Talk:Canada/Archive 1

Conformance to Wikiproject Countries
I changed this article to follow the guidelines set out at WikiProject Countries. However, I removed a large amount of (good) text that was just too detailed for this page; it should be moved to more appropriate locations (mostly History, and Québec, maybe a separate article on Québecois separatism?). I left the Canadian culture section open, ditto for the holidays table, hoping you Canadians (there's several of you would fix that for me). Please go ahead! Jeronimo


 * OH, and could somebody resize the coat of arms to a 125 pixel width? My imaging program's expired and I'm too lazy to get another one...sorry.

Quebecois independence
re: "In the second half of the 20th century, the French-speaking province of Quebec has sought independence, but two referenda have been defeated, albeit marginally in the last case (50.6% was against independence)"

...shouldn't it say "factions within the province" have sought independence or something like that? - stewacide 19:49 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

Absolutely it should....Elliot

...Given the obfuscation practiced by the separatists and the wording of the referendum (which did not mention independence), its hard to say what Quebeckers thought they were voting for in the referendum. The soft separatists probably thought that they were voting for a better deal for Quebec within Confedration. A vote for independence was more how the rest of Canada and the hard-core separatists saw the vote. I'm not sure how to rephrase the statement. Edmilne 20:23, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Better Map ?
Does anyone know of a place to get a better map of Canada than the one on this page? I've looked at gc.ca, and not found much. We need something that shows provincial boundaries and is up to date to include Nunavut. matt 01:02 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I hate to be a downer, but I don't think we can use the map. Check the copyright notice on the site at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/notice_e.html. One is allowed to use the map, for non-commercial purposes only, but I don't believe that is compatible with the GFDL. Someone could sell a copy of the Wikipedia on CD-ROM (of course, it would still be under the GFDL and free-as-in-freedom and all those good things). What's everyone's take on this? I think the Canadian rules differ (unfortunately) from the American ones, which seem to place most materials into the public domain. Dze27


 * I've just written into the the apropriate email alias to request permission to use the image given Wikipedia policy. If anyone can find a similar quality map in the public domain, I say replace it...but the previous map was sorely lacking.  matt 04:31 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. Hopefully they'll say yes. I work at a different Canadian government department but I'm not sure how much leeway there is (we have the same policy). Hopefully they'll let us use it since it's colorful and up-to-date. The .gif does identify NRC as the source department, and we're not representing it as official. We can't really guarantee that all "Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced" though... Dze27

Don't sweat, folks. According to Copyright:
 * Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or other similar material from external sources with different copyright terms, and which is used with permission or under "fair use" doctrine. In this case, the material will be identified as from an external source (on the image description page, history page, or talk page as appropriate) and copyright holders of that material retain their rights and you must comply with the separate copyright terms for that material.

- Montréalais

The "Mountainous" East
"Eastern Canada is mountainous"? Did something get removed in editing here?Jfitzg

The Prime Minister
"Prime Minister, who is the leader of the political party that holds the most seats in the House of Commons"

As I understand it, the PM is the person who has the confidence of the Commons to run the government. In practice, this is the leader of the largest party but doesn't have to be. A combination of smaller parties or a brakdown in party discipline could produce a PM who is not the leader of the largest party. User: edmilne 23:47 May 21, 2003

Water amount
Moved from article:


 * Canada has one-half of the world's fresh water.

A (Canadian) friend of mine pointed this sentence out to me. It's completely inaccurate. "Common knowledge" is that Canada has one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply, actual knowledge is that it's half THAT, and possibly even as low as ~6%. -- nknight 21:08 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Both guesstimations are close.
 * 20% in all; 7% renewable.
 * (Source: Environment Canada's fact # 17.)
 * --Menchi 21:51 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: my last edit
The current formatting is the standard prescribed as WikiProject Countries. If we are to change it here, we must also change it on the country template and everywhere. The new formatting used, however, is problematic for countries with mixed presidential-parliamentary systems where there is no clear-cut head of state and head of government. There's nothing wrong with the current format. --Jiang 18:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.

