Talk:Canada/Archive 8

message: I think it's about time to revamp all the stat's. Some are listed at 2003, when there's already 2005  info. The GDP is cleary not of 2006 etc.....--24.80.25.37 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, be bold. Andrewjuren(talk) 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STATS

message: Without wishing to be too nitpicking 'all countries were 'originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples'. That's what aboriginal means. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples"

message: Firsly, there was already a discussion of the commonwealth template (among others) here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada/Archive3#Templates
Since the Commonwealth Realms template is featured on Monarchy in Canada and since the Commonwealth is featured here already on Template:Canada ties, I think it should be removed. -- TheMightyQuill 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Template? 

message: 411junkie (talk • contribs) added the Canadian celebrities section. At best, I think this belongs in Portal:Canada, since this appears to be an attempt at using Canada as the "main page" for the subject of Canada and this is the entire purpose of wikipedia:Portals. Also note that the first article in the list, List of Famous Canadian Actors, is authored by the same user and so inserting the link into a prominent place here is a species of vanity. I haven't looked too hard at that article, but the miscapitalisation and redness of the user's name indicate that they're simply inexperienced in these things. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: this is too much information for an overview article that is (arguably) already loaded. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  Jkelly 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian celebrities section 

message: Is there a reason why the Harper picture is so big? -- Jeff3000 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why, but the thumbnail size was set to 240px. I reduced it to 125, the same as the pictures of the Queen and the G-G and it certainly seems to sit better on the page. Eron 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thumbnails usually don't specify a size. The size of thumbnails is controlled through each user's preference settings. When specifying a size like 125px or 240px in the code you override the preference feature. See Wikipedia:Images#Image preferences. --maclean25 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, this one already had a size specified. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harper picture 

message: Which version of the plural of referendum should we use in this article?  (I started this discussion previously, but it is now archived.)
I recognize that both versions are acceptable in English.  My preference is for referendums, because, as the referendum article states, the OED considers referendums to be preferable.  I realize that this is not a big deal for this article, but I would like to settle this through discussion and consensus.  Replies like "both versions are acceptable, so we must use 'referenda'" are unsatisfactory.
It is possible there are overlooked and uncorrected spelling errors in the above paragraph.  Please do not dismiss my entire point if you find any.  --thirty-seven 06:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As before and above, I believe either form is acceptable ... and particularly in this situation.  Dictionaries generally do not make the distinction above, even my single-volume New Oxford Dictionary of English.  The two referenda, the first in 1980 and the other in 1995, concerned different and arguably complex issues (entailing 'sovereignty-association' and 'sovereignty', respectively) and posed different questions.  I can be compelled otherwise.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that point, that the two questions (1980 and 1995) were significantly different.  However, it is clear (to me) that the sentence under discussion is specifically referring to the fact that there were two "popular votes" or plebiscites, and not to the fact that there were two different questions. --thirty-seven 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were completely different questions and, arguably, different issues with different proposals.  And what's good for the goose may not be for the gander: to me, all of the nuances above may be relevant.  Each referendum entailed multiple issues and (also) uncertainties with what was meant by the term 'sovereignty'.  Otherwise, I defer to prior comments but can be compelled otherwise.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Referendums'' or ''Referenda''? 

message: The Royal Anthem was replaced by the Canadian National Anthem. Probably it was still used in some schools intitially afterwards, but today there is virtually no one who sings the Royal Anthem, so a star or note should be put underneath saying that it is not practicised in public institutions.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.162.140 (talk • contribs) .
:According to Canadian Heritage "God Save The Queen has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors."  It is used on public occasions as part of the protocol for musical salutes to the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, and the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.  Eron 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I attended a Duke of Edinburgh Award ceremony in Calgary during 2003 at which the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta was present. God Save The Queen was certainly played at that ceremony, so unless things have changed in the last three years, I would suggest that the Royal Anthem is still alive and well in appropriate Canadian situations. In most situations of course the National Anthem is more appropriate than the Royal Anthem and so it is the anthem which is played. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ''God Save the Queen'' 

message: The images of the canadarm and montreal biosphere seem out of place.. should they be removed? this article has quite a few pictures as it is. Mlm42 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed these two photos (although I wanted to keep the Canadarm, I couldn't fit the image into the article nicely anywhere).  I added another Montreal photo into the Language section. --thirty-seven 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced images 

message: I think that this article should be featured. The League of Crazy Men 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just got your wish today.Michael Dorosh 00:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada Article Featured?

