Talk:Canada/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

This is a discussion as per requested by user:Moxy.

To be blunt, why are you reverting mention of Leif Erikson being the first European to explore parts of Canada (a.k.a. make landfall in Canada)? I understand not making a direct or indirect/speculative connection to L'Anse aux Meadows as the debate may go into too much depth for the page. But to cut out any mention entirely seems odd especially considering this is the mainstream consensus view and reliably sourced. Additionally, the image was good quality and clearly in keeping with the tone and character of the section.RickyBennison (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok so look at the change I made.....if the main intent is to mention him best to do so in the context of the sagas and not in settlement.--Moxy 🍁 14:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically, there were three sentences. 1) Vinland 2) Leif Erikson 3) L'Anse aux Meadows. What I can do is change the order of sentences so it goes 1) Leif Erikson 2) Vinland 3) L'Anse aux Meadows. With the Vinland sentence between the Leif Erikson and L'Anse aux Meadows ones, this should de-contextualise them further in respect of one another. Are you satisfied with that? Otherwise an alternative would be to do 1) L'Anse aux Meadows 2) Vinland 3) Leif Erikson. RickyBennison (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to see the ref, but does it explicitly outline his involvement in Canada? I think it was an American history source too no? Is it possible to find a Canadian source? trackratte (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The refs for Leif Erikson were 'National Geographic' and 'The Canadian Encyclopedia'. So one US based with international coverage, one explicitly Canadian.^[1][2] According to The Canadian Encyclopedia: 'Leif Eriksson was the first European to explore the east coast of North America, including areas that are now part of Arctic and Atlantic Canada.' RickyBennison (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Will look for a good sources this week. Again changed wording to match the terrestrial sources till an academic one is found. Problem we have is the source says Bjarni Herjólfsson was first. Also best not to have add image for something that had little impact on the country.--Moxy 🍁 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

user:Moxy The sources are fine as is the picture, which is at least as valuable to the page as the other pictures in the section: I will continue to endeavour to secure its presence on the page. You seem to have some kind of bias against Erikson being the first European to make landfall. I suggest you learn to accept it: it is the mainstream view nowadays. Look at the Columbus page and even there it states Erikson for North America. To clarify, and as previously stated, Erikson was not the first European to see/observe/find Canada, he was the first to make landfall. I have bent over backwards trying to incorporate your concerns but now you have continued the revert without reason, misrepresent the talk page consensus (which doesn't actually exist) approach. I feel you have been needlessly disruptive. I will not however get sucked into an edit war with yourself. RickyBennison (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup clearly scholarly debate if he was the first to make landfall and establish a colony. That said reading Helge Ingstad; Anne Stine Ingstad (2000). The Viking Discovery of America: The Excavation of a Norse Settlement in L'Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland. Breakwater Books. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-1-55081-158-2. now. As for the image ....simply not historical relevant to the country and causes clutter.--Moxy 🍁 01:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the abbreviation CDN or of what it means. If the claim in international vehicle registration code is true that it means Canada Dominion, then it's an even bigger problem that this former country name isn't even mentioned. The abbreviations CAN and CA aren't mentioned either. --Espoo (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Canadian dollar - infobox says ...(Currency Canadian dollar ($) (CAD))-. The "Title" of the country is mentioned in the first section.-Moxy 🍁 11:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This page contains more than one instance/variation of "Canada's Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples", which need to be updated to "Indigenous peoples in Canada" as Indigenous peoples living in what became Canada aren't possessions of the country, but instead members of sovereign nations and communities. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Canada's indigenous people owe allegiance to Canada, even when they are outside Canada. Meanwhile, there are indigenous people from other countries such as the U.S. in Canada, who are not Canada's indigenous people. Similarly there is a difference between referring to citizens of Canada and people in Canada. TFD (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:I don't understand if you're arguing against the revision request or agreeing with it as your comment doesn't address the issue at hand, namely that Indigenous peoples are not possessions of Canada. There are instances in this specifically about Indigenous peoples in Canada - what does that have to do with Indigenous peoples in other countries? This sentence, for example, would still convey the same message by flipping "Canada's indigenous peoples" to "Indigenous peoples in Canada" - note the Wikipedia page name isn't Canada's Indigenous peoples - and would improve the accuracy of the sentence: "As a consequence of European colonization, the population of Canada's Indigenous peoples declined by forty to eighty percent, and several First Nations, such as the Beothuk, disappeared." --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aboriginal only in article as a term one time to explain the term....all other usage of Aboriginal are in context of proper names used by the government. Cant change Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples because of a POV on the term... as for "indigenous peoples in Canada" vs "Canada's indigenous peoples" we have to be careful as there are not just Canadian indigenous peoples here.--Moxy 🍁 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You should have clarified the context in which the phrase was used. Clearly the reference is to indigenous people in Canada, not Canada's indigenous population. I thought you were talking about indigenous people who were British subjects or Canadian citizens, when the correct term would be Canada's indigenous people. When we talk about Canada's citizens, including indigenous citizens, we do not mean that Canada owns them but that they owe permanent allegiance to Canada wherever they are.

Moxy, I appreciate what you say. However much of the loss of population would have occurred before the aboriginal people became absorbed within Canada as subjects and later citizens. Also a very small part of the population loss was due to emigration to the United States.

TFD (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No clue what your saying " loss of population???....best not change the term all over the place as has been happening.--Moxy 🍁 17:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

When a population declines, that is a "loss of population." TFD (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

perfect all understand your point now.--Moxy 🍁 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a unilateral update to every instance of Aboriginal, Indian or variants of Indigenous peoples. My original comment was specifically about turns of phrase that imply possession. Obviously proper and legal names like the Indian Act or the Canadian Indian residential school system, on this page, or any other should remain as they are.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are a list of resources that advise against the use of possessive language when referring to Indigenous peoples in Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement, "before the aboriginal people became absorbed within Canada as subjects and later citizens", is pure colonialization and a lie. They never fully accepted subjugation to become subjects and citizenship was forced on them and many reject it. The first peoples in Canada have been recognized as distinct nations and more are still fighting to have that recognized. They recognize themselves as citizens of those first nations who happen to be living in a land whose people have temporarily supplanted them.

With that said, I agree with the and fully accept the proposition to changing all references to "Indigenous peoples in Canada". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is a common error to use possessives to describe Indigenous Peoples, as in “Canada’s Indigenous Peoples,” or “our Aboriginal Peoples,” or “the First Peoples of Canada.” These possessives imply that Indigenous Peoples are “owned” by Euro-colonial states. Indigenous Peoples assert sovereignty and many do not identify as Canadian. To describe Indigenous Peoples as located in Canada, appropriate wordings include “Indigenous Peoples in Canada” or “Indigenous Peoples in what is now Canada.”^[1]
• "Avoid using possessive phrases like “Canada’s Indigenous Peoples” or “our Indigenous Peoples” as that has connotations of ownership."^[2]
• "Avoid “Indigenous Canadian” and “Canada’s Indigenous people,” which may imply possession or colonialism. Prefer: Indigenous people in Canada."^[3]
• "Be aware of semantics regarding paternal language. “Indigenous people of Canada” is not the same as “Indigenous people in Canada.” Do not use “Canada’s Indigenous people” as the possessive suggests a hierarchal relationship; or “Indigenous Canadian” as many Indigenous people do not identify with a Canadian national identity."^[4]
• "Avoid possessives before groups (e.g., Canada’s Indigenous Peoples)."^[5]
• "Writing about Indigenous Peoples" (PDF). Canadian Press. Retrieved 30 June 2020.</ref>
• "Avoid describing Indigenous people as “belonging” to Canada. Use less possessive terms instead."^[6]

I see this makes sense....Worked for Indian and Northern affairs for years and never heard of this problem...nor have I ever heard of it in a possession POV term. I guess we could do some Wikipedia:Advocacy work if anyone anywhere thinks this way. We have always used the term(s) used by the journal of Canadian studies i.e --Moxy 🍁 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy:The distinction is fairly common in circles focused on Indigenous issues and changes in language over time have been acknowledged in the Government of Canada's Style Guide, even as certain acts/pieces of legislation or web resources continue to use outdated phrasing. The folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America may also be a good group to consult with. That said, I'm going to leave my case making here and leave it up to other editors to determine the best course of action. Thank you for your time. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Must be an age thing as Indigenous Canadians to me has zero ownership attached to it. I am reading Krushil Watene; Eric Palmer (2020). Reconciliation, Transitional and Indigenous Justice. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-006127-7. and can see much needs fixing as its still the norm.--Moxy 🍁 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any point in discussing hypotheticals and need specific examples. It's clear that in the example provided, the use of the term "Canada's indigenous peoples" was wrong, and should be changed. Are there any other examples where you object to the usage? TFD (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Think all we have is a few as seen here.--Moxy 🍁 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The first example says, "This was the first election in which all of Canada's Indigenous Peoples had the right to vote...." But the franchise was not extended to indigenous people from other countries who were in Canada unless they were Canadian citizens or British subjects. TFD (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Which doesn't in any way mean it can't be phrased differently. Furthermore the Indigenous peoples in Canada clearly articulates that the focus is people who live in or were born in Canada, not Indigenous peoples who might be from else where. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

One of us has missed the point again. If you are speaking of Canada as a geographic region, then I'm making too much of this. If you are speaking of Canada as a political entity, then you're simply wrong. While first nations are born within our borders, they do not identify as "Canadian citizens", so making the claim that they are "in Canada" is misleading and the phrasing should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any source that they do not identify as Canadian citizens? Are there any legal cases since citizenship was extended to them where this has been argued? TFD (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Many conversations with the fist peoples; many news reports about them, and many legal cases about it. And again, they were not asked if wanted citizenship, European settlers decided to draw lines through the land that no one can own, and said "if you're on this side you're an X and if you're on that side, you're Y." They had no say in the lines or who the X or Y were. Stop applying colonial rules to something that they claim has none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but do you have any sources or legal cases that corroborate your conclusions? TFD (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't. You're living under a rock if you have not read bout or heard these things though. This is a non-starting issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the discussion is all in the right place, and I think TFD makes a good point in that as an encyclopedia this is a reference work, which is particularly important given our current "post fact, post truth" environment we are increasingly living in. As for the issue of not self "identifying" as Canadian, while perhaps valid from a policy/political point of view, is not in law and is similar to a Quebec separatist not self identifying as Canadian, but that doesn't change their citizenship status as a matter of international and Canadian law (and in practical reality). While we can draw links to territorial and sovereignty disputes, it would be wrong to state that that a group is not Canadian simply because they don't self identify as such. trackratte (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's entirely different from the milieu in Quebec. Many first nations freely travel between Canada and the US and do not carry a Canadian or American passport when they do, particularly at land crossings [1] [2] and [3]. Take some time to read the AFN's position on citizenship. In short, they are First Nations in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The AFN paper is about First Nations citizenship. Their complaint is that it is controlled by the Canadian government, not by First Nations. It acknowledges, "All people born in Canada inherit Canadian citizenship." There is nothing inconsistent with having both citizenships.

Indians are allowed to freely travel to the U.S. as a result of Jay's Treaty, which allowed all British subjects to freely enter the U.S. (Not all aboriginal people in Canada were British subjects at the time.) The right of British subjects to enter the U.S. has since been revoked, but it remains for Indians. However, they must be considered Indian under U.S. law, not Canadian.

Quebec separatism is a good parallel. It is recognized by Canada as a nation, it's citizens were not asked if they wanted to become British subjects, separatists do not want to be Canadian citizens. But they consider themselves Canadian citizens until Quebec secedes.

A complicating factor is that citizenship means several things. It's original meaning was membership in a body politic. This was in contrast to the concept of subject who owed permanent allegiance to the body politic. The term subject has become virtually obsolete, while citizenship now includes both concepts. It is entirely consistent to feel that one is not a part of the citizenship of Canada yet still consider oneself to be a legal citizen.

TFD (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Documentation required to cross the border is irrelevant. US citizens don't need a passport to come into Canada if they have a NEXUS or FAST card and and same for Canadians going to the US. It was only a few years ago that all anyone needed was a driver's license or equivalent. Just because you can travel across the border with a status card doesn't mean you are not a Canadian. trackratte (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. And if the original agreement were still in force in its entirety, all Commonwealth citizens would have a right to enter, work and remain in the U.S., but that would not mean they did not have citizenship in their respective countries. TFD (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Indians live in India.

