Talk:Canada/Archive 7

message: There appears to only be liberal PM photos featured in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.31.20 (talk • contribs) .
:...Are you saying we should include photos of the Conservative, NDP, and PQ Prime Ministers?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only two photos of Prime Ministers - one being the current PM and the other (Pearson) included to illustrate his & Canada's role in UN Peacekeeping and the Suez Crisis. Those seem perfectly reasonable, it is incidental that they are/were both Liberal PMs. But, in fact, further representations of PMs appear in the images of Canadian banknotes: 2 Liberal, 2 Conservative. I don't see any "PM bias" in this article. Pinkville 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Pinkville addresses the anon's comment well. Notwithstanding that, would it not make sense to include Sir John A. Macdonald, not for the purpose of providing political balance, but because he was our first prime minister? Ground Zero | t 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pinkville.  If anyone should be depicted it's Macdonald – he was a 'Liberal-Conservative' initially – but he's also depicted in the article on the $10 dollar bill (as are others).  Moreover, 9 of Canada's 21 PMs (or 12 of 26, if you count terms) since Confederation have been Liberal, so I don't see this as bias per se.  The article, and everything depicted, can't be everything to everyone.  E Pluribus Anthony 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it isn't bias.  From an international perspective, Pearson is well known.  When you talk to foreigners, the other one they always mention is Trudeau ... that doesn't solve the bias.  There does appear to be a problem in the article, in that Trudeau is referenced - but only by last name, and with no link?  I can only assume someone deleted an earlier reference?  I added a picture of Macdonald ... I don't think this should offend anyone! Nfitz 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PM bias

message: * Someone had deleted the entire article and wrote just "Canada sucks". being a canadian myself i find this to be pathetic. Since a lot of people seem to have a unwarranted vendetta against Canada,I think this page should be checked on often. I know I will. Pure inuyasha 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is oddly vandal-prone.  Please do add it to your watchlist!  Jkelly 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't read too much into vandalism: it's a weapon of idiots who have no other forum to express their opinions.  And here you can easily revert such nonsensical crap.  Ask yourself this (whimsically): what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't? :)  E Pluribus Anthony 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, pure stupidity. I added this to my watchlist. I am Canadian, but guess to has kool hacking skills and can trace this stupid guy - w00t w00t!! lol jk. paat 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't?"....hmmmm...fish pops? :D We must have some kind of frozen treat here that others don't have! bcatt 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism. 

message: 83.52.101.200 has taken all of the link to tourism for every country (Canada, france, Turkey, ect. ). Should we put the link back? paat 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, but it isnt restored. Ill add it myself, since it seems that it would be a good thing to have it. I wonder what will happen to the other country pages... paat 17:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm; on second thought, why should we include that particular link, and not another one regarding Cdn. travel, if at all?  E Pluribus Anthony 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you come to a consensus to include the link here, then that's fine. Please don't go adding it back to all of the other articles. The anon's only contributions were spamming links to that site. --GraemeL (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, I added the link in Canada, but not in the other countries. I just thought that maybe it was a kind of vandilism, since every other country was prived of its tourism link. paat 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  [Go back to E Pluribus's comment on 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand what you're trying to say. are you asking why put that one if there others out there? paat 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the flip-flop/confusion.  I thought SimonP's revert was originally to restore that particular  travel link when, in fact, he removed it (i.e., is it spam?)  When you mentioned it, P., I didn't (and don't really) think there's a problem in including it ... and especially (as per GL) if a consensus supports it.  However, upon probing, the link doesn't seem particularly notable – there are a plethora of, and perhaps better, travel sites out there to include (Fodor's etc.) – so I'm neither here nor there regarding that specific link.  I hope this clears things up. E Pluribus Anthony 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism link 

message: I've been correcting a few vandilism acts in thsi article (surprisingly, its sumone that really linkes douches (showers in french... lol), but i havent been reverting, i just delete and correct. I would like to know how to revert any edits paat 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you find this article helpful: Wikipedia:Revert. --Ds13 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you revert? 

