Talk:Canada/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

Etymology of Canada

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

According to the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles Online “The etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established. During the past three hundred years many solutions to the problem have been offered, most of them fanciful.” There are at least ten possible explanations for the word Canada (ranging from the Portuguese “Ca Nada” to a today more popular explanation that that the word "kanata" appeared in the writings of Jacques Cartier in 1534 and referred to the Indian community of Stadacona.

Both these theories have for centuries been classified as unlikely. See for example: Tuckey, James Hingston (1815). Maritime geography and statistics. Vol. 4. London: Black, Parry & Co. p. 88.

Unfortunatelly the academic world has not devoted much attention to this issue. However, for example, the historian Rainer Daehnhardt asserts that the word “Canada” (meaning here nothing of value) can already be read in maps that are prior to 1535, the year when the French explorer Jacques Cartier first met the indigenous inhabitants of the present-day Quebec City. Professor Rainer Daehnhardt reaffirms the theory that the word Canada comes from the Portuguese mapping the coast as “Ca nada” meaning “Here nothing of value”.(see: Daehnhardt Rainer "Segredos da história Luso-Alemã = Geheimnisse der deutsch-portugiesischen Geschichte" - 1998, p 77) In fact a 1529 reference to Canada shores states that "up until now nothing of value has been found with the exception of codfish which are held in little esteem" (see Cortesão and Da Mota 1960: Volume V - Portugaliae Monumenta cartographica - A monumental bilingual work with large collection of maps and portulans from Portuguese travallers, navigators and geographers from the renaissance till the seventeenth century). Three years later, and also prior to Jaques Cartier travels, another cartographer noted of Tierra Nueva de los Bacallaos that "this land was discovered by the Portuguese... there is nothing of value here except for the cod which is a fish and a very good one. Here the Corte Reales were lost" (Cortesão and Da Mota 1960: Volume V).

In light of the above including in Wikpedia the statemet “The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word kanata” as the truth and ignoring all the debate The etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established is not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JPratas 08:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We have been over this many times.....all we can do here is regurgitate what the major of modern sources say (the debate is old). That said we could mention more at the parent article....but no need for tags here as the sources are clear and explain the problem. The word Canada referring to the a place was first used by the aboriginals....despite the fact the word may have been used before for a different meaning. For more info on the many origin stories pls see here. -- Moxy (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is not to push for any POV my point is that the chapter etymology represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published. If the etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established and has for centuries been object of debate then the chapter should reflect this reality. J Pratas 15:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC) By the way this policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. JPratasJ Pratas 16:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect all policy can be overridden by editor consensus as per WP:POLICY there are no fast and hard rules. I have no opinion on the subject at hand here just needed to point out no policy is written in stone and can always be over ridden by consensus.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you look at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you will see that a consensus on an article talk page cannot override policies that share a larger consensus. Chillum 16:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well... I just made copy paste from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where it is written that: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Anyway it seems obvious that the consensus is that the etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established and has for centuries been object of debate. Right? J Pratas 16:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to all possible theories — and a source published in 1815 does not disprove the consensus of contemporary scholars who've had 200 additional years to put additional research into the matter. For example, nobody has ever given any credible theory as to how the Portuguese phrase "Ca nada" would ever have gotten transferred to any other non-Portuguese group, such as the French or the aboriginals, who were actually involved in the actual establishment of Canada. Linguistic sources are also quite clear that the Iroquois word "kanata" is not some linguistic isolate which magically appeared out of nowhere in the Iroquoian language sometime around whatever limited to non-existent contact the Iroquois would ever actually have had with the Portuguese — it's a long-established word with clear cognates in other related aboriginal languages which had no sustained contact with the Portuguese either, which means they came up with it fully on their own completely independently of European contact.

Your professed interest in Portuguese history appears to be leading you to overinflate, because PORTUGUESE!, the continued importance of an old theory which much more credible research by much more credible and much more recent scholars has fully discredited as having any serious claim to being the truth. But the fact that old alternative theories may have existed in the past does not in and of itself constitute proof that the etymology remains disputed today. We do not, for instance, give any significant weight to "for unlawful carnal knowledge" as a serious claimant to the etymology of the word fuck — we acknowledge its existence in a "false etymologies" section of that article, but do not accord it any weight when it comes to determining whether the established etymology remains "disputed" or not.

Additionally, the old "ca nada" theory is split between sources which credit it to the Portuguese and those who credit it to the Spanish instead. So even among the scholars who have put their names to the "ca nada" theory, there still isn't a consensus as to which language it came from — or any known historical process by which it could actually have happened, since neither the Portuguese nor the Spanish ever actually had any notable contact with the Iroquois, or indeed any other aboriginal group that has a "kanata" cognate in its language, at all.

So no, WP:NPOV does not require us to give any weight to the "Ca nada" theory in this article. There are places (i.e. Name of Canada) where it can be discussed — however, it is not taken seriously by anywhere near enough linguistic or historical scholars to necessitate giving it WP:UNDUE weight, by portraying the etymology as a source of any serious modern dispute, in a broad overview article about the country itself. The fact that one recent scholar can be found who disputes the otherwise established consensus does not mean we have to accord him equal weight to an established consensus of hundreds or thousands of scholars who say otherwise.

We have to give equal weight to all significant and credible theories that are accepted by a broad range of contemporary scholars, not to every single alternative or historical theory that anybody has ever published at all. For instance, if I wanted to I could easily get a book published to propagate the theory that Canada is actually a word that was given to the Iroquois by space aliens from the planet Zorg, and that it actually means "I want to eat that horse over there, with parsnips and fried onions on the side" — but absent any substantive backing from other researchers on the basis of documentable historical or linguistic evidence which supported the credibility of my theory, I wouldn't have any right to demand that Wikipedia take my theory seriously just because it was featured in a book.) Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Bearcat has pretty much typed what I would have, but better.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:FRINGE applies here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, NO, No. Today the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles Online (DCHP-1 Online) a project was carried out by the Canadian English Lab at the University of British Columbia, a balanced, unbiased, reliable source (by no means "fringe") says that "The etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established.". The Wikipedia section should also adopt a similar NPOV. J Pratas 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying the 'nothing there' theory is a fringe theory. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've never heard of either. Do they carry any weight? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That same dictionary also lists an alternative theory, unproven and with no historical or linguistic evidence to support it other than a superficial similarity in sound and spelling, that Canada was named for the Carnata region of India. Which is why the fact that the theory is mentioned in an etymological dictionary does not, in and of itself, prove that the theory is accorded any significant credibility by any consensus of contemporary scholars. You are, for example, ignoring the part of that very same listing where it explicitly dismisses most of the listed theories as fanciful. Which is why the mere fact that said dictionary acknowledges the theory does not, in and of itself, prove that there's a substantive dispute here, or that the Portuguese "ca nada" theory — which, again, is in conflict with the theory that it was Spanish explorers, not Portuguese ones, who took one look at Canada and called it a big pile of nothing — has any real weight of historical evidence, or any consensus of contemporary scholars, backing it up.

Again, there's not a smidge of historical evidence that either the Portuguese or the Spanish, even if they actually did cruise the coast of the Maritime Provinces, ever actually got far enough inland to pass their "ca nada" on to the Iroquois as some viral linguistic innovation which could magically replace their existing name for their own territory in just two or three years flat. (The Spanish version of the story has the explorers sailing up the Bay of Chaleur — but that puts you in touch with the Mi'kmaq, not the Iroquois, and the Mi'kmaq do not have a "kanata" cognate in their language.) That's just one of the problems with the "ca nada" theory — there's not even a shred of historical evidence to support any way in which it could have gotten passed on to the Iroquois, in order for them to be calling their territory "Kanata" when Jacques Cartier arrived just a few years later. The theory asserts that they passed it on to the Iroquois, as indeed it has to in order to undermine "Kanata" as a native Iroquois word, but there's no historical evidence that they ever actually did interact with the Iroquois to pass it over. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology section

I don’t want to get engaged in the debate of which version is more likely to be closer to the truth, such debate is fruitless. What in my opinion is important is that the origin of the word Canada has been debated for centuries. Even wiki editors are eager to take a stand on their preferred version. Some are so blind by their POV that they even deny that such debate exists and do not hesitate to delete a “disputed” tag and write extensive text supporting their preferred version (which curiously reinforces the idea that the debate is very much alive).

According to the reputed canadian historian Olive Dickason (in “The Myth of the Savage, and the Beginnings of French Colonialism in the Americas during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”), the generally accepted version of the origin of the name "Canada" was that it derived from the Spanish "el cabo de nada" (cape of nothing) or "aca nada" (nothing here). That was how Canada was reportedly assessed by Juan de Agramonte, who in 1511 was sent by Spain, along with two Breton pilots, to check on the location as well as the potentialities of the new land discovered fourteen years earlier by Giovanni Caboto under the auspices of Henry VII of England. The early popularity of this explanation of the name reflected the first impression that Canada was "a poor, unsought-after country," or, as Cartier said of Labrador, "the land God gave to Cain."

References to maps stating that in there was nothing (“nada”) in Canada date at least from 1529 where a reference to cod in “a Tierra de los bacallaos” map states that "up until now nothing of value has been found with the exception of codfish which are held in little esteem" (Cortesão and Da Mota 1960: V). Although the cod seemed not to have had value at that time or to that cartographer, three years later another cartographer noted of Tierra Nueva de los Bacallaos that "this land was discovered by the Portuguese... there is nothing of value here except for the cod which is a fish and a very good one. Here the Corte Reales were lost" (Cortesão and Da Mota 1960: V). The charts of the day spread the news that the Portuguese were in these areas and that codfish was abundant and good to eat.

Olive Dickason presents several other version for the origin of the name Canada but she does not present any version as the “truth”. (Nor Wikipedia should do it)

This conundrum has been on for centuries. In 1888, after studying Cartier’s account, Aaron Marshall Elliott, founded the Modern Language Association of America, professor of comparative philology (a historical linguist), at John Hopkins University, contended that Cartier clearly set down Kanata as the word for village and that from the outset Cartier used a different word — Canada — as a name for the region. Further, Elliott found no evidence that Kanata had anything to do with the word Canada. He argued:

• Not a single example exists in Cartier’s account where he refers to the word Canada with any signification other than as a province. Among the Indian words given by him (a list of which follows at the end of his narrative), he has correctly put down Kanata ‘village,’ but without the slightest suggestion that the word could be taken as the origin of the name of the province Canada to which he refers so often. The fact, then, I hold as incontestable [is] that Cartier found the name Canada already in existence as applied to a single province when he arrived at Stadacona (Quebec) in the month of September - For the complete article See Origin of the Name 'Canada.' A. Marshall Elliott Modern Language Notes Vol. 3, No. 6 (Jun., 1888), pp. 164-173 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press [1]

I could go on and on presenting more and more examples that show that the etymology of the word Canada has always been controversial.

If the article has a section etymology then it cannot just present one version as the truth. It must give account of all the historical debate around the origin of the Name Canada. J Pratas 18:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been explained above, we go with the generally accepted version, and something from 1888 is not that impressive, at least to me. Oh and because one editor wants his or her pet theory in the article does not mean we have a POV problem. Really, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Olive Dickason´s text on the Origin of the word Canada is from 1997. We are not supposed to go with the generally accepted version we are supposed to present a summary of the historical debate on the subject, just as Olive Dickason and many others have done. J Pratas 19:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have two requests for you J Pratas

1. Please sign your posts correctly. See WP:SIGHOW if you're having problems.
2. Stop pushing your point. There is no consensus for your opinion. It's not NPOV over CONSENSUS, it's FRINGE vs WP:V. Just because someone stated some theory that has yet to be proven doesn't mean it's true. As was stated above. The statement was clear. The wording concise. The proof, irrefutable.

Oh, and if you change the edit to subject back to a "pointy" one, I'll consider you to be a tendentious editor and request that you be topic banned. If you can't discuss this without hyperbole, you're not welcome here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Native/aboriginal words frequently get passed on to European languages in something other than their original form — the fact that kanata and Canada aren't spelled the same way as each other does not mean that the latter isn't a derivation of the former, any more than France fails to be derived from the name of the Franks just because the spelling changed. In point of fact, the aboriginal peoples did not have any written tradition at all when Cartier first contacted them — meaning that the word had no right or wrong spelling at all, because it had never been written down before.

Nobody's denying that the "ca nada" theory existed — but as has been pointed out already, there's (a) no historical consensus on whether it came from the Portuguese or the Spanish, and (b) no historical basis for how it would have got from the Portuguese or the Spanish to the Iroquois in order for them to be calling a village "kanata". The whole thing simply reeks of being exactly the kind of folk etymology that people create to link a word to some other word that happens to sound or look similar, but doesn't have any historical basis in fact. The fact that some historians have expressed different opinions in the past doesn't make them right — if consensus of contemporary scholars says X, then we say X. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike other editors I do not exactly have a POV. I think all existing theories are debatable and have flaws that have been pointed out by scholars. There is not a single line of text written by me either defending one theory or attacking another. I am just defending that several theories exist of have existed along time I just think we should comply with the policy that says that "Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". What is being done in this article is as absurd as deleting content on Ptolemy just because his theories are no longer accepted. J Pratas (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The exact opposite is true. I have no POV on the etymology. I rely on RSes to give me insight. You, however, have been championing a specific theory that has been repeatedly discredited (see the discussions above) and are clinging to two sources, one of which "explicitly dismisses most of the listed theories as fanciful" as is stated above. So you're relying on one source. Wikipedia must give WP:WEIGHT to all of the source. Discussing one voice in a sea of voices would give it undue weight and would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. In a summary of the topic, and that's what is represented here, only the most credible opinions should be discussed. If you want your WP:FRINGE theory to be discussed, take it up at the etymology article, not here. Show me where in a WP:SECONDARY source your fringe theory is given due weight and consideration and not entirely dismissed and I'll consider it. All of my history books support the Iroquois transmission theory and so that's why I have not baulked at it before. Yesterday was the first time I have heard of this Iberian connection. I'm open to hearing more, but not from you: only from reliable, secondary sources. Provide three and I'll support its inclusion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to go over a couple of the other problems with your sources: firstly, you're not offering sources which actually state that the Portuguese or Spanish explorers actually conferred the name "Ca Nada" on the landmass as a toponym — you're WP:SYNTHing sources which merely state that they described the land as containing nothing of value, and drawing an inference which isn't explicitly contained in the sources in question.

And secondly, you're still failing to demonstrate any historical evidence for how the Iberian "Ca Nada", even if true, actually could have travelled to any of the languages it had to travel to in order to have any effect on how the country got named by Cartier. It's a key principle of linguistics that even if two words in different languages sound or look similar, that doesn't automatically prove they're related to each other in and of itself — you have to find some historical evidence for the relationship (like the languages are already related to each other, or historical documents explicitly allow you to trace the moment where the word would have gotten transferred) before you can claim it. But there's no historical evidence whatsoever that the Spanish or the Portuguese ever met the Iroquois — the body of water that they're claimed to have sailed into in that version of the story is not in Iroquois territory. And if you're going to claim that Jacques Cartier actually ignored the Iroquois people's own word for "village", and instead named it "Canada" because that name already existed on Portuguese maps before he arrived, then you have to actively choose to disregard every single thing Jacques Cartier actually wrote about his own trip, and replace it with this historically unverifiable claim instead of what the documents about it explicitly say.