Oil reserves in Canada
There are 311 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Alberta oil sands compared to 240 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia. Canada as a whole has 366 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The total amount of oil reserves in Alberta alone,which is oil that is recoverable and that which is not currntly economically recoverable is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 trillion barrels.

Canadas size 2nd or 3rd
The total area of Canada is 2nd in the world. The ranking of 3rd comes when the area of the inland water is not included,although that is usually included in the area of a nation.

''I don't think so. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a land size of 9,158,960 sq km, making Canada 4th after subtracting inland water.''

The article claims that Canada has the second largest land area, after Russia. I thought China was ahead of Canada. The CIA world factbook lists China's land area as 9,326,410 km^2 and Canada's as 9,093,507 km^2. Is the wiki page incorrect? Based on the CIA's numbers Canada would be second in TOTAL area, but third in LAND area.

French in Manitoba..
The article would seem to infer that French in Manitoba is restricted to a section (not a town) of Winnipeg called St. Boniface. While it is true that St. Boniface is the "French Quarter" of Winnipeg, I can personally assure you that French language and culture is alive and well outside of Winnipeg. Southern Manitoba is full of French communities, as a cursory examination of town and R.M. names will reveal. Between French and German, English is considered a secondary language for a large percentage of rural Manitoba. Statistics taken over the years, by various social, commercial, and political concerns have placed the French-speaking (and bi-lingual?) population of Manitoba at anywhere from 15% to 25% of the population. These numbers (unfortunately) do not often reflect the Métis population, who also speak a dialect of French, which today has been homogenized into French in any case.

In summary, this article would gain accuracy simply replacing "the town of Saint Boniface, Manitoba" with "southern Manitoba."

--phrawzty 22:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Number of Canadians vs Population of Canada
Where did the 2003 population figure come from? Statistics Canada on its website shows an October 2004 population of 32,040,292. So, where does the inflated 2003 figure come from?--BrentS 22:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in the third paragraph that Canada "has a low population density, there being just 32 million Canadians", is this figure the population of Canada, or is it the number of Canadians? I suspect that many more foreigners live in Canada (like me!) than Canadians live abroad, in which case there could be a substantial difference between the two figures. Even if there is not much numerical difference, it is not strictly accurate to conflate the two groups.... Cambyses 01:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I expect the number was taken from Statistics Canada census data. Do they ask not-Canadian residents to complete the census?  Do they ask Canadian non-residents to complete the census?  My impression has always been that it's the number of Canadians living in Canada.  --Caliper 04:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding census data from StatCan, I believe it includes non-Canadian residents including illegal immigrants as well as refugees and permanent residents of Canada.

Messages
Some time in the past few days, someone removed the following from the bottom of the article:

While I can't say the plethera of tables particularly improved the article, the purpose of having a message for something like NATO is to put it on the country pages of all the members of NATO. Basically, I'd rather have them there than not. Is there any particular reason these were removed? --Caliper 20:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed them because they are ugly, useless, take up a great deal of space, and are not in keeping with the consesus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - SimonP 21:29, May 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * fair enough, but I wonder about the change from Confederation to Federation in the article... considering there's a unique entry on this, Canadian_Confederation, I'll change it to point to that... Krupo 05:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Visible minorities, diversity
I removed this offensive, troll-smelling rant from the Demographics section:


 * It is worth noting in this connection that patriotism and nationalism exists all throughout the world. One particularly egregious example is the Canadian press, which often purports that Canada is more racially diverse than the United States. Many Canadians believe this, when in fact, 87% of Canada is white . Many Canadians are also unaware that slavery existed in Canada's history and that discrimination still exists.


