Talk:Canada/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 28

Anthem sound file

Moved from "Talk:O Canada" [1] -- Moxy (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this is even an issue is a bad joke. As a Canadian, I find the American version to be the best available version. Who cares if it was done by the US Navy? I am somewhat embarrassed that the article doesn't have an audio sample and embarrassed that this non-issue has warranted such a huge discussion. Get a grip Wikipedia. Barinade2151 (talk) 11:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Pls see Talk:Canada/Archive 22#Add Audio For Oh Canada - with that seen - I do agree they have been jammed into every country article like this one and we are the odd balls now. However would need to use a proper version as the American one is off key ...and the words are what are important in this case. See what others have to say since its been a year and a bit.Moxy (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the US Navy file is substandard, they are simply playing the tune by the numbers and while they get most of the notes right there is no inspiration to it. The claim that it is the best available is simply ludicrous. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not only an issue of patriotism, it's an issue of correctness. The US Navy seem to have made-up their own polyphony to the song. It is not a version that most Canadians would consider "authentic". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Canada's total land area should also be mentioned in the intro

The article's intro currently has this passage: "Canada is the world's second-largest country by total area, and its common border with the United States is the world's longest land border shared by the same two countries." I think it should be modified with the added info that Canada is the fourth-largest country by land area alone. While the term "total area" is technically accurate, it is also misleading because it is not qualified. Most readers would naturally assume that "total area" is more or less the same as Canada's "land area". But the fact is that %10 of Canada's area is water, and its land area is smaller than the land area of the US and China. The distinction between "total" and "land" area is extremely important, and yet the current intro doesn't express this. The term "total area" is so generic and it's position in the phrase so unobtrusive that many readers probably wouldn't even register it.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Most sources use total land and inland waters. See for example the CIA Fact-book.[2] Otherwise we have to change the land areas for spring run-off, flooding, damming of rivers and droughts. TFD (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And we should continue to use the total area figure - but we should add the land area figure to avoid misunderstandings.theBOBbobato (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we change the anthem audio file to the one that's on the Spanish Wikipedia page?

It's far better than the midi that's currently being used. --70.74.165.48 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about removing them from all country articles at Template talk:Infobox country#RFC: Audio links to national anthems. So lets wait for the outcome.

The Spanish one is not "better". It's certainly more clear, but the harmonies are not what most Canadians would expect so that makes it worse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Population

Population should be: 35,141,542 not 33 million something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.192.184 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What is Canada's full name?

Simple Question not answered: what is the Canada's full name? 94.173.220.233 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The full formal name of Canada is simply "Canada". That is it, nothing else. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was formally known as the Dominion of Canada however. Krazytea(talk) 02:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect; "Dominion" was never part of the official title. The term "Dominion" referred to our past status within the British Empire. People often referred to "The Dominion of Canada", but officially it has always been just Canada. See past archive discussion for further details. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Until we got our own constitution. If you look up at the archive box you'll see two pages devoted to the debate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking United States

Strange, I was actually. But that's besides the point. All country articles link to their neighbouring countries. Even the Mexico article. Why shouldn't the Canada article? Why should it be different? --Svip^pong 21:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all country articles should. In fact it makes no sense per WP:OVERLINK or reason. It's both an everyday word understood by most readers and a major geographic location so should not be linked by the guideline. As for reason, you must assume that editors who come here either do not know what the United States is or have come here because they have forgotten what the name of the country is and want a link to it from this article as the two most pressing reasons to have a link to another nation in the article. I can see having links to historic nations that may not be familiar to modern readers, but not Canada's current neighbour.

This was discussed earlier and implemented by other editors. I am simply keeping that consensus. If you want to create a new one, the place to do that is on the article's talk page, not mine, which is why I moved this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

After seeing File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg added to this C article again i realized its all over the other language Wiki's. I dont think its a good idea that we have this at all. Misrepresenting /original research of an official symbol is simply not what we are here to do. -- Moxy (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that a deletion request on the commons on the grounds that it's inaccurate will work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That file is not inaccurate, it incorporates all of the essential heraldic elements properly. There are more elaborate versions of the Coat of Arms [3] available but the only differences are in the detailing, not the essentials. Furthermore I don't know if they are free for use or not. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it accurate when the one depicted here is that which was drawn by Fraser Herald of the Canadian Heraldic Authority and approved by the Queen? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That one was made by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin (Fraser Herald is her title, not her name). But unfortunately it's a non-free image. Any rendering of the Canadian coat of arms is accurate if it accurately draws the elements described in the standard. There are many accurate renderings of the Canadian COA, and anyone could make one. There is only one rendering that is the official rendering, but it's non-free, so we can't use it here. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm aware the "official" version on Wikipedia is non-free. That one on Commons may be accurate in that it technically reflects the blazon; however, I question whether it's as accurate as we require in an encyclopaedia, given it doesn't reflect the official and royally approved version. I don't think it is and wonder why one that is can't be made. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a comic book. We should not mislead our readers with fake renderings of Official symbols. If we cant use it then we should not have one...we should not make one up and pass it of as a real symbol. This is common sense...just as we would not use an image of a Michael Jackson impersonator to show what Michel looks like. If people want to see it they can do so on the arilce where the rotation of the non fair use one can be used. -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I believe that we have truly reached the eschaton as Moxy and Miesianiacal agree on something. I'm sure that's a sign that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are just around the corner as recorded in some pseudepigraphal book somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms (like Canada's) are based on an official blazon. A blazon is a text description, and that is the official coat of arms. (It's also in the public domain.) Any artist's rendering, if based on that blazon, is an accurate coat of arms. This is a basic fact you have to understand if you want to understand Vexillology. Canada also has an official rendering of their Coat of Arms. And that's great! But it's not the only accurate rendering.

As an analogy, consider Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It's a public domain book, and anyone can draw what they think the characters look like. There also exists a specific depiction of Alice, copyrighted by Disney, that Disney might consider "official". You might like this depiction better than one you could make yourself, and Disney might consider theirs "official"... but that doesn't make yours inaccurate. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oi! There are a few problems with your example.

1. We italicize books on Wikipedia. We also shouldn't link directly to them in talk pages as we create backlinks and now suddenly editors there may think that there is material that needs to be updated here. This lack of care in formatting is simply another indication that you don't care about the proper display of Canada's coat of arms, or likely any other.
2. Did Mr. Carroll have an official, legally endorsed version of the characters? If he did, then any representation would be an approximation of the official version. If he didn't, then your analogy stands only for other non-official representation of said characters. As we have it here, there is an official representation of the coat of arms and I would suggest that the blazon is a description of it rather than the other way around. If there is a legal representation, all others are merely approximations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Its very hard to move forward when commons is working for a different goal. Just wish we could rename the file so Wiki editors dont use it by mistake thinking its the real one. I added a tag waring of this but it was reverted. Simply not sure we can help the other Wikis with this problem if the file is there pretending to be real-- Moxy (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that by leaving something here you will finally state what the perceived problem is with this depiction. That is why the tag is reverted, as you have so far been unable to do so. The problem in this case is thus not with Commons. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you please explain if you are unable to perceive images or not. It's obvious from a simple examination of the images that the image with royal assent is dramatically different than the hand-drawn SVG image, hence the question. No intention of rudeness. A simple reading of the previous comments will explain that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I had requested a move but this was also reverted. I dont think much can happen over at commons as the people there are the ones that make theses fake arms thus will never admit to the fact they are misleading readers. update they have added a tag saying its fake. I do understand the point if I had spent hours and hours making theses I would also be upset and try to cock-block any attempts at discrediting the work or its vitality. We will simply have to keep an eye out for these fake images being placed all over again. After looking at other arms I see this has come up in the past with the same conclusion. We may have to look at many others arms for the same problem as I think we have fake versions of arms all over the place. -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why is using the non-free image a problem? It's a low res version used to illustrate the object in question, and the free version isn't an equivalent since the version drawn by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin is the official rendering. I don't see how this is any different from having the non-free Starbucks logo at the top of the Starbucks page. Why are we working ourselves into a tizzy over a pretty clear cut case of fair use? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We should never ever mislead our readers with non official version of national symbols. -- Moxy (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If the image meets all the basic heraldic criterion required then it is "officially" accurate, and in no way misleading. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is the last try for me.... will post images here so all can see the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Version being passed off as looking like the new one but actually looks like this 1957 version with just the the order of Canada ribbon added

This is the real one The new one has changed alot since 1957 like...- Supporters have no gold trim around flags - Helm stylized in the official version to look like maple leaves now and has much more green in it - The new Tudor crown does not have any white in it - the flags are not as tall as the top crown and should never be..noting as tall as the crown.... I can go on .......but I think all can see the problem when side by side

All those differences you mention are stylistic details, not essentials. Despite the difference both images have the essentials and are therefore correct. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What??? I am showing you that it does not match the style disruption of the new one....it matches the old one.. If you want to see the new description go to Arms of Canada#Symbolism there you will see the changes to the description that were made in the new version. -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The letters patent, issued in 2005, don't actully say that the mantle, for example, has to be red and white maple leaves, just "a Royal helmet mantled Argent doubled Gules is set upon the shield". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of you seem to be incorrect, the File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg is indeed the correct royal coat of arms for Canada. The official government reference here (http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1359472226443/1359472288882) should clear things up. As such I have moved to add this vital information to the Canada page and suggest that it should be kept there until someone can sufficiently disprove my above reference. Thank you for all of your cooperation and patience. Abdi Nur (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Someone who doesn't even know that new comments are added to the bottom is in no position to tell other editors that they are incorrect. No soup for you. just to clarify, I moved the comments to the bottom in keeping with acceptable practice

The fact that the image at the URL supplied are not sufficiently similar to the image you linked to doesn't help your case that it is "the correct royal coat of arms for Canada". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above those are merely artificial details and the result of different resolutions on the digital images themselves, not its content. As for my previous comment, I apologize if I came across as condescending or rude, I was just trying to put light on the issue that the images are basically the same in principle. The coat of arms of Canada is extremely well known, and I was surprised to not see it represented on the Canada page, which I believe every user has the right to.Abdi Nur (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, they are not artificial details. There are real differences. The coat of arms is well-known which is why an accurate representation of the arms with royal assent should be displayed and not this facsimile created by a clever user of some heraldry application. My young daughter could draw a more accurate representation, but I still wouldn't use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And edit warring over the image will not achieve anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose then? After all the article is still missing the coat of arms and I see no real effort to find the genuine version to be posted on the Canada page so all visitors to this article can be informed. And as for the edit war comment, I do not wish to engage in any online war with you. I have apologized for and subsequently refrained from hostile ad hominem attacks unlike yourself. I would much rather the editors on this forum came to a consensus on how to properly display the correct Coat of Arms of Canada. Abdi Nur (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we leave the parameter blank until we get permission to use the correct coat of arms.

I'm sorry if you feel that my earlier comment was an an ad hominem attack.

While I'm discussing your editing on talk pages though, you shouldn't really be linking to the article on its talk page, as you've done twice here when you linked "Canada".

None of this really changes the fact that the svg isn't visually accurate and shouldn't be used here (or anywhere really). AS you can see from my discussion on the use of the Navy Seal version of the national anthem, accuracy is important. We're not simply trying to show what it looks like, we're stating that this is an accurate representation of the object. Whether it's harmonization of a song or the appearance of our coat of arms, accuracy is more important than representation to me. Other editors may not care though. You need to find them and gain consensus for the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both your pragmatic outlook and solutions on this issue. I accept your apology and I also respect your attention to detail and accuracy, although I think it may be a little overdone in this regard. Also, I will try and seek out the correct image and hopefully will have it represented soon on the page, as It does looks rather bare compared to the rest of the country pages without it now. Thanks, Abdi Nur (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. The image with royal assent is also currently under copyright in Canada and so it cannot be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Every British/Commonwealth coat of arm is defined in text (Letters Patent); these letters are its official definition not the pretty picture that comes with it which is purely for illustrative purposes - rather like a picture on a downmarket restaurant's menu of fish and chips for the benefit of those who can't read or understand the text; in both cases, such a picture is not meant to be the only and definitive picture of the subject. Any image depicting the Letters Patent can only ever be one artist's interpretation. Therefore any image drawn by a Wikipedian providing it accurately depicts what is described in the Letters Patent is permissible.  Giano  17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is ever coat of arms given royal assent?

There is a legal version and there is a text version. While we get the idea from the text version, we don't get the actual version without seeing the approved version. Therefore any image drawn by a Wikipedian providing it accurately depicts what is described in the Letters Patent is a lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The text version is the "approved and legal" version, any visual depiction that is accurate according to the text version is a correct version. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So long as the artist depicts the correct heraldic beasts, emblems and colours there are no hard and fast rules. Obviously a lion rampant must look like a lion rampant not a copulating tomcat etc and the whole thing must not resemble something devised Walt Disney - I suppose dignified is the word. The important thing is not to add details to which the bearer is unentitled. Some people like their arms Gothicised, others like a clean, modern, uncluttered look - it doesn't really matter providing there is no deviation from the text of the Letters Patent.  Giano  10:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You have very low standards. I expect accuracy and excellence not an interpretation. If the heraldic description is sufficient, link to the description somewhere but don't use that awful and woefully simple image there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The simple problem is that there is an official version...that one cant copy to look close because of copyright laws. Its not the job of Wikipedians to present non official symbols as real. National symbols are very important and should not be misrepresented to our readers when there are official versions. Saying a made up version is official because it follows the text version is simply wrong when we have a legal visual representation that is copyrighted. Countries go thru the copyright process so there is a legal visual version and for the laws around that fact. I cant see a fake version ever passing the approval of the majority of editors for articles of this nature. (Statutes of Canada Chapter T-13) "9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...... e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerned, given public notice of its adoption and use...-- Moxy (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, you clearly have a very limited understanding of legal and heraldic matters.  Giano  18:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Official Languages

"English" and "French" are the official languages of Canada, pursuant to the Charter and the Official Languages Act. While I can understand the hyperlinks being to Canadian English and Canadian French, they should not be listed like that in the infobox. Knoper (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not? I have problems linking them at all since it's somewhat against the spirit of WP:OVERLINK, but if we're piping the languages, it's not advisable to do so when the link may come as a surprise to the reader. If I click on French, do I want to see an article on the Canadian French language or the French language? Similarly for English.

Since there has been no complaint regarding this yet, I'll revert and if the discussion is to pipe, then we can add it back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian English and Canadian French are not languages. Nor do they have any official standard. Most of Canada's constitution is UK legislation, and no attempt has been made to "translate" it into Canadian English. TFD (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are or are not languages is not a question for this article. Please take that to the respective articles.

Whether Canada's constitution is or isn't British English or some other variant is also not the question here.

In short, what? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What?? People are saying Standard Canadian English is not real? We have the Canadian Oxford dictionary and en-CA classification for a reason. Why would we want to lead our readers to the main generic article over the specific article about the countries language - why the run around? -- Moxy (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of Canadian variants of English and French. However, the same can be said about the form of government: it is a "Canadian federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". I think the best approach is to follow what the reliable sources say are the official languages of Canada, and in particular, the Official Languages Act, which states that "English and French are the official languages of Canada". isaacl (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian English and Canadian French are not languages, they are dialects of the two languages. However they are not the only dialects of those languages spoken here. By saying that "Canadian English" is an official language then the inescapable implication is that other dialects of those languages such as "Newfoundland English" or "Acadian French" are not official, which of course is an absurdity. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see your point - BUT - Canadian spelling is the spelling used for parliamentary transcripts of Canada - they dont use Arcadian or Newfoundland English - they use Canadian English in the official records of the countries proceedings.-- Moxy (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That has no basis in fact. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 16(1) states: "English and French are the official languages of Canada...". Note there is no distinction of any sort in regards to dialect. You will need to provide some government document or official statement that specifically states that the "Canadian English" dialect is official to support you assertion in that regard. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just have to do some research to find the answer - The government style guide says that editors should consult the "Gage Canadian Dictionary" as seen here that links us to here -- Moxy (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your links, though, point to style guides that describe how to write "English" and not "Canadian English", so they don't seem to illustrate that the official languages are called "Canadian English" and "Canadian French". (Again, there is no dispute about the existence of Canadian variations of English and French.) Also, I'm not sure these style guides should be more compelling reliable sources for the names of Canada's official languages than the Official Languages Act. isaacl (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Are people just guessing here? The first link provided explains the evolution of the language in Canada and government usage - the second and third links refer to "The Canadian Style" that tell us about the spelling used by the Government. for those that wish to learn more about The Canadian Style --Moxy (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Those aspects are not under dispute, though (and in any case, the pages you point to refer to "English", not "Canadian English"). The question is if these are reliable sources for identifying what are the names of the official languages of Canada. Since these are defined by the Official Languages Act, my inclination is to rely on it (no guessing involved). isaacl (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution Act, 1982 says clearly, in Section 16, that the official languages of Canada are English and French. If we're looking for what the official languages of the country are, what the primary governing document and its accompanying legislation says is, really, the most reliable source possible. I'm not discounting the "Canadianness" of English or the recommendations of which dictionary, but to argue against this borders on parody. Knoper (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But your edits still linked "English" to "Canadian English" and "French" to "Canadian French". So if your point is that the official languages are "English" and "French", they why pipe them, as doing so could confuse a reader?