And finally, the James Hingston Tuckey Maritime Geography and Statistics source that you tried to use yesterday was citing a page number that, when I checked it, was devoted entirely to the magnetic properties of a compass needle and had nothing whatosever to say about any possible etymology of the word "Canada" whatsoever. And when I tried to do a bookwide search on "Canada", I didn't get any suggestion that there was any content about the etymological origins of "Canada" anywhere else in the book either. And for added bonus, that's not a scholarly study of the question of etymology by a linguist — it's a sailor's almanac by a sea captain who doesn't have any particular credentials as a historian or a linguist, so even if such content is located somewhere in the book it's not a substantive source by an expert in any relevant field that would cast any light on the matter. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If Yesterday was the first time you have heard of this Iberian connection aren't you glad we are having this discussion? Isn't this being a learning experience? Why not work constructively? Isn't Dickason's article considered a good article on the subject? I noticed that Professor Francis, R. Douglas endorses this work as a good source for an important discussion on the subject. J Pratas (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

We are working constructively by following policy, you are not. Please, again, read WP:FRINGE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On the James Hingston Tuckey Maritime Geography and StatisticsCanada, probably my fault on the link, but you need to search in the right volume (the work has several volumes) The author says: "It has been a stumbling-block to etymologist*; some supposing it to be from aqui-nada, " here is nothing...." By the way, this author, like me, does not defend any theory, he just acknowledges they exist and the debate. Try this link instead [2] J Pratas (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Still a sailor's almanac published 200 years ago by a sea captain with no credentials as a historian or a linguist, thus failing to prove that there's still any substantive lack of consensus on the question among experts on the subject today. Interesting, but about as relevant or useful as The Old Farmer's Almanac when it comes to reliably sourcing much of anything on here. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Again> Isn't Dickason's article considered a good article on the subject ? I noticed that Professor Francis, R. Douglas (University of Calgary) endorses this work as a good source for an important discussion on the subject. Please read the article and let me know your opinion. J Pratas (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can comment on how good it is or isn't, or what portrayal of the matter it supports or doesn't, until they can actually read it for themselves to find out what it says or doesn't say, eh? Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Please read it and let me know your opinion. Professor Francis, R. Douglas (University of Calgary) endorses this work as a good source for an important discussion on the subject. Professor Olive Dickason was awarded the Order of Canada in 1996, and was the recipient of the Aboriginal Achievement Award in 1997. She has also been the recipient of numerous honorary doctorates throughout the years. It looks like she is a good source on the subject. J Pratas (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not "precisely". You're demanding that we immediately rush to accept the legitimacy of a source that nobody has even yet seen in order to evaluate for anything. I can offer you an opinion when I get a chance to read it, but that won't be today or tomorrow, and might not be for weeks. And for the record, even without seeing it I can already safely predict that it isn't going to say anything that would actually require us to revise Name of Canada (which already notes the Portuguese interpretation, and just doesn't overplay it) to any significant degree. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this becoming WP:TROLLFOOD? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

National symbols on coins

The Culture section lists a number of symbols associated with Canada. It mentioned that the maple leaf was on the penny, but the article doesn't mention that Canada removed the penny from circulation in 2013. I think it should. I added a sentence (which is now the last sentence of the article) about national symbols on coins. This is not perfect, but it seemed unnatural to discuss the discontinuation of the penny in the middle of a paragraph about symbols. I didn't want to add any symbols not already discussed, even though the remaining coins all feature things that might be called national symbols (the Bluenose II schooner, the caribou and the polar bear). Roches (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of writings on the origin of the name Canada

Please find below a non-exhaustive list of writings on the origin of the name Canada (all in English language). The list includes encyclopedias, dictionaries, books and newspaper articles that go back from the XVIII century until today. The list can easily be expanded and it is easy to add other sources in French, Spanish and Portuguese. All these works have one thing in common: They all recognize that there are many theories in place on the origin on the name Canada (more or less accepted). I think the list is already solid enough to justify that the Wikipedia reader should not be lead to believe that this debate never existed and be lead to believe that there is (and always has been) a unique undisputed truth on the etymology of the word Canada.

• The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative North American Literature (2014) - Editor Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 [3] – Says that another possible explanation for the name….”aca nada”

• The Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles Online (2015) says that The etymology of Canada is by no means clearly established [4]

• The Canadian Encyclopedia (2013) says: “Cartier's may not have been the first use of the name Canada. Fishermen and whalers from Spain, Portugal, France and Britain had visited the new world before him. The Spanish experience in Mexico and Peru prompted exploration for gold and riches in other places and motivated King François I of France to send Cartier on his first voyage to Canada in 1534. The Spaniards, finding no riches around the Baie des Chaleurs, reported "aca nada" or "cà nada" meaning "nothing here" and named it "Capa da Nada," "Cape Nothing."[5]

• David DeRocco,John F. Chabot – (2008) From Sea to Sea to Sea: A Newcomer's Guide to Canada [6] says that “There are many theories on how the name Canada came into use….another theory with less acceptance suggests the name “Canada” was given by Spanish explorers.”

• Joseph Graham (2005) “Naming the Laurentians: A History of Place Names 'up North'” . This book says that “The origin of the name Canada had been a subject of debate for years before Confederation” [7] “The name Canada had been a subject of debate for years before the confederation. One story credits the Portuguese”.

• Alan Rayburn (2001) – “Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names” [8]

• Olive P. Dickason, (1984) “Appendix 1: Origin of the Name 'Canada,'” – [9] French version available online here[10]

• Mark M. Orkin (1971), “Speaking Canadian English: An Informal Account of the English Language in Canada” – this book discusses three theories about the origin of the name Canada [11]

• Marshall Elliott (1888) “Origin of the Name 'Canada.' Modern Language Notes Vol. 3, No. 6 (Jun., 1888), pp. 164-173 [12]

• Henry Beaumont Small (1868) - Chronicles of Canada: Or A Concise History of the Leading Events in the Old Provinces of the New Dominion – [13]

• Drake, Samuel Gardner (1841) - The book of the Indians, or, Biography and history of the Indians of North America; from its first discovery to the year 1841. [14]

• Forster, Johann Reinhold, (1786) History of the voyages and discoveries made in the North [15]

• An article from the Montreal Gazzete (1953) [16]

• An article from NY Times (1909) – Further conjecture on the origin of the name Canada - [17] J Pratas (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced. I looked at the first one, it's a discussion of "North American Literature". It's not historic. I can't support this nonsense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I should explain more fully, and it is in-line with what I wrote earlier and echoes what Bearcat wrote below. The additional theories should be discussed at the etymology article. The most we should do here is state that the explanation is from Cartier's journal. We might want to hint that there are other theories, but that none hold water. They should not be explained though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I. Just because some WP:FRINGE theory exists does not mean it should get any mention at all. This has been a giant waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's denying the fact that the theory existed. But the fact that 200-year-old sources can be found which demonstrate that there was a dispute about it 200 years ago does not prove that any substantive dispute about it still exists in 2015. And didja notice that the New York Times piece you linked at the end of this list points out that "aca" means "hither" rather than "here", and suggests that any Spanish claim to the etymological origins of Canada may instead be linked to Cañada meaning "glen" or "valley"?

Just a reminder that this article is a broad overview of Canada as a whole — it has to cover a lot of things from the 1500s all the way to the present day, so it's not the place to delve into extended exploration of alternative historical theories to the origin of a word. The separate article Name of Canada can do that — and indeed, it already does — but even there, it's not appropriate to give the "ca nada" theory primacy over the more generally accepted "kanata" origin. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you when you say that there is a general consensus that today the "ca nada" theory has NO primacy over the more generally accepted "kanata" origin. I understand that this article is on Canada and that there is a separate article on the name Canada (which I hope we will be able to improve by adding to it: more theories, an account of the historical debate and enrich with a list of further reading) . However if for centuries and up until today the etymology of the word Canada has been object of debate and many sources still present several theories as plausible, then the article should not ignore that such debate existed, that it still exists, and pretend that only one theory is the truth. I think our discussion is not being very helpful, I am considering opening an RfC with the following questions: Is the “etymology” section of [Canada] in line with NPOV policy? Has the etymology of the word “Canada” been a subject of debate for years/centuries? If so should we have in the etymology section a brief description of such debate? Is the etymology of Canada clearly established today? J Pratas (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, NPOV does not mean 'fair and balanced' or 'present every possible idea and let the reader decide' It means we follow what the generally accepted quality sources say. The fact that you are just ignoring what three (I think) long time editors are telling you smacks of WP:IDHT. This is all quite tiring. There is no need for an RFC or anything, your understanding of the NPOV policy is just plain wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the present version is best. Many sources do say that there has been significant debate, or that there are multiple theories. This is true, but subject to misinterpretation, as is happening here. All of the theories agree that the name comes from the word "kanata." The debate is about how a word meaning "village" came to refer to the entire country. Roches (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Change current Prime Minister from Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau 129.100.205.208 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Stephen Harper is no longer prime minister 184.144.146.32 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is. The governor general appoints prime ministers; they are not elected. (So many Canadians' knowledge of basic civics is abysmal!) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done M. Please take your monarchist fantasy some other place. We're a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Prime ministers in Canada are elected. The new prime minister is sworn-in though and Mr. Harper is the prime minister until the time the new leader is sworn-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed by the governor general on advice from the elected members of parliament. A democracy tinged with monarchy, if you will. In any case, Harper is indeed prime minister until the swearing in of another. Willondon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I am responding despite M's removal of his earlier comment . I directed no bad faith remark at you at all. I made a comment that you're living in a fantasy. No bad faith involved. You have been told multiple times, by multiple editors that the Canadian monarchy is present at the leisure of the population and you insist on pushing the fantasy that Canada is an absolute monarchy: that the governor general or his master in Buckingham Palace somehow decides who leads the nation. That is the furthest thing from the truth it's not worth discussing. If Mr. Johnston were to swear Elizabeth May in in a few days, he would find himself in the same place that Australia's John Kerr (governor-general) did: dismissed and a pariah in society.

In conclusion: the people of Canada elect the prime minister of Canada and the figurehead governor general swears the people's choice in as leader of the nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: Your understanding is partially correct, but it is the leader of the party, not the elected members of parliament who give the advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted, among the elected members of parliament who give advice, the leader of the party winning most ridings certainly holds a lot of sway. Willondon (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Whomever commands the confidence of the House of Commons is appointed by the governor general as prime minister. Voters elect the Commons, the Commons "chooses" the prime minister. It's known as responsible government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is the theory and it may still be done symbolically. In practice (see 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute) it is entirely the leader of the party with the most votes in the house. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper is PM until he offers & Johnston accepts his resignation, which won't be for another roughly 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The PM continues on until his successor is sworn in, which can take weeks. The GG acts on the advice of the outgoing PM. In this case there is no question Trudeau should be appointed PM, but Harper advises the GG when that should take place. The GG has no obligation to appoint anyone as PM - the office is not even in the constitution. But the tradition is the GG will follow the advice of the PM and the PM will advise a successor if s/he is unable to maintain the confidence of the House. In some cases they may recommend an election. Byng sacked King (who came second) in the King Byng Thing when King came second and Byng offered the premiership to Meighen. But the consensus is that Byng should have followed the PM's advice. It is not that the Queen and her governor exercise powers, but that the powers the Crown held have passed to the PM. In Canadian history, the monarch has had little power, it was the King acting on the advice of the UK PM that exercised power. TFD (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

...PM - the office is not even in the constitution. This may be no more than obliquely relevant to the use of the (unofficial) descriptor "prime minister" in Canada and other realms, but helps to explain the position: in UK "The list of government ministers printed in Hansard, the official record of parliamentary debates, seems to have first used the title Prime Minister in 1885. An early internal reference to the Prime Minister was included in the minutes of the first meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1902. The 1904 edition of the Imperial Calendar (the predecessor to the Civil Service Yearbook) referred to Arthur Balfour as ‘Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury’; in the previous edition he was merely ‘First Lord of the Treasury and Lord Privy Seal’. Then in December 1905 the Prime Minister was granted a place in the official order of precedence. The first statutory reference to the Prime Minister came in the Chequers Estate Act 1917, which specified Chequers as a prime-ministerial residence. Public recognition of the existence of a ‘Prime Minister’s Office’ in the Civil Service Yearbook came as recently as the 1977 edition."[18] Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

In the Government and Politics section, the number of Commons seats needs to be increase to 338. Thanks! Mabmd2000 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done  DiscantX 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Please change the Prime Minister setting from Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau because as of the federal elections of the 19th of October 2015, the Conservative party is no longer in power and replacing it is the Liberal party, its leader being the aforementioned Justin Trudeau. 198.84.255.72 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Under constitutional convention, until Harper formally submits his resignation to the Governor General and Trudeau is sworn in, Harper remains the PM. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free content

Regarding this edit: past discussion has determined that using the image of the Canadian coat of arms in this article does not comply with criterion #8 of the non-free content criteria policy. The omission of the coat of arms in this article is not substantially detrimental to the reader's understanding of Canada. Including the image is significant for the reader's understanding of the Arms of Canada, and so this criterion is satisfied for that article. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added a free image of the escutcheon from the arms which creates a link to the full article and also makes the infobox more in keeping with infoboxes of other countries on wikipedia - please reverse if you feel this is not appropriate - Rude-boy-wayne (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And I have reverted. The image is copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Update Prime Minister

In at least one place, this page still says Stephen Harper is the current Prime Minister.

He is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper is PM until he offers & the GG accepts, his resignation. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Transition date is November 4: Stephen Harper to officially resign as prime minister next week Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Small sub sections

The small section "religion" is not up to FA standers (A small paragraph does not make a section) - nor should we have a sentence all alone. I had reverted the change to the stable version but then this was reverted back. So here we are. We have talked about this is the past at Talk:Canada/Archive 22#New Sub-Sections? when this was tried in the past after the FA review when the subsections were removed. I personally think we would need to add more prose text to warrant the creation of a subheader for the topic...but then again not an important topic to Canadians (as stated in the article). Last time we had this talk it was split but we restored the FA version because there people said the section flows better when not broken up ....BUT its been a long time so lets bring this up again. I like sections...but hate subsections with small amount of info.. if it looks and flows (reads) better all as one section undivided. What do others think here. I do agree no need for pie chart as the info is in the text..my mistake. Canada current sub section version - vs- old version. --Moxy (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As there is a spinout article with additional details, I think having a suitable summary in its own section is appropriate for this article. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree with Moxy: the section is too small to warrant its existence. The info should be merged into another section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion has been a significant influence on Canada, as evidenced by the Religion in Canada article. A longer summary section in this article can be written based on the spinout article. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It could, but, this is already a long article and what is the importance of religion in Canada as compared to other topics covered here? Is it enough to justify a two or three paragraph section on the subject? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The section is already a paragraph and a half. Adding another half-paragraph or so would not strain the article's size and additional context regarding the influence of religion on present-day Canada can be provided, beyond just the stats. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have no problem adding a bit more. But I think I would talk about the great decline of religion (as stated in the lead at the religion article Lance W. Roberts (2005). Recent Social Trends in Canada, 1960-2000. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-7735-2955-7. and news articles like A leap for some faiths, but many Canadians are losing their religion). We could add "With Christianity in decline after having once been central and integral to Canadian culture and daily life, Canada has become a post-Christian, secular state." Not sure we could find any sources saying religion influences Canadian politics or national agenda for that mater anymore.-- Moxy (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I do think there is a clear case for a separate 'Languages' subsection, as it currently stands, since this is a very important issue in Canada. Secondly, I agree that the religion subsection is currently too small. The Religion in Canada article is fairly large and contains a whole lot of information that is not summarised in this article; for example, it talks about the history of religion in Canada (and the current decline). So we could modestly expand the second paragraph and have a small two paragraph subsection. I think subsections are justified because they help the reader to find relevant information more easily. --Hazhk (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

OK i added a bit of text from main stable parent article...info well sourced-- Moxy (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Change of government

Trudeau is supposed to be sworn in in a few hours (see Justin Trudeau's Liberal cabinet to be sworn in at Rideau Hall, Justin Trudeau, cabinet ministers to be sworn in during Wednesday ceremony) After that, changing the name of the prime minister should be allowed. I'll be in bed by that point, but after the swearing in it shouldn't be reverted if someone changes it.  DiscantX 11:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. Yes. Until he's sworn in, he's not the prime minister and it's incorrect to indicate that he is the prime minister. After he's sworn-in, he is and it's incorrect to indicate that someone else is the prime minister. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

s'il vous plaît pouvez-vous ajouter à ce que les concessionnaires d'automobiles au Canada offrent les prix les plus bas pour les pièces au Québec T3432a (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Ne pas fait – pour deux raisons:-
Premier, nous sommes une encyclopédie, pas un site de comparaison des prix
en second, c'est l'anglais Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Standard units of measurement

I think it would be great to have the standard units of measurement listed for Canada (maybe even other countries). They are neighbors of the U.S and I don't know if they too still use imperial units or metric, or if (like Australia and the U.K) they use both depending on context (height/depth, distance, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyAlreadyDonated (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Officially we use metric; in actual practice, we follow the contextual variation you listed as the last option. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Punjabi Official language

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.

