people who want to buy the book from another vendor still have complete info. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL says not to link to individual book stores and the pages contain prominent links to buy the books from Amazon. In my opinion, the advertising outweighs the benefits from the link. I wasn't accusing anybody of spamming and understand why the link was added, but the link gives Amazon an unfair advantage for any sales from WP readers. --GraemeL (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the books are in the references section, not in the external links or books section (as they should be, per WP:EL#What should be linked to). WP:EL#Links to normally avoid, which I believe is the part you were citing, says, "Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to". Anyways, since the books were references, and because linking to a free searching service reduces the need to buy the book at all, I feel that the links to the Amazon Online Reader are more helpful than hurtful. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the statement in WP:RS#Finding a good source may require some effort is that you can search for books through those links to find references. Once the reference is found, the link is no longer necessray and constitutes a commercial link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff3000 (talkcontribs) .
That was my reading of it too. It's not praticularly clear, but to me, it seems to indicate to use those links for researching references and using ISBN linking once they are found. --GraemeL (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I brought this up on the WP:RS talk page, since this seems to be more of a policy question, rather than something specific to Canada. You are encouraged to share your opinion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

leading sentence

The following phrase in the lead is really rather puzzling: "occupying most of the northern portion of North America." The word "portion" doesn't mean anything, so how can something occupy most of a portion? Maybe "most of the northern half" or "occupying northern North America". Any reason for this? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by doesn't mean anything? Canada does occupy the northern portion of North America - since half ~ 50%, it's not a good choice, and since Greenland, the States and France all occupies other parts of the northern portion of North America, you need a qualifier like most to boot, eh? WilyD 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Occupying most of northern North America" is direct and clear—not precise, but clear. "Occupying most of the northern portion of North America" isn't precise either, and to boot it is unnecessarily wordy (the word "portion" doesn't add anything). Just like "northern", "northern portion" could mean everything north of Fairbanks, everything north of Toronto, everything north of Los Angeles, or everything north of Mexico City. If you agree, I'll change the lead and the main page box. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the change brings anything in, I think northern North America is as ambigious as northern portion of North America but similiarly I don't think it detracts at all. I have no objection to you changing it, though. WilyD 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't add anything. My initial comment was unclear—it would have been much simpler to say "the phrase is wordy". Anyway, fixed now, in both places. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

The phrase "Inhabited originally by Aboriginal peoples, ..." seems rather odd to me, and mostly devoid of meaning. Doesn't the very definition of "Aboriginal peoples" convey that such people are the original inhabitants? The phrase could validly be reworded to say "Inhabited originally by the original inhabitants, ...".

It appears that the main purpose of this phrase is to provide a link to additional information about the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. That link should remain, but the structure of the first sentence or two should be re-worked to better incorporate that link.

I changed the wording to "first", but I agree, it's clumsy. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


"Federal union" is a much better description of Canada than "Federal dominion". There has been a lot of talk about whether Canada is a "dominion" or not (see Talk:Canada's name), which certainly came down against Dominion being part of the name. However it is certainly now true that Canada is a dominion only in the same sense that the UK is. In this context union is certainly the better description. DJ Clayworth 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, but not really with your reasoning. Union is better than Dominion because of the context refering to the provinces and territories, as well Union is more naturally modified by Federal than Dominion is. Canada is a dominion, but this statement is no different than saying Canada is a country - dominion and country are its types, whilst Canada is its name. WilyD 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think saying federal union is redundant, since a federation is a kind of union. Whereas dominion has a specific historical meaning, so it adds something to the phrase, unlike union. So I think we should use the phrase federal dominion, or else simply federation. --thirty-seven 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would accept Federation as a synonym for Federal Union but I don't think there's a redundancy, really, since Federal can't be used alone - it needs to be modified one way or the other. WilyD 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Dominion, in this context, is a term entirely unfamiliar to a great many English readers - unless (perhaps) they are in one. It does not belong in the intro. Introductions should nto REQUIRE the great majority of English-speakers to click on a link for the meaning of the word --JimWae 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dominion was the official title before independence - using it in this article would create confusion based on its former historical usage. Why not "federal state"?Michael Dorosh 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dominion means much more than a union, it means that Canada has a monarchy, and is a kingdom. Please review the more recent archive, there was a huge discussion on inlcuding the word Kingdom, and it was instead decided that since dominion already portrayed that point, the word kindgom did not need to be in the article. If someone does not know what the word means, they can always click on blue-link, that's what it is for. -- Jeff3000 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please do not base any arguments about the use of 'dominion' on any belief that it is any way Canada's name. Please go and see the appropriate talk page. Canada is currently not a dominion any more than the UK is a dominion. Read the pages! DJ Clayworth 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Canada's name does not include dominion. However, both Canada and the UK *are* dominions. Dominion is now an archaic term meaning the same thing as the modern term Commonwealth Realm, which both Canada and the UK are, although of course the UK was never called a dominion historically. I am not using this as an argument to put dominion in the introduction. I am fine with just saying federation; usage of the term dominion is included in the section on Canada's Name. --thirty-seven 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who think that 'Federal union' is redundant, see this page where the USA describes itself as a federal union. If you want to include 'dominion' because it means 'monarchy', then we say monarchy about three lines down, and monarchy is a much more understood term.DJ Clayworth 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the introduction to use federation. If someone thinks the word union adds something to the meaning, go ahead and change it back to federal union. --thirty-seven 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to 'federal dominion' (which was in place for months without argument) and I will continue to restore this unless convinced otherwise. Of course the country is a federation or federal state (and 'federal union' is prolixity at its finest). For naysayers, please consult the appropriate articles dominion and Canada's name: the country remains a dominion (as indicated in the constitution, which hasn't changed in this respect), and the link elaborates upon this for those who have no idea what it is ... which is the intent of a wiki. Argumentation about correlations with monarchy etc. without sourcing to support this are, frankly, farcical. 15:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid a revert-war, I think leaving it as federation in the introduction is the best policy for now, while discussion is going on here about whether it should be federal union, federal dominion, federal state, none-of-the-above, etc. When some kind of consensus is reached, we can add-in union or dominion or whatever.
Also, my vote in this discussion is that it should remain federation. As I stated earlier, I think union is redundant (as is state in this context). Dominion is not redundant (and it is completely accurate: whether or not "Dominion" is part of Canada's name, I don't think it can be disputed that Canada is a dominion), however, I think inserting the term dominion into the intro is unnecessary - it is already discussed in the section on Canada's Name, and we already state in the introduction that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. If we decide that Canada's dominionness should be stressed in the intro, I would prefer doing so by adding a statement saying that Canada is a Commonwealth Realm.
--thirty-seven 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • so your argument in summary: 1. that's the way it was 2. those who disagree with you are being farcical. Wonderful stuff! --JimWae 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes ... and you've done nothing to refute the points above rationally. If you wish to be accorded respect, reciprocate. Otherwise, refrain from commenting. 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you even read the other comments, anonymous user who thinks all must satisfy you? --JimWae 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No comment. 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I cast my vote for federation. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this page (see archives) so rather than go on and on once more, I should like to point out that the consensus from those who have commented this time around (as with last time) is to use the term "federation" rather than "federal union" or "federal dominion." Consensus on talk pages, which is interpreted as a 2/3 supermajority, is generally the determining factor for what goes into articles.Sunray 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, scrutinise carefully and there is no consensus on this at all. The original premise is rather flawed: the fact that the initial proponent indicates that there's been a "lot of talk about whether Canada is a "dominion"" is rather moot, since the Wp concept of verifiability is even more basic than that of consensus. Proposed changes and subsequent discussions are generallt rooted in false assumptions and general lack of citation. Numerous government publications indicate the country as both a federation and -- yes -- a dominion (see Canada's name). And dig back further into the archives and you'll note that this was resolved sometime ago in favour of inclusion. To use a saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it ... and little of the above changes that. 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is that we are talking about its use in the introduction. Nobody is claiming Canada is not a dominion. My point is that the great majority of English-speakers will not know what the term means & the intro is no place to use words that the great majority of readers will need to click on the link to understand. It is used many times later in the article, where it is also partially explained in context --JimWae 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Prior to this edit it had long been called a federation. This was not a simple copyedit. --JimWae 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
While Dominion is correct, it simply doesn't fit in the context where its use it debated. The style of its usage there is just plain bad. Like nails on a chalkboard. WilyD 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is little point in the above riposte. John Q. editor strides in and makes changes based on subjective, flawed assumptions (and bad copyedits), others debate and -- exemplifying groupthink behaviour in this instance -- opt for changes to content due to discomfort or what have you. My point is there is little reason to change the status quo (6 months now) and reasons to do so have not been demonstrated above to satisfaction. One of the functions of a wiki is to provide links to elaborate on topics in greater detail (noted by another above) -- whether federation, dominion, union, etc. Notions of federation and federalism are not only used many times in the article but are often misunderstood ... but I see little discussion to minimise this phrasing. Hell, some sources indicate Canada as a confederation despite that term's specific usage in a Cdn. context. And, regardless of whether a copyedit is simple or not, the content is sound and appropriate. I maintain my original position and little above has changed that. 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not exist to satisfy you alone --JimWae 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A summary of reasons why dominion should not be used:

  1. It's an archaic term, and simple is better;
  2. It has the same meaning as monarchy which we use in the next line;
  3. the word used to have a specialist meaning within the Commonwealth, which was applicable to Canada but no longer is; some people may think we are using the word in thos context
  4. the sentence it was used in was talking about Canada's national/provincial relationships, and dominion is not relevant to those relationships

With only one anon and (possibly) Jeff3000 supporting dominion, I've changed it to federation. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither dominion, realm or kingdom are archaic words - they all mean the same thing, and are still used in modern contexts as there are many countries around the world to which any and all of the three terms can be applied. It is also correct to assert that Canada is one of those countries.
Regardless, Canada certainly is a federated union, or federation. The United States is also a federation, but a completely different form thereof. So, it seems necessary to make clear what type of federation Canada is.
Seeing as the majority here won't accept federated dominion, kingdom, or realm, and "monarchy" is another word that can be substituted for the former three, I'd say it's best to word this particular sentence in a similar form to what was done at the United States article, which says in its introduction: the United States is "a federal constitutional republic." Canada, therefore, should be described as a "federal constitutional monarchy." --gbambino 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. DJ Clayworth 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Canada is a Dominion, not a Kingdom (this was decided when deciding for the country new name, to not antaginize the Americans). It should be referred as the Dominion of Canada, for that is the proper name of this country. No official document has yet to change the country name. Source - The Canadian Encyclopedia Canada's name 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Flag

I added the section about the new Canadian Flag in the 1960s. I believe it is valid as Canada getting its own flag was a major step in showing it is a sovereign nation.--MarshallStack 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone removed it - there is already an article on the flag in any event.Michael Dorosh 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone did remove it, but I don't know why as it was a significant event in Canada's history.--MarshallStack 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a reasonable argument can be made that Canada getting its own flag was a major step in showing its sovereignty. However, at best, this deserves a brief sentence in the History section. In an article on Canadian Sovereignty or a similar topic, it would be good to have its own paragraph or section. But this article is supposed to be a summary-style overview of all of Canada, with all of Canadian history being just one section. With, for example, the League of Nations, Statute of Westminster, Great Depression, the rise of the CCF, the Second World War, and the joining of Newfoundland all fitting in one paragraph, giving an entire paragraph to the history of the flag seems highly excessive to me.
Here is the removed paragraph:
During the post-war years, there was much debate on a distinctive Canadian flag. The British Union Jack had been used to varying degrees as well as several designs of the Canadian Red Ensign. Both of these were very unpopular among French-Canadians due to their incorporation of the British flag. Finally, in 1964 the present-day Canadian Flag was adopted by the Pearson government, though not without controversy, especially from war veterans. Ontario and Manitoba responded by adopting the Red Ensign with their own provincial shields in the fly as their provincial flags (see Flag of Ontario; Flag of Manitoba). The Flag of British Columbia already had the Union Jack incorporated into its design. Canadian law still allows for the Union Jack (known in Canada as the Royal Union Flag) to be flown by private individuals and government agencies to show support for the Monarch and membership in the Commonwealth. Ironically, as separatist sentiment has grown in Quebec, flying the Canadian flag has declined there in favour of the Flag of Quebec. Former Quebec Premier and hardline separatist Bernard Landry stirred controversy in 2001 by calling the Canadian Flag a "red rag".[2] However, most Canadians have come to embrace the Canadian Flag as neither British nor French, but distinctively Canadian, though some Canadians continue to fly the Red Ensign and/or Union Jack.
Because of this, I have removed the new paragraph from the article. As I said, I think perhaps one brief sentence would be fitting. --thirty-seven 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an article on Canada's history, but on Canada the nation. The flag has its own article, accessible by clicking the flag graphic in the infobox, then clicking the article link listed underneath - Flag of Canada. A flag is a flag, it represents us, it doesn't define us.Michael Dorosh 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember this is a summary style article, the mention of the Canadian Flag, which is a detail, should be placed in the History of Canada article. -- Jeff3000 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war (not worth it), so thank you for at least putting my contribution on this talk page. I think I get what you're saying, though I still think it bears mention as part of Canada's history. My background is in technical writing, which makes me somewhat verbose as a writer. I did put a two-sentence line about the flag in the History section; I hope this is acceptable.--MarshallStack 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

MarshallStack, thanks for your contribution. This article has a long history of contributors (including myself) adding longish blurbs about important topics and then having them pared back in the interests of keeping this article within a summary style and from getting significantly longer. --thirty-seven 00:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't feel the two sentence addition fits into the article. First of all it is a very short paragraph which doesn't pass featured article status, and it's placement does not have any connection to the previous or subsequent paragraph. I'm going to take it out, until a better place for it can be found. -- Jeff3000 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that MarshallStack's proposed contribution is too much for the Canada article, it is well written and would fit very well in the introduction to the Flag of Canada article, considerably improving it. I suggest that MarshallStack move it there so he can keep credit for his good work. If not, I will do it later. Luigizanasi 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it. Luigizanasi 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to say it was me who removed this section, and my intention was to put it somewhere else and explain my actions, but I was distracted and didn't get round to it. Sorry. My feeling was that the article was already too long. DJ Clayworth

Who are ethnic "Canadians"?

Ethnic "Americans" (not "native") are, as far as I know, Englishmen, Spaniards, Scots, and Irishmen, but who are the corresponding Canadians? --nlitement [talk] 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly it means I have no idea. I usually refer to myself as an ethnic Canadian, because:
  • A lot of my ethnic origin is unknown
  • That which is known includes Norse, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, English, Portuguese, Spanish, Hebrew, Indian ... I think I'm missing one I ought to know. Anyways, the point is that this is a mouthful, easier to just say Canadian
WilyD 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Many Canadians are multi-ethnic, so if I were so inclined (but I'm not), I could call myself "Canadian" instead of saying I'm an "Italian/Irish/German Canadian." Statistics Canada added "Canadian" as an ethnic group on the census and 39.42% of Canadians chose it as their ethnicity. (Demographics of Canada#Ethnicity) --chris 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But, wait? Weren't French farmers the first to populate the place and stay there (some went to Louisiana, though)? Did some of them move to the west and adopt English? --nlitement [talk] 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No, French famers weren't the first to populate the area we call Canada. Jkelly 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Canadians tend to de-emphasize ethnicity, which is actually not all that realistic. Setting aside aboriginal Canadians, an ethnic Canadian would, in theory, be someone whose ancestry was principally colonists of Canada, as opposed to immigrants to Canada, the immigrant voluntarily choosing to give up their ethnic identity. This is, of course, not a precise notion, and multiculturalism has greatly confused the issue, and typically people try to ignore the whole issue, with varying degrees of success. However, ethnicity still exists in people's heads, even if no-one can say exactly what it is. Peter Grey 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Canadians avoid "race", especially in the way that it is typically used in America. On the other hand, my experience has been that culture is much more emphasized in Canada than anywhere else I know. I'm not sure that many immigrants to Canada are made to "give up their ethnic identity"--if by that, you mean, culture--good evidence for this is the wide variety of cultural festivals in our major cities (caribanna, taste of little italy, taste of danforth, indian something-or-other, etc.) Many people consider Canada a Cultural mosaic. MisterSheik 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The concept of ethnicity evolves over time. Today Canada is "multicultural" - there was a time when having English and Irish living together was considered a highly tolerant society. Peter Grey 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

-- 02:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Does this article consider a "Nationality" the same as an "Ethnicity?" "Nationality refers simply to citizenship with respect to a given state (country). Since many countries have more than one ethnic group within them, one's nationality does not necessarily correspond to one's ethnicity." Based soley on Nationality, Canada isn't any more or less ethnic than any European Country or the United States. This section of the article gives me no other information other than Canada is occupied predominantly by those of Caucasian decent. In a world view, harldy "multicultural."

Nationality and Ethnicity do not mean the same thing ... I'm not sure what you're getting at beyond that. Multiculturalism is an issue seperate from either nationality or ethnicity, however. WilyD 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
For the most part, I think that many of us who have edited in areas of ethnicity within Canadian articles, and who have included "Canadian" on lists of statistics, aren't actually making any argument at all - what we are doing is using the best, most NPOV statistics that we know of - those from StatsCan - and reproducing them reliably. Since those statistics have chosen to include "Canadian" (and, interestingly, "Québécois" and "Acadian", but not, for instance, "Newfoundlander") then that's what we type in. I personally support this method of including information, because it does not say anything about how things "should" be done, only how they are. AshleyMorton 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's true - I mean, anything we put in the article would be original research because the truth about it is that statscan said what's your ethnicity? and people wrote down Canadian or Chinese or Martian and all we know is that they choose to write it down. So that is all we can say in the article. WilyD 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, about 13,000 people did put in "Newfoundlander". See: [3]. :-) Other than that, AshleyMorton is absolutely correct. Using anything else implies some secret knowledge of people's genealogy not available to the rest of us. Plus, the Census reflects what people see as their ethnic origin, not what someone else thinks it should be. Luigizanasi 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
People are where they were born. If they were born in Canada, they are 'Canadians'. American is an 'ethnic group' :) There are no 'hispanics' in Canada or 'Blacks', there are, for example 'Chileans' and 'Kenyans'. Though I do find it bizarre whenever I come across a store in Canada that has an 'ethnic' aisle; that is redundant :) Overall, Canadians don't obsess aboot such things.


A user just moved all the images to the right. I liked the previous way, with some on the right, and some to the left. Anyone opposed to me reverting? -- Jeff3000 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I had no idea that there were editors who preferred the all-images-jammed-up-against-each-other-in-top-right-corner layout, but I guess there are. My impression is that less crowded and more dynamic approaches to image layout are preferred by most people. Jkelly 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am, seeing as the concensus for country articles Hong Kong, South Africa, etc While I'm not entirely opposed to having left and right images, I think it looks poor in very small sections (such as the military section) as it creates an odd X shaped text block. I also went through the article, before you revert, and standardised image size, as well as where the images start (some started before the "Main article" bit, some after). Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's most definitely not a go for reverting, since I was the one who made the edits in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to a section-by-section discussion, but a blanket revert is both rude and ineffectual since there were other changes made than just the left v. right debate. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If reverting all the image formatting changes would be rude, then I think that making such a large change to the entire article in the first place, without discussion on the talk page beforehand, would be even ruder. --thirty-seven 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thirty-seven, so do you like the left/right arrangement better? -- Jeff3000 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like the left/right varied version. --thirty-seven 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
So is that a go for reverting, or not. I'm a little confused which one you like better. -- Jeff3000 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I was asking Jkelly. Regarding the standardization of the sizes, they were standardized to 240px, which is just as good, and usually better for people with smaller resolution monitors. So I would like to go back to 240px. Secondly, I feel that for all sections that the images were moved to the right, the better placement was on the left. The standardization for having the images before or after the main is good. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I have a preference for a combination of left and right. PZFUN is right, I think, that we tend to use 50px increments for image sizing, but I don't know if there is a reason for that. Jkelly 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Almost every other article on Wikipedia uses 250px as the standard-size. It seems a littleodd to be so particular about the 10px, particularly when we can stay with tradition. I think in general it is a bad idea to have left and right images in such a small section, it makes it hard to read because the text does not flow evenly. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At 250px, the images are too big. I'd like to reduce them back to 240px, or even smaller. -- Jeff3000 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Or do what has been done on the USA article - do not specify sizes - just specify "thumb" - which lets the user decide (in preferences) how big to make the image - there are too many sizes of screens & no size will be right for all --JimWae 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any other comments? -- Jeff3000 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Motto of Canada

Although "A Mari Usque Ad Mare" may be litteraly translated by "From sea to sea" in English, the motto used in English is "From coast to coast". I've never heard anyone say "From sea to sea".

Here's the reference from the Government of Canada website. And here's another from the Canadian encyclopedia. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard "From sea to sea" frequently, but never "From coast to coast" (although that expression is common in general usage). On rare occasion, I've seen mare translated as "ocean". I've definitely never heard "A Litu usque ad Litum". Peter Grey 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Official status of Canada

Nowhere in this article was mentionned that Canada is part of the Commonwealth. It is said on the website of Heritage Canada that Canada is a Realm:

It's also a part of La Francophonie. --gbambino 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Then again, it's also a part of NATO, the UN, the G8, etc., but the article doesn't seem to mention that either. --gbambino 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mentioned in the foreign relations section. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So they are. My mistake. --gbambino 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
All of these are mentioned, including La Francophonie and Commonwealth; I couldn't find an explicit statement that Canada was a member of the UN, but since almost all countries are, and there are frequent mentions of Canada's contributions to the UN it can probably be left. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

former British colonies

All British colonies had earlier been French colonies, not only some. New France extended from Labrador to Louisiana, and to British Columbia and the american mid-west. The only territories that have never been part of New France were that of the 13 new england state, that of Florida, that of the far west, and that of the Great North. (unsigned contribution by User: I am Nicko)

The Province of Canada, as an entity, was never completely a French colony. I have reverted my revert, but I think the previous statement was more encompassing. -- Jeff3000 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The terriory of the Province of Canada was, however, a part of the Province of Quebec, if I recall correctly. Ground Zero | t 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Even the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) was a British Colony. New France was a French colony, and it did cover most of the area of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) (and more), but regardless confederation happened to entities that were British entities, of which the Province of Canada (as an entity) was never a French colony. -- Jeff3000 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that what is now Ontario (or part thereof) was once called the Province of Quebec? That is what I understand from my reading of the history. However, I don't remember this from my history courses.Dunstanramsey 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada's Age

It's Canada Day, and I didn't catch Canada's age on a news show today. Does anyone know Canada's Age? --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

139 years since confederation in 1867. -- Jeff3000 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say Happy Canada Day! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Replace/update Army picture!!!

Someone really needs to change the picture of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan wearing temperate CADPAT to a more recent picture of them wearing desert CADPAT. The current picture only serves to perpetuate a negative image of our Army. I say "someone" needs to change this picture, because I am not knowledgeable enough regarding the standards and regulations this sort of thing on Wikipedia. If someone does take this up, please get a proper picture of our combat arms soldiers, preferably the infantry. ----

This is the only relative current picture that is GFDL. You would have to find another picture that is free of copyright. -- Jeff3000 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I found some really good pictures on the CF Combat Camera site. Following is information from the Combat Camera terms of use section:

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:

   * Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
   * The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
   * The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.
This looks good to me but maybe there is something I am missing. I have included links to pictures I believe are particularly appropriate (the best ones first):

These photos are all relatively up to date (taken in 05 or 06). Let me know what you guys think.

Noncommericial-only images cannot be used by Wikipedia. Jkelly 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the following is also from the Terms of Use section from the Combat Camera site.:

Commercial Reproduction

Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Through the permission-granting process, Public Works and Government Services Canada helps to ensure that individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes, please go to Public Works and Government Services Canada's, Applying for Copyright Clearance on Government of Canada Works page.

Can we apply for this?--

Come on people, I am looking for some direction here! --
You'll have to forgive us for not bending over backwards to reply to some anonymous dude or dudette with no name. Why not register so we can converse like people instead of machines?Michael Dorosh 19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the advice Cpl.Dorosh! I have been an anonymous user for about 2 years now I think, and I dont think theres anything wrong with it, though it looks like im going to have to sign up to upload a new image! p.s. fellow (calgary)soldier here --
If you are willing to do the work, then go ahead. -- Jeff3000 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will apply for this. Also, just a question: where does it say that we can’t use images that have been approved for non-commercial use on wikipedia. I am not saying that this isn’t true, I am just wondering where this is written down, for my own knowledge. --
Before you start, you should know that we also delete "with permission" content. We're not only trying to write an encyclopedia, we're also trying to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia -- to anyone for any use. "Noncommercial/Nonderivative/Wikipedia-only" licenses get in the way of that goal. You'll note that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion mentions this, but I'm not sure where to point you for a more informative discussion. Jkelly 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada's Human Development Index (HDI)

Luxembourg, which is listed as having the fourth highest Human Development Index, has an HDI of 0.949, as do Canada and Sweden, which are listed as fifth and sixth, respectively.

It looks like those three are "tied" for fourth, so to speak. So it looks like Canada's HDI should be changed from fifth to fourth, unless I'm missing something.

-- 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative histories of Canada?

Can anyone name novels that deal with Canada and "what if" scenarios/histories? Like what if Russia had colonized most of Canada, or what if Canada was strongly anti-British in it's early days and waged war, or what if Canada become a superpower and the US a weak nation, etc.



The best one that I can think of is The Years of Rice and Salt, a work of fiction that hypothesizes on what the world would look like w/o Europe as a power, and where North America is colonized from the west coast. This allowed the natives (in the book) to maintain their autonomy and kept the East Asian colonies to small seaside valleys.

--chris 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there are such novels, though I couldn't name them offhand. I can mention, however, that in the Ill Bethisad world (a collaborative AH web project), neither Canada nor the United States ever existed in their current form; instead, there are several different countries on the North American continent, some of which cross the border that we know in our world. The countries are also divided into provinces which have varying degrees of correspondence to real provinces and states: some match up almost exactly in both name and geography, others retain either the real geography or the real name but not both, and others still are entirely fictional creations. I won't get into too much detail here, but if you want to read more the Ill Bethisad article has links to the project web pages. Bearcat 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of TYORAS and am trying to find a copy of it. Despite it being a great book, it doesn't deal with Canada... or a nation that was/could have been Canada. Ill Bethisad sounds a little closer, and interesting. I am sure both are great reads.


Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale talks briefly about an alternate history of Canada after the US collapses and becomes divided by militant religious factions. The book's postscript is a symposium taking place at the University of Denay, in Nunavut, in 2195. The keynote speaker summarises the Handmaid's Tale (apparantly now the object of study by historians), and wonders aloud if the Handmaid was smuggled into "what was then Canada." It's not clear what happened to Canada, or whether Nunavut is now it's own country, but it's something from a noted Canadian author. --gbambino 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think The Handmaid's Tale is set in the future relative to the time the book was written, and so it is not alternate history. --thirty-seven 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it is more of a future history. Still kind of a "what if" though. --gbambino 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually have a copy of TYORAS...which isn't to say that I've read it yet or anything. Ill Bethisad, for what it's worth, is an entire alternate world, not just an alternate North America...and if you're interested, it's one you can even participate in creating. Bearcat 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So I'm back to square one. This isn't very incouraging. Still waiting...


Moving the Capital

When Brown became the government for those 48hrs, could he have announced a new capital for Canada or have actually moved it before he had to leave the government? I really need to know, fast.


What conceivable reason would George Brown have had for doing that? Unless, in line with your previous post, you're talking about the possibility of it as a divergence point for an alternate history, in which case I'd consider it unlikely; he simply wasn't in power for long enough. Bearcat 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning for Brown to make a dramatic shift to move the capital (to Montreal) is to appease the French conservatives. Basically, they would have their capital, the French Conservatives wouldn’t rally around John A. to throw out Brown and Brown would be allowed (hopefully) his rep-by-pop (the French possibly thinking that they would see more growth in lower Canada due to the capital, so why not?). Something along those lines. Any of what I said viable?


Well, again: if you're talking about it as a divergence point for an alternate history, it's as valid as any, but it would probably have to be accompanied by circumstances which keep him in power for longer than he really was. But if you're theorizing it as something that coulda shoulda mighta happened in real history, then we come back to the fact that there was no compelling reason to do it, nor was Brown in power long enough to accomplish anything that major. Bearcat 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Section 33, Notwithstanding clause

Please correct the part on Section 33, the Notwithstanding clause.. You give it a lifespan of 5 years, but that however is not precisely the case, it has to be renewed every 5 years, IE a declaration that they are using the notwithstanding clause. Quebec French laws for example will use this clause indefinitely. The wording is not the same as the link that takes you to information regarding the notwithstanding clause, it needs to look more like that, not some fixed time period. Read --Gteed 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Greg

Greetings chaps. I just made a couple of tone changes. Please feel free to correct me if I err.... CSIvor 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map Canada political-geo.png

This map needs to be scrutinized regarding the marine international boundaries depicted. The map is copied from the official government Atlas of Canada, and reflects Canada's claims of sovereignty, some of which are disputed (in the case of its claims over the Northwest Passage, categorically refused by the US and the EU). The map should accurately note the disputed boundaries. heqs 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted in the caption. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Until the map is updated to reflect the disputed boundaries, I don't think it's acceptable. heqs 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to find us a better one. DJ Clayworth 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll edit it myself, but was hoping someone handier with maps and graphics could do it. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left or taken a long break. heqs 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. heqs 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Section on Cities has added a section on Cities. While I had argued for this section in the past, it was consensus that such a section should not be included (see Talk:Canada/Archive8#Largest_cities, Talk:Canada/Archive8#Making_this_article_better, and Talk:Canada/Archive8#Cities). After going through featured article, it was made more clear that such a section should not be in this article and in a daughter article. No other featured article countries have cities (see Australia, India, China, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa). The section should be removed and placed in a daughter article. -- Jeff3000 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to List of cities in Canada. Jkelly 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a World Power

Someone edited out the addition regarding Canada being considered an economic and political world power. A factual claim backed by the fact canada is a member of the G8 among the worlds wealthiest nations, Canada has been participating in the worlds most peace keeping missions and is involved in several international diplomatic efforts. It is one of the world powers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor18 (talkcontribs) .

It is usually better to replace subjective and ill-defined statements like "Canada is a world power" with objective and well-defined statements like "Canada is a member of the G8". We already have this statement there. Incidentally you should go and look at how many peacekeeping missions Canada has been on recently. it's not as many as you might think.
P.S. Please add to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. DJ Clayworth 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

-Sorry, didn't know it was supposed to be added to the bottom. However if you look at the article on Toronto it has been debated and in the end agreed to be considered of "international Influence" so perhaps then "Economically and politically, Canada holds considerable international influence" would be a viable sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor18 (talkcontribs) .

Canada is a featured article, which means that it upholds the highest standard in Wikipedia. Mushy statements like it is "holds considerable international influence both economically and politically" just don't pass, especially without a citation. Even with a citation, I can guarantee that there are other citations that state that Canada is not a world power. I removed the reference. Also in regards to the mention of the G8 in the lead, it just doesn't fit, and I'll take that out. It is already mentioned in the article itself. -- Jeff3000 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"I can guarantee that there are other citations that state that Canada is not a world power." You could find such citations for any article, you could find citations saying canada sucks and canada doesn't and for anything else. That's not the point. Canada is an international exporter of energy, have a massive economy and major export partners, is active in most international affairs, both diplomatic and military and thus it should be cited that Canada is infact influential in world affairs, as well as being a major economy. Editor18 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That may well all be true, but you'll have to acquaint yourself with WP:OR to discover why that can't make it into the article. WilyD 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose mentioning the US as a world power, mentioning China as a world power, mentioning in the Toronto article international influence is not allowed because there will be a source in the world that disagrees with the facts? Because being one of the largest economies, part of the most peace keeping missions, cited among the largest 15 military spenders, only net exporter of energy in G8 are all facts Editor18 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research; if they don't clear up most of your questions, please feel free to ask for clarification. As has been mentioned, this article is held to a higher standard than many others on Wikipedia, but if you see what appear to be the opinions of Wikipedia editors inserted into articles, please do raise the issue on that article's talk page. Jkelly 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Some things are facts, like having one of the largest economies, like having the most peace keeping missions (which more recently Canada has been a very very small player), etc, etc, and can be inserted into the article with a Wikipedia:Reliable source as a citation. Other things are points of view, like Canada being a word power because of the above facts. For these points of view, we must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, which among other things includes giving multiple points of view ("All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."). Finally I should mention that this page is written in Wikipedia:Summary style, which states that only a summary of facts, events, etc are to be included in this article, and the main details are left to the daughter articles (like Politics of Canada). So not everything about Canada should be included in this article. -- Jeff3000 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Canada has "most peace missions"? Sounds about right, so proving it shouldn't be hard for you to do. As jkelly stated, WP is about verifiable facts, not what feels right in our gut.Michael Dorosh 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

canada has the historically he most peacekeeping missions :)

As for the above, mentioning a nations status as a world power, or as any prominent title that it holds does not belong in sub sections but the opening paragraph. That what it is for, to mention the most basic characteristics of the nation. Editor18 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is "world power" is not a "prominent title" that can be verified as having been bestowed on Canada. Some people think Canada is a world power; some do not. It is an opinion. I'm Canadian, and I don't think "world power" when I think of the basic characteristics of my country. If you do, that's great - but it isn't encyclopedic. Eron 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did above reword it as having "international economic and political influence" if this article cannot contain these simply descrpions then neither should the EU's, Toronto's or Americas and China's.Editor18 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues with other articles should be brought up there. Wikipedia does not operate under the common law - we can hold the article on Canada to a high standard. WilyD 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is prohibiting saying that "canada holds international influence both economically and politically" high standard?Editor18 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's inclusion is original research, and portrays a specific POV, without including other POV. Both which are against Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I have read the below sentence a dozen times over a period of days and compared it to other countries articles and it just reads "funny" to me. It sounds as if Canada woke up one morning and happened to discover or acknowlege their head of state. The UK, France, USA, etal don't "recognize" their head of state, they simply have one. Why does Canada? any comments before I make a change? --Niloc 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy that recognizes Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952),[14][15] and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government, and strong democratic traditions.

That is the standard usage - an apt to the circumstances - I'm not sure what you want. Since she ain't really the head of state in practice, the situation is somewhat different that many other countries. WilyD 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a bit strange, as well. I believe it was coined some time ago by republican minded editors who view the Queen of Canada as a foreigner - ie. that's EIIR is truly head of state for the UK, but Canada only "recognizes" her as the same. Of course, such thinking is fallacious - by law (and Canadian law at that) Elizabeth is Canada's head of state - all executive authority is vested in her, the Governor General derives his or her authority from her, all laws are passed in her name, her image appears on Canadian coinage, etc., etc. No vagaries about it. The sentence should be changed. --gbambino 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed. She is officially the Queen of Canada and head of State in what is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. CMacMillan 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We recognize her because she has no real authority here, we graciously grant her respect as a member of the common wealth. Atleast that is what they told me in high school. Most countries with monarchs give the monarch authority, we give only token authority. HighInBC 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you were given such nonsense in high school. The Queen holds all authority here - From the Constitution Act, 1867: III. EXECUTIVE POWER. 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. It's disappointing enough that there are those out there who think Canada to be a headless state, but even more so when those people are teachers. --gbambino 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Authority in the monarch in Canada is vested in her representatives, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors. Her actual personal authority is a bit irrelevant to why we grant her respect.Michael Dorosh 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
'Recognize' is something you do to other states. I've changed it to a much more straightforward wording. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good choice. While her powers are limited by the Constitution - and symbolic in nearly every aspect - the power trail does theoretically end with her. For example, the Governor General is listed as her representative within Canada, and the GG is the titular Commander in Chief of the military. 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In reality the Constitution gives her all power, but at the same time constiutional convention dictates that she cannot exercise it unilaterally, unless in exceptional circumstances. It's the same situation in any constitutional monarchy, and there the monarch is head of state, not recognized as such. So, I agree that the new wording is more appropriate. --gbambino 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input and the subsquent "concensus" for change to the noted sentence. It is apparent that not everyone is familar with the "fine balancing act" between the Canadian Government and the Canadian Head of State that, for all its' perceived inadequacies, works better than most others. --Niloc 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I have reverted the change that removes Huron from Canada's name section. The reference for the statement clearly says Huron-Iroquous. The editor who removes the statement points to other Wikipedia articles which due to Wikipedia policy cannot be used as references. Unless you can find another verifiable reference that specifically says that Huron was not the source, the current version will stay because it has a verifiable source. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A proper source will be added in a couple of days and the correction re-enstated (as well as to the Canada's name article). Friends, government PR is not a dignified wiki source. However, ours it but war of terms. Iroquoian (or Laurentian) is the proper term when refering to the so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language of the Quebec City region in 1535. It's as if you were calling the Dutch language the "German-English" language. Sloppy. Hurons and Iroquois never lived in the Quebec City at this time. I understand, however, that you police the "Canada" article with a military flair. Might tone it down a bit, guys, although I surmise you're pretty much fed up with your work. Joseph B 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll move the discussion to your page. Your assertion merits discussion. Your comments about "military flair" and suggestions to tone it down do not. No personal attacks. Period. CMacMillan 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian

The reference to a Heritage Canada Web brochure is not a valid source for the origin of the word Canada. A better source would have been a run-of-the-mill dictionary of Indians names, such as Bernard Assiniwi’s Lexique des noms indiens du Canada, or even Hurtig’s Canadian Enclyclopedia, but even such sources are not much better.

A distinction is clearly made in the academic literature between the inhabitants of the St-Lawrence Valley, the “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians,” and the Iroquois and Huron living near Lake Ontario. In the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” – which has perhaps 10 or 15 thousand pages – there is a revealing map (volume 15, page ix) of Indian tribes before the Europeans arrived in numbers: the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians occupy the whole Saint-Lawrence Valley, from Cornwall to the Ïle aux Coudres (other maps suggest that the Iroquoians were present as far East as Gaspé, but this is disputed). The Smithsonian map is also found, I think, in Duane Champagne’s The Native American Almanac of 1994. Jacques Cartier thus met “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” (sometimes called “Iroquians” or “Laurentians” when speaking of their language). In 1534, he met some who were traveling in the Gaspé région (but who lived up stream). In 1535-36, Cartier visited their villages. As for the more accessible books on Native Americans, such as O. P. Dickason’s Canada’s First Nations, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians are usually mentioned briefly (page 50).

The word “Iroquois” is normally reserved for the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy which, in 1535, were not in contact with any Europeans. English-language and French-language specialists insist on distinguishing Iroquois and Iroquoian. Examples : Trigger and Pendergast, page 357, referenced in article “Canada,” and Richard Dominique and Jean-Guy Deschênes’ Cultures et société autochtones au Québec (pages 33). A bit like “Germanic languages” and “German”: only one refers to English. The same Iroquois / Iroquoian distinction is found in French and German (Iroquois / Iroquoien) (Irokese / Irokesisch).

The Iroquois/Iroquoian/Huron confusion stems mostly from centuries of ignorance. For example, Henry Biggar included in his The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, published in 1924, Sir Daniel Wilson’s text “The Huron-Iroquois of Canada” which he had written in 1884. It is a speculative and totally discredited article. Later, Hurtig invited the “Former Dominion Archivist” and long-retired W. Kaye Lamb to write the article about “Canada” for his Canadian Encyclopaedia of 1985.

The word “Huron” is also excluded. In 1535 they lived in the area north of Lake Ontario. Bruce Trigger, in his The Children of Aataentsic. A history of the Huron people to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1976, pp. 224-228), makes the Huron/Iroquoian distinction and suggests that the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians were probably killed by the Hurons or the Mohawks in the late 16th century in an attempt to control the trade routes with Europeans. The Saint-Lawrence Valley was thus becoming a very dangerous area and the Iroquoians seemingly paid the price. It would also appear that some of the Saint Lawrence Iroquoian survivors were probably taken in by the Hurons, the Mohawks and the Algonquins, by force or by mutual agreement. By 1603, Algonquins and Mohawks hunted in the Saint-Lawrence Valley and conducted raids, but neither had any permanent settlements.

Next, why use imagined phonetics: “kanata” or “kaná:ta”? This practice seems to have been encouraged by Heritage Canada’s web site (referenced) and Lamb’s article in Hurtig’s Enclyclopedia (un-referenced). The only reasonably reliable source about language(s) spoken in Stadacona and Hochelaga is the writings of Jacques Cartier (or perhaps those of his ghost writer). He wrote, in his Journal of the 1535-1536 voyage which was published in 1545: “Ilz appellent une ville: Canada”. The word Canada was also on the front cover. The Harleian Mappemonde of 1536 shows “Canada” (village, region and river). Any other graphical transcription of “Canada” is pure imagination, since no other sources exist. The journal of his earlier 1534 voyage, which was published several years later in Italian, gives no additional clues. His “vocabulary” tops out at 200 odd words.

Of course, the Mohawk and Oneida dialects of Iroquois have a similar word meaning “village” or “settlement” that it written “kanata” since the 19th or 20th century when latin script was first used to transcribe them. But whether or not one believes every detail of the linguistic observations of Jacques Cartier (his list may include words from two or three dialects, or languages, used by the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians), his list of Iroquoian vocabuary is quite distinct from modern-day Mohawk (there are mohawk dictionaries for those who like word puzzles). Furthermore, Mohawk may have evolved considerably since the 16th century, especially if Iroquoian refugees were accepted into their villages. A good reference on this matter is Marianne Mithun who clearly identifies separate “Laurentian” and “Mohawk” languages (Mithun, “Iroquoian”, in “The Languages of Native America”, Austin: Univeristy of Texas, 1979, pp. 133-212). Mithun, a linguist, is not however an historian.

There is thus no apparent reason for using 19th or 20th century phonetic transcription of Mohawk when writing 16th century Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian (or “Laurentian”). This error seemingly stems of the Iroquoian/Iroquois confusion (see above). One can however legitimately underline, when discussing the origins of the word Canada, that other related languages have a similar word meaning village (Mohawk: “kanata”; Huron: “andata”). But neither is a phonetic transcription of Canada as written by Jacques Cartier. Sorry. If the navigator (or his educated ghost writer) wrote “d”, he probably meant the sound “d”. If, however, French language texts of the 16th century all used “d” when today we use or pronouce “t” in their place, then it’s a new ball game. Anyone want to try proving that?