However, why would the constitution of Canada indicate that "Canadian English" and "Canadian French" are the official languages? Does the American constitution indicate that its official language is American English? The reason I ask is that's what they have at that article. And the United Kingdom links to British English, but it's piped from English. I don't know what their constitutionally official language is, but I suspect that it's also just English. The fact is, the foundation document is quite moot in regards to this situation in my opinion, what's important is that the correct article is linked and no confusion is created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The example is wrong, the US doesn't have official language. If your big issue is where the links themselves lead, then change the links to English and French. Go for it. But, "official" in this circumstance means "What are the official languages of Canada?", the answer is simply "English" and "French," because the law that governs what is official or not is the laws of the government of Canada, and those clearly state "English" and "French." Knoper (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think I'm wrong. Thanks for compounding that incorrect opinion with you being wrong, vis WP:BRD.

Now as for right and wrong. please read the definition of de jure and de facto in your favourite dictionary (I won't force Gage or Oxford Canadian English dictionaries on you since they don't exist your mind). The official language of the US is, de jure, English in several states and de facto, English in the remainder and nationally. As for me being wrong, how in the world can I be wrong when I didn't state anything and merely asked a question?

My issue is not where it links, but then I have written what my issue is twice. I don't see the need to repeat myself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Look up what an "official language" is: It's the language mandated for use by government. de jure and de facto have nothing to do with it when a statute and the Constitution Act say clearly what they are. Canada's official languages are English and French, pursuant to the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. What they are in actual use is irrelevant. Knoper (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says "Canadian English" is the official language Canada in order to change the sourced opinion that English is the official language. Note also that the Canadian constitution says that English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick. Does that mean New Brunswick English and Acadian French? Quebec's provincial constitution makes French the official language. Do New Brunswick and Quebec have different Frenches as official languages? TFD (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do people not know what the "The Canadian Style" guide is? It is a "Government publication" listing the English that is used by Federal Government agencies. The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing. Public Works and Government Services Canada. 1997. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-55002-276-6. -- Moxy (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Canadian style guide. However, it is not a statement as to what the official language of the country is. It is clearly stated in the Official Lanugages Act and the Constitution Act. Knoper (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean section 3.01 Spelling: Introduction that states "Canadian spelling has tende to waver between forms...", which is on page 51 or the paragraph on p. 52 that begins "The recommended spelling authority is the Gage Canadian Dictionary, since it reflects the usage of most federal government departments and agencies more closely than do the Webster's or Oxford dictionaries, is based in research into Canadian usage, and contains specifically Canadian terms."? I don't see that saying that Canadian English is the official language of Canada.

But why do we need a source that states that "Canadian English" is the official language of Canada? There's no source for that on the United States article. Apparently common sense isn't necessary any longer. English is not the official language of Canada. If I were to phone the police and inform them that a jumper was outside my window, they would not assume I meant an article of clothing as would a British or Australian police force. The argument is tortuous and rather childish. Go fix the article on the United States first and we'll follow the precedent there. Until then, we'll continue to follow what they're doing for language.

And I do agree that WP:BRD suggests that the article remain in the pre-debate state when a discussion is ongoing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's do some comparisons:

Austria : Official language is listed as German, not Austrian German.

Republic of Ireland: Official languages are listed as Irish and English.

Quebec: Official language is listed as French, not Quebec french.

Nicaragua: Official language is listed as Spanish, not Central American Spanish.

You're misunderstanding me: I'm not denying the existence of Canadian English. It's just clear as day: The primary authority of the country, the Constitution, says clearly that the two official languages are English and French. The only thing that matters is de jure in this argument, because we're talking about the official language. And, again, the United States does not have an official language. Knoper (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear a government publication that directs government agencies to use Canadianism in spelling is not official? I like the comparisons above but not one of them have an official guide to spelling as the government of Canada does. People that read Canadian English will understand that the government uses Gage thus Canadian English so not a big deal. -- Moxy (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not an official guideline. It's a guide of how to use language. It is not a statement of what the official language is. Read Section 16, it's clear. More Wikipedia style examples: Brazil lists Portuguese instead of Brazilian Portuguese, Mexico uses Spanish instead of Mexican Spanish. Knoper (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. The United States article has more proficient editors than those podunk nations you listed. We need to follow that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we follow that? The United States article says that there is no official language. Knoper (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"The United States does not have a national official language"[4] nor more than one, so comparison with Canada in this respect is of little help, unless the particular states are considered. Among other publications there are dictionaries which show that English used by Canadians differs in spelling and some other respects from standard English ("British" English), and likewise comparing the standard French of French Canadians with the standard French of European France. But, as mentioned above, the Canadian official languages are simply "English" and "French". While The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing is among the publications recording what is held to be current usage for "Canadian" standard English, is there anything to show that the use of "British" or "American" or "Australian" standard English, or of standard European French, would be a violation of the Canadian law, or that compliance requires the "Canadian" variant. Neither a correct interpretation of an act of the Canadian parliament, nor "common sense", necessarily coincide with the opinions of persons who happen to edit Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Their infobox has official language as "None at federal level" but their "National language" as "American English". So do I understand that you two are arguing for a similar change to this article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm arguing that Canada's official languages are English and French (which is the case), and should be listed as such. If you want to add something else, go have fun. Knoper (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not though. The implication is that it's a universal language when it's actually a variant. If you want to stop being so intractable and legalistic, take up law. This encyclopedia is a cooperative venture. If you were to tell an American or a Londoner that Canada speaks "English", they will agree in principle, but pushed to explain the language differences, they would say that it's not their brand of English. And the Parisians have their own form of French that is not officially spoken in Canada. We are reminded of that every Friday: http://www.cbc.ca/cestlavie/word/. So I'm sorry you're not being reasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the implication. You're the one not understanding the concept of an official language. I'm being legalistic because it's a legal concept. 90% of Canadians could speak Chinese, but if the government says the official languages are still English and French, they are still English and French. Check out the history of some colonies, where colonial languages were the official languages when most of the populace spoke another language entirely.Knoper (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian English is not a language, it's a variety of a language. If the country had an official dialect it might be Canadian English. It doesn't. It has official languages and those are English and French. "Canadian English" is not given a "special legal status". Canadian citizens have the right to receive services from the federal government in English, and it doesn't matter in law whether the public servant calls something a serviette or a napkin, or spells "neighbour" with a u or not. It's highly doubtful that the Commissioner would conduct an investigation if someone complained that the service they received in English was not "Canadian" enough. Style guides are just that — guides — and do not have the force of law. The federal government could decide tomorrow to start using the Chicago Manual of Style and it wouldn't change the official languages as set out in the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ... discospinster _talk 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a complex issue. The Constitution states precisely what it is. Anything else is presumptive. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So are we finally at the point where we can keep Official Languages as English and French, with the cite of "See :Section Sixteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Official Languages Act (Canada)," and change the languages section accordingly? Knoper (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not on your life. When you fix the United States article, then we can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The United States article is irrelevant to this issue. We have all the facts we need to resolve this now. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. We have all the facts we need to resolve this now: it should be restored to the way it was before the two of you decided that we were wrong about this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Three of us. ... discospinster _talk 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, then, would you pleas provide your reliable source? Knoper (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion, we have 6 users (Knoper, Qexigator, discospinster, mediatech492, TFD, issacl) in favour and Walter Gorlitz against, would like to know Moxy's current status. We also have no reliable source that states that Canada's official languages are anything but English or French; we do have a reliable source (The Charter, Official Languages Act) stating this. I believe a consensus has been reached. Anyone objecting to going ahead with the change? Knoper (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to the actual languages, not the dialects. Official languages are English and French, this is supported by references. Official references do not say Canadian English and Canadian French. Do not pipelink to Canadian English or Canadian French. They may be the dialects of the languages that are spoken, but are not the languages themselves, and are not what the references say. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it is that big an issue, but, it is pretty clear that the official languages are just English and French, not our local variants. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be quite clear consensus here, with only a single dissenting voice. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two voices actually. Moxy has stopped talking.

Two regular editors of this article object while the rest of you are here for unknown reasons and will likely leave once your will has been imposed.

It is an ignorant statement to assume that we only speak English in Canada and not Canadian English in Canada. This is wikilawyering at its worst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not imply motivation or make comments on other editors in that way. Editors bringing a consensus against your wishes is not some kind of conspiracy. Whether someone is a regular editor of the article or not is irrelevant to such a discussion, edit count doesn't matter here and such comments could be construed as some sort of ownership issue. A discussion has been had and consensus has been established within Wikipedia policies on referencing and verifiability. Canterbury Tail talk 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for 6 years, is that long enough? I have edited it, and I have participated in many talk page discussions here, is that good enough? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Same here. At least six years, quite possibly more. I can't really tell. Canterbury Tail talk 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no property in Wikipedia articles. Our voices are as valuable as yours. The law of Canada is that English and French are the official langnuages, and the sources provided do not contradict this. "Common sense" is not a source, especially with a legal concept. From your comments, you still obviously do not understand the concept of an "official language" as it relates to the common spoken language, which can be (and, sometimes, are) two completely different concepts. Knoper (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not implying motivation on editors, simply curious, and stating that they are here for unknown reasons. That's a fair statement. I'm sorry if you take offence to it. I do recognize some of the names here, but the original three I didn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles are open to reading and editing by all, and some of those who do may be better able to understand a point at issue than some of those who see themselves as regulars, including any who wish to be known as being able to speak Canadian English. Has anyone commented on the basis that in Canada only English is spoken not Canadian English? Comments have been based on the undisputed fact that the Canadian parliament has prescribed two official languages, namely English and French. Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I speak British English, I live in Canada, am a citizen of Canada and have conducted business with, within and for the government in British English. It's touch and go whether Canadian English is even a de facto language of Canada considering the population that has learnt English abroad and immigrated what they're more likely to have been taught British or at times American English. No I have no references, and references and verifiability are king. Just commenting. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And this isn't even approaching the deeply political issue of what "Canadian French" is, was, or would be, if it exists at all. Knoper (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Have made a compromise edit adding that the Canadian variations are national languages, as stated above is the method used on the United States article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is a reliable source that says Canadian English and Canadian french are the "national languages" of Canada? Or that Canada has a national language? Brazil doesn't have Brazilian Portuguese, and Austria does not have Austrian German as a "national language."Knoper (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

and pipes to Canadian English/French counter-informative in the given text

More than three agree with the version which reads in open text: "Canada's two official languages are defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as English and French."[5]; and can see that the desire to retain the erroneous version is not supported, and probably unsupportable. Readers look to an encyclopedia for definite fact based information when that is available. Why are the hidden pipe links to "Canadian English" and "French English" added there, without some brief explanatory statement? It confuses the essential distinction, mentioned above, between an "official" and a "national" language. Also, infobox. The section on "language" refers to "Main article: Languages of Canada" which is the encyclopedic way to provide readers with that sort of information. Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at Austria and Brazil, both link to "German language" and "Portugese language."Knoper (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't been reached. The statement that a reliable source must be found to reference the official languages as "Canadian English" as opposed to "English" is not logical for all the reasons mentioned earlier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution seems pretty clear on this, and at this point the other side seems to be offering nothing but baseless obstruction. Do we need to request closure on this per: WP:ANRFC? Mediatech492 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And this is where I disagree. The constitution states English/French, but it's a legal fiction to assume that it's not Canadian English and Canadian French that is used in everyday life, including in the legal system. Wikilawyer wins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says the official languages of Canada are Canadian English and Canadian French, otherwise it is just or. The fact that the government recommends a certain dictionary is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you move that broken record to another track?

RS states "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." It doesn't state that every item needs a source to the exact term. It's unreasonable to challenge that the variations of English and French spoken in Canada is anything other than the national variants.

I don't deny that there is a consensus to link the generic variants, but it's ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been challenged and now updated to what is verifiable as per policy and community consensus. Also please stop using the United States article as a means to push stuff in the Canada article. That is not a valid argument as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consensus seems to have gone against you in this instance, please have the good grace to accept it and move on. If you wish to start a new section on this topic in the talk page, feel free to do so if you can provide information and reasoning that hasn't been brought up previously. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Walt.: Have you checked "Legal fiction" or made another (good faith) false assumption? This article is not about linguistics or dialects or such. We all know that don't we? Can you give us a good reason for continuing to debate this here? Qexigator (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Q. Are you suggesting that I am editing in bad faith? I'm sorry, I have offended you. That is not the definition of legal fiction I was using. I seem to be outnumbered by a cabal and no, there's no need to continue this discussion, and so as to not offend, I won't state why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, good faith is consistent with error, and not necessarily inconsistent with slanging others as ignorant. No offence taken by ....Qexigator (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

national language

Since my attempt at compromise was rejected, I would like to seek consensus on adding, as presented on the United States article, an option for national language in the infobox:

|languages_type = [[National language]]
|languages = {{hlist |[[Canadian English]] |[[Canadian French]]}}

Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Most importantly, do you have a reliable source that this is the case? Why should the United States page be the precedent, when previous comparisons such as Mexico, Austria, and Brazil show no such designation? Would Quebec French be included, due to the Federal recognition of the Quebecois as a nation? Would aboriginal languages qualify for this status? Knoper (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is someone going to suggest that a variant of English or French other than the Canadian variants are the national languages? That is the threshold at WP:RS.

Considering that "Canadian English" and "Canadian French" are dialects, and not languages I think it would be pointless and misleading to have them termed "national language". Not to mention the fact that it has no legal or official basis would make it pointless to begin with. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Aboriginal languages may meet the threshold for being considered national languages though, which is an excellent point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the threshold, and do you have a reliable source for this threshold? Knoper (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian English and Canadian French are not languages, they are perhaps dialects, although more correctly each contains several dialects. And aboriginal languages are not "national" languages. The Canadian government may choose to communicate with residents in these and other languages, such as Italian, Mandarin and Cantonese, but that does not elevate them to "national languages. And AFAIK, the Canadian government has never refused to communicate with residents who speak non-Canadian dialects. Neither the Queen nor Barack Obama require interpreters when they visit. TFD (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Concurring with TFD's last, only to add that the lead already links to Official bilingualism in Canada and that is all that is needed to inform readers on this point in this article. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

All that is needed for what? To indicate that Canadians speak and read Canadian English and Canadian French? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

American English isn't a language but it's used on the United States article. Why don't you remove it from there and explain your rationale on their talk page. Appealing to RS isn't a valid argument, as explained above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep appealing to the American page...Canada is a separate country, and other countries follow the standard we're showing. And again with the "Canadian French"....that would probably provoke disagreement with the Office québécois de la langue française, which, you will note, is not the "Office québécois de la langue française canadienne." Knoper (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Walt.: The two official languages of Wales are Welsh and English. Both English and Manx are official Languages of the Isle of Man's Tynwald. Both English and French are official Languages of Jersey. These are better suited for comparison than USA. Other articles than this one are better suited to information about the extent to which RS report about Canadians speaking and reading Canadian English and Canadian French. Qexigator (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My name is not Walt.