Quebec separatism is not a good parallel at all. They do not have Quebec citizenship papers and cannot cross land borders without proper documentation. The Nisga'a people have achieved what every other first nation in Canada wants: self-governance. The colonial court systems are not allowing that any more than governments are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't have to talk about Quebec separatism. Quebec has its own Parliament, it's own legal system (civil law), it's own courts, it's own police, it's own identification regime, all of the provincial spheres (health, education, traffic, etc), it's own tax and social benefits regime (unique amongst the provinces), and in many ways is more an independent country than countries within the EU are. And we've just seen provinces close their borders to non-"citizens". So I fail to see what you're on about in this regard. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Most other province what Quebec has except for the appeasement in parliament that they are a nation, yet no one has Quebec citizenship. First nations are pushing for all of these things and the Nisga'a have them. They also have the right to enter another country with a document that says they are first nations. Quebec does not have that.

But in short, we are not talking about Quebec's status in Canada so do not mention it again. We are talking about whether we should refer to the first nations as "Canada's Indigenous peoples", Canada's indigenous peoples" or "Indigenous peoples in Canada". The consensus is for the third option. Unless your response is on-topic, I will not reply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of conclusion the underlying logic re:distinctions on citizenship vis a vis Quebec is flawed, and editors are free to bring forward logical comparisons and arguments as they see fit.

This conversation as to the most encyclopaedic way to describe the topic needs to happen at Indigenous peoples in Canada as the parent or main article space for the topic. It would then be natural for other articles to follow suite barring any reason not to specific to the context of those articles. For example, the lead in Indigenous people's in Canada is a mess viewed through the lens of the above discussion. trackratte (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The article reports there are 10 provinces. As far as I know, there are 11 provinces.

Nunavut became the 11th province in 1998.

David Dahl 98.10.92.14 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nunavut is a territory. Canada has 10 provinces and three territories. freshacconci (✉) 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nunavut became a territory in 1999. TFD (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Freshacconci: This verges on WP:NOTAFORUM and therefore should not be entertained and removed not to fill up the page's archives with nonsense. Talk pages are for for improving the encyclopedia not for asking basic factual questions that is in the second sentence of the article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming good faith and it wasn't a general question, it was something pertaining to information in the article. Whether or not the editor knew to click on the link is immaterial. Cluttering up the archive is hardly a reason to delete something. freshacconci (✉) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, they're suggesting a specific factual edit - they're just wrong about the facts. The only disruptive behaviour here is biting them for it. WilyD 04:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Politialguru please have a look at WP:WIAFA and Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Featured articles, and gain consensus before altering the lead here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

How come the on the United States wiki it states ethnic groups by : White, Black, Native, Pacific Islanders, Latinos Canada's wiki, ethnic groups are ; European, African, Indingenous, Oceanic, Latin American and so forth...??? Alkqn (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why my text came out like that. Alkqn (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It was the indentation that caused that. The answer to your question however, the reason for the difference is Canada does not recognized skin color as a ethnic groups, therefore categorize race by ancestry. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The descriptions are taken from the census in each country. You can search their websites to see why they chose these categories. IIRC, the U.S. classifies people from Spain as Latinos, while Brazilians are white. The terms native and Latino aren't used as much in Canada. TFD (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Regarding this edit, Pelmorex is the umbrella company, but The Weather Network is still more appropriately listed as the publisher in this case. It's not a work title. Regarding this edit, those parameters are not required when the publication date is known; see WP:CITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also my understanding that a date has to be an actual date, not a year. Having only a year value in a date field should generate an error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And to be fair, Nikkimaria is just reacting to my fixes to Nikkimaria's attempts to correct other errors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no discussion about removing access-date as was done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=995903592&oldid=995899261 here. Reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, as per above: those parameters are not required when the publication date is known; see WP:CITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Access date is not required when the publication date is known? Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed if it is present. Anything on the web can be easily changed/modified and having that info makes any later detective work a lot easier. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, you don't have to add it if it is known. But you shouldn't remove it if it is already there because the page can be modified after the time it was accessed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose making it required at WT:CITE if you like, although in practice it is not true that anything on the web is likely to be modified, not to mention that in many cases we already have an archived version linked. IMO rather than relying on detective work for a 'live' subject we should in most cases be seeking to locate updated references rather than resurrect older ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The text at CITE reads For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the web page) should be included, in case the web page changes in the future. As I read it, if the date is not present, it is not required to be supplied, but I do not see text requiring its removal if present in such cases. Any editors who disagree are welcome to propose that sort of wording. Self-reverting per WP:STATUSQUO and apparent local Wikipedia:Consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It says it should be included for web-only sources with no publication date. It does not say it should be included for web-only sources with publication date. It definitely doesn't say it should be included for sources that are not web-only. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yet I think we can agree that it most certainly does not say "if it is present, remove it". I think we can see what the local consensus is as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

One important thing to keep in mind as well is that a disturbingly large percentage of Wikipedia editors wrongly seem to think that accessdate is somehow mandatory in a web citation, while the original publication date of the source is somehow optional. That's exactly bass ackward, obviously, which is one reason why it's not critically important to always retain accessdates for sources that have actual publication dates present or recoverable. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Chrystia Freeland as Deputy Prime Minister to the infobox?

Mike Pence, John Swinney, Leo Varadkar and Michael McCormack are listed in the American, Scottish, Irish and Australian infoboxes - so why not here?

It’s also the second most powerful political office in Canada, so maybe we should add it. Ciaran.london (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No ....not even relative enough to be mentioned in the article.--Moxy 🍁 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not a significant position. She would take over in the remote possibility that something happened to the PM, but then the Liberals would choose a new PM who may or may not be her. TFD (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TFD it’s a really relevant post, so should be in the infobox. Yeah she would be the first choice if Trudeau was incapacitated. Still think we should have Freeland listed. Ciaran.london (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note your statement is contradictory, you agree with TFD who says it's not relevant? It's a nothing position that's more figurative with respect to the country than anything. Important for the party etc, but not the country. Prime Minister dies or something, the party just nominates a new leader, the deputy is only there for a couple of days or so to fill in even if that. Not like the VP of the US. Definitely not particularly relevant to the article on the country. I also notice you're having the same argument on all the parliamentary commonwealth countries despite the fact they've all determined in the past it's not a relevant position. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong. It is an honorary title that hasn't even been granted most of this century. - SimonP (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I would not expect to find it here. It's not as notable a role as the American vice president. I can't speak for the situation in Scotland, Ireland or Australia, but I cannot recall who the deputy prime minister was before Freeland, or any going back multiple governments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I remember a copy of them. Usually they would be announced when cabinet was sworn in and quickly forgotten. The reason you can't remember the deputy PM before Freeland is that the office was vacant. See Deputy Prime Minister of Canada#List of deputy prime ministers. TFD (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ciaran.london here, we should add the Deputy PM to the infobox Politicsnerd123 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there racism in Canada and is it higher than America and Europe GreatWikifools777 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Racism in Canada.--Moxy 🍁 14:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We should probably include a section in the main article summarizing that article and possibly comparing (if such a comparison exists) with other nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Opposed to that per WP:UNDUE. We don't summarize every "X in Canada" article here at the main page. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should.

Besides, I am not requesting an entire section, only if a RS creates a ranking, and then the article can be linked in that sentence. It could be placed under the ethnicity section, and it would definitely not hurt to recapitulate the issues raised in the Truth and Reconciliation Comission as well as commenting on missing and murdered Indigenous women, which is entirely lacking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We should follow what articles for other countries do, which is to leave it out, unless the country is an outlier. If it belongs, then we should get an encyclopedia wide guideline first. TFD (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure more praise is needed for the article.... we do have problems but as seen by many outside scholars Canada is doing very well....should we mention the fact that Canada has racism but is seen as a progressive and tolerant society compared to most? Is racism different in Canada?.--Moxy 🍁 14:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and no, we should not avoid difficult topics just because other articles avoid them. We should do what reliable sources say. If they say Canada has an historic or current problem with racism, it should be discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We have to take due weight into account. There could be ample reliable sources, but if it is not something that is determined to be of due weight for an article, it is not included. That being said, I would oppose this info being in a newly added section as it would not fit under the current headings of "Demographics" or "Culture", (racism doesn't exactly fit into the subsection about "Ethnicity" either, being a different topic altogether) but perhaps a sentence or two about some aspects that you mentioned could be added under "Contemporary era". Although, I am still weary about it per Wikipedia:Recentism and the current events in the United States may have artificially increased the topic in the short term. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a sentence on racism with a link to the article Racism in Canada under the Culture section, rights after the sentence that discussed Canada's cultural and ethnic diversity. See this diff. I think it fits there. For those looking for sources on racism in Canada, multiple books were written on it, and the Canadian Encyclopedia has a plethora of articles on the subject. Mottezen (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You added, "There is also racism in Canada, which traces both historical and contemporary racist community attitudes, as well as governmental negligence and political non-compliance with United Nations human rights standards." I don't think that provides any meaningful information. It's true of every country, just as there is crime, illiteracy, poverty and on and on. TFD (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I decided to boldly replace the image in the culture section. The old cartoon was inadequate because it was not (as the description states) a representation of "Canada's early European multicultural identity", but a representation of a perceived bias for Francophones attributed to Wilfrid Laurier by the Cartoonist. It was made at a time of increasing tensions between the two founding peoples of Canada. The elements labeled at the bottom would make no sense to people with little knowledge of Canadian history. The description, however, mentions none of the historical context necessary to understand the cartoon. It doesn't even label the characters represented. Few outside Canada will recognize Wilfrid Laurier on the left (except Civilization VI players), and I can't make out who the person on the right is.

I replaced it with an image of a monument to multiculturalism in Toronto, which I feel conveys the intended message of the text next to it better. Feel free to propose an alternative image to your liking that we can discuss. Mottezen (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The changes in total and per capita GDP data (both nominal and PPP) must be indicated with downward red arrow. Morevover, the rankings must be updated in accordance with 2020 IMF estimates and appear as follows: - Total GDP (nominal): from 10th to 9th - Total GDP (PPP): from 16th to 15th 93.19.148.12 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source to support these changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The most reliable source available is the IMF's updated World Economic Outlook Database (October 2020): https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=156,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.19.148.12 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've changed to but the source you provided did not show country rankings AFAIK. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The most reliable source available is the IMF's updated World Economic Outlook Database (October 2020): https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=156,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1. 93.19.148.12 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not how you re-open an edit request, see above for my response. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the article uses a quarterly population estimate by the Canadian government [4], however the link to List of countries and dependencies by population states the ranking is at 38th, however the linked article in question uses Canada's Population Clock, also run by the government of Canada: [5], which makes the current population estimate around 37th in countries by population. Wondering if there has been a consensus on use of one source or the other? I searched the archives but it changes so frequently most of the previous consensus is now out of date. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yaseen Albreky2 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The population of the country is 38.358.076 and it's 37th in the world population so please change it , bye

Please change the population it's 38.358.076 and it's the 37th in the world ,bye Yaseen Albreky2 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ididntknowausername (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, is it possible to change the version played by the US Marines back in the 2000s by a more modern and Canadian version? If it is indeed possible, I'd like to recommend either one made by the Canadian Armed Forces or one made by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. Thank you.

File:Canadian Army - O Canada.flac

File:Toronto Symphony Orchestra - O Canada.flac

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDarkmark (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

MrDarkmark, what is the copyright status of those arrangements and performances? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, The one done by the Army is in the public domain, as it contains materials that came from the Canadian Armed Forces. As a work of the Canadian government, the file in question is in the public domain. The second one, done by the TSO is also in the public domain. MrDarkmark (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MrDarkmark, what leads you to believe either of these are in the public domain? Works of the Canadian government are typically protected by Crown copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, From the page made by the Canadian Government themselves on Crown Copyright regarding anything made by the CAF, under "When you do not need permission", [6] It does seem that the Canadian Army audio meets all three of the criteria listed. The work in question also seems to fulfill the obligations stated in "Important for non-commercial reproduction". It was also not revised, adapted, modified or translated. MrDarkmark (talk) 08:16, 02 February 2021 (UTC)

MrDarkmark, for the purposes of Wikipedia, media with non-commercial or no-derivative restrictions are considered non-free - see WP:NONCOM. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a "non-commercial use", so content under Crown copyright isn't usable here. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Bearcat, It says "They may still be used under the doctrine of fair use in the English Wikipedia" on WP:NONCOM. Wouldn't this allow us to use it? Also see https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/anthems-canada.html#a5 Unbeatable101 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the requirements of our fair use policy is that non-free content can only be used "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". That isn't the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is correct; "fair use" is for things like album covers, book covers or film posters, where it's impossible to come up with a "free" alternative because anything but the original image would inherently misrepresent the topic. That's not the case for recordings of a national anthem, because it's always possible to just substitute a different recording in place of the non-free one. The only way you could legitimately invoke "fair use" to defend that particular recording would be if we had an article about that particular recording as a separate topic from the song as a whole — and even if that were possible, it would still only be "fair use" in that specific article and not in this one. There's no copyright on the song — but that doesn't mean there's no copyright on any specific individual musician's or band's specific individual recording of the song. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a common misunderstanding that the maximum time between general elections is five years. The "five year" limit (five years from the date fixed for the return of writs which would be slightly over five years) is a limit on the length of time until the House of Commons can no longer sit without another election. Since parliament must sit at least once every twelve months, an election could be avoided for almost six years but for fixed election dates which are not constitutionally binding. I have amended the article accordingly. Even before fixed election dates, continuing for so long was unheard of even though constitutionally possible. Hebbgd (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This position is theoretical and has been debated for years. I'm not sure this is the article for that debate....best stick with the facts over theoretical possibilities. In the same realm as how it can be extended during wartime. Just don't think this is the article for those theoretical debates--Moxy- 16:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source otherwise it's synthesis. It's not enough to look at the letter of the constitution but to read how it is interpreted. TFD (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

We now have fixed elections on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous poll (starting with October 19, 2009) so I don't see what the issue is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

We could say it's every four years. For readers of this article it shouldn't matter whether than is by constitutional requirement or legislation. TFD (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I ask, is this even relevant or important for a general article about the country? Sure for the Government of Canada or related articles, but not the actual country article. Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the page should be made shorter, to do this, we may need to remove some unnecessary information. CrayonArt45 (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)CrayonArt45

CrayonArt45, what specifically do you feel is unnecessary? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Probably the etymology section, it seems a little unnecessary...