---

It is strange that Punjabi is neither listen as Canada's official language nor regional!! http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/canada-shows-some-love-back-punjabi-becomes-the-third-official-language-of-country-s-parliament-246930.html

37.140.228.18 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

See the constitution. trackratte (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ok sad they are not updated? Anayway, so Punjabi is not even a regional language??? like it almost doesn't exist significantly in Canada? 37.140.228.18 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The news article you cite uses the word official as a catch phrase, in the sense that 'alright guys, now it's official, the Beatles have taken over America' is used. "Official" in the legal sense means that a language is recognised by the state and therefore services rendered in that language are legally mandated. English and French are the only two official languages at the federal level. At the provincial level (regional), English is the only official language everywhere except for Quebec where French is the only official language, and New Brunswick, where both French and English are official languages. Institutions may offer language services in other languages, but such voluntary usage does not make those languages "official" in the legal sense. Currently, the House of Commons does not provide services in any other language besides French and English. trackratte (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks I said something else this time. There is a significant proportion of the population that speaks Punjabi.

This link says "The 430,705 native Punjabi speakers make up about 1.3 per cent of Canada's population and the 20 Punjabi-speaking lawmakers represent almost six per cent of the House of Commons." http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/punjabi-becomes-third-language-in-canadas-house-of-commons-1239259 Thanks again. 37.140.228.18 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Still not an official language. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Punjabi is no where near an official language of Canada. Only English and French are considered official languages. If there were to be more official languages in the future, I can assure you there would be many more languages ahead of consideration long before Punjabi is mentioned. In any case, it is very, very unlikely more languages will ever be added as true official languages of Canada. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I think I was not good enough in making clear that I am no more talking about it being an official language of Canada. I am saying a significant proportion of people speak it is Canada and therefore it should be mentioned as one of the languages spoken. 37.140.228.18 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The header for this discussion you started is "Punjabi Official language". That, plus your remark "It is strange that Punjabi is [not] listen [sic] as Canada's official language" would lead people to believe you wished for Punjabi to be listed as an official language.

There are dozens of languages spoken in Canada. This is a wide-ranging article on Canada; it's not the place to get into specifics like each language spoken by some numbers of people in the country. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see Languages of Canada#Languages by mother tongue. As of the 2011 census it is the largest percentage of non-official languages spoken as a first language, only by virtue of people responding "Chinese" rather than "Mandarin" or "Cantonese". There is no indication what percentage speak it, or other languages, as a second language, also known as "language spoken at home". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is so funny. If someone saw the heading "official language" they should also see the discussion that followed. It will be stupid to change the heading now! Is that why the 1 hour donation has been going on for months? You guys seem to be so serios as if making constitutions, yet there is so much difference how you present different countries. In the page India, they say Indian tourism doesn't contribute to GDP significantly, that's why can't be included. It is 10th largest economy! It's got much else to contribute to its GDP! It is in top 10 Asian destinations! Secondly, ok. I get it. This page is ok. Let the discussion be over. 37.140.228.18 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you should have a gander at WP:SUMMARY. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:52, 18 November 2015 (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.

First Colonies

The sentence from the intro "Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonies were established on the region's Atlantic coast." isn't supported by references, but actually refuted by them: the very same links pointing to them talk about 16th century the earliest. British colonization began 1607 in Virginia. The corresponding wikipedia article for the french colonization of america speaks about 1534 and later. That means, british started settling in North America beginning 17th century and french beginning of 16th century, at best. Thus, neither at the end of 15th century. At least according to the very same wikipedia articles that text references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polnasam (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

culture section

I have removed File:Raven-and-the-first-men.jpg and replaced it with the "mother Beaver" ....because it leads to more info on symbol's then the sculpture. -- Moxy (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the section isn't about symbols. The beaver sculpture picture contains representations of some cultures, but, I think it's a real disservice to the article to eliminate the one image representative of aboriginal culture, which is becoming more a part of Canadian identity (see the arguments for adding aboriginal symbols to the Royal Coat of Arms). There appears to be room for both the beaver and the raven (how Canadian!). Though, the beaver sculpture picture's caption does seem overly-long. There may be a way to trim it further while still imparting the same information or to put some of the detail into a note. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good... look now..all fits ok? Just a good way to metion the "Fleur de lis" and show a picture of our proud and noble beaver. -- Moxy (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's no doubt the one picture contains a lot of symbolism. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The symbols section keeps getting put all by its self....so let see if this new format for the culture section will work...symbols are a part of culture. I have also added Canadians identify with the countries institutions of health care , military peacekeeping, the National park system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian humour is also an integral part of the Canadian Identity. The primary characteristics of Canadian humour are irony, parody, and satire. ...Am i saying all this right by the sources? -- Moxy (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

if people are okay with the sections you have to make sure they don't get bloated this was the reason we didn't have them before... people addind Justin Bieber or Wayne Gretzky Moxy (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

"one of the world's most ethnically diverse"

What is the source for the statement in the lead that Canada is "one of the world's most ethnically diverse" countries? According to what I believe is generally considered the latest extensive study on this (from 2002; primary source, secondary source), Canada doesn't even rank in the top 25. There's a later study that ranks Canada somewhat higher in cultural diversity (2012, secondary source), and the lead does address that. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how the term is defined. Afghanistan has half a dozen major ethnic groups, while Canada has only two. But Canada has over 100 major and minor ethnic groups, while Afghanistan has only half a dozen. TFD (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but what's needed is a source. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Very easy to source..but perhaps we should qualify it with "in the western world" Top 25 out of 196 countries I think would qualify the statement,

• John Loughlin; John Kincaid; Wilfried Swenden (2013). Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 1-136-72762-0.
• A map

Moxy (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement is more than demography, it's a statement about national policy regarding the acceptability of diverse ethnicity. Many the high-ranking countries demographically have fierce ethnocultural battles going on (In Europe, this is the case from Russia to Spain. Look at Syria, Iraq for more bloody examples in highly diverse countries. I think Canada ranks at the top in acceptance. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

@Rjensen: While the policies you state may be real, that's not the commonly understood definition of "ethnic diversity".

@Moxy: The map you cited is from the same 2002 study that I cited. While Canada stands out compared to its neighbors, it's still not in the top 20 or even 25. Thanks for the pointer to the Routledge publication. When weighing sources I'd give much more weight to the Harvard study that had the one and only goal of analyzing ethnic diversity as opposed to a one-liner in a paper about federalism. I think your proposed qualifier of "western world" is an improvement. It is also slightly WP:OR as it requires interpreting the data, but an improvement nonetheless.

Anyway, I hope I'm not being too tendentious about this. I was showing a friend the Canada article as a model of a good featured country article... balanced, concise, and so on, and this clunker of a statement stood out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement should be taken out; it seems to be meaningless boosterism that appears to be designed to pad the intro and meet its word count requirement, and it isn't even bloody sourced! Many African countries and India are more diverse than Canada is. Even the more inclusive statement of 'in the western world' would be inaccurate, since there are plenty of other countries in the western hemisphere that are more diverse than Canada is, such as the U.S. and various Latin American countries. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC).

The reality is that there are Tamil, Sikh, Greek, Portugese, Somali, Italian, Cree, Ojibwa, Persian, Jamaican, Russian, Jewish, Chinese, Estonian and Ukrainian communities (and I have left out over 100 others) in Canada, something one does not find in most countries. TFD (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Tolerance for cultural and ethnic diversity has been emphasized in recent decades. Emma Ambrose and Cas Mudde examining surveys of OECD Western nations report: "data confirm that Canada has fostered a much more accepting society for immigrants and their culture than other Western countries. For example, Canadians are the most likely to agree with the statement that immigrants make their country a better place to live and that immigrants are good for the economy. They are also the least likely to say that there are too many immigrants in their country, that immigration has placed too much pressure on public services, and that immigrants have made it more difficult for natives to find a job.[Emma Ambrose and Cas Mudde, "Canadian Multiculturalism and the Absence of the Far Right" Nationalism & Ethnic Politics (2015) 21#2 pp 213-236] Ambrose and Mudde conclude that: "Canada's unique multiculturalism policy...which is based on a combination of selective immigration, comprehensive integration, and strong state repression of dissent on these policies. This unique blend of policies has led to a relatively low level of opposition to multiculturalism." Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the mention on this in the lead...anyone familiar with Canadian politics or history or have read the sources here and in the article would not have a problem with this - as to why its been there for years. Joseph Zajda (2015). Nation-Building and History Education in a Global Culture. Springer. p. 55. ISBN 978-94-017-9729-0..-- .................... the source above says ||The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada. The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain. " and is why i said we could use the qualifier "'in the western world"- Moxy (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC).

Such a statement should be properly sourced with a reference citation. – Illegitimate Barrister, 04:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have moved the new info to the main article as it already said in the sections above. just a bit to much on this one point. Plus as we all know we cant simply copy and paste it here without attribution...and to name to people in the section is a bit much.--Moxy (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Great seal?

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.

---

So what so people think of the great seal being added in the infobox... was going to delete as per the previous talks... but the talks are very old. I would not mind if the image was clearer in some fashion....but not sure the parameter is even for that -- Moxy (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised it took so long to make it to the infobox. It's the first thing that I and all of my foreign relatives think of when they think "Canada". If the sarcasm wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm. The only advantage to having it there is it may keep the coat of arms out of the infobox. I'd rather not see it there. The archives have never discussed the inclusion of the great seal though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and without sarcasm, it is surprising it took so long to appear there. It looks good next to Maple Leaf flag, as well as at the other places listed at Global file usage[19]. It names Elizabeth II as Canada's queen, in both French and English, seated in full regalia on the coronation throne, with an image of the Royal Arms of Canada. An excellent synthesis suited to the article content. And the link to the Great Seal of Canada article provides good supplemental information. Qexigator (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The other articles that use it:

• Great Seal of Canada
• Keeper of the Seals
• National symbols of Canada
• Registrar General of Canada

It makes sense there, in those locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sovereign state articles have their great seal included in their infobox headings. Therefore, in agreement with adding it here. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My argument is that it's not a common symbol and most Canadians do not associate it with the nation. I too did not remove it, but I would not miss it if it were gone. So I'm somewhat indifferent to its inclusion, but if pressed to have a !vote, I would say remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

...Other sovereign state articles such as United States, Irish Free State. Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, y'all. I'm the bloke who added the seal to the box. I added it primarily because the box was missing such an image, and it was the only free image of its kind that I could find. Crown copyright for the seal expired in the 2000s, so it is public domain now. All the other official emblem images are either copyrighted, or are inaccurate. That and most other countries' articles use Great Seals in their infoboxes as well, as @Qexigator: put it. An alternative free image would be "File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg", but I think the Great Seal looks better aesthetically, since it is in the circular shape common of most countries' national seals. The way I look at it, better to have an image there than not. Having just the flag in the infobox looks awkward, since most other countries' articles are not like that. Best to have uniformity. As for the image being unclear, that's primarily because it is a PNG raster image. An SVG vector version would be much better, but none has been uploaded on Commons. If somebody could create one or find one and then upload it to the Commons, that'd be much appreciated. Best of regards, – Illegitimate Barrister, 17:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not used as a symbol of Canada, but as a symbol of royal authority at the federal level. The Irish Free State and the U.S. are different because their seals were used in place of coats of arms as a symbol for their countries. Note the UK does not show its seal in the info-box either. TFD (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To be the fair, the Coat of Arms is also a symbol of royal authority as well (since Canada is a monarchy), but nobody objected to its usage on those grounds. Besides, being a "symbol" of a nation is more a matter of opinion. It's inclusion should be whether or not it has official status or not, which the Great Seal does. Like @Qexigator: and I said, it's better to have some image there than not. The Great Seal seems to be the best choice for such an image. Also, the UK doesn't have its seal in the infobox because its coat of arms is in the public domain. Canada's is not, thus necessitating the usage of an alternate image, in this case, the Great Seal, which is in the public domain. – Illegitimate Barrister, 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms is used as a symbol of the country and is found in passports, courtrooms, currency, federal buildings, and the old Canadian flag and it is recognizable. The U.S. Great Seal is used in a similar way. But the Canadian Great Seal only appears on legislation and orders in council which are rarely seen except by whoever is responsible for preserving them. TFD (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Recognizable or not, it is official, and that is why it is in the infobox. Again, I'd love for the Coat of Arms to be in the infobox, but it's copyrighted so we can't put it there. – Illegitimate Barrister, 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things are official, it does not mean we should put them in the info-box. It makes Canada look like Ruritania. TFD (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's either the Great Seal or this thing. Personally, I think the seal looks better. Commonwealth copyright law can be frustrating; if only they used a U.S.-style system with government works being public domain. – Illegitimate Barrister, 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its best not to have an unclear image people cant see in the lead. -- Moxy (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see it just fine. It might be a browser issue if the image is not showing up properly. – Illegitimate Barrister, 18:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

i just got an email..from an old editor here telling me that this image is also a coin...the 300$ coin? I not sure I like that -- Moxy (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon? I'm not sure I follow. – Illegitimate Barrister, 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

as seen here - this is simple not am image commonly associated with the country....not a good idea to have a lead image that needs explaining of what it is and what it represents. --Moxy (talk)

That's not the same thing. The coin has markings denoting that is a coin. The Great Seal does not. Besides, the flag has "Flag" written beneath it in the infobox. Does that mean it should be removed? – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree not the same thing...but its the fact its not a notable symbol of Canada its not an "Emblem of Canada" that people will recognize. I say a RfC on the matter. -- Moxy (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, recognizeability is not the criteria for inclusion, but rather the official status. The seal's official (and is public domain), so it should be included. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree about how we evaluate the criteria for inclusion...what should be asked is does this symbol merit representation in the lead...does it clearly represent Canada and its people in an international setting of an encyclopaedia. In my view it does not merit inclusion. just because its official. As per WP:LEADIMAGE ". The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." this image does not help our readers understand its the parent article on Canada....because its an un-recognizable second rate symbol.-- Moxy (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really relevant here, since the seal is not the lead image here. The flag is. The infobox has a parameter for a seal, so a seal has been added. A lot of countries seals are unrecognizable by many people, doesn't mean we shouldn't include them. That's what Wikipedia is for, to educate people in things that they may not know much about. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of courses its one of the lead images all can see that....but comparing an image of a blurry press plate over a real image is not the same thing at all. The image is not good quality and unlike the American seal not a normal symbol of Canada. As I say lets have a RfC see what others think.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a real image. That said, I won't object to an RfC. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I went to the official Google Mexico page and for their page of Canada it is a different symbol next to the flag it is this - http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Canadá#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada_rendition.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.154 (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We have had many talks about how that image is not a good addition for an encyclopaedia - because there is an official version. -- Moxy (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Great Seal of Canada as the second lead image

Because of fact we cant use the "Real" coat of arms because of copyright....and the home-made rendition of the arms has been constantly rejected during other RfC. People have been looking for an alternative. Most recently this image of the Great Seal of Canada has been proposed to be added to the article inlue of the coat of arms (currently in the article). The question being asked here is in 2 parts....First does the image merit inclusion in the lead (is it a image that represents Canada that it should be a lead image) and secondly is this specific image of good enough quality to be a lead image in an FA article (can people see what the image is all about).