message: i suggest to put this picture :
Moraine Lake by Lake Louise Alberta Canada.jpg
thank you....took from the deuth version of canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.166.50 (talk • contribs) .
:I'm not sure which image you are referring too, but it may be :Image:Moraine_Lake_17092005.jpg or :Image:Morraine lake.jpg, both of which are quite stunning and free of copyright. -- Jeff3000 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Moraine_Lake_by_Lake_Louise_Alberta_Canada.jpg presumably this is the one. heqs 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image suggestion

message: On the Canada page how come the use of "The Right Honourable" is used for John A Macdonald but not for the Prime minister? Also Her Majesty and Her Excellency have been taken off. I think the proper titles should be used therefore I’m going to add them back on. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:44, 8 May 2006 {UTC}
:It shouldn't be used for Macdonald.  Honourifics aren't used - see Michaëlle Jean, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Stephen Harper, and any other page on a monarch or occupant of a political office.  As stated in hidden text at the top of Elizabeth II's article: "A discussion on Wikipedia produced an overwhelming consensus to end the 'style wars' by replacing styles at the start by a style infobox later in the text."  Obviously a style infobox isn't needed on the Canada page, but on the pages dedicated to each individual. --gbambino 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific Titles 

message: Would anyone be against me reverting this edit in the history section.  I think that info doesn't need to be there. -- Jeff3000 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support you doing so.  The population growth and Prime Minister party-affiliation information seems unnecessary.  The mention of the UN is important, but it is already discussed in the Foreign Relations/Military section. --thirty-seven 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done, -- Jeff3000 18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is thin on social history so the population information should stay and indeed be augmented. International readers do not know the party affiliations very well so that should stay. Rjensen 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statistics on population growth, immigration rates, unemployment rates, etc are the sort of thing that are far too detailed for this article.  Yes, international readers (and indeed, some Canadian ones) do not know party-affiliations of Prime Ministers, but that information should not be included in this article unless it is relevant.  If a reader wants to know more about, say, Wilfred Laurier or his party affiliation, they can click on the wiki-link.  I do like the sentence that Rjensen added about the CCF vs New Deal during the Depression.  --thirty-seven 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with thirty-seven.  Country articles in Wikipedia are in the summary style, they are not supposed to be an all-encompassing statement of fact.  In particular they should link to main articles as is done.  Note the Australia article which has reached featured article status.  The history section is already too long. I will be shortening much of the info, which anyways best fits in other sections (such has economics, demographics, etc).  -- Jeff3000 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section revert 

message: Rjensen has added some military references to Canada/References which I'm greatful for, but I believe for the content on this page there are too many references.  In the past there was too many references on Sports and it was cut down.  They are not supposed to be all-encompassing.  I've also reverted the addition of those references as Further reading in this article.  A further reading section is amalgamated with references when there is a Notes section, as discussed already in 
Talk:Canada/Archive8#More reference talk and WP:CITE.  Also given the short section on the Military in this page, the amount of Further reading he added was much too long.  They should go in the appropriate main article. -- Jeff3000 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military references 

message: This article seems to put the govener general above the prime minster. The govener general is just a formalade in Canada and holds no real power. She gets paid to go out wave her hand to a few people, and goes on living in her mansion.Just wanted to clear that up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) .
:The Governor General functions as a stand-in for the Queen, and her role is thusly significant to Canadian lawmaking. Should a law be passed that she simply refuses to sign, the law would not be passed. She would be tried for treason, and a new general would be appointed and subsequently would sign the law in, but just because she is suplerfluous does not make her insignificant.--KefkaTheClown 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constitutionally, the Prime Minister is subordinate to the Governor General, and the Governor General has some power in minority government situations and other special circumstances. Peter Grey 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Govener General

message: I've been trying to find a reference that states that Canada has participated in the most peackeeping missions, and I haven't found one yet.  There are some references that state that Canada has provided the most number of personnel in peacekeeping missions (see )
There also a statement in the Military History of Canada article stating "Canada participated in every UN peacekeeping effort from when they began until 1989, and has since then continued to play a major role." and attributes that to Desmond Morton's, A Military History of Canada.  I can't make the leap from that statement to the fact that Canada has participated in the most peacekeeping missions (especially that recently, we haven't been participating that much at all).
Does anyone have a reference or have Morton's book to check it out for a more direct statement?. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article  states more than 50 peacekeeping missions but doesn't connect that to more than any other country. -- Jeff3000 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the statement to account for the Desmond Morton referenc from the Military History of Canada article. -- Jeff3000 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most peacekeeping missions 

