Talk:Canada/Archive 9

message: Please, may someone add this link to the article? It provides a realistic view of canada from an immigrant's point of view. I don't consider this as biased or promoting hatred against canadians. However, free encyclopedia means freedom of thought and speech. Regards.
http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum.asp
*Forums are typically not considered appropriate targets to external links, unless there exists a special, pressing need for one (which is, essentially, never).  Wikipedia is not a place for free thought or speech, I'm sorry to break your bubble.  Wikipedia specifically forbids original research. WilyD 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulternate Reality 

message: According to the Wikipedia:Guide to Layout style guide, Notes should go before References and the navigation bar should be at the very end of the article. "See also" can be omitted. heqs 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guide says the Notes can equally well go after the References, which I strongly recommend. The Notes are otherwise confusing (since they link to sentences in the text). Rjensen 09:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's just a guide, but where does it say that? It's actually because notes link to sentences in the text that they should follow the text as closely as possible -- less far to travel when clicking, scrolling, or flipping back and forth. heqs 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guide says "Common appendix sections (in the preferred order; it is equally valid for "References" to precede "Notes". People don't scroll back and forth--the browser should take them to the endnote and back effortlessly. In my opinion, the references/bibliography is an essential part of the article. Rjensen 09:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I often scroll, especially near the end of the text when checking citations intently/carefully. And these articles do end up on paper sometimes. heqs 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: Rjensen has first deleted locations in the references, which is just bad style, then he changed the references to delete some references, make the sectioning not match the article sectioning and added another reference.  I don't mind adding another reference, but please do show what fact that reference covers that other references don't, also please don't erase other references which do cover facts as can be seen from the talk pages from around 2 months ago, when the drive went on to find references. -- Jeff3000 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, what is up with putting a reference in four places.  What facts does it cover, that is not covered by other references.  I will be removing at least three of them in the coming days if no good purpose for the references are there. -- Jeff3000 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: location of publisher is misleading to users about half the time--it tells people to get hard-to find editions. In the age of Internet it is rarely useful. 2) As for the Canadian Encyclopedia, I used it to add information in the various sections, so it needs to be included. Rjensen 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion previously, having the location of the publisher is correct academic style, and is not misleading.  The publisher's themselves indicate it in their books. Secondly, you have not indicated as of yet which precise facts you used the Canadian Encyclopedia for.  I'm waiting for them. -- Jeff3000 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: use of Can Ency most recently for details on territory government. For most if the article to fact check assertions made, esp in history section. It's doubtless the single most valuable reference book and editors should prefer it instead of old textbooks. Rjensen 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That it is the most valuable reference book is your point of view.  Given that you used it for the territories section I will be keeping it only in that one.  There is no use for it to be added multiple times. -- Jeff3000 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inaccurate and outdated on the powers of the Territories. The Yukon government now exercises all provincial-type powers except for criminal prosecutions with the passage of the 2002 Yukon Act. I am not sure of the situation in the NWT and Nunavut, but Nunavut was creaed as a result of land claims negotiations, and I believe they do control their land. Each territory is in charge of its own income and other taxation. So the sentence should be reverted to its original version about the territories having "somewhat" fewer powers than the provinces. Luigizanasi 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Luigizanasi's comments, I have removed the new territories wording, and removed the Canadiana Encyclopedia as a reference. -- Jeff3000 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While there's no guideline about it that I know of, I'm not sure that other encyclopedias are ideal references for our articles.  In this case, it isn't as bad as citing Encarta's article (which I've seen done), because we're sending the reader to an encyclopedia specific to our subject where they will be able to get more information.  But it still isn't helpful for someone who wants to get to a citable source from our article, because other encyclopedias are also third-party summaries rather than secondary sources.  Jkelly 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the 1985 encyclopedia is well out of date. This was true "federal government controls lands, natural resources, taxation, and claims of native rights" then but not any more. The Nunavut Government taxes people at 4, 7, 9 or 11.5%. We also have a property taxes. None of the other things apply either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Yay to Canada on the front page! It would have kinda been nice if they had waited until July 1, though. Oh well :). --Q Canuck 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada Day comes early!  Our home and native land!  -- Samir   धर्म 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd that...or 3rd =] LG-犬夜叉 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My theory is that this was chosen for today because yesterday's article was Ku Klux Klan.  After something evil it's a relief to have a feel-good article on the main page. Anyway, w00t for Canada! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was also glad to see Canadia (shame they spelt it wrong) on there and I'm not even Canadian but British.  Good read too. Well done folks.  Absinthe, Global warming, Ku Klux Klan, Canada is quite an odd progression mind. Jellypuzzle | Talk 09:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drink Absinthe, become overly concerned with Global warming (perhaps because the liquor has made you feel HOT) in your drunken state, seek a clandestine terroist group to overthrow the government to solve Global Warming, join the KKK in hopes you can convince them to invest in carbon sinks to offset emisions from burning crosses, become wanted for hate crimes in the US, flee to Canada.  Wikipedia made me do it. 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo-hoo!! Vikramsidhu 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada on the main page 

message: Hey, I was reading over the histroy section and this caught my attention:
Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 with Britain's declaration of war, and sent formed divisions (composed almost entirely of volunteers) to the Western Front to fight as a national contingent. Casualties were so high that Prime Minister Robert Borden forced through conscription in 1917, which was extremely unpopular in Quebec, leading to his Conservative party losing support in Quebec. Although the Liberals were deeply divided over conscription, they pulled together and became the dominant political party.
Something seems to be missing in the sentence about conscription leading to Borden's unpopularity in Quebec. Either that, or its just worded improperly. I'm not sure what the original intent was for this sentence so I'll let the author fix it up.(Cabin Tom 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've fixed it now. Thanks -- Jeff3000 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah,that clarified the intent of the sentence. I hope you don't mind though, that I further played with the wording. Let me know what you think! (Cabin Tom 02:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence 

message: The following phrase in the lead is really rather puzzling: "occupying most of the northern portion of North America."  The word "portion" doesn't mean anything, so how can something occupy most of a portion?  Maybe "most of the northern half" or "occupying northern North America".  Any reason for this? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify what you mean by doesn't mean anything?  Canada does occupy the northern portion of North America - since half ~ 50%, it's not a good choice, and since Greenland, the States and France all occupies other parts of the northern portion of North America, you need a qualifier like most to boot, eh? WilyD 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupying most of northern North America" is direct and clear—not precise, but clear.  "Occupying most of the northern portion of North America" isn't precise either, and to boot it is unnecessarily wordy (the word "portion" doesn't add anything).  Just like "northern", "northern portion" could mean everything north of Fairbanks, everything north of Toronto, everything north of Los Angeles, or everything north of Mexico City. If you agree, I'll change the lead and the main page box. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the change brings anything in, I think northern North America is as ambigious as northern portion of North America but similiarly I don't think it detracts at all.  I have no objection to you changing it, though. WilyD 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it doesn't add anything.  My initial comment was unclear—it would have been much simpler to say "the phrase is wordy". Anyway, fixed now, in both places. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  leading sentence 

message: The phrase "Inhabited originally by Aboriginal peoples, ..." seems rather odd to me, and mostly devoid of meaning.  Doesn't the very definition of "Aboriginal peoples" convey that such people are the original inhabitants?  The phrase could validly be reworded to say "Inhabited originally by the original inhabitants, ...".
It appears that the main purpose of this phrase is to provide a link to additional information about the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.  That link should remain, but the structure of the first sentence or two should be re-worked to better incorporate that link.
:I changed the wording to "first", but I agree, it's clumsy. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd phrasing 

message: A user just moved all the images to the right.  I liked the previous way, with some on the right, and some to the left.  Anyone opposed to me reverting? -- Jeff3000 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I had no idea that there were editors who preferred the all-images-jammed-up-against-each-other-in-top-right-corner layout, but I guess there are.  My impression is that less crowded and more dynamic approaches to image layout are preferred by most people.  Jkelly 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am, seeing as the concensus for country articles Hong Kong, South Africa, etc While I'm not entirely opposed to having left and right images, I think it looks poor in very small sections (such as the military section) as it creates an odd X shaped text block. I also went through the article, before you revert, and standardised image size, as well as where the images start (some started before the "Main article" bit, some after). Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's most definitely not a go for reverting, since I was the one who made the edits in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to a section-by-section discussion, but a blanket revert is both rude and ineffectual since there were other changes made than just the left v. right debate. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If reverting all the image formatting changes would be rude, then I think that making such a large change to the entire article in the first place, without discussion on the talk page beforehand, would be even ruder.  --thirty-seven 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thirty-seven, so do you like the left/right arrangement better? -- Jeff3000 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like the left/right varied version.  --thirty-seven 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So is that a go for reverting, or not. I'm a little confused which one you like better. -- Jeff3000 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking Jkelly. Regarding the standardization of the sizes, they were standardized to 240px, which is just as good, and usually better for people with smaller resolution monitors.  So I would like to go back to 240px.  Secondly, I feel that for all sections that the images were moved to the right, the better placement was on the left.  The standardization for having the images before or after the main is good. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't clear.  I have a preference for a combination of left and right.  PZFUN is right, I think, that we tend to use 50px increments for image sizing, but I don't know if there is a reason for that.  Jkelly 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost every other article on Wikipedia uses 250px as the standard-size. It seems a littleodd to be so particular about the 10px, particularly when we can stay with tradition. I think in general it is a bad idea to have left and right images in such a small section, it makes it hard to read because the text does not flow evenly. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  Any other comments? -- Jeff3000 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Although "A Mari Usque Ad Mare" may be litteraly translated by "From sea to sea" in English, the motto used in English is "From coast to coast". I've never heard anyone say "From sea to sea".
:Here's the reference from the Government of Canada website.  And here's another from the Canadian encyclopedia. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard "From sea to sea" frequently, but never "From coast to coast" (although that expression is common in general usage).  On rare occasion, I've seen mare translated as "ocean". I've definitely never heard "A Litu usque ad Litum". Peter Grey 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto of Canada 

message: Nowhere in this article was mentionned that Canada is part of the Commonwealth. It is said on the website of Heritage Canada that Canada is a Realm: http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/gouv-gov/section4/memb_e.cfm
:It's also a part of La Francophonie. --gbambino 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, it's also a part of NATO, the UN, the G8, etc., but the article doesn't seem to mention that either. --gbambino 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned in the foreign relations section. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So they are.  My mistake. --gbambino 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All of these are mentioned, including La Francophonie and Commonwealth; I couldn't find an explicit statement that Canada was a member of the UN, but since almost all countries are, and there are frequent mentions of Canada's contributions to the UN it can probably be left. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official status of Canada 

message: All British colonies had earlier been French colonies, not only some. New France extended from Labrador to Louisiana, and to British Columbia and the american mid-west. The only territories that have never been part of New France were that of the 13 new england state, that of Florida, that of the far west, and that of the Great North. (unsigned contribution by User: I am Nicko)
*British Columbia, Rupert's Land, the North-Western Territory and most of the island of Newfoundland were never French colonies. I see from your edit, though, that the phrase in question was referring to the original union of the colonies of the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which had all been under French control previously. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Province of Canada, as an entity, was never completely a French colony.  I have reverted my revert, but I think the previous statement was more encompassing. -- Jeff3000 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terriory of the Province of Canada was, however, a part of the Province of Quebec, if I recall correctly. Ground Zero | t 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) was a British Colony.  New France was a French colony, and it did cover most of the area of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) (and more), but regardless confederation happened to entities that were British entities, of which the Province of Canada (as an entity) was never a French colony. -- Jeff3000 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  former British colonies 

message: It's Canada Day, and I didn't catch Canada's age on a news show today. Does anyone know Canada's Age? --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 139 years since confederation in 1867. -- Jeff3000 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just dropping by to say Happy Canada Day! :) ~Kylu (u|t)  19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's Age 

message: Luxembourg, which is listed as having the fourth highest Human Development Index, has an HDI of 0.949, as do Canada and Sweden, which are listed as fifth and sixth, respectively.
It looks like those three are "tied" for fourth, so to speak. So it looks like Canada's HDI should be changed from fifth to fourth, unless I'm missing something.
--72.136.36.104 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's Human Development Index (HDI) 

message: Can anyone name novels that deal with Canada and "what if" scenarios/histories? Like what if Russia had colonized most of Canada, or what if Canada was strongly anti-British in it's early days and waged war, or what if Canada become a superpower and the US a weak nation, etc.
Well?
-G
: The best one that I can think of is The Years of Rice and Salt, a work of fiction that hypothesizes on what the world would look like w/o Europe as a power, and where North America is colonized from the west coast.  This allowed the natives (in the book) to maintain their autonomy and kept the East Asian colonies to small seaside valleys.
--chris 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there are such novels, though I couldn't name them offhand. I can mention, however, that in the Ill Bethisad world (a collaborative AH web project), neither Canada nor the United States ever existed in their current form; instead, there are several different countries on the North American continent, some of which cross the border that we know in our world. The countries are also divided into provinces which have varying degrees of correspondence to real provinces and states: some match up almost exactly in both name and geography, others retain either the real geography or the real name but not both, and others still are entirely fictional creations. I won't get into too much detail here, but if you want to read more the Ill Bethisad article has links to the project web pages. Bearcat 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale talks briefly about an alternate history of Canada after the US collapses and becomes divided by militant religious factions.  The book's postscript is a symposium taking place at the University of Denay, in Nunavut, in 2195.  The keynote speaker summarises the Handmaid's Tale (apparantly now the object of study by historians), and wonders aloud if the Handmaid was smuggled into "what was then Canada."  It's not clear what happened to Canada, or whether Nunavut is now it's own country, but it's something from a noted Canadian author. --gbambino 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think The Handmaid's Tale is set in the future relative to the time the book was written, and so it is not alternate history.  --thirty-seven 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose it is more of a future history. Still kind of a "what if" though. --gbambino 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually have a copy of TYORAS...which isn't to say that I've read it yet or anything. Ill Bethisad, for what it's worth, is an entire alternate world, not just an alternate North America...and if you're interested, it's one you can even participate in creating. Bearcat 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative histories of Canada? 

message: When Brown became the government for those 48hrs, could he have announced a new capital for Canada or have actually moved it before he had to leave the government? I really need to know, fast.
-G
: What conceivable reason would George Brown have had for doing that? Unless, in line with your previous post, you're talking about the possibility of it as a divergence point for an alternate history, in which case I'd consider it unlikely; he simply wasn't in power for long enough. Bearcat 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, again: if you're talking about it as a divergence point for an alternate history, it's as valid as any, but it would probably have to be accompanied by circumstances which keep him in power for longer than he really was. But if you're theorizing it as something that coulda shoulda mighta happened in real history, then we come back to the fact that there was no compelling reason to do it, nor was Brown in power long enough to accomplish anything that major. Bearcat 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the Capital 

message: Please correct the part on Section 33, the Notwithstanding clause.. You give it a lifespan of 5 years, but that however is not precisely the case, it has to be renewed every 5 years, IE a declaration that they are using the notwithstanding clause.  Quebec French laws for example will use this clause indefinitely. The wording is not the same as the link that takes you to information regarding the notwithstanding clause, it needs to look more like that, not some fixed time period. Read http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
--Gteed 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 33, Notwithstanding clause 

message: This map needs to be scrutinized regarding the marine international boundaries depicted. The map is copied from the official government Atlas of Canada, and reflects Canada's claims of sovereignty, some of which are disputed (in the case of its claims over the Northwest Passage, categorically refused by the US and the EU). The map should accurately note the disputed boundaries. heqs 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted in the caption. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the map is updated to reflect the disputed boundaries, I don't think it's acceptable. heqs 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to find us a better one. DJ Clayworth 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll edit it myself, but was hoping someone handier with maps and graphics could do it. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left or taken a long break. heqs 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. heqs 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Map Canada political-geo.png]] 

message: DavidSpencer.ca has added a section on Cities.  While I had argued for this section in the past, it was consensus that such a section should not be included (see Talk:Canada/Archive8#Largest_cities, Talk:Canada/Archive8#Making_this_article_better, and Talk:Canada/Archive8#Cities).  After going through featured article, it was made more clear that such a section should not be in this article and in a daughter article.  No other featured article countries have cities (see Australia, India, China, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa).  The section should be removed and placed in a daughter article. -- Jeff3000 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to List of cities in Canada.  Jkelly 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Cities 

message: Someone edited out the addition regarding Canada being considered an economic and political world power. A factual claim backed by the fact canada is a member of the G8 among the worlds wealthiest nations, Canada has been participating in the worlds most peace keeping missions and is involved in several international diplomatic efforts. It is one of the world powers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor18 (talk • contribs) .
:It is usually better to replace subjective and ill-defined statements like "Canada is a world power" with objective and well-defined statements like "Canada is a member of the G8". We already have this statement there. Incidentally you should go and look at how many peacekeeping missions Canada has been on recently. it's not as many as you might think. 
:P.S. Please add to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. DJ Clayworth 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada is a featured article, which means that it upholds the highest standard in Wikipedia.  Mushy statements like it is "holds considerable international influence both economically and politically" just don't pass, especially without a citation.  Even with a citation, I can guarantee that there are other citations that state that Canada is not a world power.  I removed the reference.  Also in regards to the mention of the G8 in the lead, it just doesn't fit, and I'll take that out. It is already mentioned in the article itself. -- Jeff3000 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That may well all be true, but you'll have to acquaint yourself with WP:OR to discover why that can't make it into the article. WilyD 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi.  I suggest you take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research; if they don't clear up most of your questions, please feel free to ask for clarification.  As has been mentioned, this article is held to a higher standard than many others on Wikipedia, but if you see what appear to be the opinions of Wikipedia editors inserted into articles, please do raise the issue on that article's talk page.  Jkelly 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things are facts, like having one of the largest economies, like having the most peace keeping missions (which more recently Canada has been a very very small player), etc, etc,  and can be inserted into the article with a Wikipedia:Reliable source as a citation. Other things are points of view, like Canada being a word power because of the above facts.  For these points of view, we must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, which among other things includes giving multiple points of view ("All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.").  Finally I should mention that this page is written in Wikipedia:Summary style, which states that only a summary of facts, events, etc are to be included in this article, and the main details are left to the daughter articles (like Politics of Canada).  So not everything about Canada should be included in this article. -- Jeff3000 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Canada has "most peace missions"?  Sounds about right, so proving it shouldn't be hard for you to do.  As jkelly stated, WP is about verifiable facts, not what feels right in our gut.Michael Dorosh 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Trouble is "world power" is not a "prominent title" that can be verified as having been bestowed on Canada. Some people think Canada is a world power; some do not. It is an opinion. I'm Canadian, and I don't think "world power" when I think of the basic characteristics of my country. If you do, that's great - but it isn't encyclopedic. Eron 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Issues with other articles should be brought up there.  Wikipedia does not operate under the common law - we can hold the article on Canada to a high standard. WilyD 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's inclusion is original research, and portrays a specific POV, without including other POV.  Both which are against Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada is a World Power 

message: I have read the below sentence a dozen times over a period of days and compared it to other countries articles and it just reads "funny" to me.  It sounds as if Canada woke up one morning and happened to discover or acknowlege their head of state. The UK, France, USA, etal don't "recognize" their head of state, they simply have one.  Why does Canada? any comments before I make a change? --Niloc 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the standard usage - an apt to the circumstances - I'm not sure what you want.  Since she ain't really the head of state in practice, the situation is somewhat different that many other countries. WilyD 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We recognize her because she has no real authority here, we graciously grant her respect as a member of the common wealth. Atleast that is what they told me in high school. Most countries with monarchs give the monarch authority, we give only token authority. HighInBC 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that you were given such nonsense in high school.  The Queen holds all authority here - From the Constitution Act, 1867: III. EXECUTIVE POWER. 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.  It's disappointing enough that there are those out there who think Canada to be a headless state, but even more so when those people are teachers. --gbambino 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Authority in the monarch in Canada is vested in her representatives, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors. Her actual personal authority is a bit irrelevant to why we grant her respect.Michael Dorosh 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Recognize' is something you do to other states. I've changed it to a much more straightforward wording. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good choice. While her powers are limited by the Constitution - and symbolic in nearly every aspect - the power trail does theoretically end with her. For example, the Governor General is listed as her representative within Canada, and the GG is the titular Commander in Chief of the military. 32.97.182.166 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality the Constitution gives her all power, but at the same time constiutional convention dictates that she cannot exercise it unilaterally, unless in exceptional circumstances.  It's the same situation in any constitutional monarchy, and there the monarch is head of state, not recognized as such. So, I agree that the new wording is more appropriate. --gbambino 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RECOGNIZE"???? 

message: I have reverted the change that removes Huron from Canada's name section.  The reference for the statement clearly says Huron-Iroquous.  The editor who removes the statement points to other Wikipedia articles which due to Wikipedia policy cannot be used as references.  Unless you can find another verifiable reference that specifically says that Huron was not the source, the current version will stay because it has a verifiable source. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A proper source will be added in a couple of days and the correction re-enstated (as well as to the Canada's name article). Friends, government PR is not a dignified wiki source. However, ours it but war of terms. Iroquoian (or Laurentian) is the proper term when refering to the so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language of the Quebec City region in 1535. It's as if you were calling the Dutch language the "German-English" language. Sloppy. Hurons and Iroquois never lived in the Quebec City at this time. I understand, however, that you police the "Canada" article with a military flair. Might tone it down a bit, guys, although I surmise you're pretty much fed up with your work. Joseph B 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move the discussion to your page. Your assertion merits discussion. Your comments about "military flair" and suggestions to tone it down do not. No personal attacks. Period. CMacMillan 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huron-Iroquois 

message: St. Lawrence Iroquoians are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the Cartier-Roberval settlement of 1541-1543 was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed report about the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent". 
So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't. 
Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. Joseph B 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the news!

message: Do you think it would be appropriate if I added a low-resolution PNG of the "Canada Wordmark"  to the infobox of this article, or would that violate a house style? --  Denelson83  00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is not free, and so it can be licensed under the GFDL, and therefore would require a fair use rationale, which we don't have for this page.  So in short, it wouldn't pass Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordmark 

message: I was wondering maybe the Royal Union Flag could be put on the Canada page? It is still an official flag of Canada at least according to the government. The Royal Union Flag is a current official flag of Canada per act of parliament of December 18, 1964, to "show allegiance to the crown and as a symbol of Canadian membership in the Commonwealth". It is required to be flown at Canadian federal goverment facilities on Victoria Day, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminister (Dec 11), and Commonwealth day. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 8:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should. It is already covered in Flag of Canada, to which a link is already provided (in the infobox). The only flag that should appear on this page, in my opinion, is the national flag. Mindmatrix 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MindMatrix. -- Jeff3000 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Union Flag 

message: were Slovakians immigrated to Canada? Simon Mayer.
:Pretty much everyone has immigrated to Canada at some point in it's history. Lots of Eastern Europeans came in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so it would be astonishing if there were no Slovaks. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that at least one did: a Slovakian friend of my father-in-law immigrated to Canada in his youth.  After Czechoslovakia split, he liked to joke that he was a "cancelled Czech". --thirty-seven 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovak 

message: The statement "general elections are called by the Governor General when the Prime Minister so advises, and must occur every five years or less" is ambiguous. Does it mean less time than five years or less often than five years? If I knew the answer (i.e., if I were Canadian), I would modify it to be clearer. Rivertorch 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear on the distinction you are trying to draw.  Jkelly 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it was particularly unclear, but I did try to reword the statement a bit. --Q Canuck 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need clarification: Government section 

message: Should a Fauna of Canada page be created, with a paragraph here, like the Fauna of Puerto Rico article? It seems like a ref to the fauna and flora is the only thing this page is lacking, and would be benifitial to the page. JQF 15:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a section on Fauna is necessary.  The page is already too long.  Write a page on the Fauna of Canada, and instead include it in the "See also" section. -- Jeff3000 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. JQF 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create some Fauna 

message: I recently reverted this edit, which I assumed to be a subtle form of vandalism. I apologize if this assumption was incorrect.--GregRM 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reversion 

message: does canada deserve to be called a first world country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.90.160 (talk • contribs) .
:If you are serious the the answer is Yes. If you are trying to be funny the answer is Please stop. I hope that answers your question. HighInBC 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum.  -- Jeff3000 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first world country 

message: The article begins with:
Canada (pronounced [kənādēə] in English and [kanada] in French)...
It looks to me like the IPA for the English and the French are reversed.  As a non-Canadian (and non-IPAn), I thought I should seek comments before I edited the article.
cck
:Well, I'm not master of IPA, but in english the vowels are definitely not identical, whilst in french they are.  It's fairly obvious to me ([[WP:OR]) when I say Welcome to Canada and contrast it with Bienvenue au Canada WilyD 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my 28 years in Canada(since birth) the a's has always been pronounced like can or man. HighInBC 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I've never heard anyone from BC who didn't have a "Central Canadian Accent" which definitely gives the anglo pronounciation as "Can-uh-daa" or so phoentically. WilyD 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When I hear "Can-uh-daa" I consider the person to not be taking the effor to pronounce it properly. As for peoples accents, that can cause all manner of variation. HighInBC 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In english, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" pronunciation, only "used" or "unused" - accents do vary a bit, but you have to take the pronouncation from a specific accent (this is, I think, obvious - but we can come back to it), and General American is definitely the wrong one.  The most common anglophone accent is the general Central Canadian which is found with very little variation from Montreal to Vancouver - it seems the most natural one to choose. WilyD 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Canada"