• Questions that have been asked and there is no debate over

Yes other articles use the seal as a symbol in the lead - eg. United States

Yes the Great Seal of Canada is a "National Symbol" - source

RfC prepared by Moxy (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Recommend we have the Great Seal image shown here (in this Rfc), so commentators can have a visual of what we're discussing. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - As per WP:LEADIMAGE not a recognizable symbol that will help people understand this is the parent Canada article.....plus the image is not recognizable ...looks like a coin to me ..not some great national symbol. There is no need for 2 images just because there is space...its about merit for inclusion and quality of the image. --Moxy (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It's a national seal, according to the Canadian government. The country infobox has a parameter for a national seal. Therefore, it should be included. Simple as that. Moxy's opposition appears to be "I don't like it and think it's ugly", which is not sufficient grounds for dis-inclusion. Personally, I think the South African national seal is ugly, but that's not grounds for removing the seal from the South Africa article. There are no other suitable free images of coats of arms for the Canada infobox parameter since they are all copyrighted or are inaccurate, so the seal will have to suffice. The absence of a seal or arms in the infobox seems to imply that Canada does not have one, which is incorrect, and Wikipedia should not be encouraging erroneous inferences. Including the image will improve the article by providing the reader with more information, and thus, more knowledge, and by bringing the article in line with virtually every other country article on Wikipedia, which has both flags and seals in their infoboxes. Recognizeability is also irrelevant, since the images are chosen based upon their official status and not on popularity. If the coat of arms were public domain, then I would support including that instead, but since it is not, the great seal will have to do. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Moxy. Before now, I've never heard of it, and believe a very large majority of Canadians most likely never heard of it either. It is also a relatively unclear picture not because of quality, because the size of the image that is allowed in the infobox is too small to make out the words on the perimeter of the seal. It's not about being ugly or not; it does not help enhance the readers idea of the country plain and simple. Other examples of the U.S. etc. are not the same since they do not have a Coat of Arms like Canada does. Their Great Seal is basically our Coat of Arms. Canada's Coat of Arms is much more known than its Great Seal. If it was allowed to include the Coat of Arms in infobox, it would be easily included over the Great Seal. Even though there is a parameter for a Great Seal, it does not mean it should be included. If the Coat of Arms image was allowed, there would not be three images in the infobox. If it was not considered before it should not be considered now just because we need to fill a parameter up. Just because there is a blank space, does not mean we have to fill it with something virtually meaningless and trivial. It may actually run people the wrong way in fact, falsely leading them to believe the Great Seal is of larger importance than the Coat of Arms. Overall, no need to be included and should not be. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While I would like to see an image of royal authority in the infobox (to communicate Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy), the Great Seal is, as others have pointed out already, not a commonly used symbol of Canada. The St Edward's Crown would likely be more recognisable than the Great Seal. (That said, I am one of those who don't fully buy the argument only the "official" rendition of the coat of arms can be used.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as boring as it looks? it's the only Great Seal we've got. If we're lucky, the monarchy will be abolished sometime soon & we can put up something more symbolic of democracy :) GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support second thoughts below - This article and its infobox is for all the world, not merely for Canadians who may not have heard of their country's great seal, but can be expected to wish to be better informed, or at least not to actively discourage their fellow countrymen and anyone who takes enough interest in their country. The purpose of the article and its infobox is to communicate information, and the seal and its link do that neatly. It looks good next to Maple Leaf flag, as well as at the other places listed at Global file usage.[20] It names Elizabeth II as Canada's queen, in both French and English, seated in full regalia on the coronation throne, with an image of the Royal Arms of Canada. An excellent synthesis suited to the article content. And the link to the Great Seal of Canada article provides good supplemental information. Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Its in all the other language wikis because the person that added it here palced it all over all the wikis -as seen here -- Moxy (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Qexi. The whole "I never heard of it, so don't put it" is ridiculous. Should we not have an article on nuclear physics because everybody isn't a nuclear physicist? – Illegitimate Barrister, 07:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (second thoughts) Let us use here instead the shield as proposed by Illeg.[21] To my mind, the indisputably decisive point was mentioned by TFD: what appears on passports. In the modern world Passports (or some surrogate) are almost universally required for free movement beyond a given country's own borders or defined territories. While having a derivative use for identity purposes, they are not addressed to holders, but in the name of the holder's protecting sovereign state (realm or republic) to foreign powers and others who are in a position, de jure or de facto, to control free movement into or through other territory. Whatever badge the issuing country uses on its passports will be recognised by passport control agents throughout the world, and as such, in respect of every country where an image of its passport badge is available, such as Tuvalu, it could well be shown in its article, and normally in the infobox, templates permitting. By contrast, the Great Seal of a country such as Canada, if not used as a passport badge, is of importance for a country's internal affairs according to its public law, rather than to identify the country abroad. Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The shield is a backup plan in case the seal is voted down. Personally, I'd prefer the seal over the shield, since it looks more official. Either that, or the royal standard. We're running out of options here. Here is a mockup of some possible infoboxes. Take a look and tell me what y'all think. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Of those mock-ups:

• Two images, Shield version (B1) Yes, Great seal version (A1) No.
• Three images, Shield version with great seal (B2) Yes, Great seal version with royal standard (A2) No, Shield version with royal standard (B3) No, Royal standard version with great seal (C2) No.

Qexigator (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you guys have such a need to insert non important images and sounds in the infobox pls read over WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important content" adding ' secondary non recognizable images is not what we are looking for. -- Moxy (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to images? Why not just remove all images from the infobox then? – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC

I am oppose to useless images that are not even covered in the article because they are not important and to sounds files that are not correct (I actually am the one that got the small sound bar made for infoboxes).-- Moxy (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be better for the process to let the status quo be restored, per edit summary "undo: sufficiently discussed to show support lacking, mainly opposed. For Canada, the country, the flag suffices without images of royal arms or personal standard but retaining Arms of Canada link. Article would be improved with something about the seal[22] Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is not a symbol of Canada, but a stamp used by the governor general to approve laws and orders in council. It is also not recognizable inside or outside Canada. An example has been given of the U.S.crest, but it is used on passports, currency etc. and they use it instead of a national crest, which Canada does not. TFD (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely IS a symbol of Canada and government websites support the Canadian Government considering it so. Just because it is used in a different manner from the Royal Arms does not change that. Also you are mistaken about the United States, which does not have a "crest". The United States has a "coat of arms", and there are US government documents referring to it as such as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:LEADIMAGE. The seal is not a recognizable symbol in Canada and will help people understand the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Anything is better than nothing. This is a national symbol of Canada and therefore just as valid, and without any symbol it makes the article appear to infer Canada has no national symbol, like Turkey. The article for the Seal also links to that of the Royal Arms, allowing for readers to learn about both instead of neither. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Canadian National Flag is Canada's national symbol. The Queen's personal symbols such as the Royal Arms of Canada, the Queen's standard, and the seal, are all state symbols, not national ones. trackratte (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis of the image being aesthetically useless. Firstly, the colouring is too dark and shaded to make out many details without opening the image in a second window and that defeats the purpose of the image. Second, reasons of "we have white space! Fill it before it spreads!" are never sufficient grounds for inclusion. Third, I honestly can't tell how having the Old Bird sitting on her throne conveys "We're the Canadian article!" While it may be an official symbol of the Canadian land and government, no-one seems to know about it and hence should not be used in the lead. BTW, bot-summoned. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I realize that the article isn't just for Canadians, however if Canadians are not familiar with it, it most likely means it is because it has very, very little significance. If it has little significance to its people, it translates to little significance to the nation as a whole, which would not necessarily enhance the readers understanding of the country. It is merely a relic, not deserving of infobox content. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think our best guideline on the matter is WP:LEADIMAGE..talks about how the image should clearly represent the topic. Even those that think it should be here agree its not a symbol well known. Its also mentions how we should not have images in the lead that readers would not except to see....I see a picture of a coin...not some national symbol. If the photo was clear as in we could see the coat of arms it may be ok with me. Perhaps a computer generated image of the seal over this press plate would be ok...but this photo is not good quality to see what the image is. Just because we have it done not mean it should be used...we have great images of beavers (a better symbol) but we dont use them-- Moxy (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

^Very good points, totally agree. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Vase.: Your comment above looks to me like false logic, and a plea for perpetuating ignorance. You commented further above that the seal image would falsely lead people to believe the Great Seal is of larger importance than the Coat of Arms. How so? The image of the royal arms, handsomely appealing as it may be to the eye, has little more than decorative, or perhaps snobbish, significance, but the Great Seal is an essential part of the Canadian constitution, as can easily be learnt from the linked article. The symbolism of its components, including the Royal Arms of Canada, is more significant than an heraldic version of the traditional Arms of the United Kingdom's monarch, with maple leaves added and decked out with Latin mottos, unlike the seal, with its French and English. Besides, the maple leaf is well presented in the country's own red and white flag. Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To show how unimportant the seal is to Canadian editors (thus giving the image WP:UNDUE status for the lead) ... no one has though to mentioned it in this article nor our culture or identity articles. The great seal is used for documents in Canada. Its not used for recognition of the country or its people. Even heritage Canada has it listed under "Other National Emblems" and then listed last. I think the burden is on those that wish to add this non- detailed coin looking image in the lead to demonstrate its broad usage as a symbol of Canada..and the value of the image to our readers in its current state.-- Moxy (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Qex: Ignorance? Now you seem the one who is being ignorant to be quite frank... You are literally saying that the Coat of Arms is not more significant than the Great Seal just because it looks more aesthetically appealing. When did significance have to do with appearance? I couldn't care less if the Coat of Arms was the ugliest Coat on the planet. What I am saying is, is that it is less significant purely because its historical background is of less importance. Now you could argue that they might have equally important history's, however if that may be true (which I believe it isn't anyway), the most well known and therefore more so directly relates to the country should be shown. Since the Coat cannot be shown, there is no need to show a "sloppy second" emblem just because there needs to be a filler! It provides no use for the reader whatsoever. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Moxy: That is back-to-front reasoning. Wkipedia articles are not addressed exclusively to the nationals of the topic's country, and the usefulness of the content is not determined by the lack of prior knowledge of some editors, however satisfied they themselves may be about it. Perhaps that lack of knowledge is another good reason for letting it be remedied by displaying and linking the seal. Qexigator (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vase.: OK, let's not fall out about it, but in point of fact the Great Seal is of more present-day significance in the country's practical government (as said above) than the derivative royal arms, whichever of them is supposed to be better known to the Canadian in the street. The same would apply, of course, to UK and its citizens. Encyclopedias are usually produced not to confirm ignorance but to serve those with a need for information, and maybe even a thirst for enlarging their existing range of knowledge. But your main objection actually seems to be that the image of the seal is poor. Qexigator (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Qex: My main objection is not that the image isn't clear (which it isn't), it's that if it doesn't display the real Coat of Arms, it shouldn't display anything at all, meaning it shouldn't display a "sloppy second". I wasn't trying to portray ignorance by saying "I've never heard of it" so it must important. I was just trying to put it into perspective that the average Canadian doesn't know about it, nor care to be frank. I see your point where since they don't know about it, they can expand their horizons on the topic. I agree with that. But perhaps it should be talked about the Seal within the article itself. I still do not think it is of infobox image necessity as Moxy has constantly linked us to. Readers can read up more about a topic from within the article, it doesn't need to come from the infobox. The Seal, although may be important, is not of necessity, and therefore can be placed later in the article. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, something in the article could be an improvement. Meantime, I have added the Great Seal article to Index of Canada-related articles[[23]], but it comes soon after Great Lakes, and at first sight might be taken to be about an amphibious creature with a Canadian habitat. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "relic", since it is official and currently used by the government. Relic seems to imply that it is no longer used, which is inaccurate. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I honestly didn't expect any opposition over this. There must have been a previous dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We have talked about it before ...but i dont know where...that said only a few of us are left here from back then...so a new talk is good. Back then we did not have the policies we do now as pointed to here... though that would help more..but I guess not. -- Moxy (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay: If the true image of the Coat of Arms was not copyrighted, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That is why the Seal should not be included. It is an after thought since the primary choice is not allowed. Either the primary choice is included (which it can't be), so nothing at all. We don't need trivial fillers. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's a copyright violation? Why hasn't it been removed, by those who watch over such things? GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Arms and copyright were discussed at length in February 2015 at Talk:Monarchy of Canada[24] Qexigator (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone say the seal is not copyrighted? TFD (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like it was made in 1869, [25], so the copyright on it should (Edit: New ones are made for each monarch) It might be in public domain, since the Great Seal isn't mentioned in the Trademark Act that limits the use of the Coat of Arms ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The current seal was made in 1952. A new one is made for each monarch. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right that's my bad. However per the Treasury Board page on the use of Canadian symbols, general copyright law may apply in this case. That page says "The official symbols of the Government of Canada are protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization." [26], but the neither of the acts mention the Great Seal. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50 years, so any copyright that the seal may or may not have had would have expired in 2005 at the very latest. Trademark and copyright are two separate things. An image may be copyright-free but still have a trademark. The Wikimedia Foundation only cares about copyright, as set forth in the precedent set in 2008's FBI seal debacle, where the U.S. government tried to invoke trademark to have something removed but Wikimedia refused them, on the grounds that the subject was copyright-free. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister, Crown copyright normally automatically expires after 50 years, however not necessarily when it comes to works pertaining to the use of the Crown prerogative (such as honours and symbols). For example, "work produced by government departments, whether published or unpublished, may be protected either permanently or at the whim of the Crown". Subsequently, Crown copyright can be, in certain cases, "said to be perpetual...and not to lapse through non-use or non-assertion",[27] and that a "right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection".[28] I had put together a bunch of information in this area over on my page at Commons but never bothered to attempt the process of publishing it, due to the concept of prerogative Crown copyright causing too much negative emotion regarding the impact its recognition could potentially have on certain works such as the 1957 Arms of Canada. For example, the emailed response I received from the Government of Canada Crown Copyright office stated that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain" in response to my requests regarding the 1921 and 1957 renditions of the Arms. trackratte (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite strange, but this Rfc is a win-win scenerio for me. If the Great Seal is adopted? it satisfies my consistency concerns. But, if it's not adopted? then as a republican, I'm content. :) GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:LEADIMAGE is erroneous to invoke here, since the seal will not be the lead image for the article. The flag is. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox." Emphasis mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the flag is the lead image for the article, not the seal. The quoted part implies that infoboxes have only one image. Indeed, most do, but not the country one. I'd like to point to MOS:IMAGE, which clearly states, plain as day; "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." That is met, since the infobox parameter for a seal now has a seal. "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal..." (emphasis added) The MOS thus states that images are an important and beneficial part of an article and opposes the deletionist view of removing an image if it is appropriate, which in this case, it is. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont think anyone will agree with you that the images in the infobox are not in the lead WP:LEADELEMENTS. --Moxy (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The seal is official and is used by the government. In that respect, it is clearly a symbol of the Canadian state and warrants usage in the appropriate infobox parameter. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's quite the hair you've split there. Both images are lead images. If that's not the case, I'll just remove the seal because it's not the lead image and doesn't need to be there at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the Canada-centric remarks about lead /infobox images look overdone and misguided for Wikipedia as a world-wide reference work. Qexigator (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed more stuff jammed into the infobox as pre previous tlks on the matters. US Navy song out of tune has removed Talk:Canada/Archive 22#Add Audio For Oh Canada-- Moxy (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a symbol of Canada?