message: This is currently listed as Federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.  I think this might be too much information for the infobox.  Based on a small sampling, it seems like a significant majority of the articles on other Commonwealth Realms simply say "Constitutional Monarchy".  This is also true for most other European monarchies that I looked at, and Japan.  Likewise, most articles for democratic republics say "Federal Republic" (USA, Germany, India), "Unitary Republic" (France), or just "Republic" (Italy).  Portugal does say "Parliamentary Democracy".
I am in favour of shortening the description in the infobox to Federal constitutional monarchy.
:This new phrase sounds good to me. -- Jeff3000 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I've nixed the abbreviation 'const.' (which is rather cryptic) and replaced it with the spell-out 'constitutional': if we are concerned about the width of text in the infobox (which isn't problematic on my monitor), we should be focusing on other entries instead or resizing the entire box and text in it.  Similarly, I've also reduced the font size of this line: it is now no longer (actually, only slightly) than a number of others below in the infobox. A the 0th | talk | 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The font size is not a good fix, as it has messed up the columns. Now the Monarch is Monarchy, The Governor General is Queen Elisabeth II, and the Prime minister has the amusing name of Michaëlle Jean Stephen Harper. -- TheMightyQuill 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far I like this version the best.  Notice how with the most recent version the line that delineates the infobox disappears beside the world map. -- Jeff3000 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that version the best too, but I could have a bias (it's my edit).  You may want to check out Template talk:Infobox Country#New_style.  There was a change in the style of the infobox design.  The jury is still out on it.—MJCdetroit 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Type in infobox 

message: I have deleted an awkward clause in the Government section that says that the COnservative Party "has formed governments in the past, as did its predecessor paries...." The modern Conservative Party is a new political party that was formed after the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party dissolved themselves. It is not the legal contiuation of either party. The PC Party wentr through several name changes during its long history, including Liberal-Conservative Party, Conservative Party, Unionist Party, and so on. But that party was dissolved in 2003. The sentence could have been re-worked to make reference to the modern COnservative Party's predecessors, but is it needed here? The section is about the current government, not about the history of Canada's government. I think the article is better off without this. Ground Zero | t 14:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, glad you took it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Party

message: A single-term 'Unionist' Party of Robert Borden was formed as a union of Conservatives and conscription-supporting Liberals during World War I.
While this is interesting, is it really relevant to the main Canada page, rather than Politics of Canada or History of Canada? -- TheMightyQuill 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, take it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government: Unionist Party 

message: Sorry I deleted a perfectly good copyedit... That was simply an editing conflict. iggytalk 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Revert 

message: I think we need more images: One in the Foreign Relations & Military section, and one in the Economy section.  I haven't yet been able to find anything that is suitable, and also bright and clear (to match with the other good photos in this article). --thirty-seven 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think the page has enough photos. The extra photos will not fit in the sections, and will make them instead overlow to the next section. We already have one more photo than the Austrlia article. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jeff. There are more than enough pictures on this page. More might overwhelm the text. Incidentally, though, I like the picture under economy... I've never got a chance to see the new $50 or $100 :-). iggytalk 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Jeff3000. A the 0th | talk | 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we should replace :Image:Junobeach.jpg -- we have no idea where it originally came from.  The source is just a link to its file location at www.toronto.ca.  There are some Canadian WWII images at Commons.  Also, I'm not thrilled about :Image:MountLogan.jpg; it seems that we're just grabbing unfree content here because we like the picture.  I can't find any images of Mt. Logan that are freely-licensed, though.  Jkelly 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we'll need to find free images, especially since I think this article is almost ready to apply for featured article status (a couple referenes to find).  A discussion regarding images happened a couple months ago.  That discussion can be found at Talk:Canada/Archive8#Images,  Talk:Canada/Archive8#Images.2C_Part_II and Talk:Canada/Archive8#Bold_with_images.  Maybe the Junobeach image can be replaced with something from more recent history of Canada (I don't have suggestions though). -- Jeff3000 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree.  If we can't find a free image of Mt Logan, then perhaps another outstanding geological feature, like the Horseshoe Falls.  Also, I'm the person who added the Juno Beach image.  If we want to replace it with a similar, but free, photo, then I suggest :Image:'Nan White' Beach, JUNO Area at Bernieres-sur-Mer.jpg.  If we want something more recent, here are a few suggested topics: an image from the October Crisis, an Olympic Games held in Canada, the Queen signing the Constitution Act 1982.  I'm sure there are many more possibilities.  --thirty-seven 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a link to what we have for Canadian WWI forces.  Jkelly 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and here is a link to World War II pictures.  I think that since World War II is more recent, (the picture is at the end of the History section), and that Canada entered the war on it's own, it makes more sense to have a WWII picture.  I like this one :Image:Canadian soldiers on Juno Beach.jpg because it is in colour. -- Jeff3000 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it up as a trial.  What do we think of it?  Jkelly 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article, I don't like it so much.  The colours are faded.  I retract my suggestion, unless other people like the image. -- Jeff3000 03:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad photo; it just doesn't fit into the article space-wise — also, why is it next to the paragraph on the Quiet Revolution? — rather gives a different image of the whole affair... iggytalk 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think those are all excellent photos.  I was sure that they were unfortunately all too "busy" to be easily discernable at the small size they would be given in this article (240px).  However, I actually tried viewing them all as 240px thumbnails, and I was wrong - they look fine.  The "Reconciliation" image is much too tall, but the other three are well proportioned.  So of these 4 images, for the History section, I support either WLMK broadcasting or the soldiers on the destroyer - the image is currently located right after the mention of WWII.  The peacekeeping monument image would be good if we need another image for the Foreign Rel. & Military section. --thirty-seven 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to try the destroyer image, and see how that works out.  The biggest problem with the current image is that it goes into the next section on a 1024x768 resolution.  And the new image in Thirty-seven's version of the Foreign Relation looks good.  I think we could have that image there.  Any other comments? -- Jeff3000 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Photos? 