The two official languages of Wales may be Welsh and English,

1. but Welsh doesn't have a local variation of English and so it's most likely British English and Welsh, and for
2. Wales isn't a country. It's part of the United Kingdom.

for all your arguing, no one has tried to fix the article at the United States and tell them that American English isn't a language, and I find the hypocritical. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We are under no positive duty to change the United States page if we want to edit the Canadian one. If you want to, go for it. As I've said before, I would say Austria (despite your previous opinion that they are "podunk") is a closer analogue than the United States. The US have their own situation, where there is a language the vast majority of government business is conducted in, but the legislature never decided to declare one official. Canada does not have that situation. Knoper (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So you'll apply your "rule" to one article and not another. I can accept that level of hypocrisy. Thanks for admitting it. Now you just need to recognize that RS doesn't apply here and we'll be fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the United States, a country that doesn't have any connection or similarities with Canada in this language issue. If you wish to change that article go ahead, the link is United States, but I'd recommend you use Talk:United States first. This is the Canada talk page where we discuss improvements and changes to the article of Canada. A closer analogue would be Switzerland that lists it's four official languages. German, Italian, French and Romansh. Note that it doesn't list Schwerizerdeutsh which is the dialect (or collection of dialects) generally spoken in Switzerland by the majority of Swiss, which is significantly different from baseline German (much different than Canadian English is from baseline English and Canadian French from baseline French.) It also doesn't list Schriftdeutsch which is technically the form of German that is official, but it's not what people actually speak day to day. It's just German and everything is descended from that. As far as Canada goes it's not like this Canadian English is a homogeneous dialect anyway with different words being used for the same things in Nova Scotia compared to British Columbia. Even it would be broken down into sub-dialects again, but they're all a form of English. Canterbury Tail talk 01:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: "doesn't have any connection or similarities with Canada in this language issue". I'm assuming hyperbole here as they are both discussing variants of English. Other than that, there's <sarcasm>no similarity at all</sarcasm>.Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no hyperbole, they don't have the complication of official languages as exists in Canada. Can we get back to the point instead of attacking other editors? I'll raise the point that even the Wikipedia article on Canadian French doesn't say it's a language but instead an umbrella grouping of the various varieties of French spoken in Canada (but all still French) so claiming it's a language is not even supported by the article that is wished to be linked to under the heading of National Languages. Canterbury Tail talk 02:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing official language but national language. You do understand that? You did look at their article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing an editor pressing this point in good faith, could we consider letting the article be revised by saying that the language mostly spoken and written in Canada is English, except in Quebec, in respect of which Quebec nationalists consider "Quebec French the national language of the Quebec nation"?[6] And if so, would that make English currently the National language of Canada, (as well as one of the two official languages) according to standard criteria generally used in world-wide classification practise, or at least as in List of languages by number of native speakers, which compares numbers for native English speakers with French (including Quebec, New Brunswick and eastern parts of Ontario)? And if so, would that be suitable for infobox? Qexigator (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a "See also: Canadian English and Canadian French in the "languages" section. Anything else would be really describing a situation that either a) isn't universal enough to be considered "national language" and b) isn't reflective of the actual linguistic situation in Canada. As I described above, you could technically start putting Aboriginal languages in the box if they're recognized by the government. Knoper (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinions re: addition of "National Language" to infobox

Against. There is no reliable source citing a "national language" or "national languages" of Canada. "Canadian English" and "Canadian French" are a) not languages, but dialects and b) too broad of a statement regarding language use in the country. Knoper (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Against: Agree with Knoper and Canterbury Tail above. I see nothing above or anywhere else to support addition of "National Language" to infobox. Qexigator (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Against The Canadian Constitution (Section 16) defines the official languages of Canada as "English and French"; there is no basis, explicit or implicit, for anything that might be considered a "national language" other than this. Mediatech492 (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Against. Canadian English and Canadian French are not languages nor do they hold any legal status, retaining their status as dialects for the English and French languages, themselves the official languages of Canada, as defined by the Constitution of Canada. The national languages would remain the same as the official languages, as they remain the most widely spoken throughout the country. TBrandley (T • E • C) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Against, These are not languages, and we already have official languages listed. This is getting quite tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

CANADA

The last line of paragraph two of the introduction states that "On July 1, 1867, three colonies/provinces(?) federated to form..." Actually there were four : Upper Canada (now Ontario); Lower Canada (now Quebec); New Brunswick; Nova Scotia.

98.124.31.57 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Lower and Upper Canada had been merged into the Province of Canada by then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Population

The population in the info box is given as per the "2013 census". There was no census in 2013. Last census was 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.53.2.115 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Black is not a synonim of Africans

I was reading the article and I couldn't help but notice the use of the world black to refer to Africans in the ethnic groups while it has been used the continents from witch they are from to refer to other ethnic groups (like Europeans and Asians). Please refer to all ethnics in the same way. Africa is a continent with people of different colours, there are white, brown and black people. If you used Asians to refer to all Asians people which they could be black, brown or white as well, why wouldn't you do the same for Africans. Thank you for your collaboration. Bana 1/10/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.144.106 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not used as a synonym. Black means black. It does not include north Africans. Please look at demographics of Canada#Ethnic origin for further break-down. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the Canadian census allows self-identification, and you can select as many categories as you want. So you could call yourself an Arabic Englishman if you felt that was the most accurate representation of your ethnicity. Many people just put down "Canadian", without any specific information about their racial backgrounds. With respect to ethnicity, the survey is only intended to gather information on *how people think of themselves*. — Gopher65_talk 16:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I would like to know if it's possible to use this image like canadian coat of arms: File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The real coat of arms in under copyright. The one above is a very bad representation that should not be use as an official symbol. To be honest someone may revert what is there now. -- Moxy (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked it because the official coat of arms is copyrighted and obviously it's not possible to use it; this representation is according the blazon, why is a bad representation? --Echando una mano (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try to sum up the objections from Talk:Canada/Archive 23#File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg that resulted in no consensus to use that one. Basically there is a version that is copyrighted and used by the government of Canada. Other version are not the copyrighted version thus are just renditions based on the blazon and have no Official recognition. We should not mislead our readers in believing that a rendition is the one used by the country. If you believe you have a solution to the conflicting sides pls bring it up.-- Moxy (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was only a question. If it's not possible to use the official design, there are three options: Without coat of arms, only with the escutcheon or using a free version (according the blazon). Obviously, the free version can't be identical to the official coat of arms. But as I've written, it was only a question, because I thought that the up example it wasn't bad. Regards. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has been that we would rather have the official representation rather than an approximation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Another question, then: Why is it possible to use the official coat of arms in Arms of Canada and not here? Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think using the coat of arms in this article would constitute fair use. Unless I am incorrect. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Different editors there and a different consensus in what is and isn't appropriate for use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Echando and Nick: in the Arms article, that image is the primary identifier of the subject, and so it's far easier to argue fair-use. While it might be possible here, the argument would be much less strong. For comparison, think about a non-free album cover: it makes much more sense to argue for its inclusion in an article about the specific album than in an article about the artist (although the latter is possible). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Four streams"

This section takes up where "Do we need to discuss the revolutionary war in the lede?" above left off at[7] with a proposal for improving the article by re-thinking its content as a whole, and perhaps some re-structuring, with particular concern for mentioning that the British element came mostly from emigration from a separate independent country (USA) that was never part of Canada. That may be so, but would be only one and not necessarily the predominant strand. What may be accepted as having been primary or decisive historical events for the peoples and territories of present day USA are usually less so for others, including those to north and south of the land and maritime borders of USA, present and historic. A first question is, whether there is a clear consensus about the "four streams" presentation or theory among earlier historians, and is that undisputed by contemporary historians? A second question is, which of the present headings would it belong to, or does it need a new heading? Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the term generally used is "English" not "British". TFD (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cut'n'paste synopsis

Relevant information is distributed over a set of interlinked articles. Is it useful to apply the "four streams" thesis or structure? The following is a sample (cut'n'paste) of a selective synopsis which a reader could compile for him/her-self.

• Earlier Colonization phase - European colonization of the Americas

• History of the Americas - "With the European Discovery of the American continent in 1492, Spanish, Portuguese and later English, French and Dutch colonial expeditions arrived in the New World, conquering and settling the discovered lands, which led to a transformation of the cultural and physical landscape in the Americas."
• First wave of European colonization
• British colonization of the Americas - "(including colonization by both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland before the Acts of Union which created the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707) began in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia and reached its peak when colonies had been established throughout the Americas. The English, and later the British, were among the most important colonizers of the Americas."
• New Netherland - "Charles II of England resolved to annex New Netherland... In November 1674, the Treaty of Westminster concluded the war and ceded New Netherland to the English."
• French colonization of the Americas - French colonial empire - " A distinction is generally made between the "First colonial empire", that existed until 1814 and by which time most of it had been lost....In rivalry with England, France began to establish colonies in North America, the Caribbean, and India, following the Portuguese and Spanish successes during the Age of Discovery. A series of wars with Great Britain during the 18th century and early 19th century stripped away most of its first empire." -
• New France - "The Treaty of Utrecht resulted in the relinquishing of French claims to mainland Acadia, the Hudson Bay and Newfoundland, and the establishment of the colony of Île Royale (Cape Breton Island) as the successor to Acadia. France ceded the rest of New France, except the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, to Great Britain and Spain at the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War)."

• Later phase, 18c.-20c. - Canada–United States relations - "This includes a shared British cultural heritage, warfare during the 1770s and 1812, and the eventual development of one of the most stable and mutually-beneficial international relationships in the modern world. Each is the other's chief economic partner and tourism and migration between the two nations has increased rapport. The most serious breach in the relationship was the War of 1812, which saw the United States attempt a failed invasion.The border remained the same after the war and was demilitarized." - Alabama claims[8]At the end of the American Civil War in 1865, Americans were angry at British support for the Confederacy. One result was toleration of Fenian efforts to use the U.S. as a base to attack Canada." ..."Emigration to and from the United States[9] By 1870, 1/6 of all the people born in Canada had moved to the United States...The southward migration slacked off after 1890, as Canadian industry began a growth spurt. By then, the American frontier was closing, and hundreds of thousands of farmers looking for fresh land moved from the United States north into the Prairie Provinces."

• "The history of the United States as covered in American schools and universities typically begins with either Christopher Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Americas or with the prehistory of the Native peoples; the latter approach has become increasingly common in recent decades."

• Current phase, from late 20c.-

Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (1988), superseded by North American Free Trade Agreement (1994)

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(1989)

Trans-Pacific Partnership (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement) - "under negotiation by (as of August 2013[update]) Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam."

The current version of the lead for "Canada", including the links, seems to be well suited to all of the above. Would use of a "four streams" organizing principle improve any parts of the presentation? 08:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss the revolutionary war in the lede?

This edit seems a bit undue as the topic is given very little coverage in the European colonization section. Yes, I understand that Loyalists fled north and helped establish policy here for the better part of a century, but is it necessary in the lede? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the edit's bad grammar, I can see value to some of the information; it does explain how the Thirteen Colonies didn't become part of Canada, despite being British North American territory. I wonder if the added sentence and the one that precedes it couldn't be combined and condensed into something like the following:

France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America to the United Kingdom in 1763, after the French and Indian War. As the Canadas did not join the American Revolution, they became a refuge for many Empire Loyalists fleeing the conflict that saw Britain lose its Thirteen Colonies in 1783, leaving it with the territories that mostly comprise modern Canada.

Just a suggestion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the change. The Loyalists came to Canada because they lost the war (& the US failed to capture Canada), making the 1775-83 war a major factor in the history and politics of Canada. It's very odd to overlook the Loyalists Rjensen (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1.Was this as significant as the War of 1812, and the Rebellions of 1837 that are not mentioned in the lead? I believe that it gives undueweight for what is mainly an American conflict to be in the lead with 2 links like Treaty of Paris (1783) and American Revolutionary War. If we are to mention this time period in the lead we should link articles like Province of Quebec (1763–91) or Royal Proclamation of 1763 not the American Revolutionary War ...if we find a need to link the American Revolutionary period we should at least link Invasion of Canada (1775). 2.Does it help readers understand the size of the country at the time as the sentences is used for? (perhaps yes if we link something Canada under British rule that has a map?) -- Moxy (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Canada" did not exist when the Loyalists travelled north. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

the historians who write the "History of Canada" cover this period. We are obligated to follow the reliable sources, regardless of name changes. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article as a whole, yes. In the lead, though, we can be and are more selective about what is and is not included. Particularly as the article subject is Canada as a whole and not just History of Canada. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. If this was a history of Canada article then fine, but it's not and this isn't the most significant event in Canada's history. Shouldn't be in the lead. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentences seemed to be, together, summarising the history of Canada's borders only, though with some necessary historical context. If that is too much for the lede, then all specifics should be removed. It was strange before having words specifically focusing on the transfer of New France's lands to the British in between very general overviews of long periods of territorial evolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Does American Revolutionary War or Treaty of Paris (1783) article help people understand the topic of Canada? Simply put no ..so much more important stuff could be in the lead over American articles. We have Canadian articles on this topic. -- Moxy (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of other articles isn't at issue here. The matter under discussion is the content of the lede of this article. There, the American Revolution and the Treaty of Paris 1783 could indeed help people understand the topic of Canada; the evolution of its territorial extent, specifically. They impacted the line of Canada's eastern border with the United States.

The question is: Is mention of the American Revolution and its territorial consequences too much detail for the lede? If yes, then I say the mention of the French and Indian War and Seven Years' War should go, too. Taking all that out, the paragraph could read like this:

The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonies were established on the region's Atlantic coast. As a consequence of various conflicts, the United Kingdom gained and lost North American territories until left in the late 18th century with what mostly comprises Canada today. On July 1, 1867, three British colonies joined to form the federal dominion of Canada. Other colonies subsequently joined and the remainder of Britain's lands were transferred to Canada.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I like that revision alot!!! Vote yes for change!! I have become a fan of less linking in the leads overall as of late. Sees that it results in better wording like above. Best we word things properly over trying to link terms in the lead. All is covered in the article with links and the main section link History of Canada goes into even more detail... if people wish to learn more. Could link "Various conflicts" to Military history of Canada . -- Moxy (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

British Anglophone Canada was largely the product of the 1780s & the Loyalists and they came to largely dominate Canadian history, so it's certainly a central event. some evidence: there are still lots of English speakers speakers around. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with external borders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• The version proposed above by Mies is more suited to the lead (2nd of four paragraphs) than the present version, which is:

The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonial expeditions explored, and later settled, the region's Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America to the United Kingdom in 1763 after the French and Indian War: the Seven Years' War's theatre of war in North America. Modern Canada largely consists of the North American territory that was retained by Britain in the 1783 peace settlement ending the American Revolutionary War. The population has grown steadily in subsequent decades, the territory was explored and additional self-governing Crown colonies were established. On July 1, 1867, three colonies were federated, forming a federal dominion that established Canada under the British North America Act of 1867.

The Mies. version is more succinct, covering all points but leaving detail to the body and other linked articles. Let us avoid engaging here in (histrionic!) retrospective border disputes. Let the point mentioned by Rjensen be put in the body, but the lead is not the place to give undue prominence to the secession of the republican colonies from the British Crown. Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The lede should be brief and on-topic. For that reason, I would go with Miesianiacal's version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree with the new lead. The American Revolution is absolutely critical to understanding Canada, since Canada would literally not exist without it. The only reason "Canada" came into being was that the British grouped their remaining post-Revolution territories under the name of their two largest colonies, named after the former French province of Canada. If the Revolution did not happen, what is now Canada and the U.S. would have been grouped together by the British under some other name.

CJK (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to offer a few points without disagreeing with your main point.

1. "The American Revolution is absolutely critical to understanding Canada" yet prior your addition of that information on February 24, it was not included in the lede and no one saw fit to add it or complain that it was missing.
2. Further to that, consensus is that it's not necessary. I would suggest that you seek consensus before reverting that material and seek consensus before adding material there.
3. That section is about the geographic extents of the country, not political. It doesn't make sense to include that there.

I am reverting now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole purpose of letting users contribute to an encyclopedia is so they can add information overlooked by others. Otherwise, the page should just be locked. The geographical and political issues obviously overlap. The nation of Canada along with its present geographical form, exists exclusively because of the American Revolution. CJK (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about keeping the lede succinct. If the American Revolution is specifically mentioned, then all other events that contributed to the shape of Canada's external borders has to be added and then the lede will be long and unwieldy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand me, what I am saying is that the Revolution is responsible not merely for defining modern Canada's borders but also the very existence of modern Canada itself. CJK (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I am misunderstanding you at all. I agree the American Revolution is a major factor in the formation and perpetuation of Canada. But, so too was the Seven Years' War, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act, the Hudson's Bay Company, even the American Civil War. We simply cannot have every such event covered in the lede and we can't have just one to the exclusion of all others, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

CJK's "whole purpose" includes careful editing to distinguish lead content from other, unclouded by pov or anachronismic retrospection about "the very existence of modern Canada". If there is more that needs to be said about the secession of some of the British colonies at that time to form the federal republic, let that be mentioned in the body and/or in linked articles. After all, there is a viewpoint from which the formation and expansion of what emerged as the USA of the present day could be seen as determined more by the contests among the states to the east of the Atlantic (mainly France and Britain) than vice versa. That viewpoint would be compatible with seeing the USA as now being defined as lying between the territories to the north and south of the present boundaries, and across the oceans to east and west. Meantime, Canada is what this article is about. Qexigator (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Seven Years' War, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act affected the history of both Canada and the United States, but the American Revolution was the decisive event that resulted in the political division of North America into the entities that are now known as the United States and Canada. Present day Canada owes its existence directly to the American Revolution, just like the United States does. CJK (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Canada was created out of British North America, shouldn't the main "decisive" event be when those lands became British rather when than a large portion of it split from British North America? If the American War of Independence was so crucial to the creation of Canada, why did this event - the creation of Canada - have to wait a further 90 years? If we are to argue the key decisive events to the creation of Canada, I'd say they would be when Britain gained control of the lands which mostly became Canada by 1759, and, if we want to cite the influence of America, I'd say that the example of the American Civil War as being a major impetus to the actual creation of Canada. But, per se, the events of 1776-1783, while obviously greatly influencing the future Canada, were not the decisive events as, politically, the future Canadian lands already existed and Confederation didn't occur for close to a century later. Canada Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, in the perspective of North American and world events from 15c. to 20c. the republic's crisis erupting in the American Civil War of the 19c., as a consequence of the gradual enlargement of its territory to the western seaboard, looms larger vis-a-vis the formation of present day Canada than the secession of the colonies from the British Crown in the 18c. It is pretty clear that one of the decisive elements defining the USA has been the existence first of British North America and secondly of Canada. For all the reasons given above, the lead will not be improved by asserting the secession as the decisive event in the forming of the territory which is the topic of the article. 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response.

Since Canada was created out of British North America, shouldn't the main "decisive" event be when those lands became British rather when than a large portion of it split from British North America?

That would be no more decisive to Canada than to the U.S. Both the U.S. and Canada contain territory that was formerly French or British. The development of this territory into the two present-day separate political entities was caused by the American Revolution.

If the American War of Independence was so crucial to the creation of Canada, why did this event - the creation of Canada - have to wait a further 90 years?

Um, because the British didn't want independence. That is my point. Canada consists of the North American territory that did not obtain independence in 1783. There was therefore no urgent need to federate the colonies, since they were all subject to Britain.

If we are to argue the key decisive events to the creation of Canada, I'd say they would be when Britain gained control of the lands which mostly became Canada by 1759

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, etc. were all considered British colonies on par with Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc. The only reason the former ones were grouped under the name "Canada" was due to the Revolution splitting off the southern colonies.

if we want to cite the influence of America, I'd say that the example of the American Civil War as being a major impetus to the actual creation of Canada

The 1867 act "created" Canada only in the same sense that the 1789 U.S. Constitution "created" the United States. In both cases the states/provinces had already been informally bound with each other even though a federal entity did not technically exist.

CJK (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly!! - way too much to express in the lead...best we leave the details to the article. I think most thus far agree that the new re-written second paragraph of the lead is better...even then the long standing version before the inclusion of the American war. Does anyone think we should write a bit more in the article about any of the points (events) raised? -- Moxy (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The professor I had in Canadian history agrees with you in part: the War of Independence was a factor in the formation of Canada, particularly with the movement of the Loyalists to the north. However more important and immediate factors exist: the Monroe Doctrine, manifest destiny and the American civil war (an oxymoron if I ever heard one since war is never civil). Those factors follow along the lines of that first thread, which you may call the American problem, but the desire for the United Kingdom to stop supporting the colonies with troops has its own thread. Perhaps you could look at the sources for that at Canadian Confederation. I agree with the statement above that 90 years is a long time between the two. Regardless, if you don't provide RSes to support the claim that War of Independence was a key factor in the foundation of the boundaries of Canada, there's no need to discuss this further and even less need to mention it in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to not grasp the relatively straightforward point I am trying to make (please don't take that the wrong way): The Dominion of Canada that was formed in 1867 and subsequently expanded upon only exists because of the American Revolution. The Canada of today is formed exclusively out of British North American possessions that were not given independence in 1783. Had the Revolution not occurred (or if it had more success), Canada and the United States would be merged together under a different name. That it why it is of decisive importance, which is certainly lead-worthy. CJK (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If that counter-factual assertion is what is being mooted, it is beside the point of this article, and certainly not lead-worthy, and discussion of it here can be discontinued. Qexigator (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No I grasp the point. In fact I give it assent in my most recent reply. But I don't think you grasp ours. But I'll assume good faith and let you explain in your own words what it is we are trying to say. If that isn't done in satisfactory I will write a response that uses a reductio ad absurdum argument that links the formation of Canada back to several major events in Western Civilization such as the Protestant Reformation and subsequent Counter-Reformation which encompase the 16th and 17th centuries, the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and possibly even Hannibal's crossing the Alps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are equating indirect events with direct events. The American Revolution was directly responsible for the division of North America into the groupings which would become the United States and Canada. The United States was the rebel half, and Canada was the loyal half. This is no different than pointing how the division of Ireland in 1922 is responsible for the existence of the present Irish republic as well as Northern Ireland.

CJK (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the current version says all that needs to be said in the lead. I would point out too that the Treaty of Paris 1763 ceded only a small although important portion of what makes up modern Canada - southern Ontario and Quebec. Comparing North America to Ireland is misleading since North America was not a country. One could equally say that the U.S. Revolution divided the British Empire. TFD (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And you, CJD, are missing the point yet again.

Please summarize the points that other are making instead of trying to make yours. We do understand the one you're making but it's not clear you understand ours. Without mutual understanding we will not be able to move forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I see two problems with the paragraph in question. 1) it startes out by considering the population elements. It should be simplified to say First Nations, French (mention Quebec/New France) and British, On the British colonies are mentioned (but not named--Newfoundland?? New Scotia?? the 13 American ones?). The most important group came in 1780s as Loyalists leaving the USA. They need mentioning. I tried to fix it, but something needs to be said about heavy migration in recent decades. 2) the second problem is a garbled and vague sentence that is meaningless and confusing: "As a consequence of various conflicts, the United Kingdom gained and lost North American territories until left in the late 18th century with what mostly comprises Canada today."' I think it means the war with France (territory) and the USA (boundary), but completely leaves out BC & Newfoundland. It needs reworking. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A proposed solution. instead of: The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonies were established on the region's Atlantic coast. Quebec ("New France") became the center of French culture. The British element came largely from Loyalist refugees from the American Revolution who arrived by the tens of thousands in the 1780s. As a consequence of various conflicts, the United Kingdom gained and lost North American territories until left in the late 18th century with what mostly comprises Canada today. On July 1, 1867, three British colonies joined to form the federal dominion of Canada. Other colonies subsequently joined and the remainder of Britain's lands were transferred to Canada. I propose this: "The Canadian population derives from four streams. The land has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples, now known as First Nations, Inuit or Métis. France in the 17th century established New France, now part of Quebec, as a settlement colony based on agriculture and the fur trade. It was absorbed by Britain in 1763. Britain established small colonies in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The largest British element came in the 1780s, as 60,000 or more Loyalists came from the United States of America, after the the former British colonies became independent. In the 19th century, the population expanded to the West, including the Prairie provinces, while the separate British territories of Rupert's Land and British Columbia were absorbed. In 1867 most of the separate jurisdictions joined together as the Dominion of Canada. Since the 1960s, there has been a large steady immigration into Canada from Asia, the Caribbean, Africa and the rest of the world." Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In reply let me comment that this would not be acceptable as a "solution" to an invented problem. For one thing, the previous version was not fairly derided as a "garbled and vague sentence that is meaningless and confusing", and for another the proposed rewrite is designed to import into this overviewing summary, out of the context of the detail which properly belongs in the body of the article, a reference to the political history of the USA and its "Paririe provinces", interesting enough as that may be in another place. Perhaps the proposing editor would first make whatever addition(s) to the body which he would like to offer as sufficient to make the various points he considers should be included, especially with regard to migrants from the seceding colonies or elsewhere. Meantime, let the lead stand in the plainer, simpler, ungarbled version. Qexigator (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first priority is to way who lives in Canada, and the four streams argument is made. The next point is how the geography got that way, and it may be as Qexigator suggests too complicated to put in the lede. But references to English colonies and unspecified mysterious conflicts will not work at all. For example, the British element came mostly from emigration from a separate independent country (USA) that was never part of Canada. Rjensen (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely do not understand what the problem is with mentioning the historical reality that the American Revolution divided British North America into what are now the United States and Canada.

CJK (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding it does not help people understand the division or population at the time. Very very odd the only conflict and mention of European immigration is American in the lead. All this is explained in the article. So much more is why Canada is Canada today...think most would agree the war of 1812 has more to do with the formation of Canada (as in it made the Canadas realized they needed a united front). I have removed it again from the lead...simply no concession for it. As for unspecified mysterious conflicts ..this is why we have a link there to an article that has a Canadian POV on the American wars not to a prominently America article. So far 2 people (both with America interests) wish to add this...think we need more involved for outside Canada and the USA. Won't convince very many Canadians (those of us that write the article) that the only conflict linked and only mention of immigration is about the Americans with links to American POV articles. -- Moxy (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Moxy, from a location not far from Greenwich, England. On the "four streams" thesis, please see below. Has it a place anywhere in this article? The War of 1812 was obviously a major event for the then peoples and governments of the territories of north America, but from the wider perspective of world-wide events it was but one incident among others happening elsewhere, such as the fateful French invasion of Russia to name but one, and the later events in Europe leading to immigrations to north America. We could all go on at considerable length in various directions, but that is good and sufficient reason for keeping the lead as short and simple as we can. Qexigator (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that 1812 is noteworthy as well. However there wouldn't have been any need for "a united front" if the American Revolution had not happened, since Canada as we know it would not have existed. Canada is made up of the British North American remnants after 1783. That is the only fact I am trying to point out. CJK (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we all agree ...but no need to mention everything in the lead. The lead is for an overview not the details of the many many factors that formed the country. Rjensen proposal above sounds good but way to much detail for a lead in any article especially an FA one ..great for the body of the article. Last thing we want is a lead like History of the United States. We could add mention of the America war to the lead of the History of Canada article because we go into detail about the American Revolution and the Loyalists the in that article. -- Moxy (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Canada would have existed with or without the American Revolution, possibly in a different form or under a different name but there would have inevitably been some sort of post-colonial nation, or nations, composed of former British North American colonies. While the American Revolution affected the course of events it did not create the situation. It is not that the American Revolution was not an important historic event, it is just that it was not the defining event in the creation of Canada, it was but one of many events that resulted in Canada as it is today. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well put. Noting the remarks of an editor with a distinguished career as an academic historian, it is reasonable to comment that the style of editing he is advocating here[10] is a poor criterion for determining the content of the lead in this article, as if Wikipedia needs to follow the Micropædia - Macropædia approach of later print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. One must credit readers of Wikipedia article such as this (not least those outside the USA) with sufficient acumen and stamina to decide for themselves how far they wish to go in following up this or that aspect of a given topic, rather than be given a snippet of prescribed reading in a lead, which does less than justice to the complexities and ramifications of the topic. We are not attempting to compose a publisher's blurb for a school textbook, are we? Qexigator (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead should be short and enticing - in fact very short as most will not spend more then a few seconds reading an article anywhere - Huge percentage of people wont scroll to read more...lead needs to fit on one screen without scrolling (You Won’t Finish This Article). Our lead links need to be enticing like "various conflicts" that are linked to "overall topics of interests". (repeat of message to Rjensen)-- Moxy (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The American Revolution was directly responsible for the territorial extent of Canada as well as the use of the very name "Canada" to denote that territory (previously Canada only referred to Quebec). I do not understand why you find that insignificant. CJK (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong on both points. The American Revolution did not fix the territorial limits of either Canada or the United States, those frontiers and portions thereof were still being defined and redefined over two centuries after the Revolution. And while they have had overlapping meaning from the beginning, "Canada" has never at any time been a direct synonym for "Quebec". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And why is this discussion continuing here when it should be in the logical break section below? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

CJK and War of Independence

I think that CJK sums up his position well when he writes "I genuinely do not understand what the problem is with mentioning the historical reality that the American Revolution divided British North America into what are now the United States and Canada." I'm sorry you don't understand. Several editors have explained it, and at least two of us have done so several times. I suggest you go back and read what editors other than you have written and try to understand. It makes no sense for us to re-write it again and again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Other concerns in the lede

I agree that other provinces could be mentioned but would like to see what that looks like before we expand the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have always thought that listing all the organization that Canada is a part of is not helpful for a lead G7, G8, G10, G20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, NATO, North American Free Trade Agreement, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization, Uniting for Consensus, Commonwealth of Nations, Francophonie, Organization of American States, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the United Nations. Do we have a page that list all these with full names we can link to instead? Say something like "Canada is a recognized middle power and a member of a multitude of regional and international organizations. -- Moxy (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How much of a rewrite?

The article may be in need of some rewriting, perhaps on the "four streams" principle, but is the criterion: what is thought to be suited for no more than a 5 minute look-see by mediocre students in too much of a hurry, with little or no interest in the topic, under mediocre tuition? That would be practically worthless for others looking for information presented in an encyclopedic manner with benefit of onscreen wiki. Qexigator (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Politicians

Many country pages (e.g. Uruguay, Egypt, Poland, Bulgaria, Mexico, North Korea) have images of the same foreign politicians e.g. Obama, Bush, Medvedev, Hillary Clinton, Putin, John Kerry etc present. I'm proposing such images should be moved to relevant US- or Russia- relations pages. For example it is more suitable to have two images of John Kerry on a page about US-Egypt relations than on the Egypt page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe its a good picture that demonstrates our close ties with our largest linguistic, geographic and economic neighbour. As described in the section its in "Foreign relations". is there a better picture I am up for that if there is one. -- Moxy (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Moxy is right--this relationship involves much more than routine formal diplomacy. (eg right now the Keystone Pipeline issue is quite important to Canada & Obama will be making the decision.) Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If I understand B. Fairbairn correctly, an image that shows political leaders from two (or more) countries is only relevant to articles related to one country represented. This doesn't make any sense to me, and the image in this article makes perfect sense in a discussion about Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn, if the images you were disputing only depicted foreign leaders without the Prime Minister also being present in the image, then I'd certainly agree with you. An image of Barack Obama in isolation wouldn't be relevant at all here — but an image which depicts Barack Obama and Stephen Harper is relevant and legitimate, especially given that it's located in a subsection of the article which is an overview of Canada's foreign relations. Similarly, an image of Canadian, US and Mexican officials jointly signing NAFTA is relevant and legitimate to the section on economy and trade; if Michael Wilson and Brian Mulroney weren't in it, then you'd have a point, but they are and thus it does fall within the parameters of appropriate use here. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Guys the page is about Canada, not the US. For US and Canada relations visit the US-Canada Relations page. Obama is a very important person but he does not need to appear on twenty different country pages. B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you two questions:

1. What is the name of the section in which that image is located?
2. Is there a Canadian leader engaged in the activity related to the heading of that location?

As there is no consensus to remove that image, you should not continue applying your opinion to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. The name of the section? I'll have a look... it's Foreign relations and military. But that's no excuse to throw the stars & stripes and current US president in... unless you are an American citizen.
2. Yes there is. Is there a leader from any country other than the US present? No there is not. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world but do we need US leaders and US diplomats and US flags on pages for other countries. B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No reason? We share the world's longest land border. Our economies are entirely intertwined. If it was Obama alone there would be no reason, but the fact that it shows both the leader of Canada and the US together clearly represents the section. Our next closest partner is not Brazil, it's the UK and then possibly the remaining nations of the G8 and then China and the other nations of the G20. I'm sorry you know nothing about Canada, Mexico and the other countries from which you've been removing American flags from. When you learn about the subject, perhaps by reading the sections you think you're improving, then come back and discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Canada's relations with the U.S. are the most important foreign relations Canada has. (Technically the U.K. is not a "foreign" country and Canada does not exchange ambassadors with them.) TFD (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We need to look at all the image removal this editor is dong countless pages have the same problem .....as in removal of same type of images that is being reverted many times over by many different editors. Editor has a clear problem with Americans and does not care about context. Not here for a bit can we get others to look at the edits. I reverted a few yesterday the ones that had text to match the image...That said a few have no context as in no associated text in the article to give the image context. Whole sale removal is not a good thing when hes not looking for context or even taking the time to find a replacement. Basically its disruptive to say the least and now others need to take the time to clean up the mess. - Moxy (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I reported editor to AN yesterday: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#User:B. Fairbairn again, and ANI is the next location if this continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The admins we have left dont do much any-more last time not even a reply. 3rvert is the only place were something may happen to get his attention. -- Moxy (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey boys, the relevant section is 'Foreign Relations' - meaning any other country Canada has relations with e.g. Italy, UK, Norway, Russia, Brazil, etc. If the section was 'Neighbors', the USA would be the only country that applies. Please try not to be so closed minded. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You do speak! Thanks. You should actually read what we have written instead of implying your anti-American views on this article. I am no fan of our neighbours to the south, but I would be an idiot if I were to try to suggest that this relationship is not the most important that Canada has. For the past sixty years the first visit off Canadian soil that any newly elected Canadian prime minister makes is to Washington. Save Obama, that is the first visit that any newly elected president makes is to Ottawa. The US is Canada's largest trading partner. If you don't understand the subject, stay away from it.

Do not change the image again or add any other images to this article without gaining consensus. I reverted your last edit as vandalism and will continue to do so if no one else gets to it first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It wasn't vandalism. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." In my frustration, I should not have referred to B. Fairbairn's edits in such a disparaging way. I have noticed that the editor does make many good-faith edits and while I disagree with the concept of these edits, they were done in good faith. Again, I extend my apologies to the editor and anyone else who may have been offended by reading them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Walter, I do not have anti-American views. What I do have is a dislike of diplomats from one country appearing again and again on pages about other countries. There are US- Relations pages considerably more suitable for such images. When people open a page about Canada they should be presented with Canadian images, not US leaders and US flags. The Harper-Obama image should be in the Canada-US Relations page. Images with Canadian and Russian leaders should reside on the Canada-Russia Relations page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The image seems fine to me. If it was just the US president then sure it would be a bit odd. Also in the Canada#Economy there is File:Nafta.jpg which contains two non-Canadian leaders. Is that image a problem as well? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I shouldn't have inferred any motives on B. Fairbairn's part, particularly when you've stated your motives in the past.

The fact that the politicians from certain nations appear on multiple articles isn't really a problem considering that those nations are considered the most important in the world. If they were all politicians from Lichtenstein, U.A.E., Brunei or Tuvalu, then I could see your concern. As many editors have stated, if there were no politicians related to the subject there, that too would be a concern. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Those nations are considered the most important in the world in the minds of people from the nations. People from other countries are not so impressed... except when they need help!! B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

I need to add the arms of Canada. 68.5.244.183 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per this archived discussion on usage of the Canadian Coat of Arms. The image is apparently not free for use. Cannolis (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

this article is too biased

this article is too biased, there is a lot of self praising Canada is not wonderland and those numbers are too pretty (fake) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.255.238.25 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the material inaccurate or unreferenced? Feel free to list specifics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms

Hi there, Walter Görlitz!

Your given reason for removing the Canadian coat of arms was that it was a copyrighted file, and therefore shouldn't be placed in the article. Forgive me if I sound thick, but aren't (by that logic, at least) all coats of arms copyrighted? And, if that's indeed the case, then why on earth can every other nation's coats of arms be placed in their pages (Australia, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, etc.) while you bar Canada's from its page? This seems like backward logic to me, but if you seem to think otherwise, I am more than happy to help you take down the coats of arms on the pages for every other country on the planet...we don't want to be violating copyright law, right?? (;

If you'll take a look at this from the official page of Coat of Arms of Canada.svg:

"However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the object in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

Then you'll realize that the copyright only applies to commercial usage, which a nonprofit such as Wikipedia isn't. Additionally, because we are trying to accurately illustrate on English-language Wikipedia, our usage of this image is completely and perfectly within the acceptable use of the Canadian copyright held on this image! And if you believe otherwise, go to McGill or UofT, get a copyright law degree, and then call me back!

--Mickeys1fan (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You'll have to explain the previous message in that space, and you'll have to explain why there's a fair use rationale for its use on the other article.

I won't be reverting it. Someone else likely will.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The hidden comment at the coat of arms parameter was removed earlier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not every country's government uses the same copyright provisions to cover content that it owns. The United States government, for example, releases its content into the public domain, which means that we can use that content freely because PD is compatible with GFDL — but the Canadian government releases its content under Crown copyright, which is not compatible with GFDL and thus we're much more restricted in how we can use it here. In particular, we are not a non-commercial use just because we don't charge a subscription fee to read the site — the presence or absence of a subscription fee is not the only thing that defines the difference between "commercial" and "non-commercial" use. So the provision that allows Crown-licensed material to be republished in a non-commercial context does not help us at all, because we are not a non-commercial context.

The inconsistency may seem unfair, but that's not our fault. If you don't like it, then by all means start lobbying the Canadian government to change the provisions that it releases its copyrighted content under — but until the government decides to start releasing its content under a licensing model that's compatible with GFDL, there's not a damn thing Wikipedia can do about it except live with the fact that some countries will get to grab images and illustrations from their government sources a lot more easily than Canada can copy stuff from ours. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Arms of Canada are the personal arms of the Queen of Canada (the sovereign and the state are legally one and the same), thus Royal prerogative governs there use. Also, the Arms are used as a badge of office as representatives of the Crown (the courts, the executive, police and military rank) and is another reason for strict control. See legal use of Arms of Canada and Crown copyright in Canada. I think the Arms have a valid place on this article, but an admin sometime not too long ago made an overly restrictive interpretation trackratte (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that a personal opinion or a legal one?

If it's the former, thanks for your opinion, but that's not the current consensus of the government of Canada as displayed at the file representing the arms.

If it's the latter, I'd be most interested in seeing support from a court or other legal judgment in Canada.

I have a hard time accepting anything you write when your grammar is so poor: you used "there" when you meant "their". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Government of Canada expresses itself through Wikipedia file pages. However, it does express its "current consensus" here (personal arms), and here ("The official symbols of the Government of Canada are protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act") on its gc.ca webspace. Also, good catch on my typos during flippant online discussions, thanks. trackratte (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with trackratte, its highly doubtful that the Canadian government will exercise their jurisdiction on something like Wikipedia. And again, the strict control expressly refers to commercial *distribution*, and we are not :::distributing the COA in exchange for money. Obviously, the coat of arms has a place in this article, you're being incredibly naïve to suggest or think otherwise!

Mickeys1fan (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make them exercise it. Doubtful or not, it is our responsibility to obey the law. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it isn't "doubtful" that the Canadian government would exercise their copyright jurisdiction to throw takedowns at Wikipedia for using "Crown copyrighted" content — believe it or not, it has actually already happened on several occasions. You're free to think that they might treat this content differently than they've previously treated other content, but we can't assume that to be the case — until the government explicitly grants us permission to use Crown copyrighted content on here, we can't make up our own alternative interpretations of the law. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that although the official rendition of the coat of arms cannot be used on this page for the reasons previously discussed, a rendition based on the blazon (e.g. this Commons file) is fine. This particular rendition is used on several other language wikis. Retroplum (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Several editors have offered opinions that that one does not accurately represent the coat of arms (in other words, it looks like crap). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support the use of the rendition. Based on the number of small but vocal participants here has this issue been discussed somewhere else on a broader wiki group? How will this ever get resolved? It might be prudent to get a wider group of voting participants versus the six or seven here. I notice that most Commonwealth countries have their COA displayed. They all function under Westminster principles as do we, I wonder if there is some further information there. Just my thoughts, but this has dragged on for several headsmacking months. Probably best to work to get this resolved. Krazytea(talk) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you assuming that it is not resolved because there is no image or that the presentation of an image is not to your liking? The matter has been resolved satisfactorily as there is nothing that states a coat of arms must be displayed. There is no rendition of the coat of arms that is both free and accurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Renditions are problematic, as elements taken from the official depiction are still copyrighted. The only way to make a free version would be to create an image based solely on the blazon without any reference to the original. You can see some consolidated sources here. Also, Walter has a bit of a point, if it looks nothing like the actual depiction, then what's the point? trackratte (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To the poster two posts back, that really seems like your presenting a false dichotomy. I was just simply raising some points. Krazytea(talk) 05:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Doing some quick math, it seems I posted two back. I didn't present a false dichotomy. I was simply responding to yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Largest metropolitan areas" table

It's just a detail, but I was wondering if one could delete th" largest metropolitan areas" table, located in the "demographic" section ? I've just moved it up so it would be "related" to the repartition of the population of canada (and not to Education, as it was before), but 1/ It looks really ugly now 2/ I have the feeling this table is a bit too much for an overview article. 3/ there aren't any comments to explain/analyse that table. It's just there. I don't dare to delete it but I think it should be done... some opinions of experienced editors would be welcomed :-) what should we do ? KaptainIgloo (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Aesthetically I think it looks fine in its present location in the Demographics section. The information seems useful enough to me. The largest cities in a country are noteworthy and this information isn't present elsewhere in the article. I'd say leave it where it is.Twanderson (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok for the worth of the information. About the location, my change has been canceled, and it's back to its former location and I honestly think it is not good. Why putting this information just after a text about education, without transition ? why not, at least, putting it after the texts about the repartition of the Canadian population ?? From my point of view, it doesn't make any sense, it's like pilling up information without caring about consistency.... If someone could tell me what I've missed here, I would be really grateful. (and thanks for your message Twanderson^^) KaptainIgloo (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Of the interest of subdivision(demographic part)

I have just seen that the subdivision of the demographic part that I added got deleted. I didn't know that this "no visible structure" was a choice made by the main editors of this part. So first point: sorry, I meant no disrespect.

That being said, I totally disagree about that choice. Why:

1/ The information are harder to find. I've made the subdivision change because I had failed to find the informations I wanted quickly.

2/ There is currently no transitions from one topic to another. We just go from a "population" part to an "education" text, to a "religion" part, without any links or reasons. So what's the point of not showing a rigid division when it already exists, in such an obvious way ?

3/ There is one subdivision already in demographics, about languages. Consequence: this part is strongly highlighted. Ok, languages is an interesting theme, especially in Canada. But don't you think this emphasis is too much ? Are "languages" SO special and important that it should outshine Population, Religion and Education altogether ? In my opinion, it damages the consistency of the article, and, as a consequence, its "encyclopedic" worth.

To sum up: No subdivision in the demographic part, in my opinion, 1/is confusing for the reader 2/ doesn't bring much in term of pleasure of reading 3/ can even harm the encyclopedic quality of the article.

That's my opinion as an editor AND a reader. I'm, of course, curious to hear yours :) I'm still new in editing so I'd be glad to know the reasons that led you to that choice. And sorry for my english, I hope I made my point clear ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that reasoning. When I'm looking up an unfamiliar topic on Wikipedia, I use topic and subtopic headings to hasten my search. When those headings are inappropriate or non-existent, I become annoyed, often having to read large swaths of information that I have no interest in, just to find the one little tidbit that I need. Subheadings are helpful to avoid this. — Gopher65_talk 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Never a good idea to have sections with just a few sentences. During the FA process we determined that having sub sections for all was simply to much and makes the article look childish and less readable. We worked hard on making sure if flows and is not all broken up like at United States article. There are many many subsection that could be there for sports, religion, language, national symbols, music, all the history section..it never ends. Last thing we want is it all fragmented with section that seem all separated. -- Moxy (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. But I still don't find it convincing. Firstly, on that article, there is no consistency: Why is there a "language" subsection ? If the problem is that there is just "a few sentences" for Religion/education, then, let's take contents from the big articles "Education/religion in canada".... Those topics are as important, and there is a lot to say about it. I wouldn't find it great, because I think overview articles should be - well - overviews, but If that is the cost for having subsections, I would gladly do it. Secondly, My points still stand: the "fluidity" you are talking about is an illusion here. While reading this part, I was just wondering: I'm reading about religion, then suddenly, one talks to me about education... why ? It's confusing. And it still makes it hard to find information on that article(I would also add that the links to the main articles are really not obvious -I hadn't noticed them when I've read the article).

I understand that starting subsections can be like opening a pandora box, and I agree it is nice to read a text without huge title every 5 lines. I also have no idea about the FA process, and see you are a very experienced editor. But on that article, I do think it is a fact: The lack of subdivision REALLY harms the readability of it. KaptainIgloo (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps best to read over Talk:Canada/Archive 22#New Sub-Sections? and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines - Moxy (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I didn't know there was archives of Talk pages, that is rather handy ! Nevertheless, it doesn't really answer to my questions. The discussion shows how disputed the question of subsection is. The Wikiproject country reminds the importance of respecting the main sections and the "summary style". But I don't really see why that forbids us to put more subdivisions. And I still see all the drawbacks I've described twice. KaptainIgloo (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

Why isn't it called Dominion of Canada? Like Australia is listed as Commonwealth of Australia. That is it's official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.150.128 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

See extensive previous discussions at Talk:Canada/Officialname1, and elsewhere in the archives linked from the box near the top of this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been talked about a lot over the years:P. IIRC, the "British" got dropped a long time ago, while later on the federal government simply stopped using "Dominion of", possibly to assert their separation from Britain. Official documents now just list it as "Canada", and as far as anyone has been able to find out, it's just "Canada" now, with no longform version of the name existing at the present time. — Gopher65_talk 00:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It has. The crux of the matter is that the 'Dominion of Canada' is a legal title described in Canada's written constitution and is still legal and valid. However, in the 1950 its use by the Government of Canada was phased out due to concerns regarding bilingualism (lack of a suitable translation acceptable to the prime minister at the time). So, the legal title is 'Dominion of Canada', the official title is simply 'Canada', and the common usage is similarly 'Canada'. trackratte (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "Dominion of Canada" only appears in two sections making reference to historical documents: FURTHER DETAILS OF CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867, SECTION 91 and The Constitution Act, 1886, 49-50 Vict., c. 35 (U.K.); while Dominion is also only reference to historic documents. It's accessible at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html . Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Dominion of Canada" was used in the Constitution Act, 1871 and the Constitution Act, 1886. However, in the Constitution Act, 1867 I believe "Dominion of Canada" was never used, only phrases along the lines of "shall form and be One Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly" and "...federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...", etc. trackratte (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking the currently definitive legislation to be as set out in A Consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, as of January 1, 2013 published by the Department of Justice, Canada, including an explanatory foreword,[11], a word search for "Dominion" confirms the above: a recurring phrase is "One Dominion", both words having initial caps, which shows that where "Dominion" is used in the phrase "part of the Dominion of Canada", and after that "the said Dominion", the word Dominion is no more part of a proper name than "One", and that the phrase is to be read as "part of the (One) Dominion of Canada". The French language version uses "Puissance" for "Dominion".[12] --Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Puissance" was an imposed translation, was widely despised, and "In 1951, Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent, a Liberal Francophone from Quebec, declared in Parliament that the word would thereafter be banned from any new official documents, then gradually eliminated.7 The word does not appear in the new Constitution Act, 1982" (from Government of Canada Translation Bureau). This is why, starting in 1951, the "Dominion of Canada" has been nearly entirely removed from official discourse and publications (although still pops up in some government documents from time to time). trackratte (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That is worthy of note, and adding the information and/or link could improve the article. It would not be "undue". The alternative "Domaine" would have been better, linguistically and historically, considering the Latin and French etymology of the English. Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be added to Name of Canada the first "MAIN" article link people see. -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The article lead already notes that Canada was federated as a Dominion in 1867, and that Dominion was conferred as the country's title in the name section. The entire contemporary situation is summarized at [[13]], esp. the whole 3rd paragraph. I don't think more is needed at this point. 174.89.106.54 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

History: Aboriginal peoples

While the "Out of Africa" theory is both popular, and widely accepted, it is still "theory". Aboriginal peoples of Canada's East (including the Inuit) unanimously believe (according to their own cultural documents) that they originated on the North American Eastern seaboard (notably Maine, USA and New Brunswick). One can argue this incessantly, from both sides, but documented history of Algonquian and Inuit peoples counter the Beringia Bridge's existence. Archaeology lacks the repeatable results that define true science, and geological theory (noteably "Pangea" and other supercontinents) theorize that Beringia could not have existed as continental drift occurred much earlier than humans appeared, and all evidence indicates that the continents have been moving closer together on the Pacific edges and apart of the Atlantic edges. Religious doctrine and mythology of these people also has much more in common with Nordic and Germanic peoples (back as far as any Christian text from both, an archaeological and a truly scientific viewpoint). In light of these points, it is wrong to state that these people migrated from Asia on this page without mentioning all other possibilities. Such theoretical statements belong on the page(s) regarding human migration theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Gravity is a theory. Continental drift absolutely does not make Beringia impossible (earlier than humans appeared? It's a continuous ongoing process). Even if the cultures are similar, that could easily be cultural spread through viking movements. What are these other possibilities you want to highlight? CMD (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not debating. Gravity is from physics, a pure and applied science (refer to "scientific method"). Norse Edda has references to the natives as well (so if this is a measure of determining migration, one could argue that Native Americans populated Europe, for example). I purposely worded my statement about geological theory using the word "could", as to avoid an absolute "never" specifically because of the theoretical aspects, so please don't assume I am attempting to push any unpopular theory.

To put my original query more simply, how the people native to Canada (or any country) got to the continent has little to do with Canada (or any country)...they were there long before the nation, and have developed separately and uniquely from any other culture. Prehistoric migration does not belong on a modern country's page.

Questioning the scientific consensus is a non starter. Please also read WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas should explian most to our new friend. -- Moxy (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As of this last year, all competing hypotheses to the Out of Africa model have been disproven, thanks to new techniques that allowed more accurate analysis of smaller samples of older DNA than was previously possible. Prior to 6 months ago OoA was "just a theory" (although it was still the consensus model due to a mountain of evidence behind it), but now there is no longer any doubt. Out of Africa is literally the only possible remaining explanation of human origin and spread. — Gopher65_talk 15:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not debating. The section reads as if it is absolute fact, while it is merely the currently popular theory. I'm not requesting that the theory be altered, nor am I opposing such theory, I am requesting that the theory be removed as it has nothing to do with Canada, Canadian history nor it's native inhabitants. If I wished to debate the theories (as "forum" would indicate), I would do so on a forum discussing the origin of humans (not the origin of Canadian Aboriginals). The section is about Aboriginal Canadians, not "Out of Africa" nor "Beringian migration". I have stated some contradicting theory only in demonstration of the concept of theory, and how it can so very easily be misunderstood by those unable to differentiate scientific fact from sound theory. They are simply examples, not arguments. In this particular instance, the subject's (Aboriginal Canadian's) own documented history (the vast majority of which are Algonquian peoples throughout the regions of "New France" and Upper/Lower Canada) place their origin on the Eastern coast. Migratory theory predating the oldest known pre-contact doctrine of these people, is far beyond the latitude of a page regarding Canada, it's history, and the history of it's native peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

Script

big time rushἪ

99.245.58.67 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 13:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done IP engaged in vandalism using "big time rush" as WP:ES elsewhere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Link

I am locked from editing the article. The words United States in the first paragraph should be linked to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland9 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. It's a violation of WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What Walter Gorlitz means specifically is that the intro section of an article has so many linkable terms that the first few paragraphs would be a solid wall of blue text if we linked everything;). That reduces readability, makes for an uncomfortable visual experience, and makes it harder to emphasize the most relevant links to the topic. Links that are only of tangential interest are linked later on in the article, usually in the subtopic about that specific subject.

Using your USA example, it's highly unlikely that anyone will say to themselves, "ooo! OOO! What's that big country? You know? The one right beside Canada? Look up Canada on Wikipedia so we can figure this out!". Because of the unlikelihood of such usage scenarios, we can safely avoid linking some terms in the intro section without hurting people's reading experience:). — Gopher65_talk 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking to anthem media

I can't seem to recall why we removed a link to the cheesy version of "O Canada" from the infobox. Other than being unnecessary when there's a link to the article where the anthem was there a reason? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

for no apparent reason it was deleted by "Andreas11213"! Why wouldn't you want to have it here as well? every other country has its anthem player in the infobox.90reza (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Canada/Archive 22#Add Audio For Oh Canada that resulted in the talk Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 8 #Can we add a small button to play the anthem? -- Moxy (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

By link do you mean file? The link is in the infobox. CMD (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and "Dying and Death in Canada" page 27. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

Canada has 10 provinces and TWO territories . Right? Why does this say 10 and 3??? Nunavat is a new province ; other territories are Northwest and Yukon ::::----CAN'T ON MY KEYBOARD bring up the tilde``174.6.60.182 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Nunavut is a territory: see Nunavut. The numbers given are correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Arms July 2014

You said that my edit on Canada Violated a copyright. But I was just following the standard set by all the other pages in which the country's coat of arms is displayed next to the flag. I don't get it, do you want the Canada page to remain an outlier? People will start to wonder if Canada even has a royal coat of arms. Abdi Nur (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First, allow me to apologize. It was not a copyright violation, it was a misrepresentation of the coat of arms. If you look at the hidden comment it reads "DO NOT insert a non-free image here. Also, do not insert "Coat of Arms of Canada rendition.svg" here as it's not accurate." that's what the problem was. The rendition is not accurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Declaration of War (WWII)

Britain declared war Sept 3. Canada declared war Sept 10 1939. There was a seven day gap. The article says there was a three day gap at Canada#Early_20th_century. Please correct. --IseeEwe (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I made the change. TFD (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

130.193.147.130 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Canada is a major country. It can defend itself. It doesn't need Wikipedia to lock up the article. CanadaIsTheGreatest (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but due to a great deal of unconstructive editing on the article, it's likely to remained locked for the foreseeable future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Need to update Canada's HDI Index rating on the main paragraph (Correct on side, not correct in paragraph)

Canada's newly updated HDI Index has already been updated on the side of the page where it say's Canada's HDI is 8th (0.902) Very High, but on the main paragraph it still says this - "Canada is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the world, with the eighth highest per capita income globally, and the eleventh highest ranking in the Human Development Index."

The "eleventh" HDI is from the old HDI. The latest report was launched on 24 July 2014 in Tokyo as said on the new rankings page - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I would appreciate it if it would be changed to the correct ranking, as the page as it stands has 2 different rankings, the new one (8th on side of page) and old ranking in writing (eleventh) in the main paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.154 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wartime production

53% of Canada's wartime production was sold/gifted to the UK, 34% used for its own forces, 12% sold to the USA and 1% sold to others, as per Stacey, C P. (1970) Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada, 1939–1945 Queen's Printer, Ottawa (Downloadable PDF. Please amended the list at Canada#Early_20th_century to add the USA, and perhaps to remove China and the Soviet Union to save space if required.--IseeEwe (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to making the change? --IseeEwe (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Shield?

Considering you can't use the Coat of arms for copyright reasons, why not simply present the shield? It's a symbol that represents the state right? Rob (talk | contribs) 16:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an inaccurate representation. See above and the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

How can it be any more accurate? I have. Non of them specify any issues with the shield which is identical to the official rendition. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is identical to the official rendition then it is copyrighted and/or a copy violation. trackratte (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the file... It's not in breach of copyright and it's entirely based of the official rendition. Sodacan could probably explain why the shield alone is not a copyright violation. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the file and it's crap and I don't want crap representing my nation. Why do you insist that close is good enough? I don't mind if you want your amateur rendition to be displayed in an exhibit of similar items or as an example of how heraldry can make approximations of a real coat of arms, but it's not a substitute for the real thing any more than an amateur rendition of a Beethoven piece should be used to represent the real thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Several other editors have stated variations of this opinion several times. I'm not sure how you could miss it, but apparently looking at the archives has not provided that sentiment so I offer it as example here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Close is good enough. The arms at the UK's page is not an official rendition, but yes, it is good enough. Wikipedia uses a consistent style for heraldry symbols, non of them are identical to the official renditions. Canada shall be the exception because for you, close is simply not good enough. What a shame. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Close is not good enough and that has been expressed here before. It's a shame that the Wikipedians at the UK article and others don't care enough about good quality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rob. I sympathise with your point of view, I've had run-ins on this same issue with, I believe it was Walter but it may have been somone else, before. However, consensus over many many discussions has concluded that no, it isn't good enough. But to me that's not even the primary point:

First, the actual Arms of Canada are depicted at the appropriate Arms of Canada article. There is simply no requirement to show the Arms at this article space. It is simply a stylistic preference by you, and I assume others (myself formerly included).

Two, the primary and most commonly used (nearly exclusively used actually) national identifier is the Canadian flag, not the Arms. Even if the Arms were not copyrighted, they should not be used for the purpose of visually identifying Canada. The flag is much better suited for this role, and is in fact why it is used for that exact purpose on the international stage and within the country itself.

Third, any rendition that 1. 'Is made with a prior knowledge of a copyrighted image', 2. 'Intentionally attempts to replicate a copyrighted image', and 3. 'Produces a derivative image stylistically similar to the copyrighted image' (threshold test established in case law), is a copyright violation. Yes, a work created based solely on a blazon in the absence of any reference to the original artwork would not be a copyright violation, but in order for that defence to be invoked, it would have to be established that no elements from the original drawing that are not described in the blazon are included in the new drawing. However, to name just one element, the blazon only states "three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper", so the fact that the leaves are depicted in the same way, are coloured red, and have the same gold veining, is proof that the rendition was not taken from the blazon alone, but was of course copied from the original depiction. Simply put, the version you wish to use is a copyright violation according to the legal test used by legal experts (judges), and the 'based only on a blazon/idea' defence does not apply to this case. trackratte (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014

Citing the "symbolic" nature of the citizenship oath, Ontario's top court has dismissed a constitutional challenge by three permanent residents who claim swearing allegiance to the Queen is discriminatory and unjust.

This effectively changes Canada's Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to a system that has a symbolic monarchy resulting in a Federal parliamentary constitutional Republic.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/oath-to-the-queen-upheld-by-ontario-court-in-citizenship-challenge-1.1958104#ixzz3CHV31SEi http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/oath-to-the-queen-upheld-by-ontario-court-in-citizenship-challenge-1.1958104 Rrstuv (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your sources do not say Canada is a republic. Nor btw can court decisions change the constitution, they can merely re-interpret it. TFD (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

O Canada

Hi, why I cant put sound of O Cananda to this page? Ill put there french version I dont care --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Someone else removed it I believe.

The US Navy version uses an unusual polyphony (harmony) structure and I don't believe it's a good representation after the first few measures. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Size

Somebody keeps adding "and fourth largest country by land area. This is a ridiculous notion entirely, because they are ranking this against "world" and "Antarctica". These are not countries. You can't say a country is ranked against something that is not a country in a list of rankings of countries. It is NOT logical. This is also not done for any other country I can see in Wikipedia. This needs to be consistent, and I vote for consistently 'no'.Theshowmecanuck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the edit you reverted and List of countries and dependencies by area it appears that the removed text is not ranking Canada against the World and Antarctica; it is ranking Canada's land mass, exclusive of inland water bodies, against that of other countries. On that measure Canada is indeed fourth, following Russia, China, and the United States. This is noted for other countries at the top of the size table as well: the United States is described as the "3rd or 4th-largest country by total area," and China as "the world's second-largest country by land area, and either the third or fourth-largest by total area." So describing Canada as "the world's second-largest country by total area and the fourth-largest country by land area," is both correct and consistent with other articles. - Eron^Talk 19:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Canada is also unique in that it's one of the largest countries in the world while also having the largest water area of any country. Noting this difference in ranking when not accounting for water in the lede is not just correct, but also highly relevant. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The article is correct as it stands.

There has been a longstanding propaganda campaign by ultra-nationalists in Canada about Canada being the "second largest country in the world". While that's technically true if you're talking about "total territory controlled as a fraction of Earth's total surface area", it leaves a lot to be desired. Both the US and China are larger than Canada, they just don't control as much ocean territory, due to the fact that they have shorter coastlines. It's amazing how many Canadians are misinformed about this basic fact.

Additionally, a more reasonable measure of how large a country (in the real world anyway) is how much useable land area it has. For instance, if Antarctica was a country, it would rate very low on this scale. By this measure Canada has somewhere between 1/5th 1/10th and 1/20th the usable land area of the US, depending on what you call "usable" (depending on what factors you use to rate land as "useable" in both Canada and the US). In other words, Canada is technically pretty big, but it's mostly made of useless wasteland. For most practical purposes, that wasteland that might as well not exist when doing most statistical analysis, like various demographics work.

As an example, it's really quite pointless to say "Canada has a population density of 4 people per square kilometer", when the reality is that "Canada has a population density of 40 people per square kilometer of liveable land". The first statement tells you almost nothing about how people in Canada live, while the second is useful in comparisons with other countries. If you say "4 people per square kilometer", it makes it sound like every Canadian lives in an igloo with their families, and no one else around. 40 people per square kilometer of useful land appears, on the other hand, to be comparable to the population density of the US. Which is actually the way things are in reality:P.

It really is a tiny country when you look at it that way. — Gopher65_talk 16:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Vikings discovering Canada

Why is there nothing on the Vikings discovering Canada about 1000 AD? Please add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.163.53 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

See this section. It's in there. It doesn't use the word "discovered", but the Viking attempts at settlement are included. - Eron^Talk 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

For the ethnic groups, "Latin" is a vague term. It should say "Latin American". 74.59.105.34 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done it actually links to Latin American Canadian but that is not clear Latin peoples are Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish, which is not what was meant. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Why has the coat of arms disappeared from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.9.80 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that it keeps getting taken down, copyright.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014

It has to be remembered that these articles are not written only for those people that come from the geo area of the article's subject but also elsewhere. The term "foreign-born" is slightly zeno-centric because, in the case of the former British Empire, many places once having a shared government with London are now independent with a native identity that is no longer British or of the country to where people from the latter may have migrated. Does one segregate those that not born in a particular country once ruled by another country be considered "foreign when they once were part of the same? And is "foreign" categorization of birth also being applied to those of "Canadian-born" Empire birth or only those of an ethnic identity that never were "white".

I have friends that are ethnically Chinese yet born in other Asian countries to parents of the same background. There has yet to occur any "blood" with those ethnically from the birth area. Say there is an additional generation of birth that maintains the ethnic separation although remaining in a non-Chinese country. They then migrate to a third country and have children that again have yet to be born to someone with "native" ethnic blood. Is the terminology applied only to non-ethnic Canadians. Can one really identify ethnic Canadians or merely those Canadian citizens born outside the border?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1) What exactly is your request? You didn't make one.

2) Canada is a young country. There are no "ethnic Canadians". In order to share an ethnicity people must share strong enough physical or cultural traits for them to essentially be considered part of an extended family (that's simplification, but I think it's a reasonable one). Canada is too young for either process to have taken place yet. There is no common physical trait that binds Canadians together (eg, skin colour, having 6 toes to a foot, or even common length of nose). There is no concrete set of long lived, semi-permanent cultural traits that bind Canadians together (unique state religion, unique cultural values, etc). Note that some of those cultural traits might be starting to form, but the mere fact that Canada is only a bit over 100 years old means that no long lived traits *can* have yet formed. The country just isn't old enough.

3) This means that indeed you are correct: the only way to determine a Canadian from a non-Canadian is to look at their citizenship status:P. Beyond that, you can separate them out into "Native Born" and "First Generation Immigrant". Beyond that, there really isn't much to say. — Gopher65_talk 02:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done

Agree in principle with Gopher65, but technically, Canada's natives are "ethnic Canadians", although they don't recognize Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did not make a request? I am sorry that a clarification is not considered a request. And "Walter Gorlitz" certainly confirmed that maybe someone other than "Gopher65" should have taken a stab unless of course these "request" via locked articles must be relied by an assigned advanced editor? There really are some areas of knowledge that some editors of WP may never understand that they do not understand. But, there is time! Since recognizing things is part of this discussion, you do realize that undocumented workers within a country are not merely identified as such by physical traits? Such as in the US, it is far easier the guess at who might be an undocumented worked if they are short and dark as many seem to believe is the general characteristic of hispanics although there are tall and white ones as well? Therefore, not all "western" or "European" appearing people in the US workforce are legal residents. But the latter was more an academic exercise than a WP continuum.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who said it was not done. It's really not clear what you want.

The correct way to make an edit request is to provide the text you want, with appropriate references, and indicate where you want it added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Relations with China

The section "Foreign relations and military" should probably mention that Canada recognized China before the United States did and include a link to Canada–China relations, and should probably mention Dr. Norman Bethune. Canada's longstanding relations with China are probably at least as important as with the Netherlands (as mentioned in the article.)Tetsuo (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Residential school system?

