Misplaced Pages

Talk:Canada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:50, 11 November 2006 editIntuitionz (talk | contribs)75 edits →Canada: "American Sovereign State" or Not?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:07, 10 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Canada/Archive 29) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the ].
{{Talk header}}
<div style="background-color: AntiqueWhite;border:2px solid red;padding:10px;text-align:center"><font color=red>'''Notice:'''</font> This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., ], ], ] Thank you.</div>
{{Canadian English}}
{{WP:Countries|FA|small=yes}}
{{Article history
{{WPCD|small=yes}}
|action1=PR
{{featured|GA=yes|small=yes}}
|action1date=6 February 2006
{{FAOL|Finnish|fi:Kanada|small=yes}}
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Canada/archive1
{{Mainpage date|June 23|2006|small=yes}}
|action1oldid=38549737
{{oldpeerreview|small=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Geography|small=yes}}
{| class="infobox" width="250"
|- align="center"
| ]
''']'''
----
|-
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
Discussion of Canada's official name
* ]
* ]
|}


|action2=FAC
==Canadian Culture==
|action2date=25 May 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Canada
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=55201114


|action3=FAR
Granted, "Canadian culture" is an elusive concept, but the absence of any reference to the vast cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada -- and this is not a reference to cultural differences from a political perspective -- mis-informs. If the following phrase, "Many cultural products are now marketed toward a unified "North American" market," is included, it must be accompanied by the statement that a unified North American market does not include the province of Quebec which has had to develop, for example, its own French language "star" system that is almost entirely divorced from what could rightly be refered to as the more integrated English-speaking North American market. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start this section of the article off with one of the most interesting features of "Canadian" culture which is the fact that it is difficult to define because it is not unitary. This is to say that by creating the category "Canadian culture", the editors pre-suppose something for which there is no consensus in erudite Canadian circles; if anything, the national unifying malaise is a lack of distinctly uniform Canadian culture. --] 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
|action3date=23:52, 20 April 2010
:Discussion of Canadian culture belongs in ]. Remember ] ] 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Canada/archive1
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=356874494


|maindate=June 23, 2006
==Program vs. Programme==
|maindate2=July 1, 2017
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject North America|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org=]|author=Staff}}
<!-- Banner project drop down section starts below here //-->


<!-- Badges section drop down section starts below here //-->
Since this appears to be cropping up in the recent edits... on the East coast, program would be preferred over programme, however they often would carry different meanings. Programme would specifically refer to a printed listing of events or a television show. ] 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
:Alberta, here. I might expect a programme, if I went out to a play, but otherwise program is by far the more common usage. --] 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Featured article history section starts below here //-->
:Vancouver Sun would be the same - Victoria is more "Britsh" but even there programme would be rare - likely only for a play --] 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Media, press, and Style synopsis section within Badges starts below here //-->


{{All time pageviews|106}}
=== Canadian spelling ===
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}}
<!-- Proposals for references go in section below here //-->
<!-- Other badges or page-view info go in section below here //-->
{{annual readership}}
}}
{{consensus|<big>'''Please read before contributing'''</big><br>The ] article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. ], ], ] etc. See ] for a complete listing of topics. Why? see ].
}}
{{section sizes}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Canada}}</noinclude>
{{Talk:Canada/Archives|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 29
|algo = old(80d)
|archive = Talk:Canada/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024 ==
Do these searches:
* +canada +programme
*: (most of the above are French)
* +canada +program
Even
* "toronto star" +program
* "toronto star" +programme


{{edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}
Which is the more common spelling in Canada?
Add the term of Dominion of Canada which is still the official name of the country. (See the Constitutional Act of 1867 for references). ] (]) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. ] ] 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:: says it is still current. – <span style="font-family: Georgia;">''''']'''''</span> (] • ]), 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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


The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the ]." I think reads better as "Canada's economic '''cooperation''' with the United States has increased significantly since the ]." How is Canada integrated?
I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada.
Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(, ) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. ] (]) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. ] (]) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Yes, the searches - which are central Canadian dominant - do produce more results for programme in French than the program one, however the regionalist nature of language in Canada could sway the results. Try the same search for +Canada +programme, but add +"Cape Breton" or +"PEI" and you'll see a very different result set.
::A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. ] (]) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:* there are still 4 times as many for +program +"cape breton" than for +programme +"cape breton" --] 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::]..... Integration is simply the term used..... electricity system in Canada and US is also very integrated as is our oil and fuel. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:**I'm obviously here more for the discussion than the actual edit, so I appreciate that people are taking the spelling issue with a grain of salt ;) However, my feeling is that Google response count doesn't make it right, or valid. There are 4 times as many responses for +Canada +color than there are for +Canada +colour. Most of us would agree that "colour" is the Canadian spelling however.
::::Agree that sources call the two economies ''integrated''. That's the correct term to use. —] (]) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:**The discussion, I think, centres on the fact that it's impossible to say what's right and what's wrong. We can say that program is the more common usage based on experience, but just like it isn't wrong to use "tickle" for "narrow mouth of harbour", it isn't wrong to use programme - just much less common. ]
:::The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. ] (]) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:* However, it was originally "program" and someone came along "correcting" it for "Canadian" spelling - obviously unwarranted, no matter what region of Canada one os from --] 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::re-wrote lead (to follow body) at ].......perhaps more clear? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:*I see the editor has reverted himslef. Since I did the work to find them, here are some style guides anyway --] 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:**http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/style/sg42.html
:**http://www.ucalgary.ca/external/style-guide.html
:**http://www.caot.ca/default.asp?pageid=1063
:**http://www.tc-forum.org/topicus/ru15spel.htm
:**http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:iTDNSDf9STYJ:dynamic.capcollege.bc.ca/AssetFactory.aspx%3Fdid%3D27283+canada+spelling+style+guide+%2Bprogram&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14


== Update Canadian population ==


{{Edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}
:Not that I'm arguing for programme over program :) ... just a comment on how "common" isn't necessarily reflected by Google searches. Use the word "tickle" in Toronto and then try it in St. John's and the response will be radically different. ] 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Update Canadian population from 41,288,599 (2024 Q3) to 41,465,298 (2024 Q4). It's from the same source, which has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ] (]) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Ethnic Origins ==
::For what it is worth, I am Canadian and I have always seen it spelled ''program''. The government of Canada is required to use correct Canadian spelling by law, here are some goverment websites that use this word. You will see on the french version of each page that ''Programme'' is used. While Canada speaks both English and French officially, I think the english version should be used as this is the english wikipedia. ] 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
{{resolved }} - <small>editor blocked -<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
I have reverted the change .....simply because the percentages don't match the statistical analysis that has been published . That said....I think I agree we should stick with .... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as ] (that is not a terminology used by statistics Canada). We just need to take a closer look at what has been published number wise over Misplaced Pages own calculations (that is allowed) however the past calculations don't match official publications that analyze the data. Think it's best we stick with the sources that analyze the data over analyzing the data ourselves.
Let's compare the two sets of data