message: Just so you know:
A the 0th is a sockpuppet of E Pluribus Anthony as established by CheckUser
Both have been active on this talk page. Andeggs 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: There are three inline references left to be found.  These are in topics that either I don't know of online resources, or I don't have the required books to find.  Can someone look into it, especially the one about amalgating the French (a good history book should have it). -- Jeff3000 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I found the references, and we are done with the inline references. -- Jeff3000 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jeff3000!  Thanks for driving the effort to add these necessary citations and, it seems, adding most of them yourself.  --thirty-seven 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch for the Toronto thing, I added some references for that.  Canada being the second largest country is more common knowledge, and the general references take care of it. -- Jeff3000 18:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three inline references left 

message: Congratulations to all involved.  Jkelly 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thanks to all. :) -- Jeff3000 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: I'm not sure how important it is for achieving Featured Article status, but doesn't it seem as though the article is getting clogged with pictures?  It seems especially bad in the Foreign relations and miltary, Language, and culture sections. --gbambino 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, I removed the recently added military picture, and I would agree with the removal of more pictures. -- Jeff3000 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There've been plenty of FAs on the main page with more images than this. Anyway, I propose swapping the peacekeeping monument for Juno Beach, squishing the table in Provinces and territories if at all possible and slightly reducing the geopolital map and satellite pic. heqs 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the totem pole image might be more appropriate than the Vancouver one - there are three city images on the page now (Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver), and none representing First Nation peoples. --gbambino 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the totem pole picture is better than one of the three city pictures, but it doesn't seem to fit anywhere.  The Toronto picture represents multi-culturalism, the Montreal picture the language issue, and Vancouver slightly sports.  We could remove Vancouver now that the text of the caption is in the main section.  I guess the totem pole could fit in the culture section, instead of Vancouver. -- Jeff3000 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I'd thought - replace Van with the totem pole in Culture. --gbambino 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I'm not sure what the problem with my edit was.  How did it affect the following section?  As far as I could see the Geography and climate section remained identical after my condensing of Provinces and territories.  Frankly, its reverted form looks terrible. --gbambino 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll post a screenshot in a second. -- Jeff3000 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a screeshot :Image:Canadascreenshot.jpg.  I'm going to ask for a speedy delete of this image in a couple days. -- Jeff3000 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh - that looks much different to what I see on my screen.  And here I thought I'd found a way to condense all that white space.  Does anyone with better knowledge than I on these things know of a way to tighten that section up? --gbambino 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You might want to post such screenshots to an external free image host. heqs 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a possibility.  Other articles on federated countries (Australia, United States) don't include such tables. --gbambino 19:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If possible, I think we should keep the table.  --thirty-seven 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be truncated column-wise. Too unweildy. With the image, the section will be a mess to anyone viewing on a resolution lower than 1152x864. heqs 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, though I like the chart, the more I think about it, the more I feel Jeff3000's suggestion is best: its information should be merged with one of the two charts on the Provinces and territories of Canada page.  The Canada article is long, and the chart, combined with all the white-space it creates, doesn't help at all.  Also, as I said already, other articles on federal countries (ie. Australia, which I believe has been a featured article) don't include such tables. --gbambino 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say there is a pretty good case for breaking with convention and including such a table given the vastness of the country and clear political, historical, and geographic distinctions between provinces. If there were 30 or 40 of them, maybe not. heqs 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to fight it tooth and nail, but, though Australia certainly doesn't have anything akin to Quebec, the country is almost as large and diverse.  As well, how important is it that we have the time zone differences, and Senate regions in this article?  Perhaps a simple list of provinces, their flag, and date of entry into Confederation is all that's necessary. --gbambino 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. heqs 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But with a low resolution, the text should extend down past the bottom of the image, so there should not be a mess. --thirty-seven 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crowded tables and images, and images with other images sometimes overlap before falling in line. heqs 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Down to 937px before it causes a horizontal scroll-bar, still need to shrink it.  Also yes, I think the geopolitical map should be made bigger. -- Jeff3000 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I'm obviously a bit of an amateur with the whole table thing. --gbambino 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I believe we should remove the table. The horizontal table was a good idea, but it just doesn't fit unless the text is unreadable.  -- Jeff3000 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provinces & Territories