 * POV: a diversity fluff-piece on a City of Toronto web page in a section called "quality_of_life" is a "particularly egregious" example of nationalism in the Canadian press? Please be serious.
 * Factually incorrect: Canadians pride themselves on multiculturalism (often contrasted with the melting pot approach used most famously by the US), not raw numerical diversity.  Although the error of conflating the two is understandable -- Canadian schoolchildren are taught about multiculturalism while the author of the above screed fairly obviously was not -- it is still wrong.
 * Misleading: to push his agenda, the author of the above is wilfuly misusing the statscan statistics. Some facts:
 * The rural population is predominantly white, but the major metropolitan areas are highly mixed
 * In 2001, 94% of immigrants who arrived during the 1990s were living in Canada?s census metropolitan areas, compared with 64% of the total population who lived in these areas. (from same link)
 * proportion of foreign-born Canadians was 18.4% in 2001, second only to Australia
 * "If [the current] trend continues, one in five Canadians will be a visible minority in 2016, up from 13 per cent in 2001. In some places, minorities are already the majority: 59 per cent in Richmond, B.C. and 56 per cent in Markham, Ont."
 * Aboriginals are undercounted, although the impact on the overall visible minority count is unknown (and probably relatively minor)
 * Asserts facts not in evidence: where is there proof that Canadians are unaware that small scale slavery once existed in Canada?
 * Asserts facts not in evidence: where is there proof for the astonishing claim that Canadians are unaware that discrimination exists?
 * Irrelevant: Slavery is utterly irrelevant to this overview article (and especially the demographics section). When this was happening in the 1700s there was global slave trading, particularly throughout the British empire, and the extent of slavery in Canada was neither significant nor particularly noteworthy (it still deserves mention in the detailed Canadian History article, of course).
 * Has nothing to do with Canada: the author of the above is pretty transparently trying to push some agenda in his or her home country. Take it to Usenet or Free Republic or wherever, and leave other countries encyclopedia articles alone.  Canada doesn't exist to be your political football.
 * The link to Black Canadian is a highly non-obvious choice of example to use for discrimination in Canada. Would I be right in guessing that the author is from a country where anti-Black racism is endemic?  In any case, I'd fully support an expanded article about Discrimination in Canada, with coverage of issues such as the ongoing outrageous treatment of aboriginal Canadians by some municipal police departments, the disproportionate rate of incarceration of aboriginal Canadians, the late 80s controversy about Sikh RCMP officers being permitted to wear turbans instead of standard headgear, the early 90s concerns about Asian gangs in the BC lower mainland, and similar matters.
 * Saucepan 07:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Good edits, well done. Krupo 14:11, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on natural resources is incorrect
In the first section of the Canada page, the statement "Its economy relies heavily on its abundance of natural resources" is a (perhaps all too common) misconception. The exact proportion depends on how one adds up national accounts, but Statistics Canada's page on Gross domestic product at basic prices by industry at Statistics Canada GDP tablesuggests that the value of the output of primary industries (Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting + Mining and oil and gas extraction) comprises only about 5.75% of total GDP. The manufacturing sector alone is more than three times the size of the primary industries segment. A more accurate statement would be something like "Its economy is widely diversified. The largest sector is services (comprising segments such as finance & insurance and retail trade); the manufacturing, construction and resource sectors are also important." --papageno 22:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * How about the change to: "Its economy traditionally relied heavily on its abundance of natural resources, although the modern Canadian economy has become widely diversified." ? Feel free to add more details, I felt this was nice and quick. :) Krupo 02:33, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Canadian Demographics
Perhaps this is my ignorance as a non-Canadian, but under the demographics section it mentions that 39.2% of the population is "Canadian" ... but what does this mean exactly? Also, the total amount is well over 100% ... I assume that people could answer more than one category? I do not know if anyone besides me finds this confusing, but a breakdown similar to the one in the "Ethnic Groups" section of the Demographics of Canada article is much easier to understand. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Aren't all Canadians "Canadian"? CES 04:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think StatsCan goes by self-identification, meaning that 39,2% of the population identified themselves as being Canadian rather than some other name. - Montréalais


