Talk:Canada/Archive 15

message:  Please restore the link to Sports in Canada in the  template at the top of the Canada#Culture section. It should look like this: 
It used to be there, and without it, there is no link to this 2nd tier sub-article (sports are not included in the Culture of Canada article). Thanks, heqs ·:. 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this request. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a link to Sport in Canada and National symbols of Canada. It appears someone had tried to create separate sections for Sport and Symbols, but those sections were later deleted, and links were not restored to the culture section. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've disabled the editprotected request here because it appears to be fulfilled. Nihiltres(t.l) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore link to [[Sports in Canada]] 

message: The Royal Anthem for all member states of the Common Wealth and the National Anthem for the United Kingdom Is "God Save the King" and not "God save the Queen" as stated.
The name of the Anthem, contrary to popular opinion does not change as the gender of the Monarch of the Commonwealth of Nations does.
Sammy Jay 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have proof of this? GoodDay 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Information from 10 Downing street official website states the name of the Anthem as "God Save the King" . Sammy Jay 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, during E2's reign, people have been singing the anthem wrong? GoodDay 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not sure what that means. The name of the Anthem has no bearing on the words sung in it. As the gender of the Monarch changes the words in the song switched between "King" during times of a male Monarch and "Queen" during times of a female Monarch. During HM Queen Elizabeth 2's reign the name of the anthem has remained "God Save the King" although the word King has been changed to Queen in the "lyrics". I do hope no one has been singing the anthem wrong.   Sammy Jay 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just being silly. GoodDay 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We still need a definitive source for this (I'm dubious about taking the word of someone who refers the the Queen as "HRH Queen Elizabeth 2"). --G2bambino 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a definitive source supporting the statement that Canada's Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen". I'm not sure that it is relevant to this article what the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom is. (Just as, by analogy, the Monarchy in Canada is headed by the Queen of Canada; apparently she has other titles in other places, but they are not relevant to this article.) - Eron Talk 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I pointed out that link somewhere else; this royal anthem discussion seems to be going on simultaneously on a number of pages, though I think it's gelling at Talk:God Save the Queen. --G2bambino 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Anthem 

message: :*The fore-mentioned statement is not true actually.
It is true that Queen Elizabeth is a monarch of many "crowns". E.g. she's pretty much like a executive board member that serves on several different executive boards.  In that case, for example a judgement or ruling in one realm really doesn't have any weight automatically in any other realms.  So based on that, those crowns in theory do not spill over from one realm to the next.
Example: In Barbados she is styled "The Queen of Barbados".  In Canada she isn't styled the "Queen of Barbados" and the "Queen of Canada" as far as Canada's recognition-- she is just styled "The Queen of Canada".
The fact of the matter is the Canadian monarch or "crown" has the provision for a "Royal Anthem" as outlined as being one of the "Symbols of Canada" (here 1, here 2) but not all Commonwealth realms have a "Royal Anthem." as part of their monarch's role, duties and provisions.
For example.  Canada's [guidelines and practice] it is understood that "God Save The Queen" be played in her(or heirs) presence(or GG).
(quote)
(here)
Playing of "God Save The Queen" at events
"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.
(/end quote)
Barbados' and Saint Lucia's [guidelines and practice] state's even in her presence or the G.G.'s presence the Barbados or Saint Lucian anthems will still be played instead.
(http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdoscodeitq.htm here 1)
(quote)
B. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
The National Anthem shall be played -
(a) for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on
the arrival and departure of
  (i) the Governor General.
  (ii) the Sovereign or a member of the Royal family,
  (iii) a foreign Sovereign, Head of State or member of a reigning foreign
imperial or Royal Family,
  (iv) Governors-General of Independent Commonwealth countries.
  (v) Governors of the Associated States, and
  (vi) Governors, High Commissioners of Officers administering the Government
of a dependent territory within the Commonwealth
(b) at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house.
3. The National Anthem may be played
(a) at the completion of any public function, or
(b) when toasts are proposed at official functions.
4. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognises (eighty-eight crochets to the minute). Particularly, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement.
5. When more than one anthem is played the Barbados anthem should be played last.
(/end quote)
(http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/saint_lucia/national_anthem/national_anthem_of_saint_lucia.htm here 2)
(quote)
Protocol for the National Anthem
   1. Whenever the National Anthem is played, all civilians present should stand at attention, men with bared heads.  Uniformed persons should act in accordance with instructions.
   2. All three verses of the National Anthem will be sung.  Normally one verse will be played.  It shall consist of the first twelve bars of the anthem unless otherwise stated.
   3.
    The National Anthem shall be played:-
     a. for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on arrival and departure of:
      i. the Governor-General
      ii. the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family
      iii. a foreign Sovereign, Head of State, or member of a reigning foreign Imperial or Royal Family
      iv. Governor-General of Independent Commonwealth countries
      v. Governors of the OECS States
      vi. Governors, High Commissioners or Officers administering the Government of a dependent territory within the commonwealth,
and
     b. at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house or other public building. 
  4.
The National Anthem may be played:-
     a. at the completion of any public function, or
     b. when toasts are proposed at official functions 
  5. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song, neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognised.  In particular, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement.
  6. When more than one anthem is played, the Saint Lucia anthem should be played last.
(/end quote)
Further see rules covering the Canadian national anthem. It has been assumed this "Royal anthem" stands in all countries but not all countries play a "Royal anthem" some may play the British national anthem as when any diplomat visits but it doesn't seem she or her heirs or representative are given special treatment in the form of a "Royal Anthem". CaribDigita 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, although the issue of the name of the Anthem still remains, "God Save the King" is the official name. 
Sammy Jay 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all realms have this "Royal anthem" 

message: I'd do this myself, but considering it's protected, that's not exactly possible. Anyways, the population density in the infobox and the population density under the headline Geography and climate differ. Please correct this. --Super Martyo Brother 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor change 

message: The article mentions Canada as the second largest (in land area) to Russia.  As "Russia" has been broken up into several smaller soviet nations, would that not make us the largest?
Musesshadow 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Canada was smaller than the ex-USSR, which broke up. The largest resulting nation is Russia, which is still way larger than Canada.--Ramdrake 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of countries and outlying territories by total area for the details. - Eron Talk 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's relative geographic size 

message: This talk page is getting ridiculously long. Can we agree to archive up to, but not including, Section # 57 "A minor change" or does anyone think we still need old proposals on main talk page? DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  We should sign up for one of those bots that archives automaticaly when a topic hasn't been discussed in a long time.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. --G2bambino 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Support using an archive bot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Support ya got me sold. GoodDay 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: It says that Canada is 219th in the infobox, but if you click on the link it is in the 180s.  Can an editor please fix this?  Thanks. BCapp 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Density 

message: While discussing Pearson's importance (and thus Canada's) in international peacekeeping, shouldn't the Responsibility to Protect also be mentioned?  If anyone wants clarification into what I am referring too, please ask. BCapp 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility to protect 

message: The text asserts that the raid on Dieppe convinced Stalin to wait until 1944 for the Western Allies to invade Western Europe.
This is a questionable statement. Dieppe did not change Stalin's behaviour or attitude in any respect. He continued to press the Allies for an invasion of Europe sooner rather than later. At the Teheran Conference in November 1943, Stalin pushed Churchill hard for a deadline for a cross channel landing; Churchill argued for landings in Mediterranean, which to him represented "the soft underbelly" of Europe; Churchill was mindful of the failure at Dieppe, and reluctant to cross the channel.
Rather than affecting Stalin, who would have been indifferent to large numbers of British, American, or Canadian  casualties, the Dieppe raid simply demonstrated to the western Allies how difficult it would be to invade a fortified coast. The meticulous attention that the Allies paid to strength in numbers, logistics, deception and secrecy all reflect the lessons learned at Dieppe.
Please remove the reference to Stalin in the article on Dieppe; it is inaccurate. 99.250.165.14 (Talk) 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on an Assertion re Dieppe and Stalin 

message: Well ... what?
"In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada".
This one sentence, in my opinion, could satisfy BOTH the Dominion Camp, and the anti-Dominion Camp.  Why don't we just adopt this sentence AS IS, and be done with this?
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little awkward. But if it were simplified to 'In 1867, three British North American colonies federated to form the Dominion of Canada', why not. Personally I still prefer the simplest of phrases, like 'Canada was founded in 1867 by the union of three British colonies.' --Gazzster (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with this sentence? 

message: The Canadian boundary changed that occurred in WW II is not mentioned in the article.
The paragraph below is a copy of the given in the Wikipedia article about Princess Margriet, and mentioned the temporary boundary change. 
"Princess Margriet of the Netherlands (Margriet Francisca, born January 19, 1943)was born in Ottawa, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany. The maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was temporarily declared to be officially part of the Netherlands so that the princess would be born on Dutch soil."
I think this should be included.
Mayjune24 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that being too particular? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is much too specific an item for this general overview article. - EronTalk 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Very much too detailed. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian boundary changes 

message: Not knowing myself how much longer this debate may or may not go on for, it may be a good idea if an admin could update Canada's Human Development Index stats to correspond with the new data released today. The new information is on the HDI page --Colonel Cow (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Colonel - This is what I dislike about edit wars, all they do is get articles locked (like this one). And who suffers? the innocent do. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have amended this as requested. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin: HDI Update 

message: The 2007 estimate doesn't show a figure, only some red text reporting an error, and I can't fix it because I don't know what the problem is, and the page is protected. Someone the Person (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population mistake 

message: Can we please unlock this page, while letting the discussion continue? The fact that it's been 'locked' this long, is IMHO embarrassing (exempting the locking Administrator). GoodDay 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will request it, as alluded to above. Quizimodo 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlock this article

message: In the intro the word "of" northern North America should read "in" northern North America, thus the intro must be rewritten. (improper grammer). I've also noticed several other Articles relating to Continents and/or countries where "of" should be changed to "in". For Example: "America is a continent of the Western hemisphere". When, should read "in" the Western hemisphere. Intuitionz (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't believe this to be improper grammar, but rather just perhaps differences in regional word usage. I can be a "citizen of the world", as well as at the same time be a [Canadian] "citizen in the world". Slightly different meanings, in the example I use here, but neither is improper grammar. For the record, I do prefer your suggested wording, but it seems like a rather minor change to be concerned with considering that the article is still locked due to other, more controversial, discussions.Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon re-reading the intro, I don't see the wording you were questioning. Were you perhaps reading an earlier edit?Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal for new Intro: Canada () is a country situated in the western and northern hemisphere spreading over most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean.  It is the world's second largest country by total area, and shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.
If the Americanss need more discription on their country so do we. Intuitionz (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you guys discussing anyway? Clarify please. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misworded Intro 

message: There should be a selection regarding the environment  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk82 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment 

message: The article talks about "French population" in Canada, instead of what would be much more accurate "French-speaking population" or even "Francophones". Since the article is locked I can't fix that. --Taraborn (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found only one example and I fixed it. Please add any other cases you find here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French population? 

message: Most of the wikipedia countries have a paragraph about the environment - why not canada?  Is her environmental record that bad?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingforever (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, is it? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be awesome to have one, but we would have to be careful with length. This is a lengthy article as is, and we would also need to be careful as to not jeapordize the FA status with uncited claims, NPOV and poorly written prose. -- Reaper  X 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to unprotect the article and watch it for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENVIRONMENT 

message: As requested above, I am going to remove full protection from the article. I will be watching it for several days. Please note that edit warring is forbidden by policy, even if it does not violate the three revert rule. Instead of edit warring, if content you favor is reverted, bring the matter to the talk page. If the phrasing of the lede continues to cause disagreement, consider an RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks CBM; fredom for the innocent editors, yay. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This may be a newbie question, but when does the protection go away. According to the protection log, there has been no change since the 10 October imposition of full protection. According to the history page, the protection template was removed on 8 December. If the removal of full protection is not to have immediate effect, can we at least have the protection template back? I believe it is helpful for those poor souls (like me) who are lulled into a false sense that they can make contributions to this article. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected - please avoid edit warring 

message: Map? Notthe600 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborate? -- Reaper  X 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map? 