message: Given the rash of vandalism, it may be time to semi protect Canada? Astrotrain 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree: Admins should block the offending users instead. E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protect

message: * since it is pretty clear who the new prime minister is, I've edited the article to show Harper is prime minister Pure inuyasha 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, why not wait till the results are in. There are variables that could alter your prediction (even the possibility of a coalition, for example). Plus, until it's a fact, such a change should not be entered in an authoritative encyclopedia article. Indefatigable has already reverted the changes. Pinkville 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear that Martin is PM until he resigns and the GG appoints somebody else. Although it will probably be apparent by the end of today what resignations and appointments will take place over the next few weeks, let's wait until it actually happens, so that Wikipedia remains verifiable. Indefatigable 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not how it works.  You need to wait until a new prime-minister selected by the Governor-General.  If Harper doesn't win a majority, there is nothing to say that Martin, despite not having a plurality of seats, will attempt to continue to govern with a coalition - a bad idea I except, but it is Martin's to make - not yours.  Also, as the polls are still open, and the polling has been very volatile, there is nothing to say the result is pre-ordained!  I'm really not sure what is going to happen tonight, and it should make for great TV!  Yeah, a lot of this other have said already, though they hadn't when I started typing! :-) Nfitz 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Only after Martin resigns, and the GG chooses and swears in a new PM.  This process typically takes 10 to 15 days (10 days in 1993, 13 days in 1984, 15 days in 1980, 16 days in 1979 ...) Nfitz 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nfitz is right: if you put Harper in as prime minister before he is sworn in as such by the Governor-General, the article will be wrong. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. Even if Harper wins a convincing minority or a majority tonight, he will not be prime minister tomorrow morning. Check Kim Campbell. Her term as prime minister extended beyond the election day because she remained prime minister until Chretien was sworn in. Please don't put falsehoods into Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Though by the end of the night, it might (depending on Martin's speech) be possible to add a note on who the next prime-minister will be ... Nfitz 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The commonly-accepted term is "Prime Minister-designate". The American term "-elect" is incorrect because the PM is not elected. "PM-designate" is not official, but it is commonly used. Notwithstanding the notes I have added to the article, I would have no objection to adding Stephen Harper as "PM-designate" to the article, as long as it is clear that Matin remains prime minister until a new one is sworn in. This is just a matter of accuracy, not politics. Ground Zero | t 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that said, what is the problem with putting Paul Martin as PM and under it putting Stephen Harper as PM-designate on the column to the right? Wikipedia is here to provde information to people about Canada. While Martin is still the PM until the swearing-in ceremony, it would also be proper to list Harper's position to let people know that a new leader has been elected. Is this unreasonable? --68.54.101.229 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd get no ojections from me. Ground Zero | t 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it's not what was being done. The editor who started this discussion stated a specific intention to edit the article as if Harper were already PM. We go through this every time an appointed or elected office changes — people start editing the articles as if the change were effective the moment the result is announced, even though there's always a transition period first. Michaëlle Jean did not become Governor General the minute her appointment was announced. Dalton McGuinty did not become premier of Ontario on election night. And on and so forth — the prior occupant still holds the title for about a week or two. Bearcat 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Harper 

message: * all of this information has been gathered from the news. Pure inuyasha 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added information about stephen harper becoming prime minister. 

message: "with votes of 59.6% and 50.6% respectively"
The percentages should be different, this doesn't add up right. I think instead of 59.6, its 49.4
: You've misunderstood the sentence: 59.6 is the No total from 1980 and 50.6 is the No total from 1995. They're not supposed to add up to anything; they're the results of two different votes. Bearcat 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referendum totals

message: Is Quetico Provincial Park in Western or Northwestern Ontario? It actually looks like Southwestern Ontario to me, but I don't know how it is referenced in Canada. Any help? -Ravedave 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the stub I added to that article, it is in fact in Northwestern Ontario (the image clearly shows it to be on the northwest edge of Lake Superior (at the Minnesota border), which itself demarcates the northwest coastline of Ontario. Mindmatrix 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I'll go with what you say. To me its the south part of the west part of Ontario. -Ravedave 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem a bit tricky to an outsider...but southwestern Ontario means the London-Chatham-Windsor area. It's not the southernmost end of the western part; it's the westernmost end of the southern part. Southwestern and Northwestern Ontario actually don't even touch each other. Bearcat 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys really are loonies :P -Ravedave 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try living in Kenora...it really falls off the Ontario map. (Stormbay 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario help 