The Four Deuces claims in their 1vote that this is not a "symbol" of Canada. I feel the need to clarify for all to see, so nobody glances over and misses my response, that the Great Seal of Canada is very much an official symbol of the country. The Seal the ultimate symbol of sovereign and national power to officiate laws and documents. The Canadian Government also refers to it as a national symbol on their website. TFD's opinion appears to be based on the view that because the seal is not used all over government websites, passports, and the such, and that the Royal Arms does and therefore has much more presence in the national public identity, that makes the Royal Arms a national symbol and the Seal not. There are many US states that have both a seal and a coat of arms, Puerto Rico has both, several African countries have both, the United Kingdom has both. How are we to say one is a national symbol and the other is "just a stamp" because one is more prominent? TFD's observation is inappropriate and inaccurate, and basing !votes on that belief are similarly inaccurate. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and the link to the Canadian Government's website. May I add, in case there has been any misunderstanding on the part of any commenter, that the UK Great Seal of the Realm is also said "to symbolise the Sovereign's approval of important state documents".There is no reference to an external source., but some images are given.[29] [30] [31] Seals such as those were used to authenticate a document, in the same way as corporate bodies or individuals may affix a seal, and sealing may for some purposes be required by the local law to validate a document. I daresay TFD would not doubt that the Great Seal of a realm such as Canada, when lawfully affixed to a document, may be understood to symbolise the sovereign authority of the realm. But whether the proposed image, or any better version of it, is suited to the infobox is another question. Qexigator (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's an official symbol of the Canadian state (as Fry so eloquently put it), so of course it warrants inclusion. That's the whole point of why the seal parameter is in the country infobox, for official seals precisely like this! Anyway, MOS:IMAGE states that it it is better to have an image than naught; any image is better than nothing. An encyclopedia without content is naught one at all. I mean, if the seal doesn't belong in the infobox's bloody seal parameter, then by Jove, what does? By that line of reasoning, we should remove the map image that is in the infobox as well. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no " seal" parameter -- Moxy (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is: "|image_coat =" and "|alt_coat =". – Illegitimate Barrister, 10:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The map image gives an enormous insight to the country; its size, its area of provinces; its geography, the list goes on and on. The big difference between the map and this Seal, is that the map is of much larger importance than a trivial Seal. If you turn and say that the Seal has equal or greater importance than the map, you'd be delusional to be frank. And any image is better than nothing? I'd rather have a symbol of Canada that signifies aspects of the country, such as the Beaver as Moxy pointed out, in the infobox than this Seal! At least the Beaver would give insight about the country's wildlife and bio-geography. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no beaver parameter in the infobox, so none goes in it. Don't be daft. And are we still insisting that the Great Seal is not real? Even after Fry pointed out that it was? Oh, dear! – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Never said it wasn't real... But its not a real important symbol of Canada that needs to go into the infobox. There are tons of other symbols, better ones at that, that can go in place of it. Just think though: As I've said in the past, would we be having conversation if the correct version of the Coat were allowed? No! We wouldn't have considered it then, and we shouldn't consider it now. This is just a filler and a back-up second image. And by Fry saying it can lead people to believe Canada doesn't have a symbol like Turkey is irrelevant since info on the Coat can be found in the article. The same could be said by putting the Seal in the infobox then, misleading people to think Canada doesn't have a Coat of Arms. And just because it is an official icon of Canada, doesn't mean we shove other hundreds of official "things" into the infobox! Once again, just because there is a parameter, doesn't mean it MUST be used. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's talking hundreds, please don't use hyperbole. It's just one image and one image only. If images are not necessary or desirable (MOS to the contrary), should we remove the flag then? – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't say it right. I meant that there are hundreds of other official images that can take the place over this particular one. What gives priority? The flag, which is in every single country article and is a given. Both images, the flag and the map give insight to countries, so must stay. This particular seal, does not, so it must be left out. What you're saying about "oh, if this image isn't allowed then we should not include the flag then by that logic" is rather irrelevant because no one is implying that. Those images are of utmost importance. Totally different than a trivial seal. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Illeg.: All other points aside, given that the Great Seal of Canada when actually affixed to a document is a (far from trivial) symbol of the monarch's sovereignty in that country, it does not follow that an image of the Great Seal is seen by the world at large as a symbol of the country. By contrast, the Maple Leaf flag is flown not only in public throughout Canada, officially and privately, it is also flown, like other national flags, outside the country in places such as the UN headquarters, and at international events, and therefore is more widely known than even the royal arms used as a badge on the passports issued to Canadians by their government. As before said, let the flag suffice as the symbol for the infobox for this article. Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's popular or not. What matters is its official status. It is official, therefore it should be in the infobox. That's what the parameter is for, for an official symbol. Something is official because it is adopted and codified by law as such, not because it is popular or unpopular. Let's say, tomorrow everybody in Canada woke up and suddenly despised the flag. Unless they repeal it by law, it's still the flag of the country, regardless of whether or not people like it or not. Feelings are irrelevant, facts are what matters. As Fry said, having no emblem in the infobox gives the appearance that Canada does not have one, which is demonstrably false. Adding the seal adds information and knowledge to the article by demonstrating to people that Canada has one and what it looks like. Leaving it blank adds no benefit since it tells people nothing at best, and misleads them at worst. Wikipedia is about educating people with the truth; knowledge is power. – Illegitimate Barrister, 10:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Illeg.: The infobox is not blank, it shows the flag, which, for thiis article, is the best suited of a possible range of national symbols[32](as at 10:45, 12 December). On a point of information, popular (which it probably is) or not, "The Queen of Canada, proclaimed the new flag on January 28, 1965, and it was inaugurated on February 15 of the same year at an official ceremony held on Parliament Hill in Ottawa." As can be seen, the image of the proclamation faintly shows the Great Seal affixed.[33] Qexigator (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the affixation of the seal to the proclamation just goes to prove that the seal is official and should be included in the infobox for that reason. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's official or not, what matters is that it is an understood symbol of the country. That's what the infobox is, a summary of important facts about the subject. Feel free to bury it in the article somewhere, but beavers are a more widely recognized symbol of Canada than this object. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious, when some users are saying it is not a "really important" symbol of the country, under what logic are they making that statement. Because the only one I can seem to deduce is by measurement of public recognition. The seal is just as important as the Royal Arms, no document or law or treaty can be officiated without it and it therefore symbolises the ultimate power and approval of the Canadian nation. Yes, the Royal Arms is vastly more identifiable, but I don't see how that changes the level of importance. Now look, if you guys don't want it on the infobox that is fine, but base it on real arguments instead of trying to toss this thing as far down the list of imaginary importance as you can. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious why you don't understand "not recognizable". It makes not one iota of difference to 99.9% of Canadians and fewer would recognize the symbol if you placed it in a gallery of images to identify. So instead of making claims that it is actually an important symbol of the nation, understand that it's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Try reading what I said again and you might see that I understand "not recognizable" perfectly FINE! I've actually said so myself several times. What I am saying that it that recognizability no bearing on the importance of the symbol. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying that it shouldn't be in the infobox because some people don't know about it is quite peculiar, since Wikipedia's is an encyclopedia, designed to educate people in things they might not know. Oh, and the seal image has been updated. A higher-resolution with better definition has superseded it; that should address any concerns about people being unable to see it well, although, the way PNG files are scaled, they usually appear darker than scaled JPEGs. – Illegitimate Barrister, 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The purpose of an infobox is to make the facts of the subject clear at-a-glance. There's no discussion of the seal in the article and as such, it fails there. If we want to educate people on the seal, that's where to do it, not the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps we should go over to the Infobox Country template's talk page and the talk pages of every country article and tell them to remove the parameters for the seals. After all, there's no use for it. On that matter, why is the flag in the infobox? This article is about the country, not the flag. – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not up for that. It's up to you to raise that issue. In some countries, such as the US, the seal is a recognizable symbol. I'm sure they'll tell you that. I agree that this article is about a country, but I didn't suggest it was about a flag. You certainly are an illegitimate barrister. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

I.B., the National Flag of Canada, as our national symbol, symbolizes the Canadian nation. Other symbols, such as the Arms, Royal Standard, and the Seal, are personal to the monarchy and are therefore state symbols and not national ones. I think a national symbols is more appropriate here as the lead symbol in the infobox rather than a state symbol. trackratte (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be semantics to me; the flag is both a symbol of the nation and the state, otherwise it wouldn't be used by the government and armed forces. Besides, being symbols of the queen, that warrants their inclusion even more, since Canada is a monarchy and thus, the monarchy is the highest supreme authority in Canada. – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semantics ("the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning") seems to be central to this discussion about meaning, as after all we're discussing symbols here. The national flag does not symbolise the Canadian state as it is not personal to the Queen of Canada (and in constitutional terms, the sovereign is the state). The national flag as a symbol represents the Canadian people and not the sovereign. I'm not disputing the fact that the crown is the highest authority in Canada. And the armed forces use the Canadian Armed Forces badge (swords, anchor, eagle, surmounted by a Crown) to symbolise the armed forces, not the flag. The flag is on all of the uniforms as an operational identifier (CAF members are Canadians), in the same way as personal, unit, element, rank, qualification, and formation identifiers are worn. The government when acting in a state capacity uses the Royal arms of Canada (courts, parliamentary officers, the PM, etc) or the badge of the House of Commons (mace surmounted by crown), the Senate (mace surmounted by crown) or of Parliament (both maces surmounted by crown). Whenever state symbols are used, there is a crown. The government of Canada uses the national symbol as part of its corporate identity program only (such as the Canada wordmark).

The real question here is, is this article more closely aligned with speaking about Canada in terms of geography and its people? Or more about the institution of the Canadian state. I would say that the monarchy of Canada article is more focused on state, whereas this article is more focused on national. I'm not sure how two symbols would look in the infobox, but my first impression is that it would be a bit cluttered with the globe image as well. trackratte (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

... how two symbols would look... How it looked with the "rendition" version at 03:42, 2 November 2015.[34] Have you any external source to support the distinction you are proposing between a state symbol and a national symbol in this context? It is not too difficult to argue the contrary. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that looks terrible unfortunately. The flag looks much better on its own. I was thinking if it were to be done, having the larger flag above with something like the Great Seal below and slightly smaller. The Arms rendition is problematic, should be placed above the national flag in precedence, and could then cause confusion as Canada is most closely associated with the flag both internationally and nationally. In line with the same logic behind WP for titles, I think it would make more sense to have the Canadian flag as the article identifier.

The National Flag of Canada government page says that it is a national flag and that it "represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion", so is quite clearly a direct symbol of the Canadian nation. The Royal flags page states that the Queen's flag is "the flag of the Head of State", that the "Great Seal of Canada is used on all state document", and that the "Royal Arms of Canada are the arms of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada". Ie. the National Flag of Canada represents "all the citizens of Canada" (by definition the Canadian nation), whereas state symbols such as the Arms, Queen's standard, and Seal, are symbols of the state (sovereign) directly. trackratte (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can't remember where I read this, I want to say something by Christopher McCreery, but it was something to the effect that the Canadian Flag is a symbol, of a symbol, of a symbol. In that the Queen symbolises Canada, the Arms symbolize the Queen, and the flag symbolises the national aspects of the Arms. Not really too relevant, I just found it interesting when I first read it. trackratte (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The question heading this section is "Is this (Great Seal) a symbol of Canada?" Many words or pages can be used in attempting to explain the varying uses of related concepts such as national and state symbols, but, for this article, given the display of the images at the linked article, Great_Seal_of_Canada#History, and given that (as before said) the Maple Leaf flag is flown throughout Canada, and also, like other national flags, outside the country in places such as the UN headquarters and at international events, it is more widely known than the royal arms which are used as a badge on the passports issued to Canadians by their government, perhaps enough has now been said on this page to leave the infobox as in the present version, with the flag on its own. Qexigator (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

In other Wikis

I see that the image we are taking about has now been place in the other language wikis (replacing the fake arms). After this out come we will deal with that problem i guess. -- Moxy (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you now contending that the royal arms are "fake"? Are the arms more fake than, say, the flag or the Great Seal? Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

i should say "rendition" version of the arms not fake has been replaced with the seal. --Moxy (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I noticed Illegitimate has placed it in the Portuguese Wiki for example... There is less regulation there so it will probably slip through. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We have talked about removing the rendition version all over...but a few other wikis thought the rendition is better then noting....filling the space was more important then accuracy I guess. I am talking about restoring what seems to be consensus in the other wikis...the rendition version i personally dont care for. -- Moxy (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two coats of arms. The official and copyrighted image and one created by hobbyists. The former cannot be used. The latter should not be used (and its creator offered a scholarship to an art school to learn how to do create better images). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that the user-made rendition should not be used either, hence why I added the Great Seal to the English Wikipedia and others as well to replace it. – Illegitimate Barrister, 05:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But are you sure this document stamp that can barely be seen represents Canada and its people and should be a lead image after this ongoing talk? We are not here to elevate symbols above and beyond there normal usage. - - Moxy (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not the lead image, the flag is. "Above and beyond there [sic] normal usage" makes no sense, since Wikipedia is not owned by the Canadian government. – Illegitimate Barrister, 06:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADORDER is clear - as for the government comment - we are here to regurgitate what is documented in the wider world ..not to misrepresent the significances of content including symbols. And... Still have the secondary problem of the image not being detailed enough to be recognizable. -- Moxy (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have started to remove this all over as per this talk...clear its a state symbol...not a national one. -- Moxy (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

I have always found it odd that the copyright of the arms is such a problem here but not in the USA article...they have the same copyright as us Use of U.S. State Department Seal, the U.S. Great Seal, and Other Official Insignia...What allows them to use it over us? -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good question. Even the summary for the image of the US great seal at Commons acknowledges restrictions: "Public domain from a copyright standpoint, but other restrictions apply. 18 U.S.C. § 713 states that nobody can knowingly display any printed or other likeness of the Great Seal of the United States, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play... [Blah, blah, etc]." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The USC article is a trademark restriction, not copyright. There is no copyright for the U.S. emblem, so it is permitted on Wikimedia Commons. Likewise, the copyright for the Great Seal of Canada, which did have one at one point, is now expired. The copyright for the 1994 Coat of Arms is still in effect, hence why we are having this discussion. – Illegitimate Barrister, 10:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was led to believe--via disputes over the retention of images--any picture used on Wikipedia had to have absolutely no restrictions on its use. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear here the law say "You cannot use U.S. government trademarks or the logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. For example, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page." ....and this is ok here? 18 U.S. Code § 713 -- Moxy (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The USC article forbids the usage of U.S. government trademarks and logos if it is construed "to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department". Wikimedia uses the U.S. government logos for educational purposes. Having them on the Commons does not violate USC in that respect, since we are not making any pretense of sponsorship with the U.S. government. The statute is intended to forbid people making false and forged documents using U.S. government logos for purposes of fraud, sabotage, espionage, and such. A similar incident happened in 2008, where the FBI asked Wikimedia to remove their seal, and Wikimedia declined, and rightfully so, since the usage of the seal on the Commons and elsewhere is for educational purposes, not deceptional fraud. In that respect, having U.S. government logos on Wikimedia Commons does not violate the U.S. Code, since basically, the statute forbids people from using the logos in the commission of illegal activities. – Illegitimate Barrister, 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

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 12 January 2016

Hi there,

In the section 2.4 Early 20th Century portion of the Canada page a sentence of the second paragraph makes little to no sense. The sentence text reads: "On the advice of Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, King George VI declared war on Germany during World War II, seven days after Britain." Maybe the sentence could be changed to something less confusing, and more accurate, such as: "King George VI declared war on Germany during World War II and seven days later, on the advice of Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada also declared war on Germany." Something like that seems to make way more sense to me both grammatically and historically. Thanks! 96.54.68.168 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now:Your wording makes it sound like Britain is the main subject of the sentence. After starting to make the edit and reading it over a few times, it didn't sound quite right. Keeping this open for other editors to see though, but consider re-wording it. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it with this edit: On the advice of Liberal Prime Minister [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], King [[George VI]] [[Declaration of war by Canada#Nazi Germany|declared that Canada was at war with Germany]] , seven days after Britain in September 1939. The delay underscored Canada's independence, Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit reverted

Why did you revert my edit on Canada's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisQx (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The revert you're talking about is this one where I wrote "WP:OVERLINK violation. Sorry if other content is removed." So I reference a guideline that indicates we should not link common geographic features. That is why I removed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Canada's coat of arms should be added to the right of the image of the Canadian flag, in order to be consistent with other country pages.