Change of stats...''' South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%)''' sourced to the (that I assume was self calculated).
:::Again, not necessarily. Health Canada, a government agency, uses Programme: , as does PISA . Programme, by the way, is the British spelling as well as the French spelling. ]


Old stable version...'''South Asian (2.6 million people; 7.1 percent), Chinese (1.7 million; 4.7 percent), and Black (1.5 million; 4.3 percent). The Indigenous population representing 5 percent or 1.8 million individuals''' sourced to an analysis of the raw data by those who published it saying <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I see the point of misunderstanding here, proper names always use the original spelling. ''Health Canada's Tobacco Control Programme'' is a name of a group, but on the same page they use ''program''. The same goes for ''Programme for International Student Assessment''. ] 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


:Just reverted stating ....yet source says "According to the 2021 Census, there were 1.8 million Indigenous people, representing '''5.0%''' of the total Canadian population,''' up from 4.9%''' in 2016.". <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
As I was sitting viewing the colourful harbour and writing cheques I came to the conclusion that I was wrong editing "program" for "programme". I will make the change. However, I did enjoy the responses I evoked!--] 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::I do not believe Moxy has provided an actual basis for reverting or disagreeing with my edits. '''Please read carefully.'''

::''Old version:''

::'''The major panethnic groups chosen were: European (52.5 percent), North American (22.9 percent), Asian (19.3 percent), North American Indigenous (6.1 percent), African (3.8 percent), Latin, Central and South American (2.5 percent), Caribbean (2.1 percent), Oceanian (0.3 percent), and other (6 percent).'''
One should be careful when using newspaper articles as a reference regarding Canadian spelling. For example, The (Montreal) Gazette, in its style guide, favours American spelling since it receives and publishes articles from wire services such as Reuteurs, UPI, etc. To attempt to Canadianize all these articles would be time-consuming and costly, so it settles on American spelling. ] 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::''My new and preferred version:''

::'''The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada are: White (67.4%), South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%), Filipino (2.5%), Arab (1.9%), Latin American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1%), West Asian (1%), Korean (0.6%), Japanese (0.2%), mixed (3.2%) and other (0.7%).'''
:I've only ever read/heard ''program'', and I live in Winnipeg. In certain areas, the variation fluctuates. ] 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::Moxy first reverted my edits by writing ''"Where does 6.9 for indigenous come from ? https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population"''. My version, as well as the link they provided, both clearly state 4.9%. Obviously, not a basis to revert it. Despite that, Moxy still reverted the edits by writing ''"Nope looking further.... these must be all self edition that don't match publications such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm"''. Frankly I'm not sure what that means what "doesn't match" as zero information has been provided on what does not match!

::Moxy has stated my edits "''don't match the statistical analysis that has been published ''" Let's have a look. Ctrl+F on The Daily "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". I wrote that 67.4% were white. Other quick examples, The Daily article also says "In the 2021 Census, just over half a million people (580,000) reported being Latin American only" which matches the source I am using and the information I had written. It also says "Just over three-quarters of the 360,000 people who reported being West Asian". I mean for goodness sake, this is government data... it is consistent, but Moxy has reverted my edits claiming they are inconsistent with other government data that is also published by Statistics Canada? I just don't understand what Moxy means by "doesn't match publications", when they have provided no examples of what does not match.
The Canadian government used ''program'' on all english document with the exception of proper nouns of French origin, for example '''Programme for International Student Assessment''' uses the french spelling in the title but the english spelling in regular text. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::The previous "Ethnic groups" section included continents of origin. I find it arbitrary because "French Canadian" as an ethnic origin is counted as North American, not European. "French" is counted as European - it is basically arbitrary as it depends on what one writes into the census rather than what they actually are, and I just generally think race is more relevant here. I am using to write the population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada. ] (]) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::What? No explanation or example? Though I was clear. We have 2 different sets of information presented (close but different or old) .....stable version from 2022 regurgitating the vs your new calculations of the raw data that differs. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
==Kwakwaka'wakw big house==
::::::::::::Your free to ask for input from others ], But till you have ] best not to editwar back in your version that is contested. My position is simple.... think it's best we regurgitate over your calculation of the raw data. This would also reflect how other sources present the information.... that is verbatim because of ..like
]
::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Meadus | first=R.J. | title=Communication for Nursing and Health Care Professionals: A Canadian Perspective | publisher=Canadian Scholars | year=2023 | isbn=978-1-77338-365-1 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tbQEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 | access-date=December 19, 2024 | page=76}}
This image is currently a featured picture candidate. Due to a large influx of new candidates there are very few votes for this image. If you have an opinion on this image please go to ] and cast your vote. ] 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Khosa | first=F. | last2=Ding | first2=J. | last3=Tiwana | first3=S. | title=Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Healthcare: From Knowledge to Practice | publisher=Academic Press | year=2024 | isbn=978-0-443-13252-0 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=xcIAEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA106 | access-date=December 19, 2024 | page=106}}

::::::::::::*{{cite web | last=Little | first=William | title=Chapter 11. Race and Ethnicity | publisher=BCcampus | date=September 7, 2023 | url=https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology3rdedition/part/chapter-11-race-and-ethnicity/ | access-date=December 19, 2024}}
== The American State of Canada ==
::::::::::::*{{cite web | last=Marif | first=Diary | title=Vancouver, Surrey, Calgary, Toronto, Brampton, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal | website=South Asian Post | date=December 19, 2024 | url=https://www.southasianpost.com/article/8378-ethnic-diversity-grows-greater-victoria.html#:~:text=Racialized%20groups%20in%20Canada%20are,racialized%20groups%20varies%20across%20regions. | access-date=December 19, 2024}}
]
::::::::::::*{{cite web | title=South Asians (7.1%), Chinese (4.7%), Blacks (4.3%) represent 16.1% of Canada's total population | website=Indo-Canadian Voice | date=October 27, 2022 | url=https://voiceonline.com/south-asians-7-1-chinese-4-7-blacks-4-3-represent-16-1-of-canadas-total-population/ | access-date=December 19, 2024}}