message: Stephen Harper is the new PM since Jan. 24.
*No, that is a common misconception. He does not become PM until the new government is worn in by the Governor-General. This will happen within two-three weeks. Until then, Paul Martin remains prime minister. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New PM 

message: "At the end of World War II, Canada had the fourth largest army in the world, behind the United States, UK and the former Soviet Union, including Russia."
Surely this can't possibly be true. I think this was meant to say "fourth largest navy in the world". Or perhaps it was meant to say, "per capita". Is there a citation for this? Ah, now I see this is a very bad cut-and-paste from the article Military history of Canada, which states: "By the end of the war Canada was the fourth strongest military power in the world behind only the USA, the USSR and Britain." (my emphasis). I'll change the wording in the Canada article for now, but even this is vague and - I suspect - misleading. Pinkville 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at the end of world war 2, Canada was indeed the fourth strongest military power in the world. This happened thanks to the immense war effort of the country, and the unofficial conscriptions that happened in some places. Additionnally, most military world powers before the war were european. Once the war was over, Europe was devastated. The only really significant armies remaining were the US', USSR's and China. Canada was mostly a distant fourth. Or, rather fourth "by default". Canada's military importance greatly diminished after the rebuild of Europe. As for saying the UK had greater military power, it is mostly because the entire Commonwealth's military was actually considered the UK's. More accurate and reliable sources are however needed. Dali 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. It demonstrates why it's important to be careful with wording: "fourth largest army" has a very different meaning from "fourth strongest military power". But the latter, although as you confirm, is accurate generally, it doesn't explain much. "Fourth strongest power" in what terms, exactly - does anyone know? And I think it would be a good idea to indicate that Canada was a distant fourth, as not doing so is quite misleading. I don't have any real expertise in this matter, but hopefully someone who does will expand and clarify this section. Pinkville 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: army vs. navy

message: People who do not already know place names - especially not whether they refer to a city, province, or region - will find many sections of the article mysterious -- particularly the geography section -- unless the section on Provinces and territories (with the map) is moved up. I've done this twice before, but it keeps getting "revised" over time  --JimWae 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a potential argument for any country.  The proposed ordering might be inconsistent with the section order indicated in the WikiProject Country article template – actually, the 'Geography and climate' section should be moved down below the 'Province and territories' section to conform to that (and would thereby move the P&t section up one).  I see no pressing reason to buck the standard (and would instead advocate for that order); however, this isn't a clincher for me and I'll gladly defer to a consensus regarding this.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your welcome.  If I recall correctly, the provinces/territories table was previously included right AFTER an 'Overview' section (and essentially before anything else) with the remaining section in its current spot;  this is somewhat inconsistent with the template.  Indeed, there are many ways to skin a cat – by analogy, Australia is different yet again, with details in the appropriate subarticle.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provinces and Territories - with map - needs to come earlier in article 

message: the Canadian government currently supports universal health care, same-sex marriage, and decriminalization of marijuana. All of these issues are of varying contention amongst Canadians.
Should the above be revised or deleted now that there's a new (conservative) government in power? We know that they're opposed to same-sex marriage, and are luke warm at best to the idea of decriminalizing marijuana. 207.6.31.119 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. ♠ SG →Talk 20:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Government, new agenda

message: I have inserted what? into the sentence describing the special Irish connection to Newfoundland. There is something missing, but I don't know what it is. Someone knowledgable, please correct :-)
:Hi, I've recovered, replaced and slightly reworded the missing information you were looking for. Ciao! Pinkville 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: As per the peer review of this article, as well as simply taking a look at the article itself, it's clear we need citations or references for many parts of the text. I'm asking you, my fellow Wikipedians, to help each other find proper sources for the statements made in this article. If there's no possible citation, rephrase or remove it please. If you're sure there is a  possible source out there somewhere, but you can't/won't find it yourself, add  temporarily. If no one can find a source after a while, rephrase/remove.
We also need to reduce the number of one-sentence paragraphs. Once again, rephrase or remove them if possible. Move these sentences into other paragraphs or add information to make it longer. Thanks! Hopefully we can turn Canada into a featured article by the end of the month! ♠ SG →Talk 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite the sources, make Canada a Featured Article! 

message: In the English language, "Referendums" is at least as acceptable as "Referenda".  Furthermore, according to the BBC's experts, in Latin there were two distinct meanings for the word "referendum".  One, meaning the process of carrying out the vote, had no plural in Latin.  The second meaning meant the actual question on the ballot, which had the plural "referenda".  Since it is the first meaning that corresponds to the modern English word, it makes sense to use the English form of the plural, especially since there was (apparently) no Latin form.  See this post.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by thirty-seven (talk • contribs) .
:You're worrying about which of the two perfectly acceptable English plurals of "referendum" to use, when you can't even spell "separatist" correctly ? I think that you have more important problems to deal with. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto – any English dictionary will indicate the propriety of referendums OR referenda for the plural.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of "Referendum" to use in section on Quebec seperatist movement 

message: Are you sure that this GDP estimate is correct at 1318 billion? State your references. This would put canada's per capita PPP at a higher level if correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.25.37 (talk • contribs) .
You should probably use the cia factbook as a general economic reference, regardless of it's accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.25.37 (talk • contribs) .
I to am quite concerned about the GDP given, considering that this peculiar reference page is used extensively when conducting research.--Vancouver123 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the 2006 estimate been created? You're welcome to add it then. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP

message: Can anyone explain how and why Canadian airports got stuck with the Y prefix? Steelium 3:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Canada and most of the United States, an airport's IATA code is the same as the last three letters of the ICAO airport code. So, since almost all Canadian airports happen to have ICAO codes beginning with CY, the IATA code just drops the C. (Technically Canada has the whole letter C at its disposal, but the convention was basically established as CY — I believe to minimize conflict with Canadian television and radio call signs, but I'm not absolutely sure of that.) Bearcat 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The big map in the "Provinces and territories" section of this article, :Image:CanadaMap1.jpg, is a fair use image, which means that Wikipedia does not control the rights to it and is thus severely limited in our use of it (and thus our use of this article, for example in a possible print version).  Would one of the editors watching this page be willing to create a map, perhaps using one of the maps at Wikipedia:Blank maps, that could serve in its stead?  There's really no reason for us to be using a fair use image to convey information of this type.  When a new one is created, let me know and I'll replace all of this links to the current one and delete it.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also edit from this one or this one or perhaps even this one.  Thanks again.  Chick Bowen 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also this one which is a cropped version of the CIA fact book one (which I find is too wide. -- Jeff3000 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, :Image:Canada provinces english.png looks like a perfect replacement. Shall we just replace the existing image link with that one? I don't think it needs any editing as it's already clearer than the existing "fair use" image. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably have more detailed maps (with adjacent territories) in this main article and the Geography of Canada articles, but simpler ones (like above) elsewhere.  I'll work on a more detailed, but simpler, replacement for this political map. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To that end, I've updated this map to start, based on one above with tweaks.  Enjoy, and more to follow! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that image, is that it doesn't show the surrounding countries.  Given that those surrounding countries give a perspective to Canada I think it's necessary. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; didn't I say that? :)  I haven't changed the maps in the two articles mentioned above because of that, and I've only included my brainchild (an initial stab) in articles where depicting adjacent territories is not necessarily important (e.g., Provinces and territories of Canada, List of regions of Canada).  I'm working on one that is more detailed and shows adjacent territories ... I'll have it ready in soon.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map problem 

message: I removed a paragraph from this section, as the section was already too long, and that information is not fully relevent to the Canada of now.  It should go in a sub-article. -- Jeff3000 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy in Canada 

message: Would anyone be against me shortening the article in some parts including the Monarchy of Canada. If we ever want this article to reach feature article status, we need to cut things out.  -- Jeff3000 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for pruning. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too.  HistoryBA 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and shortened the article a bit.  Before I do more, please check the removals and bring anything back that you think I took out that I shouldn't. -- Jeff3000 17:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has commented I've cut down the provinces and territories section which had too much info about the government structure of the provinces, that info is now in Provinces and territories of Canada -- Jeff3000 11:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Jeff. I'm with Anthony and HBA. This article needs regular cutting back. Ground Zero | t 12:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto: if only I had the will/time.  Keep it up!  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That should be keep it down! :-) Good work! Luigizanasi 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, thanks for editing it! :) However, should we just mention Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch rather than saying "the monarch"? I think it would give everyone a good overview. That's just in my humble opinion though. Thanks!  YMT
----
Four more sections done (even though I couldn't cut down the Geography and Climate section much).  A couple sections to shorten at the bottom of the article, and then back up to History. -- Jeff3000 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening 