message: From the Provinces and Territories section:
The federal government can initiate national policies that the provinces opt out of, but this rarely happens in practice.
I think this statement if ambiguous.  What rarely happens in practice: that the federal government initiates such programs that the provinces can opt out of, or that provinces do opt out of such programs?  --thirty-seven 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's that provinces can opt-out.  Can you fix the problem with a more concise statement? -- Jeff3000 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provincial opt-out of federal programs

message: The economy boomed during the war, as Canada grew closer to the United States and even began subsidizing the British Treasury.
What the heck is the British Treasury? heqs 19:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's HM Treasury.  That info was added recently, and we don't have a citation.  I think we should remove it. -- Jeff3000 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Treasury in History section 

message: From the article: "Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by English, French, Irish, Scottish, and First Nations cultures and traditions."
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by... First Nations cultures?  
No.  Clearly that doesn't make sense.  So I've put a "better" revision in there, but I expect it to be "edited mercilessly".AshleyMorton 04:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite as simple as that. See for instance Métis people (Canada). Now it reads as if First Nations culture is extinct ("previously extant"). Surely, there have been widespread attempts to assimilate or eliminate aborignial culture, but it still exists and the ways the colonial and aboriginal cultures influenced eachother (and continue to...) are subtle and complex. I'm changing it back to the previous wording unless someone has a better proposal. heqs 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both of your concerns are valid. How about taking out "Due to it's colonial past" and, if you want to refer to the Metis, changing First Nations to Aboriginal peoples in Canada? -- TheMightyQuill 07:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. heqs 08:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial First Nations???

message: There are too many and some can be put under others such as "provinces" under "geography", "foreign relations" under "government" and "holidays" can be put under "culture" if it even needs to have a place. Skinnyweed 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries style, which is what all country articles should be striving for. In regards to provinces there needs to be a Subdivisions section (named what the subdivions are called in that country, in Canada's case Provinces).  Holiday's also needs to be its own section.  Foreign relations can be in the Government section or in a Miscellaneous section. Other featured country articles such as Australia have started the trend to make it its own section, and since we don't have a miscellaneious section, it is made it's own section. -- Jeff3000 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading deficiencies 

message: In the featured article nomination page, Peta states that most recently featured countires don't have the holiday section, do people think this adds much to an article?  If this is true, I think we should remove the Holiday section.  I had thought that this section was a requirement imposed on the Canada article by some template/standard that needed to be met in order to achieve featured article status.  Generally, Canadian holidays are not especially noteworthy or different compared to other Western, historically-Christian, nations.  Canada Day/Dominion Day is already mentioned in the article.  Remembrance Day could be mentioned in the Military section, if contributors think that would be worthwhile.  --thirty-seven 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The holidays section is a recommendation of the the countries wikiproject.  I'm not sure if it useful, and wouldn't mind removing it.  So far there is only one person complaining about the holidays, while someone else wanted it longer, so let's see what other's say. -- Jeff3000 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Holidays section? 

message: Since Canada is a completely separate kingdom from the United Kingdom is it correct to call Queen Elizabeth of Canada Elizabeth II as this article on Canada does? Because Canada never had a monarch called Elizabeth before her, so she is not really Elizabeth II in Canada. There have been similiar situations like this in personal unions, when two completely separate kingdoms share the same monarch. When King James VI of Scotland became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 he was still called James VI in Scotland but he was just called James in England and in Ireland because those two kingdoms were still completely separate from Scotland and they had never had a king called James before. And when King Henry VIII of England became King of Ireland in 1541 he was still called Henry VIII in England but he was technically just Henry in Ireland because the two kingdoms were still technically completely separate from each other and Ireland had never had a king called Henry before.
FDR 11:11 PM May 22 2006 (UTC)
:This has already been discussed at length since it is true of every kingdom of which she is Queen except England. In fact it caused pillar boxes bearing the EIIR moniker in Scotland to come under attack for a while in the 1950s. As I recall the conclusion of the discussion was that she can call herself what she likes and as it seems that she wants to be known as Elizabeth II in all the countries of which she is Queen, her governments have made II her official regnal number. Thus even in countries where logically she is Elizabeth I, legally she is Elizabeth II. Wikipedia is merely following official practice in calling her Elizabeth II. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe the resolution of the situation you describe regarding Scotland was that they came up with the rule that all monarchs of the UK would take as their 'number' the highest number they would have been entitled to in any of the constituent countries.  So, for example, based on this scheme if there is a future King James of the UK, he would be King James VIII.  However, this numbering scheme does not directly address FDR's point, since Scotland and England are no longer separate kingdoms in a personal union.  --thirty-seven 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Queen is called Elizabeth II in Canada in everyday usage, in formal usage, and in legal usage.  You make a good case that this might be incorrect in terms of royal naming/numbering rules, but that is irrelevant to the Canada article.  If anywhere, it should be mentioned in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Monarchy in Canada.  --thirty-seven 05:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My quarter says, "ELIZABETH II D.G. (Dei Gratia) REGINA".  Latin for Elizabeth II by God's Grace Queen.  If it's good enough for the Canadian government to stamp Elizabeth the second on their coins—it's good enough for wikipedia.—MJCdetroit 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And furthermore, the reason why the Canadians and the other Commonwealth realms call her Elizabeth II is that their monarchies are in no way independent of the British, whatever legal fiction might say. TharkunColl 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Monarch