::::::::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You would like to ''"regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data"''. Sounds like a word salad. The source you would like to regurgitate matches the simple calculations of the raw data perfectly. ''Sigh.'' ] (]) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
"Canada became a Permanent Observer at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1972, and then joined as the 33rd Member State on January 8, 1990." (Government of Canada) http://www.international.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/around/international/aroas-en.asp
::::::::::I'm clearly not explaining myself well..... every number is different let's use the Indigenous one for example....our source being used says . You're using the number 1,772,025 so why a difference when you do the calculation? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::This is most likely because the source I provided only includes single race. Possibly, the difference between these two statistics is those who are mixed race with Indigenous. ] (]) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
and "The Organization of American States" http://www.oas.org
:::::::::100% in agreement with Moxy. Editors don't get to collapse groups and do new calcs based on their own preferences, {{em|especially}} when we have pre-existing analysis from the official group that gathered the data. Stats Can collects data on ethnicity, which is not exactly the same as "race", and so the stable version is clearly what should be used. —] (]) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Collapse groups? I'm just taking as it is. Not making "my own calculations based on my own preferences"? This is why I stated "The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada". This is better than categorizing by continent of origin, when that is largely based on arbitrary self-identification (French Canadian ethnicity is counted as North American while French is counted as European, when these people have the same ancestry - it depends on arbitrary labels of self-identity). The population groups I am trying to have inserted are more ''objective''. ] (]) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Would we be able at this point to include ] as the 33rd Member State? ] 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::The categories listed by ] (White, South Asian, Indigenous, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, mixed and other) appear to come from the StatCan definitions for the different population group information used in respect to the visible minority variable (see ) and is collected for employment equity purposes.

:::::::::::The population groups previously contained in the article (European, North American, Asian, North American Indigenous, African; Latin, Central and South American; Caribbean, Oceanian, and other) are the ethnic or cultural origins from this StatCan reference , which appears to have been dropped from the paragraph sometime this fall.
: If you mean listing Canada in the article at ], it's already there; otherwise, I don't understand what you mean or why you think Misplaced Pages would use the phrase "The American State of Canada" to denote anything. I'll be charitable and assume you're aware that the OAS is an organization of all of North and South America's independent ''countries'' (except for ]), and has nothing to do with constituent states of the ]. ] 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Both references are valid StatCan resources, but the context of what is being discussed is important. If we were discussing employment equity measures, the former would be useful. If however, the paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article is referencing Ethnic origins (as evidenced by the paragraph title "Ethnicity", and the subordinate hatnote "Main article: Ethnic origins of people in Canada") then the original article categories are more applicable. ] (]) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::100% correct....when I stated .''stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians.'' I was referring to the OR /assumption that European Canadians (or as Statistics Canada says European origins) equates to White Canadians as a change in a link implied <nowiki>] </nowiki>. Analysis of this data separates this information vs <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
We should add under the Article ], "Canada is the 33rd member as an American State." ] 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

] includes it's entity as a "member" State "Country" of Continental America, is what I was saying, which is important in disclosing Canada's LEGAL status in continental America. ] 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry, but in ] continental America means the 48 states of the US that aren't Alaska or Hawaii. Canada thus has no legal status in continental America. ] 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*The term "The American State of Canada" has no legal standing, any more than "The American State of Venezuela", "The American State of Haiti" or the laughably redundant "The American State of the United States of America" would. The legal names of countries do not normally include references to their ''continents''. ] 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

::"Canada's LEGAL status in continental America" is as a sovereign ] or ]. while attempts at precision and classification are welcome, listing canada as an american state makes about as much sense as listing ] as a canadian language. it can be argued as technically true but has no actual relevance. -- ] 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

:For the record, the Government of Canada's website is at ]. Canada's been part of the America's as long as it's existed. It's membership in a particular organization has nothing to do with anything. What point is it that you're trying to make? --] 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::Correction: Canada's been part of the America's since 1990. Persuent the ] I just thought we could include Canada's recent membership of America. ] 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Saying Canada wasn't part of the Americas until 1990 is like saying Norway isn't part of Europe, because it's not part of the ]. The ] are a geographical landmass. Membership in an international organization doesn't change what continent you're on. --] 12:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

As far as the "American State of Canada", this is the very first time I have ever seen that phrase used. I doubt that it would be easy to find many examples of it being used elsewhere. As we all know, Misplaced Pages is not a place of original research -- see ] for the relevant Misplaced Pages policy. If you want to coin that term on your own website, go ahead, it's a free world wide web. But original research doesn't belong here. ] | ] 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
*Googling "American State of Canada" provides six unique results. Two refer to the somewhat obscure area of ethnomusicology. The other four are about the Americanization of Canada, and America as an imperial power. So there is no support for the idea that this is an appropriate way of denoting Canada's membership in the OAS. ] | ] 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

===Logo===
What does the logo represent?

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

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

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

===six quarters?===

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

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

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

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

== Gov't "intervention" in the ] ==
This section states that "Canada is a free market economy with slightly more government intervention than the United States, but much less than most European nations." Can someone tell me how these assessments have been measured? Absent some supporting material rooted in a set of criteria enjoying wide consensus, this sounds to me like one of those things supposedly "everyone knows" but which might prove more complicated than it first appears.

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

:I think that this is a good catch -- it isn't very helpful to a reader if we're just stating this baldly with no mention of what the criteria for this judgement is, or who makes it. We should attribute this appropriately. ] 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:"Intervention" may not be great, but I think "participation" is doubly flawed because a) its positive connotation makes it POV in the opposite side of the scales and b) it's far too broad a term... just having a payroll of civil servants is "participation" in the economy; I don't think that's what's being referred to. On the other hand, completely agreed about the weaselly way of describing the relative level of intervention/participation/whatever of Canada vs. USA vs. european countries. --] 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

: This is probably a bit biased, but it should at least show that the issue is not at all clear-cut.

== Globe and Mail columnists view on ] article ==

{{cquote|Considering my country's genuine allure, I decided to look up “Canada” on Misplaced Pages.com, the alt-encyclopedia that has a way of making even Newton's generalized binomial theorem sound exciting. Poring over the “Canadian culture” entry, I began to feel like a depressed Buffalo housewife making travel plans on a strict budget: Amid tawdry photographs of native art and that very space needle are multiple references to hockey, the RCMP and the common loon. Cited also is the fact that “many forms of American media and entertainment are popular, if not dominant, in Canada.” What would the average traveller anticipate, after executing this sort of cursory research? Dreary tours of Alf-faced totem poles? Hockey games called by Tony Danza impersonators?}}
*