Why is there nothing about residential schools in either the main Canada page or the history of Canada page? Aboriginals and aboriginal histories still make up a substantial part of Canada. In fact, the only mention of assimilationist policies is that of "French Canadians being assimilated into British English speaking culture," which I would say is entirely less significant than the state-sanctioned genocide that occurred in Canada. I'm shocked that there's absolutely no mention of the forced assimilationist policies when the last residential school wasn't closed until 1996 in Canada! Honestly. Erasure, much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.73.173 (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP, adding a brief mention here would be reasonable - do you have any suggestion for what specifically you would like to see? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the main article is at Canadian Indian residential school system WilyD 14:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but in a neutral way. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We could metion the Indian Act of 1876 and in the process metion the schools. --Moxy (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent start! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There should be a section on aboriginal people and the schools issue could be included there. TFD (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about a second section....lots here about Aboriginals considering they are only 4 percent of the population.-- Moxy (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They're only 4% today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct but even less during the period that we are talking about. I have no problem with a sentence or 2 but a third section is just to much in my opinion. Canadian charter etc...much more relevant to the country as a whole...... I suggest what I added to the other article a few years ago...."From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture". These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration and relocations.:.-- Moxy (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

References

They are significant because they are aboriginal, and important to understanding the country. TFD (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of this...as I am the one that added most of this topic to this article already (and was chastised for it during the GA review). I believe some here misunderstand my feelings for this topic. Its close to my heart...as I am the creator of Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas brought Aboriginal peoples in Canada to GA level (years ago it needs some major updating) and created Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles and Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Need to keep things consolidated and not add undue weight to one topic. So what I am try to suggest is that we integrated the information into the current article structure ...not add a second section on Aboriginals. A few words is all we need with proper links to main articles. We were able to do this with the law section ....so it should be no problem doing so again...as with the suggested text above with the links. --Moxy (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Correct but even less during the period that we are talking about". What? The native population in Canada has gone down as a percentage since 1900, not up. While looking numbers I found http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-589-x/pdf/4228565-eng.pdf that has a background on Residential Schools. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A brief search didn't turn up any supporting evidence, but for some reason I was under the impression that aboriginals - as a percentage of the population - bottomed out in the 1970s or 1980s, and have been up-trending since then. Since I can't find anything to support that, I might well be wrong. I don't even know where I got the idea from. — Gopher65_talk 14:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct see here. That seen we should still add a bit on the topic. -- Moxy (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold and added a bit and moved a bit so all in one section ...as per this edit. I assume all is ok ??? -- Moxy (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Info on postcodes needed

pages that describe a country should have information about their postcodes or have a link to one such page 210.49.196.162 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is the article Postal codes in Canada that could be linked to. I only had time for a brief scan of the Canada article, which didn't put me in mind of any obvious place to put the link. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. Willondon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

While it is technically true that official English-French bilingualism only prevails federally and in New Brunswick, it is misleading to suggest that is the extent of English-French bilingualism in Canada, so I have observed the extent of English-French bilingualism in Canada's other Provinces. For example, signage on Queen's Highway 401 in southwestern Ontario, but also on Queen's Highways throughout the Province of Ontario. Radio-Canada, the French-language service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcasts nationwide via television and radio. The televised proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario are in realtime translated into French. The Ontario Educational Communications Authority maintains a full-time French-language television service. Product labelling for all products sold in stores are required to be printed in English and in French.

Also, the fact that Canada is both a Commonwealth Realm and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Also that the Prime Minister of Canada is the functional and true chief executive, even though it is also constitutionally true that Elizabeth II is Canada's head of state, represented by her Viceroy.

Paul63243 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort ..but I think is best not to put an odd note in the lead (as we try to avoid this in FA articles). Its clear that its says federal level in the lead and is explained in-detail in the section called language that is sourced for people to learn even more. Perhaps more could be said in that section. I have also move that stat info to the body of the article....as its best not to go into specifics in the lead that would need sources (MOS:INTRO). Anyone else have thoughts on this?? -- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the over complicated additions with odd notes for the third time ...can we get others to comment on these to version. And get Paul to get consensus for the major overhaul of the lead. -- Moxy (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Federal vs federated

I would argue that "Government Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" looks right, but "Government Federated parliamentary constitutional monarchy" is probably grammatically correct. Comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree ,,,if the word is linked I guess its ok. The problem in the past is that people have linked Federated identity when they see the word "Federated".... .. I dont know why that happens but I have seen it a few times. -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How is federal grammatically incorrect? - it appears to be the term most commonly used. TFD (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a question of what is grammatically correct. It is a question of what is terminologically correct. The word federal pertains to the federal level of Canadian government, and not the provincial level. But the description of the totality of the Canadian state as being federated between a federal government and provincial governments is most terminologically correct. Both the federal Government and the Provincial Governments are parliamentary constitutional monarchies; therefore, the entirety of the Canadian federation, in terms of the entirety of its governments collectively, are best described as being "federated", as in a "federated parliamentary constitutional monarchy". To be clear, the word federated terminologically includes all federal and provincial governments in relation to one another. The word federal in this context, by contrast, refers to the federal level, and to the exclusion of the provincial level--which his not the context meant to be expressed.

The Canadian state is federated between a federal government and provincial governments. Therefore, only the federal government of Canada is properly referred to as a "federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy", and this tells only part of the structural story in its complete context--which is why federated parliamentary constitutional monarchy is correct and federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy is not correct. Please try to stay calm, and place your trust in the synthesis of a diversity of ideas based in a superior level of familiarity with structural understanding in this context and with effectiveness of terminological expression. I promise you, I in return, very much value the diversity of opinion--that is, I am not always right. I just happen to be, in this particular instance. Paul63243 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. When you you say "terminologically" rather than "semantically" you lose my respect for any expertise you may claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I cant get him back to the tlak page...just keeps reverting. Get we get others to look at these edits...see what can be saved. We now have sources and odd notes/exmpales and sentances starting with the word And...basiclly not good additions for the lead of an FA article. -- Moxy (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word semantics suggests that the federal-federated distinction is de minimis to the point of insignificance. It's not. The Canadian state is the sum total of its federal and provincial governments, with the subject-matter-areas split as set forth in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. You're essentially insisting that the sum total of the Canadian state is the federal goverment only--which is, quite simply, wrong. It seems to me that you possess the power to enforce that assertion--but if you do, you will be promulgating and perpetuating misinformation. Paul63243 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok so that's one word we can talk about...but about the lead overhaul. I have raised the concerns that its overly detailed for the lead. The lead has no need for information that has to be sourced....info of that nature can be in the body. There is also no need for examples in notes in the lead for info on language as this is covered in the body later with sources for people to learn more....in my opinion. So lets let others chime-in before we edit war again ok?? Can some of the info be moved to the body ???-- Moxy (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

I don't understand why the coat of arms of Canada aren't shown on Canada's page, where as it is shown on all other countries' pages. Would it be possible to add it?

Thank you 166.62.235.122 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done — Unfortunately, no:(. There are copyright issues that keep us from using the coat of arms, or any (reasonable) representation of the coat of arms. We *can* make up our own coat of arms that has the same basic elements in it, but drawn in whatever form we want. However, this has been deemed to be unacceptable many times in the past due to the fact that it would be an exceptionally poor - or even outright misleading - representation of the actual coat of arms. So no, we can't have the coat of arms on this page. Blame Ottawa. It's their fault. — Gopher65_talk 23:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this topic though! It's always nice to see new editors:). — Gopher65_talk 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not shown on this article for copyright reasons, why is it shown on this one? Illegitimate Barrister 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg#Fair use rationale -- Moxy (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Or in short, you can discuss Canada without using a picture of the Coat of Arms, but you can't discuss Canada's Coat of Arms without using a picture of the Coat of Arms. WilyD 10:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Has the Crown specifically taken action against Wikipedia for its use of the Coat of Arms? Or was this noticed as an error, and removed of our own accord? Also, would it be possible to include a link to the Coat of Arms page in place of where the Coat of Arms image would normally go? I realize that one in provided in the motto section of the infobox, although people who are looking for the Coat of Arms will be expecting to see it to the right of the National Flag. Breaker 355 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No. We are bound to follow the law. I don't know if we could include a link without inlcluding an image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we use this one? I mean, it's used on the "Monarchy of Canada" article so why not here? Illegitimate Barrister 20:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You may use it anywhere but on this article. It's not an accurate representation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's not an accurate representation, why is it allowed to be used on other articles? Illegitimate Barrister 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Because other stuff exists. Editors of other pages have different criteria for inclusion. The consensus here is correctness and accuracy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Illegitimate Barrister 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clarify: Unless the Government of Canada changes their copyright law, there is absolutely no way we can add the official rendition of the Coat of Arms? Under the current circumstances, this article will forever not be able include Canada's Coat of Arms...on the article titled Canada? Have we actually exhausted all our options? Nations United (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There's two options here. We can petition the Canadian government and ask them for their permission and consent to upload the official coat of arms to the Wikimedia Commons. Option two: Wait for the crown copyright to expire. It's usually 50 years from the date of publication, so that would be some time in 2044. Illegitimate Barrister 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct terminology

I have changed the structural description from "federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" to federated parliamentary constitutional monarchy. This makes it absolutely clear that both Canada federally and its Provinces are parliamentary constitutional monarchies. Paul63243 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the "British North America Act" to "The British North America Act, 1867". At that time "The" was part of the title. Although it may appear redundant when July 1, 1867, is added following, ", 1867" is part of the (short) title. In fact, there are several BNA Acts with different dates. Hebbgd (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Maple Leaf on the Canadian Penny

When discussing symbols of Canada, the maple leaf is mentioned as appearing on the Canadian penny. Since that denomination is no longer in circulation, the article might be edited to remove this example or else to indicate that the maple leaf symbol was formerly used on the Canadian penny before that denomination was phased out.Kamabra2 (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Kamabra [14]

I see what you mean, but the maple leaf is still on the penny, even if the government doesn't circulate them any more. The word 'penny' has a link to the term in Canadian currency, which covers the details of its demise. I don't think any change is needed here. Willondon (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Where Canada article indicates that Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, it should indicate that Canada belongs to both the Commonwealth and la Francophonie

Where Canada article indicates that Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, it should indicate that Canada belongs to both the Commonwealth and la Francophonie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.252.233 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon from Lethbridge, in paragraph 4 it reads "Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations" and in the "Foreign relations and military" section it states "Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and the Francophonie". Links to each both times.

Is that enough or would you like something specific added or changed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-comprehensible map?

File:Mapcanadapopulation.png makes a lot of sense to me. Each dot represents 100,000 inhabitants organized by province. Toronto's and Montreal's populations would make their respective province's too large so they're added separately. It makes sense to me. I also don't see it as a COI. The person who added the map created it, but I've seen similar so it's not WP:OR and the infographic would be a nice addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See File:Final 2008 electoral cartogram.png. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the cartogram map, the proposed map does not have names in the locations so noone knows the location of each city mentioned. This makes it incomprehensible to everyone but those familiar with Canada's geography. Also edit-warring one's own map into an article is COI. Finally the map has no source information so it is OR and it may also be a copyvio if it is based on another published map. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This image was recently deleted in an edit without any explanation (replaced with three other images with no comment) WP:UNRESPONSIVE. It was then reverted a second time by a user with the sole comment that it was incomprehensible. It has been there for 9 months without any negative comment WP:CAUTIOUS . I made the image so it may seem there is COI, but I would revert any removal of an accepted file without an explanation and I would ask the user to take it up on the talk page if they have issue with it WP:BRD. This is NOT edit warring...it's asking for discussion during a BRD. If you don't like the image, mention your issue with it on the talk page and it could be improved. If there is consensus that it doesn't belong on the article then it would be reasonable to take it down. I don't need to quote policy on this. Shabidoo | Talk 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons above. There is no major change to the article if a minor map without a legend and without names is removed so WP:CAUTIOUS does not apply. As far as COI, please let other editors restore your map if they disagree with my points. Edit-warring it yourself back is not a good option. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the image. It could use a legend or labels. Is it possible to make improvements? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Walter. Apart from the issues I mentioned above, I am also concerned as to the purpose of the little dots and the squares which give the false impression that Canada's population is evenly distributed in circular clusters forming little uniform rectangular camps. What is the purpose of that? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a completely unsourced - non-comprehensible map. Should not even be here per non-verifiable plus..are we expecting our editors to count the dots and know what the shapes mean thus the area they pertain to.- Moxy (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points but even counting the dots does not solve the problem, except if people in Canada live in circular clusters uniformly distributed within the bounds of the municipalities. Somehow I don't think so, although one never knows. :) It looks suspiciously like Legoland. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unsourced, but it's based on 2014 census estimates. It would be easy enough to make it match the 2011 census.

I understand the concern that it misrepresents an even population distribution. We should deal with that in prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the graphic should have labels, and possibly be overlaid onto a map in order to make the correspondence to geographic regions more apparent. I think the infographic concept is commonly understood well enough that there isn't a concern regarding people interpreting the dots as a literal geographic location. I think the description page for the image should be updated with a citation for the actual data, so someone looking for the information behind the graphic can find it. isaacl (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have files like this one or this one at the main article on population . But do we need to jam this in chart form here to? what data is more important to convey in this manner ,,,,population distribution or population demographics like ethnicity, religion and language. We can say this better with words over a chart in my opinion. Moxy (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Also what about making a map as Walter and Isaac propose but using colour-coded provinces instead of dots, where colour represents a given population density described in the legend? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to make things complicated with bots or graphs..... File:Distribution of Population, 1851 to 1941.jpg or File:Canadian pop from 1851 to 1921.jpg is a good way to show this. Would like to also point out that for stats of this nature as per WP:CANPOP we should be using census stats...as does the rest of the article -- Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not complicated. It's very simple to understand. Those graphics are nice, but archaic in both information and design. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if a colour-coded population map superimposed on a map of Canada can be created with proper location names and a legend. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The questions I have about the dots and I know the layout of the country are... What are the green dots on the right for..Montreal? Are the blue dots on the right Newfoundland and Labrador and PEI? is red New Brunswick and Nova Scotia etc... A much better way can be found to get this information across.--Moxy (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the colour-coding is something that popped right up as really problematic when I looked at the map. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the map, but I think it needs some improvements:

1) Dots = squares instead (don't know why, but dots looks funny). Changed my mind. I'd want the actual outlines of the provinces, just sized to their actual proportion of the population.
2) Squares Province outlines = all one colour.
3) Light text overlays over the provinces.
4) No separation from the provinces. The size of the provinces should naturally distort to the size of its population. That's the entire point of such a map!

Other than that I like the general idea. — Gopher65_talk 00:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

These seem to me like excellent technical suggestions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I rendered a map with the outlines and then shrinking it and that map actually looked very incomprehensibe as the entire north was about the size of PEI and it was difficult to connect them. I also tried distortion and it looked awful (sort of like the US map here.

Thanks for your input. I considered making the map with squares like this one but I'd have to do a fair bit of work because each square will have to be 10,000 or even 1,000 pop (which will increase accuracy a lot). If I do that however, I'll have to exclude Montreal and Toronto as separate entities, which is a pity because a lot of information is gained from it (i.e. it's notable with this map that Toronto is bigger than the East coast provinces combined) but as one of you noted...it is a little confusing what the dots at the top right represent (it's montreal) but in any case the map is about provinces and not cities so I'll leave them out. As squares I'll be able to render it with the provinces touching each other. Colour coding is necesary for the boxes but I could make them all slightly different shades of one or two colours (it's less tacky that way). This kind of map will take some time so I'll make a mock-up in a week or two and see what you think.Shabidoo | Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Shabidoo for your explanation and for your hard work. I will take part in the consultation process you propose. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking North America in the Canada article

From[15]

There was a discussion on the article's talk page and we decided that linking nations and oceans, and definitely linking the continent, was a violation of WP:OVERLINK. We do not want it linked. Please explain why you feel it's necessary on the article's talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries explained.[16], [17] Your failure to specify is not helpful. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"North America" means the continent. My dictionary has no secondary meaning for it. It is never used to mean "British North America" or the "United States of America", so I don't see where any elucidation is required. Per WP:OVERLINK, among things not generally linked are "the names of major geographic features and locations". Willondon (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe good enough for some, but still begs the question. Given that the article is about Canada as a political entity and its territory, and distinct from Geography of Canada, the link would do no harm to anyone. Articles such as this are intended to be intelligible to a world-wide readership, including those who may be unclear about "North America", and others who may be hazy about "British North America" mentioned in the article. How is a npov reader, not having a Canada- or North America-centric pov, to know what it means in this particular article, for example in view of view of:

• UN 'Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings'[18]:b/ The continent of North America (003) comprises Northern America (021), Caribbean (029), and Central America (013).
• North America—when used to denote less than the entire North American continent, this term may include Canada, Mexico and the United States.[19].

Would be helpful if there were a link to a discussion on the article's talk page mentioned above, if it is not imaginary. Qexigator (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If only there was a way to search for terms on every Wikipedia article.

{sarcasm off}

You've changed your reason for linking now. Which would you like us to discuss?