Why do you believe that section in particular to be unnecessary? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We were just talking about how the "etymology section" in the context that we have not had a " Dominion" discussion for the past few years since that section says what it says.Moxy- 16:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, maybe information should be shortened, instead of removed completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonArt45 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link European colonization to European colonization of the Americas

That’s all I need right now! CanadaWiki128 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate as it would take the readers to a very general article not specifically about Canada. The article has a section on European colonization later on so I think it may be best to just leave as is. My opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Indigenous inhabitants of the present-day Quebec City region used the word to direct French explorer Jacques Cartier to the village of Stadacona." to "The Indigenous inhabitants of the present-day Quebec City region used the word to direct the French explorer Jacques Cartier to the village of Stadacona."

Delete "In 1982, the passage of the Canada Act, bringing the Constitution of Canada fully under Canadian control, referred only to Canada, while later that year the name of the national holiday was changed from Dominion Day to Canada Day.[20] The term Dominion was used to distinguish the federal government from the provinces, though after the Second World War the term federal had replaced dominion.[21]" SuperCanada600 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, adding a definite article before "Indigenous inhabitants" makes it seems as though it was all of them. This is less definite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should delete "though after the Second World War the term federal had replaced dominion.[21]", I want to delete this because it is an unrelated topic to Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonArt45 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How is a sentence specifically talking about Dominion and Federal in a Canadian context unrelated to the topic of Canada? Canterbury Tail talk 01:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Moxy:, just wanted to clarify why you removed the fact that Canada is a federation from the lead. It is standard to indicate the political structure of a country (ie, unitary state, federation, etc), such as is done at United Kingdom, United States, France, China and pretty much every singe other article about a country. This isn't a disputed fact either as once sentence later, it implies the existence of a federal government, which you didn't remove as well as the mentions in the infobox. Thanks, WildComet (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Any objection if I change "Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition" to "Canada is arranged as a federation with a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster model"? This respected MOS:SEAOFBLUE and I think it's important to explicitly mention that the country is a federation. WildComet (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Simply no need to refer to this concept for a 4th time in the lead. ..we just fixed this at the government article.Moxy- 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@WildComet: I just wanted to clarify why you change the lede of a highly visible article such as this without discussing it first? While WP:BOLD is appropriate, it comes with a caveat: WP:CAREFUL.

I'm not sure why we would start with federation though, at best, it might make sense to tack it on an the end, a Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition that joins 10 provinces and three territories in a federation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Walter Görlitz:. Didn't feel the need to consult as I'm introducing no new info, just re-arranging it in a way I think makes more sense. The lead mentions the country is a federation, but only implicitly, thought I'd gather the political descriptions together.

No particular reason why it has to start with federation, it's just the order I thought sounded best and allows for linking without violating MOS:SEAOFBLUE. I do think parliamentary democracy and westminster model needs to be joined though - the westminster model is a form of parliamentary government. As for the 10 provinces and territories part, that's mentioned in the first paragraph so I don't think it's worth a repeat.

WildComet (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it should still say "federal parliamentary democracy" because the point of that sentence is to name the type of government that Canada has. Unbeatable101 (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A parliamentary democracy is the type of government. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is also a federation Unbeatable101 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We have our own Federalism called Canadian Confederation that are both linked in the lead already ....no need to repeat for a 4th time."the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces".--Moxy- 03:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to say "in the Westminster tradition" if we already say "parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy?" TFD (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call. I don't know if there are any parliamentary democracies that are also constitutional monarchies outside of the Westminster tradition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Are many.... Belgium and Denmark 2 best examples that perform better than us.Moxy- 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(@Moxy:) The 1786 union of governors didn't affect day-to-day life much, but it was a big moment in Canadian constitutional history. In that year we went from being four colonies each with their own independent governor, to having colonies ruled by lieutenant-governors all reporting to one central governor-general. It was literally the first step in uniting Canada. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Meh, not really. Just meant they had a representative over in Canada for them all to report to rather than reporting directly overseas. Seems more like a basic bureaucratic efficiency. And for us to include it you'd need reliable sources to show that it's a pivotal moment in the unification and establishment of Canada. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

According to the article about him, Carleton wanted a governor general position, but instead was appointed governor of each of the provinces. The administrations would not be united until 1867. Furthermore, lt governors continued to hold executive authority and to report directly to London. This situation continued after 1867, as PEI and Nfld were part of BNA but not Canada. The title of governor general of British North America incidentally goes back to 1763, when Quebec was ceded to Great Britain. TFD (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Simply not covered as an event of historical significance in Canadian history books.Moxy- 21:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pulling my old textbook off the shelf, The Structure of Canadian History Finlay, John L., ‎Sprague, Douglas N. (1984) ISBN 0-13-854364-X, pages 74 and 75 discuss the period. The Constitutional Act of 1791 is mentioned twice, and the division of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, but 1786 is not discussed, and the book's index does not mention the union of governors at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Should Canuck be included as a Demonym(s)? Doremon764 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a slang term rather than a formal demonym. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country has many parameters, and Template:Infobox country is one of them. I'm surprised that we were missing it as it can be useful for people who do not know about this detail, not unlike other parameters. I'm not sure why it was missing or why we would want to remove it. I could see if it was not a valid parameter, or if it were a duplicate to another, but neither is the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears based on the edit history that you are referring to |electricity= rather than {{infobox country}}. This parameter was boldly added yesterday, but as its inclusion is disputed I have removed it pending the outcome of discussion here. Being a valid and unique parameter is not a sufficient cause for inclusion. The value is unsourced, and the detail is not something warranting that level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's inclusion is not disputed. I have no clue why it was removed. If there's no valid reason to exclude, it will be reinstated as a) it's a valid parameter, and b) it was not present here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It was removed because its inclusion is disputed. And no, we don't default-include. The fact that it's a valid parameter not previously included is not in itself a rationale for including it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that it was not previously included is not a valid reason for removing it. If it were untrue, it would. If the use of the parameter in other articles was disputed it would be, but this feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather that WP:STATUSQUO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is included in very few other articles, period. As I've noted, the value is unsourced and the detail is trivial, not warranting highlighting in the infobox. And also as I've noted, we don't default to including every parameter possible. Even if it were true, being true does not require inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The omission of an infrastructure section notwithstanding, these are all concerns easily addressed. If consensus is that an infrastructure section should be added, it could have both transportation and energy sub-sections as is the case with United States#Infrastructure. The sections could be cobbled together from transportation in Canada, energy policy of Canada, electricity sector in Canada and other articles. Once done, we could turn our attention to that and other omissions from the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria what wrong with adding electricity, calling code is there, driving side is there. if you added main electricity 120 V - 60Hx or 230 V–50 Hz. it gives an idea to a person planning to visit that country or researching that country. India, USA, UK and other countries has it. And I saw you removed it from Australia and New Zealand pages. why? you can't just remove just because you don't like it. down here in Australia and New Zealnd we have 230 V–50 Hz as a main electrity. and that info was correct. Plz stop removing it. Muzi (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've already said, simply being correct is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. The template is meant to include only key facts that can be read at a glance, not every available parameter; it may well be the case that there are others warranting removal, but this one in particular is trivia unlikely to be of interest to a wide audience. We're not a travel guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nikkimaria that this is not notable enough to include in the infobox. WP:NOTAGUIDE definitely is relevant here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There should be a general rule for this. We should check that first. TFD (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - while this has been previously discussed, I think it is time to once again re-visit placing the chief justice position in the infobox.

A past argument against inclusion is that the inbox is only for listing members of the big-G, executive Government of Canada. First, I'd note that the monarch and GG are not members of the "Government", which would only be the prime minister and Cabinet. However, the link that the section directs to is politics of Canada (not an article for the executive), which encompasses much much more than just the PM / Cabinet and the role of the courts play a huge part in Canadian politics, which I will touch on later. We should also consider the recent changes to the government of Canada article and discussion at Talk:Government of Canada, which notes the different meanings of the term government, meaning not just the executive branch but also the state as a whole.

With that in mind... it makes sense to list the monarch and GG because state power is vested in the Crown ; it makes sense to list the prime minister because he leads the activities of not only the executive "Government", but with the "fusion of powers" in parliamentary democracies, he also is the de facto leader of the legislative branch though leading the largest party in the House (being the only party that can submit money bills) and essentially setting the agenda of the legislature. While there is no formal or direct control over parliament's actions, the PM undoubtedly plays an essential role in its activities.

However, the PM does not have the same influence over the courts as he does over parliament or the executive. A representative of the judicial branch is noticeably absent from the infobox.

Another past argument against inclusion are that the role of the courts isn't as notable as that of parliament or the executive, and have cited the United Kingdom's article as an example. The problem with this is that it doesn't account for the fact that the parliament is sovereign in the UK, and the UK supreme court cannot overturn an act of the legislature.

There is a strong tradition of constitutionalism in Canada. Acts of parliament and provincial legislatures are regularly nullified by the supreme court and short of invoking the notwithstanding clause, which only applies in very limited Charter-related cases, there is nothing a legislature can do to legitimize legislation the court has struck down.

Any thoughts on this? —WildComet ^talk 03:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As per last talk best have a wider talk....personaly for me its a No as per previous reasons... and the fact I believe more junk should be removed from infobox not the other way around ....as of now its a mobile view scrolling nightmare that deters readers.Moxy- 06:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I as a Canadian would love to see it and I disagree with the characterization that adding our Chief Justice would be considered “junk” also the United Kingdom’s and United States articles are longer than Canada’s and I wouldn’t think anyone calls those articles a nightmare that deters mobile viewers and even if it did it shouldn’t matter if it’s called for and in my opinion necessary this article is supposed to show readers our government and putting the Chief Justice is necessary it’s independent provinces frequently take policies federal government issued to the Supreme Court such as carbon pricing in recent times adding the Chief Justice in my opinion is necessary and would inform the public I hope it gets added Black roses124 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not recall if I commented in the previous discussion, but it does not make any difference to most Canadians, and I don't think it's worthwhile in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am also against including the chief justice, mainly due to its low profile compared to the US. Compared to the last time this was discussed, the two of the three countries that were cited as example (Australia, Germany and the United States) have since removed the chief justice from the list with the exception of the US where the supreme court plays a major role in politics. In almost all other countries it does not and I would include Canada in the list of these countries. I dont think that decisions on Carbon Pricing have the same political impact as decisions in the US, such as gay marriage, racial segregation and abortion rights which were essentially decided by the supreme court. Ultimately it comes down to who holds the power (and who people believe holds the power) in government in terms of what people expect to read when they see the term "government of Canada". I think the current selection monarch, GG, PM is fine with me. There are other examples like Switzerland that lists all 7 members of the federal council because they all wield significant power independent of each other and are what people think of as "government", similarly Germany includes Olaf Scholz even though he is vice-chancellor because the government is a CDU-SPD coaliation. --hroest 14:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Canada has three branches of government executive, judicial, and legislative that’s a fact see the link on Canada’s government https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-system-government.html executive is Trudeau legislative also Trudeau he’s leader of biggest party and judicial a branch of Canada’s government is not represented because in some peoples eyes it’s not important? Carbon pricing in the west has had an immense impact they’ve created a political party to separate with the rest of Canada because of it. Supreme Court has decided other issues as well such as Carter V Canada saying assisted suicide should be legal it should no longer be illegal or OPCAT Supreme Court decided that it didn’t violate our charter rights and informed indigenous consent is not a veto. At the end of the day its a branch of Canada’s government if you like it or not I could say the monarch isn’t important to Canada government and should be removed from infobox but obviously that’s silly the judicial branch of Canada’s government should be added. Black roses124 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant UNDRIP not OPCAT I apologize Black roses124 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Black roses124: nobody is claiming that the judicial branch of government isnt a part of government, the question is simply whether they are important enough to be included in the info box. As you may notice, there is also no representation of the legislative branch of government in the box (lower or upper house), right now only the executive is represented. But I am happy to have other people weigh in with their thoughts. --hroest 15:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@hroest monarch and Governor General importance should definitely be questioned if adding our Chief Justice isn’t important but yes you are totally right let’s hear what other people have to say Black roses124 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree in principle with that, however if the infobox states that the form of government is a "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" then the question comes up who the monarch is in this monarchy and I therefore think the monarch should be included for a high level summary. I think we could debate about the GG in the infobox and how relevant that is constitutionally and practically. --hroest 18:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all of the voices that are stating that the judicial branch of government is not important enough in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion because the purpose of the info-box is to supply readers with a high level summary of key information. Bloating the box with unimportant information makes it more difficult for readers to find important information.