This is just an FYI by the way, not a "this article sucks!". Maybe there's improvements that can be made based on this info, because although this is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be seen as boring and depressing, much the same as Canada isn't boring or depressing. —]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:The problem with such a sort of analysis on an encyclopedia page, is that the encyclopedia page is not supposed to be promotional. They have a fundamentally different purpose. -- ] 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:You can't please everyone. ] 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: *sigh* It's a national pastime. Don't sweat it... wait until she reads the article on the ]! ] 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the author of the article made some good points. There's definitely always room for improvement. There is always a tendency amongst non-Canadians to view our nation as simply existing in the shadow of the United States, and though there is certainly a great level of influence involved, as can be felt anywhere in the world, I think Canada is unfairly portrayed as such. Unfortunately, many Canadians themselves in recent years are also responsible for promulgating these stereotypes, mostly due to simple ignorance and lack of education regarding the Canadian political system. If Misplaced Pages can help to dispel such myths and clarify the cultural and political atmosphere of Canada, then why not take advantage of that? ] 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
: Although I can agree with this in principle, I always look askance at any kind of criticism that doesn't come with concrete, constructive ideas for improvement. What I would need to know before doing anything is, exactly what does our ''Globe'' columnist think the article ''should'' say? ] 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::That particular columnist is not one I would look to for constructive criticism in any case. She wasn't looking to give advice on a better article; she was looking for padding for her column. If Misplaced Pages hadn't fit the bill, she would probably have gone to Heritage Canada next. ] 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:Nevertheless, she has a point. If "Culture" is seen more as arts and less as social customs, then the section is severely lacking. No mention of museums, art galleries, literature, music and musicians, festivals, etc. As for placing sports under the culture concept (as it's done in most articles about Canadian communities)... well, that's another story. --] 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==Formal name==
I had thought that '''Dominion of Canada''' was still the formal and official name of Canada, but it is not mentioned in the first sentence. Is this no longer so? ] 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
: Read the subsection on "Origin and history of the name", and/or the separate article ]. ] 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::I missed that! Thanks. ] 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
: This issue has been discussed at great length at ], ] and ]. ] | ] 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the links! Interesting discussions. ] 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So, either this page or ] needs to change, as they contradict one another. ] 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:Where is the contradiction? Both articles make identical statements that ''"the Canada Act 1982 refers only to "Canada" and, as such, is currently the only legal (and bilingual) name. "'' It's ungrammatical (I'll fix that) but it isn't contradictory. ] 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

::] says "While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country". ] 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That sentence is bizzare, how else can a country define it's name if not through legal documents. Surely we the treaties we sign with other countries would both be a legal document and contain our official name. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It's also rubbish. Extensive investigation has shown that Canada's name is nothing but 'Canada'. This was settled long ago. The sentence seems to have been removed now. ] 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The phrase "official titles of the country" is problematic. I think the point is that Canada is still sometimes called "the Dominion of Canada" or referred to as a "Dominion", although this is falling into disuse as time goes on. I think the situation is analogous to a person's name; someone whose legal name is "John Smith" might from time to time be called "Mister John Smith," or "Doctor John Smith" or "Captain John Smith." His legal name remains the same in all cases; it's simply a question of adding a title. As the BNA act referred to the creation of a "Dominion" called Canada (as opposed to a "Kingdom", or a "Republic"), the word Dominion has at times been used as a title to accompany the legal name. In our informal times (when was was the last time you called anyone "Mister"?) that title is increasingly dropped. ] 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

==What is "Canadian"==

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

: There is no standard qualification. The ethnicity reported in the census is entirely self-reported, respondants can list as many ethnicities as they choose, and (I think) it is not done by checking items in a list, but rather by writting in answers themselves. --] 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

:Whenever he/she says he/she is. The 1991 Census provided a series of response check boxes (English, French, German, Italian, etc.), but lo and behold, the most often used were the people who '''wrote in''' "Canadian", although it was not a choice among the boxes. Stats Can bowed to the inevitable and in the 1996 Census, people had to write in all their ethnic origins, with "Canadian" given as one example among 24 (see ). People were asked to write in as many as applied to the question: "To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person's ancestors belong?" "Canadian" was by far the most popular response. Same thing in the 2001 Census. So this is what people say they are. Short of doing a geneological study on a large sample of Canadians, how else is one to get the information? And who is going to decide what ethnic group someone belong to? ] 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I think the increase in self-reported "Canadian-ness" over the last couple of decades comes from two sources. There is an increased awareness and acceptance of being Canadian as a primary identifier, and (related to this) there are increasing numbers of young (or at least, young-ish)Canadians who, like myself, can trace back several generations of Canadian ancestors and so question why they should be defined as having some other ethnicity. ] 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, I would have written in Canadian as well, for similar reasons: for several generations my ancestors have been born in Canada and more importantly (in my opinion), at least as far back as my grandparents (and probably farther) they *think/thought* of themselves as Canadian and not English, Scottish, Irish, etc. For the same reason, I would have also written in these other ethnicities, since going back a little farther I would have had ancestors identifying themselves in these terms.
:I realize this is a very unscientific and arbitrary method, writing in how I ''think'' my ancestors would have ''self-identified'' - but I speculate this kind of reasoning is why many Canadians wrote in "Canadian" on the census. --] 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
::I thought of putting in ], ], and ] but I figured that maybe it would be going too far back. :-) ] 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What is a "Canadian"? Someone from Canadia, of course! ] | ] 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

In the introduction <nowiki>"]"</nowiki>, which simply resulted in "Canada" being displayed as the link ... so I removed the pipe and now ] displays properly. But I'm not sure if that is the proper markup, as it may refer to any colonial empires (with no Canadian context).

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

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

== History section: "Although" seems misplaced ==

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

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

::I don't see how these "studies" prove "otherwise", and I also don't "get" the although. ] 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the response. Anyone else? And looking at it, the whole paragraph has to be rewritten to remove "Although" at the beginning, in which case it will state nothing. Suggestions? ] and all, I'm supposed to "be bold" and just change it, but I've looked it over a dozen or three times and don't even know what it's trying to state. The only solution I have (as yet) is to remove it all. But I didn't add it, am just one person and whomever(s) did add it must have meant something and just got the wording a bit mixed up. --] 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I think what the sentence is trying to imply is that the First Nations tradition states that they've always been in this region, but that archeological studies only date back to X amount of time (which is less than forever). -- ] 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

*26,500 years is NOT a long time? --] 16:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Not necessarily; it depends. For example, the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, could be a long time, or a billion years ago could be a long time. -- ] 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

::"Although Aboriginal tradition holds that the ] inhabited parts of Canada '''forever'''{{fact}}, some archaeological studies '''only''' date human presence in northern ] to 26,500 years ago, and in southern ] to 9,500 years ago." (Bold for emphasis only.)

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

::"Although '''current''' Aboriginal tradition holds that the ] inhabited parts of Canada '''forever'''{{fact}}, some archaeological studies '''only''' date human presence in northern ] to 26,500 years ago, and in southern ] to 9,500 years ago.{{fact}}" (Bold for emphasis only.)

