Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1

message: There's no active discussion going on--shouldn't this page be unprotected (last edit before me was two weeks ago).  Just thought I should bring this to somebody's attention--feel free to respond here, or on my talk page. Meelar 05:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the country's early years, English-speaking Canadians often emphasized their British roots, shunning the idea that they were anything less than British and had an allegiance to any country other than the United Kingdom [but perhaps we should really say "British Empire", since Canada was British, without actually being part of the UK]. From their days as part of France's colonial empire, French-speaking residents had been more independent-minded, often calling themselves Canadiens (in contrast to Anglais) and wished for a country which would not always depend on Great Britain for political direction or financing.
QuartierLatin1968 03:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: (Hopefully helpful ones!) First, would it not be more realistic to move and rename this article to English Canadian identity, which is what it is, because even the section on Quebec seems preoccupied with presenting English Canadian views of Quebec. That's not a bad thing - we should just recognize it for what it is. I'm sure there's already an article out there somewhere with plenty of hand-wringing about Quebec's own complicated identity. (If somebody finds such a page from fr: and needs a translation, I'd be happy to do it.)
Second, can I moot this provisional compromise language, so we can rid ourselves of the neutrality dispute:
: In the country's early years, English-speaking Canadians often emphasized their British roots, shunning the idea that they were anything less than British and had an allegiance to any country other than the United Kingdom [but perhaps we should really say "British Empire", since Canada was British, without actually being part of the UK]. From their days as part of France's colonial empire, French-speaking residents had been more independent-minded, often calling themselves Canadiens (in contrast to Anglais) and wished for a country which would not always depend on Great Britain for political direction or financing.
QuartierLatin1968 03:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Suggestions

message: I tried to get rid of this ages ago, and reading through it again, I really think it's terrible.  Not only is it wildly inaccurate, but it really doesn't seem to have any place here.  It's filled with fallacies, although the part that mentions Vancouver as having mild weather is fairly accurate.  What an article on Canadian identity has to do with the weather, I can't say.  Maybe outsiders get the perception that it's a big issue, but for the most part I think the weather doesn't affect Canadians in a special way.  There is nothing particularly defining about the weather in my opinion.  The weather doesn't dramatically change once you cross the border or anything.
From what I've read above, it seems that most people would agree with me.
brenden 05:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling for removal of "The snow, the ice and the cold of a long winter" section 

message: I think there is a canadian identity even if there is not a single canadian culture, but making an encyclopedia article about it is not an easy task.  My remark about the English Canadian identity above was related to the fact that both the quotations and the readings at the bottom of the page all refer to english canadian authors and english canadian media events (the "I am Canadian" Molson ads) who are nearly completely unknown in Quebec, and, as far as I know in the French speaking communities of New Brunswick also.  Thus they constitute a divide, a split into two identites (or more) rather than a common point, while our shared belief in a universal health insurance scheme and other such matters transcends linguistic and cultural barriers and can be taken as one of the foundations of a Canadian identity.  --AlainV 01:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Shared values going across cultural boundaries

message: Can we take the opinions and speculation out of the article?AndyL 23:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion.  This is a place to document the identity of Canadians, not to assert one's own identity.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 17:22 Z
Canadian gun ownership is at comparable levels with the US. It's just we don't use them to kill people. DJ Clayworth 15:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Do we really need this article? Most non-Americans (and non-Canadians) won't know what the heck this article means. This whole article seems like one big insult by Americans to Candians and one big defence by Canadians. This article has no significance outside USA and Canada (== Most of the world). And the whole article talks as if it concerns the entire world. Like the outsider perception section.
I correct myself - this seems like one big insult by Americans against Canadians, that's all.
: Let me add: I am from rural Québec north, and moved to Ontario one year ago, partly to discover differences in cultures.  Although this doesn't bring me any authority, my position is that this article has no need to be.  Canadians in general don't really know who they are as a nation, if not a collection of loosely-sewn communities, with varying interests, ethnic diversity, richness, culture, etc.  The people who contribute should start by reading the external links; that's what foreigners would do to make their own subjective opinion about how Canadians feel about themselves; nobody is interested in knowing how we perceive ourselves.  Do you ask your neighbors how, in their hearts, they feel? are they jealous of their other neighbor, etc.?, so other countries probably have no interest whatsoever in reading this article, except to say: "look honey, that's just about the best they are able to say about themselves; they probably lack self-confidence"; an immature society at best.  Exposing in this article how Canadians view themselves is as pointless as any other "nation self-image" talk, except maybe the US, which is the only country "glamorous" enough to see any point or use in doing so); at best this article in its present form is a very pathetic emulation of the ways of Americans, but about a society which has no credibility to do so.  Finally, I think this article only shows the one trait all Canadians share, regardless of their province, language or culture: insignificance.  Say something worth of, or say it not.  Sorry everyone, I love my country, but its value with respects to the world in which we are living is sometimes... not there at all.  le_natch 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity of this article 