Incidentally, the Constitution did not create the Supreme Court, it allowed the Canadian parliament to create a "general court of appeal for Canada." (s. 101) The CJ's position in succession to the GG was made by an imperial order in council.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

We should definitely have a debate on if Governor General should be included in the infobox Black roses124 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That' makes more sense to include. More Canadians know the GG's role and who the current GG is (save for the current caretaker) than can name any supreme court judge or who the chief justice is.

On a separate note, could you please learn how to discuss topics on talk pages? Your constant outdents are becoming annoying. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has what you need to know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The names of heads of state are typically listed for countries, even though prime ministers are usually more powerful. (Canada is unusual in having a viceroy who performs most of the functions of head of state.) And no, most Canadians cannot name the governor general, unless they do something unusual like the last gg. TFD (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I simply stated that more Canadians know the GG than know the chief justice. I suspect that both are single-digit percentages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Pantone flag not being used? Why is it not being used? Can someone explain? WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The svg version that uses Pantone colours (File:Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg) is being used. There was a brief addition of the Mexican flag and then a failed attempt at fixing the vandalism, but it's all correct now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Adolphe Lestrange: added a link to File:Canada Product Exports (2019).svg to the economy section of the article. @Moxy: removed it claiming a previous discussion. Adolphe Lestrange restored it rather than opening a discussion and was reverted by @Nikkimaria: claiming it was "not legible". I, in turn questioned that nonsense as it's a thumbnail and if you can't make out the details on a thumbnail, you can click through to see it at full size. Nikkimaria, removed the image rather than reverting me and asked me to take it to the talk page. I ignored the request and restored it and opened a discussion on the editor's talk page who also invoked WP:ONUS. However there is no consensus to remove this image anywhere contrary to Moxy's and Nikkimaria's claim. I just searched the archive for "Canada Product" and found nothing. Exports revealed Talk:Canada/Archive 22#Interesting Graph of Canada's Exports which is unrelated and Talk:Canada/Archive 26#Images is about a lower-quality (and earlier) image. My only concerns are that are exports vital to understanding Canada's economy? That's only one part of the economy. My second concern is the proliferation of images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument that it is a thumbnail and therefore size is unproblematic is untrue. Even at full size some of the text (even for those squares that include text) is not legible - one of several concerns related to the accessibility of the image. The issues of weighting and proliferation of images, as noted, argue against including the image.

Walter Görlitz, regarding there is no consensus to remove this image: the ONUS policy states quite clearly that the burden to achieve consensus is on those wanting to include the disputed content - in this case yourself and Adolphe Lestrange - not to remove it. Again, please revert your re-addition unless/until discussion here concludes in favour of including the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument that it is a thumbnail and problematic is untrue as anyone can click on the image if too small. And ONUS is clear that if CONSENSUS is reached, but you and Moxy are not a consensus and there is no established consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In the following sentence at ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". In other words, in the absence of consensus for inclusion, the material is excluded. And as I noted, clicking on the image does not result in consistently legible text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The initial click-through (depending on your settings) may be too small, but not the largest version, and certainly not the original svg format, which can be increased to the maximum size your browser allows. In the three I tested (Firefox, Chrome and Edge) that is 500%. If that is too small, the problem ceases to be the size of the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Readers should not be expected to have to click through an image to be able to understand it. In general, the best case scenario is that images can be clearly understood at the default thumbnail size (especially as mobile usage dominates readership). An image that has to be expanded should have some reason for appearing more prominent than other images, and even at the expanded 1.3x size of this image, I only find 5 of the boxes legible. CMD (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

But without the image present, readers will not know it exists and it's rather useful at full size. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a very similar image at the main Economy of Canada, which is where I suspect any reader looking for the details presented would go. (Although even there it is not at a great size, it should be shifted and presented at a size large enough to read for the screens which support it.) CMD (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One of 3 graph spamming instance of this week.....hard to keep up with chart spamming lately.Moxy- 12:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a very good way of presenting the information in an article such as this. The thumbnail is 100% useless. The initial click on it is not very helpful. A subsequent click to the highest resolution works, but now you have the information buried in a format you need to scroll all over to understand. If this information is important it should be in a table somewhere, in the Economics of Canada article, not hidden in an extremely user unfriendly and accessibility nightmare graphic. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we revert the mass addition of these?Moxy- 12:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's a great way of presenting the information, but this is not the bet article for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Quebec-Windsor Corridor.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked editor I am the state (talk · contribs) has come back in the form of Facts707 (talk · contribs) has insisting that Canada is in the northern half of the continent. I'm not planning an edit war, but I just thought I'd inform other editors of this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They're welcome to try and get a new consensus on the talk page, but a consensus they'll need to get. This has been discussed many times previously, and I'm not aware of that consensus having changed. If they wish to continue that line, they'll need to bring it here for discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Firstly I have no idea who I am the state (talk · contribs) is, nor am I or have I ever collaborated with that editor. I also haven't collaborated or discussed any changes with anyone on the Canada page. I edit lots of pages and try to fix obvious typos or errors or glaring omissions when I run across them. In this case, there is no mention of where Canada is in relation to North America in the lead section except in relation to the three oceans. Nor is there any mention that winter is cold in most of Canada (was reverted on that one some years ago on the grounds that the lead was "longstanding"). I didn't realize that "northern half" was so contentious; it is only an approximation and I suppose one could say "northern three-fifths except Alaska" or some such. Secondly, no Canadian or American refers to a "western border" between Canada and the United States, primarily because the Pacific Ocean is thought of as being the primary western edge of the country. The Alaska/Yukon border and the ragged Alaska/British Columbia border happen to be in the northwestern part of Canada which by coincidence is in the northwestern part of North America. Please try to assume good faith and not assume an editor is part of some malicious cabal on the basis of a couple simple edits. Facts707 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The term in the article is "southern and western border with the United States". In other words, the border to our south and the one between BC, the Youkon and Alaska is the other. While few people would use "western border", it is, I believe, the correct term. Can you describe it in a different way while making it clear that it is all a border between the two countries, and not just the one that most Canadians think of?

I did assume good faith, but there are certain terms that make it appear as though an editor who 1) used many accounts and 2) often denied knowing anything about the previous accounts has returned.

The archives have the discussions about why Canada is not the northern half of Canada, so I won't re-hash them here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned the last time this issue came around, there is no important difference in meaning between "the northern part" and "the northern half" — the only possible reason to insist on "half" over "part" would be to hammer on the literal implication of exact 50-50 halfness, which would be entirely inaccurate, and in the absence of a perfectly 50-50 split there's no genuine issue to be taken with "part". So there's no reason for you to keep editwarring over this, because it's just not a serious issue on which you've made any important or valuable points for us to consider. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In that picture

at the end of the of Vancouver Island, it shows CsB. I see little lighter bits of yellow in it. Does that mean Canada has Csa, or is that more BSk? Unknown... (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Victoria, British Columbia#Climate. Let's just say Vancouver Island is climatically moderated by the ocean, and thus has a reputation for being a place where you can putter in your garden in February, and leave it at that. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

February? They're in their gardens year-round. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The History section is too long and can be condensed. A few specific issues.soulscanner (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We have a short history section compared to most.--Moxy- 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Noted in edits that there is no direct evidence of Leif Erikson's presence in Canada. Moved cited references to Leif Erikson to L'Anse aux Meadows where speculation about his role is discussed in detail. There is too much speculative content around the presence of Vikings in Canada (Norse sagas, Inuit oral history, Newfoundland traditions) to include in this section to balance the subject properly.soulscanner (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Restored...as per previous talk....some you were involved with and per the sources removed....perhaps a review https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/leif-ericsson . You been trying to remove this for over a decade now.....whats really odd is this edit that implied he buld L'Anse aux Meadows. Stop guesswork pls. --Moxy- 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Metis as 'mixed blood" is at best antiquated and at worst racist, relying on old, disproven ideas of race. Why is it relevant that Metis are "mixed blood" and not that the Inuit and First nations "pure blood"? The term also does not appear in the reference attached to the sentence. It should suffice to define Metis as decendants of local first Nations and European fur traders. Even this is which is not relevant, because many First Nations and Inuit people have "mixed ancestry" as well. Better yet, allow the wikilink to define the term as is done with First Nation and Inuit. All of these definitions are complex and cannot really be defined in one sentence. It will also save space. soulscanner (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So common that books use the term Metis: Mixed Blood Stories.....but will change it to "mixed-descent" as per https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/metis .Moxy- 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the name "Canada" to the "Dominion of Canada" as the official name for Canada. BooklingWiki (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No - see above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Should any indigenous names of Canada be used in the infobox under the official English/French name ("Canada"), especially under the "Native Name" template, as is the case with New Zealand with Maori, for example? I fully understand that there aren't any official languages of Canada besides French and English, but I feel as though it might be worthwhile to include some more common indigenous language names (e.g. "ᑳᓇᑖ" in Cree and "ᑲᓇᑕ" in Inuktitut), if only to provide representation to them. NipponGinko (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No...Native Name does not mean indigenous names....it means " native language" like Federal Republic of Germany =Bundesrepublik Deutschland.--Moxy- 22:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Maori being one of two official languages in NZ, the Maori had a name for the country before European settlement. Aboriginal Canadians had no conception of Canada as a country and all the aboriginal names are just Canada spelled using their individual alphabets. So I don't see a parallel. TFD (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a few items that could be added to the infobox which are seen on the pages for other countries. I previously added some of these myself, but the page was reverted with a message saying to discuss the content here first.

First would be the Great Seal of Canada. Official government insignia like this is also present on the pages of France, Japan, and the United States. It would seem appropriate to put it up for Canada as well.

Next would be chief justice of Canada being included. They take on the role of administrator of Canada when there is no governor general and lead the judiciary branch. I would say they are an important part of the government.

There could also be official languages recognized in the territories included. Regional languages are listed for many countries on Wikipedia like the United Kingdom and India. They would only need to be marked as being recognized on the territorial level.

Finally, the steps of independence from the United Kingdom could include the admission of British colonies into Confederation. Many other country pages include states they had united with in their independence or formation process. It would make sense to include British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland for Canada. UAmtoj (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The Great Seal of Canada has been discussed ad nauseam in the past; it simply cannot be included here, because it falls under Crown copyright, which is not compatible with Wikipedia copyright as it does not permit reuse in commercial contexts.

Listing the Chief Justice has been discussed in the past as well, and resulted in a consensus not to. In fact, the last discussion is still just further up this very page, and hasn't even been archived yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies on missing the post on the chief justice. What about the provincially recognized languages and the steps to independence? UAmtoj (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of info-boxes is to provide key information at a glance. If readers want detailed information, that's what the article is for. There is already excessive information. TFD (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Great Seal, while I do not really care about its inclusion, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Seal_of_Canada.png lists it as being in the public domain. Unbeatable101 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to change this anthem file for God Save the Queen (File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg) to be licensed as Open Government License. 49.150.116.127 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The original file on Wikimedia Commons is already licensed as such. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done The suggested file is not actually licensed under OGL so is not suitable, here or anywhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Though rarely used its the official title of the nation and should be represented as such on Wikipedia. Similar to how Australia is listed as "The commonwealth of Australia" though its commonly and usually referred to as just Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartVeronica (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"We have discussed this before." Wow thanks for providing no input or an answer! So can we now discuss actually adding the Dominion of Canada to the info box title? IHeartVeronica

To elaborate on the post above: we have discussed this before and arrived at a consensus against doing that. You can see some of the previous points made here in particular. If you have new arguments to put forward as to why this change should be made feel free to elaborate, ideally with reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@IHeartVeronica: I'm sorry. Yes, Talk:Canada/Officialname1, but the archives have dozens more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That was never the official name, although it was used in official documents. The British North America Act refers to "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." Compare this with the Constitution of Australia which refers to "a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia." TFD (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Canada hasn't been a dominion in decades. It's now a commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the article not clear?Moxy- 15:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon Confederation in 1867, Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country at the London Conference, and the word Dominion was conferred as the country's title.^[1] By the 1950s, the term Dominion of Canada was no longer used by the United Kingdom, which considered Canada a "Realm of the Commonwealth".^[2] The government of Louis St. Laurent ended the practice of using Dominion in the statutes of Canada in 1951.^[3][4]

In 1982, the passage of the Canada Act, bringing the Constitution of Canada fully under Canadian control, referred only to Canada, while later that year the name of the national holiday was changed from Dominion Day to Canada Day.^[5] The term Dominion was used to distinguish the federal government from the provinces, though after the Second World War the term federal had replaced dominion.^[6]

References

1. ^ O'Toole, Roger (2009). "Dominion of the Gods: Religious continuity and change in a Canadian context". In Hvithamar, Annika; Warburg, Margit; Jacobsen, Brian Arly (eds.). Holy Nations and Global Identities: Civil Religion, Nationalism, and Globalisation. Brill. p. 137. ISBN 978-90-04-17828-1.
2. ^ Morra, Irene (2016). The New Elizabethan Age: Culture, Society and National Identity after World War II. I.B.Tauris. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-85772-867-8.
3. ^ "November 8, 1951 (21st Parliament, 5th Session)". Canadian Hansard Dataset. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
4. ^ Bowden, J.W.J. (2015). "'Dominion': A Lament". The Dorchester Review. 5 (2): 58–64.
5. ^ Buckner, Philip, ed. (2008). Canada and the British Empire. Oxford University Press. pp. 37–40, 56–59, 114, 124–125. ISBN 978-0-19-927164-1.
6. ^ Courtney, John; Smith, David (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-19-533535-4.

As stated at the start, Dominion of Canada should be included as the official name (perhaps just in parentheses). The widespread consensus is to simply refer to it as Canada (and plenty of sources were cited supporting that) but that consensus does not somehow justify the exclusion of information. The official name name of the Dominion of Canada was never repealed/officially overwritten by law. See for example the Encyclopedia of Canada. The purpose is to provide information and withholding it serves no reasonably defensible (in the spirit of Wikipedia) logical purpose. Max3218 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think you read the discussion correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion reveals, it was never the official name of the country. TFD (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the usage of Dominion of Canada, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous discussion, the Candaian government and Commonwealth stopped refering to itself as a Dominion after the Second World War. soulscanner (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Look, https://www.leg.bc.ca/dyl/Pages/1867-Dominion-of-Canada-Created-July-1.aspx this is the official legislative assembly of British Columbia, even they stated that the Dominion of Canada was the country's first formal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan Fan (talk • contribs) 03:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That source absolutely, positively does not say that. All it says is that the colonies were joined into one entity, which the statement itself refers to formulaically as the "Dominion of Canada". Largoplazo (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I even have more proof that the Dominion of Canada is the rightful former formal name. This time by the Canadian Museum of History: https://www.historymuseum.ca/history-hall/birth-of-the-dominion/ User:Magellan Fan (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2021 (PST)

I come back with more proof by History this time: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/canadian-independence-day User:Magellan Fan (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2021 (PST)

Best not look at overview type websites....stick with scholarly publications that go into depth and analyze the topic....like the ones in the article or at Dominion#From Dominions to Commonwealth realms.Moxy- 03:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How many more "proofs" are you going to bring us that, themselves, use the styling "Dominion of Canada" in the course of relating the birth of the country, while saying nothing about that being its official name? It's like presenting a dozen sources all stating "Prime Minister Trudeau was born in 1971" as proof that his official name at birth was "Prime Minister Trudeau". Largoplazo (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

might suggest adding Canada gained its independence from Britain in 1867 and France in 1763 Alanldn21 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The former isn't true (which is explained in the Early 20th century section: "the Statute of Westminster 1931 affirmed Canada's independence") and the latter follows from what's said in the second paragraph of the lead section. Largoplazo (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Asking when Canada became independent is like asking how long is a string. Independent in what? Able to independently modify its own Constitution? 1982. Independent citizenship? 1947. Independent foreign policy? Arguably 1939. Independent domestic control? 1867. Canada isn't the US, there is no "independence day". trackratte (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

For most former colonies, independance was achieved by the UK parliament giving up their right to legislate for them, at which point they received international recognition. In Canada's case, both of these occured long after the country was independent. But which date that occured is unclear. TFD (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

50.255.107.29 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC) pleasew

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dunutubble: Let me start the discussion. There is sourced content at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador#The oldest European settlement in North America controversy that argues against your claim that St. John's is "the oldest settlement in Canadian history". The second problem is, even if it were true, you are inserting it between sourced content and its reference. It should be added after it. The third problem is the grammar. It would read better, if it were true, as "the oldest settlement in Canada"; history is unnecessary and a general rule for good prose is removing unnecessary words. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz - I'm sorry. Dunutubble (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you offered to source the content, so please do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Start with entry level intro to topic here. If still confusion can supply academic publications.Moxy- 23:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• And that article is about North America while Dunutubble was claiming it was just in Canada, and the CBC article does not enter that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

? CupidsMoxy- 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, I wanted to propose to replace the current image of the coat of arms by a more modern one. This image is already used in some wikis. Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg Thank you Cyygma (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As per the description at commons:File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg, the rendition is a good copy but very slightly different from the official version kept on the English Wikipedia, and that where fair use allows for it (such as this article), the official version should be used, not the unofficial rendition. Singularity42 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the visual effect is very slightly different on the compartment... But a coat of arms is defined by the blazon, so different visual translations can exist and be accepted. I believe that "A wreath of roses, thistles, shamrocks and lilies proper" fits very well to this part, and the rest is entirely identical. But it was a proposal...Cyygma (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

While a coat of arms has its heraldric definition, but as a visual representation, there is also an official version. In this case, the official version has a greater recognition. While you may have no concern about familiarity to readers, it is clear that other editors do. And so while commons:File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg may be your preference, File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is the preference of the project working on this article.

For the reasons I have provided above, I suggest that, where possible, the uses of other coat be replaced with the official one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the Freedom Convoy 2022 is relevant enough to include a mention of it in the paragraph aboout disruption due to the COVID pandemic. There are hundreds of sources in the article about the convoy itself. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Terry Fox has had a greater, lasting impact on the nation and its psyche, yet he is not mentioned. Why in the world would we ignore WP:RECENT to add a discussion about a convey fuelled with foreign cash to this article? I also see that you are a WP:SPA and your only concern, to date, has been the protest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Too early to tell if this is actually a significant event, and since it doesn’t appear to be achieving anything it doesn’t appear it will be significant. It may change in the future but right now we’re not news. Canterbury Tail talk 02:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The Freedom Convoy isn't relevant enough to Canada as a country to be included. User:Aem111607 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It lacks weight considering how little the article discusses covid. TFD (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This sentence: "An additional 30 percent live along the British Columbia Lower Mainland and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.[313]" is untrue. It is true that about 30% of Canada lives in Western Canada, but only about 16% of Canadians live in the Lower Mainland and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. 2001:569:7E7F:8000:A938:EF27:3B40:30AE (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Content trying to be added....

Each province and territory establishes elected local municipal governments. The powers assigned to these governments varies across the country. Most provinces have only a single tier of municipal governments, but Ontario and Quebec use a two-tier system where there exists both a town government and a county government. In the Maritimes, Quebec, and Alberta, all land is part of an urban or rural municipality, but the other provinces and territories have large areas of unincorporated land.

So i see a few problems with this....Although there is alots here it really is very gernerlized. Its not sourced (think easy to do). The content leads to no info by way of links. I think what is at the main article would be more info.--Moxy- 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, provinces have a great deal of power relative to the federal government, with jurisdiction over many public goods such as health care, education, welfare, and intra-provincial transportation.^[1] They receive "transfer payments" from the federal government to pay for these, as well as exacting their own taxes.^[2] In practice, however, the federal government can use these transfer payments to influence these provincial areas.^[2]

@Walter Görlitz: You're actually one of a handfull of editors I think are exceptional, which is why you left me scratching my head as to why you linked North America, the United Kingdom, the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the United Nations, NATO, and Federalism. I'm not sure reading these articles is particularly relevant to understanding the article Canada, and some of the links are listed as specific examples of what not to link at MOS:OL. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My edit history shows I am very much in favour of respecting OVERLINK. I even remove links to Canadians on biography articles because of what I have discussed and seen discussed at that MoS. However, the guiding principles are whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked and what follows are the nations, etc. Articles about places have generally been considered valid articles to contain links to geographic content, and this certainly falls into that category.

I would be be pleased to hear if we have let this go too far and if the following topic should be linked in this article or not.

1. North America
2. United Kingdom
3. Pacific Ocean
4. Arctic Ocean
5. United Nations
6. NATO
7. Federalism

I assume there are links to them in similar articles so comparison is not rationale, instead focus on where there is any benefit to readers to have the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• University Canada West -Chart--Moxy- 21:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&curid=5042916&diff=1083483944&oldid=1083476669 Typical WP:SEAOFBLUE no? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheEncyclopediaReader:...No need to link USA main article in this lead.....as it leads to ZERO info on this country. TheEncyclopediaReader is new and needs some help.....looking over a few edits .....lots of guess work and changes to long-standing consensus text.Moxy- 02:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Think shock... quite a knowledgeable edit. Moxy- 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So lets talk about this again.....I vote to drop "Religion" and "ethnic groups" from the info box as it just regurgitates whats already in the article that is in prose formate.--Moxy- 16:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It does seem oddly prominent for what it represents I do admit. Ethnic makeup and religious groupings are far from the most important pieces of info I'm looking for in a country's infobox, although I'll admit it's fairly common. I think having it so prominent in the infobox makes an implication that it's important to Canada to know these boxes, perhaps too much influence from the US on this sort of stuff? I wouldn't be upset to lose it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important for some readers to know this and not really a waste of space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only does it take up a bunch of prominent space for something that is not really a key fact, the details are quite outdated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the information regarding a country's ethnic/racial as well as religious makeup is very important for many readers, that's why it's listed in the infobox of almost every Wikipedia entry dedicated to a specific country. In Canada's context, this information is even more useful since being a country of immigrants, its composition is rapidly changing as evidenced by the censuses held every 6 years. If this information is indeed as irrelevant as Nikkimaria claims it to be, than I urge them to remove similar information from infoboxes of other countries too such as United States, Russia, Belize etc without facing any resistance or criticism from other editors.

Secondly and most importantly, the details are not outdated as Nikkimaria claims them to be. They are in fact the most comprehensive and latest statistics sourced directly from Statistics Canada. The latest census was held in 2021 and details about ethnicity/religion will be released in a few months, so the information will be updated accordingly. Until than this information is the most reliable insight into Canada's demographics. Neplota (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends, being extracted from context; and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". There is also no evidence that most readers including me are interested in knowing what percentage of Canada is water or what date format they use, yet it's still there in the infobox, because that's what infoboxes are for! It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends Yes it does! It highlights the multicultural identity as well as ethnocultural diversity of Canada, which is what Canada is known for around the globe being a country of immigrants. By the way, why are you obsessed with 6 & 11 year time periods between censuses? Literally every country in the world conducts census every 10 years instead of every other year & the important thing is that the reader knows that the data is from 2016 or 2011, so they aren't being mislead in any way. As I already stated, the ethnic and religion data from latest 2021 census will be released in a few months and the infobox will be updated, so your entire premise is based on a false assumption. and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Again that's your own POV which isn't shared by everyone else here. You made a bold edit and failed to achieve a consensus here to justify it. Meanwhile I am here defending a version of the infobox that has been there for years now & resembles the infoboxes of other Wikipedia country related articles.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." (MOS:INFOBOX). Infoboxes are not for overloading with every available stat, particularly lists of stats. If you want to argue that other stats should be excluded, go ahead; the presence of other stats does not require inclusion of these ones.

A single point-in-time snapshot cannot by its nature demonstrate anything about change or trend; your argument does not disprove that. Nor does it speak to "multicultural identity". All it provides is very broad information about ethnicity, and about religion (the latter of which is not supported in any way by your arguments but only by your own singular purpose).

You are not defending "a version of the infobox that has been there for years now"; you're defending one that was in place for less than a day two weeks ago. Where have you established consensus for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@NikkimariaYou are not defending "a version of the infobox that has been there for years now"; you're defending one that was in place for less than a day two weeks ago. Where have you established consensus for that? The information in the infobox has been here for years under collapsible lists. However, I agree someone has changed the list format recently. But you are here justifying the removal of this information all together from the infobox, but you have failed to justify your stance or reach a consensus as evidenced here on the talk page. So the a reasonable middle ground here is to add collapsible list same as before, in this way most readers will not be exposed to this "overloading" information, but at same time interested readers can access it with a single click. RegardsNeplota (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You may disagree with my rationale, but at the moment it appears no one supports your proposed compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you say hyperbole in a way that you understand? I agree, but recognize current consensus is against its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "the purpose of an infobox [is to] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." If these elements are discussed in the article, then a correct summary would include the details. We do not add content to the infobox not summarized in the article, but we should give readers a good overview. Under the demographics section we list both ethnic groups and religious composition, and since the infobox supports providing a summary, we should utilize those parameters. I do not see the driving side discussed in the article, so that makes perfect sense to remove based on INFOBOXPURPOSE. Are there other things in the infobox that we should remove because they are not discussed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

INFOBOXPURPOSE means that things not discussed should generally not be included; it does not mean that everything discussed must be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Not quite right. It means both, 1) the infobox should not contain material not discussed in the article, and 2) it should summarize the article. If the infobox parameters allow for it, it should be summarized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not consistent with what the full guideline says - after the portion you quote, we see "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". So the principle embodied is not "provide every bit of data possible in the template", but "be concise". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, out of context, but I did read that. Full context is that the infobox is to summarize the article. So the principle is "if it's in the article, include it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The full context makes it abundantly clear that it is not that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, the first sentence of MOS:INFOBOX tells me An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. (emphasis mine). Right at the top. Overarching purpose. So once again, your WP:IDHT and "I don't like that" arguments fall flat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That you do not like it or think it is a key feature of the country is irrelevant as the creators of the infobox think it is important enough to help explain the key features of a country are enough to accept that we should summarize it in the infobox here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)`

The parameter exists != the parameter must be filled in wherever conceivably possible. That's not an "I don't like it" argument, it's a very standard and well-established principle, which can be backed up by many specific examples (eg WP:INFONAT). If you want to argue that these stats are key facts for this article, you're going to need to do more than note that the parameters exist in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Once again, missed the point.

The first well-established principle here is that if you don't like something you argue tendentiously until the editor you're arguing with walks away. Not going to happen here, and I will not argue with you, I will simply state and restate that you're wrong. Now let other editors voice their opinion.

The well-established principle of infoboxes is that they are to summarize the article. That is not happening in your version of this infobox.

The final well-established principle is that if it can be used, do it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In agreement. Drop'em. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

New published research pins down the date of the first settlement to the year 1021 using a known cosmic ray surge in the year 993 CE to get the year precisely. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03972-8) My edit was properly cited using a reputable journal.

Why did my edit to include that get reverted back @Moxy: to say "approximately 1000 AD" and excluding the citation? Are we rounding all dates to the nearest 1000? Approximately 1000 AD *was* the best available information prior to this research. It wasn't shorthand to be vague intentionally. We don't say Columbus left Spain in approximately 1500 hen we know better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&oldid=prev&diff=1080551682

SSherris (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it the first date when they got there that may be after Leif Erikson death??? or just when some building were made when they had been there for a few seasons?? Best to use mean carbon date from all indicators ...not just one study about the trees cut,,...and let the main article explain.... as I have writen at L'Anse aux Meadows {pls read the sources below that are in the lead that I have quoted for all to see.}. pls also be aware that the date of 1021 is not new ..its from the late 1980s as seen below......nothing new here with this source you have presented that I used in the lead of the main article.Moxy- 19:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add | iso3166code = CA to ″Infobox country″ block Benmanns (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for this change before using the edit request. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, I know there is a general guidance to reduce the length of this thread. Today it was announced that Denmark and Canada will share a land border increasing by 100% the number of countries that Canada shares a land border ^[1]. I am relatively inexperienced and do not want to add to an adult thread without checking in with all of you first Carter2tired2taco (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carter2tired2taco, where in the article were you wanting to add that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this article, Canada and Denmark have reached an agreement to divide the long-disputed Hans Island in the Arctic between Canada and Danish Greenland, creating a land border between the two countries for the first time (a maritime boundary previously existed, but no land crossings). While this is an extremely minor change, the creation of a land border itself seems like it would warrant a mention in the Geography section, considering that as of now Canada only shares a land border with one other country, the United States. The deal is expected to be formally unveiled tomorrow. If so, should we be prepared to make an edit soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:200:14C7:190D:705:2C87:12BF (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ھنھدھ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#ھنھدھ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Hans Island § Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I fail to understand the inconsistency of Canada’s infobox not including ethnic demographics, when likeminded countries like the United States or United Kingdom have them included.

Understand the issue of overcrowding, but ideally there would be a universal standard for what is, and isn’t, included in a country’s infobox, certainly for comparable countries like Canada and the US.

Obviously one of the flaws of “consensus making” around here. Bizarre standards applied differently to similar articles. Maybe a WikiProject in geopolitics could get to this eventually… StevenBjerke97 talk 22:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Best not jam the infobox with stats that are presented in the same manner in the article because most will only scroll a few times...thus a smaller infobox allows readers to reach the TOC (most used navigational aid) DATA... this POV is what you will see in a few well maintained FA country articles that leave out somtimes religion and/or ethnicity and/or languages stats Japan, Germany. Well some FA articles like India do ... but in general does not care about accessibility in the same manner as we do here... with mass size..text sandwiching..odd sized images all over with undue weight in some sections ..lead jamed with sources ...etc. We try to do what is best for readers here,,,,that all said I bet an RFC on the topic would go your way.Moxy- 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point. Won’t push anything for now. Ideally, infobox formats should be more consistent in likeminded articles, at least in my opinion. Won’t happen overnight. --StevenBjerke97 talk 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@StevenBjerke97 I agree with your assessment here. I don't understand what exactly is the issue here with the overcrowding because infobox itself allows us to add data about ethnicity and religion. Using Moxy's logic anything in the infobox can be considered as "crowding" it and can be removed in an instant. For example statistics about the economy are also mentioned in great detail in the relevant section of the article, therefore if I think they are overcrowding the infobox, I can remove them too. Infobox is a snapshot of an entire country, and religion and ethnicity are a part of that snapshot especially when they are referenced from a reputed source like statistics Canada. I think the problem here is that a few editors have an oversized impact on the decision making, therefore I am starting an rfc.Neplota (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the infobox in the lead outline the ethnic & religious diversity in Canada which is referenced from a reputed source i.e., Statistics Canada, similar to other country related articles like United States, Lithuania etc? Neplota (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Almost every other Wikipedia entry about a particular country e.g, United States, India, China etc has statistics about ethnicity and religion in the infobox, therefore I see no reason why Canada shouldn't. Previous discussions on this issue reveal that a few editors are against it because from their perspective it amounts to "overcrowding" the infobox. However, that's a subjective feeling. Infobox is a snapshot of an entire country, and religion and ethnicity are a part of that snapshot. Furthermore, if religion and ethnic data is overcrowding the infobox than this rule should be consistently applied across all Wikipedia country related articles not just Canada and using this logic anything in the infobox can be labelled as overcrowding it, therefore susceptible to deletion.Neplota (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• 'No Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.... listing five or six or several groups does not give the proper overall impression of the countries ethnic diversity and heritage. It also just makes the info box larger that will limit the amount of viewers that will see the full lead. Years ago we had are own info box with parameters relevant to Canada. Always knew the mergers of these boxes would lead to more and more jammed in the box. It's too bad project's loss their own boxes all over. Content editors versus template editors is a hard balancd.Moxy- 05:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So just because Canada is super diverse, we should remove statistics about that diversity from the infobox?! That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Those "five or six" groups you are talking about are broader categories i.e., European, Asian, Indigenous, Latin American, African etc and encompass all those diverse ethnicities under them. Using that logic, statistics from United States' infobox should be removed too, because it's even more ethnically diverse than Canada. Furthermore you still haven't addressed the reason behind the removal of religion related figures from the infobox too.Neplota (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Need a proper overview per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes" Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?"....what are we listing just the top European Canadians? Dispite the fact the vast majority of Canadians for the past 50 years are, , Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other visible minority.? Shoukd have a straight forward rule like WP:INFOBOXETH in my view Moxy- 07:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't understand what exactly you are trying to say here. European Canadians are listed on the top because they are the majority (72.9% as of 2016 census). Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other "visible minorities" aren't the majority! Are you doubting the Canadian census?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope not doubting anything ...like I am doing something wrong ....looking where we can summarize the information best and believe WP:Prose is the best solution for over 250 ethnic groups with a main article hatnote. Moxy- 08:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Those 250 ethnic groups are already summarised into 5 major groups by Statistics Canada in an extremely easy to understand manner! Just like United States includes countless native American ethnicities into a single category. Same goes with Asian Americans and Canadian Americans. Than why do we need to change this or go against this classification? Moreover, you still haven't explained why you are against the inclusion of religion related data, there are only a handful of major religions with significant following (> 1%) in Canada and can be easily summarised in the infox.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding to article prose now....

List of ethnicities

72.9% European

17.7% Asian

4.9% Indigenous

3.1% Black

1.3% Latin American

0.2% Oceanian..Moxy- 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This rfc is about the inclusion of this information in the infobox not the prose. Moreover, you still haven't justified your objection to the inclusion of the religion related data too. Furthermore, as per you "Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.... listing five or six or several groups does not give the proper overall impression of the countries ethnic diversity and heritage", yet you used the same statistics in the prose, meaning you don't even stand by you own argument.Neplota (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup info is there. No need to say it 2 times added links See below See below in infobox...this way its still there linking to a proper overview. Moxy- 16:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am open to the idea of adding collapsible lists, in this way the infobox won't be "overcrowding" and the interested people can still see the list with a single click.Neplota (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted as the list is not collapsed for 70 % of readers. When editing always a good idea to view things in mobile and desktop. Moxy- 15:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• No Just because some countries do this, does not mean every country should. Info-boxes are handy for simple information. TFD (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's not a valid justification in support of not keeping well sourced and informative material away from the infobox. If it's not going against the Wikipedia guidelines and the infobox template allows it, than why should I be prevented from adding it, especially when there are no convincing arguments against it?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What is valid or a convincing argument iis subjective. The same protocol page has been referenced for both inclusion and exclusion. I am more concern with a proper overview and accessibility for are readers over matching less quality articles. I see Japan another FA article having same recent edits..Moxy- 08:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the fact that 2 editors are pushing their "subjective" POV on multiple articles. The editor who removed long standing religion and ethnicity data from this article is the same one who is having problem[7] with the inclusion of religion related statistics on the article Japan's infobox, despite it being well sourced and not against any guidelines. After reverting the edit, they engage the other editors in an endless discussion on the talk page with no clear end result until the other editors back out.Neplota (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy necessitating the inclusion of any particular piece of sourced information. CMD (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

But there are guidelines against removing a well sourced piece of information without giving any valid reason apart from subjective feelings. Using that logic what is preventing me from removing information about total population and it's density from the infobox by saying it's causing overcrowding too? If infobox template is allowing me to add that particular piece of information and it's well sourced, than such vehement opposition from just 2 editors seems to be borderline bullying at this point. They simply don't own this articleNeplota (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Its all in the article and infobox at main article Canadians....pls review WP:FAOWN Moxy- 09:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What are these guidelines? CMD (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• 'No My comments are about including these figures anywhere. They are ALWAYS misleading, and tend to maintain archaic, even simply false views of differences among humans. A quick glance at the list of ethnicities above from Moxy looks more like the confusing racial labels the USA gives its citizens, NOT ethnicities. (Whatever that word really means.) Are Latin Americans and Europeans really mutually exclusive? Why is one of those labels a false description of skin colour, when it really means something entirely different. (Someone whose ancestors were slaves from sub-Sharan Africa? I'm not sure.) Declarations of religion are also notoriously inaccurate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are calling official Canadian census figures inaccurate? The list of ethnicities is given by the StatsCan itself. Moreover, people self identified as belonging to a particular religion in the census, so how can that be inaccurate?Neplota (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Censuses are always inaccurate. Statcan has a whole page on various potential issues and how they try to manage them. CMD (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Using your logic we shouldn't use the total population figures & other valuable data derived from the Canadian census across all Wikipedia pages because that can be inaccurate too. It simply doesn't make any sense! Nothing is ideal but that doesn't mean we should discard it. But just to be sure that people aren't being misled in any way, we can put a footnote. However, there is no doubt that official census figures are the best for getting a glimpse into the demographics of any country.Neplota (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what logic I have provided. I was simply responding to your questions about inaccuracy. CMD (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious parents inevitably claim their children are the same religion as the parents. That's a lie. Many people still declare the religion their parents told them they were as kids. Many people say they are Catholic just because they were confirmed as Catholics as children, even though they haven't attended mass for decades. And rather than telling where the list of ethinicites comes from, try to defend the list. Try answering my questions! HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry to break it to you but that's how the world works. People usually follow the religion of their parents. If a person hasn't gone to church his entire life but claims he's Catholic, than I will believe him instead of making my own assumptions regarding his faith. Using your logic we should delete all Wikipedia religion related articles because the statistics they contain can never satisfy your standard of "accuracy".Neplota (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We should certainly stop pretending such figures are accurate reflections of reality. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• No - Also, they should be removed from all sovereign state infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - Then why is Canada being focused on? The US and UK are as diverse if not more so. I don’t see any of you commenting on the British and American talk pages, to change their infoboxes? Why? Because their equivalent “cliques” would probably show you the door. Unfortunately cliques and the guardian class around here set ridiculous double standards to different articles. Feel this is very ideological in nature too, believe me, I know Canadian politics. Don’t have the energy to push it. Done. Unfortunate. My rant is done. --StevenBjerke97 talk 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually on going tlaks about a few articles all with same problem Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Moxy- 14:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  I apologize for what I wrote earlier, I got a bit too intense about the topic. Clearly the consensus is to exclude it for now, will see how it evolves elsewhere. Again I apologize, wasn’t appropriate what I wrote. --StevenBjerke97 talk 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I do not think Canada should be the odd one out. Ethnic and religious makeup are important attributes of a country.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, per Moxy AnneDant87 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rural Canada and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 20#Rural Canada until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to www.usnews.com, Canada is the #1 Best Country in the World as of 2022. Boasting Fresh Air, Freedom, High Quality of Life, and Less Violence that its competitors and neighbor, USA. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3111:8F9B:AB46:2F43 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Information for 2021 (last report) is in the article linked in the lead International rankings of Canada. Summary article not the place to list individual rankings..... unless their topic specific in a section.... as has been done here already Moxy- 20:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Both Canada and USA are listed as the 185th most densely populated countries. Canada should be closer to 250th 134.41.210.57 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Changed to 236Moxy- 16:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Will fix these made up numbers just added with this source https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm quick facts

Will change things like European (69.8%) to source number of 52.5%. Hoping this WP:SYNTHESIS has not been done all over. Moxy- 19:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Will fix the issue later today on the three main pages that cover ethnic origins in Canada and solely use the "ethnic origins" source to avoid the source synthesis. There is also a quote on the stats can news release that you referenced which cautions using the ethnic origin data -- will also add this. Van00220 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's really too bad the census was so small......numbers are all messed up compared to all other years. It will be a footnote in history about bad data collection. Moxy- 03:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Moxy- 07:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Under military it currently reads "Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force". It is customary to list these according to precedence, which in Canada is RCN, Army and RCAF in that order.198.161.4.61 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Moxy- 05:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So this technically could mean Canada has a land border now with Greenland (and by extension the Kingdom of Denmark).(Canada and Denmark End Their Arctic Whisky War - NY Times.) So Canada and the US have one of the longest borders, and Denmark and Canada have perhaps one of the shortest land borders in the world? Only other one I can think of around that short would be Dutch Sint Maarten/French Saint Martin. CaribDigita (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The border between Spain and Morocco at Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera is only about 80m long. The border between Botswana and Zambia at Kazungula is roughly twice that. At almost 1.3km the Hans Island border is huge, not even in the top 10. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Regarding this edit: the reason MOS:SOB exists is because multi-linked phrases like this are not clear - a casual reader cannot tell that there are multiple links there, so what information they get is basically random depending on which part of the phrase they happen to click. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

II think you're underestimating people clicking on the word that interests them the most, we're not dealing with people who've never used hyperlinks before. It's not like they're clicking on parliamentary to get info on federalism, they'll click or tap on the part of it that they are interested in leaning more of. It's also clear a large number of editors think there's benefit to having these links in the infobox with the sheer amount of times they're re-added both here and on Japan among others, with seemingly only yourself being the one that removes them. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping federalism in the infobox, with the link. It's important to remember that "Sea of Blue" is a guideline: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." An infobox has narrowly defined fields and it's not possible to edit sentence structure in an infobox the way it is in the article itself to avoid close links, so I think it is a common sense exception. Definitely shouldn't remove federalism entirely from the type of governance field, and federalism is in some ways much more important in government issues in Canada than the monopoly, so should be linked. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It is possible to decide which links are important and prioritize those; it's also possible to use a different approach, such as an explanatory footnote. The way that's easiest for editors is not necessarily the best for readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Canada" for "Dominion of Canada" 179.242.254.231 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd just like to say that I agree and think that this would be an appropriate change. The pages of other countries have their official name listed, and it should be the same for Canada.

Historicamatic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Canada" is the proper name for the country, used by the federal government and international associations such as the UN. The Constitution Act, 1867 says that it would be a dominion "under the name of Canada". "dominion" was a descriptor, like "colony" or "republic". Since Canada achieved full independence in 1982, "dominion" is no longer an appropriate descriptor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I recently removed references to Canada having among the "highest" quality of life (HDI index? In which case Canada only ranks 15th), democratic indices (assuming this is referencing Freedom House and not V-Dem Democracy indices; the latter is considered to be more reliable), gender equality, and environmental sustainability. (Of gender equality/environmental sustainability, metrics for it range widely.)

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

pls review International rankings of Canada. Will need proposals for changes here. Moxy- 16:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada ranks similarly on measures of liberal democracy (which scores 0.739) to the U.S. (which scores 0.741) on the V-Dem Democracy indices. It scores as an electoral democracy on the 2022 Regimes of the World (RoW). (Lower than much of Western Europe and U.S. - which are both coded for "liberal democracy") While it scores 15th on the Human Development Index. On measures of gender equality and environmental sustainability: it similarly depends on the metric. Several rank Canada among the highest in the world; other metrics rank it significantly lower. @Moxy:.

Something like this version would be an improvement, in my opinion. Canada frequently scores in at 15-20 for several of these metrics - which I don't know is high enough to count as among the "highest in the world". KlayCax (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit was simply wrong ...Although Canada is a liberal democracy its not ranked as such by V-Dem...nor do we need to mention liberalism 2 times in one sentence. As for a score of 15 out of 187... its in the top 10% so yes its hight. Would need to see your sources over guess work for gender equality and environmental sustainability that say differ from the sources here and at International rankings of Canada that are used all over Wikipedia. Overall a net negavite edit in my view to an FA article. Moxy- 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Environmental Performance Index (2022) ranks Canada 49th overall. V-Dem Democracy indices ranks Canada an "electoral democracy" and a 0.739 on their liberal democracy index. The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report ranks Canada 25th. @Moxy:. My only objection is stating that it "ranks among the highest" on the metrics of gender equality, environmental sustainability, and democratic performance. Replacing Canada is a parliamentary democracy in the lead with Canada is a parliamentary liberal democracy would work.

The widespread harvesting of the Athabasca oil sands makes the environmental claim too controversial/disputable to include in the lead, in my opinion. KlayCax (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree with this proposed wording of one of the lead paragraphs:

"A liberal democracy and market economy, the Government of Canada is a parliamentary system and constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition."

The Government of Canada is not a market economy, as the opening clause suggests; the Government is not the economy. Nor is the "Government of Canada" a parliamentary system; it is the executive branch that is one component of a parliamentary system. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have less concern about that particular sentence. (Although I think "highest in rankings of democratic functioning" should be replaced with simply "liberal democracy" somewhere.) KlayCax (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure using a more generic term helps here as the article is more advanced then just saying it has a liberal political ideology. We are being more specific than just saying a "liberal democracy" (also called a western democracy) as we are saying the type of western democracy as in its a "constitutional monarchy" and a "parliamentary system".A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, the United Kingdom), a presidential system (Indonesia, the United States), or a semi-presidential system (France). Moxy- 19:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy:. As mentioned above: Parliamentary democracy in the lead could be replaced by Parliamentary liberal democracy. It denotes that Canada is both a parliamentary and liberal democracy in the same sentence. KlayCax (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets see what others say....but I would be OK with this as its a term we use in Canada sometimes when looking at our British legacy,^[2] and talking about how we didn'twant to end up like the USA.^[3] Only worry is sea of blue with links....do we just leave link as is?Moxy- 21:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. @Moxy:.

Are you similarly alright with "among the highest in the world" being removed and replaced with "very high" like this? (Along with mentions of gender equality and environmental performance being removed) A lot of environmentalist groups have criticized the Liberal Party's position on the Athabasca oil sands. So saying that Canada ranks "among the highest in the world" in measurements of environmental performance is controversial to say the least.

On the question of democratic health: Canada's clearly a liberal democracy. Yet I'm skeptical about highlighting or displaying particular individual democracy indices in the article. It is true that Canada ranks #12 in The Economist's Democracy Index. But other frequently cited measurements of democratic health — particularly V-Dem Democracy indices — rank Canada significantly below the metric of "highest in the world". "Liberal democracy" is indisputable. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat of a side note: But, while, objectively, the U.S. has a lot of problems. It's still a liberal democracy. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition should be changed to:

Canada is a parliamentary liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition and:

It ranks among the highest in international measurements of government transparency, civil liberties, quality of life, economic freedom, education, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. Should be changed to:

It ranks very high in international measurements of government transparency, civil liberties, quality of life, economic freedom, and education.

Sound good? @Moxy: "Very high" is a lot easier to defend than "among the highest in the world" While rankings of gender equality, environmental sustainability, and democracy all vary widely in terms of Canada and/or are inherently highly subjective.

(The existent wording falsely suggests that it ranks consistently top 10+) KlayCax (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't be swayed by your own point of view on oil production or one ranking that you found..... that's why we link the main article on the topic... that has many many sources. Thus disagree with your point of view on Environmental issues ...as overall Canada ranks very high... 80th percentile in the majority rankings. Quote survey overview; "The Index of Environmental Performance shows that Canada performs better than the majority of high-income OECD countries on environmental protection. Canada ranks 10th out of the 33 high-income OECD countries and receives an overall score of 68.5, compared to a top rank of 78.9 (Sweden). The data provide compelling evidence that Canada is not an environmental laggard and is, in fact, among the top 10 countries." As for gender equality have to look at what is said overall again not just one index that ranks Canada in the 80th percentile again.^{[4][5][5][6][7]} Moxy- 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Climate Change Performance Index ranks Canada 58th out of 63. The Environmental Performance Index ranks Canada around the 70th percentile. (Bituminous sands are a remarkably carbon-intensive energy source.) Canada has some of the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world. A lot of different metrics do not rank Canada among the highest (or even "very high") on those three metrics.