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

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

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

:"Aboriginal tradition holds that the ] inhabited parts of Canada for a very long time and some archaeological studies prove so, dating human presence in northern ] to 26,500 years ago, and in southern ] to 9,500 years ago.{{fact}}"

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

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

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

:I like the last wording; I would go ahead and change it to it. -- ] 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks to all for the input. It can always be reverted, so, as suggested, I'll just change it to the above for now and see what happens. --] 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Hi, just made a minor change: I thought the phrasing "... studies prove so, ..." was a bit stilted, so I changed it to "... studies support this belief, ...". Besides, I think "prove" carries a sense that finality that I'm not sure is warranted. --] 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Perfect! I wasn't happy with that either but couldn't get the right words out (too many ales last night, I think). ;-) Thanks for the help. --] 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== User Anonymous 57 ==

User Anonymous 57 has added non-referenced tags to a whole bunch of sections. I've reverted him three times, so I can't do so any more, but this page is very-well referenced. All the general statements are in the books at the bottom of the page, and all the specific numbers and controversial statements have a ref tag. No where in Misplaced Pages does it state that every single statement has to have a ref tag. Other forms of referencing which this pages are acceptable, and this page has passed through featured article status. I would recommend other editors revert his changes. -- ] 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: If "all the general statements are in the books at the bottom of the page," then each of the general statements must be followed by the appropriate <nowiki><ref name="..." /></nowiki> tag. Until each statement is matched to the corresponding reference, the "citation needed" tags must remain. Please see ], ], and ]. ] 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Do we really need to cite a source that says Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskachewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island are provinces of Canada? This goes beyond common sense into a ridiculously literal reading of a ''guideline''. Sorry, such strong words are required to be used in this situation.--] 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: According to ], ], and ], yes, these bald assertions ''must'' be backed up. If you know which of the sources already listed under "References" can be used to support them, please use the <nowiki><ref /></nowiki> tag as already described. Thanks. ] 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Please read ]. A literal reading of rules will not be beneficial to anyone nor the encyclopedia. --] 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:::From ]:
::::"''Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article.''"
:::So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary. -- ] 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:Read ]. There is no such thing as common knowledge. Now, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, so I'm not in a position to match statements to sources. If you have the books listed under the "References" section, why don't you? It would vastly improve the quality of this (currently almost entirely unsourced) article. ] 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::If there's no such thing as common knowledge, why does Misplaced Pages policy explicitely use it in their policy pages. If you're not familiar with the subject matter, you are in no position in doing what you are doing. -- ] 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:On the contrary, I'm far better equipped than you to judge what is and isn't "common knowledge" regarding Canada. Just because ''you'' know that Canada is separated into twelve provinces (or whatever) doesn't mean that everyone knows the same. These bald assertions need sources; they are ''not'' common knowledge. ] 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

::The reference is there, you just choose not to accept it because it's not in a ref tag style. I would suggest you go read it. -- ] 21:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: Then what's the point of using footnotes at all? Might as well just have a monolithic "references" section, because backing up individual statements is too much trouble, right? I hope you can see why your reasoning is wrong. ] 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Anonymous 57, may I suggest instead you copy a leaf from ]. And yes, "UCS" stands for ''Use common sense''. Respectfully, ] 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: I thought we already went over this. There's ]. And even if there were, it's far from "common sense" that Canada has twelve provinces. Perhaps in Canada, but certainly not in the rest of the world. ] 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::No, you are '''not''' far better equipped. If you were, you would actually be referencing the "unreferenced" statements rather than leaving others to interpret your vaguely worded "warnings." And, I really don't want to invoke this, but please read ]. --] 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:I can't reference those statements because I'm not familiar with the texts, so I leave it to others to match statements with their references. Honestly, how hard can this be to understand? ] 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::If you cannot find the references yourself, then don't go around needlessly peppering every featured article with {{tl|unref}} tags. How hard is it to understand ''that''? --] 21:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:So anyone who can't find references should refrain from removing unverified, uncited content? That's contrary to policy and common procedure. I suggest you rethink that statement. ] 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps I should have been more clear, but do not misinterpret my statement. If you so wish to go into semantics, notice that I used the words "needlessly peppering" to describe your current actions. Adding a few {{tl|unref}} tags when needed is helpful (I have done that myself), but "needlessly peppering" FA's is not. --] 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Once again, the references are there. You choose not to look at them. Also read the quoted section from ] again, not everything needs a footnote, there are multiple ways of citing content that is acceptable to Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Anonymous, one simple principle of civility: if you can't or won't do it yourself, you're not in a good position to ''demand'' that others do it. You can always suggest, though. --] 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: I'm demanding nothing. By leaving "citation needed" tags where appropriate, I am suggesting to contributors that they provide sources for presently unverified text. No more, no less. ] 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::A final time, the references are there. Not everything needs to be in a ref tag. -- ] 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Problem is, most editors believe (with reason) that your "citation needed" tags are '''''not''''' appropriate. --] 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Do not edit other people's comments, Anonymous,. unless it is a personal attack or legal or death threat. It is rude. --] 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::::3 editors have told you in about an hour that those tags are inappropriate. How many more do you need???--] 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
: How many more? A majority of the editors, if physicq210 wants his statement to stand that "most editors believe" these citation-needed tags to be inappropriate. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a reference. ] 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::You have now ventured from superficially interpreting policy and guideline to a ridiculously literal interpretation of people's comments. Again, ]. --] 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

::And, no, you do not "have to ask for a reference." You can supply one yourself if you so wish. --] 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

: Or I could have just reverted your edit for lacking factual references, as happens every single day here on Misplaced Pages. This would have been standard operating procedure; don't pretend otherwise. That I refrained from doing so was simply a courtesy to you. ] 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:Revert what edit? My reverting of your editing of my comments without prior permission? Or the removal of your {{tl|unref}} tags that have been backed by two other editors? --] 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:: The edit which contained the assertion that "most editors believe (with reason) that your 'citation needed' tags are '''''not''''' appropriate." Though I could just as easily blank the majority of this article for being unreferenced, and that, too, would be within policy. Really, you should be grateful I haven't; again, as a courtesy to you. ] 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
:::No. That would be disrupting Misplaced Pages to ] and is forbidden by policy, and could get you blocked. Please, ].

:::Courtesy? Nay, thou wouldst be blocked for disruption and/or gain even more the ire of others. --] 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:: I see. Improving the article by removing unverified information is "disruption." Thank you both for that valuable insight. ] 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Wrong. "Improving" the article by needlessly adding {{tl|unref}} tags contrary to ] ''is'' disruption. --] 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:It's actually the Royal Anthem for the ], and is played at official functions at which the Queen is present. It also forms a part of the Vice-Regal Salute played for the ] and ].
:I think it came about purely through inherited tradition rather than by any vote.
:Australia has the same Royal Anthem, it's one of two national anthems in New Zealand, and is the royal anthem in Norway. The article on ] tells it all. --] 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Hi there Gambino I did have a chance to read the "God Save the Queen" article and saw that as well. However specifically in Barbados' case- the says that even in the presence of the Governor General or Monarch the Barbados National anthem shall be played. The Constitution which I thumbed through a few times has no mention of a Royal anthem either. Basically any diplomat or foreign team is going to have their song played, not just the queen but the lyrics aren't taught anymore for it to be considered as either a national symbol or emblem. ] 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

== How many religions to list in Demographics paragraph ==

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

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

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

:Frankly, I think the demographics section is too long (as are some others). The religion paragraph is OK, but I would trim down the Christian/Catholic/Protestant phrase. Such fine-grain details belong in the ] article. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
::Agree, and I would support the cutting down of other sections as well (especially the History section). -- ] 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


==Demographics Math Problem==
I just noticed that the list of ethnicities in the demographics section adds up to Canada having %126.6 of a population. Is the census wrong, or do people get listed as multiple things (i.e., Irish-Scottish)?--] 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:From the source of the data , you can notice that all the ethnicities adds up to 44,099,260, much higher than the total population of 29,639,035, so that would imply that people could check multiple ethnicities. -- ] 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:That's correct — a person of mixed Irish/Scottish heritage would count as one Irish ''and'' one Scottish in the demographic data, so it adds up to more than 100 per cent. ] 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== Quebec's sovereignty movement ==

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

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

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

:Hi. Please see ] -- we cannot come up with our own arguments and ideas from our general background knowledge. We attempt to create an encyclopedic summary in our articles, ] for the views and facts that we include. Also, keep in mind that this is a ] article about the entire country. Detailed analysis, properly referenced from ], should go into the ] article. Thanks. ] 22:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Bilingual Province(s) ==

As far as I know, New Brunswick is the only legal province that is bilingual (has both French and English as '''official''' languages. Is this not a good fact to include in the introduction when it talks about Canada being bilingual? ] 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:It is already mentioned in the article. The lead should be a general description, and such details are left to the body of the article. Please read ]. Regards, -- ] 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank-you for your speedy response. ] 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

==Marijuana?==
I've heard that marijuana may or may not be legal? Can anyone clarify? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:It's not legal as of yet, though some political parties are pushing to decriminalize possession of small amounts of it. -- ] 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Harper Government scrapped the laws for decriminalizing it at the federal level. {{unsigned2|15:49, October 30, 2006|67.71.20.10}}

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

==Images.==

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

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

==Vandalism==

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

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

:Don't feed the vandals, folks. Just watch the article, revert their changes, and warn them (warning templates can be found at ]; if they do it too often, report them to ] and they're likely to be blocked. They're just vandals, nothing serious. I also recommend not being insulting about other nationalities, or anyone, really. It's not really productive. ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, lets remember to remain civil...even in the face of uncivil behavior. Furthermore, making "personal" attacks is not helpful...It would be best of follow the vandals and file a complaint to get the person(s) blocked. I agree with Tony Fox on this. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::Um, good points, but I think the original poster - from Surrey - is likely just trolling. That comment seems a little misplaced. ] 01:34, 25 October 2006
(UTC)

Okay, sure then. ] 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== Provinces ==

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

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

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

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

:It's not a bad suggestion, and yes, provinces joined confederation, not administrative divisions. They just may not have been provinces of Canada at that point. ] 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::While the section can be named Provinces, people who don't know that provinces are administrative subdivisions may find it initially confusing. As for the tables, if I remember correctly, featured articles recommend prose instead of tables or lists. -- ] 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
* I have just looked in vain for any mention of tables in featured articles guidelines - it may of course still be a common objection - based on personal tastes. Should personal tastes rule over readability and editors decisions? --] 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Other countries, including the ], have "administrative divisions" (not, for example, "States"). Seems to be a Misplaced Pages standard, in other words, change to be discussed at a higher level than this Talk page.] 20:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

*I'd be wary of hoping that too many assumptions are fulfilled. I do not think the article is "user-friendly" in this regard. Nor, once the link is found, is the ] article much friendlier. In a table NL is obviously 1 province - not so clearly in a paragraph. I still do not understand the resistance to tables by so many editors. --] 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::The opening paragraph of the "Administrative divisions" section reads ''"Canada is composed of ten provinces and three territories. The provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. The three territories are the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon Territory."'' I'm not really sure how that could be made any more clear. ] 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

*Not everyone is willing to read that far down into the article to find out the names of the provinces - nor which names used earlier in the article refer to provinces & which refer to other things - and the TOC is not much help. Unless you already know early in the article what some of the place names refer to, much of the rest of the content is useless --] 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::Our audience is not solely to Canadians, and I would doubt that most English speakers in the world, and/or all Misplaced Pages users know that Provinces are the subdivisions in the country, so I believe that the current title is the appropriate one. And I find tables ruin the flow of the article, especially given the relatively large table that would be produced by the provinces and/or territores. -- ] 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

*Maybe I am too just modern - but if I want to organize information & be able to find & retrieve the information quickly, tables are indispensible. Rather than interrupting the flow, tables are far easier to skip over (if one wants to do so) than several paragraphs on the same topic that have no clear demarcation of a start & a stop. And maybe I am also too spatially oriented - but if I am going to read a bunch of place names, I want to know which are for cities & which are for larger areas (like provinces or whatever) - and maybe a map showing the political & topographic geography so I know where they are. And it seems to me that precisely the same thing would benefit non-Canadians reading a bunch of place names in the Canadian history section. (I see there is no longer a model for section order for paragraphs in country articles.) So early in the article one points out that the next smaller political entity in Canada is a province & then you produce the list/table. 13 rows is not a large table - but large enough to be quickly found when needed again though. I also find nothing deadens the "flow" of text as quickly as a list in paragraph form does. --] 05:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

::I really don't like tables or lists, and would rather have prose, even it's a list that's written like prose. From ] "''As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. ... Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."'' Also this is a ]; not all that information should be included. The tables are available in the daughter article ]. -- ] 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::*Look again at ] - it recommends that when the contents are the same in paragraph or list form, that list form be used rather than paragraph form --] 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I recall that there used to be a table listing the provinces, but it made a real mess of the article. --] 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