message: Okay, so I have a document produced by the government of Canada that states Canada became "a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."   This confirms that not only was Canada a kingdom at Confederation, but the use of the word "onward" means that it continued to be a kingdom after Confederation.  Can this therefore be introduced into the history section: "The British North America Act created Canada as "a kingdom in her own right," referred to as "one dominion under the name of Canada", with four provinces..."
I should have remembered this material; it was distributed to schools across the country for the Queen's 2002 Golden Jubilee visit, and I have printed versions of it (in French and English) at home. --gbambino 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording you have just proposed above makes it seem that the British North America Act actually called Canada "a kingdom in her own right" - whereas in reality it was a bunch of leaflets produced for a royal visit in 2002. And that begs the question - why would Canadians need to be told this? Are they really so ignorant? No one in the UK would need to be told that it's a kingdom, the bloody royals are on TV almost every single day making fools of themselves in one way or another. If Canada really is a kingdom, then it has been remarkably reticent about saying so. If it's a kingdom, it's a kingdom without a royal family. Yes, it may legally have a queen, but the royal family is not just the queen, it's all her offspring and their spouses, etc. You don't have Prince Charles sticking his nose into government policy by writing to all the ministers every day demanding to be kept informed of what's going on, or trying to overturn a decision of the National Health Service to stop funding alternative medicine. You don't get Prince Harry dressing up in Nazi uniform and getting drunk at parties. You don't get Princess Anne up in court on speeding charges and getting off scot free. You don't get revelations that Princess Michael of Kent's father was an SS guard during the war. And you don't get Elton John recycling a second rate pop song for a stuck-up, spoilt brat and making it the best selling single in the history of the world. This is what you get in a real kingdom. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then perhaps, after all, it's really a goose... TharkunColl 07:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: This strikes as phenominally silly.  Canada is, of course, a kingdom, the same way that a monarchy with an emperor is an empire, a monarchy with a prince is a principality, etc.  Canada has been a kingdom since 1931 (not 1867). It is not, however, commonly called the Kingdom of Canada either officially or traditionally.  I hate to use a comparison with the US, but compare the sound of the United States of America is a federation versus Federation of the United States of America.  Peter Grey 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''kingdom'' vs. Kingdom

message: Is the queen head of state of each of the provinces as well, in a role unconnected with her role as queen of Canada? Surely this must be the case, as the provinces have a legal, sovereign existence in their own right, which cannot be altered by the federal government. In which case, if she can be rightly called Queen of Newfoundland (etc.), then why is not Newfoundland a kingdom? TharkunColl 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case of Newfoundland is in some ways similar to the case of Scotland, I would think. Both were independent kingdoms before the merger with their neighbours at which point they each became part of a larger kingdom rather than kingdoms in their own right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is one of Canada's finest achievements in constitutional ambiguity.  Provinces are not sovereign (they're sometimes called 'co-sovereign', which is a fancy way of people avoiding the question).  Lieutenant-governors have this weird dual role where they represent the Queen but do so as subordinates of the Governor-General (employed and salaried by the Dominion government). Peter Grey 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A kingdom that dare not speak its name. A monarchy with an absentee monarch. A dominion that has eschewed even that old compromise. A country with an identity crisis... TharkunColl 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, to dream of a Canada only having only one identity crisis! Peter Grey 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Queen's role in the provinces

message: Not that this is necessarily part of the discussion above, but I'd like to start a list of sources here which point to Canada being a kingdom.  This information may prove useful here, or on other Canada related pages.
* Ewart, John S.; The Kingdom of Canada: imperial federation, the colonial conferences, the Alaska boundary and other essays; Morang; Toronto, 1908
** Re Ewart: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/encyclopedia/JohnS.Ewart-Wallace.htm - while he may have used the term, he was an advocate of republicanism & so his usage can be seen as polemic --JimWae 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I started something? If so excellent. DJ Clayworth 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References to kingdom

message: Hey guys - congrats on passing FAC! I have a question about one of the references that's listed, for "National Holidays." I see that the section on Holidays has been removed; does this reference still apply to anything, or can it be removed? Thanks! User: The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch :)  I've removed the reference. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref for National Holidays

message: Well, you got it through the FAC process, but the first sentence I looked at is:
"Non-official languages are important in Canada, with 5,202,245 people listing a non-official language as a first language. Among the most important non-official first language ..."
"Non-official" occurs three times; "language(s) occurs four times. Would someone like to make it "compelling, even brilliant"? Sorry to gripe, but I thought it had been thoroughly fixed up.
Tony 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to suggest a better wording. heqs 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrgh 

message: heqs keeps putting up the military.  There are far too many military pictures in this article (four of them), and too many images in the first place. I really don't think it needs to be there.  If we are going to add extra pictures, they should be of something else that represents Canada since the military is already well represented.   And unless someone else comments here in the next day or so, I will be removing the extra military picture once again. -- Jeff3000 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, I agree. Apart from implying Canada is a more warfaring country than it is and historically has been, it also contributes to the over-abundance of pictures in general in this article. Removal of at least one of them gets my vote. Brianporter 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't count the picture of the peacekeeping monument as a fourth military picture in as much as it doesn't make Canada look like a "warfaring" nation. WWI and II were landmark events in Canadian history, but I would support another 20th century pic replace one of them - maybe we could find a pic that illustrates the patriation of the constitution or something. I certainly don't think there's an "over-abundance" of pictures at this time. heqs 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peacekeeping missions are peformed by the military, and the peacekeeping picture is that of a soldier, and thus there are four military pictures.  And for someone on a small resolution, the images detract from the text and so there is an overabundance of pictures.  I will remove the new picture later on today, unless there is more discussion. -- Jeff3000 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: the only "peacekeeping picture" is that of a monument. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are not on a peacekeeping mission officially, maybe some people interpret it that way. heqs 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military picture 

message: This is just a very minor point, and I'm not seriously advocating changing the date, but I couldn't help noticing that her accession as Queen of Canada is given as 6 Feb 1952. The exact time of death of George VI is unknown, as he died during the night, but it would almost certainly have been before 5 a.m., and probably quite a long time before. In other words, while it was 6 Feb in the UK, it was - almost beyond question - still 5 Feb in Canada. TharkunColl 10:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the irrelevance of this, but it should be pointed out that if he died between 3:30am and 8am, then it was actually the 6th in some parts of Canada and the 5th in others. AshleyMorton 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe can just say demise of the Crown occurs in Universal Coordinated Time.... Peter Grey 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did Elizabeth II become Queen of Canada?

message: Okay,  70.81.117.175 made two adjustments to "Demographics", both of which I've removed.  The first was to lump together "Norwegian", "Swedish" and "Danish" (I think) to create a listing of "Scandinavian" on the list of Canada's common ancestries.  There could, theoretically be support for this, but the fact that we don't lump any other categories together other than ones that the reference has already done.  The reference is appropriately cited, and should be adhered to, because without sticking to it (or some better one, I suppose), we will get into a ridiculous discussion.  HOWEVER, my greater concern was that the same IP user added a list called "Racial Makeup of Canada" to the end of the section.  In it, he/she boiled down what is a very complex table (the one he/she cited:  to eight "Racial" categories (even though the reference refers to the statistics as concerning "ethnic origin"), and then listed them.  This smells of an attempt to prove something, although I will reserve judgement because I have no interest in accusing someone of something.  Still, if it seems POV then it should, at best, be modified, I believe. AshleyMorton 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were quite right to be suspicious of this edit, that IP has a long history of making ethnicity related edits that are either plain wrong or strongly questionable. The fact that this IP has made nothing but ethnicity related edits also worries me -- surely there must be something that interests this person other than ethnicity. Qutezuce 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Racial" Statistics

message: Canada's GDP per capita(according to the GDP per capita list of each provinces) is C$42,000 meaning US$38,000. Is this the result of someone not changing the value due to the higher dollar value, or is Canada's GDP per capita currently $38,000. If so, should it be changed, and does this mean Canada's GDP is actually around 1.2 trillion US User:Sic_one
:The data for this value, and most other GDP values in other countries is obtained from the International Money Fund (IMF) values.  Do you have a source for your stated values. -- Jeff3000 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product  my source is wikipedia! i was just saying, someone should clarify those GDP per capita's because if that information is correct, then that means Canada's GDP per capita is US$38,000. I doubt the information is correct because Canada's dollar is much stronger now, which shortens the gap between American and Canadian money. Sic one 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's GDP per capita 