message: I was wondering about the section on Canada in Racism by country, and really, are the statements made that true?.The way the paragraph is written, it claims Canada is seen as "progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural".
But isn't that POV?.Is there any thing in this article atleast to support the idea of how socially tolerant canadian history really has been?. Rodrigue (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bit of Racism by country do you think is wrong? It seems fair enough to me. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, the statement in racism by country is that Canada is often depicted as progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural. Which is not a POV generalization about what the country is; it's a simple statement of fact about how the country is generally portrayed in media sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very difficult to find references for big generalisations like this. One place where Wikipedia is necessarily weak is overview articles like this, where in a conventional encyclopedia it would be essentially the writer's educated judgement. Trying to write something where you have to reference each statement is going to be very difficult. I can't imagine that we are going to find an unbiased scholarly article "comparison of racism in Canada and the US" because the writer of such an article is going to take a huge quantity of flak; the only people who will want to write such a thing would be those with a point to prove. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerance 

message: *I have 2 suggestions on how to resolve this seeming deadlock. One is we take a vote & majority rules. The other is that - and I know this sounds strange, but it could end in some greater consensus developing - that we alternate between the 2 options every 2 weeks, and that during those 2 weeks both "camps" work to improve both versions. Regardless of which suggestion is preferred, in the meantime, because the existing text does NOT have nearly the approval of the other two, I could accept Option B -- but NOT with became (because the Canada before 1867-07-01 was not the same as the one that started on that date, and suggesting o/w is to minimize the role of the Atlantic provinces in Confederation) There was another, better wording suggested.
*:B2 "In 1867 through Confederation, three British North American colonies united to form a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom...."
* I will leave my reply to the last entries directed my way for another time, since I want to maintain a good disposition. No evidence has been presented yet that "dominion" status, as it was understood in 1867, conferred any additional autonomy over colonial status. The Dominion of New England was an example of even-tighter control over a "domain" than previously over the previously separate colonies. And yes, I do recognize that the wording in Option B2 does NOT directly say there was any increase in autonomy in 1867 (tho the original B DOES strongly suggest that - all the more reason for B2) -- --JimWae (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step?

message: It looks like someone added a section on a Canadian accent:
Native Canadian's have a accent distinct from those in the neighboring US. While not very different, certain pronunciations are accented differently, such as words containing "ou" (about, house, etc). Also the word process & words similar (project, programme) are pronounced with a distinct "pro-cess" vs. the American "prawcess". This accent is influenced by both their proximity to the US and their English ancestry. Accents in the Upper Great Lakes of the US (Minnesota & Michigan in particular) have similar accent to their Canadian neighbors.
This entire section should be deleted.
Canadian speech patterns are discussed in a well-researched fashion in the article "Canadian English" and its associated articles on specific regional versions and related accents. The blanket statements in this addition are unrefererenceable. "This accent is influenced by both their proximity to the US and their English ancestry." - Note that only 20% of Canadians explicitly claimed English ancestry in the 2001 census. This phrase also appears to contrast the influence of American English with the influence of "English ancestry", suggesting that such ancestry is absent from speakers of American English. 
This addition concludes by equating the "Canadian accent" with that found in Minnesota and Michigan. The corresponding speech phenomena are explained in a more comprehensive way in other articles, but suffice it to say that this is a vast overgeneralization.
The topic of a Canadian accent, or of the different accents found in Canada, is considerably more complex than this addition would lead a reader to believe. The existing Language section on the Canada article already references more specific articles on both of Canada's languages.
This is not even taking into account the political incorrectness of making a commentary on a "Canadian accent" and acknowledging only one of the two official languages.
Delete!!!
Rycalder (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur; the section is completely unsubstantiated POV, and spells "neighbor" in the American fashion. --G2bambino (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur aswell, eh. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there are plenty of reliable sources that say you are incorrect about that but I agree that it belongs at the Canadian English article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Canadian accent"