::Is there some ambiguity as to what the term "administrative division" means? It's the sixth item in the table of contents, and one can easily click on it if one would like to know the names of Canada's administrative divisions. As ] noted, its opening paragraph is very straightforward; there's even a map. There's no need to include a table for a mere thirteen provinces and territories. -- ] 01:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think the recent change of the paragraph format to list format is justified. ]'s edit summary reads "Administrative divisions - per Misplaced Pages:Embedded list and talk." I would note that ] explicitly states that ''"having lists instead of article text makes Misplaced Pages worse, not better."'' It does go on to say that ''"'''in some cases''' however, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence,"'' (emphasis mine) but it doesn't detail what those cases are. I don't think the original format here was problematic, and I think it read better as a paragraph than as a list. I also do not think that the change can be justified by referring to this talk page as, by my reading, there was no consensus here in favour of the change. I'm not going to revert it right now, as I'd like to hear what others think, but if there isn't more support than just a single editor's opinion, it should perhaps be changed back. ] 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:The majority, if not all, country articles use administrative divisions as the section header. I randomly searched Turkey, Iraq, Portugal, Mozambique, and Argentina. Why sould Canada be an exception? ] (]) 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::Eron is right. There was no consensus for the change, and ] explicitly states that ''"having lists instead of article text makes Misplaced Pages worse, not better.'' I'm going to revert it back. -- ] 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, ] states:
:"Having lists instead of article text makes Misplaced Pages worse, not better. In some cases however, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence, compare:"
Both are lists, but list style rather than paragraph style is easier to read & find --] 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree, the list style breaks up the article, and makes it look unstructured. In my opinion it makes the article harder to read. -- ] 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::Like someone said earlier in the talk, it had been done before, and it made the article, to put bluntly, ''ugly''. ] 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::Also of the six editors who have commented above about the way the paragraph is structured, list in prose or list in list style, five of them are ok with the way it is currently. -- ] 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do style preferences merit a revert? ] clearly supports the change I made - and the flow of text is not blocked by having a list (with no easily identified start & end) within a sentence. --] 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree with your interpreation of ]. In fact I read the opposite way, and as mentioned above the consensus is to keep it the way it is. -- ] 04:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:I suggest we make one of those seperate discussion/vote (don't know the actually name, sorry) pages where everyone can vote and decide on what to do, and make a reference back down to this specific point of the talk page. ] 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

== Pronounciation of "Canada" in French ==

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

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

] 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

== Please update International rankings table with new data ==

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

] 11:01, 2 November 2006 (EDT)

==Template creep==
It appears that this article is slowly accumulating more footer templates, yet again. We've already had this discussion, but...which templates do we eliminate, if any? Some can and should be moved to sub-articles (for example - countries of the Atlantic Ocean to ], or something similar). Opinions? <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:Since it is below the content, why does it matter if there is alot of it? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::Brevity. Relevance. Readability. ] 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, the navbox galore is getting ridiculous. Many would better be suited for sub-artilces (like Geography, Politics, History, Military or Culture). --] 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::They are annoying, but I've converted the final few that weren't by default in their closed state to being closed, and thus limited their annoyance. I do favour moving some out though. -- ] 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

==Animated GIF==
]
The animated gif of the territorial evolution of Canada is messing up the formatting, causing a gap in the text between the "History" heading and the text of that section.
I think this is a cool animation, but I don't know if it belongs in a brief summary-style article like this.
--] 07:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:I agree, I think it better belongs in ]. -- ] 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that animated GIFs do not resize well, if it is disruptive to the formatting it should be removed. Perhaps somebody can resize it with an external program? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::How would this work? ] --] 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It cetainly is less obtrusive, but the text is meaningless. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GIF files are not allowed in ] sites becuase of the ] Algothithm used for compression ] 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
: The GIF patent is now expired; are you sure that your statement is still correct? If so, given that the patent is no longer an issue, why are GIFs not allowed? --] 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::We use GIFs all the time here, there are thousands of them. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

== Picture Gallery ==

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

==Motto==
In the moto it is not from sea to sea. It is From coast to coast or From an ocean to the other Ad mari Ad mare means Coast or Ocean not sea Usque means The other. I'm latin so I know that :oP {{unsigned|24.122.215.22}}

== Canada: "American Sovereign State" or Not? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

] 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


::I am a bit confused by all that. Can someone please translate? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::Which part? My biting the Troll, or what he's trying to push? ] 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

:A+B+C cannot = D unless a reliable source has already made that assertion(atleast on wikipedia), see ]. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the website of the ] and ] bureau of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs. And, in normal ], Canada is not part of ']'; Canada is part of ']'. And, all ] are ], not just those with ]. And ] and ] are separate concepts. And... what was the point again? ] 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

:As I said before, you need a reliable source making this claim, or it is original research. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Final Offer of Sources:

* Canada: located in the Geographic Americas (http://atlas.gc.ca) (Government of Canada)
* Canada: Member as the 33rd American State (]) (OAS)
* Canada: Recognizes itself as part of the Americas. (http://americascanada.gc.ca) (Government of Canada)
* Canada: Please refer to the proper definition of ]. Which does mean ].

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

Latest revision as of 12:07, 10 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006, and on July 1, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCanada Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconNorth America Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 106 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
ConsensusPlease read before contributing
The Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Misplaced Pages:Article size.
Section sizes
Section size for Canada (37 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 12,684 12,684
Etymology 4,831 4,831
History 106 60,879
Indigenous peoples 12,476 12,476
European colonization 8,522 8,522
British North America 10,057 10,057
Confederation and expansion 7,560 7,560
Early 20th century 5,770 5,770
Contemporary era 16,388 16,388
Geography 7,102 21,458
Climate 5,487 5,487
Biodiversity 8,869 8,869
Government and politics 25,577 55,287
Law 6,843 6,843
Provinces and territories 4,930 4,930
Foreign relations 8,972 8,972
Military and peacekeeping 8,965 8,965
Economy 18,300 26,298
Science and technology 7,998 7,998
Demographics 7,599 32,601
Ethnicity 10,450 10,450
Languages 7,632 7,632
Religion 6,920 6,920
Health 9,196 9,196
Education 8,056 8,056
Culture 8,718 41,419
Symbols 4,960 4,960
Literature 3,859 3,859
Media 5,424 5,424
Visual arts 4,308 4,308
Music 5,603 5,603
Sports 8,547 8,547
See also 185 185
Notes 24 24
References 28 28
Further reading 6,456 6,456
External links 1,922 1,922
Total 281,324 281,324
Toolbox
Archive

Archives

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

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the term of Dominion of Canada which is still the official name of the country. (See the Constitutional Act of 1867 for references). Maillymarcantoine653 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Canadian Encyclopedia says it is still current. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Integrated or cooperate?

The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." I think reads better as "Canada's economic cooperation with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." How is Canada integrated? I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada. Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(ref 1, ref 2) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. CaribDigita (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. Indefatigable (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. CaribDigita (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
North American integration..... Integration is simply the term used..... electricity system in Canada and US is also very integrated as is our oil and fuel. Moxy🍁 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree that sources call the two economies integrated. That's the correct term to use. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. TFD (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
re-wrote lead (to follow body) at Canada–United States relations.......perhaps more clear? Moxy🍁 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Update Canadian population

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Canadian population from 41,288,599 (2024 Q3) to 41,465,298 (2024 Q4). It's from the same source, which has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic Origins

Resolved

- editor blocked -Moxy🍁 01:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change .....simply because the percentages don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily. That said....I think I agree we should stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians (that is not a terminology used by statistics Canada). We just need to take a closer look at what has been published number wise over Misplaced Pages own calculations (that is allowed) however the past calculations don't match official publications that analyze the data. Think it's best we stick with the sources that analyze the data over analyzing the data ourselves. Let's compare the two sets of data

Change of stats... South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%) sourced to the raw data (that I assume was self calculated).

Old stable version...South Asian (2.6 million people; 7.1 percent), Chinese (1.7 million; 4.7 percent), and Black (1.5 million; 4.3 percent). The Indigenous population representing 5 percent or 1.8 million individuals sourced to an analysis of the raw data by those who published it saying Racialized groups in Canada are all experiencing growth. In 2021, South Asian (7.1%), Chinese (4.7%) and Black (4.3%) there were 1.8 million Indigenous people in the country in 2021, representing 5.0% of the total population. Moxy🍁 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted stating It clearly says 4.9% Indigenous not 6.9%, which corresponds to the first link you provided....yet source says "According to the 2021 Census, there were 1.8 million Indigenous people, representing 5.0% of the total Canadian population, up from 4.9% in 2016.". Moxy🍁 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe Moxy has provided an actual basis for reverting or disagreeing with my edits. Please read carefully.
Old version:
The major panethnic groups chosen were: European (52.5 percent), North American (22.9 percent), Asian (19.3 percent), North American Indigenous (6.1 percent), African (3.8 percent), Latin, Central and South American (2.5 percent), Caribbean (2.1 percent), Oceanian (0.3 percent), and other (6 percent).
My new and preferred version:
The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada are: White (67.4%), South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%), Filipino (2.5%), Arab (1.9%), Latin American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1%), West Asian (1%), Korean (0.6%), Japanese (0.2%), mixed (3.2%) and other (0.7%).
Moxy first reverted my edits by writing "Where does 6.9 for indigenous come from ? https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population". My version, as well as the link they provided, both clearly state 4.9%. Obviously, not a basis to revert it. Despite that, Moxy still reverted the edits by writing "Nope looking further.... these must be all self edition that don't match publications such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm". Frankly I'm not sure what that means what "doesn't match" as zero information has been provided on what does not match!
Moxy has stated my edits "don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily" Let's have a look. Ctrl+F on The Daily "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". I wrote that 67.4% were white. Other quick examples, The Daily article also says "In the 2021 Census, just over half a million people (580,000) reported being Latin American only" which matches the source I am using and the information I had written. It also says "Just over three-quarters of the 360,000 people who reported being West Asian". I mean for goodness sake, this is government data... it is consistent, but Moxy has reverted my edits claiming they are inconsistent with other government data that is also published by Statistics Canada? I just don't understand what Moxy means by "doesn't match publications", when they have provided no examples of what does not match.
The previous "Ethnic groups" section included continents of origin. I find it arbitrary because "French Canadian" as an ethnic origin is counted as North American, not European. "French" is counted as European - it is basically arbitrary as it depends on what one writes into the census rather than what they actually are, and I just generally think race is more relevant here. Here is the link I am using to write the population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada. C.monarchist28 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What? No explanation or example? Though I was clear. We have 2 different sets of information presented (close but different or old) .....stable version from 2022 regurgitating the source verbatim in the article vs your new calculations of the raw data that differs. Moxy🍁 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Your free to ask for input from others Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, But till you have Misplaced Pages:Consensus best not to editwar back in your version that is contested. My position is simple.... think it's best we regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data. This would also reflect how other sources present the information.... that is verbatim because of Statistics Canada Open Licence..like
Moxy🍁 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
You would like to "regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data". Sounds like a word salad. The source you would like to regurgitate matches the simple calculations of the raw data perfectly. Sigh. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm clearly not explaining myself well..... every number is different let's use the Indigenous one for example....our source being used says 1,807,250. You're using the number 1,772,025 so why a difference when you do the calculation? Moxy🍁 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
This is most likely because the source I provided only includes single race. Possibly, the difference between these two statistics is those who are mixed race with Indigenous. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
100% in agreement with Moxy. Editors don't get to collapse groups and do new calcs based on their own preferences, especially when we have pre-existing analysis from the official group that gathered the data. Stats Can collects data on ethnicity, which is not exactly the same as "race", and so the stable version is clearly what should be used. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Collapse groups? I'm just taking this StatsCan data as it is. Not making "my own calculations based on my own preferences"? This is why I stated "The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada". This is better than categorizing by continent of origin, when that is largely based on arbitrary self-identification (French Canadian ethnicity is counted as North American while French is counted as European, when these people have the same ancestry - it depends on arbitrary labels of self-identity). The population groups I am trying to have inserted are more objective. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The categories listed by C.monarchist28 (White, South Asian, Indigenous, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, mixed and other) appear to come from the StatCan definitions for the different population group information used in respect to the visible minority variable (see StatCan ref) and is collected for employment equity purposes.
The population groups previously contained in the article (European, North American, Asian, North American Indigenous, African; Latin, Central and South American; Caribbean, Oceanian, and other) are the ethnic or cultural origins from this StatCan reference here, which appears to have been dropped from the paragraph sometime this fall.
Both references are valid StatCan resources, but the context of what is being discussed is important. If we were discussing employment equity measures, the former would be useful. If however, the paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article is referencing Ethnic origins (as evidenced by the paragraph title "Ethnicity", and the subordinate hatnote "Main article: Ethnic origins of people in Canada") then the original article categories are more applicable. Loopy30 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
100% correct....when I stated .stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Misplaced Pages made up groups such as European Canadians. I was referring to the OR /assumption that European Canadians (or as Statistics Canada says European origins) equates to White Canadians as a change in a link implied ] . Analysis of this data separates this information In total, 52.5% of the population reported European origins vs Canadians self-identified as White 69.8% Moxy🍁 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: