Talk:Population of Canada
|WikiProject Canada / History||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of Canada, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
- 1 Lack of source.
- 2 the size (area) given to metro cities in the US is much different than in Canada making Canadian cities slightly underrated in population
- 3 Sentence in lead section - What does it actually mean?
- 4 Title
- 5 Title
- 6 Dispute with intro about arable land (can it be removed or reworded in the intro)
- 7 Requested move
- 8 The heading - Aboriginals
- 9 Population decline
Lack of source.
There wasn't really any source for the projection that "canada's population will reach 40,000,000 by 2010" so I deleted it. 11 million population of canada
the size (area) given to metro cities in the US is much different than in Canada making Canadian cities slightly underrated in population
checkout cities like Denver, Houston, even Philadelphia. they are given areas more comparable to the horseshoe area around Toronto than metro Toronto. by that measure Toronto is a lot closer to being the 4th largest city in North America that includes Mexico, USA, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sentence in lead section - What does it actually mean?
The more I look at this sentence from the lead section, the less I understand it.
- Canada makes up 0.5% of the world population, and Canadians make up 0.53% or 1 in 189 globally.
What's the difference between the first part and the second part, they have the same meaning to me. And why are the numbers different (0.5 vs. 0.53)? The sentence seems to be inconsistent. In other words, Either Canada makes up 0.53% of the world population, or Canadians make up 0.5% or 1 in 189 globally. And what world population was used to compute 1 in 189? Why say it both ways? It's unverifiable as stated, except with a number of assumptions. Any suggestions to improve this? DonToto (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done..i will start to fix redirects..if someone got a bot for this that would be great.Moxy (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
....All those dead babies..... My problem is with the paragraph: "The year with the most population growth was during the peak of the Post-World War II baby boom in 1956-1957, when the population grew by over 529,000, in a single twelve month period. The Canadian baby boom defined from 1947 to 1966, saw more than 400,000 babies born." ...so one year (1956-1957) 529000 babies are born... and the period encompassing that year 1947 to 1966 there are a total for all those years of 400000 babies born. What that means is 529000-400000=129000 babies died and the other years from 1947 to 1966 there were no babies born (but wait, we can do this other ways) 529000 + 2000 babies born every year minus a catastrophic meteor crashing into the earth killing 165000 babies gives us a total of 400000 for the period from 1947 to 1966. ...The numbers add up wonky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) If you're trying to figure out why our population is incredibly low compared to say "Russia" which is in the same geographical situation and still a super power.. it's because when the globalists started introducing population control.. we fell for it hook line and sinker. Only instead of castration we opted for birth control including vasectomy ... smaller families.. or no children at all. May as well have lined up to be castrated.. it's the same basically. Even if you get the math all straight on this .. it still doesn't make any sense except in that context. The lack of population growth in such a large and rich country stands out like a sore thumb. http://www.theriseofthefourthreich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dispute with intro about arable land (can it be removed or reworded in the intro)
Implying that Canada has a modest population density when taking out non arable land is wrong. Canada contains over a third of the world’s boreal forest, one fifth of the world’s temperate rainforest, and a tenth of the total global forest cover. Canada has the second major repository of northern forests, after Russia. Canada’s boreal forest is one of the three largest ‘frontier forests’ remaining on the planet. Canada’s relatively undisturbed forest areas are sufficiently large to maintain all of their native biodiversity.
Forests comprise 45% and freshwaters comprise 9% of Canada’s area. The timber productive forestland totals almost 2.5 million square kilometers, or about one quarter of Canada’s land area.
Global Forest Watch: Canada - Index
in some provinces like Nova Scotia 77 % of the area is considered forested and that doesn't include tree cover in urban areas. altogether it could be as high as 85 %. New Brunswick it's 90 % http://www.new-brunswick.net/new-bru...gentravel.html the area of dense forests in Quebec is the size of Norway and Sweden combined. 33 MILLION HECTARES OF FOREST LAND IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORES http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages..._a_forest.aspx
tree cover in Australia is 5 % tree cover in Canada is 45 %
Canada's forests occupy 1.5 times the land area of the entire European Community (EU 300 million Canada 34 million there's a big difference in population density). "North America's forests are abundant and growing. Between them, Canada and the United States contain 15 percent (10 percent in Canada and 5 percent in the U.S.) of the Earth's forest cover" that means there are more trees in Canada than the USA. http://www.hpva.org/products/facts.aspGrmike (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmikeGrmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike
- Reworded last sentence of the intro based on NB and NS. Combined they have about 80-85% forest cover but their population density is less than that of Sweden which is described as having a lot population density in its wikipedia article. NS and NB are ranked among Canada's most densely populated regions but they still pale in comparison to European countries even the low populated ones.Grmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike
The heading - Aboriginals
- Aboriginals is often also employed to stand as a noun . "Aborigines" is a term normally used for Indigenous Australians. Also have to remember Aborigines has some derogatory associations... (Source for these POV,s - Bill Ashcroft; Gareth Griffiths; Helen Tiffin (2000). Post-colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. Psychology Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-415-24360-5.) -- Moxy (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)