message: I took out an edito by User:68.110.9.62 earlier today, but he has added some indecency to my talk page .  If he adds more material as so, can someone else please revert his edits so it looks like I'm not being heavy handed.  -- Jeff3000 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 68.110.9.62 

message: Now that I've shortened most of the sections there are signficant things that need to be done to make this a featured article.  I've read much of the discussion above, and I'll note what has been commented above that I really think we need to focus on:
:First of all, great work on pruning!  As well, I'll comment as needed below for expediency: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making this article better

message: User Jcuk has twice recently added a disambiguation note to the top of the article about the section of the Auschwitz death camp nicknamed Canada.
I removed it again.  This definitely should not be a disambiguation statement at the top of the page.  99.9% of people looking for "Canada" are looking for information on the country.  Anyone who knows that a part of Auschwitz was nicknamed "Canada" would know to look in the Auschwitz article.  Since this has been twice added and twice reverted in rapid succession, I suggest that any further changes about this be discussed here before they are made in the article. --thirty-seven 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree: the Canada (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion; I suggest additional feedback take place there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given many recent additions to the Canada (disambiguation), which is no longer the pathetic dab it once was (thank you User:Mindmatrix!), I've re-added this to the article. It can stand for some pruning, but please discuss before removing it as before.  Thanks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- the new disambiguation page is much better, and certainly a big improvement over just specifically listing the Auschwitz reference at the top of this article.  Personally, I still would prefer not to have the disambiguation at the top of this article, but there seems to be a consensus that the new disambiguation page is very good and belongs here, so I'm fine with that. --thirty-seven 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  I think the current dab, particularly with notations of predecessor jurisdictions called Canada in one way or another, now requires such a hatnote.  Take a glance at a number of country articles, like Japan, and you'll note that it is somewhat common and the current hatnote is as simple as can be. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auschwitz disambiguation 

message: I'm creating a list with the different sections that we need references for.  Please sign your name beside it indicating that you are willing to take it up.  I've started it out. -- 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Let's see if we can decide on which images to keep and which ones to replace and with what.  Please comment below about each image, and what new images we'd like to see. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I have just added two new references.  The first is 
*
and it covers most aspects of Canadian politics and the underlying systems. It is a recent book and covers the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives.  More interestingly it covers in depth also the role and value of multiculturism in Canada which I have been struggeling in even knowing where to look for a reference for.  Thus it covers any note of multiculturism in the article.  What it does not cover well is the role of the Monarchy and the Governor General in Canadian politics.  Thus I have also added another reference
*
which gives a better understanding of both the Monarch and the Governor General.  There is a 4th edition of this book, but it seems most of that discussion (including charts) has been taken out of the new version, so thus I'm using the 3rd edition as the reference. What is still missing in the Governor General section is the naming of Michaelle Jean as the new GG. -- Jeff3000 16:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do either of the references in the "Investiture of the 27th governor general" section of the Michaëlle Jean article work for you? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the first one is pretty good.  The second one is GlobeAndMail so it needs a subscription.  I'm worried that the National Post link will go away after some time, so once a book comes out, maybe as a biography, which seems to always be the case when someone gets a high position, we should use a new reference. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Government of Canada Newsroom (which looks like an excellent resource that I found via this link): Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin at the installation of the new Governor General and Appointment of New Governor General. Oddly enough, my search didn't turn up a press release for the actual investiture, only Martin's speech during it and the press release for the appointment. In any case, those links will be more persistent than the National Post article. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, much better reference.  Ok if I replace the current reference (National Post) with this one Appointment of New Governor General. -- Jeff3000 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest! — Saxifrage ✎ 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New References 