2602:30A:C029:13F0:C5E1:D252:2866:7A3D (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done And it will not be done. There are two possible versions that could be used. One version, the correct one, is copyrighted and cannot be used in this article. The other version is one generated based on rules of heraldry and looks incorrect and most regular editors have formed a consensus to exclude it as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong linking to the ranking of nominal per capita income

In the 4th paragraph of the intro, it says "the tenth highest nominal per capita income," where it should be linking to List_of_countries_by_average_wage instead. Also I think maybe stating the number without naming the source is a little inappropriate, as the ranking varies by standards. Qi Ge (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

George VI's 1939 declaration of war.

I'm not looking for a spat here, just clarificaton. Did George VI declare war on behalf of Canada, as King of Canada or as King of the United Kingdom and Canada? If the latter (per argument that he was King of Canada soley because he was King of the United Kingdom), then perhaps we needn't use the King of Canada or Canadian monarch descriptive. Maybe we need no descriptive for George VI, since it's the Canadian declaration of war & this article is about Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We should fix this no "Canadian crown" till 1953 source. -- Moxy (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It just says that Elizabeth II was the "first monarch to be separately proclaimed Sovereign of Canada" which reaffirmed her role "as Queen of Canada, a role independent of that as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." The source isn't wrong, it just doesn't delve into any 20th century details except for "reaffirming" the role of the current monarch herself. trackratte (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If we use British monarch or King of the United Kingdom? there'll likely be alot of disgruntlement. I recommend we avoid using any descriptive & just go with George VI. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me ...if people want to know more they can just click on his name. -- Moxy (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to simply King George VI & re-worded the sentence, so that his title of King doesn't clash with the prime minister's surname. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. trackratte (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Portuguese explorerJoão Vaz Corte-Real's 1473 expedition was a joint venture between the kings of Portugal and Denmark. Corte-Real accompanied the German sailors Didrik Pining and Hans Pothorst, as well as (the possibly mythical) John Scolvus. He was the first European to claim the land of Canada.

Carlosmoreira69 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there is a possibility that he could have found North America, but no evidence that it was Canada or that it even happened. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Maps of Canada=

Most of the maps showing Canada are skewed. The prairie provinces should be a straight line across, yet appear to be a curve. Also it makes Ontario seem further south than it really is, and British Columbia further north than it really is. It would at least be better if the curve was centered on the middle of the map (the middle of the country), but instead someone seems to have picked Southern Ontario as "point south" (which is clearly not the middle of the country). It would be better if (all of) the maps used a Miller cylindrical projection, showing lines of latitude as straight horizontal lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.231.223 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

maple syrup

The maple syrup is a famous syrup made by the canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.22.16 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What Happened to the Coat of Arms?

In almost every language other than English the article has the coat of arms next to the Flag at the topic of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:50D:1FFA:C5BA:9FFD:A04E (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There is apparently no free and accurate image for us to use there. The only free one is not accurate, and the only accurate one is not free. If I were a competent graphical designer I'd change that, but alas... Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Self Reported Ethnicity Pie Chart

The ethnicity section is deeply flawed. Data is derived from both 2006 and 2011 reference. The "self-reported" ethnic categories and % used in this pie chart are NOT what are found in the cited reference. As recorded in the reference itself the categories and percentages derived are as follows: Aboriginal (5.5%), Other North American (33.7%), European (61.3%), Caribbean (1.9%), Latin American (1.7%), African (2.3%), Asian (15.2%) and Oceana (0.2%). 26% of surveyed individuals did not respond to the question. The absolute numbers and cumulative percents are greater then the population size and greater than 100%, because the self-reporting mechanism allows for the reporting of more than one ethnic identity. The section needs to be updated and the pie chart should be removed as it is not a viable reporting tool for this type of data. Baring objections I will remove the pie chart, and endeavour to update the section. Robert Brukner (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I object here just because the info above does not match anything I can find ..for example Aboriginals at 5.5%?....The source linked from the ref here says: Aboriginal people accounted for 4.3% of the total population of Canada enumerated in the 2011 NHS, up from 3.8% in 2006....this is what we say. Lets look at this closer starting here...then using this data....Will work on some numbers....just odd we would be wrong on this all over for years. -- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Water Area of Canada

Data for water area in the table is for Internal fresh water only. If we must include the water area of Canada, then lets include all the water area of Canada. The Internal Water area is 2,500,000 km2 (fresh and salt) and the Territorial Sea area is 200,000 km2, for a total of approximately 2,700,000 km2 Any objections to making this change? Robert Brukner (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What's done with other countries' articles? From my quick lazy survey, I couldn't tell. The documentation for the infobox template doesn't give any description of what that field should contain. Willondon (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a mix of data used for this field. Largely, this matter is related to recent "expansions" of US territory by including Inland salt water and territorial ocean waters in their figures. Other countries don't do this, and restrict themselves to land area plus land under freshwater as their total area. Comparisons across Wikipedia of land area for countries is turning into a fruit salad of apples and oranges data and long explanatory notes, as you can see here Robert Brukner (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Oldest Aboriginal Presence

Bluefish cave has dates that extend to 40,000 BP. Unless someone is going to argue that the Yukon Palaeontology Program, Parks Canada, the Canadian Journal of Archaeology, The Canadian Encyclopedia, and a dozen archaeologists and paleobiologists such as Jacques Cine-Mars, Harrington, Burke and Morlanvariously from Quebec Archaeology, the Archaeological Survey of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, are "not-mainstream", and can provide a serious explanation of why such prestigious Canadian institutions, journals and archaeologists are considered illegitimate sources, then this needs to go in the article. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps best to read over Settlement of the Americas first...pls propose any changes of this nature. Your quoting very old info-- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

7 years is not old. There has been very little recent study of this assemblage -but what has been done continues to validate the data. New C14 dates are pending. Do you dispute the citations and sources? If not, I think a change is in order. I will awaits further input from more users I think.Thanks for the input! cheers Robert Brukner (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have a problem with 40,000 not even Jacques Cine-Mars old stuff that your linking to above says beyond 25,000.....pls dont add the fringe stuff or the ongoing debate here....its all coved at the settlement article (that gives dates for bluefish caves- did you see?). The sources here cover the date range and debate ...unlike most of the source you have provided. One source you link to at the Canadian Encyclopedia has some good info ..The archaeological site of the earliest accepted occupation by man is BLUEFISH CAVES in north Yukon. Here, in 3 small caves overlooking a wide basin, a few chipped stone artifacts have been found in layers of sediment containing the bones of extinct FOSSIL ANIMALS, which radiocarbon dating indicates have an age of at least 10 000 to 13 000, and possibly 15 000 to 18 000 years ago....but best to cite new scholarly publications. -- Moxy (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Burgeon article doesn't mention 40,000 years or support 25,000 years.[35] I'm not at all bothered by the possibility of much older dates, but it's common for new research to make old research obsolete, which is why we need to be careful to use only up to date sources. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal opinion ("I have a problem with ..") really cant help us determine the validity of a secondary source. The Bourgeon article mentioned is a comprehensive zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis that resolves the issue of whether or not elements of the assemblage include cultural activities. The finding is positive. The article does not deal with dating, but does contextualize the findings within the age range of up to 25,000 14C yr BP. She rebuts the critique that the assemblage has no cultural attributes. New dates are pending. Anyway, these arguments kick the ball down the field, and are not pertinent to the question of sources. The dating and their contexts, do not alter with age. Tertiary, synthetic and encyclopaedic publications do not obviate the original findings published in reliable secondary sources. There is no current data on dates, pulled from the same contexts as Bluefish, and published in secondary sources, that undermine the earlier findings. To summarize, there are a host of reliable, accessible and verifiable secondary sources that support pre-Clovis assemblages, up to 25,000 and in some rare instances beyond. Are these sources challenged for reliability? If not, and as these are broadly recognized and accepted by numerous reputable Canadian institutions, then they should be included in this article. Cheers! and thanks for all the inputs. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a variety of ways to tackle contradicting sources that are genuinely all the same level of quality and reliability, ie contradictory academic journal articles by leading experts in the field from the same time period. For example, 'although the date range have generally been established at X,(bunch of refs) some scholars have established it at Y.(refs to support Y)' , or 'The date range is x,(refs) although some of the more recent research points to Y.(newest academic refs to support Y)' , etc. Establishing which leading experts in the field published in reputable academically refereed journals should be listened to over others is beyond the role of Wikipedia editors, whose role instead is to record fact. However, leading experts published in academically refereed journals will generally supercede other academic or official sources, unless their is some very obvious reason not to do so in some specialised case (for example what an individual feels, or an organization's official stance would trump any other sources on those two specific areas obviously). trackratte (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to see no more mention of 40,000...down to 25,000 ...25,000 to 12,000 years ago is a range that most talk about. But i see no need here to mention the "allegedly human-worked mammoth bone"...as many researchers doubt that they are human worked bones to begin with. In this overview article we should just mention the agreed upon facts and let the debate happen in the main articles on the topic.

This is not earth shattering content. The proposed content pertains simply to the published research that one area of far northern North America (Beringia) had human activity at up to 25,000YBP (with 40,000 as a statistically anomalous outlier), even while the continent proper was cut off by glaciation and unsettled. No one is suggesting that the dates in question pertain to the settlement of the entire continent nor in any way undermine other archaeology. Again, the point isn't that anyone, or "most people", are comfortable with or like the content of this topic. Secondary sources for scientifically established dates assigned to this assemblage containing human cultural activity are published. Recent study (Bourgeon 2016) of the same assemblage, confirms human cultural activity. A redo of the dating of the assemblage is pending, but unpublished (as far as I can tell). At this moment in time the only question is, are the sources for these dates reliable? Does anyone claim that publications of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, the Canadian Journal of Archaeology, and the Museum of Civilization are not credible. Is this challenged? Are there more recent published reliable secondary sources for dates on this assemblage? Future re-dating may change the picture. But who can predict the future? Robert Brukner (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:@Trackratte: I've made a "bold" edit, though it doesn't really feel that way. It is taken verbatim from United States#History. I believe it is non-controversial and hope it is acceptable to you both. Cheers Robert Brukner (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

looks ok to me...no outrages claims or terms like C-14 that most wont care about. I did fix the sources with ones that explain the debate. Those refs come from the USA article right...will fix those as-well later....that USA article needs some real sourcing work...can believe how much is sourced to media over scholarly publications through the whole article. As for the sources your talking about ....most sourced to Cine-Mars 1979 info...in one case a translation from 1990. But all good now. --Moxy (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:@Trackratte:Brilliant. I agree that shifting citations to scholarly references is the way to go. One step at a time. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/hydrology/watershed1/1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101125122354/http://www2.parl.gc.ca:80/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm to http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522071714/http://www.parl.gc.ca:80/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-37-e.htm to http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-37-e.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102063140/http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1363632655992/1363632732678 to http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1363632655992/1363632732678
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090129084708/http://www.pch.gc.ca:80/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-fra.cfm to http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-fra.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Fernando kaadou2002 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Which flag should be used

When a Pantone colour-correct version of the national flag was added on April 17 to replace the earlier version I thought it was a good thing. No one reverted until yesterday, May 28, because we apparently need to discuss these things. I simply assumed that the silent consensus was enough. I will restore unless there is an objection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Use the Pantone. It's what the Canadian government recommends. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I've went through the infoboxes of all the other Commonwealth realm articles & have noticed that Canada is the only realm not to have a coat of arms in its infobox, along side its flag. I recommend we add the coat of arms. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this has been answered a lot... There is no free image of the coat which does not permit us to use it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The most recent extended discussion on this topic is Talk:Canada/Archive 23#Coat of Arms 3; on that page, you can see numerous discussions on this topic. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well. PS - personally I support leaving the coat of arms out, but removing the 'coat of arms' from the 15 other Commonwealth realms? would likely be impossible. This is one area where consistency will need to take a back seat. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just Commonwealth realms. Canada is the only state in List of sovereign states that doesn't have a coat of arms or an equivalent symbol in the infobox.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's sad that the Canadian government has copyrighted the official image and the one created based on the rules of heraldry looks so bad that the editors won't allow it to be used. If only other wikipedia articles had editors who cared as much about quality as this article does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with this one? Looks fine to me. — Jon C.^ॐ 08:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a child has created it. There's a discussion about the Canadian flag below related to the colour used. Imagine if we had this image on Wikipeida and the other was copyrighted. No one would find it acceptable. That's what many of us feel about the rendition version of the coat. It looks wrong although it is accurate based on the rules of heraldry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms is copyrighted, yes. But the Great Seal is in the public domain. Use that. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And the seal was soundly rejected the last time you tried to insert it as it's unknown to all but a handful of Canadians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In case you forgot the previous consensus:

The consensus was that the seal of Canada should not be included in the infobox. The consensus was expressed both by numerical indicators of discussion participants and the strength of points registered. As expressed in the discussion, the seal is a device for sealing paper documents (ergo the name), and is not a logo, heraldic achievement, or other general identification symbol. The fact it has come to be used, incorrectly, as a general identification device in some other nations is irrelevant. The counter arguments that "it's better than nothing" and "it's an official symbol of Canada" are too weak to overcome the strength of the arguments for omitting.

For future clarification, this consensus determination neither prohibits nor encourages use of the Arms of Canada in the infobox, and is rendered only on the matter of the seal, which was the functional subject of this RfC.

Also for clarification, the term "seal" in this closure is used to mean "depiction of the seal" since the seal itself is a physical object, though the participants in the discussion seemed to have used this terminology fast and loose.

See Talk:Canada/Archive 24#Great seal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's no better to add File:Royal Standard of Canada.svg to the infobox either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And we cannot link to the copyrighted coat of arms. Turns out that the Royal Standard was copyrighted and can't be used here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

1.) Why not? Says who?

2.) Royal standard ain't copyrighted. It's from 1961 and copyrighted expired in 2011. If it were copyrighted, it wouldn't be on the Wikimedia Commons. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FUR says so. Both images clearly list the Canadian Government copyrights on the images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Standard is in Public Domain, but the image is not commonly accepted, which was my first argument. Coat is still copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the shield part of the arms is public domain, since it's from 1957. Otherwise it wouldn't be on the Wikimedia Commons. Copyright for the shield part of the arms expired in 2007. As for the standard, apology accepted. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The "shield" on its own is not an official symbol without the arms...thus has no place here. No source for it being a symbol on its own since 1921. The Dominion Shield -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And there's also the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is now clear that it should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Official name

The page does not clearly state which official name should be used for Canada. E.g. Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia, as the En.Wiki page immediately states, while for United Kingdom the Kingdom word is already in. I understood that, while very rarely used, under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title. Also the En.Wiki page seems to support this position, here: the state is known world-wide as Canada and in almost all official acts it is named Canada only as well, but the official full name would remain Dominion of Canada. Could you please confirm whether this is true or not? And if it is true, would you agree to modify the first sentence of the page as follows:

Canada, officially also the Dominion of Canada, is a country in the northern half of North America.