The only question remaining is whether the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians spoke several dialects or separate languages; this linguistic diversity stems from comparative analysis of the Cartier vocabulary (linguistic comparaisons with the other languages of the Iroquoian language group) and from the observation that a single native American language was never used in 15th century woodland America over such a large area, stretching hundreds of kilometers. Its probable that they spoke at least two or more dialects or languages. But we will never know.

Thus the expression “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian,” in the singular, is included in the new text and “kanata” is excluded. The same change will be made to the article “Canada’s name” when I get around to it. Finally, the article on the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian language is titled “Laurentian language”. It might need changing, but the title follows the lead of the wiki articles on linguistics and most texts on Native American languages. Joseph B 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a large amount of good research and you probably are right with your conclusion, but using the groups that were in the region that Jacques Cartier arrived at to determine the source of the word Canada needs a small leap, that in my mind would be considered original research. What we need is a specific reference regarding the etymology of the word Canada, and right now the Government of Canada website is the best we've got. -- Jeff3000 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is not an ounce of original research in my comment. Reread the text. It's all copied from basic (and boring) academic texts. However, if someone wants to use "kanata" or "huron-iroquois", they should find a reputable source (i.e. academic research and not government PR). And freely coping text from Hurtigs Enclyclopedia, written by a nice guy educated in the 1920s, is simply not up to scratch. He had no credentials in etymology. He was a librarian. Joseph B 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm lost on the government PR comment, and I'd have to ask you to verify your credentials in order to accept your summary dismissal of someone elses. In any event I believe the Huron-Iroquois connection was made by Abbe Etienne-Michel Faillon, a philologist. However, I believe dissent appears throughout so I'm not sure how we plan on resolving the issue here. Suggestions? CMacMillan 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
When there's more than one POV on a topic, all have to be given and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I agree with CMacMillian that the government website cannot be dismissed so easily. -- Jeff3000 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Topical information from government web-sites, unsigned, is not worthy as a reference for a Wiki. Its fun information, good for the kids, sometimes lively, but not serious. If it were serious, the civil servant who wrote it would have signed it or published it somewhere (like the statisticians of Stat Canada: all work is signed). In any case, just find some reliable sources as good the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” with it 15-odd volumes and hundreds of articles signed by duly recognized academics, experts in their fields. Or an article from a peer reviewed journal (published in last decade or two, preferably). But since only one man wrote anything about the language of the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian, I think you'll come up short. And this last sentence is not original research: I stole it from Mithun who wrote: "All data from Laurentian are contained in two word lists recorded during the sixteenth century." (Mithun, page 140). Although she is not an historian, as a linguist specializing in Iroquoian languages, her opinion in this matter is probably definitive. And by the way, I am wondering if the Heritage Canada web site simply lifted the material from Hurtig's Enclyclopedia. Joseph B 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but you don't determine what is a reliable source. Wikipedia policy does so, and the government website easily passes. -- Jeff3000 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I decide nothing, obviously. But this is all becoming a circular argument: find a source written by a reputable scholar (etymology, linguistics) who states otherwise. Good luck, Jim! Joseph B 03:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted above when there are sources who provide contradicting views, Wikipedia policy is that both should be mentioned, and I will insert the government reference alongside the new reference after more discussion from other editors is made here. -- Jeff3000 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Highlights from the reliable source page (just a little reminder):

  • Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
  • Do secondary sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?
  • Were they actually there?
  • With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability
  • Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are generally more credible
  • Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are.
  • To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents
  • There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.

But beyond these good practices suggested by the Wiki community, which seem to apply quite well to this case, a bit of judgement is always required. Since government websites are written by PR officers, they do not pass wiki criteria (see above). You could of course quote some academic article from the early 20th century. As Trigger and Pendergast wrote in 1978, "Unfortunately, the results of this early speculation continue to be accepted as fact, particularly by historians who are unaware of more recent work or of the slender factual basis for theses early reconstructions." (Handbook of North American Indians, 1978, vol. 15, p. 359). Cheers! Joseph B 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JoshephB, can you confirm that page number? I couldn't find that quote. CMacMillan 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow, first thing. Might have mixed them up. Joseph B 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote and page number confirmed. Volume 15 has subtitle "Northeast" and Bruce G. Trigger was the volume editor. Page 359, 2nd column. The authors are refering to the popular 19th century theory that the St. Lawrence Iroquoians retreated South to become the Mohawk tribe or West to become one of the Huron tribes. Trigger and Pendergast contend that archeological evidence unearthed in the mid-20th and late-20th century indicates clearly that Mohawks, Hurons and St. Lawrence Iroquoians "developed separately." And that linguistic evidence points in the same direction. By the way, Mithun, in her book on Native North American Languages of 1999, writes on page 2 or 3 that the extinct "Laurentian" language gave us the word "canada" (notice spelling and use of lower-case). Seems to be the clearest statement I've unearth to date. For the historical aspect, however, she simply relies on Trigger and Pendergast's text of 1978. Joseph B 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note in defence of government web sites: "Since government websites are written by PR officers, they do not pass wiki criteria (see above)." Not all government web sites are. I'm not a PR officer, and I occasionally write copy for government web sites in my program area. It's not all propaganda just because it's on a government site. Eron 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. Especially true when studies and summaries of scientific information are published on government sites. But in some cases the sources are not checked. Joseph B 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the news!

St. Lawrence Iroquoians are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the Cartier-Roberval settlement of 1541-1543 was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed report about the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent".

So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't.

Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. Joseph B 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly revert war

Sorry for butting in here, but the repeated reverting of Joseph B's edits is rather silly. Joseph B has done good work researching the literature on Canada's name using scholarly sources and documenting them here, yet it seems that some editors feel a Heritage Canada web site trumps all modern scholarship. We delight when we find errors in Britannica, yet an unsourced government web site seemingly directed at children is sacrosanct????!!!! To recapitulate Joseph B's evidence:

  1. "Canada" was first used by Jacques Cartier;
  2. He got the word from people living along the Saint Lawrence;
  3. "kanata/canada" is not a Huron word, it is “andata”, hence the Heritage Canada web site is wrong;
  4. According to Bruce Trigger, McGill anthropologist and perhaps foremost authority on the Hurons, they did not live in the Saint Lawrence valley in the 16th Century;
  5. Scholarly sources indicate that the Saint Lawrence valley was inhabited by a different people, now called the "Laurentians" or “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” in the 16th Century.
  6. For similar reasons, it can't be a Mohawk word, as Trigger and Marianne Mithun have established they did not live along the Saint Lawrence in the 16th century and they spoke a different language.