In short, there's no need to link major geographical features such as continents. There is no possible way that a person could become confused about what the term "North America" or "continent" could mean in this context so linking isn't necessary to alleviate confusion. The article does harm though as a sea of blue is distracting and if we start by linking the largest of geographic features discussed here, the argument can be made that all geographic features should be linked. No thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No change, and I see no useful answer, but perhaps some strawmanning. If you cannot support negative assertions, it would be better to retract graciously and avoid pointless sarcasm. I had noted "New opening sentence" in July 2010[20]. Have you anything better? I do not favour blueing up for its own sake. Your comments confirm the surmise about topic-centricity. There is no possible way that a person could become confused about what the term "North America" or "continent" could mean in this context: there you are mistaken. Not all inhabitants of North America or elsewhere can reasonably be assumed to be as clear about that as those who know it, and the purpose of these articles is to let the less-informed become better informed. So, why not think your position out afresh? Qexigator (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can't find a useful answer, you're not looking. I see no constructive reason as to why it's needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's not to be linked in the lede, perhaps it should at least be linked in the "Geography" section of this article. While we don't want seas of blue (in articles, anyway), Qexigator has a point about assuming what readers know and this being a place for the less-informed to become better informed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"How is a npov reader, not having a Canada- or North America-centric pov, to know what it means in this particular article?" The dictionary. I don't see that its meaning here deviates from a dictionary definition, or has any peculiar meaning in the context of the article. I think you're stretching here. Willondon (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have not sourced a dictionary which could be cited in the article, and a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used. An editor's job is to help the reader, not to be akward or to score points in a cleverness competition. Mies.'s proposed way of doing this is obviously neater for all concerned (not excluding readers). Qexigator (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the whole point of not linking or citing common terms that are in the dictionary: they don't need them because they are commonly found in a dictionary. And are you suggesting we link to assure the reader that the term is being used as found in the dictionary and has no meaning peculiar to this article? When you say "An editor's job is to help the reader, not to be akward or to score points in a cleverness competition." I'm completely baffled as to what this means or refers to, (sorry). Willondon (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a similar point.

The general assumption of OVERLINK is that we must assume our readers have a general understanding of common English terms. We don't link all terms that have encyclopaedic or lexical merit just because they are present in the article. That creates a sea of blue. We don't link common terms because we assume that the reader has the ability to both recognize them and has the ability to search for further information on those terms. Links should only be used for terms that are novel or offer deeper insight into the subject of the present article. That has not been shown to be necessary here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

sea of blue: using hyperbole suggests no better point is available. Why should anyone be baffled by my point above: a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used? Editors should not assume every reader can know as well as editors may think they know themselves how the editors are thinking. Now, instead of bickering, let us see what can usefully be done as Mies. proposes above. We can take the text as we find it and link thus:

Canada occupies most of North America, sharing land borders....

or do you feel inclined to do a little copy edit there as well? Qexigator (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used" Is the term being used in a way different from a dictionary definition? The argument seems to be for a link to assure the reader that the term doesn't differ from what they would find in the dictionary. I'm confused. (not about most things, just this, and a small handful of other things) Willondon (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've read what I wrote before and are familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've linked the term now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's go forward more constructively

Let us see what can usefully be done as Mies. proposes above. Shall we take the text as we find it and link thus:

Canada occupies most of North America, sharing land borders....

Would that suffice or should there be a little copy edit there as well? Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The heading is misleading. The discussion has been constructive. The majority of the editors have been constructively telling you that linking of the continent is not appropriate all doing so will not be tolerated. You have been uncostructively telling the other editors that they're wrong. This proposal is not constructive but a back-door attempt to have your way over the consensus opinion, against the guideline that has been presented multiple times and against imminent reason.

Copy editing would be acceptable. Linking will be met with a removal based on consensus and WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Noted, but why cavil at the heading? Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah. I don't see any consensus here. I don't see where it was ever established that the link informs readers more than a dictionary would. Let's wind it back to the top of the thread. Your original edit summary argued "a reader may need to know that it is (was) not British NA nor USA, but is a geographical area containing both." My first comment was "'North America' means the continent. My dictionary has no secondary meaning for it. It is never used to mean 'British North America' or the 'United States of America', so I don't see where any elucidation is required." Can we move forward from that point, after you address the comment? Again, it hasn't been established yet that the link is useful, never mind how to apply it to the article. Willondon (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please identify

• 'consensus': where on Talk has that been manifested exactly, I have asked for that above.
• 'majority', namely for/ against...?

Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A more sensitive approach to editing would be aware of the fluidity, uncertainties and unexpected ambiguities of language, and that the ordinary reader (student, young or old, journalist etc, general reader puzzled by something read or seen) may meet here for the first time the expression British North America and need some clarification about the way in which 'North America' is being used in respect of political and/or topographical entities. We would delude ourselves to suppose that this is neccessarily as self-evident to all others as it is to some. Such a reader may be more familiar, for example, with North Britain or Northern Ireland, or have habitually thought of USA as "North America" (sad but true enough, and not necessarily contemptible). It would help if editors would try and see such a problem less dismissively and with a little more imagination and respect for all sorts and conditions of readers, especially those not already sharing the pov tendency of this or that editorial opinion. Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question of where the consensus has been hammered-out, in the archives.

• Talk:Canada/Archive 12
• Talk:Canada/Archive 22
• Talk:Canada/Archive 23

Three separate discussions. The last was so anticlimactic that I was the only one who needed to respond.

Now as per your incorrect categorization of my response as "cavil"—it was not an unreasonable complaint and taxonomy by headings is certainly important as it frames the entire discussion—I think Qexigator's response makes it even more clear. You are pushing your opinions and you need to be chastised. We were being very constructive and your suggestion that we should be more constructive moving forward is an attempt to frame the discussion on your terms. That the editors here do not accept your proposition doesn't make the discussion unconstructive. It may just be that you are proposing ideas that are ill though out. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

At last, links to the earlier discussions being relied on to support 'consensus', which certainly helps to put the present discussion on the sort of footing which the heading was calling for, whatever might be said for 'taxonomy'. Perusing the Archive, I soon came upon this statement of principle, with which I concur: This is an encyclopedia meant to represent the situation accurately for readers across the globe. ... 16:29, 1 June 2007 (but that occurred in a discussion about 'largest country', not pertinent here). I am happy to agree that those discussions tend to support the view that, while (as I and others see it) a link for North America would be in order (as proposed above) and in accord with that principle, it may be seen on balance to be inexpedient, taking one thing with another. I also noted This is probably one of the most schizophrenic articles on Wikipedia. (3 June 2007), but that may not be fair comment, or not any more. Also noted an impassioned diatribe against supposed "overlinking" in the top (17 May 2012 ). But another opined Relevance is in the eye of the reader, not the editor (18 May 2012). The points made for linking were, to my mind, more cogent than those against. Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I will assume that you are not clear on the progress of articles and are unable to determine what an article looked like on a specific date. To that end, and to support the comment made June 3, 2007, I offer the following version of the article as it was at the end of May 2007. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

While understanding neither why that assumption was made, nor its purport, I have seen the version linked. Qexigator (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the various points arising in the above discussion, it looks as though tweaking 'North America' to read 'the continent of North America' would be acceptable or at least not unacceptable, and, to my mind, that would suffice unlinked, in a way which 'North America' on its own does not. Any reader needing something more could take the hint and find the article for Continent, and I surmise that what is written and linked there about 'North America' agrees with the intent of the 'Canada' article (please correct if not so). Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable solution to me. Willondon (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we fix this please...looks like a child wrote the first and second sentences....no need to say north 2 times nor should we start the second sentence with the word "it". -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not so, 'north' is not repeated, and there is no rule of grammar or style against beginning a sentence with the pronoun 'It' in a context where the noun, in this case 'Canada', is not in doubt. The present version is:

Canada is a country in the northern part of the continent of North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories. It extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean.

That could be tweaked or rewritten in various ways, such as:

Canada is a country consisting of ten provinces and three territories located in the part of North America that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and into the Arctic Ocean.

Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Canada is a country consisting of ten provinces and three territories located in the part of North America that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and into the Arctic Ocean." I like that version. Willondon (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The current version (as at 16.43 4 May) is now:

Canada is a country, consisting of ten provinces and three territories, in the northern part of the continent of North America. It extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean, covering 9.98 million square kilometres in total, making it the world's second-largest country by total area and the fourth-largest country by land area. [21]

That version is, perhaps, the best so far, and this discussion could be considered closed, letting further discussion be in a new section. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Colony for convicts/ mentally ill people

Main source of immigration initially for canada were convicts/ mentally ill people. Should state this in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.253.253 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Several hundred convicts, mostly people who refused to pay the salt tax, were sent to French Canada in the mid-1700s, but that's the only time convict labor was sent. TFD (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No evidence for this of any sort. Canada was never used as a penal colony. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Where are Canada´s coat of Arms?? Could somebody please re-add them? --37.219.203.167 (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion a few lines up from this. The coat of arms can't be added to this article for copyright reasons. It can only be used on the Coat of Arms article. — Gopher65_talk 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How about we use one of the former coats of arms then, since they're public domain? Would that be acceptable or not? Or how about this one? Illegitimate Barrister 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How would it in any way be accurate and representative of the actual coat? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From a heraldic standpoint (going by the written description of the coat of arms), it is accurate, even if it is not 100% identical to the version used by the Canadian government. Illegitimate Barrister 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From a visual representation, it looks like something my children would have created. It's not accurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By saying that, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of heraldry. Heraldry isn't based on images, it's based on blazons. As the long as the depiction follows the blazon it's still correct, regardless of minor artistic variations. For example this and this are equally correct as depictions of the British royal arms, even though they vary superficially. If you read the blazon of the Canadian royal arms, you would see that it matches the depiction linked to above. Zacwill16 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think I don't understand heraldry. That's not untrue. I have a background and graphic arts and all I can say is that it's a poor image.

Speaking of misunderstanding, WP:OVERLINK is something you should bone up on. I reverted your change because of that and because you can't simply impose your will on the article after you have seen consensus is against it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean when you say I've breached WP:OVERLINK? I didn't add any links to the article. As to the quality of the image, true it's not amazing, but it's the only one available to us. Surely it's better to have a lesser-quality image than no image at all. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand correct. You made the second edit and I saw the diff of both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As to my second point- do you agree that it's acceptable to use an image which is artistically inferior, but still correct? Zacwill16 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If the infobox required a coat of arms then it would be acceptable. Since it does not, and we have the option, I would say it's like saying, would you rather have flaming sticks jabbed into your eyes? It's a false dichotomy. A poor quality representation is fine if it must be represented and no free option exists, however since we have the option not to, and consensus is against that poorly rendered version, then we should not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're severely overstating the poor quality of the image. Yes, it's not as attractive as the other version, but it's not all that ugly and it's still undeniably correct. The article would be vastly improved by at least some representation of the Canadian royal arms; as it is, it seems to suggest that Canada has none. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Until that statement I severely understated the lack of quality. That statement simply understated the poor quality of it. I would sooner see a scan of a freehand representation by a ten-year-old child—the age in my province where they begin to discuss matters of federal politics and history—instead of the approximation that is represented by that image. No offence intended to the heraldry fan who composed it, but it does not meet the quality and finesse of the official crest. Again, that's speaking from a graphic design viewpoint, not one of heraldry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, this is all subjective. You personally finding it ugly is not a valid reason for excluding a perfectly correct image. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

True and if that were my only argument I would not have stated others as well. To recap:

1. It's not a pleasing representation.
2. It's not a misrepresentation of the officially approved crest.
3. It's not necessary to have a coat of arms.
4. Other editors do not want it in the article. (CONSENSUS should be enough, but doesn't appear to be)

We understand your position, but it will likely be removed if it's added by you or any other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I give up. All I can say is that this is what happens when authority lies with people who don't know what they're talking about. Zacwill16 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In terms of not knowing what editors are talking about, we can leave that aside for now. This is not a discussion about heraldry, which I think is the point that is tripping you up. Whether or not the image in question is "heraldically correct" or not is completely irrelevant and is a red herring. At any given time, there is only one 'legally' correct design, and it is the one approved by the Queen. The Government of Canada has used a different design in the past as their "official" design, and various others have use differing designs to represent the same thing, but that does not make them the approved design. Notice that I make no reference to the blazon, as it has no bearing on the argument at this point. Heraldry vs an authorised symbol (specific design) of state. trackratte (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We should never mislead readers passing off non official symbols as the real thing. -- Moxy (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, Moxy. I was just wondering why it was allowed on other articles and not this one, that's all. Illegitimate Barrister 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be depicted at all. Also, there is a difference between being heraldically correct and legally correct or official. In this case the Queen of Canada signed on and approved a specific design (the painted picture) which was based on a blazon. A random rendition which conforms with the blazon but not the design is heraldically correct yes, but that is a red herring. We're not talking about what is heraldically correct here, we are talking about a specific and legally designated coat of arms design. trackratte (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Queen of Canada choosing this specific illustration as the sole correct interpretation of the blazon? Zacwill16 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is a good editorial reason for adding any version of the royal coat of arms or the full blazon to this article, what is it? My personal view as a reader is that it is not needed here. Qexigator (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

+The flag is used above for 'Canadian English', and the maple leaf for Canadian portal, not the Arms. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Zac, if you look at the web sources it will say 'personally approved by the Queen'. If you look at the original documents of any coat of arms which depicts the Royal Crown, you will see the signature "Approved Elizabeth II" signed by the Queen. These documents contain a very specific design, and it is this design which is used. You can see this the most through military units and Colleges, which all depict the Royal Crown. While anyone can render their own interpretation of a military crest, or the Queen's own arms, they are just that, "heraldically correct" interpretations, they do not constitute the 'real thing' simply by being heraldically correct.

While the government of Canada could use any design it chose to, at any time, what makes a certain design 'legal' is the Queen's signature. For example, the current design was used informally prior to 1994 from what I've heard, but the modification was personally approved by the Queen in 1994. Even then, the Government of Canada continued to use the 1957 version until the early 2000s, so for nearly a decade the Government of Canada was using a version as a Governmental symbol which was no longer the personal arms of the sovereign (and therefore the specific Arms of State) approved for use in that capacity at that time. trackratte (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Heraldry is based on blazons not images. All grants of arms will include the blazon first and foremost. An illustration of the arms may also appear, but this is just the artist's personal interpretation of the blazon, and does not mean that all subsequent illustrations must look identical; as long as they follow the blazon they are legally and heraldically correct. The reason the Queen had to approve the design in 1994 was that the blazon was actually changed: the circlet of the Order of Canada was added. The fact that the Government chose to adopt a new interpretation of the blazon had nothing to do with it. They could adopt a new interpretation at any time, and it would still be legal if it followed the blazon. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not talking about heraldry. This discussion has nothing to do with the blazon. We are talking about a specific design. trackratte (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What? We're talking about a coat of arms; the science of coats of arms is known as heraldry. And this discussion has everything to do with the blazon. the specific design you're referring to is one of many possible and equally legitimate interpretations of an official blazon. Zacwill16 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be as well to remember that in the case of a coat of arms or blazon, questions of the fitness of its 'design' or a version or rendering of it, or the legality of the use of any version or rendering, are inseparable from heraldry. Qexigator (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is only one legal version of the coat of arms. That is quite separable from heraldry: it's law. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that comment as making sense in terms of a) heraldry and b) law. Can you explain, having regard to the legal status of the College of Arms and the Canadian Heraldic Authority and of arms granted or regulated by them under the Crown. On second thoughts, none of this is about improving the article, so better not. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, hence why they haven't responded. User:Trackratte plainly acting like on authority on a subject they know almost nothing about. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict. @Qex: No, they are not, like any symbol, photograph, design, or picture. Heraldric considerations are separate from the Arms of the Queen as a legal, and legally protected, design. There is only one flag of Canada (as a very specific design). An interpretation of the flag based on the blazon is fine in heraldry, it would be "heraldically correct" interpretation of the flag of canada, but it would not be the Flag of Canada. I don't think anyone is discussing whether or not this image is good to go from a purely heraldic point of view. It would be like placing a flag of Canada with a "natural" maple leaf on the Canada page as the Flag of Canada. It would be bogus, and no one would care whether or not it's "heraldically correct" or not. trackratte (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

While I remain unpersuaded that such comments are on the mark, please see reply to WG above. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that I'm essentially contributing to a dead discussion here, but because there was a point unanswered above I just wanted to clarify for the uninitiated in case it comes up again: the reason that some countries can have their coats of arms added to their Wikipedia articles freely, while Canada cannot, is that not all countries' copyright laws license government-owned materials in the same way. The Great Seal of the United States, for example, is released into the public domain — which means that we can reuse it willy-nilly. For the same reason, Wikipedia is able to freely grab and repost the "official portraits" of government officials, including the president, the vice-president, cabinet officials, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. The comparable images in Canada, however, are not released into the public domain, but under a different model known as Crown copyright — and under those rules, the contexts in which the images can be reused are significantly more limited than public domain content is. So we can't just add the coat of arms to any article where it fails to satisfy fair dealing criteria — meaning, essentially, that it's okay in the article about the coat of arms itself, but not anywhere else. Yes, it's unfortunate and kind of unfair, but it's not that Wikipedia has different rules for Canada vs. the US — it's that the Canadian and US governments have different rules about the use of their copyrighted content, which constrain us differently. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we put the coat of arms that were virtually created for Wikipedia on the French page of "Canada"? Please go see it and tell me why we can't put it on the English page as well. Wberthelot (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you read any of the commentary above? I have, on more than one occasion, stated that it's not an accurate or artistic representation of coat. Others have stated similar. Please don't rehash the same commentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)