I'm not against including those three things within the article. It just shouldn't be in the lead as a given fact. KlayCax (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

OK I agree .....your sources are compelling. implementing an edit let's see if it sticks. Moxy- 20:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Will fix sea of blue and MOS:LINKCLARITY and .... hard to keep this at FA level. Moxy- 02:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Moxy:. I apologize for any inconvenience/annoyance. I'd be willing to collaborate and/or converse on these changes with you (on talk) before revision. Is there anything specific part of these changes that you object to? Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why some images had/have their sizes locked with the code "upright=1.1"? Some are maps. Others are just photos; mostly horizontally oriented photos. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

sizing isn't "locked" by that... it's set as the default and upright scales based on people's browser zoom, unlike specifying image sizes in pixels with "px"; see MOS:IMAGESIZE —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is locked; they're fixed at sizes different to the images without the code and their sizes can't be changed without changing the code. Regardless, the question of "why" still remains. The normal procedure is to put no "px", "upright", or other manipulations in at all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Only real image problem is the stacked photos in the government section that have a fixed pixel size. I've been thinking about separating these for some time to comply with basic accessibility rules MOS:ACCIM. As for upright WP:THUMBSIZE "In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices)." Me bolding.....as upright alone is only 0.75. Moxy- 02:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I just couldn't understand why "upright" was being used on horizontally-oriented photos. Additionally, why all the maps are set larger than the other images; but, not consistently sized. As to the stacked photos in the "Government" section now; how are they different to the side-by-side images in "Early 20th century"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

All maps with data on them should be the same. MOS:IMGSIZE Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible. To convert a px value to upright, divide it by 220 and round the result as desired. For example, |150px is roughly equivalent to |upright=0.7 because 150 / 220 ≃ 0.682 .. Moxy- 20:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We have talked about this map before and removed it years ago' because of fixed pixal size that causes the whole article to require horizontal scrolling just to read text for many. Is there a way to comply with our accessibility rules and prevent this from happening ? Template:Canada image map. Moxy- 01:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"A developed country, Canada has one of the highest nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks."2604:3D09:E47D:CA00:4C34:30D3:8DC0:AEE3 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)OP This not only lacks any credible or listed source citation, simply linking to a worldwide GDP wikipedia entry stating Canada as 28, which even says "this does not factor in the cost of living". (since when is that one of the highest nominal per capita income)

This makes it sound like Canadian's can easily afford a mortgage, rent, food etc. when really Canada has never been worse off than it is presently. Regardless of political stances and beliefs this is innaccurate and it lacks a source that is reliable or even aligns with the definition of being a""Source/Reference citation". Whoever the editor's of this page vote for be it trudaeu or whomever else, this is not at all correct. Since Harper was voted out - mortgage rates and rent costs and even groceries have skyrocketed in price and not due to just simply inevitable inflation. It is because of reason's I won't get to maintain my unbiased yet critical-thinking and logical rationality pertaining to the country of Canada. So please either put a little question mark next with the citation with a peer reviewed journal from at the very lastest sumer '22 so our country isn't lying about itsself. Thank you from saskatchewan 2604:3D09:E47D:CA00:4C34:30D3:8DC0:AEE3 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

All sourced in the article as per MOS:CITELEAD ...pls see Canada#Economy for the sources. But yes housing is a problem compared to other western nations see International rankings of Canada#Lowest rankings of the most developed countries. Moxy- 19:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thinking is best we say something here over just a link as we do with healthcare.....so added to the economy section...Canada ranks among the lowest of the most developed countries for housing affordability,^[1][2] and foreign direct investment,^[3][1]Moxy- 21:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Canada is a country in North America to Canada is Sovereign State in Americas. Infinite Totality (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: not an improvement Cannolis (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ttps://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion Verbosetheorem (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Big improvement. Country too Vague, while Americas is the totality. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:7C2D:FA58:1112:20C0 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add to the beginning of the article, "or the Dominion of Canada" as it is the official name of Canada (even if rarely used). Verbosetheorem (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please change "Canada is a country" to "Canada, or the Dominion of Canada is a country" Verbosetheorem (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

how tf do I do this Verbosetheorem (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't, as that would not be an improvement. The name of the country is Canada. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is, in fact. ttps://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion Verbosetheorem (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is also referred to as the Dominion of Canada on the official government website. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-symbols-canada.html Verbosetheorem (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 04:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

ttps://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion Verbosetheorem (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

meant to add an h at the beginning Verbosetheorem (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Verbosetheorem, I do not believe this is a current name. I would look at the article Name of Canada. Heart ^(talk) 05:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Also see: /Officialname1. Heart ^(talk) 05:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797 At the end of the article, it states that it remains Canada's formal name, even though it's seldom used. Although the name has mostly fallen out of usage, I believe it is still the official name. The name is even listed on the government website, where the page refers to it several times, especially under the section "Symbols" as the Dominion of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-symbols-canada.html Verbosetheorem (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Verbosetheorem, I am not going to overturn a previous consensus on the name of Canada. If you are unhappy with it, you may start a new discussion to establish a new consensus. Happy editing, Heart ^(talk) 05:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797 Okay, will do. Thank you. Verbosetheorem (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada was never the official name. The official name was Canada, which happened to be a dominion. Cf., Province of Ontario, Principality of Wales, State of New York. You could also compare the wording in the Canadian and Australian constitutions. TFD (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change population from 39,566,248 (2023 Q1 estimate) to 39,858,480 (2023 Q2 estimate). Link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 2A01:E34:EC05:30:E5A7:3298:AFC:A299 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done ... ..July 1, 2023.Moxy- 14:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

TommyOrVarnt (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I edit please I want to fix the grammar in this page

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Lightoil (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: personally I don't find [8] to be a compelling source for the derivation of "CDN" to be from "Canada Dominion", particularly when the more obvious explanation is that it's a shorthand for "Canadian". What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It was always phrased "Dominion of Canada", not "Canada Dominion". I don't know that race-car guides are the most authoritative sources for etymology. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. As a Canadian, I've always seen "CDN" refer to "Canadian" and not "Canada Dominion". Specifically, CDN is shorthand for "Canadian" as an adjective (denoting somethings country of origin), and doesn't refer to Canadians (the group of people). smoltran (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In scrolling through the Spoken Wikipedia Project's articles list, it seems that there used to be a recording of this article, but it was removed for some reason. Why is this? The file is outdated by a bit, but it's still relevant enough to the topic at hand: File:En-Canada.ogg iRDM 02:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It is outdated by a lot - it's dated 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The history organization doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment - the last paragraph of the first subsection covers interactions with Indigenous peoples up to pretty much the present day, but then the other subsections proceed largely chronologically. I think chronological rather than thematic organization makes more sense, but that requires us to put that content elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the normal layout Canadians will see when looking up the topic. An overview section with details in the time period sections. I think we should mimic academic resources people will use for research.

• Finlay, J.L.; Sprague, D.N. (1984). The Structure of Canadian History. Prentice-Hall Canada. ISBN 978-0-13-854364-8. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
• "Early History". The Canada Guide. July 28, 2023. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
• Conrad, M. (2012). A Concise History of Canada. Cambridge Concise Histories. Cambridge University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-521-76193-2. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
• Canada, Citizenship (September 1, 2009). "Canada's History". Canada.ca. Retrieved September 10, 2023.

Moxy- 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry... so Moxy, are you saying you prefer thematic or chronological? I assume chronological but just want to be sure. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

As it is now....like this Moxy- 12:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, should we move the graves out of the contemporary section and into the Indigenous section? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We could...but the article as a whole I find talks about Indigenous people as a have not part of society... just victims. Only in the indigenous and culture section do we talk in a positive light somewhat. Right now we have an Indigenous overview section with more details throughout the history sections about residential schools, displacement and legal status. If we could rewrite the indigenous section to be about chronological history per- colonization we could just let the other sections deal as they do with these topics. But I don't see how we can really write 3 or 4 more paragraphs about an undocumented history. Oral history traditions of most indigenous peoples in North America (my Nation as well) are more about myths and spirituality rarely about historical events.Moxy- 01:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect 47th Canadian federal election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § 47th Canadian federal election until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey guys, Canadian here. I just read the whole “legal name is Canada” thing when you try to edit the page, and that’s bullshit. We are officially named the Dominion of Canada. I would like to rectify this issue very much, and ask that yanks who know nothing about Canada stop trying to make the argument that we aren’t officially the Dominion of Canada. Thank you! 2001:569:7D60:A100:8D79:31F:E0E9:2A94 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the talk page discussions linked above. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See also sources at Name of Canada#Use of Dominion. Moxy- 15:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

But Canada has a prime minister, and considers the British monarch it's chief of state, so the

Dominion (noun). Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state"

should apply . . . I guess? Juan Camilo Lugo (malungkot si accla, kausapin niyo naman) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The term Dominion was no longer used by the United Kingdom, which considered Canada a "Realm of the Commonwealth" Moxy- 12:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does this keep coming up? Thanks, Moxy for replying. It must test your patience. Alaney2k (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A little late to the conversation, but as far as I know, the legal name of the country was the Dominion of Canada before Canada gained independence from the United Kingdom. Thus using "Dominion of Canada" is correct. The Dominion of Canada redirect was originally created to link to Canada. Can it be changed back please? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the new country « shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada ». That means that Canada is the name. « dominion » was to indicate that it wasn’t a colony, but was not fully independent. Canada has been fully independent since the Statute of Westminster nearly a century ago. It is no longer a dominion. The redirect therefore links to the history of the name, not to article on Canada, because that would suggest that Canada is still a Dominion, which it is not. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As well, the American dictionary definition cited by Juan Camilo Lugo is incorrect. It uses the present tense, but the term « Dominion » has not been used since the 1950s, as a result of the constitutional evolution of Canada and other Commonwealth realms. In addition, Canada does not acknowledge the British monarch as its head of state. The Queen of Canada is Canada’s head of state. I wouldn’t rely on a general American dictionary to get Commonwealth constitutionalism right. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Queen is not the head of state; she is merely the wife of the King of Canada, who actually is the head of state. Indefatigable (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm still getting used to it.  :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It was not the "legal name", but what it was called. It has however gradually fallen out of use and the term dominion has been replaced with the term Commonwealth realm. TFD (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is now a proposal to change the redirect: Redirects for Discussion: Dominion of Canada Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are good reasons to change it. And no good reason to use Dominion of Canada except in historical discussion, not in the naming of locations, which seems to be the real reason behind the request to change the redirect. Alaney2k (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and in the naming of some trains. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Country title = Dominion - Country name = Canada.
• How Canada Lost Its 'Dominion'? Rayburn, A. (2001). Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names. Heritage Collection. University of Toronto Press. pp. 17-24. ISBN 978-0-8020-8293-0.

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change population from 39,739,633 (Q2 2023) to 40,097,761 (Q3 2023) based on the quarterley population estimates published by Statistics Canada (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=04&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2022&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=07&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2023&referencePeriods=20220401%2C20230701) 207.162.26.52 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change population from 39,739,633 to 40,097,761 based on 2023 Q3 estimates. Source can be found here:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 Gorfj (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change population_estimate = 39,858,480^[1] Jonaharnold (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Question: If you mean update the population, this has already been done. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:MV Missourian (1921)#Dominion of Canada. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just realised, this is the talk page of the article about the country, so technically my post shouldn't be here as it's not aimed at improving the article. That said, there doesn't appear to be a "WikiProject Canada", so this is probably the best place to post the notice in order to get more editors taking part in the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada .......................Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 20#Dominion of CanadaMoxy- 12:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And the redirect was left as is: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27#Dominion of Canada. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some facts in this Canada in this is wrong and i would like to fix it The Information Guy23 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Information Guy23:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't Canada be listed as a highly developed country in the lead? It has the 15th highest HDI in the world and the 4th highest median equivalent adult income. Is there any procedural consensus surrounding this?

Or is it mostly up to prudential judgement? KlayCax (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What additional understanding would that provide a reader? Interestingly enough, when I google "highly developed country", not a single one of the results on what I suppose used to be the first page actually includes the term "highly developed country". CMD (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think it would be worth integrating in the box (in the government section) the following officeholders: the Speaker of the Senate (representing the legislature), the Speaker of the House of Commons (representing the legislature) and the Chief Justice (representing the judiciary). There are a variety of models, I think introducing these officeholders would be useful. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as per prvious talks.

I see that the hyperlink from "Port Royal" links to a very succinct wikipedia page about a modern rural intersection, with no official status, named "Port Royal." While the intersection is very close to the Port Royal Habitation National Historic Site, it actually has nothing to do with the 1605 settlement other than geographic proximity. There is no evidence of the "Port Royal" name for this intersection being used prior to the 20th century.

Can I ask that you link to the page on "Port Royal (Acadia)" which covers the historic French settlement in great detail? If not, then the other option is to link to the page on the "Port-Royal National Historic Site".

If you are interested, the root of much of the confusion lies in the fact that the French settlers, until at least 1707, used the name "Port Royal" when they were talking about what is today the Annapolis Basin. Thus "Port Royal" was a body of water, not a town or village in the modern sense. Although the term "Port Royal" was later was used to refer to the seigneury, which covered a large area around the Basin.

Thank you. HISTORBUFF (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

PMs Justin Trudeau and Jean Chretien have publicly stated that Canada is a post-national state. Author and commentator Rudyard Griffiths made a similar pronouncement.

Canada is considered to be a post-national state.^[1][2][3] Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Widly debated term used in Canada for decades.^[4]...like Radical centrism#Canada

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change population estimate from 40,097,761 (Q3 2023) to 40,528,396 (Q4 2023). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, please update the reference next time you make a change. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Forgot, sorry, I followed the link in the reference to recheck and saw Q4 and changed only numbers, I forgot that there are parameters like access date and archived version. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)