 * The choice of "Canadian" for the origin of Canadian citizens first appeared in the 2001 population census. It is somewhat controversial. I do not know what is the official reason for this change according to Statistics Canada. It would need to be researched on their website. -- Mathieugp 14:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The census asked for origin of ancestors, not ethnic self-identification. Statistics Canada wanted to remove the "Canadian" choice (all Canadians with a Canadian parent would have Canadian ancestry after all), but there was a political backlash from people who didn't understand the question wasn't about self-identification. The confusion over the question continues, with the ideas of ethnic ancestry versus ethnic self-identification being confused. It's a shame from the point of view of people wanting coherent data. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/pop040.htm

Even origin of ancestors is difficult these days as so many Canadians are of very mixed ancestry. If I had to check off all of my ancestoral homelands I would be checking five boxes. - Beckie

Canada's contributions to the world
i added this section and it was taken out by simonp. is it really an 'unneeded' section? where should this go? trying to stay out of trouble :-) eyal katz

I think that the reason that it was taken out was that it looks more like boasting than a sober list of Canadian achievements. Thus it breaks our NPOV policy. If I were you I would try to rewrite it in such a way that it doesn't sound quite so much like an advert. That way people are less likely to object to it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Eyal, your contributions are very much valued. I do, however, have a number of objections to this section:

- SimonP 05:27, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia country articles follow a set format, and no other country has a contributions section.
 * It is almost impossiblefor such a list to be neutral. For instance the British liked our help in the Boer War, most of the rest of the world didn't.
 * Similarly statements such as us being a "peaceful multicultural nation, with less racial tension than many other places" needs some supporting evidence, otherwise it is just opinion.
 * This information is already gathered in more complete form elsewhere, e.g. List_of_Canadians.


 * I've removed the addition of "Innovations" and "Being a Living Example for", aside from being heavily biased, most of the information is incorrect or missing (i.e. a very vague statement about "a founder of eBay"?). Also, what makes an 'innovation' Canadian? For example, Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland and most of his work was done in the US. Does a few years spent in Canada and a transatlantic phone call make him or his work 'Canadian'..?Tremblay 17:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Melting pot
For example, Canadians see their country as a mosaic of unique immigrant cultures, a large picture made up of many distinct pieces, rather than an American-style melting-pot.

I have heard comments before similar to the above sentence from several Canadians, but personally as an American the word "melting pot" stirs up images of 19th-century campaigns to "re-educate" Native Americans and other minorities and seems as outdated as phrases like the "white man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny". In school, the phrase I learned to describe our multiculturalism is a "salad bowl". The "American-style melting-pot" statement seems POV and an unnecessary jab at the US. We can both be salads, you know =) CES 05:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a term I'd also like to see someone expand upon. I grew up in rural Canada hearing about the American melting pot, while we were multicultural or diverse. I now live in Toronto, the most multicultural city in the world by many standards and I see enclaves of ethnicity everywhere (I live in a neighourhood of Greeks and Asians). But how is this different from, say, New York City? TimothyPilgrim 13:12, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling there's no difference between what you see in Toronto and New York City. Although the New Yorkers would probably consider themselves to be the "most multicultural city in the world". =)  I think in general this type of issue is raised by misunderstandings on both sides ... there seems to be the perception in Canada that America is a melting pot that forces minorities/immigrants to assimilate into some kind of mainstream culture, but on the other side I think many Americans would be surprised to know that there even are minorities in Canada, let alone that Canada claims to be the more "multicultural" of the two countries.  I'm going to remove the word American-style from the article, although I think the whole sentence should be replaced by an example of a more recognized difference between the two countries, or a discussion on why Canada is a salad and America a pot (personally I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a large difference between the two countries).  It seems like the goal of both governments is the same: to foster diversity and encourage multiculturalism, but at the same time have a collective identity as "Canadian" or "American".  The word "multicultural" focuses on the former part of the plan and "melting pot" on the latter, but in practice it seems like the result is the same. CES 01:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it was not only amercans who campaigned for the re-education of native americans but canada too. the drive behind the campaign actually came from the catholic church and not from any specific government entity. unfortuneately there is a dark history behind the campaign aswell and also is a completely other topic for discussion.-- Larsie 18:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)