This article is an overview article, so a one sentence statement is sufficent. Discussion of the "Huron-Iroquois" myth belongs in the Name origin section of the Canada's_name article. Luigizanasi 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about right - scholarly, attributable sources should take precendence over unattributed government websites. Whilst we all know neither is 100% reliable, the former is more reliable than the latter. Luigi is right that the issue should be explained at Canada's name, but not here. WilyD 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The reverting back-and-forth does seem a bit much, particularly for a minor section of this article. There seems to be general agreement, backed by various references, on the origin of the name Canada: it comes from a First Nations word meaning "village" or "settlement" that was used to refer to the village of Stadacona. The dispute is over which of several different languages actually provided the source word.
So, can we not say just say that "The name Canada comes from a First Nations word meaning 'village' or 'settlement'" on this page, and leave the linguistic debate to Canada's name, where it should be possible to air both sides of the discussion?
I'd make the edit myself, but given the current revert-fest, it's probably best to get consensus here before touching that paragraph. Eron 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Great suggestion Eron, I support it. -- Jeff3000 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be OK with me too, but Joseph B has reverted again. I did find another reference which I put in the article. It is by Alan Rayburn who was the executive director of Canada's Geographic Names Board, so pretty authoritative also. Ironically, I found it by checking out what an anonymous editor claimed on a discussion on Canada's Name talk page. Luigizanasi 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're on to something. I agree that discussion of this matter would probably be better on the discussion page of Canada's name; it would also clearup space and time for work on this article. Suggestions to the effect of eliminating any reference to who actually lived at Stadacona could be a quick solution for this article (Canada). Indeed, some of the academically minded seem to like writing about "Stadaconans" and "Hochelagans," in any case. Still, the new text would need to avoid using the word "kanata" for reasons explained above (Cartier wrote "canada" and no other primary source exists). Of course, at least one linguist thinks that this word was probably pronouced by the Stadaconians, in International Phonetics, as "kaná•taʔ" -- the final letter not being a question mark but a glottal stop written ʔ). Joseph B 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Georges Sioui of the Wendat Wendake village, near Quebec City, recognized, in his published M.A. thesis "For an Amerindian Autohistory" (Montreal: McGill-Queen's, 1992, English translation) that the "St. Lawrence Iroquoian" label is indeed correct. He goes on to say that the St. Lawrence Iroquoian refugees that migrated to Huronia in the 16th century had such an impact on the Wendats that, when they migrated from Huronia to the Quebec City area 100 years later (because of wars), they had become "Wendat-Iroquoians". Interesting, but only relevant when discussing the 17th century. Joseph B 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about this text for the first paragraph under 'Origin and history of the name':
The name Canada comes from a First Nations word meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, inhabitants of the area near present-day Quebec City used the word to tell Jacques Cartier the way to the village of Stadacona. Cartier used the word 'Canada' to refer not only to Stadacona, but the entire area subject to Donnacona, Chief at Stadacona; by 1547, maps began referring to this and the surrounding area as Canada.
All references to specific First Nations languages can stay at the main article on Canada's name. Eron 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I would totally support such a change. In fact I would have suggested something like it if I had got round to it. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Support as well. -- Jeff3000 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sort of support, but we could say First Nations Iroquoian language, as it is not disputed that Huron, "Iroquois" and Saint Lawrence Iroquoian are all Iroquoian languages. Luigizanasi 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we've had yet another revert. I'm going to go ahead with the change I suggested above. I respectfully ask that editors discuss it here before reverting again. Eron 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, Eron. Congrats! Joseph B 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Do you think it would be appropriate if I added a low-resolution PNG of the "Canada Wordmark" [4] to the infobox of this article, or would that violate a house style? -- Denelson83 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That image is not free, and so it can be licensed under the GFDL, and therefore would require a fair use rationale, which we don't have for this page. So in short, it wouldn't pass Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal Union Flag

I was wondering maybe the Royal Union Flag could be put on the Canada page? It is still an official flag of Canada at least according to the government. The Royal Union Flag is a current official flag of Canada per act of parliament of December 18, 1964, to "show allegiance to the crown and as a symbol of Canadian membership in the Commonwealth". It is required to be flown at Canadian federal goverment facilities on Victoria Day, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminister (Dec 11), and Commonwealth day. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 8:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should. It is already covered in Flag of Canada, to which a link is already provided (in the infobox). The only flag that should appear on this page, in my opinion, is the national flag. Mindmatrix 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MindMatrix. -- Jeff3000 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


were Slovakians immigrated to Canada? Simon Mayer.

Pretty much everyone has immigrated to Canada at some point in it's history. Lots of Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so it would be astonishing if there were no Slovaks. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that at least one did: a Slovakian friend of my father-in-law immigrated to Canada in his youth. After Czechoslovakia split, he liked to joke that he was a "cancelled Czech". --thirty-seven 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

need clarification: Government section

The statement "general elections are called by the Governor General when the Prime Minister so advises, and must occur every five years or less" is ambiguous. Does it mean less time than five years or less often than five years? If I knew the answer (i.e., if I were Canadian), I would modify it to be clearer. Rivertorch 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the distinction you are trying to draw. Jkelly 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was particularly unclear, but I did try to reword the statement a bit. --Q Canuck 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction was that one possibility meant the exact opposite of the other. Anyway, it's fine now. Rivertorch 06:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Create some Fauna

Should a Fauna of Canada page be created, with a paragraph here, like the Fauna of Puerto Rico article? It seems like a ref to the fauna and flora is the only thing this page is lacking, and would be benifitial to the page. JQF 15:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a section on Fauna is necessary. The page is already too long. Write a page on the Fauna of Canada, and instead include it in the "See also" section. -- Jeff3000 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright. JQF 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit reversion

I recently reverted this edit, which I assumed to be a subtle form of vandalism. I apologize if this assumption was incorrect.--GregRM 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

first world country

does canada deserve to be called a first world country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

If you are serious the the answer is Yes. If you are trying to be funny the answer is Please stop. I hope that answers your question. HighInBC 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. -- Jeff3000 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thiss user is a VANDAL. Ignore him Zazaban 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Canada"

The article begins with:

Canada (pronounced [kənādēə] in English and [kanada] in French)...

It looks to me like the IPA for the English and the French are reversed. As a non-Canadian (and non-IPAn), I thought I should seek comments before I edited the article.


Well, I'm not master of IPA, but in english the vowels are definitely not identical, whilst in french they are. It's fairly obvious to me ([[WP:OR]) when I say Welcome to Canada and contrast it with Bienvenue au Canada WilyD 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In my 28 years in Canada(since birth) the a's has always been pronounced like can or man. HighInBC 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Really? I've never heard anyone from BC who didn't have a "Central Canadian Accent" which definitely gives the anglo pronounciation as "Can-uh-daa" or so phoentically. WilyD 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
When I hear "Can-uh-daa" I consider the person to not be taking the effor to pronounce it properly. As for peoples accents, that can cause all manner of variation. HighInBC 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In english, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" pronunciation, only "used" or "unused" - accents do vary a bit, but you have to take the pronouncation from a specific accent (this is, I think, obvious - but we can come back to it), and General American is definitely the wrong one. The most common anglophone accent is the general Central Canadian which is found with very little variation from Montreal to Vancouver - it seems the most natural one to choose. WilyD 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with IPA -- it's too specific. When followed too closely it can produce a comic effect. I well remember an English conductor working on a Scottish train service who used his normal southern English accent for everything except the names of the Scottish towns that the train stopped at. Those he pronounced with a Scottish accent. While technically correct, the accent switch mid-sentence had the unintended (?) effect of making the Scottish passengers chuckle. Faced with this lesson, I will certainly continue to pronounce "Canada" with a Scottish accent to fit in with the rest of my speech rather than a Canadian one and I would recommend that others do likewise with their own accents whatever those may be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The ['kʰænədə] that appears in the article now seems a better representation of what I'm used to hearing than the [kənādēə]that was there before. To my ear, the English spoken in Colorado, where I live, is pretty close to what I hear spoken in Alberta. The differences are more in idiom than in accent. In general, I hear more changes of accent going east or south from home than when I travel north or west.