message: There are couple users who keep adding the "by area" qualifier to the second largest statement.  It is unnecessary for that to be there. Given the definition of larger, that relates to size,  what other thing can it be than area.  Can it be volume?  countries don't have volume.  If someone was referring to population, then they would write Canada is the second-most populous country and not Canada is the second-largest country by population.  I will be removing the statement again. -- Jeff3000 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is any harm in being more precise. Many readers, for instance, might not have English as a first language and may not know the rather fine distinction between largest and most populous. - SimonP 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  By area 

message: I cut the following new addition as being uncited, somewhat informal, and overly-detailed for the summary. 
:Canada has been known to be more liberal minded than their southern neighbores, the United States. Canada has had legal gay marriage througout the country since 2000. Canada was the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium. Although Canada has a significant gay population, it is mostly in the large urban areas, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Other large cities in the country also have large gay communities.
Perhaps it needs trimming, or placement into another article?  Jkelly 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cut addition was also inaccurate: Spain legalized same-sex marriage before Canada did.  --thirty-seven 07:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, sorta.  Spain passed an explicit same-sex-marriages-are-recognized law before Canada did, yes.  However, Canada (through court precedent) had recognized same-sex marriages before Spain did.  I would suggest that this means that Canada "legalized" them first.  However, I'm still unhappy with the term "legalized".  There was nothing "illegal" about same-sex marriages before the rulings, it was just that the government didn't recognize them as marriages under the law.  I can "adopt" a child without registering the adoption, and the government doesn't arrest me (at least not for that!), it just doesn't treat the child as if he/she is my child.  That was similar to the way the law treated same-sex couples before the decisions, so I think it's best if we avoid the word "legalize". AshleyMorton 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is certainly not "fine as is", as it is unreferenced and opinionated, and "Although Canada has a significant gay population, it is mostly in the large urban areas, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Other large cities in the country also have large gay communities." is not brilliant prose.  Jkelly 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jkelly on this one.  Not only is it unreferenced, uncited, but this level of detail needs to be in the daughter articles, and not in this page, remember, it's already too long. -- Jeff3000 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal Canada" and gay marriage 

message: 24.42.193.126 has changed the unemployment stats.  I asked him on his talk page to provide a verifiable source for the stats (which are probably right), but the given reference does not show that.  I can't revert since I've reverted other vandalism three times today, but unless a verifiable source comes up, I will revert the value tomorrow. -- Jeff3000 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the editor said in the summary, check the cited source ("latest release from labour force survey"). It was updated on June 9, before the edit was made. heqs 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unemployment stats 

message: Canada will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006 and Americans will respond with a resounding "Blame Canada" reference as their only knowledge of the country. This hour has 22 minutes and this dollar is 91 cents and rising. amen-Rainman71 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: An anon IP has just changed the sentence in Demographics regarding non-Christian religions from "The largest protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada; about 17% of Canadians declared no religious affiliation, and the remaining 6.3% were affiliated with religions other than Christianity, of which the largest is Islam (1.9%)."  to add "... followed by Judaism (1.1%)."  I am concerned about this, but I'm definitely willing to be outvoted (or at least outvoiced), so I thought I'd discuss it here first.  First, here are the actual numbers from the 2001 Census (the anon's numbers are not wrong, but that's not the issue):
*Christians (all): 22,851,825 -- 77.1%
*No religious affiliation: 4,900,090 -- 16.5%
*Muslim: 579,640 -- 1.96%
*Jewish: 329,995 -- 1.11%
*Buddhist 300,345 -- 1.01%
*Hindu 297,200 -- 1.00%
*Sikh 278,410 -- 0.94%
All others put together do not equal 100,000. As you can see, there is a massive drop from Christianity to the others.  However, there is also a significant (almost half) from Islam to the "next tier".  Then, we have Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism all very close by numbers - 300,000 +/- 30,000. I believe that including *only* Islam and Judaism is not appropriate, as it sets the cut-off at a very difficult-to-defend level.  Thus, I see three options.
a) Nothing other than Christianity and some sort of "all others accound for 6.3%" statement.
b) Mention Islam, but no others (basically a revert of the edit I'm discussing).
c) Mention all of these ones above, perhaps with a table.
I personally support b), because I think it gives valuable information without clutter, and I think that a population larger than the population of my own home province (NL) deserves mention, yet it leaves details to other sub-articles.  However, I would be also be satisfied with c).  Anyone else? AshleyMorton 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes b) is the way to go by the arguments you make.  If anyone wants all the facts, they can go to the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion - How many to include?