message: There is a see also link in the Culture section to Canadian and American politics compared.  I'd like to remove this link or at least move it to the Government section.  Anyone against the removal? -- Jeff3000 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one commented, so I'll remove this now. -- Jeff3000 20:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian and American politics compared 

message: This mentions the UK is still canada's mother country
CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!!
--24.81.6.211 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The context of the statement is in no way invalid; Canada can be an independent "adult" country and still have a historical "mother". And besides, the phrase "mother country" is in quotation marks. Bearcat 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That term is still used where I live, not that we a less than Britain, but for historical reasons. Look at it this was when you move out of yuor home and live on your own your mother is still your mother, is she not?70.49.44.42 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real difficulty with this sentence is that 'the United Kingdom as its "mother country"' suggests that that there is only one mother country. France, and in another way, the First Nations would have quite understandable objections to that statement. Anyway, I've reworded and expanded the passage in question. Pinkville 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Relations

message: The city of Vancouver, the site of the next winter olympics,  does not appear in the article at all. Montreal appears only in an image caption. Toronto appears many times --JimWae 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think the article is solely lacking information on the cities in Canada, and I would like to see a section on the largest cities of Canada as is the case in the US page, but it's been shot down a couple times.  I think having a table on Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver (which happen to have the six NHL teams) with a short paragraph would add a lot to the article, and allow for good placement of some images. -- Jeff3000 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be addressed, then, by noting Vancouver in the sports sxn or elsewhere.  As above, however, I disagree with including a dedicated sxn/table regarding cities: various links/details in the demographics section et al. are sufficient without recapitulating them.  To clarify: Toronto is only depicted once, as is Montreal, Ottawa is depicted thrice (but not inappropriately), and various cities/areas are mentioned numerous times ... including, alternatively, the Lower Mainland.  If we wanted to kill two birds with one stone, add pictures of Vancouver or Calgary (host of the 1988 Winter Olympics) to the sports sxn.  It is ironic to advocate for including a sxn on cities when other worthwhile attempts have been made to prune the article of other details that are arguably equally germane.  As well, the US article is unnecessaily an example to follow (which is far too lengthy already) and Australia provides an opposing counterpoint (which is also more urbanised than Canada). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to "It is ironic to advocate for including a sxn on cities when other worthwhile attempts have been made to prune the article of other details that are arguably equally germane." pruning and adding a section are not contrary in their purpose.  I would argue that the role of a Canada article in Wikipedia is to provide a good summary of the country; pruning a section means that the section in the article is important, but that there is too much detail, and adding a section means that no infomration is in the article, and for which it is important.  My edits in the past have not cut out a section, because I think they are all important, but just shortened them to be a summary.  The current article, provides almost no information about the cities in Canada, which as stated above I think is a very large deficiency, and adding them in a summary fashion I think is appropriate. -- Jeff3000 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a distinct difference between enhancing text to be more inclusive (as stated above) and adding sxns that are rather redundant.  Most of the edits thus far have accomplished the former.  Debatably, the article already provides summative info regarding cities ... in the form of wikilinks and dialogue.  Adding a dedicated sxn above and beyond that is, in my opinion, repetitive and excessive and no different than adding sections about education, health care, Canada-United States relations, or any other important aspect of the country.  Moreover, a section regarding cities is not prescribed in the Wikipedia country project template and – as with Australia and other articles – see no reason for it here.  If something is added, something else must go.  Add appropriate text or images if you will regarding major cities not already noted but, based on prior commentary and current content, additions of excessive information will be dealt with just as judiciously.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like other people to comment on the inclusion of cities. So far, I, JimWae, and SG have been for the addition of a cities section, and looking over the discussion, you have been the one who have been against it (maybe GroundZero, but I believe he was against the way it was included before)  We are far from consensus here, and I would point out currently there is more support for their inclusion than against. Furtheremore I think Education, Health Care, and Canada-United States relations would be excellent sections that could be summarized and added to the article;  they are all important parts of Canadian identity.  -- Jeff3000 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire: you are drawing some assumptions for support that are not as clear as indicated.  Not for me to presuppose Wikipedians, but JW has only indicated that Vancouver didn't 'appear' in the article (and now does, though can be enhanced) and not for a section, and GZ supported my summative edits in lieu of the lengthy section added by SG that would (I gather) resemble the current proposal.  I encourage other input and can be compelled otherwise, but there are article length recommendations and a dedicated wikiproject in place for reasons (particularly for people who use dial-up/have older browsers and for consistency, respectively), and proposed sections would likely obviate not only these but recent efforts to make the article more summative ... all of which are/can be fuflilled through wikifying of dialogue.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities 

message: I have been reading WP:CITE to understand the differences between Footnotes and references.  There are, of course, multiple ways of doing things, but for this article, given the way things are structured, I think we could fall in line with the way things are cited pretty easily.  I think the most important statement that is relevent to the Canada article is this one:
:"Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below."
So given that this is an uncontroversial topic (generally), we should have a reference section that backs up what is in the article.  The footnotes, which are used in addition to (the in addition to is italisized in the original WP:CITE article) could be included for specific statements.
Other parts of the document that I think are relevent are:
:*"Complete citations, also called "references", are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work."
:*"Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources"  (the article states that the reason for this is that it is annoying to go back and forth)
So in general I think we're doing things ok, for facts that use specific numbers, it might be appropriate to use the footnote, but in general for a topic like this, I think if we have references that back up what we have in the article, that should be good enough. -- Jeff3000 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reference talk 

message: The "Language" section says:
:Canada's two official languages are English and French, spoken by 56.3% and 28.7% of the population respectively.
But then a few lines down, it says:
:...more than 98% of Canadians speak English or French or both.
56.3% + 28.7% is only 85%, so where'd the other 13% come from?
I suspect that the first statistic is actually for "mother tongue" while the second is for "speaks fluently" or "speaks with some degree of fluency".
This needs to be clarified (and if both statistics are given, they should be
kept together, too).
--207.176.159.90 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct. I just went to Statistics Canada's [web site], but it is down this weekend. I will check on Monday. Luigizanasi 07:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language statistics conflicting 

message: The description of Canada's government currently begins with:
: 3.1 The Monarch
: 3.2 Governor General
: 3.3 Executive
: 3.4 Legislature
I say this is completely wrong.  Canadian political power de facto is plainly  centered on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, in other words the executive, and that's where the article should begin.  Their power in turn is derived from the House of Commons, which should be described next. To list things in any other order, or to mention the weak Senate on an equal basis with the more powerful Commons, is seriously misleading.
:The highest political forum in the land is actually the First Ministers Conferences – think about where the decisions were made to patriate the constitution, give us the charter and create medicare. You have to get those 11 guys together in the same room to create any major domestic policies. The other level of government also provides the real opposition to the federal and provincial governments. The commons and provincial assemblies do as they're told. The fact that this major constitutional change happened by stealth also says a lot about how this country actually works. If you want to talk about reality, this is where you should start. GreatWhiteNortherner 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point and it should be worked into the article Rjensen 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to fix it and downgraded the Queen to her actual position --let's see if people object. Rjensen 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While I don't agree with Rjensen's edit's completely, I do think the Monarch and Governer General sections are too large given their current ceremonial role (I know they have real power, but in reality they will never really use it). -- Jeff3000 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion is that all the material on the Queen can be reduced to a few sentences. Wiki Encyclopedia ia about reality not formal paperwork that -- like "Dominion" has been effectively discarded though it still exists in the attic. The goal is to be realistic here.Rjensen 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether they can be edited down is one thing, but pretending the GG has precedence over the Queen, as the most recent edits insinuate, is utterly ridiculous. --gbambino 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not for or against moving the Queen and the Governor General, but the person that has the most effect on the Canadian government, on Canadian policy, and thus the Canadian people is the prime minister, and not the Governor General, and definitely not the Queen. -- Jeff3000 02:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course. That's true in all the countries where she's Queen. In fact it's the nature of all constitutional monarchies including the Scandinavian ones. Even in a republic like Ireland you'll find that the prime minister has more effect than the president. That doesn't mean that the president (or the Queen) isn't the Head of State though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points made by gbambino and Derek Ross.  All political power in Canada legally derives from the Crown, which has the sole power to designate the executives in the provincial and federal jurisdictions.  Whether or not the Crown chooses to exercise its discretion in that regard is immaterial.  Legally, it has such discretion.  Speculation is hypothetical.  I think the difficulty here is that we're speaking about two orders of reality here - the legal and (for lack of a better term) the de facto.  Given that, as gbambino and Derek Ross point out, the customary way of describing the structure of government is based on how it is legally described in constitutional documents, I think the way it was before the recent edit was preferable.  Fishhead64 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said Derek.  The defacto allocation of Politcal power in Canadian governement is not relevant here.  This setion's topic is the structure of the Canadian government which Headed by the Monarch.--Davidmintz 01:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government section should emphasize political power 

message: Would anyone be against me removing just the extra subsection headings (not the content) in the demographics section.  For such short sections, I don't think we really need the subsection headings.  I'll find a way to link the "main" articles in the section. -- Jeff3000 16:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change.  If anyone feel strongly, go ahead and change it back.  I do think however, it looks and flows better this way, given the short section. -- Jeff3000 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsection headings in Demographics section 

message: K. I know its already been discussed to lock this page, but the thing is that its only users that aren't logged in or people that don't have an account that just put stuff (ie.: Hello I like cheese). Is there a way of only letting logged in users to gain access to editing this page? paat 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, it's called semi-protection.  Read this for more info. Flying Canuck 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many reverts

message: I saw the hockey picture with a goal scored against the Ducks. I'm taking for granted that it's the Anaheim Mighty Ducks That are playing, since I've checked in the OHL and WHL pages, and no teams are called the ducks. So I was wondering if we could use a diffrent picture where 2 canadian NHL teams are playing? I think it would be more symbolic for a page like this. thx paat 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image shows the Portland Pirates (affiliate of the Anaheim mighty ducks in the AHL.  You are right in that a Canadian team would be better, but we also need an image that is under the GFDL.  There's a whole bunch that are available on commons.wikimedia, but none of them look that great. But go ahead and pick one, and change it. -- Jeff3000 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks Jeff I'll do that if i can find a good one. I'm still bothered though by how in the NHL (for Anaheim), their goalie is number 35 (Jean-Sebastien Giguere). + the uniform and color worn by the team is nothing compared to what the Portland Pirates wear []. I still think its the Mighty Ducks though ;) but thanks for permission to change it paat 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hockey picture

message: I've heard quite a few times where Americans talked about annexing Canada, so I'm wondering if there's such a movement within Canada itself and if such a thing is ever considered serious enough to be mentioned in this article.--Ryz05 06:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's no need for the Canadians to annex Canada since they already control it! And annexing America sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I doubt that such a movement exists within Canada or has ever been considered seriously enough to be mentioned in the article. Still you never know. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There's an article at Annexationist movements of Canada. Suffice to say that the idea isn't entirely unknown in Canadian political discourse, but it's never gone very far or been taken all that seriously. It doesn't really merit mention in the main Canada article, though. Bearcat 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annex Canada?

message: I changed the GDP figures back. The list is available at the IMF website, but this link will take you directly there: 
IMF Site
I changed the GDP figures that were in the infobox to the 2005 CIA figures because I could not find the source for the numbers that were there. The numbers were:
 -|-GDP (PPP)——2006 estimate
  - Total——$1.167 trillion (11th) 
  - Per capita——$35,988 (8th)
They were not IMF, WF, or CIA.  If these are legitimate numbers, we should have a citation on them.  I hope that I wasn't jumping the gun by changing them, but I would rather have been safe and sure with known numbers.  Does anyone have a source for these numbers?—MJCdetroit 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers may have been a typo in the first place.  User:Jeff3000 has changed the figures to the correct IMF figures.  Which is a good enough source for me.  —MJCdetroit 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's good for the goose may or may not be good for the gander. ;)  Relatedly, there is currently a poll underway – without a clear consensus as of yet – to standardise said GDP values for all country articles/infoboxes.  Please weigh in there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dollars need to be identified.  The IMF figures are not Canadian dollars.  Gene Nygaard 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   use International dollars on GDP figures, russia doesn't use rubles, and japan doesn't use the yen.--24.81.6.211 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S we need to lock figures for 2005, they change too frequently--24.81.6.211 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's an "international dollar"? Indefatigable 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP figures