Filippo83 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First section says...."Upon Confederation in 1867, Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country, and the word Dominion was conferred as the country's title.[13] The transition away from the use of Dominion was formally reflected in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which refers only to Canada."--Moxy (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Canada has not been officially known the Dominion of Canada for decades. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy and Walter Görlitz. As well, the Canadian Encyclopedia is wrong - the Constitution Act, 1982 does not use the term "Dominion". Both it and the Canada Act 1982 just use "Canada": Constitution Acts, 1867-1982; Canada Act 1982. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all, but I think the question is slightly different. Official full (long-form) name is often different from common name, even as used in official documents: e.g. Italy is usually cited simply as Italy (Italia) even in the Constitution of Italy; but the official full name would be Italian Republic (Repubblica italiana), as it previously was Kingdom of Italy (Regno d'Italia). I do not know if you get what I mean. Also, from the En.Wiki page about the name of Canada, which I linked also above, I can read:

While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country.

In recent years, the terms Dominion of Canada and Dominion are occasionally used to distinguish modern (post-1867) Canada from either the earlier Province of Canada or from the even earlier The Canadas. The terms are also used to distinguish the federal government from the provinces, though in this usage "federal" has replaced "dominion". The federal government continues to produce publications and educational materials that specify the currency of these official titles, although these publications are not themselves legal or official documents.

Sources are in the page. I also came into this page, which, with a bit of paradox, states that Canada is the only Canada's name today, but that constitutionally Canada is still a dominion. I mean, it is not a big issue by itself, for sure I am not touched in any way by it. Just I would like to clarify if Dominion of Canada is still considered an official - even if not used - name of Canada. Anyway Canada should be something else than simply Canada: but I never read about anything like Kingdom of Canada or Realm of Canada or Union of Canada or else; it would be the only state in the world without any official title. I would just like to point out that the form Dominion of Canada I used is regardless of the ties with UK, but a mere name: not meaning what it meant before 1982 (1931).

Filippo83 (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction in "Foreign relations" and military section

The caption that reads, "Soldiers from the Canadian Grenadier Guards in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan, pictured, fought with Dutch soldiers against Afghan insurgents." is an incorrect statement because many of of the insurgents in Afghanistan are not Afghan nationals. We can correct by changing "against Afghan insurgents" to "against insurgents". Can someone please edit accordingly to correct this? --AfghansForHumanity (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

This page should show to Royal Coat of Arms even though it is unofficial similar to how the unofficial state emblem of France is used on its respective page.

99.224.153.192 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Established consensus has already said no. If you're really masochistic enough to actually want to shoot for a new consensus in favour, then I can't stop you from trying — but you'd need to follow the proper processes for initiating a discussion about that, and formatting it as an edit request isn't the way to get there. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

'Establishment' vs 'Independence'

Can anyone explain why the article says Canada was 'established' from the United Kingdom? The similar processes undertaken in Australia and New Zealand are referred to as 'independence'. NorthernFactoid (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Independence from the British Empire was a slow process. That's the main reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific or single "independence day" for Canada, nor a specific date where Canada was "created". Instead, Canada gained increasing autonomy through various changes over a long period extending well over 100 years, and culminating with the Constitution Act of 1982. trackratte (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

None of these explanations explain why 'similar processes' (key words: similar processes) are referred to as 'independence' in the Australia and New Zealand articles. Australia and New Zealand also gained increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom over a long period of time. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this article is factually curate based on multiple histories of the country and I cannot speak to the other articles, you should telling the editors of those other articles to aggregate their fecal matter and have them reflect on the error of their ways. If you suggest that we have somehow erred, we would entertain references to support your opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the onus should be on you to provide sources that support current wording. I would also ask whether contemporary Canada is an independent country. The answer is an emphatic yes. NorthernFactoid (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Tag the wording and we'll provide references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The real (pedantic) question being asked here isn't what the date of Canadian succession from the British Empire was (a long process, as was mentioned above), but rather why some of the articles about countries like New Zealand list dates of increasing "Independence", while the Canada article lists dates of increasing "Establishment". Using New Zealand as an example, once the colony was set up, it was pretty much... done. The group of islands is geographically distinct, and that naturally leads to the whole of them being grouped together. Once they were grouped, the colony's boundaries remained mostly unchanged geographically, gaining increasing levels of autonomy from the British Empire as it slowly disintegrated from the inside out.

The process for Australia was different, but once South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria (had to look some of those up:() merged in 1901 to form Australia, that was pretty much it. Australia... WAS. Complete. Whole (essentially). It just kinda formed, and then moved slowly toward Independence from Britain.

As I'm sure everyone knows, Canada did not have that smooth path to the formation of its modern borders;). There were no handy geographic markers to "bound" the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. Rather the borders were merely political contrivances, not easy to examine natural boundaries. You can actually see the effects of this on the modern Canada/US border. It is jagged and silly in places, because the maps at the time were wrong, so the border treaties stated things that didn't make sense in retrospect. Anyway, Canada didn't just poof into existence by edict like New Zealand and Australia, it instead grew slowly over time, in response to various external and internal pressures.

Because of this there can be no clean list of times when "Canada" gained varying degrees of independence, because you'd need to throw in hundreds of asterisks and notes to clarify that the first bit only applied to Lower Canada, and the second bit applied only to Upper Canada, while the third bit applied to the colony of Newfound Land, which wouldn't join with Canada for another 80 some years. And so on. It would be messy, because it would (literally) have to be a book length document. It would not fit in an infobox:P.

This means that the only choice for an article like this is to choose another word. In this case the people who created the infobox (not me) decided that it would be better to list the dates as applying to the long, slow process of establishing modern Canada, rather than trying to negotiate the jungle of deciding what parts of Canada had what level of Independence at what time.

I think that they made the right decision. — Gopher65_talk 01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't just the geography that made it difficult. At first, Canada relied on Westminster to enact legislation on almost everything, including budget. Slowly, over time, Westminster permitted Canada to enact legislation. The final ties were broken in 1982 when it wrote its own constitution. However, most would argue that it was legally independent by the end of the first world war as it decide whether to send troops to the conflict without intervention from Westminster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion, comparing the progressive establishment of Australia, NZ and Canada, and their respective "independence", is interesting. The infobox wording "Establishment from the United Kingdom" seems questionable at first sight, and would need some kind of editing note if placed in main text. It stems from November 2006.[36] If we use the link in the current version of the infobox, we see the job is neatly done: "Canadian Confederation was the process by which the British colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick were federally united into one Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867. Upon confederation Canada was divided into four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Over the following years since Confederation, Canada has seen numerous territorial changes and expansions, resulting in the current configuration of ten provinces and three territories." This can be seen as a good example of the merits of the Wikipedia method: a number of editors working out how to present the information using the various devices of links, infoboxes, etc., remaining open to further improvement. A bonus in the case of this article is that "establishment" is not only correct according to dictionary usage, though perhaps comparatively unusual in this particular context, but works also in modern French (établissement), and the English word is one of the many which come from Old French.[37] Qexigator (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Error in politics section

There is an error in the following line under "Politics and Government" section, third paragraph, first line:

"Each of the 338 members of parliament in the House of Commons is elected by simple plurality in an electoral district or riding. General elections must be called by the governor general, either on the advice of the prime minister, within four years of the previous election, or if the government loses a confidence vote in the House.[115]"

According to the official Parliament of Canada website: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings.aspx?Menu=ElectionsRidings; the "...Constitution sets the maximum duration of a Parliament at five years." Hence the line in the wikipedia article incorrectly states four years when instead it should state five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMendez (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This was almost certainly changed because of the recent fixed elections date law, which now limits elections to four years after the previous one. But you're correct that constitutionally it's still five years, and the fixed date law could be adjusted or repealed by any future government. So it might actually be better for our article to clarify the four vs. five year distinction in more detail than it does, but it's definitely not correct to just say that four years is the limit in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Question - Coat of Arms

I understand from an old thread that there is a copyright issue in displaying the coat of arms. It looks a bit odd not having it there, especially in mobile view. From whom would I need to obtain permission to use it? Thank you and please advise Tocb (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The crown of Canada (a.k.a. the government of Canada). Bonne chance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Canada's 2nd Demonym Canuck

Canada uses the term Canuck as a colloquial demonym it's not considered derogatory or offensive. Canadians use the word casually therefore I believe the term should be placed in the Demonym section of Canada's wiki page next to or below Canadian. IceBrotherhood (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not common enough....nor is the meaning universal. We are not here to elevate the usage or meaning of slag terms.--Moxy (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

While "Canuck" certainly exists, it's a slang usage which would never be used in the official contexts necessary to make it appropriate for inclusion in the infobox. It can certainly be discussed in the relevant contexts in the appropriate articles, but it doesn't belong in the infobox as a demonym any more than Yankee would belong alongside "American" in the infobox of United States. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I recall the Canadian ski team being called the Crazy Canucks. Seems more than just slang. I would argue it's a sobriquet, just as yankee is. It's not a demonym. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Please change 'Government and Politics, first paragraph, to include further details of the duties of the Queen and her emissaries Canada recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of Canada since her coronation on 6th February 1952. In his capacity as representative of the Queen, Head of State, David Lloyd Johnston, Governor general since 1st October 2010 and as Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces, assumes royal prerogatives when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor General is appointed by the queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. Rideau Hall is the principal royal residence in Ottawa, while Quebec Citadel is the royal residence in Quebec. The post of Governor general is largely symbolic, and has no real power. In recent years, a debate has emerged as the whether the post of governor general and lieutenant governors should be abolished.

Vuloop (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support such a change, with sources. The fact it's true doesn't carry weight on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Representative democracy or not

The term representative democracy was removed under the rationale that it is in line with other country pages. I reverted essentially with the rationale of other stuff exists. Why does it apply here? If the term describes our situation, leave it in place (although that was not the comment I left). Removed again, this time The US, UK and many other countries are "representative democracies" yet we don't put it in the country infobox. It's put in the "Government and Politics" sections of respective articles. So my question is, why are those other countries not including the term "representative democracy" rather than why should we remove it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I will respond with an elaboration of my point of view as soon as possible (likely tomorrow; there are some family events going on for me in real life, and therefore my time on Wikipedia will be irregular today.) · | (talk - contributions) 15:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

“under representative democracy” has not been put on the infoboxes of other major representative democracies, such as the United States or the United Kingdom. This decreases congestion - in terms of words and length - on the infobox, which is desirable. Users wishing to read in more detail about the government and politics of a country go to the “Government and Politics” section of its page; the infobox provides a short summary. I feel that adding “under representative democracy” is too much.

As the vast majority of democracies are only representative, and that this is assumed on other country pages unless otherwise stated, it seems needless to clarify within the infobox on Canada. On the other pages, information such as being a representative democracy is put in the “Government and Politics” section. We don’t put “multi-party” system in the infobox in multi-party, competitive states; nor do we put “two-party” or any other variation. However, we do put in “single-party” or “dominant-party” in the infobox if it’s relevant. I think that the same should apply to representative democracies, direct democracies and directorial democracies - whereby “representative democracy” is assumed in the infobox unless stated otherwise. · | (talk - contributions) 17:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The addition to the infobox was made on 20 May.[38] Of the two contentions discussed above, it seems that the importance of the concept for federal Canada (see source cited) is such that the inclusion of "representative democracy" in the infobox is acceptable, and relevant in a way that is not necessarily the same as the concept relates to USA or UK. Compare: US infobox "Federal presidential constitutional republic": the description and links suffice. UK infobox "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy", also suffice. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook has Canada's government type as "federal parliamentary democracy (Parliament of Canada) under a constitutional monarchy; a Commonwealth realm". As a compromise we could use "federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy". That is shorter, and the representative part could be assumed. — 99.230.177.147 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I like it. One source isn't necessarily enough though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request in page summary

Article erroneous conflates nominal per capita GDP with per capita income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.217.18.25 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.escwa.un.org/information/publications/edit/upload/sd-01-09.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828112251/http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Lang=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch01&Seq=5 to http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Lang=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch01&Seq=5
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/gblec02a-eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025194336/http://www.vancouver2010.com/ to http://www.vancouver2010.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Third official language of the Canadian Parliament.

There are news articles circulating the web suggesting that Punjabi language has been announced the third "official" language of the Canadian Parliament.

[39] [40], [41]

Can I get peoples views.Peeta Singh (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, these are not news articles. These are shoddy blog posts. But I'll let others comment on this. utcursch | talk 06:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No there is no there is no standing bill in Parlaiment to add a third official language of any sort. [[42]] Mediatech492 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

These blog posts seem to have been triggered by the high number of Punjabi speakers in the current Parliament. However, the official languages of Parliament are English and French only, as defined by s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and by s. 4 of the Official Languages Act. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"official" is false. It's a misreading of a report on how 20 Parliamentarians can speak Punjabi. see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-punjabi-now-third-most-spoken-language-in-house-of-commons/article27071850/#video0id27071850 Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The responses are correct; OP's sources are misreading what the facts actually mean. It's true that a record number of Punjabi speakers are now serving in Parliament, but what languages MPs can speak in their personal lives is not what defines whether a language has official language status or not — Punjabi is not a working language of government business, which is what it takes to be an "official language". Canada would literally have dozens of "official languages" — including Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Ukrainian, Innu, Inuktitut, Abenaki and Cree — if "there are people serving in parliament who have the ability to speak it" were all it took to make a language "official". Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Where'd it go? Canada still has one, but isn't shown -- Australia still has theirs on their page, as well as the UK and NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.119.131 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy debate on this issue which you could follow from the archives, if you wish. The basic point is that the Government of Canada has asserted Crown copyright over the Canadian coat of arms, and WP policy is to respect that copyright. Apparently other Commonwealth countries do not assert Crown copyright in the same way, so WP policy permits the use of those arms. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war

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.

---

Is there consensus to revert the changes to the infobox made on December 30, 2016? They were made in attempt to add better wording indicating Canada’s gradual change in status as a nation. From the comments made by Northern Factoid above, I can see why the edits were reverted. Shall we return or shall we keep the changed format? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus to change the info box in the first place. No consensus is needed to restore to original form what shouldn't have been altered to begin with. NorthernFactoid (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Several editors modified it or stated that it was a good edit. It was WP:BOLD, but even bold edits, when reverted, are considered reverts as part of en edit war. Since no one reverted the original change immediately, but an editor contested yours, the original has a consensus of silence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So because "several editors" were okay with the edit, that amounts to consensus? Several editors have voiced their indifference to or support for "independence from the United Kingdom." Several sources have also been supplied to verify Canada's independence from British rule. What makes you think any of the editors who dislike the words "establishment from the United Kingdom" would support a confusing bold edit, made in the midst of a dispute over the word "establishment", that still included the disputed word? Give your head a shake. Several editors (including CMD, Mystery Guyman, and myself) don't support the December 30th changes made by Trackratte. Bold edits made without consensus don't have to be reverted immediately to be considered justifiable reverts (although opposition to the December 30th change arose almost immediately and was discussed on this page). There has never been a "consensus of silence", Walter. You have 22 hours to revert. I'm not engaging with you about your edit warring anymore. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

An assertion of a consensus of silence is ridiculous. The talkpage discussion has been ongoing throughout, despite no one reverting the original change immediately. The point of talkpage discussion is to avoid the series of reverts being complained about here. It is the exact opposite of silence.

Regarding what should be there, perhaps we could either leave it at the status quo ante, or simply drop it as discussion continues here. If discussion fails it may have to go back to the status quo ante while dispute resolution progresses, but hopefully there'll be some sort of consensus. CMD (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, consensus against the previous status quo was universal, with all editors stating that the previous version was unacceptable, thus there is consensus against that version. The day the bold edit was made, all 4/4 editors who commented that day expressed there overall agreement with the title change (which was the subject of the debate), with user:CMD stating their preference for a change of the dates. The following day one or two users stated they were not in agreement with the title change, making it 4/6 or 5/6 in apparent agreement with the overall change of title, if not the details regarding the dates. To say there is total consensus for the current version is of course untrue, however saying that there is consensus to return to the previous version is completely false, as at the time consensus against that version was complete.

As a compromise, I have presently added "independence from the UK was achieved by 1982" in the sovereignty_note section to incorporate User:NorthernFactoid's concerns. Thus, at the present moment the section clearly mentions "independence from the UK", while also outlining the key events in the establishment and formation of Canada, which is this section's purpose (and thus the line headings of "establishment_event"), as well as respecting WikiPolicy in summarizing key events within the article text in the infobox. Thus, the main concerns of all the editors here have been incorporated, and we are left with sorting out the comparatively minor details and recourse to edit warring and personal attacks are completely unnecessary. trackratte (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making any more edits to this article until the issue of Walter Gorlitz's edit warring is dealt with. He has 11 hours to undo his provocative reverts or a report will be filed. I've already made two edits within 24 hours (one to Trackratte's initial change, and one to Walter Gorlitz's revert) and don't wish to give the illusion of being counterproductive here. I agree with CMD that the status quo ante should be restored until consensus/compromise on change is reached. Yes, many were and are against the status quo ante (including myself), but that was nonetheless the point from which discussion ensued. The info box in its current state is a muddled, confusing mess (even with the word independence featured prominently). I sincerely appreciate Trackratte's willingness to come to consensus and compromise, it means a lot, and I truly feel that a good solution addressing everyone's concerns can be reached in the near future. NorthernFactoid (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern, please see the section I just started below. Although it may be a "mess" now, no one supported or currently supports the former status quo, so I see very little reason to restore something that absolutely everyone is clearly against. Now obviously, if we have to, we will, but I see such a move as extremely counter productive. Now, I generally find it helpful to nail down and gain consensus for a "broad intent" first, as if we can all get on board with what it is we generally wish to achieve, we can all work together with a common purpose. Once this is done, it generally makes for a much more congenial atmosphere as we all put forward proposals on how each editor wishes to make a (perhaps barely) acceptable solution into an ideal solution, or at least a much better solution everyone can be relatively proud of.

Now, as I understand it, the currently sticking points are twofold, the use of words to the effect of how Canada was established/formed, and how Canada gained independence from the UK. I see the two as being mutually inclusive, not exclusive, but clearly some are presently seeing the two as exclusive, regardless the solution must ensure that both sentiments are incorporated. Second, when does establishment begin? My feelings are clearly when "Canada" was first established under the French, as Canadian culture (legally binational although officially multicultural), laws (two founding nations constitutionally enshrined, French civil law protected and maintained in Quebec), language (two legally enforced official languages, English and French), politics (French Canadian nationalism and incorporation of the two-nation foundational principles into daily political reality), and national identity (I do not think any further explanation is required in this regard), are all thoroughly based on the fact that Canada was initially established as a French colony. While perhaps some editors will continue to see Canada only from an anglo-centric viewpoint, I have hopes that we can all support a much more cohesive and holistic approach to presenting how Canada was established and was formed to the fully sovereign and independent country we known today. trackratte (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Trackratte, I'm very open and receptive to what you're saying. I respect, support, and value what you're attempting to do here. But this is mainly an issue of Walter Gorlitz's edit warring. He has a history of disruptive edit warring, and I feel it needs to be addressed. Provocative editing simply because the man disagrees with others cannot be tolerated. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood if you are trying to make a point. However, the danger is of course throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, in letting the need to make a specific point against another editor get in the way of improving a specific article. That being said, your conduct is completely your own by all means. trackratte (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, for the sake of avoiding any more distractions from the goals of reaching compromise, consensus, and improving the article, I will forgo filing a formal complaint against Gorlitz. But if Gorlitz engages in any more provocative editing with respect to any of my revisions (or anyone else's for that matter), I will immediately file a complaint. I've compiled a strong case against him and have no doubt his actions here would result in his being warned, possibly blocked. I want to be clear: there is no consensus for the current info box's design, but I'm prepared to temporarily allow it as a starting point that will hopefully facilitate meaningful discussion and change. I want to thank you, Trackratte, for showing great willingness to solve issues and reach consensus. I'm happy to work with you and other like-minded editors to find compromise and improve this article. NorthernFactoid (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

By all means, file. I would like to see what WP:3RN has to say about this series of edits:

1. 2017-01-08T00:20:03‎ NorthernFactoid Undid revision 757442034 by Trackratte (talk) Returned “Establishment from the United Kingdom” b/c that is issue driving discussion. Furthermore, there was no consensus re initial change.
2. 2017-01-08T04:05:10‎ Walter Görlitz Reverted 1 edit by NorthernFactoid (talk): No WP:CONSENSUS.
3. 2017-01-08T04:40:33 Undid revision 758896720 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Walter Gorlitz will face the consequences of getting into an edit war
4. 2017-01-08T05:36:30 Walter Görlitz Reverted 1 edit by NorthernFactoid

and your reverts of my additions here. Per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." That means, and has been interpreted in every 3RR case I've been involved with both as a complainant and accused, as the first edit in a series of edits starts the war. Therefore, the first revert that started the ware was made by NorthernFactoid at 00:20 on January 8, 2017. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Canada (New France)

There seems to be a little misunderstanding of the administrative divisions of New France added to the lead. Canada (New France) does not cover all the territory the French had in Canada ...best to link to normal terms and articles over the administrative division articles that only cover a certain parts of Canada. I am sure all agree Acadia should not be excluded.--Moxy (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll copy this from your talk page so we can have everything together:

Moxy, I fail to see how talking about other French colonies such as Louisiana has anything to do with Canada. For example, if we look at the New France article, it states that New France "was divided into colonies, each with its own administration: Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland (Plaisance), and Louisiana". Of course, the article in question has nothing to do with the colonies of Louisiana, or even of Newfoundland at that time since the latter did not join Canada until hundreds of years later, and obviously Louisiana never joined Canada at all. Subsequently, we are not talking about New France generally, just as we are not talking about British North American more generally (which at that time included almost all of the United States), but are instead talking very specifically about the entity known as "Canada", which was first a French and later a British colony, from which it eventually politically and geographically evolved into the country we know today. Perhaps if I had a better idea of from where you were coming from, as I can't currently fathom it. trackratte (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And I'll add that for the time period we are discussing, absolutely Acadia should be excluded as it was not at that time part of Canada. In the same way as Newfoundland wasn't, in 1763 when the French ceded Canada to Britian, part of Canada but instead did not join Canada until nearly 200 years later in 1947. And obviously Louisiana, which at that time was part of New France, never joined Canada, as is the case with the rest of the British colonies which eventually succeeded to become the United States.

Thus, once again this article is not discussing "French North America" (New France), nor "British North America", as many of the colonies therein either never formed part of Canada, or were not part of Canada in 1763, and thus having nothing to do with the topic of the article at the moment it is referring to. trackratte (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong .....in the context of the paragraph. We should restored to the norm that was there before. Alot more the just Canada (New France) was ceded to the British Empire in 1763. We should not use terms that normal history books dont use. When the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, New France had five colonies or territories, each with its own administration: Canada-New France (the Great Lakes region, the Ohio Valley, and the St. Lawrence River Valley), Acadia (the Gaspé Peninsula, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, St. John's Island, and Île Royale [Cape Breton]), Hudson Bay (and James Bay), Newfoundland, and Louisiana. At the end of the 18th century, the territory known as New France was enormous, stretching from Baffin Land in the north to Mexico in the south and including nearly half of today's Canada and U.S.A. So to say just Canada-New France was given up is simply wrong as it covers very little. I have changed it a bit to not omit information and link the main article on the topic. I will explain more in a bit just need to look through my books to get you the proper info. --Moxy (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, no one is saying that just Canada was ceded, of course all of New France was ceded to the Great Britain. However, this article is not about the the 1763 Treaty of Paris nor is it about New France, but is instead about Canada. Talk about colonies other than Canada are not relevant to this article. If a reader wants to know about the other colonies within New France, or even of the other colonies within British North America they can check out those respective articles. So, of course it is not "wrong" to state that Canada was ceded from the French to the British, in fact it is entirely factual and accurate. I think the confusion here arises from focus on this specific article, vice focus on the general history of New France. My point is that this article is not about New France nor its colonies such as Louisiana, so of course our "failure" to talk about Louisiana and any other colony within new France except for "Canada" is not wrong, as they are entirely extraneous to the topic at hand. trackratte (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree in the context of the paragraph - need to look at the paragraph we are talking about - the Treaty of Paris that we mention - did not cover just Canada -New France....but many areas that would become Canada. To omint New France in place of just a administrative division is a disservice to our readers and misleading to the overall aftermath the treaty had and how Canada was formed. The history of all of what makes up Canada today should be mentioned and linked - not just what was called Canada then. Ever history book calls it New France and only in passing do they mention the subdivisions.--Moxy (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Every history book? First, Canada was not simply a "subdivision", for example the University of Ottawa page on the matter states that "When the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, New France had five colonies or territories, each with its own administration: Canada (the Great Lakes region, the Ohio Valley, and the St. Lawrence River Valley), Acadia (the Gaspé Peninsula, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, St. John's Island, and Île Royale [Cape Breton]), Hudson Bay (and James Bay), Newfoundland, and Louisiana." Once again, this article is about Canada, not about Louisiana or any other colony that was not Canada.

The paragraph is question opens with "Canada has been inhabited" and "with the French colony of Canada first established in 1537", so is clearly about Canada, not New France. Second, Canada was not simply "an administrative division" of New France, but a separate colony, in the same way as Newfoundland, Canada, and New England were all separate colonies within British North America. Your assertion that we must talk about New France instead of Canada is akin to saying we must say "British North America" instead of "Canada".

I think the crux of the confusion is conflating the geography of present day Canada with the national evolution of Canada as a political entity. For example, British Columbia was not part of Canada prior to the 1870s, so there is no point in writing as if it were in a paragraph talking about the 1600s. Same goes for Acadia, Newfoundland, New England, Louisiana, or any other colony that was part of New France (French North America) or British North America. The point is, Canada at any given point of time was a very specific national/political entity with given geographical borders, of which the rest of New France or British North America were not a part.

So, do you disagree that Canada was a separate colony/entity from Louisiana, or do you disagree with the scope of this article? trackratte (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes a colony with 3 districts administrated by the governor-general of New France, other colonies had there own intendants that are also part of Canada like Acadian Newfound..... Your saying we cant tlak about other parts of New France because they were not part of Canada at the timeÉ ....yet the other New France colonies are part of what is now Canada. New France was the parent name of the colony that had different divisions....many of whom are now part of Canada .....not just the St Laurence valley. To say that only Canada-New France was the part given up is very very misleading......because as we all know its not the case. Canada-New France - yes the big colony was not the only one that is now part of Canada. On a side note British North America is a term for the British colonies and territories in North America after the US became independent in 1783...before just British America. Lets let other chime in here. --Moxy (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, from what I understand:

Your point, which is perfectly valid, is that saying that Canada was ceded from Britain to France without mention of New France could add to confusion, as a reader might assume that only the one colony was transferred as opposed to all of France's North American possessions (save for one to Spain).

My point is that only saying New France is equally confusing, as New France was all of France's North American possessions, and thus would lead the reader to believe that other colonies which were never part of Canada until later, and still others which never had anything to do with Canada, somehow were.

To reconcile the two, I see the best way forward as simply including both, something along the lines of "Canada (part of New France)" , as it would be abundantly clear to the reader, and in fact be a better solution than either of ours alone. trackratte (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes yes...I have noticed the edits all good with me.--Moxy (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

After further reading I have changed it a bit....as we all know the french colony of Canada was not the first named division of new france nor the only one now in Canada. I simply can't except the wrong implication and link standing all on its own. Please in the future link Canada's parent article without implying that only the one big district is part of Canadian history....Acadians and other maritimers are also a part of our history. Pls try to br inclusive and lead our readers to articles us Canadians have set up as parent articles on topics. .. Moxy (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When we are talking about a specific point in time, we explain the contemporary situation. For example, when discussing a certain point of American History, we would link to the Thirteen Colonies, not to British North America as the former is specific to what is being discussed while the former is too general and is just as relevant to the histories of other countries. There is nothing precluding us from using Canada, New France. And as I mentioned, when we are talking about Canada or New France in 1534 we are not actually discussing "colony" in the sense of a permanent settlement and government being in place right at that moment, but instead the official moment from which those two entities began to exist.

As for the assertion that the five colonies of New France were not colonies but instead were "districts", that is verifiably false. New France, just like British North America, was not a colony but instead the collection of all lands and territories each country possessed in North America. The colony of Canada was, however, divided into three districts (Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal). The New France article itself says that it consisted of five separate colonies, and this fact is verifiably referenced. trackratte (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to status quo

We currently have 3 (sort of 4) talks going on about the recent changes to the lead, infobox, etc...resulting in edit after edit to correct perceived inaccuracies. So yes we are talking but this is clearly spilling over into readers view. I personally think our lead is getting to detailed as most is cover point for point in the article, but thats a whole new discussion. I dont want to see us all go down hill here...but I am sure all agree we should have a stable version while all the points are worked out on the tlak over pushing our views in the article with small edits about wording choices and links. We seem to have this problem on a few articles at this time so I am recommending "status quo" till this parent article works out the wording and time frame to use. . -- Moxy (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are proposing, are you proposing an edit freeze on these topics, or a restoration of a version from two weeks ago? Second, the purpose of the lead section is to introduce and summarize the article content, so I would suggest we refrain from being hasty in removing any key points within the article from the lead section. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

All can see at what point major changes to the article took place. As for the lead...I think it's best to not overwhelm people with details. The worded chosen by consensus for the lead hsppned some time ago. I my view its overly detailed almow says the same thing point for point in the article. As you can see above and by edits in the article the usage of some terms like Dominion and Colony ...not to metion the time frame and evolution of territory is a problem.--Moxy (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.....we just need to work it out here first as its clear many of the changes are contested. -- Moxy (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification required as above on what it is exactly we are seeking consensus for. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I think there are far too many productive changes to simply do a wholesale revert. Second, User:Moxy has copy edited area of the article as of today as well, which was productive in going forward as editors add references, etc. If there are major differences that need to be resolved, then I see no reason why the standard process would not apply, ie open a section on the talk page specific to the portion of the main article needing to be resolved. Currently, the only ongoing dispute on this talk is regarding the infbox, and the myriad "sub issues" that underpin it. trackratte (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Restore to stable version before Xmass. Before all the contested edits started.--Moxy (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Moxy's proposal to restore article (not info box) to stable, agreed, pre-Christmas form until consensus is reached. NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup...I got a problem with the lead. History books speak about John Cabot first not Cartier first. I'm not sure why this point of view of Canada starting with the French colony almost a century before anyone's here is being pushed so much. We should be regurgitating what the history books say..... not follow the name over territory.--Moxy (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I Have changed the lead a bit ...as to not omit mention of British colonization.... thus in the process removed the oddly detailedFrench mention...as these points are all covered in the article with sources to more information. I sure most would agree we have no need to mention individuals by name considering the fathers of confederation nor the PM is mentioned. (just the Queen in the lead). I have also fixed the wording a bit as to not imply there was a colony of Europeans living here in 1534. Can I get a few eyes on the changes as all know my grammar is horrible. -- Moxy (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

trackratte, that's a lot of stuff for an info-box Do no forget also the Second Virginia Charter of 1609 and the corresponding Massachusetts charter that divided North America including modern day Canada, foudning dates for all the territories that joined Canada, the founding dates for legislatures and responsible government, transfer dates for PEI and Nova Scotia. And of course all the various post-Confederation dates where territories were added or independence increased. We are talking about over 30 dates. But only one is remembered: 1st July, 1867, celebrated every year as a national holiday. TFD (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(User talk:The Four Deuces, not sure to what you are referring, but I don't think it is to the infobox, but the lead section. I haven't proposed any specific additions to the infobox except for the initial breaking of dead lock several weeks ago. trackratte (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This country page

I have a question why is this page so fucked that it is prohibited even to show the flag and stuff--ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you dont see the flag and other images....this would be on your end as images are there.--Moxy (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)