message: Almost the entire article is non-neutral and based on supposition and not on facts.
:This isn't a very specific critique, but it seems to be true. The article seems to be an abject failure, from its invocation of anecdoted without citations to the confused morass left by politically motivated edit wars. In short, this article sucks.
What's even worse is that I got to this article after going through multiple articles about distinct Canadian cultural elements in areas as diverse as cuisine and social customs. Instead of any participants doing any non-superficial research at all, it appears that contributors have distilled this down to the most superficial, stereotype-ridden examinations of Canadian Identity possible one actually made worse by the inanities of multiple authors.
Archived to May 7 2005 in Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1
::One article in that vein is Chinese-Canadian Cuisine, or whatever it's called.  Instead of (as was intended) being about the development of a distinct menu/dining "experience" in Canada, it's become a listing of people's favourite Chinese dishes, often on the premise that because it's made in Canada now it's therefore Canadian, or Chinese-Canadian; so Mandarin and Sichuan cuisines chock up the page even though neither of them had anything to do with "traditional Chinese-Canadian cuisine"; the meaning of term has had its meaning extended is now extended to anything going on in Chinese restaurants in the country NOW.  I monitor that page, but it gets really strange - for someone raised on Chinese-Canadian Cuisine, or "Chinese and Western" as we also called it, seeing things spelled in pinyin and people arguing about whether or not some dish I've never heard of is now "Canadian" is really grating.  Having people freshly arrived, or who have been raised inside their own cultural ghettos, extrapolating their own experience into "what it means to be Canadian" is REALLY inane, and also annoying/insulting when they show no concern for the identity/feelings/culture they're displacing by such actions.  Needless to say, I didn't go wave flags yesterday...  To me "Canadian identity" is a political fiction, created more than developed, and more than grating when it's shoved down your throat; the idea that there's a common Canadian identity from sea to sea etc they've been trying to sell to use since they tried to make the Dominion somethign more than a branchplant of the UK; but it never worked.  And instead you've got people making up identities by the seat of their pants; and in the case of stuff like Canadian-Chinese Cuisine, as with the Head Tax, you've got the new-blood Chinese-Canadians showing no concern at all for the heritage of the old-stock Chinese-Canadians, and essentially shoving it aside to rewrite the national history/culture in their own image......in general I think this page is problematic and built on political assumptions that were always more of a marketing campaign than a real identity/culture, i.e. a government project, not a nation.  True identity in Canada has always been regional anyway IMOSkookum1 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred is a Failure

message: This is potentially a difficult article to get right.  Here are some points that, ideally, should get addressed:
* Three major identities, roughly speaking called English Canada, French Canada and Quebec, with various forms of overlap.  Some communities, notably Montreal, are bilingual in character and have a bilingual identity that is different from English and French.
* First Nation identities
* Two multicultural phenomena, anglophone and francophone.
* Politically correct or not, many people defind themselves in terms of what they are not: not American, not anglophone, not francophone, etc.
Peter Grey 28 June 2005 03:46 (UTC)
:It's so difficult to get right that you've already got stuff wrong; "French Canadian" is not a single unified identity, but a group of several identities which are themselves quite distinct from each other. (Go ahead and tell someone from Kapuskasing that Franco-Ontarian isn't a distinct identity...I dare ya! *grin*)  Bearcat 02:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly English Canadian can mean Westerners, Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, Ottawa/Montreal, the Eastern Townships, the Maritimers, Newfoundland.  Anglophone/francophone is probably more fundamental, and gets strangely overlooked rather frequently. Peter Grey 08:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The challenge 

message: I've seen one of the quotations in the trivia section as being attributed to Pierre Trudeau -- can anyone confirm this? (Pierre Berton: "A Canadian is someone who knows how to make love in a canoe without tipping it.")
:It was definitely Berton, and it's simpler than that, as in "A Canadian is someone who knows how to make love in a canoe".  Period.  The Trudeau quote that's a propos here is "English Canada doesn't have a culture.  I'm going to give it one" (in reference to opening up/expanding non-white immigration).Skookum1 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: At various times, "NPOV" and "merge" tags have been added to this article, yet there has been scant discussion of either.  However, there has been a comment that the article is in need of a good clean-up.  I agree with this and am going to remove the NPOV and merge tags and replace them with a "clean-up" tag.  I will start by writing a new lead for the article.  However, I have no particular attachment to it remaining an article and if others wish to summarize it in a few tightly written paragraphs and merge it with Canadian culture,  I wouldn't object.  Sunray 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: I agree with everyone here. this whole article looks like it was thrown together by a bunch of american grade 8 students with nothing better to do. Need some major changes
: Yes. This is our revenge for sending Celine Dion south. - Bert 171.159.64.10 02:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kweeesht!  Are you kidding?  Must have been a Canadian; full of too many banalities and textbook cliches on "the struggle to define being Canadian" that only a Canadian would have written it; an American wouldn't care, and if he had, he would have written with more flash and pizazz and probably some unusual takes on us we hadn't seen ourselves.  ("Kweesht!" is an expletive/disgust expression from my-part-of-BC's culture/dialect).Skookum1 06:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing, but as a Yank (a Hoosier, even), when I've visited Canada and worked with Canadians from all over (academia), I see that there really is a "positive" Canadian identity, even if Canadians can't quite put their finger on it.  And it's pretty cool.  I like the differences, even if I can't pin them down, myself.Dogface 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Really Important 

message: *for deletion
**Skookum1 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: votes for/against deletion

message: Wikipedia should at least explain why Canadian have such a hard time difining their own identity (the French fact, the US and British influences, immigration and diversity, regional differences).  But perhaps we have to start over to do that.  Kevlar67 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frustrating as it's been, I do think this has been a more useful forum than soc.culture.canada ever was (rabid loonies from wall to wall, plus adspam all over the place).  Wiki's not supposed to be a blog, but talk pages on some issues tend towards that inherently because of the subject matter.  I think the main premise here is that we're debating what is largely a fiction of government policy, i.e. that there is such a thing as a Canadian identity, singular, as opposed to a group of identities whic hare Canadian in context but entirely different; NF vs AB, aboriginal-oldstock-newcomer, anglo-french, acadien-quebecois-manitobaine/saskais-metis, the forty different local valley/island identities in BC, plus the maddening swirl of Vancouver's mix, historical and modern; then there's V.I. and distinctions between different parts of the Far North; YT and NWT are very different, ditto Whitehorse and Yellowknife.  I think the big mistake in Canadian self-definition is the idea that there's a commonality at all, rather that a set of mutually collective differences, i.e. from the States, from the rest of the world, from Britain, from each other.  "Canadian identity" is largely a fiction of the media, especially since the Trudeau year and especially since the new Constitution and the Copps-instigated flag-waving mock-patriotism thing that's so annoyingly a cloy of American rah-rah, and half-hearted at that; I just had lunch with my mother and she despaired, like others her age (84, turning 85 on Sept 3), that "we never had to think of each other in terms of what ethnicity we were" (she said "where we were from", meaning "we" in the sense of family); we never had to wear hyphens and didn't think much if the person next door was Danish-Italian or Hungarian-Chinese; we were all Canadians, even with heavy accents.  And there was no doubt that a British Columbian was a very different beastie from an Albertan or Nova Scotian; unless you were an Ontarian and sworn to the mentality that all other Canadians should be cast in the mold of Lower Ontario, which of course we're not.  I'll never forget going to Quebec and being treated as if I were just another damned anglo, simply because I was from the other side of the Ottawa River; yet I was nothing like the Ontarians I met there (I was at McGill) and the Ontarians knew I was nothing like them; the irony is my mother's maiden name was Periard, i.e. French.  When she re-immigrated to Canada at the start of WWII, to join up, after a childhood and school years in California, where her family had moved from Stanbridge East, Quebec when she was four, the immigration form/officer asked her what her ancestry was; she put her father was French-Irish (French -from-France, by the way, not old-stock de souche Quebeckers even though there are pur laine Quebeckers with the same surname) and her mother was English; what they put on her form was that she was French-Canadian, and although she has nothing at all against French-Canadians she said to herself, vehemently, that "but I'm not French-Canadian.  She got sorted and labelled, like a statistic; and that's I think the biggest problem, as anyone who's thought a bit as they filled out the census forms, or tried to work with the ethnicity statistics so often cited in Wiki; they're very misleading and mostly try to categorize you rather than deal with you as a person, as an individual.  And that's the scariest thing - individuality and individual identity is being submerged into hyphenated identities; and whatever home-grown culture/identity you have is less important, in the Dept of Multiculturalism and Propaganda's view, than the hyphenations by which they decide who gets how much for funny-costume-day and ethnic-pride day.  I want to do heritage/historical writing on my home district (http://www.cayoosh.net) - or rather, I want to get funding and/or credentials for doing what I'm doing...but the response and the process is that I have to take ethnic sides, I can't write about the experience of being a Lillooeter by identity; I'm supposed to come up with things on "the Scots in Lillooet" or the oppression of First Nations or the suffering of the Chinese or the Japanese relocation or retaining Italian identity or Ukrainian recipes; yet none of that applies easily in Lillooet, other than the First Nation issues, because a) most of the Scots "went Indian" (such few there were; the more dominant group, even if Scottish, were from Kentucky and other parts of the Deep South and US West), the Chinese ran the place and had the most profitable goldmines, and the Japanese were in self-supporting centres and stayed on and integrated with all otehr groups; they all became Lillooeters rather than hung onto their ethnic identities; the Italians didn't hang out and open vinyards, cappucino bars and pasta houses and obsess over Juventes; those that needed to hang onto their ethnic affiliation (as with many of the Chinese after WWII) simply moved out because they couldn't handle the integrative identity of the place.  It wasn't a question of assimilation; it was a question of shared community in the depths of a fascinatingly isolated and utterly unique and beautiful wilderness/heritage district.  Something that, despite its short lived sawmill, is so much more than the "resource town" academics want to classify it as, and something which defies all the cheap generalizations and overglosses academia and media and ethnopolitical groups make all the time, as if all BC's hinterland were classifiable by urban intellectuals intent on writing history and "creating a new Canadian identity".  This is the failing opf the Cult of Canadiana - it's destroying local identities and cultures, and foisting new, imported ones on top of vibrant local lifestyles and cultures which only this place could have created.  I'm Norwegian, Irish, French and English, and culturally I've got some First Nation, Mexican, and Greek/Hellenic going on in me (as my First Nations, Mexican, and Greek friends have commented to me by way of compliment....).  I could have only happened HERE.   Yet because I stand up for the idea that there are uniquely Canadian identities which existed before offical multiculturalism, I get branded "racist" and "redneck" for disagreeing with the official/p.c. line, even though I'm told by the same people that "you didn't have a culture" and "you don't have a history".  Really?  Y'see, that's one of the first things my First Nations friends responded to - "we were told that, too.....".  So f**k "Canadian identity"; it's a fiction, and a political agenda, and in its own way destructive of the things that used to make us Canadian: I used to say that, here in BC anyway, the things we all had in common, whatever "race" or "ethnicity" or "class" we came from, were a campfire by the lake, fish on the fire, beer and food in the cooler, the sound of guitars (not recorded music, but live) and the glittering of the starlight; the call of the loon, the mystique of the darkness that was summed up by the myth of the sasquatch.  I agree about the issues raised in the paragraph I'm responding to; but I don't think "Canadian identity" is the right title (I also think the Culture of Canada article is sorely going in the wrong direction, but that's a bit of a different argument) and the issue should be the complex of identities that make up all the different kinds of Canadians.  It wasn't until the Pearson era, maybe Dief's time, that we even began to look for a common, binding identity and purpose; we were British Columbians, we were Albertans, we were Manitobans, we were Maritimers, we were Quebeckers, we were Northerners, and what bound us together was the Crown/Queen, freedom of movement, the loose glue of the pre-politicized CBC and funny-looking money.  And, oh yeay, being different from Yanks, kindred though we are (literally in my case, as a good half my bloodlines on both sides are "down there").  What else bound us together: the starlight, the guitars, the beer, the campfire.  Maybe hockey always bound the rest of Canada together; that's nonsense historically in BC where rinks were rare and frozen, skatable ponds even rarer; we had rugby, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, even cricket.  In latter-day histories, in fact, we're described as being "too British" (whatever that sub-racist comment really means....).  I could go on, and probably will again, but you get the idea, I hope.Skookum1 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: While I approve of the edit that produced this:
:In recent years the Canadian right, mostly led by the Conservative Party of Canada and right-wing think-tanks such as the Fraser Institute,
...I wanted to comment that it's notable that neo-conservative groups have habitually styled anybody opposed to them as "special interest groups", while of course being one (or several) themselves.  Environmental, human rights, community, and other groups have been styled "special interest groups" as a slag, and only a few (if any in Canada?) have had the wits to call themselves "think tanks".  The further irony is that, like "reform", the term "think tank" was originally a liberal/libertarian/intellectual undertaking/invention, until being coopted by the right; and the Fraser Institute in particular sets its hacks (often party or industry insiders) up as "intellectuals" and "articulate".  Articulate distortion-mongers certainly; as with everything from global warming-denouncing to rationalizations in support of reduced civil rights...(while at the same time tub-thumping an agenda based around greater rights for capital).Skookum1 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get into the credibility of the Fraser Institute (because I don't enough about any alledged criticism of it to comment), but let's talk more about what an interest group is. You say neo-cons are an interest group. The Fraser Institute is actually described as Libertarian by Wikipedia which is not neo-con, but it doesn't matter for my question: Do we consider general political thought groupings (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, neo-cons, socialists, centrists) as special interest groups?  I know groups like Egale (who would normally be considered liberal) are often referred to as an interest group, but that's because their objectives are more specific. But I've never heard it applied to a whole political segment across the board. Otherwise, we're all probably in a special interest group, but that idea seems like an original thought to me. Deet 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Interest Groups vs Think Tanks 

message: Why can't the multiculturism of Canada be discussed without comparing it to the US?  I am not aware of any contest between the US and Canada on multiculturism.
"The conventional wisdom is to assume while immigrants to the United States are compelled to prove their undivided loyalty to the U.S. first, Canada is more relaxed and tolerant"...
..."tolerance of ethnic and religious minorities promotes a greater willingness to tolerate political differences- again as compared to Americans, who are assumed to be far more rigid and conservative in ideology.
I know nothing about multiculturism in Canada, but the above comments are purely opinion about the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugplumxx (talk • contribs) 
:I believe the idea was to compare to prove that Canada isn't the US. But, the section looks pretty POV anyways. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we're getting into what we believe, I think the editor has an axe to grind with the US.  lol, there was more about the US than there was about Canada.  If you are working on the article, I apologize.  I am not qualified.  I just wanted to remove some the editorials about the US and it seemed this article had been discussed for quite awhile, but no one had really changed anything.  I'll butt out now. ;o)  Thanks for the response.  Sugplumxx 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of US references in Multiculturism Section 

message: Canada's large geographic size and relatively open immigration policy have led to an extremely diverse society, including a large set of First Nations and other immigrants. What's this??? Now first nations are immigrants??? This part of the sentence "First Nations and other immigrants" is implying that First Nations are immigrants! Why in the name of god would they be called "First Nations" if they were immigrants! They're the only people in Canada who aren't immigrants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.221.47 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Nations aren't immigrants 

message: Why is there no mention about the African Canadians in the introduction.  They have been here before and Confederation, and have contributed singificantly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.68.65 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Canadians in the Introduction 

message: I was taken aback by the bald POV tone of "Trudeau tried to take political advantage" and other interpretive comments, which present what are to me distorted views of the evolution of "identity policy" in relation to the US, and in how we relate to the US etc.  I don't see any citations anywhere for what are clearly subjective comments; it may be that the rest off the article is in similar shape, but in the case of the Trudeau "criticism" it has the hallmarks of neo-con washing of history to "paint" things a certain way that doesn't jibe with the full scope of the picture; or presents, rather a very one-dimensional view of it.  "So fix it" is the usual response, which is really just saying "so what?".  Cleverly-written sop can be difficult to entangle, I don't have time right now and this is a POV_charged domain/topic. It can also be seemingly profesaional sounding; which is why I moved the blab about Harper and Kenny to the end of the article, as it's really news about current ministry appointments, not truly about policy; it's a press release melded into the article (like a lot of Harper government materials throughout wikispace).  It may also be the first portfolio by that name but nobody can tell me that Sheila Copps wasn't the "Minister for Canadian identity" in very real terms in her era, cant' remember her portfolio name but if anyone the claim that Kenny's appointment was a sign to harmonize "identity policy" with Europe and the US....Copps did that by teaching us to flag-wave and plaster maple leaves on everything in sight.  If Kenny's appointment were to be mentioned as if it meant anything tangible, then certainly more tangible similar positions in the past should also be discussed.  "Well, fix it" is easy enough for the Harperite who composed this to say like any good "so what?" artist; but were they building Wikipedia, or Harper's net presence, by adding such a paragraph to an articles which, after all, is about Canadian identity.  Not about the Harper government.....my point is regular non-partisan Wikipedians shouldn't have to clean up after partisan Wikipedians...putting harper in hte lead was clearlly promo material; Trudeau did far more for Canadian identity but he's not mentioned utnil paragraphs later, the first time in a negative sense.  Which tells me alot about overall POV in the content/structure of teh article, subtle though that POV 's presence may be.  But it's not always subtle, which is why I moved ithe Kenny bit to the section on his cabinet portfolio; and because it's called "Canadian identity" I let it remain; by rights it's only an ad for the current government's agenda...Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV on relationship with US section

message: ...by the anonymous IP to the intro paragraph were mine.  I didn't realize I hadn't logged in. Corlyon (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops - July 4 Edits...

message: The paragraph isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of every indigenous group in the country.  Neither the article Aboriginal peoples in Canada nor the article on First Nations tries to do that, and if this is done anywhere, it should be in those articles, I think.  So I have deleted some of the references to additional indigenous groups that seemed to place undue emphasis on British Columbian indigenous groups for the scope of the paragraph.  The choice of specific First Nations is deliberate to some extent as it is my hope/intention to add a discussion to the later part of the article about the contributions/influences of some of these groups specifically to evolving Canadian identity, assuming I can find appropriate source material to support these later edits.  Thanks for catching my omission of the Métis, Skookum1.  It may have seemed obvious, but it was not intended as a slight.  Corlyon (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous Peoples

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian identity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120083809/http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1442344384984/1442924691345 to http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1442344384984/1442924691345
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821200252/http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/blackwell.html to http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/blackwell.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canadian identity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg20.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031228114729/http://www.culture.ca/canada/explore-explorez-e.jsp?pre=n&category=243 to http://www.culture.ca/canada/explore-explorez-e.jsp?pre=n&category=243
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified